Covenant, rapist
Justine Kingsbury
Donaldson's character Thomas Covenant can be viewed sympathetically,
considering that he rapes a young woman early on in Lord Foul's Bane.
I think the rape of Lena needs to be placed in a context no one's
mentioned yet, namely christianity.
It seems pretty clear to me from his biblical name, his biblical
disease and the Land's old testament/new testament history that
Covenant's story needs to be seen through christian eyes (yes, I know
there's the argument that Donaldson made Covenant a leper
simply because he'd known a lot of lepers as a child, through his
missionary parents - but if you want to argue from the author's
background, well, the man IS christian himself). I'm not saying
Covenant is a christ figure as such, though his pariah-ship, his
suffering, and his redemption of the Land are suggestive - I think
he's a complex amalgam of christ and sinner, rather like the Red
Cross Knight in Spenser's Faerie Queen. If you think of the people
of the Land and Lord Foul, you see that Covenant is the only truely
grey figure in a moral landscape of pure whites and absolute black:
he's human. Now if you're christian that makes him a sinner, someone
in need of redemption. Why? Because he's inherited original sin from
Adam. But if you follow my argument that Covenant is also an allegorical
figure, then he has to *symbolize* sin, not merely be corrupted by
it at second hand. That, as I read it, is why Donaldson made him a
rapist: he's someone who has done something truely evil, regrets it,
and desperately needs redemption. In christian terms he's any one of
us.
I'm absolutely not saying the rape should be seen as "only" a symbolic
event. It was a real violation of a real woman, whose life was destroyed
as a result. That, it seems to me, is the challenge Covenant represents
to us: he's not some cute flawed hero with a murky past but a heart of
gold, he's the real beast. He did something disgusting. He's a sinner.
But he's genuinely sorry, and he does all he can - never enough - to
make up. If you start from the assumption that we're all damned until
we do something to redeem ourselves, then Covenant's just a dramatic
instance of a universal human situation.
No, I don't buy this as wisdom to live by. I do think it makes for a
damn :-) fine story.
Susan Eisenhour
and I'd probably see the rape as a fictional event designed to make the
character one with something real to regret and need redemption from...
All of that, IF I found Donaldson's writing worth reading.
Now, before someone jumps all over me as someone who only likes plot-
driven pulp or someone with no taste for LITERATURE, I read and
appreciate Faulkner, some Hemingway, Shakespeare, etc--name your dead
white guy, so I do so have discerning taste, Nyaa Nyaaaa.
Donaldson, IMO (never been humble), substitutes thesaruis-found words
for plain quality writing. Whatever Covenant may have symbolized, the
author was unable to make him someone I even *wanted* to understand.
Mostly, I wanted him to take a pill. I prefer picture window to
stained glass, and if it is stained glass, it had better be well-done.
*******************************************************************
cf...@ux1.cts.eiu.edu |Rihannsu Galae ch'Lloann'mhrahel
Susan Eisenhour |SFLAaE/BS Assoc. Memb.
|SEFEB and Ladies Anarchist Sewing Circle
|and Terrorist Society
Roy Navarre
A most interesting post. In the end, Covenant claims that he and Lord foul
are essentially the same person. That he Covenant realized this, but Foul
did not. I don't know that Covenant was seeking redemption though.
Certainly, he found it, but I don't know that it was a driving force
to keep him going. I think he decided that his, indeed, was the 'grace
to bear what must be born.' I think he was willing to try and save the
Land no matter the personal cost. I don't know that he ever really
sought forgiveness from God (the creator) or anyone else. And if forgiveness
was offered I dont think he accepted it. In fact, being forgiven for his
actions repeatedly infuriated him---making him feel even more unworthy of
such people. I am delighted that in the end he found redemption, but I think
he determined he would save the land regardless of the personal cost and
without hope of forgiveness. Thats part of the reason I like Covenant
so very much--he didnt go around begging forgiveness. Doing things soley
because he wanted to be forgiven (thats understandable, but shallow).
He was an extraordinarly noble being.
From the various posts on this series, it would seem obvious that many of
us found depths to this work others missed.
Roy
Roy Navarre
>Yeah. Ok. I could see Covenant as having all kinds of deep meaning,
>and I'd probably see the rape as a fictional event designed to make the
>character one with something real to regret and need redemption from...
>All of that, IF I found Donaldson's writing worth reading.
>Now, before someone jumps all over me as someone who only likes plot-
>driven pulp or someone with no taste for LITERATURE, I read and
>appreciate Faulkner, some Hemingway, Shakespeare, etc--name your dead
>white guy, so I do so have discerning taste, Nyaa Nyaaaa.
>Donaldson, IMO (never been humble), substitutes thesaruis-found words
>for plain quality writing. Whatever Covenant may have symbolized, the
>author was unable to make him someone I even *wanted* to understand.
>Mostly, I wanted him to take a pill. I prefer picture window to
>stained glass, and if it is stained glass, it had better be well-done.
>
I can understand this sentiment.
I wont argue that Donaldson's early work was often clumsy as far as
the technical aspects of writing are concerned. However, I would argue
that by being turned off by a few rough edges you missed one hell of a
story. In my mind one of the top two or three fantasy epics ever.
I can tell you though, that you wouldnt make a very good diamond
miner. :)
Roy
Russ Fuja
I've always interpreted Covenant's raping Lena as part of the broader
theme of unbelief (TC the Unbeliever). Quite alot was made of
Covenant's refusal to "believe" in the Land. Donaldson is creating TC
(in the beginning) as bleakly self-centered, unable to spare
feeling for anyone else. His cruelty and disregard for everything,
including Lena, grows out of his shattered "self-esteem." Whatever
inital remorse exhibits itself as his refusal to "believe" and his
discourtesy to everyone he encounters.
It seems to me one of the themes in CofTC is TC's growing belief in
the Land echoing his growing ability to relate to other people. In
the beginning he is a recluse (and a leper, outcast, unclean :-)). As
the series goes on, he moves more and more toward social interactions
(and exhibits more and more responsiblity and remorse). At the end
he is willing to sacrifice himself for other people (for the Land).
I think Donaldson weaves this maturation of TC thread very nicely
into the standard "fantasy" genre (giants, magic, lords, demons, magic
rings). At the same time we are kept (slightly) unsure whether
Donaldson is postulating an existing separate universe or whether
we are experiencing TC's internal delusions -- just as we are fundamentally
unsure whether the reality and society we experience are real. We
all make a leap of faith when we establish ties with the reality
we perceive. In the Chronicles, TC is called on to make a more obvious
choice to believe and feel responsibility and pain or to "unbelieve"
and cruise through life completely self-centered.
Russ
************************************************************************
* fu...@eid.anl.gov * Argonne National Labs * Standard Disclaimer *
************************************************************************
* CAUTION rest of .sig under construction CAUTION *
************************************************************************
Scott Schwartz
Donaldson, IMO (never been humble), substitutes thesaruis-found words
for plain quality writing.
Do you think there may have been a reason for that? Covenant never
uses those words, only the other characters. When a writer (Covenant)
has a nightmare, isn't it possible that he would dream about people
who use language in unusual ways? You found the Land annoying, but so
did Covenant. Recall that one of Covenant's complaints was about the
shallow quality of his own bestseller. He's trapped in a David
Eddings novel and can't get out!
Il Hwan Oh
I'm sure I read an interview with him once where he talked about his
responsibility as a writer to keep those words alive by using them or
something to that effect. Of course, I happen to like those words and
think they're perfect where he uses them.
--
Il Hwan Oh | "You live and learn.
Computer Facilities Manager | At any rate, you live."
University of Washington, Tacoma | -- Douglas Adams
i...@cac.washington.edu |
Unknown
(Russ Fuja) wrote:
>
> Just my own two cents.
>
> I've always interpreted Covenant's raping Lena as part of the broader
> theme of unbelief (TC the Unbeliever). Quite alot was made of
> Covenant's refusal to "believe" in the Land. Donaldson is creating TC
> (in the beginning) as bleakly self-centered, unable to spare
> feeling for anyone else. His cruelty and disregard for everything,
> including Lena, grows out of his shattered "self-esteem." Whatever
> inital remorse exhibits itself as his refusal to "believe" and his
> discourtesy to everyone he encounters.
>
Hmm. I think Donaldson was trying to say that Covenant wanted to be
punished. After all, he had the audacity to get leperosy. "Real" society
was already punishing him for a crime that never truly was. By committing
the rape, he was giving people (or himself if you believe the land was a
delusion) a reason to punish him.
