Gradual Interview
(answers from October 2009, as of Apr 30 2026, 2:45:15 AM)
www.StephenRDonaldson.com
© 2004 by Stephen R.Donaldson

Loren Rosson III

Hi Steve,

On 4/15/09, you responded to a GI inquiry by saying that "Mordant's Need was my first truly successful attempt to organize a large narrative canvas. In that regard, nothing that I've done so far can compare with the GAP books." I agree that in this sense The Gap Cycle is your most significant achievement, and my personal favorite science-fiction series of all time. In fact I'm rereading it now and enjoying all the convoluted subterfuge. It's fun trying to keep straight what's going on in the heads of the characters.

I'm wondering, however, about a potential inconsistency regarding the Preempt Act. We know it was founded on two accusations, (1) that Com-Mine Security was involved in sabotaging Starmaster, and (2) that Com-Mine Security was involved in conspiring with an illegal. It's the second I wish to focus on, because the issue doesn't seem to be handled consistently throughout the books.

In Forbidden Knowledge, you imply that the Preempt Act was passed because someone in Com-Mine Security had conspired with Nick to frame Angus. Min Donner implies this in the second Angus chapter, and the Ancillary Documentation chapter on the Preempt Act states that "several factors conspired to make the Preempt Act seem necessary... The Thermopyle case on Com-Mine Station, in particular... There Security had apparently conspired to with one suspected illegal to trap another."

In other words, in Forbidden Knowledge, the Preempt Act was founded on the accusation that Com-Mine was in collusion with Nick (in framing Angus). By the time of Chaos and Order, however, that's no longer true. Now we're told that the Preempt Act was founded on the accusation that Com-Mine was in collusion with Angus -- and that Morn is thus needed to return to Earth and testify that Angus was framed. In the first Hashi chapter, for instance, the DA Director ponders as follows:

"A living Morn Hyland represented a palpable threat to [Holt Fasner]... She could testify that Angus was guiltless of the crime for which he'd been arrested and convicted... The still-recent passage of the Preempt Act had been founded squarely on [the accusation that] Security had conspired with Captain Thermopyle to steal station supplies." 

I'm wondering if in the earlier books you hadn't realized how much you were going to need Morn Hyland to have a "legitimate" reason for being abducted by Nick. After all, what purpose did Warden Dios have in allowing that to happen? Obviously not the stated reason (so that Nick could have insurance in case he needed to sell something like a cop's id tag, or to use for sex)... but then what? The answer becomes clear that Dios allowed Morn to be taken so that Holt Fasner wouldn't be able to suppress her. But what needs to be suppressed? The fact that Angus was innocent of the crime he'd been accused of -- in other words, the fact that Milos and Nick framed him. But in Forbidden Knowledge, that wasn't suppressed; it was exactly why the Preempt Act passed -- because someone in Security worked with one pirate to frame another. Which makes Morn's testimony rather unnecessary. 

Am I reading this change correctly, or missing something obvious? Did you change the Preempt Act's premise by the fourth book -- that Com-Mine conspired with Angus rather than with Nick -- because it makes Dios' actions more understandable, and Morn's survival more necessary? Or is there less contradiction than I'm spotting?

Thank you!

It seems clear that you've read the GAP books far more recently than I have.  <sigh>  I haven't looked at them since, say, '97.  So I'm going to have to rely on my increasingly-unreliable memory here.

My first reaction is that the "inconsistency" you describe is contextual:  in different situations, different people emphasize different aspects of the same action/event/development.  As the story goes along, Nick's role becomes decreasingly important (in context), while the role of Angus looms larger.  At the same time, Min Donner's perception of events (having some personal stake in them) is naturally different than more public perceptions.

That may sound like rationalization.  Perhaps it is.  But if you were the GCES, which argument would carry more weight with you?  a) Com-Mine Security conspired with one illegal to trap another, so at least we caught one of them, hooray.  Or b) Com-Mine Security conspired with an illegal to steal station supplies, thus betraying the station and Security's own mandate, those bastards.  Interpretation modulates as context modulates.

