Gradual Interview
(answers from December 2005, as of Jan 11 2026, 11:29:02 PM)
www.StephenRDonaldson.com
© 2004 by Stephen R.Donaldson

Why are all your female heroines "broken"?

Do you mean Min Donner?  Koina Hannish?  Sorus Chatelaine, perhaps?  The First of the Search?  King Joyse's wife and daughters?

From my perspective, I don't write about "broken" females, I write about "broken" people.

(12/03/2005)

James

Hi Stephen,

Sorry, not a question but instead a compliment.  I have just finished reading your book of short fiction, Reave the Just, and I have to say that it was thoroughly enjoyable.  In fact, I was happily surprised to find that I liked every single story in it.  After finding the Gap series just a trifle too mean spirited for my tastes, Reave was a welcome return for me to your writings.

Well, one question I suppose: was the "stranger" from the story By Any Other Name also an incarnation of Reave the Just?  Seemed to have a similar MO.  Speaking of which, why do your heroes have to endure such beatings in order to save their charges?

Yes, the "rescuer" in "By Any Other Name" is Reave (from "Reave the Just").  That's one of the several implications of the title.

It isn't just my "heroes" who "endure such beatings".  It's also the people they rescue--and half the supporting cast as well.  By and large, Donaldson characters get beat up a lot.  Gee (I want to say), *my* life is hard.  I get beat up all the time.  Why shouldn't the same thing happen to my characters?  But that retort is only half serious.  A more serious answer is:  easy victories don't mean anything.  Triumph over evil (or pain, or fear, or any other obstacle) is only easy when the evil (or pain or fear etc.) is trivial.

Why would I want to waste your time telling stories that are trivial?

(12/03/2005)

I have found few books that have captivated me as much as Your Covenant series. My eye sight site does not allow me the hour that I enjoy reading as they once did.  I therefore would like to commend you and your team for pulling together "The Runes of the Earth" Audio Read by Scott Brick and released by Penquin. Are your other Covenent works available on audio format as of yet?  I also have heard the rumblings of a movie (Can film really do your works justice)as LOTR was a great movie the books were much better still.

This bears repeating.  The Library of Congress "Books On Tape" program has several Donaldson titles.  And then there's www.audible.com.  Other sources may exist as well.  But as far as I know, no one has ever tackled producing the Donaldson "canon" comprehensively in an audible format.  I consider that unfortunate; but it isn't under my control.

(12/03/2005)

Daniel Björkman

Dear Mr Donaldson...

Thank you very much for your answer to my previous questions. It's taken me some time to come up with two more that hasn't been asked by someone else (I found this interview way too late; most of the questions I had have already been taken, darn it) and that I can't sort of figure out your answer to from what I've already heard. Still, I succeeded in finding untapped reserves of ignorance in myself. (*grins*)

1) I'm not sure I understand where Linden's ability to possess people comes from. Other people with the health-sense don't seem to have it. I admit that I was pretty young when I read the Second Chronicles and I might have missed the obvious answer, but could you please fill me in anyway?

2) I'm rereading "Runes of the Earth" right now, and the part about the One Forest and the Ravers in combination with something you said here got me thinking.

I can see how Foul considers himself "more important, even more good" than others. Everything on the Earth just looks so SMALL to him that destroying everything in order to free a celestial, divine being such as himself from the indignity of having to interact with them seems to him as the lesser of two evils - maybe even a just punishment for these crude, insignificant beings who has dared to impose their presence on his refined sensibilities. For Foul, I guess the highest possible good would be "me being restored to my rightful places in the heavens."

The Ravers took me a bit more time to figure out. But given that they are said to be a sort of incarnation of humanity's infrinchement on the Land, a sort of avatars of industrialism... could it be that they define the highest possible good as "us owning everything"? That they think that things only become good and beautiful and important by belonging to the Ravers themselves?

It would certainly make symbolical sense. The Ravers are possessing spirits, after all, and "possess" is just another word for "own." And if my reasoning is correct, they'd certainly consider themselves "more good" than everyone else. By possessing someone, they would by their own reasoning be granting that someone an ultimate blessing.

That was a long-winded way to ask a simple question. What do you think about the idea? Was it what you had in mind?

Sincerely,

Daniel Björkman

<sigh>  Things that seem so simple to me are often difficult to explain.  Nonetheless I press on.  <rueful smile>

1) Two points.  a) Who in the first trilogy--apart from the bad guys--would even *want* to possess anyone else?  Health-sense-wise, everyone is pretty much on an equal footing.  And "reverence for life" sort of defines the prevailing ethos.  b) There are issues of *degree*.  In the second trilogy, everyone else has little or no health-sense:  Linden has too much (certainly more than she can handle; arguably more than anyone else has ever had, since she was a skilled physician to begin with).  And in a very real sense, "mind" cannot be distinguished from "body".  The brain is everywhere:  its neurons unify the entire organism.  So an ability to see into and influence the state of the body is by definition an ability to see into and influence the state of the mind.  Linden's ability to possess is only different *in degree* from "ordinary" health-sense as it is understood in the first trilogy.  (Of course, we all know that "differences in degree become differences in kind." [Marx]  But Linden herself is different "in kind" than the natural inhabitants of the Land.)

2) Your interpretations--being yours--are inherently just as valid as mine.  But I do think about, say, the Ravers in very different terms.  Trying to compress some large concepts into a very short space:  much of the power of fantasy as a form of communication arises from the fact that it permits, enables, and even encourages exaggeration and personification.  (Hence the disdain that the "literary establishment" feels toward fantasy.)  William James has some interesting things to say about this.  In fantasy, storytellers can explore the arational aspects of being human through arealistic means (magic, monsters, archetypal evil, whatever).  So you might think of the Ravers this way:  take a blind, kllling (and ultimately terror-based) emotion like "road rage"; remove the many complexities of the individual who feels the rage; transpose that distilled emotion back to a pre-medieval, or even pre-barbarian, form of reality; and then personify it (give it form and identity as if it were a definable person).  Hey, presto:  Ravers.  They don't want to "own" anything:  they want to destroy everything that they hate (which--although they would deny it--just happens to be everything that they fear).  They "take possession" because (being nothing more than distilled emotions) that's the only method by which they can carry out their desires.

