Thomas Covenant - Does It Get Better?

[Ran]

I mean, he cut out "Gilden Fire" from the book specifically because he realized it was moving away from the premise.

But honestly, Hile Troy's story in Ill-earth War is enough to suggest it, and by the Second Chronicle it's well and truly put-paid since , well, there's Linden Avery.

[Madame deVenoge]

I would say “no, it does not get batter” to the question posed by the OP; however, my perspective is from the 15-year old Chataya.

My views on many things have evolved over the years, but I’ve not tested the particular premise of “Thomas Covenant - Does It Get Better or Not”.

[C.T. Phipps]

I think The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are a fantastic book series and one of the classics of the genre but they also are specifically something that need to be appreciated as what they are: which is a deconstruction of a huge number of fantasy concepts and going for something most fantasy readers are not looking for.

1. Thomas Covenant rejects the nature of the Land because it's a story about him refusing to embrace the portal fantasy. He's not the kind of guy who is going to man up and become a heroic Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (who wasn't a hero anyway) but wallow in his own misery. Because his self-hatred and misery IS the curse on the Land.

2. The assault Thomas does is meant to be the moment where Donaldson tells the reader, "I've been telling you for page after page that Thomas is a piece of crap that hates himself. You believed that I was going to have him discover self-love. NOPE. You, too, will believe he's a piece of crap that SHOULD hate himself."

3. I agree that Thomas Covenant should never have figured out whether the Land was real or not. There's a lot of interesting philosophical ideas like essentially, "Thomas Covenant is trapped in fantasy Grand Theft Auto" that it doesn't matter what he does in the Land because it's all his imagination but Thomas never entertains this even when he's not doing it.

[James Arryn]

My general rule is to push through, as an exercise in mental discipline if nothing else, though that has lead to the dubious accomplishment of finishing some awful books I didn’t enjoy at all. To be fair I think I’m always hoping it will get better, it’s not like I know for sure it will be terrible to the end and get there anyways, I think if I knew I’d stop.
 

There was one murder mystery novel, good reviews, pretty stock and the catch that kept me going was that it seemed to imply some kind of magical force behind the deaths…in a procedural crime novel…and I kept assuming it could not be the answer and wondering how the author would explain away the phenomena…but no, in the end it was witchcraft and demons and an entire English village belonging to a cult and I was only happy to be done with it. Another one was this kind of Bourne Identity rip-off…and already that’s not a great start…about this cadre of bred and trained-since-childhood super assassins that I honestly read more or less ironically, kind of daring the author to turn over yet more shallow hackneyed cliches, and to his (?) credit he kept rising to the challenge. Terrible book. 

[Wilbur]

In truth, the Chronicles of TC the Unbeliever are not terrible books.

They are truly well-crafted novels written about a terrible person.  There used to be a thread about novels where the protagonist is evil or something like that.  Now in my view TC isn't evil, but he is a terribly flawed and broken character, and he seeks to cling to "rationality" since he thinks his experience in The Land is some kind of fever dream / dying hallucination.

[C.T. Phipps]

38 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

In truth, the Chronicles of TC the Unbeliever are not terrible books.

They are truly well-crafted novels written about a terrible person.  There used to be a thread about novels where the protagonist is evil or something like that.  Now in my view TC isn't evil, but he is a terribly flawed and broken character, and he seeks to cling to "rationality" since he thinks his experience in The Land is some kind of fever dream / dying hallucination.

I actually argue that Stephen Donaldson is running into a problem with modern readers he wouldn't have expected, which is the fact a lot of us are experienced gamers. Anyone after 2000 or so would assume that Thomas Covenant might be understandable in going on a rampage in his hallucination because he assumes everything is fake.

But the books never really entertain the Land being fake and treat Thomas as deluded even when it's from his perspective.

The books would have been better, IMHO, if Donaldson had made it more unclear if Thomas was right and he's just dreaming it all.

[Wilbur]

37 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I actually argue that Stephen Donaldson is running into a problem with modern readers he wouldn't have expected, which is the fact a lot of us are experienced gamers. Anyone after 2000 or so would assume that Thomas Covenant might be understandable in going on a rampage in his hallucination because he assumes everything is fake.

But the books never really entertain the Land being fake and treat Thomas as deluded even when it's from his perspective.

The books would have been better, IMHO, if Donaldson had made it more unclear if Thomas was right and he's just dreaming it all.

You may be correct in the response to the book of modern readers, in that rather than react to The Land as a hallucination to be recoiled from, they would better identify with TC if he reacted to The Land as a virtual reality to be exploited.

That is an interesting thought experiment in how computers have changed the perceptions of those living today to an unexpected experience such as a traditional Fantasy genre portal world.