Meanwhile your query, "I'm wondering if in the earlier books you hadn't realized how much you were going to need Morn Hyland to have a "legitimate" reason for being abducted by Nick," prompts me to argue that Morn at every point in the story ALWAYS had a "legitimate" reason for being abducted by/going with Nick.  It's legitimate on every level of the plot, from Morn's most personal necessities to Dios' most elaborate machinations.  If from time to time the text emphasizes different aspects of the general situation, that doesn't change the fact that my characters have legitimate reasons for what they do when they do it.

(10/03/2009)

Ed from Phoenix

Hello Steve!

I recently discovered the short-lived television series "Firefly" and fell in love with the ongoing story, the complexity of characters etc.  And, of course, I could not help but draw some thematic and structural similarities to The GAP Cycle (with a fond smile).  The whole thing got me thinking.  If someone like yourself were part of the creative team behind groundbreaking television like Firefly or the current Battlestar Galactica (BG), how much better would these stories be?  

You have made it clear how your creative mind works (your stories "choose" you, your ideas for new stories come rarely etc.).  So I understand your short answer to this one...you wouldn’t "do" television. I understand this is not necessarily out of principle (although that may be the case), but out of necessity (your creative mind doesn't work that way).

But on to my questions anyway (please pardon me if I fall off some cliff of hypotheticality here):

1.) If you had no other option (you had no 
    current story idea for a book), COULD you
    write for a TV series like Firefly or BG?

2.) Do you think your creative mind could adapt 
    to being a part of the sort of 
    collaborative "think tank" sessions that are 
    behind great television?

3.) Do you think you could enjoy that kind of 
    creative work?

All the best and my many thanks for what you contribute to the lives of many.

Ed

OK, a different version of the "short answer"....  <grin>

1) No.  I can't write scripts.  I *need* all the descriptive material between the sentences of dialogue.  As I've suggested elsewhere, the dialogue is always the least satisfactory aspect of my first drafts, and the most rewritten aspect of my published books.

2) As long as I wasn't being "serious," I could probably participate--for a little while.  I do brainstorming in all kinds of situations.  But as soon as I started to think seriously about what the think tank was doing, I would pull out.  Probably in disgust:  perhaps because I needed to go in my own direction.

3) A personal detail here.  When my children were old enough to understand that I was a storyteller, and young enough to want to be told stories, they often asked me to make up a story for them.  Which I absolutely could not do.  Like deadlines, the situation was a creativity-killer.  So I became very clever at prompting them to make up for themselves the story they wanted to hear.  They may have thought I was telling them a story; but all I was really doing was asking questions and supplying "connective tissue".  From which I conclude that I might be able to function--briefly--as a think tank facilitator.  But what I did wouldn't be "creative" on my part--except perhaps in the sense that therapy is creative.  <rueful smile>

(10/03/2009)

Gary L. Cockerham

Dear Mr. Donaldson,

I am a fan of your fantasy work and have read most everything you've written in that regard. Since I am currently awaiting the third in the Last Chronicles series, I've been reduced to reading Koontz' Frankenstein series. Imagine my surprise after reading that the protaganist is the sister and caregiver to an autistic brother, who likes to construct huge castles out of Legos. I was wondering if you were aware of this? If so--none of my business(unless you care to comment)and I apologize.
Yours 
Gary  

Amazing!  I had no idea.  I don't read Koontz, mainly because life is too short and I can't read everything.

(10/03/2009)

Vincent

 	'Of course I'm saddened by it--even (or perhaps especially) when I find it in myself. Leaving all other issues aside, that lack is inherently self-destructive. If/when the American Dream--or even Western Civilization--collapses, it will be because our societies chose apathy (or fanaticism: they come to the same thing in the end) over curiosity, engagement, and courage.

