Book discussion: THE CHRONICLES OF THOMAS COVENANT

Cafe Society
1

New week, new book discussion. We got a healthy response to the **Chronicles of Narnia ** thread, but maybe a bit more regimented than I’d hoped; it was probaby the fault of that moron who began by posting ten insanely detailed questions, which made answering easy but rather limited creativity. So I won’t be so anal this time.

Anywhistle–let’s start talking about everyone’s favorite–or least favorite–Unbeliever, Thomas Covenant. I’ll start with just a quintet of discussion points this time, then add more if the discussion seems to lag:

  1. Okay, there’s hardly any point in asking whether you look Thomas Covenant. He’s scum–selfish, self-centered, raping scum. So what would you say the point is in making such a man the protagonist? If you chance to meet Tom on the road, is the moral thing to do to kill him immediately,

  2. How effective is the device of questioning the reality of the land? How does TC’s leprosy and VSE play into this? Does it make the story more intriguing or more irritating, or something else?

  3. In what ways would you call Donaldson’s work a reaction to Lord of the Rings? Is Stephen worthy of polishing the professor’s spats?

  4. “Saltheart Foamfollower.” :rolleyes: “Drool Rockheart.” :o “Kevin.” :dubious: What the hell was Donaldson smoking when he came up with these names? :confused:
    And is Skald overdoing it with the Smileys again?

  5. Talk about Donaldson’s strengths, his weaknesses, and anything else I would have brought up if I were smarter. :wally

Have at it!

2

Disclaimer: I haven’t read the books since I was in high school, a little over 20 years ago. Though the fact that I remember reading them as well as I do after all this time probably says something good for them. Somewhere around the house here is my copy of Lord Foul’s Bane with a bookmark about halfway through it, from when I tried to re-read it a couple of years ago and never got around to finish it—someday I may yet get back to it. It wasn’t unreadable, but neither was it un-put-down-able.

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant was one of the things that I read after I finished The Lord of the Rings and was looking around for something else with the same appeal. I’d say Donadson did a pretty good job of being reminiscent of Tolkien without just copying him (the way, say, Terry Brooks did in Sword of Shanara). There were some nods to Tolkien (Donaldson had “Berek Half-hand,” Tolkien had “Beren One-hand”—coincidence?), but there was more originality than in all too many other examples of the Tolkienesque Epic Fantasy genre.

The best thing about the books, IMHO and to the best of my recollection, is the Land itself. One of the reasons to read fantasy is to spend some time in another world, and Donaldson gave us a nifty one to explore. Donaldson’s Land may be one of the better-realized Fantasy Worlds, and I grew quite fond of it, so that it was quite wrenching to see how it had been, well, wounded in The Wounded Land, the first book of the second trilogy.

It is perhaps for this reason that The Wounded Land was my favorite of the six volumes that comprise the First and Second Chronicles: the way Donaldson showed me a place that I had come to love, now sick and wrong and needing to be set right, gave a sense of poignancy and urgency to the story. On the other hand, I didn’t like the rest of the Second Chronicles nearly as much. This may have been largely due to their focus on Linden Avery, a character I found less interesting and appealing than Covenant himself.

As for Thomas Covenant and his scumminess, well, as the Chronicles open, he’s in pretty rough circumstances: he’s numb, shunned, abandoned, impotent in more ways than one, and only by being very self-aware and self-centered can he hope to keep from degenerating into an even worse state. The Land healed him physically, but can it heal him spiritually? So

I’d say (going from my fuzzy memory) that all of this was both intriguing and interesting, and only partially successful.

3

I think Donaldson, more than any other writer, benefitted from the popularity of the Ring triology, just for that reason. After reading Tolkien, I too went looking for books and read the Covenant series. Recently (about 5 years ago), I reread them. Boy, a lot has changed in those intervening years.

Upon first read, I liked the series, but that was only because of the great things in it. Foamfollower, the Land, Mhorim (Mhoram?), and Hile Troy made the series for me, and it was enough for me to recommend it to others. His writing was fine, and some of his ideas were great, so I liked them. The Second Chronicles were stupider, less enjoyable, but they had less Covenant, so I was happy.

