Gradual Interview
(answers from May 2010, as of Jan 11 2026, 11:30:06 PM)
www.StephenRDonaldson.com
© 2004 by Stephen R.Donaldson

Gary Barnett

Dear Mr Donaldson,

Many thanks for answering my query back in January. Having completed my re-reading of the First Chronicles (with a gap of some 25 years), can I say that I found the work much deeper and compelling than I ever expected, despite that expectation being based on rose-tinted memory.

One more question, if I may. Covenant's worst crime in the Land is generally seen as the rape of Lena. However, as I read The Illearth War, his secret bargain regarding Elena appeared to me at least equally heinous.

Obviously Elena seeks Covenant's aid in defending the Land and up to the point he shaves off his beard he has refused to assist - in fact, although his unbelief is waning, his viewpoint is still that it is unreal (he needs it to be unreal to maintain his ability to deal with his leprosy in the real world and hence his sanity). Now he "bargains" to assist Elena - up to a point. That is he will assist her to reach Kevin's Seventh Ward so that she can use it and stand in his place as the hope of the Land. 

As he explains it later (to Elena), he was seeking to extracate himself from being the hoped-for saviour by placing that responsibility on Elena. But as I read it, he wasn't necessarily being totally honest with himself or Elena at this point - and the bargain he made was much more sinister than simply foisting responsibility on someone else. 

In particular, this "bargain" arises just as he has witnessed her apocalyptic nature. He now sees the destructive force that she is capable of. Despite his affection for her, he is still focused on a return to his real world. He may no longer choose to positively disbelieve, but he hasn't changed his view that the Land is ultimately dangerous to him. 

So he is looking for a way out of not only the responsibility the Land lays at his door but also a way back to his real world. He knows from Lord Foul's Bane that his return depends on the death of his summoner. It is a terrible bargain, but he decides to help Elena reach the Seventh Ward in the knowledge that she might well destroy herself and return him to his real world....

Can I ask, did your conception of the bargain include this additional element (that Covenant doesn't explicitly admit - though in the Power that Preserves, he doesn't actually contradict Lena's accusation that he killed Elena). To me, this makes much more sense of the level of guilt he feels concerning Elena and her fall. 

And as a quick follow-up, your use of the word "bargain" to describe a number of wholly internal decisions made by Covenant in Lord Foul's Bane and The Illearth War was clearly deliberate and important. Were you seeking to indicate here that Covenant is actually seeking to invest these internal decisions with greater import by turning them into "bargains", perhaps to assuege his creeping guilt at not helping the Land in a more active way?

Many thanks again
Gary

I can't think of a better analysis than yours.  Certainly it's no accident that Covenant's second "bargain" turned out much worse than his first--for all the reasons you cited.  His second bargain is inherently less honest.  But be careful.  It's a bit of a stretch to say that Covenant *knew* (even subconsciously) Elena's intentions for the Power of Command would kill her.

As for my use of the word "bargain":  it's also no accident that Covenant is named, well, "covenant."

(05/17/2010)

Tony

Hello! Firstly, my gratitude for your part in my being able to appreciate your works I cannot express. So, Thanks!  :)

I would like to ask:
When I was forming what might be called a morality - as a necessary response to what was happening in my childhood, I was helped by some of your characters' in COTC process of discovering their 'necessary responses'.
This exploration seems to be a theme in your work, especially later the GAP - which I loved.

The main other work I have found that has helped me in this way has been C.S. Lewis 'Dark Tower' works, and his 'Out of the Silent Planet' Trilogy.
Hmmm. Also to a lesser degree 'The Pilgrims Progress'. I think I found them inadequate, but I admired and was grateful for Lewis and Bunyans efforts. 
To cut a very long question short. Have you read these particular works, especially those specific works by Lewis, and if so any comments?

Thanks for your good opinion--although I'm uncomfortable thinking of myself as a teacher (so thanks also for not using that word <grin>).  I'm learning as I go along, just like other people.