'Naturally the underlying problems have many facets, and are influenced by many things. For example, sensory overload always tends to induce numbness. (Too many books, too many choices, too many sources of stimulation, all too readily available: who can cope with it all?) Or for another example, grinding poverty fosters anger--and helpless anger turns easily to hate--especially when the poor know that their poverty is not an inevitable condition, but is rather a burden imposed on them by the rich. (Intellectual curiosity is a luxury made possible by a certain minimum level of material well-being.) But no matter where we look for causes, their effects are everywhere around us. Reading is only one of many casualties.'  ---- SRD

Oh boy, are you touching the pulse of society there! I'm worried by what I see of people online. There is a seething dissatisfaction eating away at the heart of the working class, and through them their children. Once again we are at a point in history where 10% of the population control 90% of the resources.* (*Like most statistics, this one is made up.) 

I sense a civil uprising in the future, and that would be the 'best' thing that could happen. If there isn't a civil uprising we could find ourselves in the middle of a totalitarian government straight out of an Orwellian novel.

Romero's vision or Orwell's, a fight for survival or a surrender of free will? 

Eh, sounds a little paranoid I know, but unfortunately I can't tell anymore whether I am being paranoid or absolutely reasonable since I've been numbed by over stimulation to the point of indifference.

Not that I'm actually qualified to talk about these issues; but....

Here's the reason I have hope:  life is a Schroedinger's Cat experiment.  (Understand that I'm not a physicist.  I'm working from a layman's grasp of the concepts.)  Observing it alters it.  I consider it intuitively obvious that observing life *defines* life--for the particular observer.  But this "definition" is inherently an *alteration* of the thing observed because a second observer looking at the same data (life) perceives a different "definition".

In addition, there seems to be more and more evidence (based on what I read--and observe) that the act of observation literally alters the thing observed.  In other words, the observer's reality isn't the only thing that's affected by the perceptual process of "definition":  the thing being "defined" is also affected.

My point (if I have one) is that thinking about life doesn't just change us:  it *also* changes life.  Therefore that change--cutting as it does in both directions simultaneously--alters the fundamental nature of the (for lack of a better word) experiment itself.  Which means, in practice, that whatever happens next is *not* going to be whatever we deduced from previous observations/definitions.  [Insert a layman's comprehension of notions like "quantum entanglement" and "chaos theory" here.]  So:  simply by proposing "Romero's vision or Orwell's," you are DEcreasing the likelihood that either will occur, at least according to your definitions.

Make sense?  Perhaps not.  But consider this:  in one form or another, in every facet of life, EVERYBODY predicts the future almost constantly--and only a miniscule fraction of those predictions actually "come true".  Even for statisticians.  Perhaps especially for statisticians.

(10/04/2009)

Kaan

Hey Steve, 
My understanding is that if a given text has been out of print for some length of time, the rights reverts back to the author. Is that not true for other rights as well? You've discussed e-rights and audio rights before and I'm wondering if there is ever the possibility you will gain back those rights if the publisher does nothing with them? 
Oh yeah... love your books as well. The Man Who Tried to Get Away a particular favorite! 

Yes. "...if a given text has been out of print for some length of time, the rights revert back to the author."  All the rights.  However, the definition of "out of print" has become increasingly complex during my professional lifetime.  As one example, a book is not considered "out of print" if it is available in *any* format (e-books and audio books are only two possibilities).  As another, in some contracts, a book is not considered "out of print" if anything *related* to that book *licensed* by the publisher is still available (e.g. foreign rights; merchandising rights; film rights).  With such contracts (just as an example), a "Covenant" *calendar* currently available only in Serbia would suffice to allow Ballantine Books to retain all of their "Covenant" rights, even if the actual "Covenant" text is not available anywhere in the world.

(Please understand:  I'm not saying that I actually have such a contract.  I'm only saying that such contracts do exist, and that such issues dramatically complicate the question of who owns the rights.  This is why each new contract I sign is significantly longer than the one before; and why each new contract requires significantly more negotiation--in my case, between agent and publisher--before I sign it.)

(10/11/2009)

James DiBenedetto

Steve,

This is kind of a vague and maybe unansweable question, but I'll ask it anyway: how would you define your "style" of writing?  

