Thomas Covenant - Does It Get Better?

[Gorn]

I'm about two thirds into the first Thomas Covenant book, and I don't know if I can keep reading.

I picked it up mostly on its reputation as an Important Genre Book, but I don't know if I can suffer through his POV for 5+ more books. I've read my share of grimdark protagonists, but Tyrion and Logen and Kellhus were at least interesting, each in his way. So, to anyone who has read the whole thing - should I?

Will he go through any character development any time soon, or am I going to be rereading the same internal monologue where he rejects the reality of the Land every two pages? Will he ever start reflecting about the fucking rape that he committed? Is Lord Foul really such an idiot to tell his whole plan to the only person who can stop him and send him to take a message to his enemies? Will I miss anything good if I stop reading?

Don't worry about spoilers, I no longer care if it gets spoiled for me.

[Ormond]

Well, here is a post by the Library Ladder YouTube channel that I found very interesting and pertinent about this series, though it deals with the entire first trilogy, not just the first book:

 

Personally I read the first Covenant series a very long time ago. I liked it, though it will never be my favorite. My main negative problem with it was how the author seems to be too much in love with obscure words like inanition. It does seem to be a work that inspires strong positive or negative opinions, and I think young people who come to it after having read a lot of more recently published fantasy series are less likely to enjoy it than those of us who read it years ago when it was one of the few post-Tolkien big fantasy works available.

[hauberk]

I think it is. I struggled with the first book on my first attempt but even without the aforementioned rape, the vocabulary was a bit beyond me at 12. 
 

Since then, it’s been in regular recirculating to my reread pile. 
 

it has some amazingly beautiful and tragic moments. 

[IFR]

Covenant goes through a redemption arc of sorts, but I doubt it will be in a way that you find satisfying. It's possible, but I doubt it. I think you would be saving yourself a great deal of grief if you just moved on.

I personally loved how horrible a person Covenant was written to be. I didn't find the Land or Lord Foul particularly interesting, but I continued because it was fun reading about each new awful thing that Covenant did. It was the only the thing that carried me through.

[Ran]

I'd finish the first book, since you made it that far. It might make you decide to press on, and if not, well, it was a valiant effort.

[Jace, Extat]

Make like a book and have a spine

Finish

God forbid a thing be more emotionally complex than an episode of Modern Family

Imagine if you wussed out after Jamie threw that stupid brat out that window? 

(This is a pep talk)

[mormont]

I love Donaldson's other writing but gave up on TC in the first book for the same reasons you cite above. It didn't work for me. No harm or foul (no pun intended) in that. I can't say if it gets better, but I can say it's fine to quit. Life's too short to make yourself read a book that's not paying off for you.

[Rorshach]

I finished the book earlier this year, for mostly the same reasons as you cite, but it was a slog and I considered quitting.

For that reason, I won't be picking up any sequels. Enough other books out there, I figure.

[SeanF]

I never made it to the end.

[Lord Patrek]

As others suggested, I think you should try to finish it. The Covenant books are not easy to get into, that's for sure. They probably haven't aged that well compared to other SFF works, yet they feature lots of amazing and rewarding moments.

If you're not into it by the end of the first volume, then these books just aren't for you and you shouldn't waste time trying to enjoy them.

[SeanF]

I think the Thomas Covenant books are like the last three books in the Dune series.

You either love them or find them unreadable.  I find them unreadable.

[JGP]

The First and Second Chronicles, and the Gap into Conflict, I'd deem essential genre reading, imo. 

[Lord Patrek]

16 minutes ago, JGP said:

The First and Second Chronicles, and the Gap into Conflict, I'd deem essential genre reading, imo. 

[Werthead]

I would say that the Gap series encapsulates many of the ideas Donaldson is going for in TC, but handled much better and in a more readable and more approachable style (not least of which is that the first book is like half the length of the first TC book, so you can tell if you are into much more quickly, although the first Gap book is also written in a completely different style to the other four).

[IlyaP]

21 hours ago, Gorn said:

I picked it up mostly on its reputation as an Important Genre Book, but I don't know if I can suffer through his POV for 5+ more books. I've read my share of grimdark protagonists, but Tyrion and Logen and Kellhus were at least interesting, each in his way. So, to anyone who has read the whole thing - should I?

It's worth reading to understand it's place in the history of fantasy literature, particularly in terms of the chain of inspiration it produced. It's an important moment in fantasy history as well, in terms of when it was published, as something that, for its time, was an alternative to what by all accounts a period of Tolkien-derivative works, as I understand it. 

[Wilbur]

I agree with Ormond and IlyaP's views on the books, particularly in their place in history post-Tolkien, pre-grimdark.

The character arc is one with which all of us find very difficult to identify, so you are not alone there.  Even those of us who are fans will not try to convince you that your feelings about TC are incorrect in any way.

To me, the best parts of the Chronicles are the relationships among the characters, and how they develop those relationships with each other despite their immense character flaws.  There is a strong sense of intentionality in the friendships, enmity, etc. that is well-written and absent in many other stories.

If you can focus on the relationships and their growth and evolution, it helps to make the tough story more palatable.

Finally, once you have read TC, other contemporary 70s-80s SciFi writers like Julian May have a little more depth or entry for the reader.  They share a worldview that has passed, so their books a very different, but have a common flavor that is easier to detect.

[hauberk]

9 hours ago, Wilbur said:

I agree with Ormond and IlyaP's views on the books, particularly in their place in history post-Tolkien, pre-grimdark.

The character arc is one with which all of us find very difficult to identify, so you are not alone there.  Even those of us who are fans will not try to convince you that your feelings about TC are incorrect in any way.

To me, the best parts of the Chronicles are the relationships among the characters, and how they develop those relationships with each other despite their immense character flaws.  There is a strong sense of intentionality in the friendships, enmity, etc. that is well-written and absent in many other stories.

If you can focus on the relationships and their growth and evolution, it helps to make the tough story more palatable.

Finally, once you have read TC, other contemporary 70s-80s SciFi writers like Julian May have a little more depth or entry for the reader.  They share a worldview that has passed, so their books a very different, but have a common flavor that is easier to detect.

Well said. I wrote two or three drafts trying to convey something similar and was never satisfied. The closest I came before giving up was trying to express that Covenant, to me, is little more than the vessel used to convey the hope and wonder of those around him while generally being the only real source of hopelessness. 

[Werthead]

One of the most interesting things about the first book - the first trilogy, really - is the idea that the Land might not exist and the whole thing is a mad fever vision of the dying Covenant.

However, that tension kind of falls away when you realise there's ten books in the setting in total and other POV characters eventually show up, which is a bit of a clue as to the answer to that question.

[Mazzack]

I haven't read them in almost fourteen years, but my memory was that the most compelling part of the books was the ethical and emotional dilemma that Covenant presented to the inhabitants of the Land, as a result of them Covenant being so clearly unvirtuous, but also seeming to be the hope to defeat Lord Foul.

[Wilbur]

19 hours ago, Werthead said:

One of the most interesting things about the first book - the first trilogy, really - is the idea that the Land might not exist and the whole thing is a mad fever vision of the dying Covenant.

However, that tension kind of falls away when you realise there's ten books in the setting in total and other POV characters eventually show up, which is a bit of a clue as to the answer to that question.

I agree.

Specifically when Gilden Fire came out, it ruined that idea, since clearly Korik is experiencing The Land without any of TC's input.