Donaldson Post

Well, what can I say, much like almost everyone else in the class I was not a huge fan of Steven Donaldson's series. I tried my best to keep a positive outlook on the series as we read and discussed it, because I thought maybe this was the style of the author...to make a character so despicable and unlikeable that no one wants to continue reading but at the same time you keep reading because you hope he will change.
But that idea went out the window about halfway through the second book and I became more interested in what happened to the other characters and the land in the story than the main character.
Donaldson's style of writing just really annoyed me with the way he kept repeating phrases and cussing in places that weren't necessary. The fact that he started the series off with the main character raping one of the other main characters doesn't leave a great impression on the reader either. But I also hated how he kept killing off the best characters in the book.
On a more positive note, I thought it was super funny how in class we were discussing in our groups that it had to be all a dream state and that Covenant was going to wake up at the end and how much everyone hated those kinds of series. Well, what did Donaldson do, he wrote not one dream ending, but three dream endings in which Donaldson woke up from the dream and left the world or entered the world through a dream state. It was rather comical to watch the class get so heated over his writings.
Perhaps, even though he claims to be such a great writer and claims to take his writings from others, he really just enjoys writing works that make controversy and initiate a discussion among readers?
I don't know Donaldson's real purpose for writing the way he did in his series, but I definitely did not enjoy it and will not be keeping it.

On Magic

At the beginning of the semester, the Major Authors course studying Tolkien, Donaldson, and Pullman did a little survey in which we asked each other, “What makes a fantasy book?” Many people talked about different races, such as elves and orcs; fantastic creatures, like dragons and wargs; or a group (or fellowship) trying to save the world. One thing that everybody agreed on was that a fantasy book or series has got to have magic. What is interesting is how the three series we have read each have a different outlook on magic.

The Thomas Covenant series mostly takes place in a world that is “leaking” magic. The society was once chest deep in magic, or “lore.” When the main chunk of the story takes place, people have mostly forgotten or lost their magical abilities. Thomas Covenant, who is supposed to be the bearer of a magical ring, doesn’t even know how to use it for most of the series. This trilogy sees magic as being an ancient, mystical, and deadly force that only a handful of people are able to wield.

In His Dark Materials, magic is a religious phenomenon. Almost everything that happens that is “magical” is explained using Dust. A person’s daemon, which we would consider to be some sort of magic (a shape-shifting pet) is actually an outer reflection of the person’s identity and/or soul. But the people in this world also are in awe of the witches, which they regard as magical because of their ability to fly and perform spells, though one which, Serafina Pekkala, explains that her invisibility spell is little more than a psychological trick.

I think one of the coolest outlooks on magic comes from The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits and Men can’t wield magic, but Elves and the wizards can. These wizards are like the traditional wizards most people are familiar with: They have flashy magic, beards, robes, staves, etc. The Elves, however, are completely different. The Elves have magic so ingrained in their lives that they hardly even acknowledge it’s existence. The Elves have rope, but to other races, it’s magical rope that never breaks, is extremely fine, and can burn the skin of servants of the Enemy (Sauron). The only reason the places the Elves live are beautiful is because of their magic and the magic of the rings they acquired, but they pay no mind to it. When the Fellowship passes through Galadriel’s forested nation, they are in awe of it’s beauty and splendor, and it seems like the Elves take it for granted. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, but I think it’s cool how it’s just no big deal to them, and it’s so deep in their bones and society that they don’t need all the flash and bang lightshow like the characters in, say, Harry Potter.

These three series represent only a few magical points of view that fantasy writers use. Some are more traditional, like these series tend to be; some, like The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher, but magic in a modern setting. I’d like to think that our class was right about magic being a key part of all fantasy books. Whether magic lies in a ring, a wand, or in blood, wherever you find fantasy, magic will surely follow.

