Gradual Interview
(answers from February 2009, as of Apr 30 2026, 2:44:11 AM)
www.StephenRDonaldson.com
© 2004 by Stephen R.Donaldson

John

Steve,

Two things, first of which a question...

...a question you may not wish to answer, and if you do not, I understand. That being said...

You have stated one reason you waited so long to write the LCOTC was fear. You did not feel you had the ability to accomplish what you wished to write. You have also written, regarding the Second Chronicles, you were "already struggling with The Second Chronicles", and "When [you] go back and reread The Second Chronicles, [you] can see" where you struggled. Then you state that if you had waited to mature as an author The Second Chronicles would have avoided these struggles.

I must confess to a certain morbid curiosity which compels me to ask, but what "struggles" do you see in The Second Chronicles? 

Thank you, whether or not you answer. 

Now, I believe you have stated you are a fan of Joss Whedon, writer and director of the t.v. shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly. If so you may wish to check out www.drhorrible.com
This is currently an internet only musical/comedy/tragedy movie made by Whedon which is available to watch for free on this web site (it is about 40 minutes long). I actually enjoyed it. And interestingly enough, he developed this because of the writers strike in 'Hollywood' of a year ago. 

Just thought you might enjoy it, if you were not already aware of it. 

Thank you for your time.

There are a number of things in "The Second Chronicles" that leave me groaning for a better author.  (There are also many things which please me inordinately.)  I'll only mention two.

1) Structurally, part of "The Wounded Land" is a real mess.  Between the time when Covenant and Linden part outside Andelain and the time when he rescues her from the Clave, I was simply not a good enough writer to devise a felicitous way of  interweaving their separate tales without allowing those tales to undermine each other.  This flaw may or may not be apparent to readers in general; but it is painfully obvious to me.

2) Discussing the GAP books, I've described my belief that the story contains one character who deserved a better author:  Davies Hyland.  I didn't fail him by, say, not giving him enough narrative attention.  Instead I failed him by--I can't think of a better way to put this--not understanding him well enough.  For some (no doubt deeply personal) reason, I wasn't able to "put myself in his shoes" as honestly or as completely as I did with other characters.  Well, something similar happened in the last half of "White Gold Wielder".  I simply didn't understand Linden well enough to write that part of the story.  She needed a better author, and she didn't get one.  (Again, this may or may not be apparent to readers in general--although it was clear to my agent.  Still it's painfully obvious to me.)

Meanwhile, thanks for mentioning the Joss Whedon site.  I'm never going to watch a 40 minute movie on my computer; but I *am* something of a Whedon fan.  "Buffy the Musical" (season six) was brilliant.

(02/04/2009)

Phil

Hi
Inspired by the Last Chronicles I'm just reading the Gap for the second time after many years despite reading Covenant many times. I guess I must have found the first time too traumatic - it's magnificent but unremitting. Even though I have a rough recollection where its going its still a hell of an experience. Thank you. My question ? It looks like you took great care to base it all on 'real' science. Even the gap drive if you allow for the theoretical acceptance of wormholes, and it all still stands up but with one fairly obvious deviation - the need to build up velocity for the gap drive. Unless one ditches relativity that is clearly a meaningless concept in this context. Was that an oversight or a deliberate plot device in order to build in narrative delays?  

You've (almost) put your finger on what I consider to be *the* technological blunder in the GAP cycle.  The specific relationship you cite between velocity and distance-crossed-through-the-gap makes intuitive sense to me.  Why can't it be true that the faster you go the farther you jump?  No, the *real* problem, at least as I see it, has to do with the sheer SCALE of the velocities I describe, especially in "Forbidden Knowledge".

To a certain extent, I have trouble understanding general relativity (which would be effectively meaningless in any case at velocities less than, say, 0.1C):  to a much larger extent, I--I'm fumbling for a description here--CAN'T DO THE MATH.  I can't comprehend the forces involved in the accelerations I specified.  I can't estimate the effects of those forces on living tissues.