You use different points-of-view, take on radically different themes, use very different vocabulary, you vary your sentence length and the type of descriptive language you use, and yet all of your books are clearly, recognizably yours and couldn't be mistaken for another author's.  What do you think the common element is?

As an unrelated aside, there was an article in the 8/30 New York Times about a movement among some high school English teachers to get away from the "great books" model that I've seen you criticize previously in the GI - I thought you'd find it interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/books/30reading.html?pagewanted=1&hp

I don't have a good answer for your "style" question.  I'm too much "inside" whatever I happen to be writing, and too much concerned about tailoring the practical aspects of style to suit whatever I happen to be writing, to be aware of a more general definition of my own style.  (In other words, both the subjective and the objective sides of my brain are busy elsewhere.  <rueful smile>)  But perhaps "inside" *is* the common element.  Inside my characters:  inside myself:  using every technique at my command to lure my reader inside my story.

As for my opinions about the "great books" model of teaching reading:  those opinions are based on my own experience as a reader, and on my observations of other people (especially my children) learning to read.  Reading is a skill--and "great books" tend to be difficult reads.  Teaching reading by asking children to read difficult books is rather like teaching the martial arts by asking the students to enter professional UFC competitions.  My children and I all learned to hate "great books" in school.  But we developed our reading skills by consuming vast quantities of "easy" books when we were young; and as a result, we are now skillful enough to treasure "great books".  In my case:  while I was suffering through "Silas Marner" and "Julius Caesar," I was also reading every "Bomba the Jungle Boy" and "Dave Dawson, World War II Fighting Ace" book I could get my hands on.  It was Bomba and Dave who taught me to love books, not Silas and Julius.  The rest is just simple maturation.

(10/11/2009)

Lee Whipple

I just finished "Fatal Revenant " and found myself stunned and disappointed by Linden's choice. I have always seen her as potentially stronger than Thomas Covenant. Her self doubt has always been frustrating to me as a reader; it may be because it echoes mine. When she took the stand of " I don't forgive " I believed she had finally found it within herself to overcome that self doubt -though I saw her unforgiving stand as a potential weapon for Foul to use against her. 

Her choice in Andelain was not a choice of someone who had overcome self doubt, it was the choice of  someone who bathed in it.   

Hey!  Cut Linden some slack, wouldja?  (He said somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)  We're only halfway through the story.  If all of my characters discovered their true selves halfway through the story, I wouldn't have much to write about in the second half.

(10/11/2009)

Michael from Santa Fe

Way back in the mists of time (which I guess is appropriate when talking about the Last Chronicles) you answered a GI question about the Power of Command.  The question was about whether a person could only use the power once.  You answered:

"...I've always assumed that this was a "single use per person" sort of power: it's always *there,* so in theory it can always be used; but it's *so* powerful that no un-god-like being could survive tapping into it more than once. And even that "once" leaves room for doubt: we don't know what the effects on Elena would have been if she hadn't gotten herself killed almost immediately by other means."

So, my question, Linden has now used the Power of Command - is the text going to explore or answer the question about what effects this might have on her?

Hmm.  I'm not sure how to answer.  Some of the effects are pretty obvious:  look at the Staff of Law.  Some are probably obviated by the--I can't think of a better term--the comparative *littleness* of Linden's Command.  She isn't trying to change the world, or even understand it.  She just wants an immediate, personal bit of insight.  And some (I'm just speculating here) may have been channeled away from her by the nature of the subsequent battle.  Really, in every respect Linden's use of the Power is fundamentally different than Elena's.  The effects (if any) pretty much have to be different as well.

(10/16/2009)

Doc

Mr Donaldson,
  From what I gather from reading the GI you are not a fan of, or have little use for critics. I disagree. I believe they seave a useful purpose. Before I part with my hard earned money, I will read one or more reviews of the restaurant, movie,play or book I am considering spending the aforementioned money on. In fact, if I may be so bold, I assume you have made use of a critic for one or more of the previously mentioned activities. So my question is: Do you disregard all critics, or only the ones who criticize your work?