Looking at Tolkien v.s. Donaldson (liar, liar pants on fire)

“Ah, where to begin? Let me say first that I shudder every
time anybody compares / contrasts COVENANT with LORD OF THE RINGS.”
-Stephen R. Donaldson

Let the shuddering begin Mr. Donaldson, let it begin. Despite saying that the Thomas Covenant series is all his own creation there are a lot of similarities to J.R.R. Tolkien’s adventure of a hobbit and a ring in his Lord of the Ring trilogy.
Let’s start with the most obvious, the ring of course. Both books center on a character having a golden ring. Frodo is put in charge of destroying the ring where Covenant must learn to control the ring.

Both Covenant and Frodo seemed like unlikely heroes to me. Perhaps I was biased against Covenant but I was hard pressed to see a rapist as a hero. He was also uncaring about the Land and pretty self-centered for the majority of the first book. He was obviously supposed to be the hero though. To the people of the Land, Covenant was the second coming of Berek Halfhand and he had the ring of white gold. Frodo was perhaps not the obvious hero like Aragorn but I still count him as a hero. He bore and destroyed the ring despite being a small hobbit in a very big world with a very big evil. Frodo cares about Middle Earth more than Covenant could ever care about the people in the Land. With both Covenant and Frodo the other characters in the books supported them and made sure their missions were possible to be carried out.

The peoples in both books are very similar. The people of Mithil Stonedown could easily be compared to the dwarves of Middle Earth. Both work with stone. The people of Soaring Woodhelven could be compared to the elves. They are both very connected with nature especially trees. Their physical features are similar to elves as well, being fair and tall. The Ramen could be compared to the Rohan. Both are races of men connected to horses, although the Ramen’s connection to the Ranyhyn is deeper than the peoples of Middle Earth to their horses.

Covenant and Frodo are not leaders of great armies so there must be someone to lead the army of good against evil. Hile Troy and Aragorn can be seen as the battle leading heroes. These are the men that we think of when we picture those great leaders gathering their army to trudge off to battle against evil doers. Also the Troy and Aragorn always seem to be split from Covenant and Frodo. They lead the big battles while in another part of the world Covenant and Frodo are completing quieter missions.

Tolkien I felt was the better writer. Yes, parts of the trilogy are slow and sometimes there is almost too much description. I don’t mind that though because I would rather have that description that slows me down than the description of the Land we were given. I wanted to know more what the people of the Land looked like and how the Land looked. I was more connected with Tolkien’s characters because they reminded me of the noble character of Arthurian legends. Often I didn’t care about or for the characters in the Covenant series. I wasn’t pushing for Covenant to win. I would’ve been fine if Triock killed Covenant in the eighth chapter. Elena’s affection for Covenant, her father, was creepy quite honestly.

So Mr. Donaldson I have to disagree with you that LOTR did not have anything to do with Thomas Covenant. It obviously influenced your writing but I’m done comparing you for now so just calm down, the shudders will stop soon.

In Defense of Doanldson

I am going to put it right out there and admit, I hate the Covenant series. The ridiculously antagonistic so called hero of the series really gets on my nerves. His existence is like nails on a chalkboard and I can honestly say that I will never recommend the book to anyone I know … if they are looking for traditional heroes. Ones that are the epitome of what we consider heroes. The testosterone loaded male whose gorgeous face and charismatic persona makes girls want him and guys want to be him.

If, however, you are looking for something a little bit different then allow me to introduce Thomas Covenant or ‘Tommy C’ as I have affectionately come to know him – a selfish, whiny coward who lost two fingers and his whole life to leprosy. I’m not gonna lie, as much as I hate this series, Donaldson has done something brilliant here. He intentionally corrupts one of the most long-standing symbols in fantasy: the "our world" individual who is transported to another world. Typically the “our world” individual will be transported into a new world, come to value whatever he learns there, be a hero and save the day, and then returns to the original world a better person for it.