Perhaps it was because I was so new to, and so excited about, reading this genre, that I overlooked the multitude of problems. Perhaps it is my own maturity level. But re-reading both Chronicles, I absolutely hated them. The things that bothered me on first reading (Covenant’s disbelief in the Land (a major theme) was just stupid, the surrender of the Giants, the rape of Lena, everything about Elena, etc.) made it painful to read it again. I don’t mind books where the protagonist is a jerk, but it seemed like Donaldson went out his way to make Covenant so vile that I questioned his entire reasonings. Needless to say, I didn’t even reread the second Chronicles after that (thank God, 'cause Linden was a horrible character). I hated them.

One of the knocks on LOTR, is that it is quite simplistic, the good guys are brave, strong and true, and the bad guys are really really bad. I’ll give Donaldson kudos for adding more distasteful characteristics to Covenant, but he really went overboard on it. One reasons distateful characters are possible as a protaganist is that there is the search for redemption. I got none of that out of Covenant, hell he didn’t even believe the Land was real, so I kept hoping for him to die. Sure he’s the Land’s savior, but there is no interesting redemption.

My God it was annoying, overdone, and stupid. As a theme, it never clicked for me, and I think it hurt the books because I so much wanted the Land to be real. Dumb, Dumb, dumb.

No, he’s not.

4

Oops, meant to say, both intriguing and irritating. Yes, irritating.

5

The book would have been a lot better if somebody had taken his thesaurus away and burnt it.

I prefer the Gap series myself.

6

What you don 't approve of the word telic ? :dubious:

7

I found Thomas Covenant at around 17 or 18 years old. I loved it. A few years ago, we found the chronicles at a bookstore again and they came home with me, but then the baby came along and I haven’t had much of a chance to read since that time. I think now I can look back and recognize what a flawed character he is, and how foolish Lena (?) and Elena were.

I stand by my love for the Bloodguard.

8

Picked the first of these up a while ago and, sad to say, I couldn’t make it past the first fifty pages. This may be due to the fact that I’m pretty burnt out on fantasy lately, but when I got to the following passage at the end of chapter three, I rolled my eyes and put the book away.

Bolding mine. If it weren’t all so deathly serious, it’d be a fine attempt at high camp. It’s so overwrought and melodramatic and rife with cliche that I nearly gagged on the reading of it. The whole ‘x times y years’ thing was what really tipped me over the edge–but that was just the last straw.

Having heard so many folks rave about these books, I’m going to keep my copy around, just in case I come into a more charitable mood one day, but I’m not holding my breath.

9

1. Okay, there’s hardly any point in asking whether you look Thomas Covenant. He’s scum–selfish, self-centered, raping scum. So what would you say the point is in making such a man the protagonist? If you chance to meet Tom on the road, is the moral thing to do to kill him immediately,
No… The Tom in our world is/was just trying to get by. His selfish, self-centered wife walked out exactly when he needed her, he can’t rely on anyone for anything. And Tom in the Land was dreaming, or so he thought. He later demonstrated time and again that he did care about other people, occasionally.
He was usually a prick, tho…

2. How effective is the device of questioning the reality of the land? How does TC’s leprosy and VSE play into this? Does it make the story more intriguing or more irritating, or something else?
The first time I read it (20 years ago) the constant denial just annoyed me, but recently I re-read this and it’s the only thing that could possibly keep him “sane” when he returned to this world. If he ever dropped that unbelief, it would be a totally different story.

3. In what ways would you call Donaldson’s work a reaction to Lord of the Rings? Is Stephen worthy of polishing the professor’s spats?
I don’t feel Donaldson ripped off ol’ whatsisface. LotR was interesting, but he hardly invented the magic ring, for heavens sake! As this guy points out, Tolkien hardly invented the concept.

4. “Saltheart Foamfollower.” “Drool Rockheart.” “Kevin.” What the hell was Donaldson smoking when he came up with these names?
Indeed…
*
5. Talk about Donaldson’s strengths, his weaknesses, and anything else I would have brought up if I were smarter.*
Donaldson all-powerful thesaurus makes up for a few weaknesses in the stories. If Tolkien was a little more Donaldson like and a little less Norse-saga like, I might be able to read his works. :slight_smile:

10

I read the First Chronicles when I was in college. I loved them then and I still do; I still classify Donaldson among the top ranks of epic fantasy writers, along with Dunsany, Eddison, Tolkien, LeGuin, and Vance. In the Second Chronicles, I’ve read only The Wounded Land and I enjoyed it, but was not overwhelmed as I was with the first trilogy. Donaldson thought he was finished after The Power that Preserves. The First Chronicles were intended as a complete series, so I’ll focus on those three books from here on out.