Isn't it ironic that the one time he committs a crime, no one will punish
him.
*************************************************
* David Ingham * This space for rent *
*************************************************
Chris Croughton
(David Ingham) writes:
>Hmm. I think Donaldson was trying to say that Covenant wanted to be
>punished. After all, he had the audacity to get leperosy. "Real" society
>was already punishing him for a crime that never truly was. By committing
>the rape, he was giving people (or himself if you believe the land was a
>delusion) a reason to punish him.
Yes, that's how I read it. Covenant is confused and upset by the fact
that even the person he hurt forgives him, where he can't forgive
himself. In that he is like virtually everyone I know - Christ said
"love one another as you love yourself", but most people find it much
easier to love and forgive someone else than they do to love and forgive
themselves.
>Isn't it ironic that the one time he committs a crime, no one will punish
>him.
Not only ironic, but it is (IMO) a major driving force in the books.
Covenant reacts by hurting people more (by rejecting them) in an attempt
to provoke the reaction he expects, and is more confused still when he
doesn't get it.
An ironic thing is that, in the context of the story, his rape *is*
forgivable. For a start, at that time he thought it was all a dream -
if I dream about raping someone, is that a crime? And then, he had been
for a long time without feeling, and suddenly this comes back. In an
excess of emotion, he gets carried away and goes further than he should
(or than he would condone himself if he was in a state to think about
it). Lena, who has every reason to feel violated and betrayed by this,
does actually understand this and forgives him.
I (on a personal level) do not condone rape, or any initiation of
violence against another person. However, I *do* understand people
getting carried away in the heat of their emotions. I may want
reparation to be made for damage done (where possible), but Covenant
actually goes one better - in spite of the fact that no reparation has
been asked for, much less demanded by 'justice', he goes through the
book trying to make reparation for what he sees as an unforgivable sin
("I know I'm going to hell anyway for what I've done, but I'm going to
do the best I can to put it right" is the feeling I get from him.
[I never believed I'd be defending these books - I found them intensely
depressing and frustrating - but I guess I've changed...]
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
A Adams
king...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Justine Kingsbury) writes of Stephen Donaldson:
>> well, the man IS christian himself).
to an American church. Damn, I really must type in that interview:
Quote from SD: Stories are my religion!
(No Kidding, he really said that.)
--
TTFN, Zaphod (Two Heads, No Brain)*E-mail*csc...@gps.leeds.ac.uk****
************************************snail*Flat 18,26 Brudenell Road**
**Happiness is a cigar ...*********mail*Leeds,LS6 1BD,UK***********
**shoved up a smoker's arse!**********Tel*UK-0532 789237*************
stephen swann
>
>Various people are arguing at the moment over whether Stephen
>Donaldson's character Thomas Covenant can be viewed sympathetically,
Actually, and here's where I think my view diverges from a lot of
(most?) people reading this list, is that I don't think you have to
have a sympathetic main character to have a good book. Anyway,
that aside for now...
[...the story as a Christian, or Christian-influenced allegory...]
>I'm absolutely not saying the rape should be seen as "only" a symbolic
>event. It was a real violation of a real woman, whose life was destroyed
>as a result. That, it seems to me, is the challenge Covenant represents
>to us: he's not some cute flawed hero with a murky past but a heart of
>gold, he's the real beast.
That's the best thought out post on the subject that I've seen so far.
It certainly rivals the literary interpretation that I got from a
professor of literature that I know; namely that Covenant represents a
failed product of the modern age (sniveling, self-absorbed, totally
wrapped up in contemplation of the unfairness of his own fate),
dropped suddenly in the midst Age of Heroism. He can't bear to see
other people sacrificing themselves "for the greater good", because
that doesn't fit into his notion of survival through total
self-interest (metaophorically represented by the constant
"body-scanning", the obsessive avoidance of anything that might give
him even the smallest injury, etc).
Anyway, excellent post.
--
Steve Swann * Speak to me in many voices; make
sw...@cs.buffalo.edu * them all sound like one... -BOC
stephen swann
>and I'd probably see the rape as a fictional event designed to make the
>character one with something real to regret and need redemption from...
Well, you don't have to like Covenant to like the Chronicles. By far,
my favorite characters were Foamfollower and Mhoram. I pretty much
wished someone would knock Covenant unconscious and tote him around
through the rest of the story in a knapsack, but that doesn't mean that
the books weren't powerful and worth reading.
The book has flaws at every level, but they're balanced by its
strengths.
>All of that, IF I found Donaldson's writing worth reading.
It's crude, but powerful. Certainly miles beyong most of the pulpy
shit that's being written these days. At least there is powerful
literature underlying the rough surface. It's just too bad that
Donaldson wasn't 20 years older, and had 3 or 4 major novels under
his belt before he tried to write TC. It might not have rubbed people
so raw, then.
>Now, before someone jumps all over me as someone who only likes plot-
>driven pulp or someone with no taste for LITERATURE, I read and
>appreciate Faulkner, some Hemingway, Shakespeare, etc--name your dead
>white guy, so I do so have discerning taste, Nyaa Nyaaaa.
Those 3 have written a whole lot of shit, too.
sct
: In article <Jul.15.20.20...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> king...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Justine Kingsbury) writes:
: >
: >Various people are arguing at the moment over whether Stephen
: >Donaldson's character Thomas Covenant can be viewed sympathetically,
: Actually, and here's where I think my view diverges from a lot of
: (most?) people reading this list, is that I don't think you have to
: have a sympathetic main character to have a good book. Anyway,
: that aside for now...
Yes, it seems a lot of people disliked the book because they thought
the protagonist should be likable! How disagreebale it is to have
an animal act of the "id" (dream or no) to be unveiled
as a human capability. Still, as a literary device I find it
a bit extreme for the role it plays (I'm not talking about
plot here). It would be interesting to hear Donaldson's _real_
reasons for using it.
: It certainly rivals the literary interpretation that I got from a
: professor of literature that I know; namely that Covenant represents a
: failed product of the modern age (sniveling, self-absorbed, totally
: wrapped up in contemplation of the unfairness of his own fate),
: dropped suddenly in the midst Age of Heroism. He can't bear to see
: other people sacrificing themselves "for the greater good", because
: that doesn't fit into his notion of survival through total
: self-interest (metaophorically represented by the constant
: "body-scanning", the obsessive avoidance of anything that might give
: him even the smallest injury, etc).
I have to disagree with this,except to say he represents the modern
man. It's too easy to describe the characeter as a whinger, self
absorbed etc. This ignores the underlying motives. Mainly I disagree
though with what you (or the prof) say about why he dislikes the bravado of
others. I think it's because, as a leper, he knows the hopelessness of outright
fighting against something unbeatable like leprosy or Foul and
it seems rediculous to see Hile Troy and the Bloodguard
to have such confidence. I don't think it has anything to do with
some "ideal" of self interest, which Covenant forgos in the end
anyway. I guess another reason why he has trouble with the bloodguard
is that they would give up on everything that's human for the
sake of the Land, thus losing their "integrity".
Shaun Troedson.
Mark Adams
csc...@gps.leeds.ac.uk writes:
>Errrm, not as such, or at least not in the 'usual' sense of belonging
>to an American church. Damn, I really must type in that interview:
Yes, please do. I'd be very interested in seeing that. Thanks in
advance.
Drew Mills
|> punished. After all, he had the audacity to get leperosy. "Real" society
|> was already punishing him for a crime that never truly was. By committing
|> the rape, he was giving people (or himself if you believe the land was a
|> delusion) a reason to punish him.
|>
|> Isn't it ironic that the one time he committs a crime, no one will punish
|> him.
That's a good point. Donaldson wrote at length (I almost dropped at on the
first 100 or so pages) to describe Covenant's unjust punishments. With his
crimes being ignored in the Land, it points at once more how different
Covenant is from the Land's inhabitants. Recall a previous poster's comments
on how everything was so black and white in the land. Covenant just wasn't
that way. According to the prophecies, salvation had to come from something
that was completely outside of the land, something that couldn't exist.
Obviously, meanings in the story follow many other paths, but this is
certainly and interesting one.
