Chronicles of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever

[SPoots]

I've nearly finished Lord Foul's Bane, and I am curious what other people think of it. I know it is considered a classic of the epic fantasy genre, but I have some very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the underlying ideas and the imaginative setting are very good. On the other, the main character is incredibly unlikeable and the prose has made me burst out laughing at times. Donaldson and similes are not friends.
What do others think?

 

[HanaBi]

I have read all of the Covenant tomes and they're all very heavy going. I recall reading "LFB" back in the 80s shortly after reading Tolkien's "LOTR". Talk about from one extreme to the other: the latter is generally positive, with good characters defeating the bad - very much black and white and thus relatively easy to read through.

But the Covenant books really are doom & gloom from start to finish; Covenant himself is like some kind of reclusive and angry anti-hero. One can understand why he is a little angry with the world given his medical condition, but nonetheless he really is a miserable SOB most of the time, and it took a really big effort to read part two - "The Illearth War". But start I did, and again more of the same. And because my expectations were not high it was much easier to get through the book even though he is still a SOB.

Thereafter I managed to complete all of the Covenant books over a long period of time, and have to say it was worth it, and made a whole lot more sense second time around.

Stick with it

 

[Amelia Faulkner]

I'm not really down with anyone whose first response to "OMG I am without leprosy in this land!" is to rape someone.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I liked a lot of the original trilogy, except the bits he stole from other authors.
There are some lovely landscapes, plot details and characters.
I did find it a bit over-wrought in many places, not least the terrible ending to book 3.
The second trilogy has a couple of great ideas (sun/landscape connection) but not much else. I'm not sure I even finished that trio.

 

[Overread]

I think the opening to these is almost a rebellion against the common theme of many fantasy of that kind of era which were often along the lines of "fit ex-military man gets suddenly transported to fantasy world where he's a hero/overpowered/superstrong/supersmart - oh and there's a hot gal to save who he'll marry come the end".

Or at least healthy people suddenly appearing in fantasy worlds. It seems it was a very popular mechanic and it at least gave the writer a reason to have to explain the fantasy world to a contemporary audience because they were the same as the character.

So this story does the same concept, but with someone who was crippled and who turns out in the book to be not all that special at the start (from what I dimly recall). Another key difference is that, at the start at least, he's convinced its a drug/painkiller induced dream. This sets him apart from many others who openly accept that they are in a fantasy world. In this the character is convinced he's just dreaming; which is why his actions are far more selfish and cruel at the onset than many others. He's not pretending to be a hero; not destined or buying into it - he's a guy who's dreaming a very lucid dream and isn't feeling pain/weakness for the first time in a very long time.


I never got much further past him travelling so some large city at the start; I think the concept is very neat; I think the idea of the story being a rebellion against that kind of writing trope is a very interesting approach. I just didn't get along with the story/writing style - and yes the main character is very unlikable which makes it even harder to keep going. It's not even is disbelief in the fantasy world its just that he's not very likeable.

 

[Amelia Faulkner]

I think it's important to distinguish between likeable and sympathetic. Where Covenant falls down, IMHO, is that he isn't sympathetic. There are hundreds of stories about unlikeable people who we can at least sympathise with and enjoy their story, but Covenant isn't sympathetic, and so when he's unlikeable too it makes it all the harder to engage with the text.

That said, I did read the first trilogy. Like @Stephen Palmer, it was the second I couldn't finish.

 

[nixie]

Think I've said this previously. Thomas Covenant I started of loathing him as the series went on I felt sorry for him before developing a grudging respect. I never liked him or Linden Avery. I did like the giants, Haruchai and the Ramen.

 

[HareBrain]

Where Covenant falls down, IMHO, is that he isn't sympathetic.

I thought he was, though I can see why some (or even most) would find him not so. Why I struggle to read those books now is more the overblown language (though it taught me what threnody, gibbous, lambent and mien mean, in case -- just in case, you understand -- I ever wanted to use them). I think it's not a coincidence that the time of my life when I enjoyed those books was the time when I was producing rather purple prose myself.

 

[farntfar]

Why do we need to find the main character likeable or even sympathetic.
Was Dracula or Frankenstein sympathetic. Was Dorian Grey?
Ok the one we were to have sympathy for was Harper or the monster, but I found no-one to like in Grey, but I was still very glad to have read it.

In Covenant, at the time of the rape he was almost entirely convinced that it was a dream. Suddenly, after Lena gave him hurtloam, he found himself having feelings again, something that had basically been denied him for several years, and more than that he was suddenly capable of arousal. He could turn his dream into a wet dream. I'm afraid I feel a certain amount of sympathy with him taking advantage of that possibility.

Of course, if he had thought it was real, we could and should blame him for the rape, but if it was only a dream? You could well say that his actions are still voluntary and therefore blameworthy, but it's a harder question to answer.

The entire story, throughout the books is about his, and later Linden's difficulty to say if the land is real, and therefore whether what they do there actually matters.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I know it is considered a classic of the epic fantasy genre

I dunno - some people may, especially because it was written at such a time when fantasy was still formative and the genre was effectively treated as a subgenre of horror.