Well, I knew that about myself before "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" ever saw a publisher.  So I did what I always want to do in similar situations:  I consulted an expert.  In this case, an honest-to-spaceship Rocket Scientist, a design engineer for JPL.  And he told me that I had nothing to worry about.  Everything looked fine to him.

Since I trusted him, I can hardly describe my horror when I learned--*after* "Forbidden Knowledge" was published, of course--that I had screwed up.  Dramatically.  In other words, IT'S NOT MY FAULT!

But of course it *is* my fault (he admitted ruefully).  I'm the author:  there's no one else to blame.  However, a close reading of the whole story will reveal that references to *specific* velocities are almost entirely absent from "A Dark and Hungry God Arises," and *are* entirely absent from the last two books.  That was the only solution I could come up with for my peculiar problem.

<sigh>  Today seems to be my day for wallowing in my own flaws.

(02/04/2009)

Sarah

Hello!

You've said previously in the GI that when you came up with the idea for the First Chronicles, you knew how it was going to end, and worked backwards from there. Was it a case of working backwards through main story events until you reached a starting point, or was there greater detail involved in your thinking?
An example: In "The Power That Preserves", Covenant destroys the Staff of Law when he confronts Elena. Was that known to you as you thought out the story (backwards), or was it something that happened as you wrote? If it was the former, did you know that Elena was Covenant's daughter, and therefore that he would rape Lena?

Sorry if this is a difficult question to answer! And thanks for your time. :)

Well, I *do* have to reach back three decades....

Where the first "Covenant" trilogy is concerned, the "planning backward" notion applies in most situations.  For example, I needed a final war to set up Covenant's confrontation with Lord Foul.  I wanted that war to be as destructive (therefore as UNnatural) as possible.  That led me to the misuse of Law, which suggested the misuse of the Staff.  But of course Covenant couldn't get at Lord Foul without first facing the misuser of the Staff.  And the misuser had to be a High Lord.  Much better for the High Lord to be someone he knows:  someone more than just a good-guy-turned-bad-guy.  But not Mhoram, who didn't fit the role.  Better for the High Lord to be someone with whom Covenant has a personal relationship.  A very personal relationship.  Who better than a daughter?  But how was she turned into a bad guy?  And where did she come from in the first place?

You see what I mean.  At any rate, that gives you a rough idea of how my planning process worked in those days.

(02/04/2009)

Doug Scott

Dear Stephen,

I've just finished re-reading the Gap Series - a process which due to the insanely gripping nature of the story and a temporary period of unemployment has taken me less than a week.

Anyway, what prompted me to write was a discussion I had with my girlfriend the other night. Desperate to convey to her what gave the series such a maniacal hold on my attention, I described the events of the the first two books to her, letting slip that I had first read them in my early teens.

To my surprise, she suggested immediately that books should be censored in terms of age in a similar manner to films. I countered by pointing out that the two mediums were essentially different, and that the abuse suffered by Morn in the first book was not especially graphic, except for a couple of sentences which spring to mind. I argued that at 12 or 13, limited experience meant that my imagination was not truly equipped to fill in the missing details. Also, that whatever titillation I might have drawn from Morn's predicament, the horror of the situation and Angus' obvious inadequacy was sufficient to prevent me from taking the wrong lesson.

Clearly, I'm right. I certainly don't believe any artist - least of all a novelist - should be hamstrung by modish morality. My question is simply whether you believe that there is any case at all to be answered - is there an age under which children should be barred from reading about terrible sexual violence in literature? I believe in censorship in films, perhaps even to some extent on the internet. Perhaps you don't at all. But how would you answer her? And what, to you, is the essential difference which means that literature is exempt from the strictures imposed on other artforms?

Only if you can be bothered! Look forward to reading the completed Last Chronicles.