Does this help?

(12/07/2005)

Sirus LaVey

I found Runes of the Earth and freaked out!I have made so many of my friends read The Chronicles you wouldn't believe...When you describe the Haruchai I imagine an army of Jet Li's and Jackie Chans.Sometimes I wonder if that is your intention.I am a musician and my band Ghost of Dreams forgotten have a few songs based on stories in The Chronicles.I wonder if you mind or get upset.It is totally in tribute to the emotional depths your books take us.One of the songs is The Unhomed.Thank you for continuing the saga-book one of The Last Chronicles ruled!!!!!!m/m/  Sirus

First, I don't object at all to "songs based on stories in The Chronicles."  I'm flattered.  Carry on with my blessing.

Second, I never even heard of Jackie Chan or Jet Li until at least 15 years after I finished "The Second Chronicles."  Historically, we would have to say that Chan and Li are based on the Haruchai, rather than the other way around.  <huge grin>

(12/07/2005)

Drew (drew)

I've noticed, as I'm sure you have, many requests from aspiring writters. Anything from, how to start a stroy, to how to find the right publisher.

It must be the most flattering thing an auther can hear, that his books moved so many people to want to write.

I'm just curious, have any aspiring writters ever sent you any of their manuscripts, or even published works?
If so, are there any we've heard of?

Thank you.

There are several scenarios.

1) An aspiring writer sends me a manuscript.  I always return it unread because it is just *rude* to intrude on my life and time in that way.

2) An aspiring writer asks permission to send me a manuscript.  I always say no because I (as perhaps any writer is) am the wrong person for the job.  I have too many opinions about how books *should* be written, and those opinions are too passionately held, to be of any use to an aspiring writer.  Crudely put, writers need readers, not other writers--and writers are seldom useful readers.

3) An editor sends me a manuscript about to be published.  (No, they never ask permission.  But they also don't take it personally if I just throw the manuscript away.)  If the writer was not known to me, in the old days I would read the manuscript if I respected the editor.  Now I don't have the time.  However, if the writer was/is known to me, I'll make a special effort, either because the writer is a friend, or because I know the writer's work is good, or both.

This isn't a direct answer to your question, but I hope it tells you what you want to know.

Is it flattering to receive requests (of any kind) from aspiring writers?  Sometimes yes:  usually no.  The truest thing I know about becoming a writer--and I knew this without anyone telling me--is that each individual has to figure it out for him/herself.  All of the very best lessons that I've learned about writing came from a) readers, not writers, and b) studying other people's writing.  Asking an admired writer for help is like trying to take a shortcut on a road that permits no shortcuts.

(12/10/2005)

Bill Ridgway

I read every reference in the GI which contained Elohim.  I understand that the term means "God", or thereabouts.  I was wondering if you ever studied anthroposophy or Rudolph Steiner?

Elohim is one of the seven levels of higher beings.

Thank you for all your wonderful work.

Forgive my ignorance.  I've never even *heard* of "anthroposophy" or Rudolph Steiner.

I could actually say quite a bit about this, mostly having to do with my belief that fiction (storytelling) is a richer source of ideas and understanding than any non-fiction.  But that's just my opinion.  And sometimes ignorance is just ignorance.

(12/10/2005)

jim melvin

Dear Stephen:

As a writer, I find myself revising and revising and -- finally -- having to let it go. I can never reach what I consider the point of perfection. If you were allowed to go back over Lord Foul's Bane today and do another revision, would you find a lot of things you'd like to change? Or would you change very little?

Although I see serious flaws in both "Covenant" trilogies (perhaps a bit less in "Lord Foul's Bane" than elsewhere), I wouldn't accept an opportunity to go back and revise if I were offered one.  (Except in the small, infuriating case of the end of the Prologue of "The Wounded Land", where I would *love* to rearrange Jeremiah's position among his siblings.  <grin>)  Several reasons.

1) The quest for "perfection" (however defined) isn't just impossible:  it's downright self-destructive.  We're human; therefore fallible.  We can't be truly creative unless we accept our propensity to screw up.

2) I am no longer the man I was when I wrote my earlier books.  Whatever else we might say about that younger individual, his work had its own unique integrity.  I could not impose my present values, desires, skills, or instincts on my earlier work without violating that integrity in some form.  (Look at how Henry James crippled his own books by rewriting them later in life.)

3) The "flaws" I now see in the first and second trilogies are too global--or perhaps merely too structural (or, in the case of "White Gold Wielder", too personal)--to be repaired by anything less than complete reconsideration.  I'm better at story-design now than I was then; and I understand my characters better.  If I were willing to spend my life writing the same books over and over again, "The Illearth War," "The Power that Preserves," "The Wounded Land," and "White Gold Wielder" would be quite different than they are now.  But what would be the point?  They still wouldn't be "perfect"--and I would have wasted much of my life.

In short, I don't aspire to "perfection."  I aspire to "the absolute best that I'm capable of today."

(12/14/2005)

sgeddes

Mr. Donaldson:

It would seem rather redundant to continue to heap praise on you for your obviously brilliant literary accomplishments.  Nevertheless, I must say that it is a very few authors who are worthy of being read for more than entertainment.

My question, while woefully mundane, has long troubled me.  It concerns proper names.  While many of the proper names in the chronicles are standard fantasy creations, there are several fundamental names which are not, (e.g. “The Land,” “Lord Foul”).  Why are these names so obvious?  Even Covenant’s name builds a powerful connection between his character and the rather biblical overtones of his role in the chronicles.  Therefore, I am curious about your motivation in using “words” in these instances that are not traditionally considered to be “names.”

	I will wait patiently for Revenant with the rest.  I thank you sincerely for many hours of enjoyable reading.

