Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART IV Message-ID: <228@azure.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 23:34:59 EDT Article-I.D.: azure.228 Posted: Wed Jun 5 23:34:59 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 01:24:59 EDT References: <1095@druri.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 111 > > THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCCE FICTION TODAY > > PART IV: Fantasy, Or How To Hack A Hobbit And > Build A Balrog In One Easy Lesson > > by Davis Tucker > _____________________________________________________________________________ > The Thomas Covenant books started off with promise, and an interesting > premise - that a leper is fundamentally different in his world-view from > you and me. But fifty pages or so into the first book, the ten warning > signs of mediocre fantasy start screaming at you. Giants, evil wizards, > etc., etc., etc. And by the time you finish the first three, there's this > horrible realization that this is a story that can and will go on forever. Interesting, I'm reading Mr. Tuckers presentation on what he considers to be the problems in sf/fantasy today (sometimes agreeing/sometimes not) and just when I began to wonder what his views of the Covenant books are, this little bit comes up. Well, you have struck a deep cord with me on this one. Namely this: I consider the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant to be one of the best books in the fantasy field (or any field for that matter). Certainly in the top ten. I can remember many times getting into disagreements over people about these books, and it has become apparent to me that no one who has ever read them (or tried to read them) has been able to remain neutral about them. Either they consider it one of THE best stories ever written or they despised it exceedingly (At least I have never met anyone with a neutral opinion). Most of the complaints I have heard against this story are mainly against the character of Thomas Covenant himself. I will be the first to admit that he is not your typical fantasy/sf hero. I'm not even sure you can classify him as an anti-hero (ala Elric). The inability to classify him is one of the reasons I have enjoyed him so much as a character. You can't pin the guy down. Here is a character who is who he is despite how the reader feels he should be. Covenant is a Worm. This is the most commonly heard complaint about him from the detractors. He's always down on himself; he never allows others to help him; he hurts others without seeming to care; And so on and so forth. I have only one thing to say: How in the world can he act any other way? Look at where the guy is coming from. He's an outcast from society and he knows it. He has also got the brains to realize that if he let's societies cold shoulder get to him (ie if he begins to care) he will go nuts. In the story, the impossible (in his view) happens: He enters a world totally unlike the one he lives in. He is suddenly inundated with Health and loving when he had just come to live with the idea of never having those things again. To keep himself from going mad, he dis-believes it. He says that he is only dreaming. And he knows that if he is dreaming, then one day he will wake up to find himself once more a leper, and he can't face going through that again. So instead of facing a danger to his sanity, he refuses to believe in his cure. Despite all the evidence, the health, the loving the others in the story give him; he stands strong by his leprosy. It is all he has left TOO stand on. In his article, Mr. Tucker complains about the introduction of the generic fantasy elements into the story. The point I think he fails to see is that it is these elements that set of the whole story. This is not a fantasy novel whose main character happens to be a leper; this is a story of a leper who must come to terms with the nature of his disease when he suddenly finds himself in a fantasy setting. Furthermore, the so-called generic fantasy elements are in my opinion far from generic. This book has some of the most creative fantasy elements I have ever seen in any book. Even Tolkien borrowed heavily from mythology when he wrote LOTR, but Donaldson had to create a totally new setting. In the Land there were no elves, dwarves, dragons. Nor were there kindly old though somewhat absentminded wizards (The Lords of Revelstone may have wielded some "magic" but they were very naive in there understanding of it). The people of the land were quite diversified with many fascinating backgrounds. The Bloodguard with there Vow to the Lords; the Waynhim and there rebellion against there brothers the ur-viles; the Ramen and the Raynhim who they attend with a devotion approaching a religion; and foremost, the Giants. The Rockbrothers and there story make one of the most interesting sub-plots to this tale. The very nature of it's telling ranks on par with mane "real" stories out of earth mythology. But of course, let us not forget the other side... The "bad guys" (to use a generic term) were also quite unique (except for maybe the cave wights who have many of the same characteristics as trolls and orcs). First there are the ur-viles, an artificially created race who have no true ancestry. They are the only race in the Land who truely do not belong simply because they were not a part of the "nature" of this world. But even better were the Ravers. Possession may be an old mainstay of other fantasy stories but nowhere other then the Covenenant books have I seen a truly wonderful indepth look as to how possession affects the possessed (actually this becomes one of the main themes of the second trilogy). Finally, of course comes Lord Foul the Despiser himself. along with ranking Covenant as the best main character of any book I have ever read, I place Foul at the top of any listing of antagonists. I could go on for pages about the nature of Fouls being (and give away a major part of the story in the meantime). Suffice it to say that when I gave this book to a World Lit teacher of mine in High School (a women who, mind you, HATED "modern" sci-fi/fantasy), she was overflowing with comments on the symbolism involved in the Covenant/Foul duo. These two characters are perhaps the best match-ups of protagonist/antagonist I have ever seen. You think that Sauron was a good antagonist? Look closer. The character of Sauron never (and I do mean NEVER) surfaces in LOTR. He's always in the background setting up events, but you never actually get a look at the guy himself, what his motivations are, that sort of thing (though Tolkien does remedy this somewhat in "The Silmarillion"). Anyways, sorry for going on so long about this but like I said, I love this story and I will defend it against all critics. Chris Andersen UUCP: tektronix!azure!chrisa