Doug Scott

This is going to be messy.  I'm not sure I'm up to it....

But it looks to me like we're talking about two different things:  censorship and--for lack of a better term--parental values.  Where the former is concerned, I'm totally against it.  No free society can long remain free once it begins to condone censorship.  In any form.

So it's probably worth mentioning that I don't consider, say, movie ratings to be censorship.  Stupidly misapplied, yes:  censorship, no.  Seen in the best possible light, they represent an attempt by the film biz to help parents make informed decisions about what the parents let their children see.  Less optimistically viewed, they represent an attempt to impose "approved societal norms" on individual families.  Which is pure hypocrisy.  But it's *not* censorship because--with occasional exceptions--it doesn't prevent parents from taking their children to see whatever the parents want.  For example, I've seen parents take their 6- and 8-year-olds to see tortureporn like the "Saw" movies.

Well, something similar already applies to books.  It just isn't called "ratings".  It's called "genres" (e.g. "children's books," "young adult").  It's called "categories".  Or it's called "sections of the library".  To the extent that movies are censored, so are books.  We don't need more of, well, whatever it is.

But "parental values" are an entirely different matter--and entirely personal to individual parents.  Each parent has the responsibility to decide what he/she considers appropriate for his/her children, *regardless* of movie ratings or book categories.  So do I think that parents in general should allow their adolescent children to read, say, the GAP books?  I have no idea.  I only know what *my* values are (and they include not imposing my values on other parents).

Well, one of my values is that I don't believe in "forbidding" much of anything (except dangers like running out into the street <rueful smile>).  Instead I used tools like discouragement ("You might not want to read that.  I have, and you probably won't like it.") and involvement ("Let's watch that movie together when it comes out on VHS or DVD.  That way, we can pause it whenever we want and talk about it.").  And I simply kept anything that I wasn't already familiar with off the table (in a manner of speaking).

The result?  My children were exposed to a lot that violated "approved societal norms".  They're mature beyond their years.  And they didn't read the GAP books until they were in their 20s.

In addition, they don't approve of censorship.

I say, Mission accomplished.

(02/11/2009)

Richard

Hello Steve, 

I wandered into my local (well, almost local) Waterstones this weekend and was perusing the buy two get one free books.  

Needless to say I spotted one of yours in there - Fatal Revenant - and it raised a question within me.

Who bears the cost of this?  The bookseller, the publishing company or your royalties?

I know I saw a complaint from Alan Bennett concerning Amazon's pricing of his books, using it as an example of how lowering prices is stopping most authors from being paid poorly at best, and at worst forcing them from their vocation because it is not financially viable.

And, regardless of cost, I would be intrigued on your views on the manner.

Thank you, 
Richard

I can't speak to the specific situation you encountered.  It could be anything (e.g. remaindered books).  But I can tell you this.  Unless/until a book is remaindered, the author gets paid according to the cover price (which the publisher prints on the book).  If the cover price is $29.95, and Amazon sells the book for $14.95, the author gets royalties on $29.95.  Even if the publisher sells the book to Amazon for $3.95, the author gets royalties on $29.95.

(Of course, publishers are always looking for ways to pay the author less, just as bookstores are always looking for ways to pay the publisher less.  But it hasn't happened in my contracts yet.)

But once a book is remaindered ("We can no longer sell this book at anything like its cover price, so we certainly aren't going to print any more.  And we can use our warehouse space more effectively for newer or more profitable books.  So let's unload what we still have of *this* book as fast as we can."), the author gets mere pennies of whatever the publisher gets, which is typically a very small fraction of the cover price.  Once a hardcover of mine gets remaindered (mass market paperbacks don't get remaindered:  they get pulped), I can usually buy it myself for less than 10% of the original price.

Incidentally, I suspect that authors are being forced from their vocations because *publishing* is losing its viability, not because booksellers offer discounts.

