What is the central message that SRD is trying to convey?...

[DVSone]

I am in the middle of reading the Chroncles for the 5th time in about 15 years time, and while I still think they are the best fantasy I have ever read, I am still left wondering what is it that Stephen R Donaldson is trying to say with these two Chronicles.

Is he simply saying it is OK to be human and flawed as long as you stick to whatever you believe in? or is he saying that as long as something believes in you, you can't completely fail at anything you do? or ..... I could go on almost ad infinitum.

I would love to hear others' thoughts on this.

Thanks,
DVS

[Worm of Despite]

I'm too lazy to pontificate, so I'll just say that I think the Chronicles are about acceptance. Perhaps a less lazy person agrees with me, and he/she will type something substantial. Maybe I'm wrong, but then that's nothing new!

[High Lord Tolkien]

I hate it when I find out there's actually a "message" in a story/book.
Unless it's specifically a moral parable that I know from the beginning I don't want to hear it.
I don't want to draw parallels to real life.
It ruins the whole thing for me.
I read fantasy to escape reality, I don't want it rehashed.
I'm sure many or most authors do this and maybe it's even required for good storytelling formula, but again, I don't want to know.

[Nerdanel]

I absolutely hate it when books have intentional messages. I hate it when books have messages I disagree with (Goodkind, for example) and I hate it almost as much when books have messages I agree with (say, Pullman). I became a feminist after reading a book with a strong feminist message as a child (I simply had never given the matter any thought before) but I still hated that particular book. I'm sensitive to messages. While people say that Goodkind started channeling Ayn Rand only in the latter books, even the earlier books were too preachy for me and Goodkind's stupid political views obvious.

On the other hand, if a book is about nothing it feels empty somehow. Empty is better than actively annoying, though.

Tolkien has written about applicability, the idea that the reader can find their own meaning in a book, given the materials available. SRD follows this line. I think this is the right way to write books. I think books should preferably have one or more themes in that they are about, for example, friendship, but the writer should handle these matters in a way that allows the reader draw their own conclusions. Themes are the kind of things that crop up on their own, due to the inherent nature of any semi-decent story, but when an author is aware of them, it can improve the literary result.

[Giant Friend]

Pah! Fool! its ALL about real life...the real INNER life. SRD's books are about existential reality and the struggle against DISEASE and DEATH. its about self hatred and self redemption. Its not an intended message, its the nature of ALL fantasy to have a journey or quest that represents an inner journey. God, in FACT, Foul makes this explicit, he wages war on the physical land and its people, but the war he loves most to wage is the one on the inner support structure of self, the sense of moral adult self. Self Doubt and the resulting vacillation or ill considered rush to action becomes his favorite weapon of choice. SRDs books are more mature in that they arnt the standard tale of arrival into integrated adulthood. On the contrary, his books are about coming to terms with the adult that one has become and has committed to being. The message is change happen and so you must too.
if you arnt relating to this personally....yer in denial. If you want escapism how can you claim thats what you get from a book that has a beautiful young sweet girl getting raped in the first part? How about the genocide of the Giants? how about the wholesale annihilation of the beautiful nourishing Land? You want escape go back to Tolkein and Rowling...Your puerile ravings are but the squeak of...hey! Foul!! get out of me!
PS I know you know all this, i just take exception to that fact that some folks think of fantasy as escapism. In some cases, esp with SRD, for me its a descent into really dealing with the very real issues of personal mortality and environmental destruction and maintaining a sense of Being True amidst total breakdown, whether Mental/Emotional/Spiritual alone or on the challenge of the threat to life disease or injury can bring and the resultin inner struggle that results.

I hate it when I find out there's actually a "message" in a story/book.
Unless it's specifically a moral parable that I know from the beginning I don't want to hear it.
I don't want to draw parallels to real life.
It ruins the whole thing for me.
I read fantasy to escape reality, I don't want it rehashed.
I'm sure many or most authors do this and maybe it's even required for good storytelling formula, but again, I don't want to know.

[Giant Friend]

You make it sound so mechanical. Its clear to me that SRD writes from his heart; a lot of delicate and sophisticated interaction and self evaluation is part and parcel of his passion. The books are clearly flawed narrative wise, but it doesnt matter to us, we care about the characters and the Land because they represent our own feelings, dreams and desires. "Message" isnt pre-planned, the story matters cuz it holds a mesage, a message that emerges and is not 'placed', guilded with or embroidered in; it emerges from the soul of the author's art. The medium IS the message. An author can be aware of this, but it is a clumsy author that 'intends' it. TCOTC and all the characters we know and love (and loathe) matter to us, and thus IMPLICITLY (and not EXplicitly) contains a message. OK enuff diamondraught inspired talk.

