Appendix N fail - Thomas Covenant.

I recently found the Thomas Covenant trilogy at Goodwill, and since I had never read the books, picked them up.

The trilogy is regarded as influential in the fantasy genre, particularly for its archetypal anti-hero, or unlikable, unwilling hero in the form of Thomas Covenant. He is a depressive, divorced author suffering from leprosy, who is periodically torn from the modern world and tossed into the fantasy world of "The Land." Disoriented, full of doubt, and self-loathing (hence his nickname, 'The Unbeliever'), he is mistaken as a reincarnated hero from a past conflict.

And I can't get through these books.

Slogged through Lord Foul's Bane, and am currently about halfway through The Illearth War. Hile Troy and his small force are approaching Doom's Retreat for what is, at best, a delaying action. And Covenant is tagging after High Lord Elena in search of the Seventh Ward, a power that the Lords are not prepared to wield.

Gawd, these books are interminable reads.

I understand that Covenant is meant to be an unlikable character, and was prepared for that (I've read/enjoyed plenty of other anti-hero centered novels). But I find the writing turgid and melodramatic, and none of the 'good guys' to be engaging or sympathetic. I suspect that I need more context on Donaldson's influence or subtext, but so far this experience has moved far into the territory of books I "should" read, rather than I "want" to read.

Apropos, io9 just posted this article on the Rule of 50 for when to abandon a read.

So I'm setting Tom aside for a more attractive and relevant read. Perhaps I'll return to the trilogy, to skim through the rest of Illearth, and take on The Power That Preserves another time.

(Similarly, I've often joked that Harvard Lampoon's 'Bored of the Rings,' which pares down the LOTR trilogy into a single volume, while somehow not apparently losing any significant content, is the length that the original trilogy 'should' have been.)

Any similar observations, experiences or context?

How you play is more important that what you play

Whew!  The blogotariat is a-roar with rants regarding the covers of the new D&D 5E books, and few have even gotten to the content, yet...

Sorry, if it doesn't have miscreants pilfering gem eyes from
a giant idol, I'm not buying.

Which brings me to two old blog posts I re-discovered (and hunted down) today:

Girls at the table, or different people play differently

http://dndkids.blogspot.com/2014/02/girls-at-table.html

Reblogging this article by Uri Kurlianchik, a gamer, youth activity director, and former writer for Wizards.  Per his words, this article got him blacklisted at Wizards for being scandalous.

So I read the article and kept waiting for the inflammatory part, or the controversial part, or the knuckledragging mouthbreather part. But couldn't find them.  That's because Uri works and plays with kids, observes kids, and like any good teacher or mentor, 'gets' kids.

This article likely rubbed folks the wrong way because some people have been conditioned to suppress the appreciation of differences. (I don't know the whole story, but knowing trolls and forums, can make some inferences...) There seems to have been an attempt over the last generation or so to downplay the differences between the sexes rather than accept them as being complimentary to one another.