(02/11/2009)

Bob Athanasidy

I thoroughly enjoy the growth of the Covenant series, having revisited each prior episode with every new novel released.  In interviews, you seem to express a recognition of some limitations in your abilities as a story teller or writer, especially in the earlier books, though certainly not as disdainfully as our Covenant had with his earlier writing.  While I believe most fans will deny any inadequacy in your writing, to what degree has sympathetic introspection made its way into TC's character development. More importantly,
can a hero be un-flawed? 

*My* "sympathetic introspection" affects how I write about ALL of my characters.  I think it makes them more real.  Ideally, it also makes them more profound.  But whether or not any of my *specific* characters engage in "sympathetic introspection" is really a function of personality and circumstance.  Nick Succorso never engages in introspection, sympathetic or otherwise.  Hashi Lebwohl always engages in introspection, and learns to do so sympathetically.  Linden Avery--or Thomas Covenant--well, we'll have to see, won't we.

"Can a hero be un-flawed?"  Can a *person* be un-flawed?  I think not.  And a hero who isn't a person also isn't a hero:  he (or she, or it) is an idea, or an archetype, or a figurehead, or a mouthpiece, or a symbol.  Being a hero requires courage; and courage means overcoming fears; and fears imply flaws.

Or so it seems to me.

(02/11/2009)

Matt Verdier

In one of the Covenant books you speak about leprosy.  I seem to recall that you mention that part of the problem with leprosy was that it had not been sucessfully isolated for study.

I have in the last year read that scientist have been able to study leprosy since the writing of the books and have discovered that Armadillos can carry leprosy.  I was further astonished to discover that 1 in 20 armadillos in the wild carry the disease.  Humas for the most part are immune to it these days except for a very small percentage of people who have not inherited that immunity.

Hmm, there is not really a question there, just an interesting bit of facts that I'd be curious to know if you have heard about.  Hope you are doing well, Matt.

Yes, I did know.  It's unfortunate in the sense (and ONLY in the sense) that it makes the earlier "Covenant" books anachronistic.  But that can't be helped.  In one way or another, every book is the product of its time.  Just look at the "Axbrewder/Fistoulari" novels.  <sigh>

(02/11/2009)

Vinny

As you are writing (and rewriting) your books, do you at any point get feedback from family/friends?  If so, at what point do you show them what you've written, and what do you get from their comments.

I ask because as I develop my own writing, I've learned that "too much, too soon" is a problem.  It's what turned me away from workshopping and writer's groups - not necessarily because I'm opposed to them, but long form works don't seem to fit in such forums. I'm curious as to whether or not you give anyone a "sneak peek".

On a side note...thank you for recommending the Malazan books.  It's taken me until the third book to really get into it, but I'm totally hooked.  And I can't help but suspect that you are kicking yourself for not getting to the name "Anomander Rake" before Erikson did. :)

I do have two private readers, from whom I get feedback quasi-regularly (in effect, every three chapters).  They're my anchor to the "real world" of actual communication.  I can trust them to be respectfully honest in their comments, positive or negative ("respectfully" because the opinions of people who sneer at what I do have no value to me:  "honest" because anything less wouldn't do me any good).  All three of us know that this places them in an impossible position; but we all accept it.

What I do NOT do is *talk* to my readers about what they're reading for me, either before they read it or after they finish (until they've read the whole book).  As stringently as I can, I avoid the problem of "expectations".  So I don't tell them anything about what they're about to read.  And when they've read it, I don't explain anything that confuses them.  I don't answer any questions about my intentions.  Within the contraints of their position, I treat them like people who don't know me and therefore can't learn anything that isn't actually in the text.

In other words, we don't ever *discuss* what they've read--until, as I say, they've read the whole book.  I write:  they read:  they send me their comments:  I read their comments:  and I go on writing.

