From: robertm@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (MONTGOMERY ROBERT PH)
Subject: Re: Tolkien's (and Donaldson's) style (was Re: writing Styles)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:30:51 GMT

In article <KERS.93Jan26100119@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
>In article ... robertm@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (MONTGOMERY ROBERT PH) writes:

From your letter and others, it definitely appears best
to ignore certain details on first reading, such as the maps.
(Most people who responded who loved the books said they pretty
much ignored the maps, at least on first reading.)

[ Somebody out there probably knows the answers to these questions:  
  - Did Tolkien draw the maps?  (I don't remember if they're signed/
    initialed?)
  - Were they done *after* the books were written? ]

About the Tolkien vs. Donaldson comparison, I was glad to find that some
people actually appreciate *both* authors.  (I did not mean to imply that
Donaldson was the "anti-Tolkien" ;-)  I *do* believe that I will enjoy
LofR on my next try, but with a different "reading style."

>Donaldson? Tighter? Than Tolkien?
>I think we have different definitions of ``tighter''. Donaldson is amazingly
>wordy. Perhaps you can't cut out characters and retain the structure, but
>you can certainly cut words.

Yes, different aspects can be "tight" or "loose."
I see what you mean.  Donaldson's long descriptions (or "wordiness")
actually brought me more into the "reality" of the Land, both visually
(mental imagery), and emotionally.  Tolkien was tighter here.  It's
a matter of personal preference.  I definitely don't think long
descriptions are necessary, but enjoyed them in the Covenant books.
[I usually don't appreciate terribly sad movies, but loved "Hiroshima,
Mon Amour."]

On the other hand, Tolkien left many loose strings, and/or pointers
to details not relevant to the story, trying to enhance the reality of
the world.  In this case, reality actually *dissipated* the story for me.
Real life *is* full of trivial events, minor acquaintances, etc., but
it is nice that most books, movies, etc. cull out most of these.  In
this sense, Donaldson was tighter.  Again, this is a matter of
preference.  The degree to which it is done, whether it is your
first reading/viewing or not, etc., can influence appreciation of it.

>I'm not sure if this is taste, or convention (and if the latter, whether it be
>genre-specific or distributed through modern writing), but I find the
>multifarious ways of saying ``said'' to be more noticable (and objectionable)
>than repeated use of ``said''. That gasped, it should -- sorry, I prefer it to
>-- be used sparingly. (Using variants regularly tend to make them less
>effective.)

Many people commented on the "said" issue.  It was actually not
something I noticed while reading *either* book, that Tolkien used
it almost exclusively, and Donaldson used many other words.  I remember
finishing the Covenant books, and then thinking back and comparing them
with Tolkien's.  Donaldson's books had seemed more colorful, whereas
Tolkien's felt a little flat.  I dug out a book from each author and
the "said" difference stood out, and I thought it might be an example of
what lead to my general impression of color.  A lot of people hated
Donaldson's vocabulary, but I found so much to enjoy in his stories
that I didn't mind keeping a dictionary at hand.

>   [ I do have a beef with a technique Donaldson used in The Mirror
>   of Her Dreams (1st book of Mordant's Need).  In it, the characters try
>   to solve various mysteries.  The reader is forced to accept weak, ill-
>   based deductions by the characters, only to find out later they were
>   wrong, and then on to other quantum-leap deductions, which also turn
>   out to be wrong, etc.  Other than that, I *did* enjoy the book. ]
>
>Seems to me just like real life.

[Someone asked me about this, and my reply follows.]

For me the problem was a matter of degree.

1) The distance of the "intuitive leaps" was too great and the degree
   of certainty they placed in their deductions was too high.  Showing
   more supporting evidence *and*/or more uncertainty in their guesses
   would have solved this "problem."

2) In the balance is also the number of times the technique (item 1) was
   used.  I became frustrated with the characters after making the same
   type of mistake many times.  After going out on a limb with absolute
   certainty they had the final/correct solution a couple of times, they
   should have learned not to be so cocky, and show a little respect for
   the ambiguity of the information, especially when lives were at stake.

3) A more subtle objection is that after the technique was used many times,
   I began to feel a bit "too?" manipulated.  As a reader, one is somewhat
   passive in the sense that you cannot direct the events, only react, ...
   I felt Donaldson wanted us to believe the characters, agree with their
   deductions, only to find out later that we were all wrong, and come
   away with, "Wow!  I was wrong.  It was more complex than I ever
   imagined ... 'plots within plots' ..."  Instead, I felt the integrity
   of the characters was compromised.

>Heavens, why *should* it be ``the best of all time?''. (Just because it's
>better than anything else yet written ... he said mischeviously.) [I had to
>read your last sentence twice, because it suggests that many people say it's
>*not* the best, whereas I think you mean that they said it *was*.]

Yes, that's what I meant.

I think people often go too far in criticizing or complimenting, and ruin
things for themselves.  In this case I'm speaking of those who say, "LotR
is the only true fantasy.  Every other fantasy is a cheap rip-off and not
worth reading."  This also happens with movies, where some people refuse
to believe that a sequal can be as good as or even better than an original.
Admittedly, it may not often happen, but to claim that it never does is
(to me) an emotionally-based bias.

>   I will definitely give LotR another chance, and will
>   change my reading style and read it more quickly and ignore the maps,
>   genealogy details, etc.  Maybe that's how it should be read the first
>   time, quickly for the action?
>
>Not quickly for the action, but without the maps and geneology details.
>[Philistine that I am, I tend to ignore the poetry, as well.]

Thank you for your reply!

Rob

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written