Whether or not my chosen technique (in this case, names like "the Land," "the Earth," "the One Forest," etc.) succeeded in its purpose, my intent was to convey the numinous simplicity with which the inhabitants of the Land once viewed (and revered) their world.  It's analogous to the way in which a loving father might call his son "Son" rather than "[Proper Name]", not to diminish his son's distinctive individuality, but rather to emphasize how much he values his relationship with his son.  Thus:  "Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."  Or think of Indian tribe that consider themselves simply "the People."  The entire ethos of the Land's people--Stonedownors, Woodhevennin, Lords--revolves around cherishing their world both directly and spiritually.  So why, I asked myself, would such people use anything other than the simplest of nouns for their most fundamental relationships?  And how would the comprehension of the reader be enhanced if I devised unfamiliar names instead of using obvious nouns?

(Just as a side-note:  people tend to give their "lands" names when they are clearly aware that *other* "lands" exist.  In those cases, names are needed to identify and distinguish.  The people of the Land have--for good reason, I think--a comparatively hermetic world-view.)

(12/14/2005)

Tony Powell

Having stated many times that you never begin a story unless you know how it ends, one assumes that this "not starting a story until you know how it ends" is a sort of covenant with yourself as a writer, a reassurance that the work is worthy of your name on the cover.

But when we consider that you have also stated that you had the Third Chronicles in mind all along, how could you possibly have justified (and settled for) publishing --- indeed, writing --- only the first two chronicles? 

I've explained the delay between the "Second" and "Last Chronicles" several times, often on this site.  I won't repeat myself.

But the issue of "not starting a story until [I] know how it ends" isn't a "covenant" I've made with myself:  it's a requirement imposed by my imagination, my style of creative thought.  I simply *can't* start a story until I know exactly where I'm going.  Storytelling involves making an enormously complex--and seemingly endless--series of decisions; and I have to have some basis on which to reach those decisions.  Other writers make their decisions by different methods, some more intuitive, some less.  My method is--in a manner of speaking--imposed on me by who I am.  Without it, I would find storytelling impossible.

(12/14/2005)

Stephen

I've been reading your books since I was fourteen or so, and I still find today that I can learn from them today. 

For instance, I only learned recently that "Shaheed" is Arabic (I think) for "martyr." How wonderful! Also that the prefix "ur-" means "original."

Also, is the word "ur-vile" one of your creations, or had you heard that somewhere before? I ask because when I was a boy there was a primitive computer game called "Rogue," and one of the monsters was an ur-vile. I guess i assumed this was a legendary beast that you had appropriated, but i can find no entry of it anywhere. I must assume the Rogue creators read your books!

Thank you again for your storytelling and your patience with us, your loyal readers.

--Steve Trimble 

As far as I know, I came up with "ur-viles" all on my own.  (Which wasn't hard.  As an English major, I was familiar with the "ur-" concept.  And C. S. Lewis set a precedent for Viles by writing about--if memory serves--Hags and Cruels.)  I've never heard of--and certainly never played--a computer game called "Rogue".

Considering my background, it's a bit peculiar that I have in some sense misused the "ur-".  Among English majors--at least of my generation--"ur-" denotes "original," but it connotes "hypothetical."  It refers to an original which we believe to exist, but which we do not possess.  I twisted that quite a bit with "ur-viles" and "ur-Lord," trying to suggest an artificial and possibly corrupt relationship.

(12/14/2005)

Scott Flowers

Hello to my all-time-favorite author! I've been privileged to have read all of your published works n times and concur with much aforementioned kudos of same. I have also been reading this GI with interest since shortly after it's inception (and have submitted many questions via telepathic thought alone.) This Q, however, has persistently recurred such that I am compelled to post:

Assuming that your mortality is rescinded or extended until well past the completion of the Final Chronicles (and I do), what happens should we hit the 'end of time' before the fourth and final volume is released? I am speaking here of the Mayan calendar end-date of July 2012 (per Gregorian,) which I understand eclipses your own reported projection for the release of 'The Last Dark.'

The ancient Mayans based an entire multi-million-year cycle on the aforementioned end date. They knew Earth's cycle around the milky way when modern astronomers have only calculated the same at around the time 'Lord Foul's Bane' was released. [reference 'Maya Cosmogenesis 2012' by John Major Jenkins ISBN 1879181487]

My own personal assumtion is that the 'end of time' does not necessarily equate to the 'end of the world' (our world), but just in case I am wrong <grin,> I am hoping that there might be a contingency plan to provide at least an outline of satisfaction to this saga so that we your grateful audience aren't bereft upon our final ascenscion to the next world.

Even as I jest, I mean this plea quite sincerely. I for one can not imagine completing my experience here until I have read all of Thomas Covenant that you have to share.

Thanks again so much for so much!

I'm sorry.  I don't know your future.  I don't even know mine.  And I certainly don't know what's going to happen to the world we live in.  But two comments.

1) If the "end of time" occurs before I finish publishing "The Last Chronicles," I doubt that either of us will be in a position to care.

2) It's curious to note that the Mayan "end of time" may indeed coincide with the "end of time" in the Land.  <shameless grin>

(12/21/2005)

Mr Kuldip Caberwal

Thanks for filling the void in me, but how are you inspired to form your characters,have most of your amazing work and there's so many realistic ones, pictures,?friends?celebs?

I've answered this before--although I admit that the GI has now become unwieldy beyond belief, so I can't really complain about the fact that questions are repeated occasionally.  The short answer is:  I make it all up.  I don't base people, places, or situations on anything that I've consciously experienced.  (Unconscious experience is entirely another matter, of course; but it's a complete mystery to me, so I can't explain it.)  In fact, I can hardly write at all if I don't have the sensation that I'm making it all up.

(12/21/2005)

Matthew Preuss

Hello, Steve you're my hero! When I finally got around to reading The Chronicles of Thomas covenant I was blown away on every level. Recently I just had some luck getting a question through to Terry Brooks (I won a map for having my question chosen). Amidst this world of high technology what is the best way to fuse Eastern Mysticism with the Western Religious traditions? Also do you believe in real magick?    