"I go on writing" is probably worth emphasizing.  When I get feedback, I don't double back to tackle the problems my readers have brought to my attention.  I don't exactly *ignore* those problems; but I don't want to trap myself in premature revisions, thereby losing all forward momentum; so I just let the problems "steep" in the back of my mind until I'm ready to begin rewriting the whole book from the beginning.

Do I need to add that I chose these two people very carefully?  Or that I explained exactly how I wanted the process to work?  Or that they accepted my--for lack of a better term--rules (respect, honesty, authorial silence) without reservation?

And do I need to add that all of this is entirely personal?  Every writer is different:  therefore every writer has different needs.  The only thing I can really say about *my* process is that it meets *my* needs.

(02/18/2009)

Dave Ring

It seems to me that severing a branch of the One Tree to create the first Staff of Law may well have been the most perilous action ever taken in the world of the Land, but also essential to the final resolution of your story.

My thoughts lead to questions that may well be *unaffordable* to answer at this time, so I will limit myself to an oblique query.  With Caerroil Wildwoodâ€™s graving of runes on the new Staff, is the purpose of Vain and the ur-viles accomplished, or far from it?

In hindsight, of course, Berek's action does seem almost supremely perilous.  But my characters lead linear lives:  even when they hop around from age to age, their own lives preserve the ordinary sequences of time.  So they can't make their decisions in hindsight.  As with all of us, Berek can only be held responsible for doing something that made sense to him at the time.  And at the time, what he did sure *looked* like it was worth the risk.

Is Vain's purpose accomplished?  What purpose do you imagine he could possibly have in his present state?  The ur-viles (his creators), as I hope the story makes plain, are entirely another matter.

(02/18/2009)

Michael Weinhardt

You've been asked *many* questions over several years. What is the one question you thought you would have been asked by now, but haven't?

You've *got* to be kidding.  Do you think I want to make my life in the GI even *more* challenging?

(02/18/2009)

Paul Oakley

Do you consider the Character Thomas Covenant to be your alter-ego in the same way that many people used to say that Seldon was Dr Asimov's alter-ego in the Foundation series?

Absolutely not.  (Have I discussed this before?)  Covenant doesn't ever speak *for* me:  *I* speak for him, as I do for all my foreground characters.  He isn't *like* me.  He isn't even like who I *want* to be (although he has taught me a lot).  In one sense, all of my characters are my alter-egos (none more so than Mick "Brew" Axbrewder).  But in another, much more useful, sense, I serve as *their* alter-egos.  They can only see themselves "through a glass darkly":  it's *my* job to see them clearly.  Or, putting it in terms with which I'm more comfortable:  it's my job to grant them the dignity toward which they can only struggle and flounder.

(02/18/2009)

RoomToGrow

Greetings Stephen,
Huggers to ya's from Cali. :> I suppose I ought to start reading your other works that sit on the shelf and call to me. As it is I have read all that you have published in the Thomas series and so, I have started over once again. I had to buy the paperback of Lord Foul's and noticed the cover has changed completely {quite the bummer really because the picture on the cover always revealed itself towards the end of the story and I always looked forward to finding that part}and I suppose that its supposed to be an image of "the ring"...then I noticed, the ring is not white gold at all but rather yellow gold. Hmmmn, curiouser and curiouser....lol. So then I figured, well, perhaps its an image of the ring when it is alive with power and doin powerful ring stuff and there....thats the reason for the color...yeah its all I could come up with. Anyhows, I really do miss the old covers and the color coded story lines. It really is something to be missed. Everyting changes, I have yet to find something here on our earth that does not. So it is not that much to have to deal with in comparison to life in general. Did you notice the ring on the new cover? anyhow, hope all is well with you and yours. we are all gettin older and I figure older is wiser so why not:> I do have an idea for your creative mind. I know, I can tell from your writing with the Covenant series that you have read the Written Word of God and you do understand its content. I feel as if you would be perfect to translate all that mumbo jumbo peoples dont really find the desire to read through, simplify the history in to something that one can follow and write a story on the true story of man and God. You know what I mean if I didnt say it right anyhow. I think it would be a blessing for you to put your talent and heart into something as powerful and meaningful as that. Really, what else is there>?? You could so do it stephen, write a real story for real people and include all the real details....anyhow, just a thought. ok Im going to let you get back to work...wouldnt want to dely the release of your book we are all waiting for. Huggers Stephen,,,Room