________________________________________________________________________
/ | \
| Drew Mills | Mail Stop: IW17A6 |
| Cartographic Applications | E-Mail: tam...@ingr.com |
| Intergraph Corporation | Telephone: (205) 730-7752 |
| Huntsville, Alabama 35894-0001 | FAX: (205) 730-7296 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ...Consider yourself a disclaimee |
\________________________________________________________________________/
Roy Navarre
>: It certainly rivals the literary interpretation that I got from a
>: professor of literature that I know; namely that Covenant represents a
>: failed product of the modern age (sniveling, self-absorbed, totally
>: wrapped up in contemplation of the unfairness of his own fate),
>: dropped suddenly in the midst Age of Heroism. He can't bear to see
>: other people sacrificing themselves "for the greater good", because
>: that doesn't fit into his notion of survival through total
>: self-interest (metaophorically represented by the constant
>: "body-scanning", the obsessive avoidance of anything that might give
>: him even the smallest injury, etc).
>
I couldnt disagree more. I think your lit prof missed the boat on this one.
Then again you know the old adage--'those who can write, those who can't
teach.'
The failed product of the modern age? *ack*
sniveling, self-absorbed etc etc?
survival through total self-interest? *ack*
Body scanning as symbolic of this self-interest? *ack*
To this I also add several other posts which basically characterized
TC as an unsympathetic whiner.
The body scanning technique is a method actually used by lepers.
Since they have little feeling, an untreated cut can easily become
infected and result in loss of limb/death. If TC doesn't do this in
the real world he will in all likelihood die. His committment to this
is a indicator of his stubborn determination to live. Many other lepers
don't have the will to go on living. From the beginning this shows covenant
is not a quitter. That he continues to do it in the land is indicative
of his desire to keep some type of grip on 'reality.' To say he is doing this
merely for self-interest is wildly unfair.
Sniveling? Can you cite me a couple of examples where Covenant snivels?
I though he bore his burdens with realism and heroism. I think he handled
his problems far better than the majority of real people could. Yes, one
can easily create a character in fantasy that is perfect--but who wants
to see perfect people? They dont exist. TC is a real character. I did
not see TC being overly self-pitying. In fact I thought him remarkably
free of self-pity given the burdens he had to bear. Then again he is told
that his 'is the grace to bear what must be born.'
How is he the failed product of a modern age? I would argue that he is
something far nobler than the typical 'modern man.'
Yes, he anguishes over things a lot. I like that. Only a fool would not
do so in difficult circumstances. The path he has to follow is not clear.
Prophecies say he may save the land...then again he may destroy it. (ouch)
One mistep can doom the planet and perhaps the universe. Big pressure
heh? No human has ever had that kind of pressure. Do you know anyone who
would be happy about having all that on their shoulders? He has a God
opposing him. Trying to trick him at every step. He can never be sure he
is doing the right thing or playing into some elaborate trap. The people of
the land have basically given up and told TC its up to you to save us or
we are doomed. Its beyond us. Damn right I think he is right to agonize
over his actions. Then on top of that put all the complications of his
leprosy and uncertainty as to whether this is real or a dream. He is a
leper. A famous writer whose world suddenly caved in. His wife left him and
took his son. His town rejects him. He has not one friend. Not one.
The law threatens him. People try to keep him out of town. How can pity
not drip from your every pore for such a man????? Then *ZAP* he appears
in another land...a dream?....where he has incredible power. He is healed.
Nerves can't regenerate. NERVES CANT REGENERATE. Yet he has feeling.
People worship him as a hero. Indeed, in all the land he is the most
important figure. So he has gone from being a leper,outcast,unclean to
a figure of hope and power. He has companions by the 100s. Close friends.
Lovers. But what if this is a dream? What if he starts to hope? Hope is
fatal for a leper. If he accepts all this as real and opens his heart
again--only to wake up and find his is a leper passed out in a pool
of blood? There are not to many crueler blows than to against all odds
start to hope...to believe that things can get better only to have them
dashed and proven no more than illusions. That can easily be lethal.
Depression...suicide.
I can see why many people have an unsympathetic view of TC, but I think
such views stem from not understanding who and what TC is. From not looking
deep enough. I see him as one of the noblest, heroic, self-sacrificing,
loving and kind characters in all of fantasy. He was ultimately the best
of what it means to be human. Furthermore, I think Donaldson clearly
sees him in this light.
TC knows just how flawed he is (he is human after all). An additional
burden for him to bear is all the trust given him. He doesnt want such
trust. Who would!?!? Would you like a character who trumpeted "
YES I WILL SAVE THE UNIVERSE! PUT ALL YOUR TRUST IN ME, I WONT LET YOU DOWN!"
How crippling that trust must have been. Can you imagine how terrible it
must be to have people depending on you for their lives, trusting and loving
you--but you have no idea that you can save them? That you are worth of them?
You worry that you will fail and let them down? Ancient prophecies even say
you might destroy the whole planet? A God tells him he has no hope?
In the end TC mastered his demons. He came to terms with himself.
How many of us manage that? He willingly (even insistently) paid the
ultimate sacrifice. If there was anything unrealistic about his character
it might be that surely no human could be that noble? That enduring.
Who were the noblest people in the land? The most committed to truth
and resisting corruption? I think the Bloodguard. Covenant (Donaldson)
worries that any people who pay such a price to resist corruption forfeit
their humanity--and fall into corruption from the utterance of their vow.
It takes a few 1000 years for the Bloodguard to realize this. That in the
end they cannot deny their humanity. Yet at the end of book 6 were not the
Haruchai willing to swear another bloodguard oath for TC? The noblest
people in the land were so awed by TC that again they were willing to
pay that price. What did the Haruchai see in him that inspired them so?
What did Mhorham see? Foamfollower? The Creator himself? If you look
at TC and see a self indulgent whiner I think you are missing something.
Donaldson doesnt appear to see him that way. The wisest and most powerful
figures in the series have the utmost respect for him. So do I. :)
I think TC emobodies the paradox of what it means to be human. He shows
that we are all capable of hideous acts, yet at the same time have within
us incredible beauty.
Roy
Robert Gasch
: In article <Jul.15.20.20...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> king...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Justine Kingsbury) writes:
: >
: >Various people are arguing at the moment over whether Stephen
: >Donaldson's character Thomas Covenant can be viewed sympathetically,
: Actually, and here's where I think my view diverges from a lot of
: (most?) people reading this list, is that I don't think you have to
: have a sympathetic main character to have a good book. Anyway,
: that aside for now...
Very true. I hated Covenant but could not put down the books.
: [...the story as a Christian, or Christian-influenced allegory...]
: >I'm absolutely not saying the rape should be seen as "only" a symbolic
: >event. It was a real violation of a real woman, whose life was destroyed
: >as a result. That, it seems to me, is the challenge Covenant represents
: >to us: he's not some cute flawed hero with a murky past but a heart of
: >gold, he's the real beast.
: That's the best thought out post on the subject that I've seen so far.
: It certainly rivals the literary interpretation that I got from a
: professor of literature that I know; namely that Covenant represents a
: failed product of the modern age (sniveling, self-absorbed, totally
: wrapped up in contemplation of the unfairness of his own fate),
: dropped suddenly in the midst Age of Heroism. He can't bear to see
: other people sacrificing themselves "for the greater good", because
: that doesn't fit into his notion of survival through total
: self-interest (metaophorically represented by the constant
: "body-scanning", the obsessive avoidance of anything that might give
: him even the smallest injury, etc).
I don't see the two opinons as conflicting. Covenant is on of us. That
means that he is not some kind of super-human hero who does only good,
but he (certainly) has his flaws. The interpretation of the professor
of literature is a subset of this: He is one of us and we are basically
selfish. I our age selfishness has become a proclaimed aim of life
fulfillness (wether this is true or not is a different story) and
Convenant is selfish. He's one of us (or rather: he is a real human
being who is a product of this age), in every way ...
--> Robert
MONTGOMERY ROBERT PH
>In article <16...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wmo...@pitt.edu (William D Moore) writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure why so many people reacted so strongly to the rape scene. I
>>don't think it was "glorified" in any way by Donaldson. It was portrayed
>>as a brutal crime. One for which Covenant felt immense guilt eventually,
>>if not right away. This could be explained to a certain extent, by the
>>impossibility of his surroundings, and his lack of belief in them.
>
> Agreed. There was nothing gratuitous in SRD's narration of the event.
> I, personally, was so sickened by the act that I put the book down for
> a week or so, the first time I read it. I believe that, for those who
> decry Donaldson as a hack because of the rape scene, it is important to
> recognize that it is a writer's _job_ to make the reader *feel*
> something.