Firstly, in case anyone did not know, Donaldson in a Catholic of very strong beliefs, and those beliefs inform all of his writing. The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is an allegory, telling the Christian story: the beginning in a state of perfection, the Fall, the redemption. That sequence happens three times: in Thomas Covenant’s body, in Thomas Covenant’s mind, and in the Land. The point of the story, of course, is that these three things are all linked together. The Land is a metaphor for his body and soul. Lord Foul represents the creeping force of his infection, and the accompanying corruption of his soul. (“Foul”, we’ll recall, originally meant “infected”.) When Lord Foul first appears, his message is that the Land can resist him for at most forty-nine years, and then also that Drool Rockworm will destroy it in two years. Correspondingly, Covenant can surrender to his disease in a short time, or resist it and live out a natural life span. In the end, he defeats Lord Foul’s prediction and earns eternal life for himself and for the Land.

A good novel must create a conflict that is more intense, more frightening, and generally larger than the conflicts of everyday, humdrum life. The internal conflict within Covenant is a more dramatic conflict than that within a normal person. In short, he’s more of an asshole than anyone else. But of course the success of the story rests on the cause of his behavior. Donaldson is carrying out the writer’s duty of making us see the entire life of another person. The people reading these books presumably have never been Lepers and have never been hated by everyone they formerly loved (I hope), so when you read this trilogy you see a part of the human story you’ve never seen before. Maybe even a part that you didn’t know existed.

Other than the minor homages, I’d say not much. Tolkien was famously anti-metaphor.

Individual opinions may vary, but I like the names. The directness tells us that these characters and places are prototypes, and help make the story larger than life.

Anyone who quits early on is going to miss out on the big action scenes, which are where Donaldson truly shines. His talent for handling a scene where hundreds or even thousands are clashing on a grand scale is unmatched among fantasy writers. He doesn’t get caught up in describing the action blow-by-blow. Rather he captures how the entire battle is flowing in emotional terms.

11

Excuse me, can I ask a question? I just started reading Lord Foul’s Bane; is that the wrong place to start? I was unware it was a series. Can someone list the books, in order?

Or can I go ahead and start with* Lord Foul’s Bane*?

Thanks.

12

Yes, LFB is the first novel. The other two (in order) are The Illearth War and The Power That Preserves.

13

Ok, cool! I’ll read it and get back to you.

14

I think that Lord Foul needed a better press agent. I mean, come on - what kind of arch-villain calls himself Lord Foul? Why not just call yourself Utter Cunt and have done with it? Oh, yeah, and the telic thing.

15

Not to mention that apparently all the troubles in the series (and the Land in general) could have been avoided if the Land’s God would only have checked his work before he released the project…

16

Did you pick this up from the books, or from outside sources? I normally would avoid an author that tells the Christian story in allegory, but even after reading about Donaldson’s beliefs I don’t see much of it in these books. I don’t doubt that he’s doing exactly what you’re saying, but he does it in such a way that non-Christians may not even notice. I sure didn’t pick up any moral lessons from these nor felt any urge to convert, but if it makes Donaldson feel good more power to him.

I feel that I’m missing some commas in the above, so here they are plus a few extras - ,

17

First off, Donaldson was severely handicapped by his poor writing skills with Lord Foul’s Bane. His plotting, pacing, and other skills improved in later books, but in LFB they were pants.

I firmly believe that in great part the virulent reaction against the Covenant books is because Donaldson specifically intended to deconstruct the fantasy genre based on Lord of the Rings. The Land is set-up to be the perfect fantasy world that needs a hero to save it – and Thomas Covenant is set-up as a slap in the face to the reader who wants to insert him/herself as that hero saving the Land.

