Gradual Interview
(answers from September 2006, as of Jan 11 2026, 11:29:15 PM)
www.StephenRDonaldson.com
© 2004 by Stephen R.Donaldson

Acolyte Niddy

Dear Lord Donaldson,

Thank you for answering my previous questions.  I'm sure you will agree they broke new ground in the interview.

Now I have two more.

a) Do you agree that Terisa of Morgan's ordeal would have been made much easier if she had thought to bring along a calculator?  What caused her to omit this important piece of equipment?

b) Are you aware that you based your character, "Sib Mackern" on your previous character "Lord Foul the Despiser"?  Was this a conscious or unconscious decision?

Thank you for answering my important questions.

Signed,
Acolyte Niddy.

OK, now you're just being silly.

(09/03/2006)

Darrin Cole

No question just a reference for you.
BODACH
(budagh) The Celtic form of Bugbear, or Bug-A-Boo, literally, 'old man'. It was a Highland belief that the Bodach would creep down chimneys and steal naughty children, although in other parts it was considered to be a death-warning spirit. The Bodach Glas, or Dark Grey Man is a death token, of which Sir Walter Scott makes such effective use in WAVERLEY towards the end of Fergus MacIvor's history. 

Thank you!  Now that you've refreshed my memory:  yes, "Waverley" is exactly where I got "Bodach Glas".  Since I had no reason to believe that I would ever be published, I was just having fun with literary in-jokes.

(09/03/2006)

Anonymous in Australia

Dear Mr. Donaldson,

Thank you for your creative effort. I am in my early thirties, now, but first read The Land series as a young boy. Reading through Runes last summer was like reopening an inner eye which I'd forgotten since I was a kid. I cannot quite say how valuable that experience is.

I mostly wanted to say 'thank you.' Some of my favourite memories of reading have been within your Convenant boooks. 

I am also driven to write, perhaps in the same sense you are. And I believe I understand the comments you have left in the G.I. about each artist having to work things out for his or her self. Reading that you found rejection 47 times makes the 3 rejection notices of the last month pinned to my wall seem almost optimistic.

Here are my questions. I actually wrote quite a bit before trimming it down to the below. I hope the language doesn't seem too clinical.

Q1 - What literary 'forms' do you find yourself coming back to, again and again? I can identity two, the potential of fiction to define an otherwise alienating reality, and the arc of human suffering and redemption. Are there any other key forms you would point to, yourself?

Q2 - Are there any such forms to which you find yourself drawn to, or are intrigued by?

Thank you!
NF.

I'm sorry:  I don't understand your questions.  You appear to use the word "forms" where I would use the word "themes".  When I think "forms" I think "sonnet," "character sketch," "picaresque novel," etc..  As for themes, well, I don't choose my themes (surely I don't need to repeat that I'm not a polemicist?), they choose me.  And even a casual glance at my work shows that the same themes appear over and over again:  e.g. the (often inadvertent) struggle for personal integrity; or the power of small individuals to change the course of large events.  But then, I don't choose my forms either:  they are dictated by the stories they contain.

(09/03/2006)

Sean Casey

What, as a writer, is your opinion of secondhand books? Do you regard them as lost income for yourself and other writers who could probably do with the money? Or are you happy that people are just reading per se?

Couple of auxilliary questions: What, as far as you know, do publishers make of the sale of secondhand books? And do you buy and read secondhand books yourself?

Thanks.

I don't buy second-hand books myself.  Since I'm dependent on the financial support of my readers, I make a point of giving other writers the same support.  But I don't *disapprove* of second-hand books.  They promote reading, sometimes for people who couldn't afford to read without them.

(From a purely ego-based perspective, however:  the thing I don't like about second-hand books is not that people buy them, but rather that people *sell* them.  <rueful smile>  "What, you don't want to *keep* my book?  Woe is me!  Also weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth!")

I've never discussed the subject with a publisher (or an editor).  But I imagine that their attitude is similar to mine.  Since they can't *stop* the sale of second-hand books, they might as well be philosophical about it--or at least not think about it.

(09/04/2006)

Todd

Hi Steve,

There was a comment (not by you) that Brooks sold 72,000 books. I was wondering how many copies of Runes sold. Is that something you would be willing to share with us?

I don't have any reliable information.  (I do get "royalty statements" from my publishers twice a year, but I stopped straining my brain to decipher them long ago.)  However, I've been given the general impression that "Runes" sold between 60,000 and 70,000 copies in hardcover--in both the US and the UK.  This is a considerably more impressive number in the UK than it is in the US, since the population of the UK is so much smaller.

(09/04/2006)

Chronos

Just checking to see how far behind you are in answering GI questions....

Today is 8/24/06

My prediction is that you are 67 days behind which would mean you would answer this on 10/30/06... No cheating!

Your computation rests on a false assumption:  that I answer questions in order.  The truth is that I use the "spray and pray" method.  <grin>

Currently I'm about 70 questions behind.

(09/04/2006)

Chris R. Vessey

First off, let me say that I was most pleasantly surprised when I found your website, and was astounded that you make the effort to communicate so directly with your fanbase.

Now, to my question.  I realize that you had a very different type of childhood which exposed you to situations most of us would never encounter - and that you lived in "far off lands" . . . one aspect of your writing that has fascinated me is the use of names and naming conventions according to the races in your books, and related linguistic elements.  

Is there a specific set of source languages that you used as patterns?  I recall the Waynhim, Dukkha (and that name is a Pali word, no?) as having caught my interest.  Years later, an east Indian friend used that word, and it immediately caught my attention.  "Haruchai" sounds very Japanese.  When I attempt to Google it, I get either references to your work (surprise, surprise) or the fact that many (MANY) people have used it as a forum alias name . . . 

I apologize if this question has been asked before, I've only just discovered these forums and have not had the time to peruse all the back editions of the Gradual Interview.

Many thanks for all you've written, and will write.

-Chris

Sorry.  I've had occasion to say before that I'm no linguist (witness my D's in college German).  There's nothing Tolkien-esque hidden beneath the surface; no coherent background to the "foreign" words and names in the "Covenant" books.  Within racial groups (the Ramen, the Giants, etc.), I do try to be consistent.  Hence, for example, a number of the Ramen names draw on Marathi (a derivative of Hindi).  But that's only because I want the names to sound consistent:  I don't actually *speak* Marathi, despite my childhood exposure.

Mainly I just "steal" whatever sounds right (especially when the right sound also happens to have a useful meaning).  E.g. in Marathi "Pahni" means "water".

(09/06/2006)

John

Steve,

I couldn't find an answer to a particular question in the G.I, but I may have missed it.

In many of you books children are in danger/threatened/hurt as a main point of the story arc. We see this in LFB and deal with it's reprecussion in all three "Chronicles"; we see this in the Jeremiah story arc; we see this is the first two "Man Who" books; and again in the "Gap" books: the threat to Davies. 
Was this conscious? And if so, why? My first guess is that children represent innocence, perhaps, or something pure, uncorrupted? Or was it something else?

Thanks!

Earlier in my career, I might have said that children represent "vulnerability" rather than "innocence".  I think I've made it obvious that I consider "innocence" itself to be a flawed concept.  Or perhaps I should say that the word itself doesn't seem very useful, since I find it difficult to come up with a workable definition that doesn't involve some form of willful ignorance.  (In any case, Freud smashed the idea that children are "innocent" pretty thoroughly.)  But now I *have* children, so I'm keenly aware of the primal power that can exist in the bond between a parent and a child; and the word "vulnerability" has a whole new meaning.  20 years ago, I would have had to *imagine* Linden's feelings for Jeremiah:  now I know them intimately.

None of which actually answers your question.  So to further not answer your question:  calling Lena and Davies "children" may be stretching the definition a bit.  Of course literally they *are* the children of their parents; but they aren't "children" in the same sense that Jeremiah is (helplessly dependent).  Davies is "born" capable of independent decisions and actions; and Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so.  Thematically Lena, Davies, and Jeremiah don't have much in common.  Jeremiah has more in common with the children in TMWKHB and THWRHP.

(09/06/2006)

Steve

I read The Man Who Fought Alone before I knew it was part of a whole The Man Who.. series, and so obviously before I knew it was the last book in that series. When I read Fought Alone, it seemed self-sufficient, i.e. it seemed complete as a novel without the need of books leading up to it. I still haven't yet read the first books in the Man Who series (although, I will). But reading Fought Alone, it seems like everything that needed explaining was explained so that you could just pick up from the last book in that series and it would make no difference to the experience. I don't know yet if the other books are like that, but I'm guessing that they are.

My question is: did you do this intentionally? Did you mean for the books to follow a sort-of episodic format, more like a TV show, rather than the more continuous, epic format that your other books fall into? Don't get me wrong; i'm not saying it's bad. In fact, I like it. I was just curious.

Thanks.

Yes, it's intentional.  I wanted each of "The Man Who..." books to be able to stand alone as needed.  There are several reasons.  1) It is almost a requirement of the genre.  Mystery readers seem to want a lot of books about the same sleuth(s), and they want to be able to read those books in any order.  (Unfortunately, this also implies that they do not want their sleuth(s)to "change"--a requirement which I've been unable to satisfy.)  2) I've always known that a lot of time would pass between installments in the series.  I didn't foresee the *extent* to which my writing has slowed down; but I knew that these books would be sporadic at best.  Writing them so that they could stand alone seemed like a necessary courtesy to my poor readers.  Of course (this is me, remember) there *is* a larger story evolving in the background of "The Man Who..." books--which explains, at least in part, why my sleuth(s) do change.  But I tried to ensure that the "foreground" story wasn't dependent on what lurks in the background.  3) I've never actually known how many installments the "background" story would require--which means that I've never been sure I would finish it.  <sigh>  So naturally I want each book to end at a viable "stopping place".  Just in case, y'know, I don't quite succeed at living forever....