Not our boy Tommy C, he gets pulled into a new universe, refuses to believe anything and therefore feels he is not responsible of the world is destroyed. His lack of control of the white gold (his wedding ring) and his bottomless well of self-loathing, confusion, cynicism and rage endanger his friends even as they battle Lord Foul for nine books. He is not satisfied being reluctant to take part in a grand adventure, but is also entirely unwilling to participate or even believe in the reality of his circumstances. This is the brilliance of the Donaldson’s series, that the other world traveler/hero is so crippled in every sense of the word that he is not in any way the man you’d want call when you needed help, not even to borrow a pen. This in effect leaves the reader completely unsure of who to root for, the bad guy or the bad hero. (I chose the bad guy). Tommy C's not even an anti-hero. I'm gonna create a new category for future reference myself and nominate Tommy C as the first bastard-hero.

Can Donaldson be considered a major author? I’m not sold on that because I feel that to be a major author, you have to do more than just be different ... you actually have to write well. But I do give him serious props for going against the grain and challenging the typical practices of fantasy.

Is Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant worth the paper it's printed on?

It's no big secret that I am not a fan of Stephen Donaldson. I do not really consider him a major author and if could go back in time and stop myself from reading the Chronicles of Thomas covenant I probably would. What I am wondering is if this series has any redeeming qualities whatsoever or if the world would just be a better place without it.

One thing that I can see the author was trying to achieve was to defy the conventions of fantasy by making the main character a kind of anti-hero. So we get Thomas Covenant, a cynical leper who is constantly complaining and doubting the fantasy world that he finds himself in. This is a somewhat interesting concept and in the very beginning of the first book of the series I was actually intrigued but as the story wore on the combination of Covenant's character and Donaldson's narrative style killed my interest.

Why Donaldson chose to narrate an epic fantasy with an annoying anti-hero protagonist in a close third person perspective? I can't say for sure. Why no one read an initial draft of his manuscript and told him he might want to rethink the perspective? Perhaps an even bigger mystery. I think that in using a limited third person perspecive, Donaldson was trying to highlight Covenant's internal conflict in his constant doubt in the Land's existance. In my opinion the ends did not justify the means with this choice and for a number of reasons.

First and foremost that conflict was not all that compelling to me in the first place. I think that it is warrented for Covenant to doubt the Land at first based on his history with the leprosarium and the way that he has had to train himself to become incredibly grounded in reality. After a while though Covenant's constant doubt in the Land just got annoying to me. Even if he believed it was a dream why not just run with it? Moreover it seemed that with the close third person perspective, Donaldson was attempting to extend this disbelief to the reader as well as the character which for me just did not work. The willing suspension of disbelief by the reader is not just a conventino of fantasy but a convention of all fiction. I think that for the most part to subvert this convention is to write bad fiction. The "it was all just a dream after all" ending is a cliché so I don't see why leading the reader to believe that might be coming is a good thing. I would have rather seen Donaldson construct a compelling world that I could become invested in rather than have him constantly try to make me doubt the world that he did present.

Another complication that arose from the close third person narratative style is the way that exposition is handled. The world building element of fantasy fiction requires a great deal of exposition and the use of limited third person perspective only allows the author to deliver that information through things that the main character observes. One way that Donaldson deals with this problem is to jam as much exposition into dialogue as possible. The result is that characters use unnatural voices to essentially talk at the reader and provide them a comprehensive history of the Land. What Donaldson can't force into exposition he deals with through Thomas Covenant's uncanny perceptions of the world around him. To some extent this may be warrented as Covenant is a former writer but I think that the inferences that the narrator makes through Covenant become excessive to the point where it takes the reader out of the story.

So is the seires worth the paper it's printed on? Maybe I'll give it that but it's definately not worth the ink. That stuff is expensive.