Rather than reject the experience as a non-Aristotelian artifact and thus evidence of a crumbling intellect, do modern readers embrace such a portal world experience as a penalty-free opportunity to run wild?

[mormont]

9 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I actually argue that Stephen Donaldson is running into a problem with modern readers he wouldn't have expected, which is the fact a lot of us are experienced gamers. Anyone after 2000 or so would assume that Thomas Covenant might be understandable in going on a rampage in his hallucination because he assumes everything is fake.

But the books never really entertain the Land being fake and treat Thomas as deluded even when it's from his perspective.

The books would have been better, IMHO, if Donaldson had made it more unclear if Thomas was right and he's just dreaming it all.

No, my problem is that even if TC believed the Land to be fake, that doesn't morally excuse his actions. In particular, the rape.

[SeanF]

I can enjoy a book with a villain protagonist, but there must be something about them that’s engaging and sympathetic.  I found nothing that was so in Thomas Covenant (which is also the problem I had with Jorge, in Prince of Thorns).

[C.T. Phipps]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

No, my problem is that even if TC believed the Land to be fake, that doesn't morally excuse his actions. In particular, the rape.

This confuses me as a response because if there's absolutely one thing true about Thomas Covenant, it is the books don't morally excuse him. There's absolutely no apologia, no excuses, or attempts to diminish the act. Thomas makes it abundantly clear he hates himself for it, it literally destroys large parts of reality, and there's no way to atone for it spiritually or mentally.

Which is part of the book's central theme: that Thomas is not a hero, can never be one (all of this is his fault) and that he can never be a villain because he doesn't want to hurt other people to make himself feel better since it didn't. So he hates himself and tries (badly) to fix the unfixable.

It's a story about depression, guilt, and self-hatred. Which isn't subtext but text.

Which I mean with the Land being fake and all a dream, it is the fact that Stephen Donaldson doesn't really engage with any of the elements of the story other than this that he could have. There's a lot of interesting angles about being put into the Matrix (for use of a nother metaphor) and the holodeck that don't get addressed. Despite Thomas insisting it's not real, he never really acts like it's not.

There's a lot to the books other than the sexual assault which is, indeed, a central element of the story.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

I can enjoy a book with a villain protagonist, but there must be something about them that’s engaging and sympathetic.  I found nothing that was so in Thomas Covenant (which is also the problem I had with Jorge, in Prince of Thorns).

Thomas, of course, refuses to become a villain just like he refuses to become a hero. Which sort of thwarts Lord Foul just like it thwarts the Land's elders. He's just sort of the guy who is utterly trying to disengage with everything.

Though Lawrence actually pulled back in a way that Donaldson didn't.

Spoiler

Jorg turning out to have been mind-controlled during his rampage.

But yes, I feel like the books are one that everyone is perfectly justified in dropping if they don't want to engage with Thomas Covenant after the scene. In fact, I'd argue there's a lot MORE reasons to do it because the books have The Watchmen sort sf deconstruction at the core.

"If you don't want to deal with three books of a guy being the most absolute reversal of a hero possible and NOT in a villainous way but, 'Lacking completely in any heroic qualities whatsoever but suffering horrible depression and self-hatred' then skip it."

 

[Wilbur]

That is all very true.

The one aspect of TC's character that is admirable is his sense of self-restraint after the rape.  He knows that he has sinned, and he seeks to avoid further sins of commission.   His intentionality and commitment to avoiding sins of commission is an admirable, if not attractive, trait.

But Donaldson knows that to retreat from the world (or in this case The Land), is to risk the sins of omission.  And so in fleeing from one wrong action, TC commits the sin of inaction in the other direction.  Look at all the different times in the first trilogy that TC faces an option to act, and how many times he rejects it, like step three in the hero's journey over and over.  If you were raised in a religious community or home, this is a familiar and accurate reading of how compliance to religious virtues can lead to missing out on opportunities to do good or to interact meaningfully in life.

Given Donaldson's upbringing (his parents were doctors in a leper colony in India as missionaries), you can see how this informs his writing.  To C.T. Phipps excellent point, such a worldview is a lot less common today than it was for people coming of age morally in the 1970s.

[C.T. Phipps]

The book is one that I did think would have been more interesting if you'd seen more perspectives than Thomas' but you can't because, of course, there's arguably no perspectives other than Thomas'. He is the Demiurge of the Land even if they exist separately of them.

In the end, we're still talking about the books a half-century later because, if nothing else, Donaldson did successfully subvert the Hero's Journey and make it clear he is NOT the kind of person you normally read about.

It is a book that subverts and breaks the rules of fantasy.

[hauberk]

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The book is one that I did think would have been more interesting if you'd seen more perspectives than Thomas' but you can't because, of course, there's arguably no perspectives other than Thomas'. He is the Demiurge of the Land even if they exist separately of them.

