whirlysplat
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, ITs like Lord of the rings for grown ups!!!!!
Themes are far to adult for kids:
Review below taken from here;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345348656/102-8950361-7274547?v=glance
It has always distressed me that the Thomas Covenant Series has landed in the "Fantasy Genre." I am of the opinion that Donaldson's masterwork would stand on its own in any arena. In "The Land" and Thomas Covenant, Donaldson has created a poetic, philosophical, and literary statement that transcends the particularity of its settings. If the Thomas Covenant Trilogy is fantasy, then so are Voltaire's Candide and Swift's Gulliver's Travels.
A great deal of attention is paid to three aspects of this trilogy. First: its comparisons with Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Second, Thomas Covenant as anti-hero, and third, the darkness or mood of the work.
With regard to comparison with Tolkein, it is certainly understandable, since both works deal with fantastic subjects and both are thoroughly original. Tolkein repackages mythology into his own definition of elves, dwarves, goblins and the like - creating a "standard interpretation" of these mythologies that stands apart from the cultural context of the modern interpretations (witness the nobility of his Elves as opposed to the lighthearted Smurf-creatures of the American interpretation). Donaldson, on the other hand, peoples his work with uniquely defined creatures, from the Giants to the Ur-Viles, that have no contemporary counterparts in popular mythology, at least in nomenclature. Tolkein, of course, has been imitated, having used common mythology as a basis. Donaldson's world is too unique to be thus reduced, and so he gets no genre of his own.
In a similar sense, both authors constructed complex and detailed worlds whose full history extends beyond the bounds of their primary works. For Tolkein, it took the prequel (poshumous) Silmarillion to flesh out his world. For Donaldson, it takes the slightly diminishing Second Trilogy.
There are significant differences, of course. Tolkein despised metaphor. You could argue that Donaldson is all metaphor. But I digress.
The second set of commentary on Donaldson is related to Thomas Covenant as anti-hero. It is a nice "gimmick" if you choose to look at it that way, and certainly results in some repulsion. However, it is fundamentally intrinsic to the themes of the trilogy. Covenant cannot be the messianic figure that is required of him in the "fantasy" sequences, without complete invalidation of the tensions between despair and hope which drive the novels. With Covenant in any other mold, the works become nothing more than a very detailed and original fantasy work - just what they are often perceived to be.
Finally, the darkness or mood of the work is inevitable as well. It is tempting to see the "Beggar's note" as a definition of the themes of the trilogy, and this may be what Donaldson intended. I believe that the most striking theme contained in the trilogy is that aforementioned tension between despair and hope. It is not a question of ethics, right and wrong, but a very question of existence that Covenant grapples with. The leprosy issue (which would of course darken the trilogy) places Covenant in an artificial environment of isolation and unreality. Even prior to the fantasy sequences, he is living in something of a second tier of existence. The fantasy sequences exacerbate his isolation, but do not create it.
What surprises me most is the lack of commentary or interest in the poetry, philosophy, and literary merits of the work.
Despite their bleak aspect, Donaldson's poetic asides bring depth to the work. Lines such as "these are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives" are surprising in any modern novel. "Golden Boy" is another such treasure. Throughout the novels, Donaldson inserts beautiful phrases, poems, and lyrics that can be successful because he has deconstructed a critical context and justified the language by the very fantastic environment he is portraying.
In terms of the philosophy, Donaldson's treatment of paradox is particularly interesting. Some existentialists have argued that Descartes fails to prove existence because it is impossible for man to leave his own sensory context (if you can find it, "what is it like to be a bat" is a very interesting example of this). In brief, because we cannot imaging sensory input any different than what we already receive, we cannot use that sensory input to justify its reality. The fantasy sequences in the Covenant trilogy are examples of the imagined twisting of senses that provide the protagonist with this very "impossible" sensory input - colors with timbre, sounds with hue, etc. For Covenant to function in such an environment, particularly one so thoroughly in conflict with his own self-definition as a leper, is to create an unsustainable pressure that drives his catharsis.
Finally, the literary merits of the work seem obvious to me. It is rare to find an author with such dexterity in the english language. Donaldson's vocabulary is immense, and his use of it is natural. His diction becomes as inherent to the trilogy as any other aspect. His use of the anti-hero in something other than a 1960's nihlist novel is commendable, and the very structure of the trilogy is methodical and contributes substantially to the themes. The subjects are mutli-layered, and aside from the three or four tiers of reality portrayed in the trilogy, there is additional depth in each character that reveals a keen psychological grasp. Donaldson may additionally be advantaged by his real-world exposure to medicine and leprosy in particular, but his use and description of its characteristics and effects accomplishes exactly the tone that is required for the success of his ultimate conclusions.
And ultimately, Donaldson makes a point. I won't reveal the key "revelation" of the work, particularly since it is more fully explored in the Second Trilogy, but I will hint that Lord Morham lets it slip (and you've just gotta love it when Morham starts kicking butt... but I'll let you enjoy that yourself).