Yes, I've read both Bunyan and C. S. Lewis' space trilogy.  I found the former interesting historically, but simplistic morally (like most allegorists).  Lewis' moral thinking is more complex (while still allegorical), but his "Silent Planet" books were just too static to hold my interest.

(05/17/2010)

Peter Bremer

I loved how you transported a science-fiction style hero (Darsint) into the medieval fantasy story Mirror of Her Dreams. Genre-crossing elements have always intrigued me. What made you pick *that* kind of genre hero? Perhaps your subconscious was getting ready for the Gap books.

Thanks again for all your beautiful work.

Perhaps my subconscious *was* "getting ready for the Gap books."  Your guess is as good as mine.  Certainly the chronological sequence of those works is seductive:  *this* followed *that*, therefore *that* must have caused *this*.  But that's a logical fallacy:  post hoc ergo propter hoc.  While I was writing "Mordant's Need," I was only conscious of wanting something that was easily "alien" to the Mordant world--something that didn't violate my essential paradigm (different realties operate by different rules, but human potential remains)--and I had already used enough "fantasy" monsters.  Darsint was a convenient choice.

As were many of my choices in "Mordant's Need."  I consciously did *not* want to engage in Covenant-style world-building:  I was preoccupied with other concerns.  So I "borrowed" several familiar tropes in order to construct a comparatively simple background for the characters.

(05/17/2010)

William

Hey Steve.
[text cut to save space]

So now, on a different note, you've talked about the fact that Shotokan is a "complete" martial art, even if it may not appear so until you fully understand it. To me, superficially, karate seems to be almost exclusively focused on striking in combat (of course i'm talking in a purely technique based sense, not about internal aspects or breathing, etc.) Do you feel this is true and that focus on grappling would detract from the art, or rather that there are more body-manipulation aspects that aren't immediately noticeable to a Jujutsuka such as myself?

I'm primarily interested in striking and blocking myself.  I have several joints that can't take the pressure of grappling; so if I ever end up on the ground, I'm toast.  One reason (among many) that I love Shotokan is, it protects those joints.

But I've been blessed with rather eclectic teachers.  So far, I haven't seen a technique in any other martial art (including Jujitsu and Muay Thai) that isn't hidden away *somewhere* in Shotokan.  I don't train most of those "hidden" techniques, but I know they're there.  For that reason, I consider Shotokan a good "foundation" style:  you can take it in almost any direction you want.

(05/17/2010)

Bryan B

After jumping back into the GI after being away for awhile, I read from an earlier post about your interest in some obscure horror/comedy films for which you were searching, on DVD.  Your 'Mr Vampire' of course was already found, but when I read from the "Best Internet Searcher' how the other just must not be there -- that's a challenge.  The problem is the translation...  the movie you're looking for is, in English, Encounter of the Spooky Kind II.  In the original Cantonese, it's Gui yao gui aka Gwai aau gwai.  It has never officially been released on DVD, but several cult supply shops sell it on DVD-r for reasonable prices, which is about the best you can expect for obscure imports like these.  One suggestion is http://www.trashpalace.com/collectorsmovies/horror1.htm
Does this make me "Better than the Best"?  Welcome!

Thanks!  If you had given me an email address, I would have sent you a personal response.

(05/17/2010)

Matthew Yenkala

Hello Sir,

I strongly agree with your assertions that fantasy is the oldest and purest art form in human history. However, the author of this article disagrees:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/avatar-and-the-flight-from-reality

While the article is mainly about (slamming) Cameron's AVATAR, if you make it further down, Lewis, Tolkien and fantasy in general come into the discussion.

Though I think he's mainly referring to visual art, one can probably infer that he falls into the "if it's not reality, it's silly and pointless" camp.

Wondering if you have any thoughts on this. Would love to see you take this guy on in a debate!

I'm not much good at debates.  I don't think quickly enough.  But the author this article is clearly working from extremely reductive definitions of both "fantasy" and "reality."

(05/17/2010)

Alex Finney

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

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.

