Breaking the Author/Reader Contract.

[jester47]

I can think of very few things I consider more despicable, horrific, and vile than rape. Nobody capable of commiting rape has any business as a "hero." Ever.

Any book that asks me to sympathize with a rapist gets put down, quick.

The fact that I found it relatively boring and uninteresting even before that point probably didn't help, either. But the rape scene guaranteed that I wasn't about to give it another chance.

The modern world greatly misunderstands what a "hero" is. I think there is a difference between a "Hero" and an "American Hero." The "American Hero" is a morally flawless person who sacrifices him or herself. This is largely a myth exemplified by Superman.

Hero's are not and were not intended to be role models. They were people that rose to the occasion when needed. Some examples- Achilles could be argued to be guilty of rape of sorts. Clint Eastwood's character in High Planes Drifter, another rapist, is the town hero. The Grey Mouser commits rape when he is attacked by a gladiatorial woman teleported to his apartment. The greek word for "Hero" was "ex-pyrosis" meaning "From the Fire." In other words these were not pleasant Clark Kent Comic Book "American Heros." They were the real thing. They become heros when serving their own self interests, or just going about their business as soldiers, vigilantes, thieves or whatever, they did somthing that just happens to benefit others. Typically, the hero is someone despicable that you put in the way of the other despicable people coming after you.

The morally flawless "American Hero" image has slowly begun to replace the morally flawed true "Hero" and is pushing that archetype into the role of "Anti-hero." Still, I would wager the "American Hero" as a reality is truely so rare that it is still somthing for the politicians, news media, storybooks, and early 80's TV.

Aaron.

 

[Storm Raven]

I didn't miss that at all. That's why I said "good or morally ambiguous" characters.

And Covenant is neither a good nor morally ambiguous character.

I know that Covenant isn't meant to be a hero. But he's also not meant to be the villain of the series.[/b]

Are you certain of that?

And frankly, I find him, his actions, and his general personality so repugnant and unpleasant that I wasn't enjoying reading about him. I don't know how to say it any clearer than that. The part of the book I read was, IMO, bad.

The books aren't about Covenant though. They are about those around him.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's about the ability to dislike something that someone else likes without being told you're wrong and/or missing the point.

Except that your posts indicate that you continually miss the point.

Yup, Nope, and Yup. In that order. Some of the Corleones were indeed, mere thugs. Others (Vito, Michael) had a strong sense of morality and a code of behavior. It differed from that of the society around them, but they did have one. And they tried to do what was right for their family/their people, even if it involved murder, etc. It doesn't make them right, or just, but it does make them something other than mere thugs. But again, beside the point. I guess I'm just feeling argumentative today.

No, not beside the point. The Corleones "protect their family", but the point of protecting their family is to allow them to engage in the greedy pursuit of illegal money. Dress it up all you want, but they still remain murderous thuigs willing to kill for nothing more than profit.

I've read about hundreds of protagonists thrust into roles they didn't want. Just to pull out one rather famous example: Frodo. He wasn't exactly tickled pink about what he had to do.

Not a good example: Frodo explicitly asked for the responsibility, voluntarily accepting his role as ring-bearer. He had a choice in the matter, he could have deferred the task to someone else.

No. Not at all. I would probably curl up into the fetal position and cry like a kid with a soiled diaper. Right after I soiled myself. To use my previous and more appropriate example, Frodo was distinctly un-cheerful. But he soldiered on.

Soldiered on with a task he asked to undertake. Or have you forgotten the events of the Council of Elrond?

So, if I'm ever going to sell my autobiography to fans of the Covenant books, I'd better start kicking orphans because of how unfair it is that I inherited a big fat chunk of debt. And I'd better start beating my fiancee to rail against the responsibilities I've had dropped on me at the lab since two grad students unexpectedly quit. And I really need to work on vocalizing my self-pity. I don't particularly like my burdens, either, and I wish they would go away (if nothing else, it would leave me a lot more time to game), but I deal with them. I don't feel any need to read about someone who can't even live up to my meagre level (within the context of our respective worlds and responsibilities, fantasy is, after all, life writ large).