...
>Mitch Gorman mgo...@telesciences.com
I'm one of the people who would have preferred Donaldson NOT have
included the rape. I did NOT think that the rape was "glorified."
I do NOT claim Covenant never felt remorse, nor that it did not make
sense in the context of the story. Donaldson is definitely NOT a hack.
[The belief that Donaldson is a hack because he used old, big words
is silly. (I don't mind having a dictionary beside me when I read [an
on-line hypertext dictionary WOULD be preferable :-], and I don't mind
that fact that NOT every object that's dull on one end and pointy on
the other is called a "sword." Donaldson's style was very colorful
and engaging, and he obviously did a lot more research than "using a
thesaurus.")
The belief that Donaldson is a hack because he isn't Tolkien is even
more ridiculous. (Any similarity to Tolkien and someone shouts, "AH HAH!
He's just copying/plagiarizing Tolkien! Any difference from Tolkien
and someone shouts, "SEE, here's evidence that he's just a hack --
he's not following THE WAY.")]
The rape WAS portrayed as a brutal crime. Despite the fact that rape is
"natural" (yes, it is done by many species in nature, and there is even
genetic encouragement in that it produces offspring -- no one should be
surprised that there are animals that rape [even "civilized" humans!! ;-]),
I don't think people should either do it in reality OR choose to do it in
a dream. We (as readers) were *meant* to feel bad about Covenant did.
Lena was fantastically admirable and did not deserve *any* kind of abuse.
I feel that I would have enjoyed the story(ies) much more if the rape had
never occurred. A rewriting to remove that incident need not change the
basic premise, nor the majority of the plot. (Obviously, some people
disagree.)
QUESTION: Were the T.C. books written "for males"?
(Of course they were written by a male from a male perspective, male
protagonist ...) Any women out there who loved the books?
I remember thinking about the rape (years ago when I read it) that
not only do I feel overly bad about it, but that many women would have
an even worse emotional response and might even reject the book (series)
because of it. Unfortunately, this has happened. (When recommending
the books to women, I'm sure to provide a warning about an "event" near
the beginning... The two that read the series at my suggestion thought
it was very good.)
I recall also noticing that I was enamored by some of the female
characters (Lena and Elena), and wondering if there were "equivalent"
male characters for female readers...
-Rob
James P. H. Fuller
wmo...@pitt.edu (William D Moore) writes:
>I'm not sure why so many people reacted so strongly to the rape scene. I
>don't think it was "glorified" in any way by Donaldson.
Call it a difference in sensibility. What *I* expected, after
reading the rape and later seeing the result, was for Covenant to feel
the kind of remorse that leads directly to suicide or full-scale psy-
chosis or spending the rest of your life in a monastery or something on
that order -- which would mean, well, no book to write. Or else that
he at once die an appropriate death, like being fried in fecal fat --
and again no book.
What Donaldson actually gave us was, in essence, dude utterly wastes
fellow human being for fun and then goes on to lead useful, productive
life. Faugh!
Donaldson is a hack because he is an ovah-REA-chuh. With *very*
moderate skills he attempted to handle a theme that posed a major challenge
to Dostoevski. (Speaking of whom, if you want to see an *adequate* hand-
ling of a similarly villainous deed and its consequences go read _Crime
and Punishment_ and find out what happened to Raskolnikov.)
-- jf
Teddy Bear
> Call it a difference in sensibility. What *I* expected, after
>reading the rape and later seeing the result, was for Covenant to feel
>the kind of remorse that leads directly to suicide or full-scale psy-
>chosis or spending the rest of your life in a monastery or something on
>that order -- which would mean, well, no book to write. Or else that
>he at once die an appropriate death, like being fried in fecal fat --
>and again no book.
>
> What Donaldson actually gave us was, in essence, dude utterly wastes
>fellow human being for fun and then goes on to lead useful, productive
>life. Faugh!
So once somebody makes a mistake--granted, one HELL of a mistake--it damns
him for life? Covenant spent more time punishing himself than anyone else
did. It did ruin his life, for if he hadn't, then heroing would have been
easy for him. You may not like how he developed the character afterward, but
it is a realistic scenario. People make mistakes--even heroes.
> Donaldson is a hack because he is an ovah-REA-chuh. With *very*
>moderate skills he attempted to handle a theme that posed a major challenge
>to Dostoevski. (Speaking of whom, if you want to see an *adequate* hand-
>ling of a similarly villainous deed and its consequences go read _Crime
>and Punishment_ and find out what happened to Raskolnikov.)
Bullshit. Donaldson didn't handle the theme with as much skill and artistry
as Dostoyevsky, but who are you going to pick up and read for fun? Each has
their place. Now, the people who write for in-flight magazines--THEY are hack
writers. Lack of perfect skill and subtlety shouldn't stop an author from
tackling an interesting idea.
Joel Singer *Harvey Mudd College* ( jsi...@jarthur.claremont.edu )
"Ecce Eduardus Ursus scalis nunc tump-tump-tump occipite gradus pulsante
post Christophorum Robinum descendens." -- A.A. Milne, via Alexander Lenard
stephen swann
>>: In article <Jul.15.20.20...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> king...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Justine Kingsbury) writes:
>>: It certainly rivals the literary interpretation that I got from a
>>: professor of literature that I know; namely that Covenant represents a
>>: failed product of the modern age (sniveling, self-absorbed, totally
>>: wrapped up in contemplation of the unfairness of his own fate),
>>: dropped suddenly in the midst Age of Heroism. He can't bear to see
>>: other people sacrificing themselves "for the greater good", because
>>: that doesn't fit into his notion of survival through total
>>: self-interest (metaophorically represented by the constant
>>: "body-scanning", the obsessive avoidance of anything that might give
>>: him even the smallest injury, etc).
>
>I couldnt disagree more. I think your lit prof missed the boat on this one.
>Then again you know the old adage--'those who can write, those who can't
>teach.'
Well, that's certainly a great little line. Too bad it's just a load
of shit. Criticism is just as important as original creation - to
anyone who wants to understand what they're reading, and isn't just
looking for "a good read" to tide them over until the next football
game.
>The failed product of the modern age? *ack*
>sniveling, self-absorbed etc etc?
>survival through total self-interest? *ack*
>Body scanning as symbolic of this self-interest? *ack*
>To this I also add several other posts which basically characterized
>TC as an unsympathetic whiner.
>
>The body scanning technique is a method actually used by lepers.
Hmm, are you really this stupid, or are you just trying to fake me
out? I said it was a *metaphorical* representation of his obsessive
self-interest. If you don't know what metaphorical means, go look it
up. Of course, real lepers use it, he went to great pains to explain
the whole process at the beginning of the first trilogy. You could
also say that the only reason he's named "Covenant" is because a guy
named Covenant knocked up his mom, but there's a -symbolic- reason for
him having a biblical name like that. This is all part of literary
interpretation, which goes considerably beyond your "Well, *I* think
he was a -great- guy!"
>Sniveling? Can you cite me a couple of examples where Covenant snivels?
>I though he bore his burdens with realism and heroism. I think he handled
You must be joking. Nobody in the history of literature has heaped so
much angst upon himself. He's a coward, afraid of his own power, and
willing to let people fight hopelessly and die because he's afraid to
bear the responsibility of trying to use his might.
>I can see why many people have an unsympathetic view of TC, but I think
>such views stem from not understanding who and what TC is. From not looking
>deep enough. I see him as one of the noblest, heroic, self-sacrificing,
>loving and kind characters in all of fantasy. He was ultimately the best
>of what it means to be human. Furthermore, I think Donaldson clearly
>sees him in this light.
Oh, spare me. This is just the biggest heap of crap I've ever seen
written in defense of Covenant or Donaldson. Why don't you say that
he wrote great and wonderfully poetic prose, better than any writer
in the history of western literature? That would be approximately
as true, and couldn't possibly deteriorate my opinion of your critical
faculties any further.
> I think TC emobodies the paradox of what it means to be human. He shows
>that we are all capable of hideous acts, yet at the same time have within
>us incredible beauty.
Oops well, just as I was about to write you off as a complete idiot,
you go and say something intelligent. This is what Covenant is. He
is all the extremes of the human spirit - in which grace triumphs, but
only at the last, and only with the help of people like Mhoram and
Foamfollower (who is really the greatest of Donaldson's creations).
andrew brian gross
>
>Bullshit. Donaldson didn't handle the theme with as much skill and artistry
>as Dostoyevsky, but who are you going to pick up and read for fun? Each has
Why else would anyone read Dostoyevski? Great literature *is* fun.