<sigh>  There's a trouble-maker in every crowd....

I don't try "to fuse Eastern Mysticism with the Western Religious traditions" because I don't hold with either of them.  I just glean nuggets wherever I can; and the result is an undifferentiated mish-mash with which I'm quite comfortable.

Do I believe in "real magick"?  I can't answer that until you define "real" and "magick".  (This is *your* question.  I'm not going to do all the work for you.  <grin>)  But I'll tell you this:  I never have to look very far to find evidence of transcendence.

(12/21/2005)

pete minister

Hey Steve,

where can i get one of those "Girls of the land" calendars you mentioned.
keep up the good work.

EBay?  Somebody?  I want one myself.  <grin>

(12/21/2005)

Lou Sytsma

Hello again - I hope this email finds you well.

A curiousity question - Have you ever during the creation of any of the Convenant novels written or contemplated a situation where one of the characters of the Land was transported to Convenant's world? 

Thanks for your time. 

I can honestly say, No.  In fact, No, no, a thousand times no!  That would be an absolute violation of the integrity of the stories I'm trying to tell.  In fact, just trying to think about your question makes my skin crawl.  (Don't take that personally.  It's a description of how my mind works, not a criticism of your question.)

(12/21/2005)

Todd

You said that you found The Silmarillion to be fragmented, and that was one of the reasons (I'm sure there are many more(why you don't like prequels). I'm quite certain that you understand that The Silmarillion was an unfinished work, and if Tolkien had the time - and money - to devote himself entirely to the task, that the fragmentation you speak of would have been, I believe, perfect coherency.

Given that, what is your thought of The Silmarillion? Imagine that it wasn't fragmented. It is already considered a phenomenon by many; we know that it is was an incomplete work - therefore it had to be fragmented. If you died (forbid!) while writing the Last Chronicles, and someone who was familiar with your story (if such a person exists) finished it, it too would be fragmented, and less a story.

So - imagine that Tolkien had lived to write his prequel, would that change your mind about prequels?

Granted, the prequels that have been written in the modern age of fantasy, that I am familiar with, are horrible at best. But they weren't written by Tolkien - or by you.

I'm lumping you into, I'm sure, uncomfortable territory, as most writers of fantasy quell when Tolkien's name is uttered. But still - I'm interested in your reply.

If Tolkien had completed "The Silmarillion," I probably would have read it with more pleasure (which isn't much, considering how little I enjoyed the book we have).  But it wouldn't change my views on prequels.  As a story, "The Silmarillion" has (this is just my opinion) several fundamental flaws.  I'll mention two.  1) Even "complete," it is *inherently* fragmented:  in essence, it contains a number of interwoven short stories which do not (indeed, can not) accumulate to form a satisfying novel.  I don't enjoy such things much, even when they're well done.  2) It concentrates on (this really is just my opinion) what I consider to be the least interesting inhabitants of Tolkien's world, the Elves, who are simply too static to hold my attention.

Show me an artistically complete "Silmarillion" and I'll probably read it.  But I won't write a prequel.

(12/23/2005)

Stephen Trimble

This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

To include this question in the downloaded file, you must change your preferences in the Options screen.  Go to www.StephenRDonaldson.com, click on "from the author" and then "Options."  The question can also be viewed online.

(12/23/2005)

John

Mr. Donaldson,

You have written often that you put alot of thought into what you write; and it has been said that sometimes your plots are seemingly overly intricate (Myself, I do not see this). With this in mind, my question regards Anson Sternway. This might be a spoiler for those who have not read The Man Who Fought Alone....

Ok, so Sternway killed Bernie Applewait. He walked into the bathroom and came upon Bernie flailing at Hardshorn with his flik. Sternway had planned to meet Hardshorn in the bathroom after Hardshorn's 'picks' had looted the convention. Sternway had not expected Brew to "tag the picks" (quote take from TMWFA). Applewait's presence was certainly not expected by Sternway. A fight ensues; Bernie smacks Sternway in the forearm with the flik, Sternway disarms the flik and uses it to crush Bernie's throat. 

Ok, knowing Sternway as we do from all the information provided up until this point when Brew confronts him, I am a little confused by Sternways action. He is extremely arrogant and conceited; he is an 8th level Dan (I think) and enjoys fighting for fun. In the moment that Sternway found Bernie trying to subdue Hardshorn, and the moment that Bernie recognized Sternway, Sternway joins the fight. I have a hard time seeing Sternway using the flik to kill Bernie; knowing his character I think Sternway would instinctively use his hands to do the deed. 

I can see Sternway plotting after killing Bernie to remove the flik to confuse any investigation, but in the spur of the moment was it just by chance that he grabbed the flik and used it to kill Bernie? Or am I over analyzing this?

And yes, it is most likely going to kill me to wait 10 to 12 years for the next Man Who book. *frown* So write faster! I swear, if I die before you finish that series, you WILL be haunted. I promise. Really.

Anyway, thanks for the time, and most especially you books. Best to you and yours.

This may indeed contain spoilers for people who haven't read "The Man Who Fought Alone".

Look at it this way:  how would it serve Sternway's purpose(s) to leave behind a body which was obviously killed with someone's bare hands?  That immediately reduces the list of suspects.  Whereas virtually ANYone can kill a person using a flik to the throat....  Sternway is nothing if not cold and calculating, and he wants to cast suspicion elsewhere (e.g. to frame Hardshorn).

That said, I'm very glad that you enjoyed the book enough to ask questions about it--and to be interested in its obviously-necessary sequel.

(12/24/2005)

Paul

This is a very theoretical question: if someone had more money than sense, what would you say to an offer of scanning the Donaldson collection at Kent State University and placing it in PDF format to make it accessible (via the web) to people who are too far away to ever be likely to visit in person? If the answer is 'yes', what legal or other steps would be necessary to get the wheels in motion (assuming finance was there to support the effort)?