No, you accept those responsibilities because you have something to gain from them: continued employment helps you support yourself and your fiancee for example. They are responsibilities thrust upon you that result in something redounding to your ultimate benefit. Covenant is in a position where he is being asked to save a world he doesn't believe exists, for no reason other than he is supposed to. Responsibility not only without reward or recompense, but also without a point (from his perspective).

You keep saying that we miss the point. No. We got the point. He never wanted his responsibilities. Been done. Most heroes don't want their responsibilities. Heck, not even Superman wants his responsibilities. But he goes above and beyond them.

No, Superman does want his responsibilities, he voluntarily shoulders them. There is no requirement that he do so, he does it because he wants to. Most modern fictional heroes want their responsibilities, or at least voluntarily assume them. Covenant doesn't want them, and never did.

But the story isn't centrally about Covenant. It is about Mhoram, Troy, Foamfollower, and so on. It is about the Bloodguard. It is about heroes, the heroes just aren't named Covenant.

Normal people at least meet them. Tom Covenant is the fantasy equivalent of a guy who sits at home watching TV all day and beats his wife when she has to stay late at work because it means his dinner is late. Assuming Covenant does save the world at the end, perhaps my little metaphor does run into the burning trailer to save his beer and grabs one of his kids while he's at it, but he probably beats his wife when she gets home for leaving the coffee pot on when she left that morning.

And not having read the books, you demonstrate here that you did , indeed, miss the point.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The books aren't about Covenant though. They are about those around him.

Utterly irrelevant. He's the focus character. He's the lens through which we see the world. He's the character the reader has to deal with.

And I got no enjoyment out of dealing with him, plain and simple.

The modern world greatly misunderstands what a "hero" is. I think there is a difference between a "Hero" and an "American Hero." The "American Hero" is a morally flawless person who sacrifices him or herself. This is largely a myth exemplified by Superman.

As part of the "modern world," I don't misunderstand that at all. I like flawed heroes. I like interesting villains. Hell, most of the novels I've written are about people you wouldn't want to invite over for tea, and who are either forced by circumstance into doing the right thing or--in a few cases--who don't do the right thing.

That doesn't change the fact that there's a line for me, just like there is for everyone else. Covenant crosses that line in two different ways.

1) Rape.

2) He's effing annoying. Under the circumstances, I don't care how many burdens he's had, I don't care how realistic it is, I don't care what the author was trying to get across. The bottom line, for me, is that reading about him (or through him, or with him, or whatever) was an unpeasant experience. And not in the Schindler's List "this movie is unpleasant because of subject matter but is very important" way, but in the "Wow, I'd rather be folding laundry than reading this book, it's so bloody irritating" way.

Evil characters or flawed characters, good. Characters that are irritating to read and turn the novel from a joy to a chore, bad.

I can't count the number of times I've said "for me" or "in my opinion" in my posts on this thread. I'm not trying to tell people they shouldn't like this series, just explaining why I don't. I'm frankly getting a little sick and tired of people telling me "Oh, you didn't understand it." I understand it fine. I just don't like it. Kindly respect that fact.

 

[Storm Raven]

Utterly irrelevant. He's the focus character. He's the lens through which we see the world. He's the character the reader has to deal with.

Not utterly irrelevant: you want a story about heroes, and the books deliver. The focus character just doesn't happen to be that hero.

I'm frankly getting a little sick and tired of people telling me "Oh, you didn't understand it." I understand it fine. I just don't like it. Kindly respect that fact.

No, every post you've put up demonstrates quite clearly that you don't understand the books. Not liking them is fine. However, pointing out that everything you've posted about the books indicates that you missed the point is not the same thing as saying you should like them. And everything you've posted indicates that you didn't understand what the books were about.

 

[ragboy]

Book 8 was published in England in hardcover and had one very limited print run in paperback in the US, but has been out of print since 1999.

I found a copy of book 8 in a used bookstore in London on a trip in 2002 and read it on the plane ride home.

Then I had to read it again to confirm my first impression.

I was reading this thread trying to think a book that betrayed me bad enough to remember... This one was so bad, I must have put it out of my mind. I absolutely loved the Chung Kuo series. It was so full of intrigue, punctuated by intense action, beautiful plot twists and all done up in an absolutely masterful world. He spent 7 books steadily building a case for a massive civil war, then at the end of book 7 all Hell broke loose. Everything he'd built was coming to a climactic conclusion.