--
"The purpose of writing is to | Andrew B. Gross
inflate weak ideas, obscure poor | spc...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu
reasoning, and inhibit clarity." | "Cultivate philosophy and run like hell."
Sea Wasp
>In article <22vdi7$m...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>Then again you know the old adage--'those who can write, those who can't
>>teach.'
>Well, that's certainly a great little line. Too bad it's just a load
>of shit. Criticism is just as important as original creation - to
>anyone who wants to understand what they're reading, and isn't just
>looking for "a good read" to tide them over until the next football
>game.
Ohh boy. Here we go again. Why can't I just let these pass by?
Control, control, you must learn CONTROL!
*Shut up, Yoda.* {boot}
The problem here is that you seem to define criticism as being
"The Way I Interpret This Book". Roy's interpretation of Covenant happens
to agree with mine. The professor's view of Covenant as modern, self-
absorbed man dropped into the Heroic Age is an interesting one, but
not one I agree with. I can see where a superficial reading could give
that impression, but it fails to take into account other factors of Covenant's
existence.
>>Sniveling? Can you cite me a couple of examples where Covenant snivels?
>>I though he bore his burdens with realism and heroism. I think he handled
>You must be joking. Nobody in the history of literature has heaped so
>much angst upon himself. He's a coward, afraid of his own power, and
>willing to let people fight hopelessly and die because he's afraid to
>bear the responsibility of trying to use his might.
I think you're failing to read what Covenant says carefully enough.
In fact, considering your insistence on interpretation and metaphorical
meaning, you seem to be missing one of the obvious ones:
Covenant is not a coward; far from it. He is capable of holding
to a set of beliefs despite physical and mental pain. He breaks once,
just once, and pays for that one break for the remainder of the series.
COVENANT: an agreement, a trust.
Covenant had been taken into the hospital, told the dangers of
leprosy, and told that the greatest danger of all was for him to EVER
give in to fantasy. He made a COVENANT with himself -- to protect himself --
and held to it. "Be True." And he was. His only mistake was in taking
his resolve so LITERALLY. Once he realized that his MIND was as much a
part of him as his BODY, he was then able to see that the covenant of
protection which he had agreed to *required* that he act within the
context of the Land. The brainwashing (for that's what it amounted to)
of the hospital staff immobilized his thinking for some time. Not
surprising, in view of the fact that by the time he left the hospital
everything he valued had been taken from him -- his wife, his child,
his general good health, even two fingers. The *only* thing remaining
to him was to survive, to refuse to give in to destruction. He didn't
WHINE or SNIVEL. He tried to force himself back to "reality" and tried
to impose his sort of reality on the world around him, explain to
the people about him what "real" was. This was what he had been trained
to do, what he had SWORN to do, and Covenant was not a man who gave up
easily. He kept his promises. In the end, he realized that keeping his
MIND intact was just as important as keeping his body intact; thus,
even if the Land was just a delusion, it was an important metaphorical
delusion, with Lord Foul representing the self hatred which he HAD to
defeat. And so he not only COULD act, but HAD to act, whether the Land
was real or false.
Roy may be a sort of evangelist of Covenant, but I agree in
essence with his assessment. I used to hate Covenant and wondered why
I kept reading. It took a long time before I was able to sit down
and come to the conclusion that Covenant was a HERO; just a kind of
hero I hadn't been able to see before.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
William D Moore
: wmo...@pitt.edu (William D Moore) writes:
: >I'm not sure why so many people reacted so strongly to the rape scene. I
: >don't think it was "glorified" in any way by Donaldson.
: Call it a difference in sensibility. What *I* expected, after
: reading the rape and later seeing the result, was for Covenant to feel
: the kind of remorse that leads directly to suicide or full-scale psy-
: chosis or spending the rest of your life in a monastery or something on
: that order -- which would mean, well, no book to write. Or else that
: he at once die an appropriate death, like being fried in fecal fat --
: and again no book.
: What Donaldson actually gave us was, in essence, dude utterly wastes
: fellow human being for fun and then goes on to lead useful, productive
: life. Faugh!
And something like that's not possible for you? Once somebody's committed a
crime they are beyond redemption for all time? Sigh. Fine. The rest of us
will hope you never make it onto the Supreme Court.
: Donaldson is a hack because he is an ovah-REA-chuh. With *very*
: moderate skills he attempted to handle a theme that posed a major challenge
: to Dostoevski.
A difference in taste and opinion of literary quality I can handle. I never
had the opportunity to see any previous postings specifically concerning the
rape scene so I had a rather hazy notion of peoples' objections to it. I
just wanted to determine whether flames were being fanned by politically
correct reactionaries who were going into apoplectic fits because Donaldson
had the audacity to portray a rape and have the character get away with it.
:(Speaking of whom, if you want to see an *adequate* hand-
: ling of a similarly villainous deed and its consequences go read _Crime
: and Punishment_ and find out what happened to Raskolnikov.)
Actually I *have* read it. Three times. Twice in the original Russian, so
nyah! :-).
: -- jf
--
+++ William D. Moore | 'Free food, free drink, free rock & roll...++++
+++ Systems Analyst | I hate this job.' ++++
+++ 734 LRDC | ++++
+++ University of Pittsburgh| Scott & Jim ++++
Lisa S Chabot
>Bullshit. Donaldson didn't handle the theme with as much skill and artistry
>as Dostoyevsky, but who are you going to pick up and read for fun?
Easy: Dostoevski. I found C&P impossible to put down.
> Now, the people who write for in-flight magazines--THEY are hack
>writers.
Ah, you mean like Asimov. (I did save that in-flight magazine, but
it seems to have taken a left in Albuquerque during one of my moves.)
Hmm, some people *might* disagree...
--
The critics? I hate the critics? I have nothing but compassion
for them. How can I hate the crippled, the mentally deficient, and
the dead?
Roy Navarre
TCoTC. Recently, a few have posted that they liked the book but
thought the rape could have been left out.
I don't get it. The rape was described in only a few words. It was
FAR FAR from a graphic description of it. Absoltely no sexual words
were used--the extent of the description was the blood on Lena's groin.
That was it. The rape could have been described far more graphically.
In fact, the rape itself is so understated relative to the other emotional
scenes that Donaldson obviously deliberately kept it sparse. However, he did
explore in depth the impact of the rape.
Why be so offended about the rape? Is this a particularly non-politically
correct crime? What about all the killing in the book? What about all
the killing in almost all epic fantasy. I haven't seen one person object
to the killing of so-and-so who was innocent, or that Covenant killed
10 people when he only needed to kill 3 etc etc etc. Didn't he
'kiss' his daughter at one point? What about the fact that Elena wanted
to sleep with him? Where are the objections about incest?
The thought police are really out in force these days, and what do you know?
They are coming from the liberal ranks more so than conservatives. Go figure.
Seems like the liberal-left can throw a fit when the government wants to
lean on the National Endowment of the Arts to not portray graphic
acts of homosexuality, but the same liberal-left is eager to tell people
how to think and what not to think.
Saw a movie review the other night about a new Donald Southerland movie
The two critics blasted it for having an incest scene.
Reminds me of a series--blanking on the name--of a future earth dominated
by China. The leader of the earth is starting to lose control of the
population. He wants to regain control by putting a wire in each persons
head, so he can make damn sure they don't think or write anything 'incorrect.'
Roy
Roy Navarre
>In article <CAt1...@acsu.buffalo.edu> sw...@acsu.buffalo.edu (stephen swann) writes:
>>In article <22vdi7$m...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>>Then again you know the old adage--'those who can write, those who can't
>>>teach.'
>>Well, that's certainly a great little line. Too bad it's just a load
>>of shit. Criticism is just as important as original creation - to
>>anyone who wants to understand what they're reading, and isn't just
>>looking for "a good read" to tide them over until the next football
>>game. > Ohh boy. Here we go again. Why can't I just let these pass by?
>Control, control, you must learn CONTROL!
*laugh* Trust me, willpower is WAY overrated. :)
>I kept reading. It took a long time before I was able to sit down
>and come to the conclusion that Covenant was a HERO; just a kind of
>hero I hadn't been able to see before.