I know from what you have said previously that you can't imagine why anyone would want to read that stuff, but we're fans, and it's in our contract to be obsessive about this kind of thing! I remember discussing something similar with someone in a band - they also couldn't understand why someone would be interested in hearing album demos and outtakes, but to fans this is great stuff to listen to how things evolved (and sometimes the demos are better than the final version of course... polishing can often take the shine off).

Another quick question (I don't think this has been asked, not that I could find)...why do you do this (the GI), or put another way, why do other authors not do this!?

One final request - if you haven't done so recently by the time you get to this question, could you give us a quick update on progress with Fat Rev please. And given the likely time delay, better wish you happy Xmas too!

In order:

Hmm.  This is a highly hypothetical question.  I'm not entirely sure how it would work.  At present, the Donaldson Collection is "on loan" to the KSU Libraries.  This presumably means that an obsessive person with pots of money and loads of free time would need permission from both me and KSU.  And I don't know whether or not I would give permission.  I'm torn between "Where's the harm?" and "Why would I want my out-takes, screwups, etc. made generally available?"  Simpler for everyone to wait until I'm dead.  <grin>  At that point, the "loan" will become a "gift"; KSU will own the collection; and our hypothetical OCD person will only need KSU's permission.  And KSU would probably give (supervised) permission for the sake of (legitimate) self-promotion.

Why do I do the GI?  It seemed like a good idea at the time.  <rueful smile>  The only reason I have a web site in the first place is that my publisher insisted.  I thought it was a bad idea; a waste of everyone's time.  But I acceded because I want to keep my publisher happy.  In that spirit, when my webmaster first proposed the idea of a "gradual interview," it was intended to simply encourage interest in "The Last Chronicles."  I did *not* anticipate the sheer scale of the response--or the amount of work that I had inadvertently agreed to do.  <sigh>  However.  Since then, the GI has taken on an entirely unexpected life of its own.  And the amount of work I have to do is balanced by the rewards I get (which I've discussed elsewhere).

I suspect the primary reason more writers don't do something similar is that they feel--as I once did--that no one would really care.

I don't give updates on "Fatal Revenant" because I don't want to turn that process into a tease.  When I have something substantial to report, I'll post "news" on this site.  Until then, I won't toy with you by saying things like, The first draft is already longer than "Runes".  <malicious grin>

(12/24/2005)

Andy Pastuszak

Mr. Donaldson,

I became a huge fan of your with the first Chronicles series, which I read in high school.  As much as I truly loved both chronicles, the books I think disturbed me the most and had me thinking really long and hard were the books in the gap series.

The Amnion's method of mutaing you into one of them and having you lose everything about your humanity gave me chills and almost giave me nightmares.  I don't think Stephen King could have come up with something scarier than losing one's own humanity but staying alive and intelligent.

What inspired you to write the Gap series, and where did you draw your inspiration for the Amnion>

I've already written a lot about my original "inspiration" for the GAP books.  But the Amnion in particular....

Well, there are shape-shifters in Wagner's RING cycle (one of the powers of the magic ring is shape-shifting).  There are shape-shifters throughout much of modern fantasy (Patricia A. McKillip's work is only one of many examples).  And I've always thought that the whole idea is scarier than it is generally presented as being.  So all I did was extend the basic concept into imposed, involuntary, and irreversible shape-shifting.  The idea that *I* might be transformed into a manifestation or servant of something I abhor certainly gives *me* nightmares.

(12/24/2005)

Elmer Hoffmann

I first picked up "Ill Earth War" at age 8 back in 1980 or so.  After eagerly devouring its content, I quickly purchased the remaining 2 books in the series spending the rainy days of the northern California coast in my room reading the series, twice.  Since then I've read both chronicles several times, enjoying them immensely and I contribute these fine literary works to rousing my initial interest in reading.

When browsing through the book store and coming across “The Runes of the Earth”, my heart jumped, joyfully.  I honestly never expected to see a continuation of the saga.

I’ve read “The Runes of the Earth” and thoroughly enjoyed it.  I love the fantasy world you’ve created.  If the Last Chronicles turns out to be a great success will you consider continuing writing about “The Land” and its wonders if not the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant?

I don't have a crystal ball.  And if I had one, I hope I would be wise enough not to use it.  But at present I simply cannot imagine writing anything set in the same world beyond "The Last Chronicles."  Put crudely, it ain't called "The *Last* Chronicles" for nuttin'.  "Success"--or the lack of it--has nothing to do with how I decide what to write.

(12/25/2005)

James Hastings

A few questions:

1) If the denizens of the land drove, which side of the road would they drive on?

2)Someone in the GI stated, "the Haruchai of the Last Chronicles, as far as we can see, appear to believe themselves the only ones who are worthy of preserving the Land, and they absolutely refuse to accept any criticism about their ways, their deeds, and the actions they undertook in order to become the Masters of the Land." That made me wonder: Is the Bush administration based upon the Last Chronicles in any way?  (Excluding the physical perfection of the Haruchai, of course.)

3) Did you base the Land's cosmology off of this website? http://www.fixedearth.com/

4)Could you take Covenant in a fight, and if so, would you feel guilty afterwards?

5)Have you ever considered a Reunion book, like "An All Star Land Christmas" or something?  Everybody gets a song or two with Hillary Duff and in the end Turiya Raver learns the true meaning of Christmas!  Think about it.  If it goes well, you could spin it off for Valentines Day, Halloween and... Patriots Day or something. 

6) Does the 2 question limit apply to questions you refuse to answer?

And finally, a comment: Linden Avery would make a terrible date.

You may not be surprised to hear that this reminds me of a joke.

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Two.  One to set the giraffe on fire, and one to fill the bathtub with multicolored power tools.

(12/25/2005)

John

Mr. Donaldson,

I have a plethora of questions, if you don't mind too much.

