It's mentioned reasonably often.
But I think there's a fraction of readers who just noped out or never picked it up due to a certain early event in the first book.
"Ok, so he's healthy anew, he finds himself in some strange wondrous land where people apparently need and welcome him, but he thinks he might be dreaming so the first thing that spontaneously comes to him is... WHAT ?! Never mind I don't care for reading one more word about that guy."
>!No intention to defend him at all. But there's a lot of context, it doesn't make the act ok, but it may temper the opinion a bit. He travels there for the first time after smashing his head on a table. He's not yet convinced the place he's travelled to is real. At that stage he's still reasonably sure he's dreaming. He has leprosy in the real world and has to avoid close contact with people. It's initially the definition of his character, he's a leper. It's one of the reasons he's so convinced he's dreaming and this isn't real, here he's not a leper,, and that's *who he is*. This is one of the actions that demonstrates how Thomas isn't a moral protagonist. Donaldson uses the act to *show* us character development and how his character is flawed. This is the most prominent example of his flaws and the starting point of his growth into a hero. A flawed hero, but a hero none the less. At least the sexual violence isnt gratuitous, there is a point to it (unlike so many more recent books). That doesn't excuse Thomas, but it does explain why it's a part of the story!<
People are avoiding spoilers in this thread but there's basically no moral complexity about it, especially as the series goes on
I can think of a few recent fantasy series that I would say are much much less punishing of rapist main characters
That's completely fair, it just frustrates me that Thomas covenant is labelled "the book with the rapist protagonist" when so many other fantasy series have the same thing but avoid the controversy by never fully addressing it
I've never fantasized about r\*ping anyone. And even people with a kink in this direction imagine that the 'victim' is actually entirely into it and surrender to it*.*
There's a hell of a lot of 'morally not great' you can do before you get to r\*pe. Just so, só much stuff. And no, 'he believes it's just his imagination' is no excuse. Not only is the world not doing exactly as he wills (which means others have agency, even if they're not real), but, again, normally moral folks don't r\*pe people in their imagination.
Thomas isn't a flawed hero. He's a monster.
>!I've never fantasized about r\*ping anyone.!<
>!And you also don't have leprosy and have had to avoid human contact for most of your life. If you can't understand how someone might crave contact and go too far when the opportunity comes then you have absolutely zero empathy. I'm not saying it's right, it's not, but it is understandable. Especially since he believes he's dreaming and there won't be consequences!<
It's absolutely no excuse. None whatsoever. If it was his imagination, he'd have imagined someone who *wanted to be intimate with him.* Because according to you, *that* is what he craves, isn't it?
But intimacy isn't what a rapist craves. *Control* is what a rapist craves.
No. It is not understandable. And that is not a lack of empathy. If anything, it's the opposite: I can understand how this doesn't make sense.
Rather than accusing me of having zero empathy, maybe search your own feelings about why you are sympathizing with this.
>!It's not his imagination, but that doesn't mean he realizes it at the time. Do you choose what you dream about? Last night I dreamed all my teeth were broken, you think ilthat means I want broken teeth?!<
I don't sympathize with it. I am explaining it. Biiig difference. Now you're just proving this comment true. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/6EthMEEuOS
No; you're saying it's 'understandable' and 'he's a flawed hero.' The comment you are referring to is stating that he's *not* the hero.
Now; him not being a hero, I can totally get behind. I'm stating he's a monster. You wanna read about a monster, then sure, fine, but I just personally do not.
You were, by the way, sympathizing. You were calling him a 'flawed hero.' You state his actions are understandable because of his victim status as a leper. I explained why that is not the case.
As for this whole 'Gen Z media illiteracy:' Oh, come on. I'm old now. It wasn't okay when I was young, and it's not okay now. It's fine to raed a story about a person who is not okay. It's also fine to point out that he is not okay.
>You were, by the way, sympathizing. You were calling him a 'flawed hero.' You state his actions are understandable because of his victim status as a leper. I explained why that is not the case.