(09/07/2006)

J C Bronsted

Earlier in the GI [I recall] you mentioned that you approached certain scenes from the "wrong" POV character, and realizing this, had to back track and discover the "right" POV...

I have the idea in my head that you referenced the GAP books with this acknowledgement, but cannot confirm (or disprove concretely) this through the search.

My question: would you care to cite a specific example of this?  Who was the "wrong" POV (that you pursued) in a certain place, and why was the "right" POV mare apt for the story/scene, and [perhaps] how long did it take you to realize this, and by what means?

Thank you so much for this forum.

<sigh>  I don't understand why readers (you certainly aren't alone in this) are so eager to know about my mistakes.  God knows there are enough mistakes right there in print.  The significant thing about the mistakes which are *not* "right there in print," it seems to me, is not that I made them, but rather that I caught and corrected them.  Asking me what my "corrected" mistakes were feels rather like asking me to undergo reverse dentistry; replace repaired teeth with decayed ones.

But for the sake of keeping peace in the family, so to speak....   "This Day All Gods Die," US hardcover, p. 318.  Try to imagine that chapter told from Davies' point of view.  Just don't hurt yourself.

My usual clue that I've wandered down the wrong POV path is that I can feel my writing become more and more superficial.  The prose feels glib to me:  it skims the surface of what I want to communicate.  But no matter how hard I try to *force* myself deeper, I continue to skid along the outside of the characters.  And eventually I reach a personal cul-de-sac:  I find myself no longer able to forge ahead because the story no longer makes sense.  At which point, more by personal symptomatology than by critical analysis, I realize what's happened.  Then I go back to find the place where I took the wrong POV path, and I rewrite everything from that point on.  25 pages?  50?  100?  It varies.  Fortunately, I don't make this mistake very often--which is why I sometimes have trouble recognizing that I've gone wrong.

(09/07/2006)

Mr. Donaldson;

Having read most-if-not-all of your books, I thank you for the literary contributions you've made.  One of the things you wrote in the forward of 'Reave the Just & other tales' is that you found inspiration in your divorce to write.

How did you do that?  How did you find the ability to create, and not just give up everything?  Did you feel like you failed in one thing (the marriage) so you were compelled to succeed in another (the story)?  Was it anger that drove you to write?  Was it relief?  Was it despair?

If it was despair, how did you -- how does *anyone* -- move on and *create*?  How does one create and not just subsist, anymore?

How did you know -- years before -- that the only way to hurt a man who loses everything is to give him back something broken?

How did you know?

This seems a bit private for a public forum--on your side as well as on mine.  But the absence of an e-mail address prevents a private reply, so....

Last question first.  How did I know?  That's what an imagination is for (although a bit of empathy doesn't hurt).  Back then, I didn't have the kind of direct experience that informs my writing now (although I was intuitively aware that everyone is always broken, and that "healing," like "redemption," is a relative term).

Now.  The Introduction to "Reave the Just and Other Tales" doesn't actually say that I "found inspiration in [my] divorce to write."  It says:  "'The Kings of Tarshish Shall Bring Gifts' came to me while I was skidding down into a catastrophic divorce; 'Reave the Just' played a crucial role in my recovery afterward."  In retrospect, it's tempting to look back at those stories and emphasize their thematic relevance.  "The Kings" is an elegaic story about a young man who can't find the substance of his dreams within himself; who sees love and wonder and magic as external, beyond his power to choose.  Which sounds a whole lot like "a catastrophic divorce" to me.  "That other person is supposed to make me happy, but he/she isn't doing it.  In fact, s/he is doing the exact opposite."  "Reave the Just" is about a pair of "deluded" or "helpless" victims who are inspired to accept responsibility for the meaning of their own lives by an (imposed) awareness of someone else's suffering.  I smell "recovery".

But I think that such interpretations miss the real point.  (So there's a relationship between my conscious and unconscious minds.  So what?  We knew that already.  And stories aren't written in retrospect.)  You asked *how*.

From my perspective, it wasn't relief or anger or despair that drove me to write:  it was writing (specifically storytelling) that enabled me to survive and eventually accomodate my relief and anger and despair.  Storytelling has always been my #1 survival skill.  "Service enables service."  (Foamfollower had a fair amount to say about this.)  We could get bogged down here in an attempt to define "despair"; but as far as I'm concerned, it always comes down to a feeling of being overwhelmed--or even erased--by things bigger than we are; of being less than worthless; of being helpless in the face of some vast and cruel darkness.  A feeling of having the significance (or lack of significance) of our lives determined by something beyond our control.

Well, storytelling--and Thomas Covenant--have taught me that no one has to accept that sorry state of affairs.  Despair (I know this sounds harsh) is a *choice*:  it is a decision (usually unconscious, I recognize) to be overwhelmed, to be helpless, to be erased.  But as soon as someone (in my case, me) realizes that it *is* a choice, other choices become available.  Sure, I had no power to make my marriage--or my divorce--into anything other than what they were.  But the decision to surrender or affirm the meaning of my life was entirely mine.  And, as I like to say, Anyone who *can* choose--*must* choose.  So I chose storytelling over despair.  And making that choice made it possible for me to go on making that choice.

OK, so maybe the themes of "The Kings" and "Reave" are more germane than I want to admit.  <rueful smile>

(09/07/2006)

Sean Casey

I was going to ask whether you were interested in psychology as a subject, but a search of the GI threw up this quote: 'In contrast, I suffer from a life-long fascination with psychology; and I like to believe that over the course of my writing life my portrayal of character has been thereby enriched.'

I have two questions that lead on from this. Are there any particular schools of psychology/therapy that you're interested in or that you feel are especially useful or accurate? And is the enrichment you mentioned subconscious or do you map out a character's personality (eg, x has a strong id and a weak superego which makes him do this, that and the other)?

As with the martial arts, I'm totally eclectic about psychology.  I want to expose myself to as many different approaches as possible; take what works for me and let the rest go.  And although I enjoy theory, I'm really an empiricist:  I latch onto anything that sheds light for me, and I discard the rest.

Of course, I have opinions.  Who doesn't?  I think that Shotokan is a good place to start the martial arts because it provides a flexible foundation that adapts easily to other approaches.  In the same way, you could say that I "believe in" Cognitive Therapy.  But what I *really* believe is that it isn't about the style (or the theory):  it's about the relationship between the guide and the student.  Styles--and theories--that shed no light for me can be vividly illuminating for other people.

In particular, creating characters is *not* about theory.  I never apply any form of analytic construct to my characters.  I think about their circumstances, I think about the "vibe" that my POV character gets from them, and I try to put myself in their shoes, experience what it's like to be them.  (With a POV character, of course, it's a bit more complicated.  But I can still pick up a "vibe" by watching how they interact with other characters.)  And I *learn*:  I get to know them as the story goes along, so that when I rewrite they become more real.  (That, incidentally, is the biggest single difference between my first and last drafts of a story:  the characters come into better focus as I rewrite.)

It goes without saying, I think, that anything which sheds light for me improves my ability to create characters.

(09/07/2006)

Tim Piper

Stave--uh, Steve.
I'm rereading the Gap, and it must be the finest space opera I've ever read.  Not that it conforms to the conventions of that sub-genre, which may have contributed to its less than stellar sales. The mere thought of it on a big screen . . . Captain's Fancy's demise, the Massif 5 escape. The images are already there in my head.

The question: considering the relationship of Angus, Nick and Morn from the outset and that each seemed necessary to the story, did you ever have qualms toward ending Nick before he could make it to the last book?

This is not a reference to how it happened. I understand from the GI that your ending must be in place, though the story is written beginning to end. If I were to be so bold to apply a metaphor for the purpose of the question:

If the ending is the bulls-eye on a dart board (oh no! a sports metaphor), and a single throw defines the act of writing, when in this process did you realize his demise? When you put up the board? Or was it the release? Top of the arc or declination?

No, I didn't have any qualms about getting rid of Nick.  I always knew that the story couldn't progress beyond a certain point (thematically, anyway) with Nick in it:  I already had too many other characters clamoring to assume his role.  But the actual details didn't become clear to me until I began to get to know Sorus Chatelaine in "Dark and Hung".  (Sorry.  Old joke.)  As soon as I realized that she gave Nick his scars, I knew what had to happen in "Chaos and Order".

(09/08/2006)

Pier Giorgio (Xar)

Hello Steve! Thanks for answering my previous question about falling in love with created worlds. I have another question that is somewhat similar... You said in the GI that you first envision the ending of a story, and then work backwards, choosing the major plot points for each story. However, as far as I understand, while even before starting the story you already know that the characters will have to go from plot point A to plot point B, you don't always know *how* they will do that. My question is - did you ever find yourself writing the part from point A to point B, only to realize, once arrived to point B, that the path you had chosen to get from A to B didn't "ring true", and that you should find another, better way?
Thanks!

