I do like the uncertainty aspect. Is the land real or not, is Covenant justified in his unbelief and what does that mean for his actions? All interesting questions. I just wish the narrative vehicle was less clunky.

I agree that some of the elements I’ve criticized are intentional; I’m not entirely convinced that excuses them. The books are not really only from Covenant’s perspective, there are other POV characters. The “side quest” I mention is especially illustrative since its a quest Covenant explicitly refuses to get involved with and is then told by another character in retrospect (with characteristically little detail). Many of the major battles Covenant isn’t even present for and we get another POV character or the omniscient narrator.

So while I agree that the central plot device and the associated moral questions are definitely intentional (and effective), I don’t think the narrative style or lack of atmosphere can be excused in the same way. I’ve no doubt the books were ahead of their time and influential (and I’m glad I tried them for those reasons) but I don’t think they hold up very well. If you do re-read, I’m curious what you think.

From what I read they were quite popular at release but seem to have really fallen out of the zeitgeist. Probably in some part due to these issues, there’s just better books available to new readers.

Lord Foul’s Bane - Stephen Donaldson

Heard of the Covenant series for a long time, never got around to it before now. Seems OK, doubt I’ll read all 10 but we’ll see.

This is a really cool book. I don’t think it’s particularly unique in terms of its structure but the concepts it discusses and the parallels it draws across fields are worth thinking about.

The question is not whether a peasant could be an interesting character. Obviously they could. A talented writer could make almost anyone’s life compelling. The question is whether that perspective serves the story being told.

ASOIAF is a story about political power. The people who have the ability to affect those outcomes are the obvious focus.

A peon’s POV would be telling a different story and shift the focus from the people competing to the people living with the consequences of the competition. That could be a great novel, but it would not advance the retelling of the dynastic struggle for control of Westeros.

This is why I asked why you find the absence of lower-class POVs surprising. It seems like an obvious consequence of the scope and focus of the story.

Is this surprising? The book series centers around the struggle for political control of a kingdom and as a result is told by the people involved in that struggle. What would the perspective of an uninvolved peasant or stevedore add?

I have no multiple copies, I’ve stopped collecting physical books and almost exclusively use my e- reader. Storing books is so space consuming I just can’t justify it anymore. The only hardcopies I own at this point are gifts from other people that I held on to for that reason.

Man this book was hard for me. I feel like it motivated me to read so much more so that I can go back in 10 years and maybe understand the allusions/references.

Have you read Anathem by Neal Stephenson? It’s got great world building and is pretty weird sci-fi but definitely not “horror” in any sense of the word so may not be exactly what you’re looking for. Fun read though.

Hated hated hated this book. Not to discourage others from reading it, just seconding the sentiment that it’s a book few people finish.

Suttree strikes me as being similarly world weary as Maqroll but McCarthy’s characterization is much richer than Mutis’s and I enjoyed the book more than I’m enjoying Maqroll.

You know - I read the comparisons to Don Quixote before I picked up this book and I REALLY disliked Don Quixote. I did finish part 1 but could not bring myself to start part 2 - not sure if that counts as DNF or not.

In answer to your question, I’m not sure I see strong parallels between Maqroll and Don Quixote, the tone in Don Quixote was much less disenchanted/jaded and more… well, quixotic. I don’t think Maqroll as character has the same “humorous” (I didn’t find it funny) self-delusion that people appreciate in Don Quixote. Maqroll is a realist his adventures just aren’t very believable and I don’t think the writing/atmosphere outweighs the trudging plot. I think my main objection to Maqroll (hearkening back to the Dr. Evil reference) is that it comes across to me as if it was written by a person who isn’t very worldy but uses obscure/exotic settings to seem like they are. Which is strange because by all accounts Mutis was actually quite well traveled. I guess in my opinion where Melville succeeds in building credibility by delving into the minutia of cetology Mutis fails in establishing his worldliness with his plot/settings (in my opinion of course).

Struggling through the Adventures and Misdaventures of Maqroll - what a drag, feel like I’m reading the same episode over and over again.