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.

Is Lost considered Science Fiction

Recently the Sci-Fi channel (which is now the SyFy channel, not a fan of the name change) started playing old episodes of Lost. This has got me thinking about whether or not Lost can really be considered Science Fiction. For anyone not familiar with the show, it is basically about a group of people with interconnected back stories whose plane crashes on a mysterious island where strange things happen. A crippled man is healed and can walk, people start seeing their dead relatives, and an unseen group of apparently indigenous people abduct some of the survivors. If you haven't seen it and are thinking about getting into it you should be careful. It's like the crack of TV shows.

What seems to happen frequently in Lost is that something fantastic and seemingly unexplainable will happen and characters have different views as to whether to try and interpret things rationally or believe that there is some sort of supernatural force at work. Consequently it is also largely up to the viewer to decide what they believe about what is going on. As the plot progresses, some of the fantastic things are explained rationally and scientifically while others are left up in the air and still other mysteries are introduced.

The author of another blog post I read ultimately decided that we will not be able to categorize Lost into a genre until the series is over and we know the true explanations of all of the mysteries that have been introduced. Check it out here. I can see how this conclusion makes sense. If all things are explained rationally then the series is science fiction but if it turns out that Locke was right all along and there is a supernatural/magical element then the series is fantasy.

As good as that sounds I have a problem with the idea that the genre of a work is contingent upon the ending. Suppose for some reason the producers of Lost decide not to air the last season and destroy all the evidence that it was ever produced. How would we categorize Lost then based only on what we have if we were never going to know the ending? I think that we need a better method for placing a work into a genre where we do not have to wait until the end in order to know what we are watching or reading.

I think in order to place a work in a genre we need to take a look at what is essential to the work itself. What ultimately drives the work and makes it interesting for readers or viewers? I think that in works of Science Fiction it is the explanations and ramifications of various non-existent but plausible technologies. In fantasy it is the creation of an alternate world or the introduction of a magical element to our own world. The more interesting, original, and imaginative the world or element is the better.

Though Lost does both of those things to some degree I think there are two things that are really essential to the series. One is the mysteries themselves. Regardless of the explanations and answers the introduction of fantastic and mysterious elements keeps people watching (makes it the crack of TV shows). Because of this I would classify Lost as a mystery.

The second thing essential to Lost is the intricate web of character's back stories. Each character seems to be on a kind of journey in life with the ultimate goal of redemption. The culminating point of all of these interlocking journeys is the island. Because the back stories follow this kind of pattern and also because of the grand scale of the series in general,I would classify Lost as an epic. So though Lost contains both elements of Fantasy and Science Fiction I ultimately think that the best genre classification I can give it would be Epic Mystery.

As far as where the series is going and what the answers are going to be...I have no idea but there will be hell to pay if I am disappointed.