I very much agree with your post. I think that the people who think Covenant
is a whiner should ask themselves why all the most powerful characters in the
Land either love or love/fear or fear Covenant?
Certainly almost every powerful and noble character we meet
has vast respect for Covenant. The two wisest characters in the book--
foamfollower and Mhoram beyond doubt love and have the utmost respect for
Covenant. Earthpower incarnate- in the form of the Elohim who travelled with
them- all but bowed at TC feet and said I will try to be worthy of you.
The bloodguard, who worshipped honor like no other people, bowed down to
him and wanted to swear another oath. What do all these people see
in Covenant if he is just a self-indulgent whiner?????? THink about that.
And above all--why would GOD pick a whiner to be his champion?
Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but when it contradicts
the facts......
Roy
Roy Navarre
>James P. H. Fuller (j...@legato.ecology.uga.edu) wrote:
>: Donaldson is a hack because he is an ovah-REA-chuh. With *very*
>: moderate skills he attempted to handle a theme that posed a major challenge
>: to Dostoevski.
>: ling of a similarly villainous deed and its consequences go read _Crime
>: and Punishment_ and find out what happened to Raskolnikov.)
>Actually I *have* read it. Three times. Twice in the original Russian, so
>nyah! :-).
*Laugh hard*
This made my day, thanks! Most of us can only dream of such a perfect
comeback.
James not only sees fit to namedrop (hey everybody I read dostoevski)
but he also belittles Donaldson for not being as good a writer and
Donaldson's readers for reading a hack instead of Dostoevski. Did you
read the russian version James or some hack translation? :)
Roy
Dan'l DanehyOakes
> Call it a difference in sensibility. What *I* expected, after
>reading the rape and later seeing the result, was for Covenant to feel
>the kind of remorse that leads directly to suicide or full-scale psy-
>chosis or spending the rest of your life in a monastery or something on
>that order -- which would mean, well, no book to write.
Yes, well, the *point* you see, is that he *DOES*. But he shelters himself from
that remorse by his Unbelief: "you're not responsible for what you do in
dreams."
As long as he can believe this, he can hold that remorse at bay. As the story
progresses, this position becomes more and more untenable. In the second book,
he is able to have his little affair du coeur with Elena only because of it; but
ultimately he is repulsed by the realization that he's been going after his own
daughter. Even in a dream this is unacceptable. And at last, in the third
book, his "not-responsible-for-dreams" defense breaks down completely and he is
forced to accept responsibility for his act, and, more hideously, to accept
Lena's forgiveness.
Contrariwise, if you take the position that the Land *is* a dream, then in fact
he *does* experience "full-scale psychosis," or more accurately what is referred
to as a "psychotic break." Lord Foul, in this reading, is a part of his
personality "broken off" to contain his remorse. The symptoms of his remorse in
the "real" world show in the decay of his leper's rituals, his gradually
decreasing ability to care for himself. The moment of his redemption then is
his saving the little girl in the forest at the probable cost of his own life.
This begins the healing process ("A child was saved!" cries Foamfollower, who
represents Covenant's "good side" in the it's-all-a-dream scenario) which ends
with his confronting his own guilt, i.e., Lord Foul, face-to-face.
> What Donaldson actually gave us was, in essence, dude utterly wastes
>fellow human being for fun and then goes on to lead useful, productive
>life. Faugh!
No. What Donaldson gave us was "dude utterly wastes fellow human being" and
spends vast effort trying to reject his guilt, which leaves him impotent despite
the power he apparently *should* weild. He becomes able to "lead useful
productive life" only by accepting the responsibility for his action.
> Donaldson is a hack because he is an ovah-REA-chuh. With *very*
>moderate skills he attempted to handle a theme that posed a major challenge
>to Dostoevski. (Speaking of whom, if you want to see an *adequate* hand-
>ling of a similarly villainous deed and its consequences go read _Crime
>and Punishment_ and find out what happened to Raskolnikov.)
Donaldson's skills as a stylist at the time he wrote the 1stChron were worse
than moderate; in this respect he was indeed an overreacher. His plotting
also suffered: the book unquestionably drags in places, what Dick Lupoff
called "they walked, and they walked, and then they walked some more" for
endless pages.
But his conception was magnificent, and his characters (or single fragmented
character) incredibly real, and the more so for an inexperienced writer.
--Dan'l, rah rah rah
Chris Dollin
In the second book, he is able to have his little affair du coeur with
Elena only because of it; but ultimately he is repulsed by the
realization that he's been going after his own daughter.
Even in a dream this is unacceptable.
I presume that you intend this constraint to apply to Covenant, rather
than to dreamers in general?
--
Regards, | To me C++ seems to be a language that has sacrificed | Meilir
Kers. | orthogonality and elegance for random expediency. | Page-Jones
Jim_...@transarc.com
>but he also belittles Donaldson for not being as good a writer and
>Donaldson's readers for reading a hack instead of Dostoevski. Did you
>read the russian version James or some hack translation? :)
I don't understand: is it your contention that every time somebody
admits that they read something that wasn't SF it is namedropping?
You certainly have a strange definition of "namedropping" if this
is the case.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Emmet O'Brien
>Saw a movie review the other night about a new Donald Southerland movie
>The two critics blasted it for having an incest scene.
A new Donald Sutherland movie ? Please expand.
> Reminds me of a series--blanking on the name--of a future earth dominated
>by China. The leader of the earth is starting to lose control of the
>population. He wants to regain control by putting a wire in each persons
>head, so he can make damn sure they don't think or write anything 'incorrect.'
>
"Chung Kuo" by David Wingrove, which appears to be set to go on even
longer than _Wheel of Time_ .. it is even more addictive.
And contains a couple of plot-necessary but unpleasant scenes that
would probably upset the same people who are upset by the Covenant rape scene.
- Emmet
>Roy
>
>
Gavin Steyn
expecting Covenant to suffer the sort of remorse that leads eventually
to suicide. Instead, he goes on to lead a productive life. Mr.
Fuller then points us to _Crime and Punishment_ as an example of
how a skilled author handles the theme.
I think Mr. Fuller should go back and re-read _C&P_. When he does,
he will notice that Raskolnikov finds redemption at the end of
the novel, and is at least somewhat at peace with himself. In
fact, I think he's more at peace with himself than Covenant ever is
in the first series...
Gavin Steyn
st...@ll.mit.edu
James P. H. Fuller
I wrote:
> Call it a difference in sensibility. What *I* expected, after
> reading the rape and later seeing the result, was for Covenant to feel
> the kind of remorse that leads directly to suicide or full-scale psy-
> chosis or spending the rest of your life in a monastery or something on
> that order -- which would mean, well, no book to write. Or else that
> he at once die an appropriate death, like being fried in fecal fat --
> and again no book.
>
> What Donaldson actually gave us was, in essence, dude utterly wastes
> fellow human being for fun and then goes on to lead useful, productive
> life. Faugh!
jsi...@jarthur.claremont.edu (Teddy Bear) worried:
> So once somebody makes a mistake--granted, one HELL of a mistake--it damns
> him for life? Covenant spent more time punishing himself than anyone else
> did. It did ruin his life, for if he hadn't, then heroing would have been
> easy for him. You may not like how he developed the character afterward, but
> it is a realistic scenario. People make mistakes--even heroes.
likewise wmo...@pitt.edu (William D Moore) wondered:
>> What Donaldson actually gave us was, in essence, dude utterly wastes
>> fellow human being for fun and then goes on to lead useful, productive
>> life. Faugh!
>
> And something like that's not possible for you? Once somebody's committed a
> crime they are beyond redemption for all time? Sigh. Fine. The rest of us
> will hope you never make it onto the Supreme Court.
All things are of course possible, but -- especially in fiction -- not
all things are desirable. Flaubert and his followers to the contrary, I
expect art to be different from mundane existence; I expect fiction to take
me *out* of myself. I don't want to to see rape and torture and bestial bad
manners, I can get all that at home. In the real world justice is wretchedly
imperfect, that is the mundane truth we live with; but in this I stand with
Eliot, who said mankind cannot stand very much reality, and Nietzche, who
said we have art lest we perish from the truth. I also have most of the
history of fiction amd mythology on my side, as opposed to social realism
and the bourgeois novel of character which, relatively speaking, originated
two weeks ago and will finish dying out in another couple of days. The most
inspiriting and life-giving written art (at all levels of literary polish)
restores our courage to resist and refuse shit-sandwich mundane reality by
giving us a taste of worlds in which justice *does* work, people really *do*
get what they deserve, and the wicked do *not* flourish as a tree planted by
the water. (*)
Tastes differ, naturally, and those whose tastes differ from mine in
this are welcome to read morally ambivalent shit-sandwich novels that faith-
fully reflect morally ambivalent shit-sandwich life. I'll take my steel
without the rust, though, thank y'all very much.