Well, what do you mean by "path"?  My "wrong paths" usually involve POV (as I've discussed elsewhere).  But sometimes they involve misunderstanding a character.  And rarely, they involve trying out events which just don't work (or leaving out events that need to be in there).  Thank God for rewriting!  In terms of how difficult such problems are to fix, they are (in descending order of magnitude):  POV mistakes, erroneous or missing events, misunderstood characters (refining my perception of character is such a normal part of rewriting that it hardly seems worthy of comment).

(09/08/2006)

Ty

I have been pondering how your stories would translate to the screen, and hadn't heard that it was being considered by anyone until I saw your News blurb.  My fear (particularly since you mentioned elsewhere that others hold the rights) is that any films of the Covenant or GAP series would be handled ineptly.  Then it dawned on me: Anime!  Of course anime can be done as ineptly as any other medium, but it *seems* to have so much more latitude to translate ideas in non-traditional (read: non-typical-Hollywood-blockbuster) ways.  Do you have an opinion on that?  Are you an anime fan?  Do you think your stories would be served better by live action or animation?  What would your ideal treatments for the Covenant and GAP series be?

On another note, I completely agree with the Interzone quote on the Commentary page about your ability to create unparalleled "narrative crescendos".  I am drawn toward music that creates that same sense of motion, and as a musician/songwriter I look for opportunities to do the same.  I think I have been influenced by your writing in that regard.  Weird link, I know, but thanks!

ty

Anime has more possibilities than I first realized.  But I can't help it:  I want live action.  Real actors with real faces as well as real voices.  Not that anyone in the movie biz cares what I think....

(09/08/2006)

Ossie

Hi Stephen – rather than a question, I have 2 comments.  Firstly, you have said on several occasions that the one character you feel was not given the time & attention to develop fully – that you “failed”, in a sense – was Davies Hyland.  Having recently re-read the Gap series, I, as merely the lowly reader, would disagree.  A saga the size of the Gap series was – I never realised this before – sprinkled with chapters carrying the points of view of a huge number of characters.  The scale of the work itself was monumental – to try & squeeze all the different points of view necessary to tell the story you needed, was positively daunting.  Certainly Davies Hyland was an important character.  But he was not one of the big 3 in the Victimiser/Victim/Saviour triangle:  Morn, Angus & Nick.  Given the need the devote the lion’s share of the narrative to those 3, and the necessary inclusion as well of the points of view of “minor” characters as varied as Maxim Igensard, Darrin Scroyle, Liete Corriegio and even Marc Vestibule (and did Norna get a brief appearance as well???), I personally think you gave Davies as much time, attention & development as it was possible to give with such competing priorities.

Secondly, having now read the entire Gap series again (the first time being soon after publication in the mid 90’s), I was rather amused at the similarities of the “lying and framing to get legislation passed to increase the power of the sheriffs of the day” with recent real-life events:  rise of terrorism, use of the opportunity to get the Patriot Act passed, linking the terrorist threat to Iraq to justify a full scale invasion etc etc.  Can I, he asks with tongue firmly lodged in cheek, trick you into making a comment about *that*?

Eagerly awaiting Fatal Revenant.

Thank you.  But I must not have been clear when I said that I "failed" Davies.  I didn't mean that I neglected to grant him enough narrative space:  I meant that I didn't see deeply enough into his unique psyche.  I persist in believing that a better writer could have shed more light into his character in the time and space available.  (Just my opinion, of course.)

Deceit has been a prominent feature of political life ever since human beings discovered that they were capable of lying.  I'm less troubled by the fact that our political leaders lie than I am by the way our "news" media support the lies.

(09/08/2006)

Rick Monroe

The statement about Fatal Rev going to US and UK editors got me thinking.  Are there differences between a UK version and a US version?

I eagerly await the remaining books.  I tried to draw out my reading of RotE, but found I couldn't wait until FE came out, and had to finish it.  Thanks for your wonderful works, and for this ongoing interview.

There are no "substantive" differences, but there *are* many differences, all of which--as far as I can tell--are due to the fact that my UK publisher "Anglicizes" the text.  Spelling and punctuation are changed to conform to British usage.  And where the US and the UK use different words to mean the same thing (e.g. vacation/holiday), my UK publisher makes the swap.  Why?  Beats the by-products out of me.  Are British readers *incapable* of reading--and enjoying--a book written in US English?  I doubt it.  Still, US publishers often "Americanize" British books, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

(09/08/2006)

Steve,

In your opinion, what is the proper etiquette on the number of books one should bring to have autographed at a convention/book-signing?

Thanks!

In my opinion, you should bring all the books you want autographed.  Who knows when you'll get the chance again?  But when there are other people waiting in line, the polite thing to do is get three books signed and then go back to the end of line.  Keep cycling through the line until you have all the autographs you want.

(09/11/2006)

Debra

I'm sure I'm repeating most of your fans by saying I truely Love all your books. I was so happy to see the new book from 'The Last Chronicles'. After reading it I was anxious to get to the next one. I have searched everywhere trying to find out when the other 3 books are due to be released or at least the next one, but have not been able to find out. I did try to find it in your Gradual Interview but nothing came up. Thank you

It's probably time to repeat that "news"--when there is any--appears first in the "news" section of this web site.  If the publication information you're looking for isn't there, then I don't have it.

I'll also repeat that my contract allows three years per book.  This isn't my publishers' idea:  I insisted on it.  I need that much time.

(09/11/2006)

Charles

Hello Mr. Donaldson,

A question for the gradual interview:

As a published writer, Thomas Covenant had gotten millions of dollars in royalties and could afford to live anywhere he wanted. Why did he stay in that crappy small town instead of moving to New York or even a nice college town somewhere? Sure, he's intransigent, but wasn't he carrying things a little too far?

(I know the "real" reason is that the story requires him to be an outcast. But is there a reason within the story? Maybe he's the victim of a gypsy curse? Or he lives on a parallel Earth that's much more conservative than our own, and his hometown is a relative bastion of tolerance and enlightenment?)

You appear to be laboring under a misconception about the financial rewards of being a writer.  Sure, if Covenant published enough bestsellers, he would eventually get "millions of dollars".  But as far as I know, only his first book did that well.  And I know from experience that one bestseller isn't enough to produce the kind of financial independence you describe.  Not even close.

Sure, Covenant could probably have chosen to live elsewhere.  But he isn't the kind of guy who runs away from his circumstances.  After he gets done wallowing in them <grin> in the first trilogy, he faces them head-on.  If he just *moved* whenever life got tough, he probably wouldn't be worth writing about.

(09/11/2006)

Dave Starner

Steve,
You recently mentioned a "Realms of Fantasy" book in a response to a question about Covenant artwork. I've seen this book at Half Price Books. No question this time, just thought some of the other GI readers might be interested. Half Price Books has locations across America and the one near me usually has multiple copies of the book.
Later,
Dave 

For readers who are interested....

(09/11/2006)

Shawn Rolan

Greetings and salutations, Mr. Donaldson,
My Question is somewhat simple with possibly some strange paradoxaial answers.If the Creator cannot reach throught the Arch Of Time and alter the natural course of events why is it that Lord Foul can reach through the Arch of Time to alter people in the *real* world? Would this not constitute a paradox within itself? If I recall correctly in The Power That Preserves Lord Foul did not have the White Gold,which was supposed to be the paradox within itself.So without the Wild Magic how could Lord Foul accomplish this without breaking the Arch of Time?Lord Foul altered a somewhat large group of people to do his bidding(Kidnapping Joan)and forcing Thomas Covenant to place himself on the sacrificial altar to complete Thomas Covenant's return to the Land, how did Lord Foul accomplish this without breaking the Arch?

I think we've been over this.  First, fantasy is inherently a-rational.  It must abide by its own internal logic; but it doesn't have to play by the same rules as our "normal" reality.  Second, "The Chronicles" are all about paradox.  And third (a point which makes perfect sense to me), the rules for "reaching out" from inside a closed system in order to connect to another closed system are fundamentally and inevitably different than the rules for "reaching into" a closed system from an unlimited, effectively infinite system in order to change the closed system.  The two actions cannot be compared to each other.  The first ("reaching out") is comparable to my attempt to answer your question.  The second ("reaching into") might be comparable to my deciding that in "Fatal Revenant" the story would be more exciting if Revelstone could fly, or if Linden were male, or if Lord Foul were vulnerable to kryptonite.  By "reaching out," I may very well affect your thinking, but I can't *impose* anything on you without your underlying consent.  (Joan, like the commune she joined, was willing, nay, eager to be manipulated.)  By "reaching into" my story in order to alter its internal logic and integrity, I can only destroy it.

(09/12/2006)

Michael from Santa Fe

This is more just an observation about your writing and maybe you can provide some insight for me (or not).  What I have noticed, at least for myself, is that my favorite books of yours are always in the middle.  What I mean by that is my favorite book of the First Chronicles is "The Illearth War".  My favorite of the Second is "The One Tree".  Their all great, but the middle book always speaks to me.  I liked the middle books the best in the GAP series, and although it doesn't really have a middle book - I liked the middle part of Mordant's Need.  The reason I mention this is that this is totally opposite of almost all other series I read - either the first or last book is always my favorite.  My hypothesis is that other writers are "more excited" about the beginning and ending of their series and so the middle suffers.  Yours do not.  And perhaps it's just a peculiar quirk of my own pysche but having a strong middle is important to me and when a series does it almost always is my favorite book.  Anyway, with this in mind I eagerly look forward to "Fatal Revenant" and "Shall Pass Utterly", I expect they'll be my favorites.  Thanks again for all your work and your attention "to the middle".   