But I never included it in my "essential epic fantasy reading" when I was researching the genre, and I can't see myself ever picking up the book now.

I'm easily given the impression that Donaldson is his own branch of fantasy - neither imitated by, nor particularly inspiring, most modern fantasy writers.

Possibly it's seen more of a portal fantasy, rather than general epic fantasy where all the characters are part of the secondary world they develop in.

2c.

 

[HareBrain]

For me, Donaldson's greatest creation was The Land itself, and especially Andelain. I don't think I've ever found, in any other fictional work, anything I wanted to protect as much as that patch of ground.

 

[hitmouse]

The first trilogy has some interesting ideas and some definite meritsbut for me is so overwhelmed by the tedious prose stylings that I haven't ever reread it, and it made the second 3 books a real grind.

 

[Amelia Faulkner]

Why do we need to find the main character likeable or even sympathetic.
Was Dracula or Frankenstein sympathetic. Was Dorian Grey?
Ok the one we were to have sympathy for was Harper or the monster, but I found no-one to like in Grey, but I was still very glad to have read it.

Sympathetic doesn't mean we feel sorry for, it means we share an understanding with. Like sympathetic magic.

Dracula and Frankenstein weren't the main characters, they were the bad guys. Dorian Gray is sympathetic because he feels guilt for his actions. He is corrupted by those around him and we see his innocence stripped away, and then we see him do it to himself when his original corruptors are gone. And ultimately, he is the victim of his own corruption when he accidentally kills himself in his attempt to destroy the painting. We can sympathise with him, even though he's become a horrendous person.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes Thomas Covenant is very unlikable , but this is a great fantasy saga.

 

[williamjm]

I read the first book about 15 years ago but didn't really feel like continuing further. I think Donaldson is trying to do something potentially interesting and different but I found it a bit of a chore to read.

I'm easily given the impression that Donaldson is his own branch of fantasy - neither imitated by, nor particularly inspiring, most modern fantasy writers.

I have seen it claimed in the past that Tomas Covenant is one of the first examples of a commercially successful fantasy with an antihero as the protagonist and could have influenced later books that move away from the classic High Fantasy template. If it was published today it would probably be stuck with the 'grimdark' label.

 

[BAYLOR]

I read the first book about 15 years ago but didn't really feel like continuing further. I think Donaldson is trying to do something potentially interesting and different but I found it a bit of a chore to read.



I have seen it claimed in the past that Tomas Covenant is one of the first examples of a commercially successful fantasy with an antihero as the protagonist and could have influenced later books that move away from the classic High Fantasy template. If it was published today it would probably be stuck with the 'grimdark' label.

Give book 2 a try, things gets quite interesting .

 

[SPoots]

I think it's important to distinguish between likeable and sympathetic. Where Covenant falls down, IMHO, is that he isn't sympathetic. There are hundreds of stories about unlikeable people who we can at least sympathise with and enjoy their story, but Covenant isn't sympathetic, and so when he's unlikeable too it makes it all the harder to engage with the text.

That said, I did read the first trilogy. Like @Stephen Palmer, it was the second I couldn't finish.

I think this nails my problem with Covenant on the head.

 

[SPoots]

I love the questions this book raises, namely the central one about whether how meaningful our actions can be when removed from our understanding of reality. That is superb. Where Covenant fails is at no point am I wanting him to succeed. I'm wanting him to be punched in the self-pitting face. There are times when he is a great anti-hero, and others, such as his interactions with Foamfollower, when you think you have no reason to be acting like this much of an arse here. I'm not wanting him to suddenly accept the Land and act like a buddy to everyone, I'm wanting him to relent his self-pitying petulance a bit.

 

[SPoots]

Incidentally, here are a few of Donaldson's wonderful similes:

He sobbed like a broken rock.

He was hauled through the air like a sack of miscellaneous helplessness.

They trailed after him like a trail of dumbfounded outrage.

 

[farntfar]

Sympathetic doesn't mean we feel sorry for, it means we share an understanding with.

I understand that and yet you say Covenant is not sympathetic.
He is a man who is entirely unsure of whether anything he does matters at all. I can sympathise with that very easily.
Once he starts to think it may matter he goes on to make things worse and worse, by attempting to correct or at least atone for his previous mistakes.
I can sympathise with that too.
He has power, but no comprehension of that fact or how to use it.
Idem!
But no. I don't really like him and I certainly don't feel sorry for him, even if I understand why he made most of his decisions.
He wallows in his self pity nearly all the way, even when he gets something right, and he is only a force for good in inspiring others to do good (and sometimes evil), mostly in order to protect him.

It's a series of books which were often hard to read; often frustrating and annoying. Even the "good guys", Foamfollower etc annoyed me sometimes, mostly for not just telling Covenant to bog off. (And I very soon had had enough of Mhoram) But I was glad I read them (more than once) and they told me things about myself that I hadn't recognised before.

Oh and Spoots. The best simile (which it isn't quite), you may not have got to yet. It's when Covenant tells us how to hurt someone who has nothing.