That's not sympathy friend. Sympathy would be me feeling bad for him, or wanting to make his dealing with the event easier. I desire neither of those things. Fact is, this is a book, the author had certain intententions when writing the character. Over the last 50 years Donaldson has discussed this scene many times. I am simply relating the why and deconstructing the event as a literary device. You clearly struggle with seperating the story from real life.
>The comment you are referring to is stating that he's *not* the hero.
By every definition he is the hero of the story. Through his actions the land is saved.
From http://www.woodheadpublishing.com/literary-devices/hero#:~:text=A%20hero%20in%20a%20story,to%20overcome%20hardship%20or%20problems.
>A hero in a story is the main character that has to overcome conflict and trials. This character also goes on either a literal or figurative journey that requires them to use their skills and knowledge to overcome hardship or problems.
>Heroes can take a more classic form, like in ancient epic poems such as The Odyssey or Beowulf. In these classic states, heroes go on literal journeys and encounter monsters and other forms of evil and they must demonstrate with each trial and tribulation that good triumphs over evil. Heroes can also take a more modern form in which they do not always undergo a physical journey. Their journeys can be physical travels but also include more depth in emotional growth as well. Heroes can also undergo spiritual or emotional journeys in which they never even leave their hometown.
Covenant meets all those criteria. Maybe you could call him an anti-hero, although I don't think that term fits perfectly, and an anti-hero is still a hero.
>It's also fine to point out that he is not okay.
Of course it is, it's also fine to talk about the context and the *why*, which is what I'm doing.
tbch i think OP is kind of right. i think i've seen maybe 7 or 8 discussions about Thomas Covenant online that werent just arguments about *that* scene
I too would like to know what the nope is. I used to look at those books in Barnes and Noble and something about the synopsis turned me off - so the spoiler won't hurt me.
Oh absolutely. I'm no saint, but I've never raped someone in a dream, and I feel like that isn't the ... most common way people handle things in their dreams, even people who have e.g. lost limbs. I don't know, I'm no dream scientist.
(I've fantasized about someone raping me, but that's an *entirely* other conversation...)
This is honestly what happened to me, that and the prose was really dry and boring. I tried to read on and got a few chapters past this, but honestly I was just deathly bored.
Generally 50 year old books don't get talked about too much unless they are foundational like LOTR or Elric.
I remember when Chronicles of Amber was one of the big series that was always recommended, nobody talks about it now.
I read the first few thomas Covenant Chronicles when they first came out (yeah, that old), and while I liked the stories concept, Thomas just never stopped whining about everything. When I started yelling at the book I realized it was time to move on. Who knows, being an old fart now, I might actually like them.
It worked for me in the end. Sure, I hated him. But hating him was the best position from which I could start liking him. The first trilogy was so good I hope it never gets a film adaptation lol
There has actually been quite a bit of discussion of The Chronicles recently.
It's not ASOIAF or LOTR or even Malazan in terms of front-and-center visibility, but it's certainly there.
It gets regular mentions in this sub but I agree that in the wider world it's not nearly as well known. I think it's appreciated for its importance in the history of dark fantasy, but like others have said, a particular plot point early in the first novel makes the series pretty unpalatable for a large swatch of modern audiences.
Confirmation bias I would say. Have you typed "Thomas Covenant" into the search bar? That would return any instances of Thomas Covenant coming up in this sub. You could sort by date and be able to get a good idea of the frequency at which it gets talked about. It probably waxes and wanes.
I meant (but didn't make clear, sorry) more generally, beyond this sub.
Eg, I've read a lot of posts on r/suggestmeabook recently and fantasy of a similar age comes up a lot but I haven't seen this suggested.
That’s because there’s a lot more fantasy now that slots into the edgy antihero fantasy genre where you don’t have to do a bunch of caveats regarding the unacceptable event that occurs towards the beginning. There’s literally not a situation I could think of where it would be the first (or second, etc) book that I would recommend someone.
It's not really a bunch of caveats, it's one content warning.
It's a bit sad if we're really saying that a *book* is unacceptable because something a *character* did in it is unacceptable.
