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?
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.