Strangely, the most common complaint about large-scale fantasies is that the *ending*, not the middle, is the weakest part.  The writer sets up something interesting, it chugs along for a while (retaining interest by introducing more and more complications), and then falls apart because the writer has no idea how to tie it all together in a satisfying fashion.  But in your case...  Well, I suspect (and I really am just speculating) that the first book is "work" (because you have to become accustomed to a whole new world, all new characters, etc., etc.) and the last book is a bereavement (because you have to let go of the things in which you've been immersing yourself), but in the middle you can just relax and enjoy it (reaping the benefits of the first book without experiencing the pangs of the last).

(09/12/2006)

Brian Linaberry

Mr. Donaldson-

First off, thanks for the many hours of pleasure your books have brought me. 

I was wondering about 'The Real Story'.  Your Gap books are my favorite sci-fi series, and I recommend them to everyone.  But your extended prologue has put many people I know off the books.  I thought it was a great way to launch the series, but am also aware that it doesn't necessarily fit the tone of the following volumes (at least in my opinion).  I wondered if this was a calculated decision, or just the way it happened to work out.  

Keep up the good work- can't wait for book eight!

I think it's clear that "The Real Story" does a lot to discourage people from reading the GAP books.  It's *short*, hardly more than a pamphlet.  Its narrative strategies are different than anything I've used before or since.  And then there's the content....  <sigh>  Nevertheless "The Real Story" was a conscious and deliberate departure from my usual methodologies.

The problem I was trying to solve is a simple one:  how can I lure the reader (not to mention myself) into spending an entire epic in the company of characters as despicable as Angus and Nick, or as "victimized" as Morn?  Plunging head first into debasement on that scale didn't seem like a viable option:  I would expect the reader to reel away in disgust.  Hell, I wanted to reel away in disgust myself.  So I decided to approach the nature of my characters in a gingerly, almost tentative fashion, hoping to snag the reader's interest by peeling off layers of misconception to reach the truth.  I was trying to create a situation in which the *snag* would be stronger than the revulsion.

Judging purely by sales, I failed miserably.  But I don't consider "The Real Story"--or the GAP books--an artistic failure.  It seems to me that spiraling rapidly down into darkness, and then having to scratch and claw back out again, is a fairly common human experience.  And we never know what someone else is going through--or what they need in order to recover--unless we get a chance to peel away the layers.

(09/12/2006)

Steve

Hi Mr. Donaldson,
First I would like to say that probably my favorite character that you've created would have to be the Tor. There was something about him. When the injured Tor stood in as king, and then rode out to his death so that he could strike one last blow for Mordant in battle, that was more heroic than anything that I've seen in any Tolkein character. I also liked Adept Havelock very much. 

My question is this. The people of Mordant are all deathly, and understandably, afraid of their own images. If someone from that world saw themselves reflected in a mirror, then they would go insane, etc. But when i was reading your books, I couldn't help wondering if it was the image itself which was dangerous, or was it the mirror in which the image is held? By that I mean, what if someone from Mordant saw themselves reflected in the water of a lake, etc? Would they go insane? OR, what if when Terisa was translated to Mordant, she brought with her a few of her favorite CDs to listen to. And then, someone saw their reflection in the back of one of those CDs. Would that have the same effect as a mirror? 

Thank you, and thanks for all of your books.

The magic of images/reflections in "Mordant's Need" pertains specifically to glass mirrors.  An image reflected in still water, or in some polished metal, would pose no danger.  For the purposes of that story, I wanted to posit a very limited and (in some sense) "technological" form of magic (a lot of mechanical skill goes into making those mirrors)--although I've never been able to envision a "magic" which didn't ultimately rely on human talent/imagination/personality/spirit.

(09/12/2006)

Jeremy

You stated a Lysol Disinfectant can inspired one of the most powerful scenes in the Power That Preserves.  My curiosity has got the better of me.  Which one is it?

Haven't we covered this?  It's the scene where Pietten tries to kill Covenant; where Lena dies saving Covenant, and he "releases" the Ranyhyn from their bond to him.

(09/12/2006)

Neil Sayer

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.

(09/13/2006)

Steve,

You posted in the news section of your web site you have completed the 2nd draft of FR, and expect to complete a 3rd based upon editor recommendations. I know what your write is from you and is yours, but how much, if any, of this (or any book) belongs to the editor? They have input, to a degree (I would think - maybe I'm wrong), to influence how the story is told; so can an editor rightfully a story they work on as in small/large part theirs?

Thanks!

Some editors *do* "claim" the books they publish.  Lester and Judy-Lynn del Rey not only launched their own imprint (DEL REY Books), but also put their personal "seals" (in Lester's case, a heraldic griffin) on the covers.  Other editors "announce" themselves in the front matter of books:  e.g. "Edited by Patrick Nielsen Hayden".

There's a lot that could be said on the subject.  For example, these "claims" can be seen as an attempt to shift attention away from the author to the editor.  And like everything else (including the relationship between the editor and the author), such "claims" can be abused.  But the general argument in their favor goes like this.  1) The editor made a meaningful contribution to the book (including the decision to publish it in the first place).  Why shouldn't s/he get some credit--or accept some responsibility?  2) The "claim" permits you to compare your taste to that of the editor.  Within two or three books, you'll know whether you and that editor like the same things.  Then you can use the "claim" as a guide when you're deciding whether or not to give an unfamiliar writer a try.

So what (apart from publication) constitudes "a meaningful contribution"?  That varies wildly from one writer to the next--and from one editor to the next.  In my case, no editor has ever determined the content of my work (although God knows Lester tried).  But several editors (including Lester) have helped me to communicate my intentions more effectively.  For that alone, I've always been happy to have their names on my books.

(09/13/2006)

Usivius

Thank you very much Mr. Donaldson for your absolutely delicious writing (all stories), and submitting yourself to answering the queries of you fans.  

As much as I love and devour everything you have written, Mordant's Need remains my favourite.  
I have one question about POV in this series.  Almost the entire novel is done from the POV of Terisa.  I can think of a few chapters with Lebbick and Eremis POV.  But the one chapter that always is rivited in my mind, and I read it slowly, savouring it everytime, is the one in Eremis' POV as he looks down upon the angry crowd that has gathered to hear Saddith talk about how Lebbick beat her.  It is a powerful and moving  chapter that evokes a lot.  And the 'narrative POV' of Eremis viewing this is chilling.   
I have to ask: In this series, what kind of conscious decision do you make when you decide to with the POV in such a story, especially when 90% is told from a single character?  Is it 'merely' so that an important scene can be told as it happens instead of as a recap to Terisa, who would not have been there?  
Just wondering.

First, I have to object to the use of the word "merely" to describe any decision about POV in a story.  <wry smile>  Since any story can stand or fall on how POV is deployed, no choice is insignificant.  "So that an important scene can be told as it happens" is not a trivial--or simple--reason for choosing a particular POV.  After all, POV *always* reveals character (nothing "merely" about that), even when the character in question is dedicated to keeping secrets.  It also establishes relationships with the reader; relationships which would not be available from some other POV.

OK, now that I've got that off my chest....

It's important to remember that in "Mordant's Need" the fantasy world is explicitly accepted as "real".  (It's her own substance Terisa doubts, not that of Geraden, or Saddith, or the Tor, or anyone else.)  Therefore there's no inherent reason why *any* particular character can't serve as a POV.

Most of the story is told through Terisa's eyes because I want to convey (as much as humanly possible) what it's like to be in her shoes; to experience such fundamental self-doubt while struggling to understand--and make decisions about--the (far more) real people around her.  But I also want to convey (again, as much as humanly possible) that the people around her *are* real, that they make their own decisions for their own reasons, and that their actions have a material effect on the context within which she struggles.  In order to accomplish this, I have to *show* the other characters in action:  I have to demonstrate their "reality" in "real time," instead of presenting it as hearsay filtered through Terisa's POV.  AND I have to do all of that without violating the parameters of Terisa's struggle (which is, after all, the centerpiece of the story).

Therefore most of the story is told from Terisa's POV.  Characters like Prince Kragen view events directly (as well as in "real time") because their actions are critical, and because they are (in essence) trying to solve the same puzzle Terisa is.  And characters like Master Eremis view events obliquely (again preserving the "real time" requirement) because concealment is crucial to their intentions.

(09/13/2006)

Rod Andrews

Mr. Donaldson,

As many have said before, but it is my only chance to say it personally, thanks for the entertainment. Rarely have I enjoyed storytelling told with such craft.

In an earlier posting it was inferred that the  “The Last Chronicles” ends with Thomas Covenant becoming Lord Foul. The writer states that this is “no spoiler,” which makes me think that you have confirmed this. I don’t believe that would be so? So even though this is a simple question, would you mind ending my turmoil and straightening me out on point please?

By the way any chance you may grace “Down Under” (Australia) will a visit sometime?

Well, I did in fact make that statement.  In public.  Thinking back, I'm inclined to wish I hadn't said it.  But we don't get to live our lives thinking back.  <sigh>

However.  Like all of the public statements I made about "The Last Chronicles" years (decades?) ago, that one was designed to both reveal and conceal my intentions.  Saying that "Thomas Covenant becomes Lord Foul" barely hints at the complexity of what I have in mind.