(05/17/2010)

Michael from Santa Fe

Is it too early to ask questions about "Against All Things Ending"?  You posted Chapter 1, so I'll give it a shot.  Towards the end of the Chapter, Covenant uses the argument that the Wraiths of Andelain *allowed* Linden to resurrect him.  Considering she had the Staff of Law and the krill of Loric, how powerful are those little guys?

Well, considering that the Wraiths draw on the same sources of power Linden does--and that they have an organic relationship with their world (i.e. nothing that they do violates Law)--and that it might not take much to interrupt Linden while she was preparing herself--  In any case, I can easily think of ways for the Wraiths to stop Linden without some kind of power-contest.

(05/17/2010)

John

Steve,

I am rereading (listening) the Chronicles in anticipation of the release of Against All Things Ending.  I am currently enjoying  The Power That Preserves.  A couple of silly things have occurred to me in this pass.

1)  What would have happened to Covenant if he had accepted Mhoram's summoning when Foamfollower and Triock attempted to summon him?

2) Why was "the Unbeliever" removed from the title of the second chronicles.

I'd also like to thank you and Scott Brick for jumping through whatever hoops you had to to get the first chronicles into audio format.  As life these days does not really allow for the indulgence of rereading, the audio versions have been a guerdon to one whose job has him driving a lot.  Although I enjoy Scott's work greatly, your work, to me, is much better on the printed page

1) We're outside the text again.  But if I understand your question--  I imagine that Triock and Foamfollower would have simply failed.  Nothing would have happened to Covenant.  Or nothing substantial anyway.  Until Lord Foul won his war.

2) Because (as I've said on other occasions) Unbelief is no longer a "foreground" theme in "The Second Chronicles."

(05/17/2010)

Carl Hufton

Dear Steve:
I have read that your autograph is available for free but you do not understand why people want it.
I collect autographs of people I admire and have done since the age of 9.
Can you, therefore, possibly send me an autographed postcard/promo leaflet? I will send a SAE if required. 
My address is: Carl Hufton, 6 E=Western Gardens, Nottingham, NG8 5GP, England.

Kindest regards

Carl.

The instructions for obtaining autographs are described elsewhere on this site ("contacts").  But there seems to be some confusion about the process.  Readers are asked to limit themselves to three.  This does not mean that you can *only* have three.  It means you can only have three *at a time*.  If you want more, simply wait a polite interval and then post your request again.

(05/18/2010)

Casey

You said in David Drake's Lord of the Isles basically that it's an amazing book.  But so far I am about 150 pages in and it seems like plain fantasy, whereas I like stuff that's unusual like yours.  Is it really worth reading all the way through?  I don't want to get invested if it's regular typical fantasy.

Well, *I* enjoyed the book--but that doesn't mean *you* will.  Tastes vary.  And blurbs are written for a variety of reasons (I mean, apart from the obvious one).  Ego, for example.  Or professional or personal courtesy.  Personally, I don't make reading decisions based on blurbs.  Even my own.  <grin>

(05/18/2010)

Darren

One of the recent GI questions asked about Worm at the World's end.  This got me to thinking about relative power and searched the GI and found a couple of interesting points that I have questions about.

1) How can Linden have wielded more power than Covenant?  In FR, wasn't it written that the white gold was made for Covenant and that all other wielders possessed only a portion of the power he had with it?

2) In WGW, it states "The Banefire was not stronger than he was...Strong enough to withstand any assault which did not also crumble the arch of time".  So can we infer that Gibbon Raver with the Banefire was more powerful than Foul with the Illearth Stone as Covenant administered him a full beat down in TPTP?

My final comment is a plea, which I expect you enjoy less than root canal from what I can read on this site.  Please, please allow Covenant to be allowed to control the wild magic again and battle Foul or his minions directly.  Sci-Fi/Fantasy reached its absolute peak, during the showdown in Ridjek Thome. I realize the nature of the story has changed and you been there/done that, but damn that was an amazing story line.