In summary, Donaldson addresses existence, illusion, morality, paradox, hope, despair, self-realization, crime, expiation, rape, incest, war, and the meaning of life. For me, he has much more in common with Faulkner than with Tolkien. Don't let the genre fool you. This is a profound set of novels. If you can get past the mood, and the dark subject matter, you will find plenty of sustaining action, a world with incredible depth and beauty, and ultimately a validation of the very things that the mood of the books seem to threaten.
Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
23 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
Best modern fantasy I've found, January 7, 2000
Reviewer: Christopher Dudley (Laurel, MD USA) - See all my reviews
"Lord Foul's Bane" has many strengths to recommend it. It also has a number of shortcomings I would be remiss in not mentioning. I personally loved the series, moreso the second time around.
Donaldson's hero, Thomas Covenant, is a leper and an outcast in his own world. He has resigned himself to his life of disease (there was no cure for leprosy when this was written) and solitiude, and desires nothing more than to be left alone to live out his sentence. After an accident in town, he finds himself transported to a fantastical place known only as the Land where his disease is cured, and the most evil being in the Land challenges Covenant to stop him from destroying the world. Much of this first book in the series is spent on making Covenant as contemptible as possible, making him cowardly, a rapist, selfish, and inconsiderate, but most of all disbelieving in the world he has found himself in. Although Covenant just wants the nightmare to be over, he finds that people see him as a reincarnation of a long-dead hero, and put their faith in him. But in his contemptiblity, Covenant is pitiable. It's hard not to feel bad for him at times when people blame him for things that aren't his fault, or refuse to understand his remorse at things that are.
The weaknesses of the story lie in Donaldson's reliance on his Thesaurus and the fact that a contemptible character scares a lot of readers off. As to the language, he does at times go into a pointless string of synonyms, using words that no normal person uses in conversation. I think of this as a weakness in the novel, but not one that affects my overall view of it. More of a quirk of the author.
I've thought about the question of whether or not Covenant was actually taken to a fantasy Land or just imagined it in his diseased brain. Most readers I've spoken with believe that we, the readers, are to accept that the Land exists independently of Covenant and that he is simply taken there because he is their legendary hero. I feel, however, that there is no evidence to back this up, and there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that the Land is all in his head, and all the people and parts of it are metaphorical representations of aspects of Covenant's mind.
Either way, the story is a great epic fantasy series, and I encourage people to put personal judgement of the character aside (he's SUPPOSED to be despicible!) and enjoy the series for its own merit.
Was this review helpful to you?
Themes are far to adult for kids:
Review below taken from here;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345348656/102-8950361-7274547?v=glance
It has always distressed me that the Thomas Covenant Series has landed in the "Fantasy Genre." I am of the opinion that Donaldson's masterwork would stand on its own in any arena. In "The Land" and Thomas Covenant, Donaldson has created a poetic, philosophical, and literary statement that transcends the particularity of its settings. If the Thomas Covenant Trilogy is fantasy, then so are Voltaire's Candide and Swift's Gulliver's Travels.
A great deal of attention is paid to three aspects of this trilogy. First: its comparisons with Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. Second, Thomas Covenant as anti-hero, and third, the darkness or mood of the work.
With regard to comparison with Tolkein, it is certainly understandable, since both works deal with fantastic subjects and both are thoroughly original. Tolkein repackages mythology into his own definition of elves, dwarves, goblins and the like - creating a "standard interpretation" of these mythologies that stands apart from the cultural context of the modern interpretations (witness the nobility of his Elves as opposed to the lighthearted Smurf-creatures of the American interpretation). Donaldson, on the other hand, peoples his work with uniquely defined creatures, from the Giants to the Ur-Viles, that have no contemporary counterparts in popular mythology, at least in nomenclature. Tolkein, of course, has been imitated, having used common mythology as a basis. Donaldson's world is too unique to be thus reduced, and so he gets no genre of his own.
In a similar sense, both authors constructed complex and detailed worlds whose full history extends beyond the bounds of their primary works. For Tolkein, it took the prequel (poshumous) Silmarillion to flesh out his world. For Donaldson, it takes the slightly diminishing Second Trilogy.
There are significant differences, of course. Tolkein despised metaphor. You could argue that Donaldson is all metaphor. But I digress.
The second set of commentary on Donaldson is related to Thomas Covenant as anti-hero. It is a nice "gimmick" if you choose to look at it that way, and certainly results in some repulsion. However, it is fundamentally intrinsic to the themes of the trilogy. Covenant cannot be the messianic figure that is required of him in the "fantasy" sequences, without complete invalidation of the tensions between despair and hope which drive the novels. With Covenant in any other mold, the works become nothing more than a very detailed and original fantasy work - just what they are often perceived to be.