An Attempt to Discuss Both Sides of the Infamous "Thomas Covenant" Series by Stephen Donaldson

In this post I will attempt to address the positive and negative aspects to the infamous “Thomas Covenant” trilogy by Stephen Donaldson. Let me begin with the lighter side. First, I will gladly attribute credit to Donaldson for his attempt to challenge the expectations of the Fantasy genre and to bring something new to readers. Thomas Covenant is a loathsome, contemptible main character with no redeeming qualities for the entire first book, and who does not become much better in the following two. For Fantasy readers, especially in the late 1970’s when nothing close had been attempted in that genre at that point (at least to my knowledge), this must have been a difficult beginning to a trilogy to work through. Although I am sure that some people enjoyed the challenge with hopes for a good work to come out of it altogether. If one attempts to understand the psychological struggle which Covenant is going through (a failed marriage, a social outcast, and severe leprosy) then it may be fair to say that the beginning does stand out as an intriguing plot. It gives the story a lot of room for growth and much potential as far as what it could develop into. There is anticipation for redemption, hope for awesome world-building and other characters which influence the character to become more “heroic” or at least balance out his pessimism. I almost had the feeling that this was going to happen, since despite having to be pushed and pulled, Covenant does begin to help the land in a way (or at least gives them hope with the ring and Berek Half-hand prophecy). To summarize: Donaldson, you had an interesting starting point in this work with considerable potential, but unfortunately it was not developed well from there and flopped in my opinion. Here begins the negative aspects.

All of this certainly could have worked out favorably if Donaldson had not gone too far in illustrating Covenant’s misery and angst. To have a character such as Covenant begin the story as lowly as he is, and have him become progressively better (not even completely redeemed, but at least become the controversial anti-hero) would have made it more appealing. Unfortunately, that did not happen. In addition to placing excessive emphasis on the controversial Covenant, Donaldson did not balance the repelling character through other aspects of the work. For example, the Land had considerable prospects to become a well-developed, engaging world, but there simply was not enough creative effort put into the development. The writing style was not my cup of tea, so to speak, either. It seems that Donaldson was attempting to flex the muscles of his English degrees a bit too much. I am much more of a fan of the slow, simple yet captivating prose of Tolkien.

As I mentioned in one of my posts on the discussion board, I believe that the most charitable review of the Thomas Covenant series would be to evaluate all of the trilogies as a whole rather than the first part. It would be quite the accomplishment to create a character that takes up to the third trilogy to finally assume a more “heroic” role. Personally, I would not want to work through an entire trilogy without enjoying it and then continue to the other works, but if I was forced to and to my surprise Covenant became redeemed in the last trilogy, I might have somewhat of an understanding of Donaldson’s intent in this work (I hope).

Hellfire!

Donaldson: The Anti-Major Author

I was putting off the blog post for Donaldson because I really didn't know what the hell to write about. I will admit that I've read a majority of the series but only finished one book, and only because I put all of my concentration and force into doing so. I found nothing but contempt for the author's Covenant trilogy, so I guess my blog post can be nothing more than a strict criticism of the series.

Our class has covered the basics on Stephen Donaldson's flaws and beaten them to death for about 12 classes straight. None of the three books had gotten much of a positive feedback other than a few symbols (such as the Vietnam allegories and possibly AIDS through Covenant's lepracy), and even that seemed to be reasoning to fish for compliments on the trilogy. We kept being questioned "Is Donaldson a major author?" I think it's a universal "no!" Here's why.

I think one criteria for a major author is to have some sort of staying power, at least for half a century. A class of about 30 English majors (a title that somewhat suggests that the students have some sort of background on at least knowing the names of the most influential authors) did not recognize Donaldson's name. That might not mean anything to some, but one would think that if someone was going down in the history books as a major contributor to contemporary literature or literature as a whole that someone, anyone, besides Dr. Simon had at least heard the name before enrolling into the class. Especially if the author's major trilogy is only a mere thirty years old and the author is still among us. Strike one.

