Kevin's Watch

it is a joy and a privilege to be able to read the thoughts of so many intelligent, perceptive people in this forum. im sure that SRD is very honoured to have people care so much about his books to dedicate much time and energy reading and thinking about them.

i have, on occasion, posted in the covenant sub-forums but generally, unless ive had a burning question, feel more combfortable as a lurker.

i discovered the magic of books fairly late on compared to most here, im sure, but have since 'made up' for that by reading copious ammounts in recent times. the thing that i look for in a great book is that simple awe in finding yourself immersed in a foreign world that makes you forget the mundane( ) existance i spend most of my life in. i want that world to seem real. i want to see the colours of the sky and the texture of the grass. to hear a new song or taste new foods. but i feel and understand that there is a line that can be dangerous to cross. to cross it can mean the most simple of pleasures in these worlds can be lost forever to us. the threat of turning a new land into something as mudane as ours is a real one.

by over-analysing the world of TC this line is crossed imo. ofcourse there is a balance and i wouldnt judge others in a quest for greater knowledge on something they undoubtedly love.

that is why i end with a question....do you see 'the line' aswell?
do you think in some discussions here it has been crossed?
do you think that this quest sometimes strays from a desire for greater comprehension to strict dogma? rules of the world that cannot be broken?
should we not just accept some things on faith alone?

there are examples of these threads i can give if people want them but i would rather this isnt seen as an 'attack' on the authors of those threads. afterall i dont claim to be right. im just interested in how others feel.

Creative visualization, my friend...just wait until Dec. 2012 all your questions will be answered then.

too long!!

No. I don't believe there has been any over-analyzing. I myself am an intensely analytical person and find analyzing very rewarding. One of the reasons I love SRD is the intricate way in which he builds his stories, so that analysis can really find deeper levels that are meant to be there and everything isn't just told to the reader. That's not nearly as common as it sounds. Tolkien is the other famous example (in a slightly different way), and I'm a Tolkien fan too.

I read the first two Chronicles, and in fact everything else I've ever read, without discussing it with anyone. (Maybe a Tolkien discussion here or there, but everyone does that .... ) So I figure this time I'll be different, and see where it goes.

It's not going to change my enjoyment. I'm perfectly capable of reading the Final Chronicles without thinking about anything anyone said on Kevin's Watch. As you said, I get immersed in the magic. That means I'm not pulling in all this other stuff.

I'm sure that anyone who doesn't want to think about the Final Chronicles too much doesn't go in the Runes forum, or go to Kevin's Watch at all. That means the system works. There're plenty of members on the Watch that don't contribute much in the analysis discussions - maybe they read them, maybe they don't. Maybe we should wonder why some of them are here ...

But it also means you're not getting a random slice of readers when you browse the Chronicles forums. It's kind of like saying, "Okay, out of all the readers who like to analyze Donaldson's writing, how many like to analyze Donaldson's writings? Almost all of you?! Gosh!" Or "It seems like a lot of people who like to analyze Donaldson's writings also like to analyze Donaldson's writings."

So I'm not worried about myself. I'm not worried about anyone else.

Although I've done a lot less of it in the last several months, I've analyzed and overanalyzed TCTC to a huge degree. So, in general, Tazz might want to avoid my posts.

Mine too, Fist But really, if you think about it, what we do here is not just analyzing the books from the point of view of their internal integrity, and trying to "guess" as to what rules the worlds they describe go by; we're also analyzing an author's creative processes using his books as a springboard and his own comments (from the GI) as advice. And this is what SRD had to say about threads such as those in "Dissecting the Land", in answer to our dlb's question:

dlbpharmd (Don): Have you had an opportunity to review the "Dissecting the Land" forum on kevinswatch.com? If so, what do you think of the detailed, almost rabid way your fans examine every minute detail of your work?

I've had occasion to glance at some of the "dissecting" threads on KevinsWatch.com. Frankly, I'm flattered. FINALLY (or so it seems to me) I have readers who are willing to put as much thought into reading my books as I put into writing them. When you spend as many hours laboring over every aspect of a book as I do, you're just plain *grateful* to be read with such attention to detail.

I must admit, that reading, and rereading much of the posts on the watch, have helped me to better understand the Donaldson's work
Although Ive not read the first two chronicles since joining the watch, I've read Runes twice, and the Gap series AFTer being a member.
Sometimes it can help you to understand something that you may have missed; and if there's something that you don't agree with, and may be spoiling how you feel about the stories...simply ignore that post!!

I DO however think there's a bit of over-analization in the Runes forum, and although I used to contribute there more then anywhere, I kind of steer away.

While some members (like me) may be too adament about their opinions, too forceful at times, I don't believe it's possible to think too much about these books--or anything else for that matter. I'm reminded of a recent question on the GI, where a reader told SRD that his creative writing teachers in college told him that he was reading too much into literary works, seeing meanings that the author didn't intend. SRD replied that he was surprised that teachers were telling kids that they are thinking too much! Especially creative writing teachers.

While it's possible to get pedantic about it, I don't think it does any harm whatsoever to dig as deeply as you want. With books like these, the process of analyzing them often leads to analyzing life, the universe, and everything.

There is no such thing as over analysis!
Can you look at a painting "too much"?
Can you love someone "too much"?
Can you enjoy a meal "too much"?

What's the danger?
That we'll figure out the whole story?
THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AWESOME!!!!


I see what you're saying Tazz.
But it's clearly in the "if you don't want to read about it stay away" camp.
(Like I feel about most Mallory's )

High Lord Tolkien wrote:There is no such thing as over analysis!
Can you look at a painting "too much"?
Can you love someone "too much"?
Can you enjoy a meal "too much"?

What's the danger?


I see what you're saying Tazz.
But it's clearly in the "if you don't want to read about it stay away" camp.
(Like I feel about most Mallory's )

i've seen fatal attraction!
and ive seen Whats eating gilbert grape!

and i dont want people to misunderstand. i wouldnt have signed up for this forum if i didnt want to read about SRD works.
there also has to be a consistancy here aswell, though. in refuting my points some of you have quoted SRD, but one of the reasons that i started this thread in the first place was because of some the unfair(imo) criticism that Runes has got here. a lot of it based on rather stupid issues as i saw them. the failure to suspend your disbelief to fully accept time travel in the chronicles being a good example. who are we to question stephen donaldson?

yet, maybe, these criticisms are born of love and im taking them out of context. i'll think about it. thanks for all your replies anyway though.

While I certainly see your point about the over-analysis, and agree with you to an extent, (I don't participate all that much in the TC and Runes forum myself), I think that staying away is the only answer.

I especially don't think that there is anything wrong with criticism. Some people like things, some people don't. No way do we want a place where negative opinions are forbidden. If we're going to discuss anything honestly, all points of view are worthy of consideration. Otherwise we end up being nothing more than a place where people pat each other on the back for their own good taste in enjoying Donaldson.

Personally, I think there's only so much to say about the books, however much you like them. And as I've often said, if this were only a Donandlson discussion forum, I'd have been long gone, after saying how much I enjoyed the books. (If I even bothered.)

Whether or not you think the critics are being petty doesn't change the fact that they are entitled to their opinion. *shrug* At least they can back it up, and explain why, (often in detail ).

I don't much care for many of the outlandish ideas batted around the Runes forum, for example, but then I don't read them unless I've got the time, and am in the mood. At the very least, there's always something I can disagree with...

--A

Great post, Avatar.

good post.

Thanks.

--A

maybe im just a little restless waiting for the new book.

Spoiler

WHO THE HELL IS THE PESKY MAHDOUBT WOMAN!!???

thats not an invitation for speculation btw!