Then book 8 appeared. I'm impressed that you read it again. I got 3 chapters in and hurled it across the room. That has to be the greatest reading tragedy ever.

And I agree about 1-7. Great material for a totally immersive d20 Future campaign. So diverse a cast and so many stories.

 

[jester47]

the one that kills it for me is Kerr's flashbacks in the Nevyn novels. I understand that she is conveying that Nevyn keeps messing up, but it could work fine where we are told he kept messing up until the time that the main story is about. What annoys me about her flashbacks is not so much that they are flashbacks, but that they are her chance to go all quasi historical and celtic. Where we go from the events where Nevyn Screws up the first time to Fantasy and flashback to quasi-historical just kind of messes it up for me.

Aaron.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Thomas Covenant is not a hero, nor is he a normal person. He's a leper, literally.

In order to survive, Covenant has, effectively, inflicted himself with a form of monomania. At the start of the books, he's not what you or I would consider sane. It isn't the story of a normal guy forced to carry a heavy burden. It's the story of a man who already has a burden heavier than most folks can manage, pushed beyond the brink. To hold him up to the measuring stick of a Normal Man simply isn't fair.

I have a mildly autistic friend who would probably want to deck you for saying that (among his boatload of problems is poor impulse control). I have a friend who dealt with the kind of abuse in his youth that turns people into psychopaths. He has more than his fair share of problems as a result. He would never, EVER ask to be judged as anything other than a Normal Man. These guys, and others like them who I've worked with and befriended, are easily as disadvantaged as Covenant. They decided not to let that define them. And they don't spend all their time whining about it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Back on topic, I remember feeling this way when I finished the Iron Tower trilogy. I don't remember the details--it was a long time ago--but I remember somehow feeling that the author had lied to me.

Or maybe it was just because I hated the last book. Don't really remember.

I've been told that the writer only wrote the Iron Tower as he did because he'd been denied permission to write a story set in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Anyone know if that's accurate?

Oh, yes. And any book that doesn't clearly indicate on the cover that it's the first of a series, and only informs you of that when you reach the last page of the book, is a betrayal of the reader. (Though it's more the fault of the publisher than the writer.) I'll make the occasional exception, but for the most part, I won't buy the sequal to a "hidden cliffhanger" just on principle.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

No, not beside the point. The Corleones "protect their family", but the point of protecting their family is to allow them to engage in the greedy pursuit of illegal money. Dress it up all you want, but they still remain murderous thuigs willing to kill for nothing more than profit.

You keep accusing me of not reading the Covenant books (well, I read portions of the first one, and nothing beyond that, which I readily admit to), but have you even seen Godfather II? If you think all they were doing was protecting their money, you completely missed the point (wow, that would have been fun were I less petty... well, it was a little fun). Yes, it eventually degenerated to something close to that, but the slippery slope and Michael's attempts to get off of it is one of the things that makes the movies interesting. A shallow analysis of the first movie could come away with the impression you're suggesting. The second one blows it apart.

As for Superman, Frodo, etc. being given Great Power (or a unique resistance to Great Power) IS a responsibility. Both are uniquely suited to their tasks, much like Covenant is to his. There's an implicit responsibility there. Given your logic, if someone got AIDS from a blood transfusion, it's not his fault and he didn't ask for it, so there's nothing wrong with him having unprotected sex with a different person every night. After all, he didn't ASK to be given the ability to inject a death sentence into every person he sleeps with, so what he does with it is immaterial.

And not having read the books, you demonstrate here that you did , indeed, miss the point.

Perhaps I didn't read enough of them to "get the point" and perhaps it was so long ago and I was so turned off by the incident that I don't have a clear memory of what I did read, but the fact remains that I am allowed to dislike a rapist, regardless of his handicaps and regardless of whether you like him. And I am allowed to dislike a book centered on such a character, even if it is a slightly different take on the whole prophesied messiah angle, and even if you like it.

Next you're going to tell me that I suxxor because I have a GameCube and your X-box pwnz it.