Covenant failed in his attempt to forge the Staff of Law in "The One Tree". He pointed to a particular branch on the Tree where he wanted Seadreamer to grab. You described the branch as ending "in a flat stump as if the rest of it had been cut off". We know that Berek forged the original Staff of Law from the One Tree; was this the remaining branch that he had used to do so? And, how was Berek able to acquire such a branch without rousing the Worm as did Seadreamer?

Covenant suffers from acrophobia. I myself have long suffered from the same such fear, though it has lessened a good deal since my childhood. Through treatment and therapy I learned that such phobias have various causes, which usually at their root are the result of emotional insecurities. Part of my 'treatment' consisted of confronting and even accepting/dealing with those emotional insecurities. At the end of "The Power that Preserves" has not Covenant learned the same to some extent? To this end, shouldn't his fear of heights be somewhat lessened at the beginning of the Second Chronicles (though it is true that he had not gone through any treatment)?

In the G.I., on September 7, 2005, you posted Anonymous' question where in part he asked of Stephen King's Dark Tower's main character suffering a similar loss of two fingers. You responded, "As far as I'm concerned, it's just a coincidence. I didn't encounter Stephen King's Dark Tower series until long after I had written the first "Covenant" trilogy". I think Anonymous was suggesting that perhaps King might have been influenced by you, not you by him. King published the Dark Tower in 1982, years after the First Chronicles. Any thoughts? 

And on another topic entirely, I read in an interview that you said you write differently now than you did when you first began to write. You said that for the First Chronicles you knew every little thing that would happen before you wrote the books. Everything was planned out. However, now you say you'r more interested in developing why your characters do as they do, and do not plot out the story as detailed as before prior to writing. Do you think this was your natural evolution as a writer? Was it the only way in which you *could* develop? Or, lookin back, would it have been possible to write back then as you write now? I know this simply might be pure speculation, but I'm just curious. 

Now I have more of a request than a question. I know you have read in public specific segments from "Fatal Revenant". Would it be possible for you to post on you website ANY part of "Fatal Revenant" prior to it being edited, and then the same part after the editing and your revision? A before and after. I am simply fascinated by the writing process. If so, that would be great, and if not, it's ok, your still my favorite author!

Well, I actually have more questions, but I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your time in reading and responding to us in the G.I., it is greatly appreciated.

Best wishes!

Taking your questions in reverse order (because I find scrolling easier that way):

It’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever post the kind of “before and after” excerpts you describe.  I find it embarrassing to let people see work which is less than the best I can do.  (Which is actually rather silly of me; but there it is.)  Plus there are serious contractual issues involved.  My publishers have paid for “first publication rights,” which means I would need their permission to post anything; which in turn means I would have to let them *see* the material first--and they wouldn’t be able to make an informed decision without reading the whole book, so after finishing the first draft I would have to let them read it *before* I did any revisions; and trust me when I say that if I did that really bad things could happen.

(So why, you ask, do I do readings at all?  Because most people don’t have phonographic memories, and meanwhile I sometimes learn a lot by hearing my prose out loud.  And why do my publishers permit readings?  In context, readings are considered good (i.e. free) advertising.)

I am not capable of writing now as I did 25+ years ago; and 25+ years ago I was not capable of writing as I do now.  The changes during that time were probably inevitable, given my personality, experiences, aspirations, and abilities.  Of course, different writers follow different trajectories.  But my increasing absorption in the details that make my characters “real”, like my increasing ability to trust my story-design instincts, seems to be the natural result of who I am and how I’ve lived.

I couldn’t even begin to speculate about Stephen King’s creative process--and if I could, I wouldn’t.  But I will say this:  there are no new ideas; there are only new writers.  In that sense, it doesn’t matter what a writer’s ideas *are*:  it only matters what that writer *does* with his/her ideas.  And what Stephen King does with his ideas is always uniquely his own.

Acrophobia.  I have a mild form myself.  I’ve had truckloads of treatment, both “on the couch” and “in life”.  And after 30+ years I’m happy to report some improvement in my ability to manage my fear.  But Covenant never had my advantages.  And *his* acrophobia, unlike mine, is a metaphor:  like his leprosy, it represents an attempt by the author to communicate something larger than the literal.

<sigh>  Yes, the stump you mention probably *is* where Berek got the wood for the original Staff of Law.  And no, I’m not going to tell you how he did it without rousing the Worm.  Some things are better left unexplained.  Others are too easily inferred to be improved by explanation.

(12/31/2005)

Steve M

I have no political motivation behind this question other then to stimulate discussion.  You have said that you don't write about race.  What are your thoughts about casting someone like Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson or Laurence Fishburne in the role of Thomas Covenant? Morgan Freeman as Mhoram, Prothall or Foul?  Halle Berry as Elena?  Alfre Woodard as Atiaran?  Wesley Snipes as Bannor?

Well, personally I’d rather see Wesley Snipes as Brinn--or even Stave.  But playing any Haruchai would severely restrict his *flair*.  With the right “effects,” he might make a good Saltheart Foamfollower.  As would Morgan Freeman.  Delroy Lindo as Lord Mhoram?  Ving Rhames as Grimmand Honninscrave?  Halle Berry as Linden?  Why not?  But I can’t see--or, more appropriately, hear--any of them as Covenant.  Who could shout out “Hellfire and bloody damnation!” with just the right blend of vehemence and shame?

(12/31/2005)

dlbpharmd

It seems clear that you do not consider Gilden-Fire to be a part of the official Covenant mythology.  For example, two reasons have been given for the expansion of the Haruchai into the Land during the time of Kevin:  one is to test themselves in combat against others (Runes); the other reason is to conquer resources (food, etc) for their homes and families (Gilden-Fire.)  Another example is in Gilden-Fire the quest for Coercri is beset by ur-viles in Grimmerdhore, but in The Illearth War Runnik gives a different version of those events.  In my mind it matters little - but I would like to know if certain things about the Haruchai past as told in Gilden-Fire you still consider to be true, i.e, the circumstances surrounding the swearing of the Vow before Revelstone, determination of leadership by combat, etc. 