Incidentally, a book tour is probably the only thing that would take me to Australia.  (No offense.  It's a very long trip, life is short, and I've already been there once.)  And book tours are decided entirely by my publishers:  I get to say yes or no, but I don't get to choose *where*.  What my publishers may or may not want me to do in the years to come is completely unknown to me.

(09/14/2006)

Jeff

Just read the great news about the 2nd draft being complete.  It made me wonder at what point do you begin the 3rd book in the series...not trying to push an "old" man to hard :) just curious about the process.  Do you jump right in or do you wait?

Thanks for sharing your time and wit with us.

I have to do one thing at a time.  That's just the way I am.  I won't be able to do any effective writing on Covenant 9 until "Fatal Revenant" is officially *done*.  Although naturally I'm doing a fair amount of thinking/planning ahead.  In fact, my stack of notes for the last two books is bigger than the stack I had for all of "The Last Chronicles" when I started work on "The Runes of the Earth".

(09/14/2006)

Nathan R. Eddy

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I have a strange question about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it pertains to the logic of the Last Chronicles.  Earlier in the GI, you have said: ". . . I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down). . ."  Well, the *truth* about the 2nd Law is that it implies an "arrow of time," a specific direction in which time flows.  For this reason, we usually see things like cups falling to the floor and breaking, rather than shattered cups rising from the floor and spontaneously assembling themselves.       The only time we'd witness such a reversal of entropy would be if we were watching a movie played in reverse.

So my question is this: if the Arch of Time is eventually broken, then won't the *arrow* of time also be broken?  If the linear sequence of events no longer needs to flow in one direction, won't entropy be undone?

You have also said: ". . . it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process [of entropy] as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can."  

So is the breaking of the Arch in itself an unexpected path to redemption?  Achieving or fulfilling the "entire purpose of life?"

I like to think that this twisted logic might actually hold the key to the final "twist" at the end of this series--the way in which the Land is destroyed, and yet Lord Foul is defeated.  Do I win?  Did I guess the ending? :)

I accept your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  (I'm no physicist, but it sounds right.)  And I accept your conclusion that breaking the Arch of Time would break "the *arrow* of time," thus making entropy meaningless.  But I don't think that any of us would like the results.  As far as I can see, if entropy were rendered moot (by eliminating "the *arrow* of time"), the outcome would be...nothingness.  Not freedom, not "redemption," not any concept that has human significance:  just non-existence.  Because if "the *arrow* of time" isn't pointing "forward," it isn't pointing anywhere, and nothing can ever happen.  Ever again.

As a matter of principle, I like "twisted logic."  But in this case:  sorry, no bonus points for you.  <grin>

(09/14/2006)

Charlie

I can't believe that I've only just now found this site!  I re-read the chonicles whenever my life gets confusing.

But I digress.  My question is: Do the seven (six) words of power: Melenkurion abatha duroc minas mill & khabaal have English translations?  Or were they simply chosen for their sound/look?  

Kinslaughterer states that the Lords don't know the proper pronunciation of the words, so I assume they aren't spelled properly either.  With this in mind, it is impossible to do an etymology of the words.

Since I'm no linguist <dramatic understatement>, I pretty much always choose such things for the way they sound.  In general, I don't usually want them to have "literal" meanings.  That can be painfully reductive.  (I'm reminded of Doctor Strange's utterly unconvincing "incantations" in Marvel Comics several decades ago.)  On the other hand, I wouldn't accept Kinslaughterer's "authority" on the subject.  He's a Raver:  why would he tell the truth?

(09/15/2006)

Jerry Erbe

I wanted to let you know how much I am enjoying "The Man Who," books. I have never read a book in the 'noir' style before (if that's a correct characterization) I wasn’t sure if I could get into them or not, but surprisingly I really have.

The other day I was out in a restaurant where my 19 year-old daughter works and I was reading, “This Day All Gods Die” and she looked at me like I was crazy asked me if I hadn’t read it already like 8 or 9 times? What is it do you think that causes a person to read and reread the same book or series of books over and over again? Certainly, there must be as many answers as there are readers, but I would suspect that there must be some underlying common denominator that possesses a person to do such a thing. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Thanks again for sharing such wonderful stories with us.

Superficially, the explanation is obvious.  People want to have the same experience again:  feel the same emotions; enjoy the same pleasures.  In one form or another, in one aspect of our lives or another, we all do it (hence, for example, "comfort food"--and romance novels).  There can be something deeply reassuring about repeating experiences we value.  They provide a form of stability and comfort--especially when we don't particularly like our actual lives.  (I well remember a period of at least two years during which I obsessively watched episodes of "Dr Who" over and over again.)

But I suspect that (at least in some cases) there may be deeper reasons.  For example, a person may return to an experience (a book, a movie, an activity:  anything that engages both the mind and the emotions) because he/she senses intuitively that the experience holds a "lesson" or insight which s/he wants to learn or acquire.  (This is almost certainly not a conscious process:  it's driven by instinct.)  Or, for another example, a person may wish to *measure* him/herself against the yardstick of a valued experience:  we can learn a lot about ourselves by seeing if/how the experience has changed since the last time we visited it (new insights into ourselves? new insights into the book or movie or activity?)  (This tends to be a more conscious process.)  In my case, for instance, I re-read LOTR whenever I feel a need to a) re-examine my own convictions/priorities in regard to writing fantasy, or b) search for a deeper understanding of Tolkien's achievement.

(09/18/2006)

Phil

Your responses to these questions really seem calm, clear, logical... very measured.  The kind of person I'd love to bounce problems off of.

So, are you "that guy" that people always confide in with their problems?  Do you have this same reflective wisdom in your personal life that you display here, or is it the written medium that draws it out of you?

No, I'm not "that guy".  I keep myself too isolated (or "private," if you prefer).  And writing gives me time to think, which then allows me to seem "wiser" than I really am.  <grin>

(09/18/2006)

Mr. Moore

So, I was reading through some of this gradual interview and a question arose (I think as a commentary by you in response to someone's question).  "Under what conditions does repetition lose it's effectiveness?"  Or something like that.

So I was wondering, since you keep returning to the same-similar themes in the Covenant works (which have never bored me but rather stimulated my mind in ever novel ways) what do you think?  Does this strategy in writing ever lose its effectiveness?  I know it must, as I have read pieces that bludgeon certain points to death.  I was just curious to know your thoughts, maybe even what you do to keep your recurring themes fresh not only to you as writer, but also to us as readers.  

Hail,
Mr. Moore

If I recall correctly (which is by no means certain <sigh>), my comment about "repetition" had to do with technique rather than theme.  Of course, your query could apply to both.  But from my perspective, they are very different questions.

Speaking of theme:  I don't worry about repetition.  At all.  Two reasons.  1) I don't set out to write about "themes".  I set out to write about characters, emotions, and events; and somehow along the way themes emerge.  If the same themes emerge over and over again, doubtless they do so because of who I am.  But I still don't worry about "repeating myself" because:  2) As long as I continue to grow as a person and an artist, as long as I continue to raise my sights and push myself to tackle challenges I don't know how to handle, I'll never truly "repeat myself" because I won't be exactly the same person who wrote the previous story.  *Some* aspect of what I'm doing will be "more" or "different" than it was before.

In practice, technical repetition is a far more difficult and complex subject--because it's SO &$%&*&$% *subjective*.  There are no rules:  there are only instinct (feel) and experience, plus the kind of education that comes from studying how other writers deploy their techniques.  One trivial example.  Speaking entirely and solely for myself, I'm, well, let's call it "vulnerable" to "-ing" words.  I *notice* them (unlike millions of happier mortals).  And when a writer can't get through a paragraph without five or seven or ten "-ing" words, I don't just notice:  I get distracted from the story.  After a few paragraphs in a row of the same, my impatience turns into vexation.  And yet I don't know even one other reader who reacts as I do.  Or another, less trivial example:  I know from reading the GI that some readers react negatively when they encounter "puissant" 10 times in 250,000 words; but the same repetition doesn't bother me at all.  See?  Subjective.  So there can't be any rules or guidelines.  In the end, every writer has to do what "feels right" to him/her, and let the chips fall where they may.

(09/18/2006)

Mark

Sir:
I first read TCTC in late 1978 while I was in college. A few years later I found a record (vinyl back then) from Caedmon of a spoken excerpt from WGW. I think you were the reader, and I think the excerpt was from the voyage through the Northron Wastes. However, with the passage of about a quarter century and my inability to readily locate my now thoroughly obsolete vinyl collection, I could be  wrong about the details-but not about having the LP!
My question springs from what I remember of the liner notes. As I recall, you said that you "Wrote the story backward." By this you indicated that you knew where the book ended, and so wrote the final chapter. Then you wrote the penultimate and then the antepenultimate and so seriatim until you wrote the initial chapter.
Was that really what you said, and did?
It would seem to be of a piece with other information contained in the GI, but also appears to have been a rather direct comment on the mechanics of your writing that you are sometimes more reluctant to share.
Or perhaps I am paying too much attention to the man behind the curtain.
I now return to hanging on tenterhooks while you finish writing the next installment.
Namaste

First let me confirm your memory.  In the mid-80s, Caedmon released an LP, read by yrs trly, of an excerpt from "White Gold Wielder".  Cover art by Real Musgrave.  A commercial disaster, despite Musgrave's inspired work.