You misunderstand me.  I have no use for people who contact me personally for the sole purpose of criticizing my work--or anything else about me.  Such attacks serve only to bolster the ego of the critic:  they have no other function.  But *public* reviews and criticism have an entirely different purpose.  They aren't directed at *me*:  they are directed at people who wish to be informed about a particular subject; or who are already informed, but who seek a better understanding of that subject.

Well, naturally (since I, too, have an ego) I don't much like public reviews and criticism that tear me down in some way (e.g. by discouraging people from reading my books).  But I understand the value of what those reviewers and critics are doing, even if I don't happen to like it.  And I understand that I'm not the intended audience:  those reviews and criticisms aren't written for *me*, they're written for people in general who may want to consider reading (or thinking about) my work.  On that basis, I have nothing but respect for reviewers and critics who "play fair":  who tell the truth about both their subjects and their personal biases.

(10/16/2009)

Alex Finney

Stephen... I have just finished reading the Gap Series for a third time, after a break of close to a decade. Frankly I think it's your best work by some distance, and this last reading has been my favourite. I have many minor plot and theory questions, but I will leave them for another time. I have just one however, for which I am a little embarassed, which I must ask for confirmation. Who are the characters on the covers of the UK Fontana versions? I think, and apologise if I'm wrong, Nick on The Real Story - Min on Forbidden Knowledge, Angus on ADAHGA, Davies on Chaos And Order and Morn infront of Warden on TDAGD?

Those are supremely ugly covers, and your guess is as good as mine.  I see Angus and Nick on TRS, The Transvestite from Hell (Min? Morn?) on FK, Holt Fasner on ADAHGA, Angus on CAO, and Morn, Angus, and Warden Dios on TDAGD.  But I was never consulted, so I can only speculate about what those images are intended to convey.  (However, the eye-patch on TDAGD is a dead giveaway:  that has to be Warden.)

(10/16/2009)

Mr. Donaldson,

Eariler this year Christine Barkley's book, "Stephen R. Donaldson and the Modern Epic Vision : A Critical Study of the 'Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' Novels" was published. 

Have you read her work, and if so, any thoughts? I know, a very vague question.... sorry. 

On another note, I came across an old LP record of "White Gold Weilder", apparently read by you! Since it seems to be only one record, I am assuming this is a greatly abridged version of the book. Was this the only one of your books from which you made a recording, and how did this one actually come to be? 

Thank you for your time. 

Yes, I'm aware that Christine Barkley's book--long in the making--has finally been published.  No, I haven't read it.

Surely I've discussed my WGW LP elsewhere?  Years ago?  Yes, I did the reading.  When TOT and WGW were at the peak of their popularity, Caedmon Records came up with the idea of having me read aloud one complete scene from each of the (then) six "Covenant" books.  Since WGW was "hot" at the time, Caedmon decided to start there and work backward.  So what you have is an unabridged reading of the Covenant/Linden/Waynhim/arghuleh encounter.  But that LP sold *so* badly that Caedmon immediately cancelled the rest of the project.

Incidentally, the HEAVILY ABRIDGED recordings of "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" (*not* read by me) also sold so badly that the rest of the project was cancelled.  There another bad idea got what it deserved.

(10/16/2009)

Mike D

Hi Stephen -
I have just a quick question - back in the beginning of june, you said that you had delivered the second draft to your editors, and it would be 5 to 8 weeks before you would hear back from them.  I'm just curious if they've gotten back to you yet, and not knowing what editors actually do, what kind of feedback they give (grammatical, storyline, etc).
Thanks for all of your wonderful work, and I'm looking forward to the conclusion of this awesome storyline.
Mike

Perhaps I should have posted something in the "news" section.  After all, I'm the one who first mentioned the issue of waiting to hear from my editors....

So.  I had to wait about 7 weeks to hear from my US editor.  My UK editor took 10 weeks.  This is considerably longer than I've had to wait for editorial feedback in recent years.  (Swine flu was added to the usual excuses.)  But I've had much worse experiences.  The editor of "Reave the Just and Other Tales" took something like five MONTHS to respond.  The editor of "The Man Who Fought Alone" took more like SEVEN months.