2) Is there any significance to the leader of the Haruchai in Runes having the title of "the Voice of the Haruchai" instead of First Mark? 

Thank you again for the Covenant stories - waiting anxiously for Fatal Revenant!

1) “Gilden-Fire” is an out-take, rescued from my wastebasket by an improbable sequence of events which I regularly wish had never happened.  Nothing in it remains “true” in my mind--except perhaps the personalities of the Lords--unless that information is confirmed by some passage in the “authorized” text (e.g. leadership by combat).

2) If I can remember that far back….  <sigh>  The “command titles” in the first Covenant trilogy are analogous to “rank” in the Warward:  they express the role of the Bloodguard as part of the physical forces wielded by the Council of Lords.  They existed because human armies require a clearly defined chain of command.  So when the Vow was broken, the command titles ceased to have any meaning.  They were never intended to express an inherent aspect of Haruchai society.  Hence their absence from all of the subsequent “Chronicles”.

(12/31/2005)

mrdna

I am 36. I first read your books when I was aroun 15 or so. In the decades since, I have read them over 50 times. WHenever I cannot find a new book that is satisfying, I just seem to retreat to the Land. My wife just doesn't understand... Is there anything you can do to cure this addiction? 

Gee, that’s like asking if there’s anything alcohol can do to cure alcoholism.  Clearly you need a 12-Step Program of some kind; and the first step is going to involve taking responsibility for your own actions.  Then you’ll need some form of “submission to a higher power,” which in your case will necessitate immersion in other people’s books.  I advise repeated readings of Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” and Meredith’s “Modern Love.”

(12/31/2005)

Gary

I have a question about Elena in the Illearth War.  In one of your previous responses in the GI, you said that one of the reasons that the Lords chose Elena to be the High Lord was that she, like TC, had the ability to save or damn the Land.  She was also at the edge of the knife and capable of epic victory or defeat.

My question is that did Elena herself know that was one of the main reasons that she was chosen to be High Lord?  Did she realize that she might have a fatal flaw within her?  For example, TC was always reminded by most everyone that he would save or damn the Land.  Many people did not trust he would do the right thing, and he was always reminded of this.  However, most people seem to trust Elena, at least to her face.  Perhaps the Lords concealed their distrust for Elena for the same reasons they concealed her heritage from Hile Troy?

Sure, people kept telling Covenant that he will “save or damn the Land.”  But does he see himself that way?  Does he realize that he’s on some kind of knife-edge?  That he may have a fatal flaw?  I doubt it.  Nothing in the text suggests it (to the best of my recollection).  If anything, he’s more inclined to think of himself as the victim of his illness.  In practice, you might say that he sees himself as *all* flaw.

I suspect that the same concept applies to Elena, but in reverse.  She doesn’t see herself as flawed, or on a knife-edge:  like Troy, she’s *too* sure of who she is and what she can do.  But the attitude of the Lords toward her would be comparable to their attitude toward Covenant:  not distrust, but rather a kind of chosen trust (rather like a leap of faith).  The reasoning might go something like this:  if you choose to believe that something good will happen, and plan for it, you may or may not be right; but if you choose to believe that something bad will happen, and plan for it, you pretty much guarantee that nothing good *can* happen.  (By the way, this proposition has been confirmed by my personal experience.)

As for the fact that the Lords have kept secrets about Elena from Troy, it might be considered simple compassion toward Covenant (sparing Covenant the extremes of Troy’s impulse to be judgmental); or it might be seen as acting on their policy of deliberate trust.

(12/31/2005)

Dave Greer

Steve

A question, sorry if you've answered it previously.

How long would you have carried on pushing LFB if it had continued to be rejected? And what career would you have chosen had your writing career not taken off?

Thanks in advance

Part of the sheer terror of having LFB rejected by every fiction publisher in the US was the knowledge that I had found my “true calling,” the work I was born to do.  One consequence or corollary was an absolute inability to imagine doing anything else.  I didn’t know how to live in a world that held no place for me.  My plan--to the extent that I had one--was to submit LFB to British publishers.  And doubtless I would have tried to get some kind of job (teaching?).  But if Lester del Rey hadn’t picked LFB out of his slush pile, the only thing I would really have done is died--emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, if not physically.  I had neither the strength nor the tools (e.g. wisdom) to survive unending confirmation that my best simply wasn’t good enough.

(12/31/2005)

Chris O'Connell

Mr. Donaldson,  I just finished listening to 'State of Fear' by Michael Crighton.  In the book he has quite a bit to say about the environment.  Whether I agree with him or not, I'm not sure yet... but he does make a point of saying (in reference to the environment) that we can not 'preserve' it.  Our environment is a dynamic system and is always changing.  He points to our national parks as an example of how terribly we have messed up something by trying to preserve it in the state it was in when the park was set up.  Although it may be a subtle difference, he says we should be learning to 'manage' nature, rather than preserve it.

I saw the Lords of the First Chronicles making the same mistake with Kevin's Lore.  The Lords were just trying to preserve the lore (and the law) by trying to re-learn lore that was thousands of years old.  At the end of the First Chronicles, Mhoram realized the error and saw that the land and law couldn't be preserved.  It was too dynamic and alive and changing and required a different approach (I'm reminded of the phrase, 'the day you stop growing is the day you die').

Now that we are in the Third Chronicles, the Masters are making the same mistake.  It seems obvious that the Masters are eventually doomed to failure for trying to preserve the land, rather than learning how to help the land change and grow.  

Did this concept of 'preservation' being a doomed concept from the start exist in your mind as you were writing, or am I rationalizing something I 'think' I see in your work in hindsight.  I'm intentionally leaving this very open because I'm curious to see your response to this line of thought (I guess you could answer 'yes' or 'no' to what I asked, but what fun would that be :).