Another criteria would be that the writing is at least inspiring, if not influential to future authors for years to come. Donaldson's prose consisted of bloated description and dialog that seemed like it was written by a fifteen year old writing D&D fanfic. I honestly want to travel back in time to the 70s so I can see whether or not anyone of that era muttered the word "Hellfire" once. Something tells me I won't find it. If anything, Donaldson inspires the future writers of literature to become the complete opposite of his work. Strike two.

One other criteria of a major author is for there to be seemingly countless discussions among scholars and literature fans alike, be it intellectual conversations or just general excited opinion on plot or narrative. I can say that Dr. Simon was a trooper throughout the three or four weeks we took on Donaldson. The only conversation we had was negative, if we had anything to say at all. It felt like he was pulling at our hair just to get us to say anything, and even had to have us admit to not reading as a legitimate discussion contribution. Honestly, does that seem like the work of a major author would be so brutal as to have a 30 person class have to admit to not reading just to have a discussion continue?

Strike Three Donaldson and your Thomas Covenant trilogy. You're out.

Terrible

Quite possibly the worst Trilogy ever!!! Maybe not quite the worst but it is a great example of a poorly written story. Stephen Donaldson’s lack of creativity (Kevin, the land, etc…), lack of world building (the land), and lack of character development (just because there’s different races doesn’t mean a thing), as well as annoying repetitive phrases (it was as if… or Hellfire!) leaves the reader annoyed and irritated once they have finished reading this excuse for literature.
The Thomas Covenant Unbeliever series could quite possibly be an amazing story, one that would engage the reader from beginning to end, if perhaps it was written by someone other than Donaldson; anyone other than Donaldson! Donaldson’s idea of an outcast from our world being able to be transported to a world that is so full of life and magic, a place where this outcast is revered as a supreme being that has the power to save this land and its inhabitants, is a great idea. However Donaldson’s flaws and shortcomings as a writer cause this story to fall flat on its face. There are four main crimes that Donaldson is constantly committing while writing this story. The first of which is his total lack of creativity.
While reading this story I immediately found that rather than focusing on the plot and storyline, I was distracted by Donaldson’s attempts at being creative. Kevin? The Land? Lepers? What is this guy doing? The main bad guy is called Kevin. Need I say more? While the main bad guy is Kevin, Donaldson uses words that require an appendix at the back of the book to understand, but Donaldson could not come up with a better more powerful name for the bad guy other than Kevin? What about this world that Covenant is transported to? It is simply referred to as “the Land”. Come on, you need to be more creative than that.
This brings us to the second crime that Donaldson commits: World building, or lack thereof. Donaldson’s world comes off as being flat and boring. Sure this world is full of magic and life and it is a place where the inhabitants have a deep understanding of the world, but Donaldson fails at developing it to its fullest potential. The majority of this story takes place in a select area of this land. It isn’t until the story climax’s that the action and plotlines explore other areas of the map.
The third crime is that of character building… Donaldson’s main character, Thomas Covenant, could not be hated by the reader anymore if Donaldson tried. Covenant is not even an antihero; he is just a terrible person. He has no redeeming qualities about him until it is too late for the reader. I do not even want to read to the end to find out if everything works out for Covenant; I just want him to die so the story ends. Also all of the minor characters are all so flat! The bloodguard? This could be a great set of characters but they’re not. Donaldson fails miserably at creating characters that the reader feels any sort of sympathy for.
The last (and perhaps the worst) crime that Donaldson is accused of is this: repetitive and annoying phrases and words. I cannot explain how ridiculously irritating it is to begin ever paragraph with this phrase “it was as if yada yada yada” or “the land was like a yada yada yada”, and then end every line with this word, this one teeth grinding, nails on a chalkboard word, makes me want to retch word: “Hellfire!” Donaldson cannot even come up with a creative way to swear. These and other repetitive actions that occur loose the reader.
For all of these crimes that Donaldson has committed, I say that immediately seize his quill and destroy it. For the sake of the fantasy genre this man needs to be stopped! Halt and desist immediately Stephen Donaldson. If he continues he will inevitably bring about the end of this genre.