1) You seem to forget that Covenant is always striving for *restraint*; that he was afraid of his own power long before he learned how dangerous it is.  In contrast, Linden wants *more*:  she wants enough to impose her will on, well, practically everything.  So just because she's wielded more power than Covenant *has* doesn't mean that she's wielded more than he *can*.

2) Do I need to remind you that LF has changed his tactics profoundly between the first trilogy and the second?  In the first, his approach is comparatively simple.  If he can't get Covenant to fight his armies, he would like nothing better than a direct confrontation:  Covenant and wild magic vs LF with the Illearth Stone.  That would have given LF what he wants:  a contest sufficiently immense to break the Arch of Time.  But Covenant foiled him by attacking the Illearth Stone instead of its wielder.  In the second trilogy, however, LF's approach is entirely different--and one of its keystones is the venom which erodes Covenant's restraint.  Hence Covenant's dilemma in the Banefire:  he's been *poisoned,* for crying out loud.  Surely, therefore, comparisons between Gibbon/Banefire and LF/Illearth Stone are meaningless.

Do I need to emphasize that Covenant *still* has never fought LF directly?  Do I need to ask, What would be the point?

(05/20/2010)

Peter

Thank you so much for your work.  I won't be throwing your books out if I find an objectionable word.  We are all human after all.
And thank you again for making chapter 1 available.  It really gets us readers all excited for more!  
I for one will be purchasing AATE (and maybe more than one to give as gifts).  I know there are readers who will be reading your book from a lending library.  Libraries are legitimate sources, yet they do offer copyrighted material for free.  You may not be able to keep the physical (or digital bits), but the story becomes yours once you read it.  I wonder if I should feel guilty when I read a book from the library since I did not "pay the author" to read it?  There is a distinction between libraries and people who offer illegal downloads I'm sure, but how is it different?  Your recent GI comments on illegal downloads has me thinking about this.

It's difficult to disapprove of libraries.  Sure, they make books available for free--in a manner of speaking.  And writers (not to mention publishers) have been trying for a long time to figure out how to get royalties (without putting libraries out of business).  But do keep in mind that libraries are a public service (an accepted institution of public policy) supported by both user fees and tax dollars.  Readers are *paying*, even if the money doesn't go to writers or publishers.  And libraries do buy the books they lend out.  In addition, there's the significant historical detail that libraries existed before royalties did.  The present system of paying writers takes for granted the presence and legitimacy of libraries.

None of those statements can be made about the kind of Internet piracy that undermines writers and publishers today.  Copyright law may be a comparative recent invention, but it's a LOT older than the Internet.  "Gee, I really like these books, so I'll do my best to make sure that their author never earns another dime--and therefore can never write another book."  Does that make sense to you?

(05/20/2010)

russw

chiaroscuro?  

Not really a question more of a rant.  So I'm reading and loving the AATE preview and I come to the word chiaroscuro. Now as someone who first read your works in high school during the early 80's, over the years, I have come to appreciate how your writings have improved my personal vocabulary... but I gotta draw the line at some point. chiaroscuro? really?  I'm beginning to think the reason you claim for not have time to read other authors is that you spend all your reading time nose down in a dictionary.  

:P

Thanks for all the great books over the years and I look forward to the completion of the Covenant story and your writing projects to follow.    

If you don't mind my saying so, this seems a bit disingenuous.  I mean, considering the fact that "chiaroscuro" occurs any number of times in the first trilogy, and (if memory serves) is not entirely absent from the second.  There may even be precedent in "The Last Chronicles," although I can't be bothered to check.

(05/20/2010)

john

A gentleman recently wrote: 

"Been a huge fan since the early 80's, used the "you are the white gold" analogy to friends with low esteem countless times; encouraged friends to read the Thomas Covenant series. 

How sad it was then to read on page 146 of "The Man Who Risked His Partner" the phrase "Mongoloid idiot". My 5 year old has Downs syndrome. All my SRD books are in the garage sale now. A huge loss to me. I hope
you reconsider this enormously painful choice of words, and the thought that spawned it."

