Writing Analysis

[Ard Rhys]

Just from a pure writing analysis, Runes is the natural progression for SRD. It does not fit in with the writing he was working on in 1991. Sorry, but true. If SRD was writing similar to of a decade ago, I might actually give your argument the tiniest bit of thought. But since that isn't the case, I won't.

S.

[dlbpharmd]

Sorry, what argument are you referring to?

[Esmer]

that SRD changed his writing style between Chronicles.

[lucimay]

Just from a pure writing analysis, Runes is the natural progression for SRD. It does not fit in with the writing he was working on in 1991. Sorry, but true. If SRD was writing similar to of a decade ago, I might actually give your argument the tiniest bit of thought. But since that isn't the case, I won't.

S.

ok.

i get your opinion but what analysis are you basing it on? analyze. how is SRD's style different? what aspects are different? what changed? how?

who is the "you" in "your argument"? what was the arguement?

i agree that the author of Runes is not the author he was in 1991. SRD is not the person he was in 1991. i am not the person I was in 1991. i would imagine that a writer who continues to write throughout his life continues to grow and mature as a writer. or at least i HOPE that would be the case.

so i'm really asking all these questions because i'm interested in Donaldson's writing MUCH more since reading The Gap Cycle. that series moved me from a Donaldson reader to a major HUGE Donaldson FAN. i have yet to re-read any of the Chronicles including Runes since reading the Gap and am anxious to read the whole series again when Fatal Revenant comes out (i've already read Runes twice now so i'm not going back until FR is published).

upshot: good topic but can you elaborate?

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I guess he chose...unwisely.

[insect]

In the first two series, srd didn't have a good grasp of psychology or dialogue. He also ripped a lot off from tolkein. A magic ring, a majestic race of horses and their tenders, etc. srd also used unnecessarily obscure words because he was a fairly new writer trying to sound more impressive than he actually was. He also never used profanity in the first couple series. Now he has a better grasp of psychology and dialogue (the debate between stave, lyndon, and the masters in lord's keep at the end or ROTE was a good example.)

In my opinion, srd didn't succeed in making covenant a sympathetic character, and was heavy handed in casting him as an anti-hero (he made assholish statements throughout, was a rapist and leper) but he has much more so with lyndon.

[Zarathustra]

He used "obscure words" to convey a sense of "alien," without straying too far from the familiar. Because his words are real words, they share a etymological context with other words we know, so that they tap into our subconsciousness in ways that are legitimate (since he didn't make them up), and yet these words are obscure enough that they still remain elusive and "magical" despite the fact that they are real. This effect was intentional, not merely a way for a new writer to impress people with his vocabulary. It was a calculated move within the context of a man from the real world entering a fantasy world. It's similar to his use of "samadhi" etc. in referring to Ravers. Ostensibly, it all comes out of TC's mind, despite how alien it seems.

Tolkien did not invent magic rings and majestic horses. You might as well accuse Donaldson of ripping off the same people Tolkien "ripped off." The man does have his M.A. in English, so I'm sure he's familiar with what he is "stealing." If no one can write about rings and horses without risking the ire of Insect, then we might as well close up the publication industry now. It's impossible to write genre fiction without using at least some of the tropes of that genre. And if a leper who despises himself and is sent into a fantasy land where he has to confront his own self-hatred in the form of the Land's archetypal enemy isn't original enough for you, then you have completely unrealistic expectations when it comes to originality. Do you know about some body of "leper fiction" that the rest of us don't know about? I thought that was pretty unique in the literary world.

And what, specifically, did Donaldson misunderstand about Covenant's psychology? You sound like you've really got some experience in this matter. Based on the the lepers-who-are-sent-into-a-magical-fantasy-land whom you have direct experience with, what exactly did Donaldson get wrong, in your opinion? Were they all cheery folks who happily lived out their lives in this magical land and never encountered conflict, self-doubt, or their own limitations?