Now.  In fact, I've been known to say that I "wrote the story backward," but that's glib and misleading.  It would be more accurate to say that I *planned* the story backward.  I've never (and I do mean NEVER) written the last chapter first.  I've never even considered doing so.  In order to protect the integrity and development of what my characters (and I) experience, I write from beginning to end.  And I never deviate from that approach.  But the *planning*--  Well, I've said it dozens of times:  I can't write at all unless I know where I'm going.

(09/18/2006)

What do you think of Asimov's work?  Though I'm not a huge science fiction buff, I'm reading "Nemisis" and to a degree reminds of the GAP books in plot, not in characterization. (I read elsewhere in the GI that you were not influenced by his work).

I've read a fair amount of Azimov, and enjoyed much of it.  In my opinion (and his), he was not a great writer.  (He once wrote of himself:  "I am not a great writer by any standard I respect.")  Rather he was an intelligent and skilled craftsman who knew what he was doing.

(09/18/2006)

David Wiles

Steve; A question was asked about art work of the Land. Although it is just drawings, there is the Atlas of the Land by Karen Wynn Fonstad. Also, the cover art for the original Gilden Fire shows a REAL neat picture of a Bloodgaurd fighting off the back of a Ranyhyn illustrated by Stephen E. Fabian. I have seen Gilden Fire for sale on the internet.
I have copy #268 of 270. The art work is also on the cover of the book as well. Signed by you of course. 

Like "Realms of Fantasy," "The Atlas of the Land" is *long* out of print.  As is "Gilden-Fire"--although it endured long past its legal "expiration date" (I think I've discussed the unauthorized Science Fiction Book Club edition elsewhere in the GI).

(09/19/2006)

John Rollo

Dear Mr. Donaldson;

As a fan of both yourself and Richard Wagner, I have been thinking about the theme of apocalyptic destruction and renewal lately. In the case of Wagner, for instance, it seems to me that this theme is romanticized to the point where one can see how the Nazis drew a degree of inspiration from the Ring cycle (as is often surmised). Though the context of Teutonic mythology is not eschatological, and the theme of renewal hints at a larger cycle of death and rebirth, the fever pitch of emotion in Wagner’s opera can easily carry away the unwary observer towards an ecstasy of dualism – certain characters in the Ring cycle are readily identifiable as *good* and others as *evil*, creating the appearance of the final cleansing of evil via the heroic self-sacrifice of the good (and also implying that absolute goodness and absolute purity are compatible – or that either can be achieved). Wagner’s intent is unclear to me, but I see a great deal of troubling smoke rising from the embers of Valhalla.

I note that the Chronicles also wrestle with a similar theme, though it seems to me with a great deal more prudence and clarity of purpose. Foul for instance cannot be vanquished in any conventional way, and is sure to reappear eventually no matter how heroically he is dispatched. Another fairly ready inference is that the Land is (at least in part) an archetypal arena that allows Covenant and Linden to directly experience hidden psychic and spiritual aspects of themselves for the first time (up to and including Foul), implying the overarching yet hidden unity of the moral landscape. Generally the Covenant mythos embraces the paradoxical nature of good and evil, and carefully avoids the dualistic formulas that so readily lead humanity to hubris and self-destruction.

I am wondering, sir, what you think of the role of these kinds of mythologies in human history: do the authors of epic fantasies bear a heavier responsibility than other artists, in that their works can become internalized into self-fulfilling prophecies writ large upon history? Is the deliberate inspiration of humanity something that registers at a conscious level when formulating your works? Do you believe that your involvement in this process falls outside the province of conscious choice? Do you feel motivated by the desire to redeem humanity? Do you think that humanity can be improved by replacing destructive internal mythologies with more constructive ones?

I appreciate your time in considering this question.

Well, it isn't one question <rueful smile>:  it's several.  But I've left your complex message unpruned because I believe that your reasoning deserves to stand as you wrote it--whether or not I can actually answer any of your questions.

My reactions, for what they're worth....

You appear to assign a lot of *choice* (therefore power and responsibility) to fairly ordinary human beings.  (Of course, I'm all about *choice* myself; but from my perspective that operates entirely in a personal arena, not on a societal or historical stage.)  "The deliberate inspiration of humanity" may (or may not) be something that an individual creative artist *wants* (Wagner certainly had the ego for it); but I don't consider it something that the artist can *choose*.  The power of any creative act depends on a synergy between the unique inspiration of the artist, the specific dispositions of the audience as individuals (which of course vary wildly over time), and the societal/cultural milieu in which the creative act is received (which again varies wildly over time:  consider that Hitler came along decades after Wagner's death).  The artist can choose what he/she creates, but can *not* choose the various dispositions of the individuals in the audience, or the continuously modulating societal/cultural milieu.  (Never mind the fact that the artist cannot choose his/her natural gifts as a communicator.)  In consequence, whether or not I (for example) "feel motivated by the desire to redeem humanity" is pretty much irrelevant.  It either happens or it doesn't (in this lifetime, or at some point in the future):  I couldn't *make* it happen if I wanted to.

Do I "think that humanity can be improved by replacing destructive internal mythologies with more constructive ones?"  Well, of course.  But so what?  Whether or not I have any say in the matter isn't up to me.

(Meanwhile, I'm deliberately side-stepping the whole issue of what makes an "internal mythology" "constructive" rather than "destructive".)

As a ludicrous example of assigning too much responsibility to the artist:  on one notable occasion, I was publicly accused of *causing* drug abuse in the US (because--duh!--reading fantasy leads directly to drugs).  Then (same occasion) I was accused of *causing* the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (because--why didn't I think of this myself?--by being a conscientious objector I empowered the Russian war machine).

(09/20/2006)

Grant

hello again,

have you noticed that 2 signed posters of your book covers (books 1 and 2 from the Gap) sold recently on ebay for quite a few hundred dollars...do you find that interesting ? 

Interesting?  Sure.  Sane?  Not particularly.  <grin>

(09/20/2006)

steve

At last. A new month, and so a new question that I can ask on this website.

I'll keep it brief. 

How often do you find yourself rereading what you've written? When I'm writing, I often reread what I have down after every paragraph that I've put down, sometimes sooner than that. All in all, it makes for a very slow writing proccess, but that's how I've been doing it. Do you do the same, or are you one of those writers who have to get everything down first before they can reread it?

Thanks,
Steve

I'm not sure how to take your question.  I re-read immediately preceding sentences (and paragraphs) constantly.  I can't imagine *not* doing that.  And every day before I start work I re-read the previous day's efforts.  But do you mean re-read *the whole thing*?  In that case <shudder>, no.  I'd never get anything done.

However, I often do a lot of "spot checking," flipping back to earlier passages to confirm what I've already done.  Does that count?

(09/20/2006)

J

If there was a fight between you and Chuck Norris, who would win?

Chuck Norris could crush me with his right wrist handcuffed to his left ankle.  At his level of expertise, I'm just a casual dilettante.

(09/20/2006)

dlbpharmd

Would you please share with us your inspirations for the poem "My heart has rooms" from WGW?

Thanks, Don

I would if I had one.  As far as I can recall, however, that song seemed to arise pretty naturally from Pitchwife himself (and from his circumstances, of course).

(09/20/2006)

Andrew (drew)

Mr Donaldson:
I just read your answer about the US and UK versions of your stories, just a quick question...Do you know what version Canadian book stores get? I'm assuming it's the American Version, due to the punctuation; but I seem to recall that the Canadain versions of the Harry Potter books are the same as the UK versions; so I was currious about yours.

The message may get to you too late, but CBC Radio is bradcasting a live performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle...they broadcast online...check out CBC.ca for the schedule. (No I don't work for the CBC!)

As far as I know, my books are sent directly to Canada from the US, so the Canadian and US "versions" are literally identical.  US publishers usually insist on including Canada in their contracts.  But in J. K. Rowling's case, her original (UK) publisher can dictate any terms they want.

(09/20/2006)

Brian Matthews

You have several times spoken highly of Stephen King and his  writing skills.  Have you ever had the opportunity to meet the man?

Yes, I've had that pleasure several times.  I don't really "know" him, but he has always treated me with exceptional courtesy.  And he gives off a good "vibe," for whatever that (purely subjective) perception is worth.

(09/21/2006)

Matthew Yenkala

A recent comment mentioned that nearly two years after the publication of RUNES we have yet to see a mass market paperback edition. I know you have said that you can't say what your publishers will do, but it strikes me from a marketing standpoint, they would release the MM shortly in advance of the release of the hardcover of FATAL, would they not? This seems to be standard practice for series (I've noticed it with Brooks, Jordan and others); and now the trend is even to include a "preview" of the next book in the reissue of the previous one. (Even catalog titles are doing this; I have an edition of THE HOBBIT from 2001 that includes the first chapter of LOTR...)

My meandering point being, would it stand to reason--simply in your best professional educated guess--that we might see a MM paperback of RUNES 3-6 months before the release of FATAL; and that it might contain a "teaser" for the latter? (Much like you posted the first chapter of RUNES on this website.)

Matteo

Well, I suppose I could break down and actually *ask* my editor when (or if) Ace plans to release "The Runes of the Earth" in mass-market paperback.  (The UK version came out a long time ago.)  That would be more useful than guessing.