I absolutely hate it when books have intentional messages. I hate it when books have messages I disagree with (Goodkind, for example) and I hate it almost as much when books have messages I agree with (say, Pullman). I became a feminist after reading a book with a strong feminist message as a child (I simply had never given the matter any thought before) but I still hated that particular book. I'm sensitive to messages. While people say that Goodkind started channeling Ayn Rand only in the latter books, even the earlier books were too preachy for me and Goodkind's stupid political views obvious.

On the other hand, if a book is about nothing it feels empty somehow. Empty is better than actively annoying, though.

Tolkien has written about applicability, the idea that the reader can find their own meaning in a book, given the materials available. SRD follows this line. I think this is the right way to write books. I think books should preferably have one or more themes in that they are about, for example, friendship, but the writer should handle these matters in a way that allows the reader draw their own conclusions. Themes are the kind of things that crop up on their own, due to the inherent nature of any semi-decent story, but when an author is aware of them, it can improve the literary result.

[Loredoctor]

Pah! Fool! its ALL about real life...the real INNER life. SRD's books are about existential reality and the struggle against DISEASE and DEATH. its about self hatred and self redemption. . .The message is change happen and so you must too.

Great post. My feelings exactly.

[sgt.null]

i thought it was a true accounting of a man named thomas and his way-out adventures.

[Loredoctor]

i thought it was a true accounting of a man named thomas and his way-out adventures.

[Nerdanel]

You make it sound so mechanical. Its clear to me that SRD writes from his heart; a lot of delicate and sophisticated interaction and self evaluation is part and parcel of his passion.

Well, I AM an extremely analytical person. Actually I think writing from one's heart is important. Basically, if what you write doesn't appeal to your emotions, it's much less likely to appeal to anyone else's emotions. If you do otherwise, you are a hack. Sometimes even a hack can succeed commercially (David Eddings for example is a self-admitted hack) but it is hard to do for definitions of "succeed commercially" other than cranking out insignificant suckitude as quickly as possible and getting paid. Eddings for example has solved the problem by always writing the same plot that he originally hit gold with...

What I think is the right way to put meaning to the story is that one first comes up with the story and then discovers what it's about. For example, one story that has been for some time in preproduction in my head, started as just an innovative magic system to which I started to add plot, characters, and worldbuilding. Then at one point I noticed that the story is about playing with dolls, especially in the metaphorical sense of manipulating people that is traditionally illustrated with string puppets even though I'm using ordinary child's dolls. Then there is this thing about unrequited love and another about consequences, and I think sub-themes will allow themselves develop when it suits them.

Of course one shouldn't overdo meaningfullness. One might end up Miéville's The Scar, which while being award-winning praised about everywhere, was in my opinion seriously overrated. The story made me suspect that Miéville had made a huge list of every type of physical and metaphorical scar imaginable, and resolved to use every one of them at least once, which led to some awkward bits and overuse of scar imagery.

[Loredoctor]

Then at one point I noticed that the story is about playing with dolls, especially in the metaphorical sense of manipulating people that is traditionally illustrated with string puppets even though I'm using ordinary child's dolls. Then there is this thing about unrequited love and another about consequences, and I think sub-themes will allow themselves develop when it suits them.

That sounds fantastic!

As for meaning, for me, I have to have meaning first - the backbone of my story - before the story is constructed. The only issue is that sometimes I feel I am 'creatively obstructing' myself, to coin a term. I guess with novels, it's okay to get off the thematic rails now and then.

[Avatar]

Damn straight. "Thematic rails" are only guidelines.

I don't know...I'm sorta torn. I don't read for the message involved, like HLT, I read for the story. If the "message" is embedded well enough, you shouldn't be able to finish the book and say, "Oh, the whole book was about X.

It should be a gradual blend of experiences that reveal themselves only to the sub-conscious.

--A

[DVSone]

Nerdanel wrote

applicability, the idea that the reader can find their own meaning in a book, given the materials available

I tend to agree with Nerdanel about applicability. While I am sure the author had something to say between the lines, I think each person will find their own unique meaning in the material. The longer I think about it, from different perspectives or points of view, the more numerous are the messages I can glean from the story.