I'm painfully aware of the current US covers for the first "Covenant" trilogy.  The fact that the ring depicted is *yellow* gold is a shameless attempt to cash in on "The Lord of the Rings" somehow, perhaps by tricking readers into thinking that my work resembles Tolkien's in some (presumably desirable) fashion.  If this helps:  Ballantine Books now knows that the ploy failed miserably.

But if you think I have either the time or the brute *arrogance* to recast "the Written Word of God" in my own image, you are very much mistaken.  I could argue that Scripture is an on-going process:  it's being written every day.  But that's beside the point.  "Really, what else is there??"  How about an entire universe?  Or at least an entire planet full of people who think and believe differently than you do?

(02/18/2009)

James Devine

Hi Stephen

I was amazed to read on the grad interview, that the reason for the long wait (oh so long...) for more Covenent, was down to your fear of being up to the task of closing the circle (I paraphrase, but you get my drift)

As a budding writer, can you tell me how you face down the fear? is it a battle every day, or do you build yourself up to it and then write for extended periods? I have real doubts about my ability and have vowed to make 2009 the year I start (properly...gotta love the false starts) can you grant me any insight?

Your books have been a constant in my reading life since my Aunt lent me her copies of the first trilogy back in 88, I was 14, I discovered Giants, Revelstone,White Gold and Lords, I cannot describe the pleasure I have had from all the reading and re-reading. Thankyou so much, have a great Christmas.

James Devine
Nottingham, UK

Every writer is different, as I keep saying.  But facing your fears is pretty much always a "one day at a time" process.  Those fears come from very deep places inside us, and they aren't relieved by one day of courage.  Sometimes they aren't relieved by *decades* of consistent courage.  And maybe they aren't *ever* relieved.  Maybe that's an essential part of what makes us human.  It may even be an essential part of what makes good stories worth reading.

(02/19/2009)

Jim

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.

(02/19/2009)

Reed Byers

Concerning the recent comments about Richard Dawkins, atheism and Harry Potter, I'm in a good position to clarify a few things -- as an officer in an atheist group, a Dawkins fan, *AND* a huge fan of Harry Potter.

I'll try to keep it short.  :)

Yes, Dawkins is a well known atheist, a well-respected thinker, and author of several books.

Does he have an axe to grind?  I can't deny it.  Many of us do (being one of the most invisible -- and thus most ignored -- minorities).  But that doesn't automatically make his points invalid.

I can't presume to speak for him, but I believe his issue isn't with fantasy per se, but with encouraging children to believe in it as if it were true.  Whether the fantasy is Harry Potter, Thomas Covenant or, well, religion -- suspension of disbelief for the sake of a good story is one thing, but at the end of the day, you need to be well-grounded enough in reality to understand that magic isn't real.

That's it.  That (I believe) is his whole point.

As for me, atheist that I am, I've read all the Harry Potter books several times, and enjoy them thoroughly.  Rowling (and Donaldson) have nothing to fear from us... :)

[Posted for general information, since reference was made earlier to Dawkins, Potter, and Rowling.  Did I have an axe to grind myself?  Maybe.  <grin>]

But let me just say:  "well-grounded enough in reality" is one thing; "understand that magic isn't real" is entirely another.  That's why I try to keep an open mind about what constitutes "reality".

(02/20/2009)

Paul Morris

Dear Stephen

After struggling with myself, I am re reading the two published 'Last Chronicles' books again. 'Struggling,' because when I read, I am immersed completely in your writing on so many different levels that it is like experiencing one of Bruckner's symphonies. That is, your writing rightly, demands every level of attention, every measure of experience to bring to the story the music of the reading engagement it needs. 