As you read through the books, the depiction of the Land is there to lure in fantasy readers whose own fantasy would be to actually wake up in their fantasy world as some fated hero. And Covenant is there, obnoxiously throwing back in their face how foolish such a fantasy is. It’s no coincidence that he’s got a ring like Lord of the Rings has a ring; it’s a deliberate evocation of the LotR genre.

Covenant’s leprosy, VSE, and obnoxious personality are absolutely necessary for what Donaldson is trying to carry off. Without the real threat of backsliding in his vigilence against his leprosy, Covenant has no rationale that the reader will accept for his continued Unbelief. The reader wants Covenant to believe in the Land, because the Land is written so that is what the reader would want. This is why Covenant keeps telling parables about leprosy – so that the reader is forced to confront what could happen to Covenant if he gives in, and believes, even a little bit.

That said, I don’t think that Covenant’s Unbelief is handled consistently through the first trilogy – and is dropped completely by the second. Donaldson had a good idea in dropping Gildenfire out of the narrative. But I think that the inclusion of Hile Troy does serious damage to the question of whether the Land is all a delusion in Covenant’s head.

I’ve found, in discussing Covenant, that people have a hard time getting past the “he’s not a hero!” issue. Even referring to him as the “protagonist” doesn’t help. He’s the point-of-view character, but it seems that most people can’t get past Covenant’s obnoxious personality, and his actions (e.g., the rape scene). At the same time, they’re usually fond of the heroes-cast-as-heroes characters: Lord Mhoram, Saltheart, Bannor. They just don’t like feeling that Donaldson is trying to force them to sympathize with the unsympathetic Covenant – probably because they recognize that Covenant is being written to rip apart the reader’s own fantasy.

The thing is, in the end, that Covenant does turn out to be a heroic protagonist. It’s a redemption story, and Covenant not only ends up doing the right thing, but ends up doing it just like Frodo would – by stupidly going to the heart of his supernaturally powerful enemy’s stronghold, with almost no hope of survival or success.

At the end of a deconstruction and criticism of fantasy novels, Donaldson yanks the rug out and makes the point that the important thing about fantasies isn’t that you believe in their validity – but that you accept their validity as much as the validity of the real world. After kicking the fantasy genre in the teeth through three books, Donaldson turns out to be a softie.

18

I read the first two, hoping in vain that they would improve. They didn’t and I haven’t read any of the others.

19

Is he a raping scum? If you are married and dream of having sex with a supermodel, are you cheating on your wife? He thought the world was a dream, he was raping himself, more than anything. However, he is an ass, but, the man caught leprosy (btw, I read somewhere that Donaldson’s father had leprosy) lost his wife and kid, was treated like a freakin outcast by his town and everyone. How would you act when all the sudden people worship you and want you to save them after being your worlds shit heel for so long?

He has to question the Land, if he doesn’t then he really is a scumbag, cowardly, rapist. But by questioning the Land the story is as much as the fears and demons people carry on the inside, and less about how you would react being given unlimited power and asked to save a world.

I love LoTR, it was my first high fantasy (same for most of us I expect) but, it’s really not that well written and the characters are thin as the paper he wrote them upon. It’s the imagery and history of LoTR that I thinks draws so many people to love that world. And say what you will about Donaldson, he created a Land that invokes great images and carries a storied history with it.

Whats the big deal here? A couple hunderd years ago people’s last names were usually a description of their trade, i.e. “Smith”, “Thatcher”, etc…
5. Talk about Donaldson’s strengths, his weaknesses, and anything else I would have brought up if I were smarter.

20

IIRC, his father worked with lepers - missionary doctor or somesuch.

Leprosy is curable, but it’s a long process (I think, ianad), so if my impression of the timeline is correct (he was only a few months diagnosed) he would still be vulnerable for the first chronicles. Seems that Donaldson made a big deal about Tom freaking about missing his medication and that was part of the reason he couldn’t accept the Land as real. If he got back and believed any of it, his leprosy could return.
I think the meds have improved since then.

The Giants and their fanciful names are not that annoying to me, they aren’t really speaking their language… A translation of my name would be something hokey like “Brightfame Praisegod”, for crying out loud. (Brightfame… great Og, who came up with THAT?)
The cavewights tho - “Rockworm” could well be considered a compliment to a cave dwelling race, but “Drool”?