For me, I think it boils down to redemption. No matter how far one has sunk or what one has done, if the desire is truly there, change for the better can occur. That may be a simplistic view of the whole saga, but that's my nutshell's worth.

[Worm of Despite]

People, people, people. You're forgetting that Foul represents Hitler and the ring is the atomic bomb! Which makes Covenant Harry Truman! Obviously we know who SRD votes for.

[High Lord Tolkien]

People, people, people. You're forgetting that Foul represents Hitler and the ring is the atomic bomb! Which makes Covenant Harry Truman! Obviously we know who SRD votes for.

Exactly!
That was the hated type parallel I was thinking about when I posted.

In some cases, esp with SRD, for me its a descent into really dealing with the very real issues of personal mortality and environmental destruction and maintaining a sense of Being True amidst total breakdown, whether Mental/Emotional/Spiritual alone or on the challenge of the threat to life disease or injury can bring and the resultin inner struggle that results.

What you posted above is actually very straight forward.
It's much the same as I take away from the book.
But I don't transfer any of it to me or real life.
FWIW.

[Loredoctor]

I asked SRD in the general interview about meaning and personal interpretation. He told me/us that he doesn't write to tell a message - he writes to tell a story; what the reader takes away is their own interpretation.

Funny thing is, as much as I like academic literature, it seems they have gotten carried away with meaning and symbolism, to the point that it doesn't matter anymore if the story is unoriginal, as long as there's some important message. Or if it's complex enough that certain people can pat themselves on the back and say they understood the meaning thinking that they are better than the many who dont.

[Worm of Despite]

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

I'd like to think SRD shares such a philosophy.

[Giant Friend]

Tolkien wrote:
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Thats what ALL authors say, and its a pile of dingo's kidneys. Im not saying that they pre-consider a so called "message" but when you write about an exiled embittered leper who is suddenly thrust into a seductive healthy world thats under threat from the very EMBODIMENT of the urge to self destruction, to immolation,... its TRANSPARENTLY allegorical...thats the refreshing difference! In all the other fantasy worlds Im expected to accept that little elves and dwarves bumble around with wizards fighting gross and disgusting vile creatures as a matter of course....but here, instead(the Land)...here is a world that we are never meant to be TOO sure about, that not only to the reader seems a skeptical world, but to the VERY character of the book! It seems to me to be all about determining the meaning of the experience...Covenant calls himself The Unbeliever, he considers, nay, he is PRETTY DAMN SURE its a delusion that he feels may kill him from giving into belief. He is constantly trying to come to terms with how he should deal with the situation...IE! how to understand the meaning of it...to accept the meaning without losing himself to it. Look...the whole "is the message implicit or expicit or is there even a message intended" is as dualistic as the mind brain dualism of Descarte,...ANY story thats any good is ipso facto, by virtue, vis a vis,...a message...a message merely meaning that the story has meaning...you cannot, as this website and others like it indicate, seperate the storyteller from to whom the story is told. Now some people want to get mystical and say that the story belongs to neither the author nor the reader, ...I am the converse, it belongs to both, and SRD or JRT or MZB or any other author damned well know theirs a theme to the stories.
Now you know why i call myself Giant friend, only a giant can appreciate my longwindedness....now pass the diamondraught dammit!


here come the Skest!!!

[Digital Thought]

You know, to me, it wasn't as passionate. In my mind, I see Thomas as a liar to himself; and in fact this is his sin of uselessness.

You see, I believe that he knows exactly what he has been doing at all times and blames it on a dreamstate he himself knows not to be true from the moment he starts preaching it. But helplessly, this confused, fatally ill person wins me over in sympathy for his depressing life.

We either hate him or forgive him over time. But without the scene which makes Elena & causes the end result of so much internal struggle there really is no story left. Lena is the reason for almost everything.

I think Thomas is less passionate about his decisions than he lets on. Well, I mean, it's as if he is 5% mental & 95% emotion in all his choices. It is as if he has leprosy of the brain. I think that is why he works as a hero model, because while he is a hesitant fighter & a rapist, he is constantly extreme in his reasoning for his actions & we can at least understand why he was willing to follow through with the decisions that he made. It was amazing.

[drew]

I don't see the Chrons as a Fable (as in there's no real message)--He wanted to convey a story about good vs evil..as 99.9% of fantasy is; he goes on about this pretty good in one of the structured interviews.
Of course, covenant has lesons that he has to learn, but that doesn't mean that they have to be lessons for his readers to learn too.