To which you replied:

"I don't usually respond to messages like this one in public. But in this case, I feel constrained to ask: have you considered the possibility that I was simply ignorant? After all, I was much younger when I wrote that book. I've learned a lot in the intervening decades. In particular, I have a close friend with a Downs Syndrome son. He's educated me in ways that I could not have imagined on my own. Authors are human. Sometimes they make mistakes. And EVERYBODY is ignorant about SOMETHING."

And now I have a few words to add. We all do/say things we later regret. We all grow and hopefully learn. In other words, we mature, as individuals and as a culture.bas such, over time, some words once accepted, or used without question, become taboo. Think of the word "Jap(s)", for example, used in many movies and books about WWII. Now this word is considered offensive by some.  

But that is not my point: Mr. Donaldson is an author, and words are what he uses to conduct his craft. He uses ideas too, and some of those ideas are harsh and unpleasant and actually quiet nasty - rape is a common element is his stories; the "hero" of his most popular story, Thimas Covenant, rapes an underaged girl as one of his first acts, but we see the act of rape in his other stories, too.

So let me ask this: Mr. Donaldson used what some consider a very insensitive term in a book he wrote many years ago, and the person(s) offended have the RIGHT to be offended, but until you came across that term, how would you respond to someone who said you shouldn't read his books because they were or knew somone who was raped? 

Add to that, is not literature where we SHOULD explore the offensive nature of humans? Is not what we write, be it fiction or philosophy (which I believe all good literature to be), the ONLY place we can explore what is both good and bad - we do so by not reading, but reflecting upon WHAT we read. 

God knows i've done some offensive things in my life; you have too, who ever you are who reads this. Are those offensive acts what define you? Should people define who you are by those acts alone? I hope not, because I know I am more than the bad/wrong things I have done or said. Isn't our ability to grow and mature what really make us human?

Sorry about the rant, I just wonder, in the end, how we can find offense in one thing, yet find pleasure in what others may find offensive (Thomas Covenant raping Lena, for example)? And I LOVE the Gap novels, despite what happened to Morn, and it was hard to read...

And if it matters, I had a family member who suffered from Downs Syndrome, but passed some years back. 

I'm posting this as a matter of general interest, not because I want to turn the GI into a debate about what is or is not offensive.  I'm grateful for the understanding and support.  I would have sent a private reply rather than a public message if an email address had been provided.

(05/20/2010)

Tom

I've recently finished re-reading Mordant's Need - I read it when I was 11, and it's been 20 years, long enough that I couldn't really remember anything more than the fact that I loved it the first time around. I loved it equally the second time around. Your writing has been a great inspiration over the years, and continues to be. So firstly, thanks for your wonderful stories.

Anyway, my question is about the Arch-Imager Vagel. Despite the fact that he's referred to constantly throughout the books, he remains a curiously peripheral figure; he gets one bit of dialogue with Terisa, and that's about it. He seems a potentially compelling character - the pinnacle of Imaging talent, feared by everyone - but you never really get to learn anything about his character, his history, his motivations, etc. 

So the question: why is this so? Was there a reason why you didn't feel it necessary to develop his character any further?

This isn't in any way meant to be a criticism; I'm just genuinely interested as to why you chose to structure the story that way. Many thanks for taking the time to answer, and for the gradual interview in general - it's consistently fascinating reading.

Deciding what and what not to explain or develop in a story is always a complex narrative challenge.  In the end, I have to rely on my instincts (as most writers do, I suppose)--and in this case, I decided that Vagel would be a more "potent" figure if I kept him in the shadows (as it were) instead of revealing him clearly.  After all, he *is* essentially a "background" figure, peripheral (but not irrelevant) to the main story.  So the question then becomes, How can I make him interesting without bending the story out of shape to accommodate him?  Naturally my instincts can be wrong.  But I have to trust them anyway.  At the end of the day, what else can I rely on?