My question is that would I be right in thinking that your characterization is such that for example, Anele is really a manifestation of a leitmotif, that of Earth Power, that Liand the leitmotif of Youth, he who will eventually inherit the land from the experience of others... I can almost hear each of the characters musical signature! Is this how you are first plotting the story arc through the characters?

I am glad I have started on the journey again, searching as I am for the seeds of the series conclusion in the start of the story arc. I am so thrilled that you are writing these books and I know that you will keep 'doing what they least expect!' to keep us on our toes. Very best to you and yours at this time of year and wishing you good health and opportunity in the next.Paul

This story is explicitly archetypal.  That's why so many of the characters are as much icons as individuals.  (You might want to take a look at my essay, "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World," which you can download from this site.)  To describe Anele as a leitmotif of Earthpower (or, more specifically, of blinded Earthpower) is apt.  But be careful about assigning such identities.  The longer a character stays in the story, and the larger the role that character plays, the more likely it becomes that the individual will begin to overshadow the icon/leitmotif.  Or that the leitmotif will modulate to become a different theme.  (I'm thinking of Liand here.)

HOWEVER (I hasten to add), this is *not* how I plan stories.  I don't (unlike most archetypalists) work from the general to the specific.  Instead I imagine the specific and then search for the general within it.  The part of my mind that handles concepts/archetypes often works beneath the surface of my conscious intentions.  So sure, I started out thinking about a story that concerned Good vs Evil (or, more precisely, Human vs Evil).  But developing a story that I could actually tell required me to concentrate my imagination and planning on specific characters in specific situations, not on thematic or iconic considerations.  Long-time readers of the GI already know that "The Chronicles" didn't become "a story that I could actually tell" until I began thinking about Covenant as a concrete individual rather than as an icon/concept/leitmotif.

(02/20/2009)

Richard

Hello Steve,

Apologies for firing two questions at you in one day - but I have fired off three in as many years before so I use this as a forgiveness mechanism.

My question is in regard 'genre'.

I have always written since a teen, influenced chiefly by William Gibson, Philip K Dick mixed with a Victorian sensibility (Wilkie Collins, primarily).  Anyhow, when I first wrote as a teen I was lucky enough to be encouraged by someone older than me and wise enough to know the difference between dross and not-quite-dross.  I certainly wrote 'genre', being a sci-fi fan then.  Now I see myself as a lover not of genre but story and so often love a little of everything (I say this widely: literature, music, cinema, art, etc. etc.).  Sometimes this may be considered high art or low culture. (though these definitions I would challenge strongly.)

Anyway, I have reached an age when I look around me and genre, a word I used to define myself as a teen, makes little sense because art is art, regardless of the mode it uses and I wonder what you make of the word 'genre'?  

PS - this was based on a review of Fatal Revenant that referred to your work as Fantasy  rather than literature.  Again, I name-check Gibson who worked (now obviously less so, though still so) in 'genre' (and is considered a major author) and Dick who was always 'genre' until death (the great leveler, as James Stewart would drawl drunkenly).  Also, in terms music, where 'low' purveyors of generic (especially electronic) music are considered profound and artistic when they leave behind rhythm (for rhythm read: story) and enter the abstract, usually with tedious results.

Artistically, as you observe, the word "genre" makes little or no sense.  The issue isn't simply that "art is art".  "Art" goes further.  A necessary part of the definition of "art" is that each work under consideration is "sui generis" (forgive me if I've mis-remembered my Latin):  each work is its *own* "genre" because it is uniquely itself; it could not have been created by anyone else; and it cannot be compared to anything else, except in an attempt to enhance understanding.  Personally, I've always loathed the fact that my books are hidden away under various "genre" labels.