But whatever happens, I very much doubt that the mass-market "Runes" will contain a "teaser" from "Fatal Revenant".  That increases the cost of publication.  Why spend the extra bucks when my web site offers a cheap (by which I mean completely free) alternative?  No, I think it's far more likely that the "teaser" for "Fatal Revenant" (if there is one) will appear here rather than in any edition of "Runes".

In any case, the whole "preview" approach is more effective for writers who write faster and sell more than I do.

(09/21/2006)

Ossie

This question may cause some discomfort, so I apologise in advance, but it surprised me so I thought I'd have a shot at asking.  In a recent GI answer you were asked about the vulnerability/innocence of children as a theme in your writing, and you made the point that you would not consider Lena a "child" in the way that, say, Jeramiah is, because she was not was not "helplessly dependent".  I would agree with that.  But you then also said that "Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so".  This is not an accusation, but a clarification:  are you saying that Lena in some way "allowed" or "wanted" TC to attack her?  Certainly, there was an element of hero-worship there both when TC first arrived in LFB & stll when he returned to the Land some 40 years later.  But I always read that passage as Lena being 100% against the rape (obviously), despite any other feelings.  Did you intend that some part of Lena wanted what happened?  Or are you being more general in that she could have chosen not to go with TC, or run away at any point before the rape?

You're right:  this does make me squirm.  <sigh>

First, let me state categorically that I am NOT suggesting that Lena wanted to be raped.  Or that any woman wants to be raped.  Or that any human being ever asks for or deserves such violence.  Covenant (if he were here) would be the first to tell you that his treatment of Lena was both unconscionable and indefensible.

Still, I do believe that Lena made a choice.  (After all, she could have just jumped in the river.)  A passive and unconscious choice, certainly--but a choice nonetheless.  And I believe that people are responsible for their choices, even when those choices are passive and unconscious.  To say otherwise is to deny the humanity of the person in question.  Sure, Lena did NOT choose to be raped--but she also did NOT choose to fight or flee (or even scream).

(Sidebar.  Research by psychologists confirms over and over again that people who choose to fight back--against any rape-like violation--suffer significantly less emotional trauma *afterward* than people who choose to submit, even when the people who fight back suffer more physical damage than those who submit.)

Now.  I *assure* you that I do not mean any of this as a criticism of Lena.  Far from it.  I feel nothing but empathy for her--and outrage at Covenant.  But the way I see it, she allowed her near-adulation for Covenant, and her teenage desire to be important to him, to paralyse her, well, let's call them her survival instincts.  And her choice is full of meaning.  (At least it is for me.)  First, it underscores the nature of Covenant's crime (and of his own unconscious impulse to side with the Despiser).  Second, it is emblematic of the acceptance and tolerance with which the people of the Land treat Covenant--even when that acceptance and tolerance involve severe self-sacrifice.  And third, it reveals--in the most intimate and personal way possible--what acceptance and tolerance can COST.  Thus (I think) it shows the sheer *scale* of the risk that the Lords (and Atiaran) take when they choose trust and hope over retribution.

I hope this answers your question.

(09/21/2006)

Steve Vickery

Hi Steve
I just read Roger Zelazny's short story collection; Last Defender of Camelot. 
In his introduction he mentioned a conversation with you where you asked him which book he wished he'd written. He doesn't say if he asked you the question back, so, what about it? 
Cheers
Steve

If I recall the conversation (by no means a sure thing <sigh>), I began it by telling him that I wish I had written "A Rose for Ecclesiates" [sp?].  But I was much younger then, and reacted differently to many things.  Nowadays I place a higher value on the fact that I didn't write--and couldn't have written--anyone else's work.  I'm more inclined to like stories and novels *because* (at least in part) it would not have occurred to me to try to write them myself.  When I feel envious of another writer, I envy his/her unique skills, not what s/he has done with those skills.

(09/22/2006)

Matt Vomacka

Erm, I've got a question that COULD be answered in a spoilerish way, but really what I'm going for is finding out whether you were establishing or cutting a plot thread waaaayyy early in the TC books.

Whatever - I now call your attention to LFB pg 6 and 7, where we find out Joan was a horse breaker, one whom Covenant felt "seduced" the horses. Hmmm. I'll ignore the "seduced" part for the purposes of this question ;), since it doesn't really relate to what this could portent for Runes.

My first thought was that this was some big hint that Joan would devastate the Ranyhyn, I'd guess during "Shall Pass Utterly" since the title seems apt for such a thing. Certainly, we begin to find out more about these horses in Runes. However, as I further considered this I began to think I was off the mark, since if I remember right you've said the chronicles were not written with the intention that there would be 2nd and 3rd chronicles neccessary. So I personally discounted this.

But now, I'm curious if when you wrote Joan as a horsebreaker - which as far as I can tell doesn't play into the plot of the first chronicles, or the second - you intended her to be involved more directly in the first chronicles. Or were in some way planning on mirroring Joan in the chronicles, as Covenant was (at least, physically) in Berek. Did you later drop this? Or did you, when writing the first chronicles, leave threads to use in later writings without necessarily intending a 10 book series?

Now a more mundane, boring question [about the GAP books]. The Scroyles didn't get a deserved ending, were completely detached from all the other characters (maybe a message passed to/from Hashi) and don't really impact much of anything. It's just...why did they exist? They're about the only characters I can think of in your books who weren't particularly interesting, didn't have a strong impact on other characters, etc.

(I've pruned your message quite a bit, mainly to make it easier to answer.  <rueful smile>)

In regard to Joan:  it's important to remember a) that I never intended to continue past the first "Covenant" trilogy, and b) I planned the story backward--which implies that I never intended Joan to play any role apart from her present place in the first trilogy.  So no, I didn't drop or change my plans for her:  I didn't have any plans.

(Of course, when I realized that I *did* want to continue into the "Second" and "Last Chronicles," I mined--for lack of a better term--the first trilogy assiduously, digging up the raw materials I needed.  But that's a completely separate issue.)

Why, then, did I describe Joan the way I did?  I had a number of reasons.  Primarily I was planting the seeds of the up-coming story in Covenant's conscious/unconscious mind; the seeds from which he "sprouts" his fantasy.  (Look for Giants early in LFB.  Shucks, I even foreshadowed Foamfollower's role as a sort of "moral arbiter".)  Joan, not Covenant, was involved with horses:  hence the presence of Ranyhyn--and his inability to "bond" with them.  On a far more personal level, however--well, I'll admit to some prejudice here.  Over the years, I've known a fair number of women who were passionately involved with horses; and every one of them would have dropped her husband in a heartbeat if he ever failed to be docile or "safe" enough.  To my mind--especially way back then--a woman who "broke" horses was a sure bet to behave as Joan did.  In addition:  I've mentioned before that because I had never written fantasy until then, and had no idea what I was getting into, I felt a need to start with the familiar.  Haven Farm (and its woods) was based directly on the place where I lived when I wrote the first trilogy.  And Joan was modeled on several women I knew then (in other words, back in those days I didn't think of her as a real character:  she was just a plot mechanism).

As for the Scroyles:  well, from my perspective, you underestimate the importance of their role in the asteroid battle; and the importance of what they reveal about Hashi Lebwohl; and their importance as a statement about the spectrum of people who live "outside the law" in this story.  This last point is not a trivial issue.  Sure, Holt Fasner's increasingly corrupt hegemony nurtures scum (the Bill, Milos Taverner).  It accommodates "redeemable" rogues (Sorus Chatelaine).  It leaves a fair number of basically decent people (Mikka Vasaczk, Vector Shaheed) in ethical limbo.  But it also forces people with a certain kind of personal integrity or honor (the Scroyles) to find a path outside the rules; to define themselves by a private rather than a public moral code.  (Which, *not* coincidentally, is where characters like Angus and Mikka and Vector end up.)  Individuals like the Scroyles, and Liete Corregio, and Lane Harbinger are given (brief) prominence because of the light they shed on the characters around them--and on the story as a whole.

(09/22/2006)

Bill Weldon

Steven, Thank you for your reply to my last question.  I do have another one, I have read several times in the GI that you have been studying Karate for 20 years.  I was wondering was there a reason behind your taking up martial arts?  The reason I ask is I just started my own studying of Tae Kwon Do, and have found that it has opened up both my mind, and body to a whole new perspective on things.  Second when you write yourself into one of your literary cul-de-sac's how do you deal with correcting your path.

Thanks again
Bill

I first took up karate as an emotional outlet:  I studied kata as a "dance of anger" which enabled me to vent distress which I could not express (safely) in any other form.  But since then I've fallen in love with the martial arts, both for their own sake, and for what they contribute to my emotional and psychological well-being (among other things, they are a rich source of metaphors for my inner journeys).

When I find myself in one of my narrative cul-de-sacs, I first have to go back and find the place where I "stepped off the path".  Then I have to rewrite everything from that place onward (although I do draw much of my material from my erroneous first draft).

(09/22/2006)

Peter Bremer

Hi Steve.

I did a quick search through through the GI for an answer to my question, but didn't see anything, perhaps because the nature of what I'm positing is hard to pin down. Hopefully this hasn't been asked before. I don't want to waste your valuable time.