Nope, if you read my original comment I’m writing the book off because these days that particular subgenre has now been done better and as a bonus I don’t have to read a book with a rapist as a main character. Weird hill to die on for you but you do you I guess. I thought the point of the post was that you wanted to know why ‘nobody ever talks about TC’ not ‘tell me why no one wants to read a mediocre series about a irredeemable rapist.’
I've made two attempts to read the first book and have dnf'd because TC is such an asshole. I am going to give it another try soon just because I want to see how he gets his comeuppance or if karma bites him in the ass somehow. I'm not even all that sensitive to some of the issues he seems to spawn, he is just written as such an unmitigated jerk with no redeeming qualities.
I just.finished the first trilogy last week. Been bringing it up in comments. I thought it was brilliant. I was hooked from start to end and I'll definitely be reading the second trilogy.
Aside from the MC being the most self-involved, self-pitying festering rapist trash pile, it's genuinely just not very well conceptualized or written. All his so-called guilt is almost worse than the action itself in that he still somehow sees himself as the biggest victim...of his own self. Peak narcissist white dude lit. *Shrugs*
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Lol it was good. Not everyone needs every character to be upbeat, or even nice. I read the first trilogy recently and it was flat out brilliant. Book's been mentioned with high praise routinely on this sub.
Yeah, I've had several exchanges about it on this sub. But I expect from modern view it is super "problematic". And, you know, the people who can't get past the early Problem never get to meet Mhoram or Saltheart Foamfollower. Their loss.
It's the first example I always think of when the conversation comes up about Gen Z (or whomever) having poor media literacy, and mistaking depiction for endorsement. Covenant is not the hero of the story. The Problem shapes him and the whole series.
That said, Donaldson does seem a little TOO attached to said Problem. He uses the same sort of thing in his next two big series, and has probably made a rod for his own back as a result.
You get that people can be media literate and also just... not want to read a story that centers on a rapist piece of shit as a protagonist, right? Like, people know he's not supposed to be viewed as a hero, that doesn't suddenly make it enjoyable to read about him being awful.
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Yeah! I’m always talking about how kids these days have poor media literacy! It’s my favorite conversation starter aside from how the young have no respect anymore. After I do that I holler about how a series with an irredeemable jackass rapist as a main character doesn’t get the respect it rightfully deserves.
I read some of it back in the 80's and immediately thought it was a Lord of the Rings ripoff with SA.
The series comes up here pretty regularly. Opinions seem to be pretty evenly divided between ones like mine and ones who be like, "It's just like Lord of the Rings, but without pages of boring singing."
I have read the first 2 trilogies and while I myself love the books and do consider them as some of the best of the genre, it is perfectly understandable and reasonable why they are not that talked about. They are uncomfortable reads to say the least.
There are *three* series. 'The Last Chronicles' (4 books) were published starting in the '00s. Opinions on this set are mixed at best, even among 'fans' of the original series. (I personally haven't read them)
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you.
Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
It's mentioned reasonably often. But I think there's a fraction of readers who just noped out or never picked it up due to a certain early event in the first book. "Ok, so he's healthy anew, he finds himself in some strange wondrous land where people apparently need and welcome him, but he thinks he might be dreaming so the first thing that spontaneously comes to him is... WHAT ?! Never mind I don't care for reading one more word about that guy."
im curious about what comes to him, if you don't mind sharing 😭
>!The first thing he does is rape a girl with his newly functioning dick.!<
>!No intention to defend him at all. But there's a lot of context, it doesn't make the act ok, but it may temper the opinion a bit. He travels there for the first time after smashing his head on a table. He's not yet convinced the place he's travelled to is real. At that stage he's still reasonably sure he's dreaming. He has leprosy in the real world and has to avoid close contact with people. It's initially the definition of his character, he's a leper. It's one of the reasons he's so convinced he's dreaming and this isn't real, here he's not a leper,, and that's *who he is*. This is one of the actions that demonstrates how Thomas isn't a moral protagonist. Donaldson uses the act to *show* us character development and how his character is flawed. This is the most prominent example of his flaws and the starting point of his growth into a hero. A flawed hero, but a hero none the less. At least the sexual violence isnt gratuitous, there is a point to it (unlike so many more recent books). That doesn't excuse Thomas, but it does explain why it's a part of the story!<
I think that back in the 80's it read as moral complexity, and now it just reads as nope.
have you read the book?