-- jf
(*) ...or, don't bother to jump me about this, in the case of great and bold
works in which evil does nakedly triumph (e.g. Richard III, e.g. The Corona-
tion of Poppea) we are properly left despising the villain and clearly aware
that his (or, Poppea, her) triumph was disastrously wrong.
James P. H. Fuller
nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
|> Why be so offended about the rape? Is this a particularly non-politically
|> correct crime? What about all the killing in the book? What about all
|> the killing in almost all epic fantasy. I haven't seen one person object
|> to the killing of so-and-so who was innocent, or that Covenant killed
|> 10 people when he only needed to kill 3 etc etc etc. Didn't he
|> 'kiss' his daughter at one point? What about the fact that Elena wanted
|> to sleep with him? Where are the objections about incest?
|>
|> The thought police are really out in force these days, and what do you know?
|> They are coming from the liberal ranks more so than conservatives.
Speaking from somewhere over to the right of Ebenezer Scrooge, I
promise you it's possible to be an arch-reactionary and still object to
rapists. In fact the *essential* difference between the right-wing and
loony-liberal attitudes toward rape is in the area of adequate social
response: those guys over there in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land seem satisfied with
six months in minimum-security (with "counselling", of course) while
I think more in terms of public castration followed by hanging.
-- jf
Dave Schaumann
>In article <234k7m$2...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>
>
>
>>Saw a movie review the other night about a new Donald Southerland movie
>>The two critics blasted it for having an incest scene.
>
> A new Donald Sutherland movie ? Please expand.
Yeah, that's massively out of context, IMHO. I believe "the two critics"
were Siskel & Ebert. The name of the movie hasn't stayed with me.
Basically, the plot is: father gets convicted of murdering mother, thanks
at least in part to daughter's testimony. Apparently, the movie takes
up when "dad" gets out of prison and pays a visit on his daughter (who
now has a child of her own). According to S&E, the tension of the movie
is drawn entirely from "is he a crazy psychopath or not?". As S&E said,
you can probably guess the answer to that just from the fact that they
cast Donald Sutherland in the role.
The reason that S&E "blasted it for having an incest scene" was because
they thought that such an otherwise light-weight movie had no buisiness
tackling such a serious subject.
Bringing this back to the original thread, I don't see that this criticism
can be applied to the Covenant stories.
--
Dave Schaumann da...@cs.arizona.edu
Roy Navarre
>>James not only sees fit to namedrop (hey everybody I read dostoevski)
>>but he also belittles Donaldson for not being as good a writer and
>>Donaldson's readers for reading a hack instead of Dostoevski. Did you
>>read the russian version James or some hack translation? :)
>
>I don't understand: is it your contention that every time somebody
>admits that they read something that wasn't SF it is namedropping?
>You certainly have a strange definition of "namedropping" if this
>is the case.
We have been talking about elitism for a few weeks now. Then we get this
post where Donaldson is for some reason compared to Dostoevski and
belittled because he is not as good. Furthermore, we readers of TCoTC
are idiots for reading Donaldson instead of Dostoevski--or if we had
read Dostoevski we would realize what a hack Donaldson is.
In my oh so humble opinion that is a load of crap. James is so busy
stroking his ego that he deserves a little ridicule.
Roy
JENNIFER A. HEISE
e) writes:
>
>I very much agree with your post. I think that the people who think Covenant
>is a whiner should ask themselves why all the most powerful characters in the
>Land either love or love/fear or fear Covenant?
>And above all--why would GOD pick a whiner to be his champion?
>
>Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but when it contradicts
>the facts......
>
>Roy
>
self-indulgent whiner (or rather, from their point of view, a person who
refuses to do anything), but nobody else can do what the champion has to, then
you love/fear this guy even if he is a sh*t. Consider Achilles-- a more self
indulgent whiner is hard to find in literature (_Grendel_ notwithstanding).
But then, I was raised with the admonition, "Get off your butt and _do_
something about it!"
--
Jennifer Heise Net: ja...@lehigh.edu
Reference Dept., Phone: (215) 758-3072
Fairchild-Martindale Libraries #8A, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015
My opinions are my own. No one else would HAVE them anyway.
"Please relax. You are perfectly safe."
"That's not the point! The point is that I am now a perfectly safe penguin,
stephen swann
>>>Then again you know the old adage--'those who can write, those who can't
>>>teach.'
>
>>Well, that's certainly a great little line. Too bad it's just a load
>>of shit. Criticism is just as important as original creation - to
>>anyone who wants to understand what they're reading, and isn't just
>>looking for "a good read" to tide them over until the next football
>>game.
>
> Ohh boy. Here we go again. Why can't I just let these pass by?
Dunno, Sea Wasp. Maybe you need to learn Yoga relaxation techniques.
> The problem here is that you seem to define criticism as being
>"The Way I Interpret This Book". Roy's interpretation of Covenant happens
>to agree with mine. The professor's view of Covenant as modern, self-
>absorbed man dropped into the Heroic Age is an interesting one, but
>not one I agree with. I can see where a superficial reading could give
>that impression, but it fails to take into account other factors of Covenant's
>existence.
So what's the problem, then? You accept it as valid, or not. Even
critics recognise that there are umpteen schools of criticism. My
prof was one of the classical school, which among other things meant
that he didn't take much account of the pop psychology of Donaldson's
characterizations, but just worked with the raw literary imgaery and
symbolism in the novels.
And 'superficial' is centering a literary argument around whether the
character was purely a "good guy" or not.
>>You must be joking. Nobody in the history of literature has heaped so
>>much angst upon himself. He's a coward, afraid of his own power, and
>>willing to let people fight hopelessly and die because he's afraid to
>>bear the responsibility of trying to use his might.
>
> I think you're failing to read what Covenant says carefully enough.
Covenant, or Donaldson? What Covenant *says* certainly isn't gospel (no
pun intended).
> Covenant is not a coward; far from it. He is capable of holding
>to a set of beliefs despite physical and mental pain. He breaks once,
>just once, and pays for that one break for the remainder of the series.
>COVENANT: an agreement, a trust.
> Covenant had been taken into the hospital, told the dangers of
>leprosy, and told that the greatest danger of all was for him to EVER
>give in to fantasy. He made a COVENANT with himself -- to protect himself --
>and held to it.
Boy, that's a powerful argument for him being an unquestionably heroic
character, isn't it? "He worked unflinchingly for his own self-
preservation."
>everything he valued had been taken from him -- his wife, his child,
>his general good health, even two fingers. The *only* thing remaining
>to him was to survive, to refuse to give in to destruction. He didn't
>WHINE or SNIVEL.
Covenant sprang up, whirled in instant rage. "This Land
of yours is trying to kill me!" he spat fiercely. "It--
you're pressuring me into committing suicide! White Gold!--
Berek!--Wraiths! You're doing things to me that I can't
handle. I'm not that kind of person--I don't live in that
kind of world. All these--seductions! Hell and bllod!
I'm a leper! Don't you understand that?"
Yeah, you're right, he's a true stoic hero.
> Roy may be a sort of evangelist of Covenant, but I agree in
>essence with his assessment. I used to hate Covenant and wondered why
>I kept reading. It took a long time before I was able to sit down
>and come to the conclusion that Covenant was a HERO; just a kind of
>hero I hadn't been able to see before.
Well, we're not as far apart on this as you might think (although I'm
a long way from Roy's insanity about Covenat representing "all the
best that's in mankind", and being "one of the greatest, most noble,
most self-sacrificing heroes in all of fantasy literature" (loosely
paraphrasd, but if you back up this thread a couple of posts, you'll
see the comments I'm talking about.
I see Covenant as a severely flawed human being, with great potential.
I don't believe that he would ever have saved the Land under his own
initiative. What saved him was the greatness of the characters within
the land: Lord Mhoram's quiet stength, Foamfollower's incredible
greatness of spirit, the Bloodguard's absolute fidelity, the
unstinting love of Lena and Elena, etc... Whether you view the Land
as something internal to Covenant himself, as manifestations of his
own inner spirit, is a metaphysical matter that I'd just rather not
get into. But to just blithely say that Covenant is unqualifiably one
of the great heroes of fantasy literature is _wrong_ by any reasonable
reading of the books. He's a terribly flawed character, in which
grace only triumphs _at the last_.