At any rate, I'm now hard at work on what I believe will be the final rewrite of AATE.  If nothing goes wrong, I should be able to deliver the next draft before the end of 2009.

What are the usual excuses?  Mainly inhuman amounts of overwork.  But overwork has an inadvertent secondary effect.  Editors are forced to "prioritize" (a word I don't actually like), and so instinctively they give books that require a great deal of editing precedence over books that require very little editing.  And in my case they both agree that AATE needs very little editing.  (I disagree.)

A more obvious consequence of overwork is that editing tends to be cursory at best.  I received a few comments about pacing and a couple of questions about story-logic:  nothing else.  On the plus side, both of my editors do want me to keep doing what I'm doing.

(10/17/2009)

Aidan (UK)

Mr Donaldson, firstly I'd like to thank you for producing such brilliant novels, they've given me allot of pleasure over the years.

My question is what research if any did you do on the scientific aspects of the Gap series. As a Physics graduate I find that blatantly unworkable or plain foolish scientific conjecture found in science fiction can destroy my enjoyment of the work (not in all cases, I love red dwarf and hitchhikers guide to the galaxy in part because of the sheer ridiculousness of them). I was very impressed by the scientific background in the Gap, making the unbelievable seem logical, especially as you seem to have no academic history at all in sciences.

PS. I've just read Dust of Dreams and noticed that the book was dedicated to you. I thought I'd add my own thanks, I probably wouldn't have picked up Gardens of the Moon if it wasn't for your glowing reccomendation on the front cover. I can't believe that was ten years ago though.

I take your question as high praise, "espcially," as you accurately observe, "as [I] seem to have no academic history at all in sciences."  In fact, I did (for me) a considerable amount of idiosyncratic research, most of which proved to be invaluable.  Web research; encyclopedias of various kinds; consultation with "experts," both professional and amateur.  But perhaps the single piece of "research" that helped me the most was the most unexpected.  In fact, I did nothing to seek it out:  instead it found me.  For no predictable reason, I was offered a personal, behind-the-scenes guided tour of the Johnson Space Center in Houston.  I was able to sit in the actual flight simulator then used by NASA.  While I walked through a mock-up of a possible space station, my guide explained how various practical aspects of living in zero g might work (e.g. toilets).  I was able to observe zero g training in action.  The whole occasion was priceless for my purposes.

Oh, and I read some Hawking.

(10/26/2009)

Dave Wilton

Having travelled with you on the journey since Lords Fouls Bane till the present something rather struck me tonight. It seems the land has no sports. I started to think of this and it seems that the flaw in the new lords understanding between passion and power might be down to the seeming lack of a competitive nature in the structure of the Lords subsequent to Kevins Waste.
I know that this raises rather uncomfortable questions to do with the nature of power and desire as demonstrated with Elena.
Gods the question is running away with me now so I will cut to the quick.
Was the lack of competitive behaviour in the Lords of Prothal's generation a concious decision.

As I keep saying, I only invent what I need.  I didn't need sports for my story, so I didn't try to imagine what they might be.

But of course the issue of "competitive behaviour" goes well beyond sports (or games).  As I see it, "the lack of competitive behaviour" was *not* "a conscious decision" on the part of "the Lords of Prothal's generation".  Instead (to my way of thinking) that lack was an inherited implication of two things:  the rural (therefore labor-intensive) way of living of most of the Land's inhabitants; and the (for lack of a better term) all-pervading "religion" of the Land (in which service to the health of the physical world is seen as the highest spiritual endeavor).  As you can see in the text, this "religion" does not ascribe virtue to competition:  instead it emphasizes the kind of service that suits the individual's talents and inclinations.  And as I'm sure you already know, the implications of this "religion" are far more important to my purposes than the implications of rural living.