In the end, we're still talking about the books a half-century later because, if nothing else, Donaldson did successfully subvert the Hero's Journey and make it clear he is NOT the kind of person you normally read about.

It is a book that subverts and breaks the rules of fantasy.

Good summation here and from @Wilbur  

 

As was, I think, noted above, TC and Elric were gateways to proto-GrimDark. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Lord Foul's Bane strikes me as one of the weaker books in the original two trilogies (the competitor is The One Tree). The Illearth War and The Power That Preserves are massive steps up. For the record, I have only read the first two books of the last series, because I thought they were that shit - the original two trilogies IMHO are great.

So far as The Gap goes... yes, it has a great conclusion, and some great lines, but for me, the middle volumes simply move too slowly. 

[Gaston de Foix]

Some excellent points on this thread.  Like many, I read TC as a teenager because my school library had a copy.  So that has colored my recollection, and I found the "Last Chronicles" unreadable and uniformly terrible.  But I will say two things in defense of the first trilogy.  

1.  Lord Mhoram's victory is one of the finest pieces of writing in the genre.  It stands by itself as prose, and it feels earned.   It gives you the feels.  It's been a wonder for me that more contemporary fantasy writing doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from the phenomenal success of ASOIAF.  I understand the scope and scale are hard (impossible?) to replicate.  But read that chapter, in context, and you will feel like you did when Robb Stark is declared King in the North before GRRM ever put pen to paper. 

2. The series boldly tries to experiment with a number of philosophical concepts, with varying success.  One concept, done relatively well and only rarely used in fantasy literature, is the repudiation of violence.  

[hauberk]

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Lord Foul's Bane strikes me as one of the weaker books in the original two trilogies (the competitor is The One Tree). The Illearth War and The Power That Preserves are massive steps up. For the record, I have only read the first two books of the last series, because I thought they were that shit - the original two trilogies IMHO are great.

So far as The Gap goes... yes, it has a great conclusion, and some great lines, but for me, the middle volumes simply move too slowly. 

Generally, I agree with this but for the events at the Isle. The fight with the Guardian and the Seadreamer events were moments that I recall with fondness. 

[hauberk]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Some excellent points on this thread.  Like many, I read TC as a teenager because my school library had a copy.  So that has colored my recollection, and I found the "Last Chronicles" unreadable and uniformly terrible.  But I will say two things in defense of the first trilogy.  

1.  Lord Mhoram's victory is one of the finest pieces of writing in the genre.  It stands by itself as prose, and it feels earned.   It gives you the feels.  It's been a wonder for me that more contemporary fantasy writing doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from the phenomenal success of ASOIAF.  I understand the scope and scale are hard (impossible?) to replicate.  But read that chapter, in context, and you will feel like you did when Robb Stark is declared King in the North before GRRM ever put pen to paper. 

2. The series boldly tries to experiment with a number of philosophical concepts, with varying success.  One concept, done relatively well and only rarely used in fantasy literature, is the repudiation of violence.  

I found plenty of moments in the Last Chronicles to appreciate but agree to an extent. While I mentioned TC as proto-grim dark earlier, it’s also, for me, one of the most hopeful series that I’ve read and enjoyed the Giants, the Lords, the haruchai are all characters that continue to display such acts of loyalty and hope even in the face of Despite.  Every time I’ve gone back to the series, I’ve felt a flutter of joy when Foamfollower makes his appearance. 

[JGP]

Pitchwife!

Cail of the Haruchai.

Even Vain and Findail lol

 

The Second Chronicles are my fave by a mile. 

Covenant's, and parts from Linden's pov can be hard reading. Triggering even, Donaldson understands trauma. But. Everything around them? The Land, the other characters, just...

Yeah, going to need a reread soon.    

[Ran]

One thing I'll say about Donaldson is that he is sui generis. There are Tolkien clones and GRRM clones and C.S. Lewis clones and Eddings clones and on and on, but I've never heard of anyone even thinking of trying to write something "like Covenant" or "like the Gap". It's too unique and daunting, I think.

They have a strange and inexorable power, the Covenant books. He taps into something very deep and primal.

[Jussi]

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

One thing I'll say about Donaldson is that he is sui generis. There are Tolkien clones and GRRM clones and C.S. Lewis clones and Eddings clones and on and on, but I've never heard of anyone even thinking of trying to write something "like Covenant" or "like the Gap". It's too unique and daunting, I think.

 

There is The Way to Babylon by Paul Kearney, which has something common with Thomas Covenant books. The fantasy world feels like Donaldson's The Land. Kearney said in an interview about his first novel:

Quote

Only when I stopped caring about the minutiae of dates and names did I actually begin to think in terms of plot and character, and start to write a real book, which when it came out owed more to Stephen Donaldson than anyone else.

 

Ran, can you name some of the GRRM clones?