Personal redemption through personal choice and service seems to be a thread through your work, at least to me. Characters have bad, usually VERY bad things happen to them early on, which they have no control over, and then must face how they CHOOSE to deal with them. Thinking about Covenant, specifically, he certainly grows through the series, taking more responsibility as he gives of himself to the Land's defense. He is less giving to others in the "Real World", however, at least in a general sense. Sure, he saves the snake-bitten girl and takes care of Joan, but in an overall sense he doesn't give back what he has learned to the world surrounding Haven Farm. This is in contrast to Linden who while doing her share in the Land, actively takes part and supports the community as a physician or administrator. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not the Land is "real", is it fair to ask why Covenant was not more engaged away from the Land or can we chalk it up to individual differences between the characters or simply seeing the fantasy landscape as a manifestation of the internal world of the characters?

You state in "Epic Fantasy of the Modern World", that you "wanted to bring the epic back into contact with the real world" through one modern human being, Thomas Covenant. How does Covenant's relationship with his own physical "real" world affect the success of this attempt?

How's that for a convoluted question? :-)

To me, this sounds rather--unsympathetic.  The man is a pariah, remember.  What sort of engagement with his community do you think his neighbors would tolerate?  He writes novels, which from my (perhaps selfish) perspective seems like an attempt to be "engaged," to give something back (although of course he can't actually write in public).  He "gives alms to the poor" in the form of paying for their medical care (ref. both TWL and TROTE).  And (don't underestimate the import of this) he doesn't run away:  he doesn't (for example) change his name and move, looking for a "friendlier" place to live.  In short, he does a lot more than I could do in his situation.

(09/23/2006)

Tony

Hi Stephen,

I've been reading the GI off and on for a while, but not got around to posting anything.

Anyway, I'd like to mention the 2 most powerful experiences I remember having reading your books, and ask you about them.

Firstly, I remember that you are the only author who has made me have a physical reaction to the text.  From memory it was the first Covenant, when they find people in the forest (excuse the vagueness but I've not read it for a while) who are prevented from telling Covenant he has walked into a trap.  I recall vividly - can even feel it now, about 24 years later - physically jumping when the trap was sprung!

Do you ever think about causing such strong physical reactions when you are writing?

Secondly, I remember the absolute revulsion I felt when I read the first GAP book.  I couldn't believe you had written something so nasty, so misogynistic, etc.  Needless to say I went on to read the rest of the series and thought they were fantastic, but did you set out to provoke such strong feelings, in order to imbue the rest of the books with such an emotional impact for readers?

Anyway, hope I've not repeated other questions.  I hope you come to the UK with 'Fatal Revenant', as I was kicking myself at missing you last time.

Thanks,

Tony.

I don't believe that I have the power to *cause* ANYthing, so I don't think in those terms.  Because I know what I'm going to write before I write it (and because writing is fundamentally different than reading), I don't/can't react the way a reader might.  In general, however, I do try to find ways (both in planning and in writing) to maximize the intensity of my own experience--on the theory that, beneath the surface, my readers and I have a lot in common.

"The Real Story" (the first GAP book) is an exception.  There I *feared* the intensity of my material.  So I departed from my usual methodologies in a conscious, deliberate attempt to NOT "provoke such strong feelings".  By introducing the story in layers, I was trying a) to engage the reader intellectually before the emotions started to kick in, and b) to defuse the impact of those emotions by approaching them obliquely.  After all, readers who feel "revulsion" in book one aren't likely to read the rest of the story--but the rest of the story is essential, if only to *justify* book one.  <sigh>

(09/23/2006)

Scott R. Kuchma

Mr. Donaldson ,
In your answer , to another fan , concerning the "Man Who..." series you stated..."Of course (this is me, remember) there *is* a larger story evolving in the background of "The Man Who..." books...".

This is intriguing ! Would you consider that the "Man Who..." Series was written "knowing" the end of the story , as you state all your writings have been done , and if so , how does writing books that "stand on their own" fit into this writing style ?

I do hope you live forever as I want more of the "Man Who..." Series .I'd like to know the larger story too .

Looking forward to Fatal Revenant .

SRK

Here, as in so many other areas, "The Man Who..." books are an exception.  I didn't begin to sense the presence of "a larger story in the background" until I was working on book two--and the exact nature of that "larger story" didn't become clear to me until I was planning book three.  Meanwhile the conventions of the genre require books that can stand alone.

(09/23/2006)

David

Steve; You once wrote a story, What Makes Us Human. Was that a warm up or practice pages for the Gap series? By the way, it was a good read. 
Thanks, David

I said everything I want to say about "What Makes Us Human" in the preface to "Reave the Just and Other Tales".  It certainly wasn't a *conscious* preparation for anything.  Neither were "Animal Lover" and "Mythological Beast," my two other forays into sf before the GAP books.

(09/24/2006)

Steve,

Are you aware of or have you read:

"'The first chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever' by Stephen Donaldson: A critical appraisal" by Susan Elizabeth Ellis, published by City of Birmingham Polytechnic, Department of Librarianship.

I could not find it listed anywhere on your site. 

I wasn't aware of it.  Is it accessible anywhere on the Internet?  I'd like to take a look at it.  And if it's suitable for this web site, I'd like to be able to get in touch with the author.

(09/24/2006)

Sabrina

In the age of technology, why is it that I can find current meaning in a trilogy that was published when I was three? I discovered Thomas Covenant a week ago and have just finished 'The Power that Preserves' (having read the other two first!) Never have I felt moved enough to write to an author before. Thank you, I'll be telling all my friends about him and look forward to getting my hands on the next trilogy...

I like to think that it's because good fantasy isn't about the external, material world (the world of technology):  it's about the internal world of emotion and imagination.  Good fantasy is relevant, not because it discusses the world in which we live, but because it discusses who we are in that world.  And "who we are" doesn't change anywhere near as quickly as the external world does.

(09/25/2006)

Phill Skelton

I'm not sure if this question has been asked before, so feel free to ignore it if it has, and I'll actually have to go and use the search function! One of my first impressions of 'Runes' was that it felt 'short': relatively little happened in the book, at least at the simplistic level you would look at when writing a plot summary ("they did this, then they did that, then the book ended"). In comparison to, say, 'Lord Foul's Bane', or 'The Mirror of Her Dreams', where an awful lot of events happen, the narrative progression of 'Runes' is much more about ideas, revealing information, and character. Is this a deliverate choice of pacing, or a change in your style over the years? (It could be both of course). Is it that you now find the more conceptual approach of 'Runes' to be a better way of expressing the story and ideas than the 'presentational' (or 'dramatic') approach of earlier books, or is it more influenced by the kind of story you are trying to tell? Or to put it in a way that is probably far more annoying to you: if you were writing 'The Mirror of Her Dreams' now (writing, not re-writing) would you be inclined to put fewer action scenes in, putting the ideas you want to convey in those scenes in some other way, or would that play havoc with the pacing of the story to its detriment? (I get the impression from the GI that such 'what if' questions vex you because they are coming from some set of assumptions about how you write that you simply don't relate to in the slightest. Feel free to disregard the questions if they are coming from the wrong set of premises). I suppose the corollary to the question is whether the pacing is going to remain the same for the rest of the series, or has the more 'thoughtful' pace been used to lay the groundwork for something different in the later parts?

First, "Mordant's Need."  You're right:  hypothetical questions like that don't work for me because they're both obvious and unanswerable.  Would "The Mirror of Her Dreams" be a different book if I wrote it today?  Of course.  I'm a different person--and a different writer--than I was 20 years ago.  But I can't imagine what those differences would be because the story is already fixed in my mind (and I haven't re-read it in a very long time).

But you aren't the first reader to comment that "The Runes of the Earth" seems *different* in some impressionistic way than the earlier Chronicles.  "Runes" isn't literally *short*:  it's longer than any previous "Covenant" book.  And I can't relate to the idea that "relatively little happened."  But there's no doubt that my characters spend more time "discussing their circumstances" than they do in the previous books; and these discussions probably don't seem like *events* (although they feel like events to me).

I have a variety of responses.  In no particular order:

1) There is an obvious (I think) "sea change" taking place in my work.  Over the course of the past 20+ years, my stories are becoming more and more concerned with how my characters relate to each other (ref. various discussions about "character" and "dignity" earlier in the GI).

2) One of my ambitions for "The Last Chronicles" is that it will weave together *all* the "Covenant" books.  Therefore I have an enormous number of threads to pick up from the earlier books.  But my chosen POV (restricted 3rd person) limits the means available to pick up those threads.  Under the circumstances, having my characters talk to each other seems like a natural (and relatively efficient) way of accomplishing my goal.

3) It isn't just "Runes".  Ever since "Mordant's Need" (a pivotal work in my development as a writer), I've found that as the narrative edifices I want to construct become larger and more complex, they require larger and more complex foundations.  I need to spend more time/space/words doing what I sometimes call "unrolling the canvas".  Setting up the things I want to do later in the story.  Look at the first two GAP books, which are (I think) absolutely necessary, but which in themselves do little more than hint at the scale of what's coming.  (He*l, in the GAP books I was still unrolling the canvas through most of book three.)  After reading just "The Real Story"--or "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge"--no one could guess what's about to unfold.  Indeed, compared to the first two GAP books, "Runes" is downright *obvious* in terms of what it reveals about forthcoming events.

Well, I believe that such foundations are critical to the effectiveness of the story as a whole.  If you want to send a rocket into space, you'd better build a pretty da*n solid launch platform.

In short, if you're concerned that "the pacing is going to remain the same for the rest of the series," read the GAP books.  Or look at "The Man Who Fought Alone," where the first "crime" doesn't occur until a third of the way through the book.

(09/26/2006)