(10/26/2009)

Uriah Knox

Mr. Donaldson Sir,

	First let me state that my question is in no way a Creator question.

	I have been unable to miss that you show reticence in relation to such questions.  And well you should.  After all, aren't such questions not unlike the unanswerables that plague the minds of theoretical physicists contemplating the initial picoseconds of our universe?  They shudder to speak of that which is (presently) unspeakable - they have no names for that which existed when the concept of existence itself was in question.  And we cannot help but respect this position.  Why then should YOU be required to reveal more about your creative process than you yourself even know?  Nevertheless, I feel shame, for there are those out there who may perceive my (forthcoming) question as a Creator question.  Even though it refers to the Creator and queries about that which surrounds him, I am denying reality itself so that I may put this forth with a clear conscience, as I know of your discontent with such questions.  I know in my heart of hearts that this is not a Creator question!

	So...

	Why "ochre"?

Since this is not a Creator question, I can answer with complete (if entirely mundane) honesty:  I chose "ochre" because so many beggars of all kinds in India wear (or wore in my day) that color.  Thanks to my background, ochre practically shouts "beggar"....

Incidentally, that's also why the Haruchai wear ochre.  Just another example of "contradiction" as a deliberate thematic tool in "The Chronicles".

(10/26/2009)

Drew(drew)

Hi again.

I've got two, hopefully easy, questions for you.

1)The First has to do with Mordant's Need, and the fact that Master Eramis's breath smelled like cloves. Did you research that fact? Are cloves a known aphrodisiac? Or did you just pick them because they smelled nice? Should I get rid of my mouthwash and start chewing cloves if I want to have a better chance with the ladies?

2)This one, I'm sure has has more significance than the first question, yet I missed the point completely in the story. IN the Gap, the Stripped who cut off her body part...what is the significance of that? Is it just to show how twisted the people were, or was there a deeper meaning?

-Thanks
-Drew 

As you've already realized, your second question is *much* more complex....

1) I just like the taste of clove.  It doesn't have any "deeper meaning".  (Sorry.)

2) In contrast, intimate body-mutilation-as-entertainment in "A Dark and Hungry God Arises" is rife with "deeper meaning".  (Or so I piously hope.)  Of course, it's emblematic of the kind of human degradation that characterizes Billingate.  But on another level, it expresses what can happen when societies use corrupt police to combat illegal activities.  (On that level, it refers obliquely to Holt Fasner:  just look at Norna.)  On still another level, it's a medical/technological metaphor for what the Amnion intend to do to all of humankind.  And on still another level, it expresses what Angus has done to Morn (as well as what Morn is still doing to herself at that point in the story).

(10/26/2009)

Daniel

Mr. Donaldson, Your willingness to interact with your readers is much appreciated. I have just read Unworthy of the Angel and it is a great short story.  Ite seems that this story helps me understand the Thomas Covenant chronicles.  It is not a key but rather a refelection like seeing a room through the tiny images of various shiny metal surfaces that inhabit any room.  This brings to mind a similtude between the land and Boges Tion, Uqbar,Orbis Tertius.  It seems that Thomas can be seen as the sculptor that is unworhty of the ANgel and the Angel himself, Reese Dona as the land, its people, Joan and Thomas himself and both stories orbit the dense buiding blocks of help, need, despite, hope, permission, and sacrafice.  These stories inahabit the same space where reason and faith intersect, like Unamuno's Abel Sanchez.  Do you see your two works as sharing the same womb?

I'm not sure how to answer.  In at least one literal sense, all of my stories share the same "womb".  With varying degrees of personal specificity, they all arise from and express who I am.  And I wouldn't have to work very hard to draw the same kind of parallel between, say (just picking one example almost at random), "Covenant" and "Penance".  Or between "The Killing Stroke" and any of the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels.  In retrospect (*always* in retrospect:  I don't premeditate these things), it's obvious that the same themes have haunted me throughout my writing life.  Although I like to think that the degree of personal specificity isn't the *only* thing that varies....  <rueful smile>

(10/26/2009)

Ranee (Sydney)

Dear Mr. Donaldson,

I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that the Gap books are the most distressing and agonising things I've ever encountered - when Sorus gave Pup the mutagen, I wailed for hours before forcing myself to keep reading. I certainly hope you'll take that as the compliment it is. I have two questions: one, where did the character Norna Fasner come from? And two, did you ever doubt Morn's ability to cope with everything that happens to her? Did you, say, wonder if she should have reacted a lot worse to Davies looking exactly like Angus, or to being 'trapped' with Angus again on Trumpet?