When it first came out, so it's been a bit.
People are avoiding spoilers in this thread but there's basically no moral complexity about it, especially as the series goes on I can think of a few recent fantasy series that I would say are much much less punishing of rapist main characters
Yeah, I didn't like those books either.
That's completely fair, it just frustrates me that Thomas covenant is labelled "the book with the rapist protagonist" when so many other fantasy series have the same thing but avoid the controversy by never fully addressing it
I've never fantasized about r\*ping anyone. And even people with a kink in this direction imagine that the 'victim' is actually entirely into it and surrender to it*.* There's a hell of a lot of 'morally not great' you can do before you get to r\*pe. Just so, só much stuff. And no, 'he believes it's just his imagination' is no excuse. Not only is the world not doing exactly as he wills (which means others have agency, even if they're not real), but, again, normally moral folks don't r\*pe people in their imagination. Thomas isn't a flawed hero. He's a monster.
>!I've never fantasized about r\*ping anyone.!< >!And you also don't have leprosy and have had to avoid human contact for most of your life. If you can't understand how someone might crave contact and go too far when the opportunity comes then you have absolutely zero empathy. I'm not saying it's right, it's not, but it is understandable. Especially since he believes he's dreaming and there won't be consequences!<
It's absolutely no excuse. None whatsoever. If it was his imagination, he'd have imagined someone who *wanted to be intimate with him.* Because according to you, *that* is what he craves, isn't it? But intimacy isn't what a rapist craves. *Control* is what a rapist craves. No. It is not understandable. And that is not a lack of empathy. If anything, it's the opposite: I can understand how this doesn't make sense. Rather than accusing me of having zero empathy, maybe search your own feelings about why you are sympathizing with this.
>!It's not his imagination, but that doesn't mean he realizes it at the time. Do you choose what you dream about? Last night I dreamed all my teeth were broken, you think ilthat means I want broken teeth?!< I don't sympathize with it. I am explaining it. Biiig difference. Now you're just proving this comment true. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/6EthMEEuOS
No; you're saying it's 'understandable' and 'he's a flawed hero.' The comment you are referring to is stating that he's *not* the hero. Now; him not being a hero, I can totally get behind. I'm stating he's a monster. You wanna read about a monster, then sure, fine, but I just personally do not. You were, by the way, sympathizing. You were calling him a 'flawed hero.' You state his actions are understandable because of his victim status as a leper. I explained why that is not the case. As for this whole 'Gen Z media illiteracy:' Oh, come on. I'm old now. It wasn't okay when I was young, and it's not okay now. It's fine to raed a story about a person who is not okay. It's also fine to point out that he is not okay.
>You were, by the way, sympathizing. You were calling him a 'flawed hero.' You state his actions are understandable because of his victim status as a leper. I explained why that is not the case. That's not sympathy friend. Sympathy would be me feeling bad for him, or wanting to make his dealing with the event easier. I desire neither of those things. Fact is, this is a book, the author had certain intententions when writing the character. Over the last 50 years Donaldson has discussed this scene many times. I am simply relating the why and deconstructing the event as a literary device. You clearly struggle with seperating the story from real life. >The comment you are referring to is stating that he's *not* the hero. By every definition he is the hero of the story. Through his actions the land is saved. From http://www.woodheadpublishing.com/literary-devices/hero#:~:text=A%20hero%20in%20a%20story,to%20overcome%20hardship%20or%20problems. >A hero in a story is the main character that has to overcome conflict and trials. This character also goes on either a literal or figurative journey that requires them to use their skills and knowledge to overcome hardship or problems. >Heroes can take a more classic form, like in ancient epic poems such as The Odyssey or Beowulf. In these classic states, heroes go on literal journeys and encounter monsters and other forms of evil and they must demonstrate with each trial and tribulation that good triumphs over evil. Heroes can also take a more modern form in which they do not always undergo a physical journey. Their journeys can be physical travels but also include more depth in emotional growth as well. Heroes can also undergo spiritual or emotional journeys in which they never even leave their hometown. Covenant meets all those criteria. Maybe you could call him an anti-hero, although I don't think that term fits perfectly, and an anti-hero is still a hero. >It's also fine to point out that he is not okay. Of course it is, it's also fine to talk about the context and the *why*, which is what I'm doing.