Thanks in advance,
Chris

Hmm.  One small matter first.  I disagree with you about Mhoram’s realization.  In my view, his recognition was that the Oath of Peace (a construct of the “new” Lords) had been misunderstood--or misapplied--not that “the land and law couldn’t be preserved.”

Now.  I haven’t read “State of Fear.”  My instinctive reaction to your description of Crighton’s ideas is that I’m not sure human beings are *qualified* to “manage” the environment, and we might all be better off if we let the environment manage itself.  (Polluting and depleting the world as fast as we can does NOT constitute either “managing” the environment ourselves or letting the environment manage itself.  What we’re really doing is creating conditions which will eventually force the environment to manage *us*.)  (In this, the Masters are very unlike the Lords.  The Lords wanted to nurture and support their environment.  The Masters want to prevent people from having any impact at all on their environment.)  But I wasn’t thinking in your specific terms--“‘preservation’ being a doomed concept”--when I planned any of the “Chronicles”.  Of course, I was profoundly affected by Tolkien, who pretty much defined (and imposed?) the proposition that “the world is becoming less than it was” as one of the necessary characteristics of epic fantasy.  (And if Tolkien didn’t do it, Tennyson did.)  However, I wasn’t consciously trying to emulate Tolkien--or Tennyson--in the “Chronicles”.  On a conscious level, I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down), and to suggest that it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can.

(12/31/2005)

Pier Giorgio (Xar)

Hello Steve! As I write, you just answered my question about Stave (thank you!), and here I am again already... What can I say, I love your books :)

Anyway, I replied to a Kevin's Watch thread about Covenant giving the ring to Foul in the Second Chronicles, and a thought stroke me as odd - which perhaps correlates a bit with what you once said about the recurring theme of blindness in the Chronicles. 

It is startling to notice how Chronicles characters who have a "keener" sight than others (Kevin's oracular abilities, Linden's earthsight, Hile Troy's "Land-given sight", Elena's "second sight", Foul's "surveillance") almost always tend to blind themselves or fool themselves (Kevin's belief that Covenant would damn the Land, Linden's inability to see even a hint of Covenant's true intentions about giving the ring to the Despiser, Hile Troy's incapacity to believe in Covenant's role as a savior of the Land, Elena's unwillingness to believe Covenant's warning about the EarthBlood, Foul's inability to see Covenant's lack of true despair when receiving the ring, and so on) whereas characters who are "blinded" in some way - that is, unable to perceive the full depth of the world (Covenant without earthsight, innocent Lena, the Unfettered Healer, blinded Troy realizing the only way to save his army) often develop a clearer understanding about what is truly happening (or what will happen), and what to do - even of the sacrifices those actions might entail. Do you think this is actually a plausible consideration, especially after noticing the recurring theme about blindness and sight (which I find a very interesting theme, considering you said yourself you are not a "visual" author)?

(The fact that I’m not a visual person probably explains why I use so many visual metaphors.)

I don’t “see” how anyone could argue with the interpretation you’ve suggested.  I don’t think in those kinds of thematic terms when I’m actually writing a story; but I certainly become aware of the story’s themes, and develop them consciously, while I’m rewriting.  And you’re bound to have noticed that the theme of *paradox* is everywhere in the “Chronicles”.  Somewhere in what I’ll call my apprenticeship (everything that I produced before I started on “Lord Foul’s Bane”), I wrote--although I no longer remember where or why--“The back of blessing bears a curse/For taking comfort one is worse/And promise is its own reverse.”  Stating the same insight in terms that better suit my current thinking, I now believe that every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use.  In one form or another, you’ll find such notions throughout the “Chronicles”.

(12/31/2005)

Charley

Dear Stephen, 
I found it very interesting to hear you describe the level of immersion that you put into your books and stories. I feel the same way when I read them! I actually am THERE, I care and sympathize (as in feeling their emotions) with the people that live there. I think of them as more real than imagined, The Land as a place than a setting, a memory rather than a painting. I have dreamed of the Land, and waked wanting to be there. I just want to THANK YOU! for your work, and Godspeed on the final books. I hope I live to see their completion, I hope you live to complete them, and consider the wait to read each one just a small irritaton that needles my anticipation for them. 
My question and a comment: Do you consider a letter like mine a burden? Or do they help you in some small way? The reason I wrote to you was to give you something back, as a small debt I feel that wants to be paid. 

There’s actually quite a bit that could be said about this.  At the risk of being cryptic, I’ll try to keep it short.

On an emotional level, the most fundamental human need may be the need for confirmation that we exist.  Our deepest fear may be that we *don’t* exist--or that we *won’t* exist--and so we hunger for evidence that we’re really here.  In general, people tend to get their confirmation, their evidence, from their interactions with other people (work, family, friends, etc.).  (Of course, any form of sensory input can serve as evidence.  Inevitably, however, the reactions of other beings--even pets--have more power than any self-generated confirmation.)  But.  Of necessity, writing is usually a solitary occupation.  And it’s more solitary than non-writers realize, in part because every aspect of publication is so impersonal, in part because the lag between *writing* and *being read* is so long, and in part because the writer so seldom has any interaction at all with the reader (which in itself is a more complex issue than most people realize:  it’s difficult for non-writers to understand that most “public” interactions between writer and reader--e.g. autographings, readings, Q&A--are profoundly IMpersonal, since both writer and reader are acting out what might be called generic roles).  And in more personal ways my isolation is exacerbated by a variety of factors:  native shyness, systemic aculturation, poor judgment, bad luck, the inevitable diminishment that comes with age, etc..  As a result, writers in general, and I in particular, tend to suffer from a peculiar--and somewhat paradoxical--deprivation:  we don’t get enough confirmation that we exist.  (Which explains why writers so often become wildly eccentric, or collapse into problems like alcoholism, or both.)

The bottom line is this:  messages like yours, and the GI in general, serve as reminders that I exist.  The “generic” quality I’ve just mentioned dilutes the benefits; but the benefits are still real.

All of which is a rather elaborate way of saying, “Thank you.”  <rueful smile>

(12/31/2005)