Finally, the darkness or mood of the work is inevitable as well. It is tempting to see the "Beggar's note" as a definition of the themes of the trilogy, and this may be what Donaldson intended. I believe that the most striking theme contained in the trilogy is that aforementioned tension between despair and hope. It is not a question of ethics, right and wrong, but a very question of existence that Covenant grapples with. The leprosy issue (which would of course darken the trilogy) places Covenant in an artificial environment of isolation and unreality. Even prior to the fantasy sequences, he is living in something of a second tier of existence. The fantasy sequences exacerbate his isolation, but do not create it.
What surprises me most is the lack of commentary or interest in the poetry, philosophy, and literary merits of the work.
Despite their bleak aspect, Donaldson's poetic asides bring depth to the work. Lines such as "these are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives" are surprising in any modern novel. "Golden Boy" is another such treasure. Throughout the novels, Donaldson inserts beautiful phrases, poems, and lyrics that can be successful because he has deconstructed a critical context and justified the language by the very fantastic environment he is portraying.
In terms of the philosophy, Donaldson's treatment of paradox is particularly interesting. Some existentialists have argued that Descartes fails to prove existence because it is impossible for man to leave his own sensory context (if you can find it, "what is it like to be a bat" is a very interesting example of this). In brief, because we cannot imaging sensory input any different than what we already receive, we cannot use that sensory input to justify its reality. The fantasy sequences in the Covenant trilogy are examples of the imagined twisting of senses that provide the protagonist with this very "impossible" sensory input - colors with timbre, sounds with hue, etc. For Covenant to function in such an environment, particularly one so thoroughly in conflict with his own self-definition as a leper, is to create an unsustainable pressure that drives his catharsis.
Finally, the literary merits of the work seem obvious to me. It is rare to find an author with such dexterity in the english language. Donaldson's vocabulary is immense, and his use of it is natural. His diction becomes as inherent to the trilogy as any other aspect. His use of the anti-hero in something other than a 1960's nihlist novel is commendable, and the very structure of the trilogy is methodical and contributes substantially to the themes. The subjects are mutli-layered, and aside from the three or four tiers of reality portrayed in the trilogy, there is additional depth in each character that reveals a keen psychological grasp. Donaldson may additionally be advantaged by his real-world exposure to medicine and leprosy in particular, but his use and description of its characteristics and effects accomplishes exactly the tone that is required for the success of his ultimate conclusions.
And ultimately, Donaldson makes a point. I won't reveal the key "revelation" of the work, particularly since it is more fully explored in the Second Trilogy, but I will hint that Lord Morham lets it slip (and you've just gotta love it when Morham starts kicking butt... but I'll let you enjoy that yourself).
In summary, Donaldson addresses existence, illusion, morality, paradox, hope, despair, self-realization, crime, expiation, rape, incest, war, and the meaning of life. For me, he has much more in common with Faulkner than with Tolkien. Don't let the genre fool you. This is a profound set of novels. If you can get past the mood, and the dark subject matter, you will find plenty of sustaining action, a world with incredible depth and beauty, and ultimately a validation of the very things that the mood of the books seem to threaten.
Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)
23 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
Best modern fantasy I've found, January 7, 2000
Reviewer: Christopher Dudley (Laurel, MD USA) - See all my reviews
"Lord Foul's Bane" has many strengths to recommend it. It also has a number of shortcomings I would be remiss in not mentioning. I personally loved the series, moreso the second time around.
Donaldson's hero, Thomas Covenant, is a leper and an outcast in his own world. He has resigned himself to his life of disease (there was no cure for leprosy when this was written) and solitiude, and desires nothing more than to be left alone to live out his sentence. After an accident in town, he finds himself transported to a fantastical place known only as the Land where his disease is cured, and the most evil being in the Land challenges Covenant to stop him from destroying the world. Much of this first book in the series is spent on making Covenant as contemptible as possible, making him cowardly, a rapist, selfish, and inconsiderate, but most of all disbelieving in the world he has found himself in. Although Covenant just wants the nightmare to be over, he finds that people see him as a reincarnation of a long-dead hero, and put their faith in him. But in his contemptiblity, Covenant is pitiable. It's hard not to feel bad for him at times when people blame him for things that aren't his fault, or refuse to understand his remorse at things that are.
The weaknesses of the story lie in Donaldson's reliance on his Thesaurus and the fact that a contemptible character scares a lot of readers off. As to the language, he does at times go into a pointless string of synonyms, using words that no normal person uses in conversation. I think of this as a weakness in the novel, but not one that affects my overall view of it. More of a quirk of the author.
I've thought about the question of whether or not Covenant was actually taken to a fantasy Land or just imagined it in his diseased brain. Most readers I've spoken with believe that we, the readers, are to accept that the Land exists independently of Covenant and that he is simply taken there because he is their legendary hero. I feel, however, that there is no evidence to back this up, and there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that the Land is all in his head, and all the people and parts of it are metaphorical representations of aspects of Covenant's mind.
Either way, the story is a great epic fantasy series, and I encourage people to put personal judgement of the character aside (he's SUPPOSED to be despicible!) and enjoy the series for its own merit.
Was this review helpful to you?