(05/20/2010)

Dale Cebula

Maybe too many questions for you, so I'll try to be brief.  After reading the 1st chapter of the new book (loved it!) I have a difficult question to ask...is the manner that Covenant seems to lose his knowledge similar in any way to the manner that Lord Foul, when he "fell" from the heavens into the world that he corrupted.  In other words, Foul (despite his intellect and ability) appears lacking given that he, by all appearences, is an eternal being.  When I read what happened to Covenant I saw a possible connection to what happened to Foul.

Also, the various names of Lord Foul make sense in one form or another (corruption, grey slayer), except for the a-Jeroth name.  Am I missing something here?  Is this a name that you created or does a-Jeroth come from some source I'm not familiar with?  Is this the name Foul used when he first "visited" the Lords?  Of the Old Lords, did any of them aside from Kevin ever encounter him?  Finally, given the long lives of the Old Lords, was Berek (or Damelon for that matter) alive when Kevin came into his own?  Always been a little confused about that detail.

thanks!

[contains possible oblique spoilers]

If you can see a parallel between Lord Foul's "fall" and Covenant's, you're doing better than I am.  LF's plight--or so it seems to me--is more like keeping your mind and losing your body.  Covenant, of course, is regaining his body and losing his mind.

It seems plausible to me that LF might have occasion to need a name that doesn't announce his nature.  "Hey, guys, I'm Foul the Despiser, and I want to become a Lord by tricking you."  "a-Jeroth" works well for me because it *sounds* right, not because it has any literal meaning (at least as far as I know).

I acknowledge that the chronology of the Old Lords is confusing:  they lived so long that there must have been significant overlap.  Well, I didn't work this out when I was writing the first trilogy because I didn't think I needed it; and now I'm stuck with it.  Almost anything I might say goes outside the text.  But as "Fatal Revenant" reveals, Damelon was an adult long before Berek became High Lord.  And it seems likely that Loric's "trajectory" resembled Damelon's.  So again it seems likely that Loric knew Berek.  But Kevin may--or may not--be another matter.  Loric, apparently, was a real risk-taker.  If he fathered Kevin late, and died (comparatively) young, that might account for some of the confusion.  In any case, I suspect that a-Jeroth came along after Loric was gone.

(05/25/2010)

Robert K Murnick

Hello.  Just completed "The Man Who Fought Alone".  Wooo-eeeee!  I think I've joined the club of folks who've read every single piece of fiction you've ever published!  Sorry it took me so long to get around to it.  I guess the bad economy has been good for shrinking my books-I-should-read pile.

So Mick Axbrewder is the character closest to yours, Stephen.  Hmmmmm......having never met you in person, I'll have to take your word for it.  I thought that "The Man Who...." books were a lot of fun.  But "Fought Alone" made me wonder a bit.  I have about 10 years experience studying Korean Martial Arts and 4 years studying Chinese Martial Arts, so (as you might expect) your depictions of Master "Song Duk Soon" and Master "Hong Fei-Tung" bothered me a little.  But I have met my share of jerks in the Martial Arts world, so I can suspend enough disbelief to believe in them.  I've never been to a tournament on the West Coast, so my question is - is it as bad as you showed it to be?  Tournament participants and school leaders (Nelson Brick) attacking someone trying to keep the peace?  Master Soon's students behaving like a youth gang when Brew visits them?  Have you had bad experiences with students of Korean Martial Arts?

This is unrelated - did you ever consider Brew going to an AA meeting?

I have to say that no offense was intended to any martial art--or any martial artists--in "The Man Who Fought Alone."  Apart from the stealing, and the subsequent murder, at the martial arts tournament, everything that happened there is something that I've witnessed or overheard personally.  But what's in the book is specific to the particular characters and situations I'm writing about:  unlike my characters, I'm not drawing general conclusions.

Meanwhile the notion of battles between martial arts schools (for whatever reason:  prove superiority, attract new students, seek justice, keep the peace by containing the conflict, exclude outsiders) has a long tradition.  I am FAR from the first storyteller to employ such narrative devices.

Sadly, many people who pursue that martial arts do so for reasons of ego, not for what Funakoshi called "perfection of character."

(05/25/2010)