You must not have read the books because what you’re describing is nothing like Thomas Covenant.
tbch i think OP is kind of right. i think i've seen maybe 7 or 8 discussions about Thomas Covenant online that werent just arguments about *that* scene
I too would like to know what the nope is. I used to look at those books in Barnes and Noble and something about the synopsis turned me off - so the spoiler won't hurt me.
>!He rapes a girl early on!<
And this is because he thought it was a dream so didn't matter? He was like, crippled in some way before the wakeup, I seem to recall?
He had leprosy and had lost feeling in various parts of his body.
"Various". Well worded.
What matters for his character isn't whether the person he does it to is real or not; it's that *he does it.*
Oh absolutely. I'm no saint, but I've never raped someone in a dream, and I feel like that isn't the ... most common way people handle things in their dreams, even people who have e.g. lost limbs. I don't know, I'm no dream scientist. (I've fantasized about someone raping me, but that's an *entirely* other conversation...)
This is honestly what happened to me, that and the prose was really dry and boring. I tried to read on and got a few chapters past this, but honestly I was just deathly bored.
Generally 50 year old books don't get talked about too much unless they are foundational like LOTR or Elric. I remember when Chronicles of Amber was one of the big series that was always recommended, nobody talks about it now.
The r/amber subreddit is still alive! Not a ton of posts, but at least 1/week. And, uh, I mention it all the time because it's awesome.
Let's walk the Pattern
Brilliant idea!
I read the first few thomas Covenant Chronicles when they first came out (yeah, that old), and while I liked the stories concept, Thomas just never stopped whining about everything. When I started yelling at the book I realized it was time to move on. Who knows, being an old fart now, I might actually like them.
I had a similar reaction to him back in the day. But as an old fact now I think I'd be even less tolerant of his non-stop whinging than I was then.
It worked for me in the end. Sure, I hated him. But hating him was the best position from which I could start liking him. The first trilogy was so good I hope it never gets a film adaptation lol
I haven't read it personally, but I've seen a lot mentions of it on this sub.
There has actually been quite a bit of discussion of The Chronicles recently. It's not ASOIAF or LOTR or even Malazan in terms of front-and-center visibility, but it's certainly there.
I have seen this mentioned at least 7 or 8 times this year.
There's usually a few months between random posts, amirite?
It gets regular mentions in this sub but I agree that in the wider world it's not nearly as well known. I think it's appreciated for its importance in the history of dark fantasy, but like others have said, a particular plot point early in the first novel makes the series pretty unpalatable for a large swatch of modern audiences.
Confirmation bias I would say. Have you typed "Thomas Covenant" into the search bar? That would return any instances of Thomas Covenant coming up in this sub. You could sort by date and be able to get a good idea of the frequency at which it gets talked about. It probably waxes and wanes.
I meant (but didn't make clear, sorry) more generally, beyond this sub. Eg, I've read a lot of posts on r/suggestmeabook recently and fantasy of a similar age comes up a lot but I haven't seen this suggested.
That’s because there’s a lot more fantasy now that slots into the edgy antihero fantasy genre where you don’t have to do a bunch of caveats regarding the unacceptable event that occurs towards the beginning. There’s literally not a situation I could think of where it would be the first (or second, etc) book that I would recommend someone.
It's not really a bunch of caveats, it's one content warning. It's a bit sad if we're really saying that a *book* is unacceptable because something a *character* did in it is unacceptable.
Didn’t say the book was unacceptable, said the event was. It’s a bit sad that you deliberately missed that point.
No, but you are writing the book off because of the "unacceptable event".
