I’ve finished the first three books in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and decided to stop. My interest in the series was piqued when I read some reviews which criticized them for an unlikable main character or a distasteful central plot device and wanted to read them for myself to see why they are so polarizing. Ultimately, though, I disagree that either of those is the major problem with the series. The issue is much more fundamental; the books open by posing interesting philosophical questions (“Can you harm something that doesn’t exist?”, “Does uncertainty/disbelief negate culpability?”) but fail as a narrative experience beyond that.
Other than Thomas Covenant himself (who is vastly more developed than any other character) the characters are shallow and not particularly believable. They’re introduced and the reader is lead to believe they’re central characters before they’re unceremoniously killed off with no build up (and little description).
This tendency extends beyond individual characters. Epic battles and events are matter-of-factly relayed with scant description over the course of a few paragraphs with no chance for the reader to get emotionally invested (contrast the battles in The Chronicles with The Battle of Helm’s Deep or the Chain of Dogs). In other books I’ve felt like I was in the battle but Donaldson was never able to bring me off the sidelines. An entire side quest is introduced and then treated as an after thought (see Gilden-Fire).
The setting (imaginatively called “The Land”) itself suffers from these problems. The Land is supposedly an ancient world with a complex history of many different peoples and regions but feels woefully unexplored and unexplained. Peoples in the book (Giants, Ramen, Haruchai) are boiled down to one dimensional stereotypes (“the loyal companion”, “the unbeatable warrior” etc) with little effort made to develop their individual cultures.
My impression is that Donaldson approaches his work first as a means to explore a philosophy and second as a story. This strikes me as contrasting strongly with other epic fantasy authors like Tolkien, Martin or Stevenson who succeed in embedding morality and ethics in compelling stories that are rewarding to read. Thoughts? Any of you find The Chronicles more worthwhile than I have? Perhaps some of the world building and narrative improves over the following seven novels but why would I continue when the first three were so poor?
I've only read the first trilogy, and it was when I was much younger so my impressions if I read it today could be different.
I think most of your criticisms are intentional decisions by the writer, the focus of the book is much more about the protagonist's point of view and the internal struggle they are going through, and the philosophical implications of his experiences. I remember finding the world building very unique and compelling when I read it, but its not "fleshed out" because you only see what Covenant sees, your perspective is confined to his.
But I also think the world building intentionally both mimics and subverts common fantasy tropes, with the cliched or shallow characters being used to explore the themes. After all, isn't the whole thing just a delusion that the main character is experiencing? Wouldn't his delusional brain populate it with archetypes and cliches? That would be a cop out of if that was the only reasoning, but I think he does successfully subvert or manipulate those tropes in a lot of ways.
When I first read it in the late 80s, I hadn't read anything else like it. Dark fantasy of this kind was not common (there was Sword & Sorcery stuff but I don't think that has the same kind of grounded, personal bleakness) and I found the unrelenting grimness of the main character and his experiences very provocative. I still don't think that there is a better example of a dark lord type villain that thrives on corrupting his opponents; the way that characters (and sometimes entire cultures) are manipulated into becoming the thing they hate the most is vivid and horrific in these books.
I've been meaning to re-read the series and see how it compares to my memories, I'll post here if I get around to it.
edit: I just looked it up and it was published in 1977. That's actually blown my mind a bit, I think this book was way ahead of its time in style and themes and was incredibly influential in genre fiction.
I agree that some of the elements I've criticized are intentional; I'm not entirely convinced that excuses them. The books are not really only from Covenant's perspective, there are other POV characters. The "side quest" I mention is especially illustrative since its a quest Covenant explicitly refuses to get involved with and is then told by another character in retrospect (with characteristically little detail). Many of the major battles Covenant isn't even present for and we get another POV character or the omniscient narrator.
So while I agree that the central plot device and the associated moral questions are definitely intentional (and effective), I don't think the narrative style or lack of atmosphere can be excused in the same way. I've no doubt the books were ahead of their time and influential (and I'm glad I tried them for those reasons) but I don't think they hold up very well. If you do re-read, I'm curious what you think.
That's fair enough I guess. I just think that those details that you're looking for aren't what the novels are about. They aren't trying to create epic fantasy world building and evocative battles, they're an exploration of a man's pain and self loathing and his search for meaning and values.
I think getting into traditional fantasy heroics undermines that intent. If I remember correctly most of, if not all of, those kind of events that are portrayed in the book are essentially there to heighten the tragedy of what comes after. You mention in your OP writers like Tolkien and Martin and their explorations of morality and ethics but I don't think they are at all comparable to what Donaldson is doing. Tolkien's morality is incredibly simplistic, and Martin's characters display a variety of moral attitudes but they are rarely explored in any depth. The intent of those books is very different to the Covenant Chronicles.
I am curious now to reassess them, I'll have to make the effort.