Hark all this back to the original post, about the Christian imagery
in the series. About how Covenant, in order to be redeemed as he is,
first must become "the real beast", the essence of the sin in all
men. I think that's probably the most powerful interpretation of
the books I've seen so far.
Neal Smith
> -- jf
This seems to be an answer to "Why be so offended about the rape?"
However, I think the question being asked here is really "Why does the
rape upset you more than all the killing in this book (or other similar
books)?"
I don't know whether or not it was intentional, but you seem to have
avoided answering the question that was asked.
___________________________________________
From Neal Smith (nsm...@sassy.micro.ti.com)
"You know you are safe... with ME." - Kerr Avon
Roy Navarre
>>I couldnt disagree more. I think your lit prof missed the boat on this one.
>>Then again you know the old adage--'those who can write, those who can't
>>teach.'
>Well, that's certainly a great little line. Too bad it's just a load
>of shit. Criticism is just as important as original creation - to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pointless to try and discuss something with a person who has such an
absurd notion.
>Hmm, are you really this stupid, or are you just trying to fake me
>out? I said it was a *metaphorical* representation of his obsessive
>self-interest. If you don't know what metaphorical means, go look it
So quick to take offense....hmmmm
can you say inferiority complex boys and girls?
Condolences Mr Swann.
David Zink
>>In article <22vdi7$m...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>>Sniveling? Can you cite me a couple of examples where Covenant snivels?
>>>I though he bore his burdens with realism and heroism. I think he handled
>
>>You must be joking. Nobody in the history of literature has heaped so
>>much angst upon himself. He's a coward, afraid of his own power, and
>>willing to let people fight hopelessly and die because he's afraid to
>>bear the responsibility of trying to use his might.
>
> I think you're failing to read what Covenant says carefully enough.
> Covenant is not a coward; far from it. He is capable of holding
`coward' as a meaningful criticism either. Cowards always know what
they are fighting to protect, and they are often good at it.
>to him was to survive, to refuse to give in to destruction. He didn't
>WHINE or SNIVEL. He tried to force himself back to "reality" and tried
>to impose his sort of reality on the world around him, explain to
>the people about him what "real" was. This was what he had been trained
>to do, what he had SWORN to do, and Covenant was not a man who gave up
>easily. He kept his promises. In the end, he realized that keeping his
>MIND intact was just as important as keeping his body intact; thus,
>even if the Land was just a delusion, it was an important metaphorical
>delusion, with Lord Foul representing the self hatred which he HAD to
>defeat. And so he not only COULD act, but HAD to act, whether the Land
>was real or false.
Get with the program son. If it whines like a duck, if it snivels like
a duck . . . And every sniveler has been trained to do so. The fact
that he can use his training as an excuse to protect his miraculously
healthy carcass (after all, he's just been healed, then it is suggested
he risk it to save others, at a point in his life when he's not too keen
on the rest of the world anyway). Basically he should have admitted it
was real and not raped the girl, or admitted it was dream and taken
unnatural risks. Instead he plays it both ways.
-- David
David Zink
>I very much agree with your post. I think that the people who think Covenant
>is a whiner should ask themselves why all the most powerful characters in the
>Land either love or love/fear or fear Covenant?
People loved Covenant because they were psychotic, or figments of his
imagination. I personally can't find any value in this unearned love
bullshit. People fear him because he's a walking megaton bomb, and an
insecure whiner to boot.
>Certainly almost every powerful and noble character we meet
>has vast respect for Covenant. The two wisest characters in the book--
>foamfollower and Mhoram beyond doubt love and have the utmost respect for
>Covenant. Earthpower incarnate- in the form of the Elohim who travelled with
>them- all but bowed at TC feet and said I will try to be worthy of you.
>
>The bloodguard, who worshipped honor like no other people, bowed down to
>him and wanted to swear another oath. What do all these people see
>in Covenant if he is just a self-indulgent whiner?????? THink about that.
>And above all--why would GOD pick a whiner to be his champion?
>
>Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but when it contradicts
>the facts......
Dipshit. He's a whiner because he whines. How the others react is
their business. It certainly proves nothing about his behavior.
No matter how you interpret things, the respect Covenant gets from the
Elohim and others is not based on their observation of his
behavior--it's based on their special perception of his innate nature,
or his place in prophecy, or because they are just figments of his
imagination. He betrayed them over and over, and like good religious
dogs they continued to have faith in him.
Jim_...@transarc.com
>just because someone in the present uses past ideas does not invalidate
>present works, or make us poor handicapped people who haven't read much
>Dostoyevski fools.
That wasn't the point: Blish was, at least in part, talking about
readers' reactions to these books. Specifically, he was commenting
on the fact that many of these readers seemed to think that the sytle
was original, when in fact it was not.
As for his being jealous of contemporary writers: huh? Where did you
dream that one up? You don't agree with what Blish says, so your
response is "he's just jealous"? (By the way, Blish was actually
very supportive of many of his contemporaries, including some of
those who were into experimental literature. He was a strong supporter
of Aldiss's Barefoot in the Head, for example.)
>To use an example from another medium, is David Letterman any less of a
>comic genius because his show basically uses old Dave Allen material? Is
>Waynes World no longer funny because it is basically a rip off of The Great
>White North of SC-TV days? Maybe most TV viewers are just not well
>watched.
Wayne's World is supposed to be funny? Oh, I missed that? I thought
it was supposed to be tedious (and it succeeds very well at it, too).
But to your basic point: a comedian borrowing material from the
past. Is it still funny? Yes, if done well. I've seen people
redo Marx Brothers routines, and they were funny, when done well.
But are they original?
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Bronis Vidugiris
)ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
)>He's dead, Jim.
)
)Did anyone else instantly think of Bones and Kirk when they read this? :)
"It's worse than that he's dead, Jim, Dead Jim, DEAD Jim. It's worse
than that he's dead Jim, Dead Jim, DEAD!"
_Star Treking_ [the song]
--
"Stop or I'll scream" -- Black Bolt
Roy Navarre
>People loved Covenant because they were psychotic, or figments of his
>imagination. I personally can't find any value in this unearned love
>bullshit. People fear him because he's a walking megaton bomb, and an
>insecure whiner to boot.
>their business. It certainly proves nothing about his behavior.
>
>No matter how you interpret things, the respect Covenant gets from the
>Elohim and others is not based on their observation of his
>behavior--it's based on their special perception of his innate nature,
>or his place in prophecy, or because they are just figments of his
>imagination. He betrayed them over and over, and like good religious
>dogs they continued to have faith in him.
Did you actually read the books? :)
If you want my advice (you dont of course), empty your teacup and
start over.
Roy
(probably too subtle a comment for you given your perception of TC)
David Zink
>>No matter how you interpret things, the respect Covenant gets from the
>>Elohim and others is not based on their observation of his
>>behavior--it's based on their special perception of his innate nature,
>>or his place in prophecy, or because they are just figments of his
>>imagination. He betrayed them over and over, and like good religious
>>dogs they continued to have faith in him.
>
>Did you actually read the books? :)
>If you want my advice (you dont of course), empty your teacup and
>start over.
I did love the books (I mean the first three) (I read six), I just can't
take this argument that Covenant must have done something to earn the
respect he was getting from the first moment. It's an invalid argument.
He got the respect, devotion etc., he just got it without earning it,
then was slowly forced (he forced himself) to live up to it.
Not that you cared what I was posting in response to.
RICH CARSWELL
After reading the first three books in the RAMA series, I have been
waiting impatiently for the fourth and final book. Clarke and Gentry Lee
should have had RAMA REVISITED out by now however I cannot find it anywhere.
THE GARDEN OF RAMA was great, but I may have to re-read the entire series
if the last book is not out soon.
Any info anyone?
Thanks,
rickc
Ruchira Datta
James P. H. Fuller <ful...@athena.cs.uga.edu> wrote:
>nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>> Did you read the russian version James or some hack translation? :)
>
>you-all expect?
It's Dostoevskovo (actually spelled Dostoevskogo, for some weird
reason), not Dostoevska. The name Dostoevskiy is declined as
an adjective.
Ruchira Datta
da...@math.berkeley.edu