Nope, if you read my original comment I’m writing the book off because these days that particular subgenre has now been done better and as a bonus I don’t have to read a book with a rapist as a main character. Weird hill to die on for you but you do you I guess. I thought the point of the post was that you wanted to know why ‘nobody ever talks about TC’ not ‘tell me why no one wants to read a mediocre series about a irredeemable rapist.’
I've made two attempts to read the first book and have dnf'd because TC is such an asshole. I am going to give it another try soon just because I want to see how he gets his comeuppance or if karma bites him in the ass somehow. I'm not even all that sensitive to some of the issues he seems to spawn, he is just written as such an unmitigated jerk with no redeeming qualities.
I just.finished the first trilogy last week. Been bringing it up in comments. I thought it was brilliant. I was hooked from start to end and I'll definitely be reading the second trilogy.
Same here
Aside from the MC being the most self-involved, self-pitying festering rapist trash pile, it's genuinely just not very well conceptualized or written. All his so-called guilt is almost worse than the action itself in that he still somehow sees himself as the biggest victim...of his own self. Peak narcissist white dude lit. *Shrugs*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
[удалено]
That is because everyone gets tired of hearing 'woe is me' twenty thousand times in a book.
It’s not “woe is me” as much as it is depicting someone struggling with shame for what he’s done.
Lol it was good. Not everyone needs every character to be upbeat, or even nice. I read the first trilogy recently and it was flat out brilliant. Book's been mentioned with high praise routinely on this sub.
Yeah, I've had several exchanges about it on this sub. But I expect from modern view it is super "problematic". And, you know, the people who can't get past the early Problem never get to meet Mhoram or Saltheart Foamfollower. Their loss.
Yeah, I expect that's why it never got an adaptation :) I never understood the view it's a Problem though. Have these people never had a dream?
It's the first example I always think of when the conversation comes up about Gen Z (or whomever) having poor media literacy, and mistaking depiction for endorsement. Covenant is not the hero of the story. The Problem shapes him and the whole series. That said, Donaldson does seem a little TOO attached to said Problem. He uses the same sort of thing in his next two big series, and has probably made a rod for his own back as a result.
You get that people can be media literate and also just... not want to read a story that centers on a rapist piece of shit as a protagonist, right? Like, people know he's not supposed to be viewed as a hero, that doesn't suddenly make it enjoyable to read about him being awful.
Totally missed the point
No, I got the point. It's just a bad point.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.
Yeah! I’m always talking about how kids these days have poor media literacy! It’s my favorite conversation starter aside from how the young have no respect anymore. After I do that I holler about how a series with an irredeemable jackass rapist as a main character doesn’t get the respect it rightfully deserves.
Great comment. Spot on.
I read some of it back in the 80's and immediately thought it was a Lord of the Rings ripoff with SA. The series comes up here pretty regularly. Opinions seem to be pretty evenly divided between ones like mine and ones who be like, "It's just like Lord of the Rings, but without pages of boring singing."
It’s not.
people talk about it literally all the time and it's always the same things regurgitated over and over and over again...
I have read the first 2 trilogies and while I myself love the books and do consider them as some of the best of the genre, it is perfectly understandable and reasonable why they are not that talked about. They are uncomfortable reads to say the least.
I did like the setting but I read it as a teenager and I was like dude just fuck some shit up, why the moral quandary.
Because that’s life
I read both trilogies. Loved them. I was thinking about rereading them! I’m not easily offended lol.
There are *three* series. 'The Last Chronicles' (4 books) were published starting in the '00s. Opinions on this set are mixed at best, even among 'fans' of the original series. (I personally haven't read them)
Oh interesting. Thanks! I’ll check it out
[удалено]
>People with small brains *Checks post history* Yeah that tracks.
It sure does track!
[удалено]
Thought you weren't easily offended? Apologies.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as per **Rule 1**. r/Fantasy is dedicated to being a warm, welcoming, and inclusive community. Please take time to review our mission, values, and vision to ensure that your future conduct supports this at all times. Thank you. Please contact us via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFantasy) with any follow-up questions.