But it's easy to understand why the notion of "genre" exists in general; and why publishers and booksellers (not to mention reviewers and critics) specifically rely on "genre" labels.  Even within the general assertion that "art is art," broad distinctions are both possible and useful.  They provide clues to the artist's intentions.  Think of the clear differences between, say, "secular" and "religious" choral music.  And in practical terms, "genre" provides, say, publishers and booksellers with useful clues to the tastes of readers.  If every book is filed under "literature," readers with very specific tastes have great (perhaps insuperable) difficulty locating books they want to read.  It's an obvious fact that some readers ONLY want to read sf, while other ONLY want to read romances.  So naturally publishers and booksellers want to label books:  to make *buying* easier for readers with very specific tastes.

In addition, as I've mentioned elsewhere, "genre" serves as a kind of "rating system" for books, loosely comparable to the ratings supplied for films:  a guide for parents who believe that books with, say, sex, or adult themes, or magic are inappropriate for their children.

The problem with all this, of course, occurs when "genre" is transformed from a practical distinction to a value judgment, an indication (almost always pejorative) of worth/merit/artistic seriousness.  Enter reviewers and critics, who delight in dismissing entire swaths of literature as "junk" simply because the books carry a genre label.  Well, it isn't hard to understand why reviewers and critics act this way.  They're drowning in books; and their job description pretty much requires them to pride themselves on their "discrimination".  Nonetheless "discrimination" becomes indistinguishable from "brute prejudice" when it reflexively dismisses every book with a genre label.

Have I put you to sleep yet?  <rueful smile>

(02/21/2009)

Kamal

Good job Steve, keep it up. Also: Since you first started the books has the reality of the Land (within the context of the story) ever wavered in your head? I mean was there ever a time when you thought "Yes this is indeed all a dream in Covenants head" or something like that. I can see that over the course of the books the land has become less questionable to Linden and Tom but that is too be expected after their experiences. Have you ever fluctuated on how fake or real you envisioned the land? Honestly?
 Additionally: In Chaucers Canterbury Tales "the Wife of Bathe" has a story that involves a knight raping a young woman by a river out of sheer lust...any connection/inspiration or just coincidence? 
 Thanks!

Has the Land's "reality" ever wavered in my imagination?  Impossible to say.  I don't think in those terms.  The *urgency* of the story must have wavered in my mind to some extent, or I wouldn't have been able to write mumblemumble other books between "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last".  But the urgency of the story and the reality of the story's setting are not at all the same thing.  In any case, I think in words.  Nothing (well, almost nothing) is ever "real" to me until I put it into words.

Sorry:  I never really read Chaucer (except for those small portions of "The Canterbury Tales" which were imposed on me at gunpoint, me being an English major and all); so it's highly unlikely that Chaucer influenced me on any level.

(02/21/2009)

Rob

The art of Darrell K. Sweet was what initially drew me to pick up Lord Foul's Bane.  Upon reading the first few pages, I, like millions of others, were hooked. I always enjoyed the continued use of his artwork on subsequent novels but upon the release of the Third Chronicles, his artwork was sadly missing.  Was there a reason for choosing to go with another artist?

What can I say?  Tastes change.  Contemporary music is very different than it was 30 years ago.  So are book covers.

In addition, Sweet was remarkably open about his contempt for fantasy in general, and for my work in particular.  Long ago, I heard him say that if he could earn living with ANY other kind of art, he would never touch fantasy again.

I have no say at all where the covers of my books are concerned.  (*I* certainly would not have put Gandalf on the cover of "Fatal Revenant".)  Still, I'm glad to have an artist now who doesn't sneer at my work.

(02/27/2009)

John

Steve,

Ok, we know you enjoy the "Malazan" books by Erikson, but have you read Ian Cameron Esslemont's Malazan books, and if so do you recommend them?

Thanks.

I know *of* those books, but I haven't read them.  I'm a slow reader, and life is short.  In any case, we all have to pick and choose.

(02/27/2009)