Well, I'll *try* to take that as a compliment.  <rueful smile>

Taking your questions in reverse order:  issues like that don't arise for me.  (Although maybe they should:  who knows?)  As I've explained in various other contexts, I can't write at all unless I know how the story in front of me is going to end.  The ending is my reason for telling the story.  So in a sense (often a quite literal sense), I plan my stories backward:  I look at the ending and then figure out what I'll need in order to get there.  And along the way, if what I'm doing at a particular moment doesn't conduce to the ending, I ditch what I'm doing:  I don't change the ending.  As a result, the kinds of "what if" questions you ask don't arise for me (or don't arise in a comparable form).

As for Norna, well, she's the "Norn" figure, the goddess who weaves fate or destiny--although in my version of the myth, as in several others, she doesn't "choose" that fate or destiny (in Norse myths, the Norns are blind), she simply manifests or expresses it.  Certainly she's a pretty good example of the legacy her son would leave for the rest of humankind, if he got what he wanted.

(10/26/2009)

Andrew Olivier

Hello Dr. Donaldson! 
At the end of the first Thomas Covenant chronicles, the Creator shows Thomas Covenant the scene where the people gather around Glimmermere in celebration of life and High Lord Mhoram throws the Krill into Glimmermere.
In that way Thomas Covenant learns what happens to it. If I remember correctly - Thomas Covenant gets the Krill out of Glimmermere when he visits the Land again - in the second chronicles.
So - he uses knowledge (where the Krill is) that was provided to him by the Creator (who showed him the scene).
Would that not constitute a problem, because the Creator may not help or guide him?
Andrew
PS. Thanks for answering my previous Waynhim question.

Looking at the story backward, I do see your point.  But of course these books weren't written to be read backward.  And while I was working on the first trilogy, I had no intention whatsoever of writing more on the subject--in which case your point would never arise (since Covenant would never go back, any help or guidance he received could only apply to his "real" life).

So all I can say, in retrospect, is that the Creator chose to give Covenant a bit of validation while he was (briefly) in transition between realities--and on his way "out", not on his way "in".  Meanwhile the old beggar's appearances in LFB and TWL obviously constitute an oblique form of help or guidance *prior* to the transition "in".  So at least that much of the story is consistent.

(10/26/2009)

Michael Blue (IL, USA)

Hello Mr. Donaldson.

I just finished reading Fatal Revenant.  I enjoyed it.  The Last Chronicles, so far to me, have more "side plots" that you are developing (e.g. Anele, Theomach, Jeremiah, Kevin's dirt, Esmer, Longwrath to name a few).  The first two Chronicles had mysterious characters/subjects of course, it just seems there are more in the first two books of the Last Chronicles.  If you care to respond, I would like to know what has changed since the 80's for you for this apparent writing style shift?

MB

What's changed?  There are many answers to that question, most of which I probably don't know.  But the most obvious one is that *I've* changed.  And the change in myself (as a writer) that I'm most conscious of is:  I've become increasingly ambitious.  In one form or another, I've raised the creative "stakes" with every big project I've tackled.  I've pushed beyond the things I know how to do in order to attempt things I've never done before.

Well, in rather generic terms, there's really only one way for a storyteller of my type to raise the stakes:  make the "secondary" characters more prominent--which in turn necessitates introducing more sub-plots and complications (since every character who rises above the level of background machinery has his/her own story/plot/agenda).  If you choose to do so, you can easily see this process at work as you move from the first six "Covenant" books to "Mordant's Need," then to the GAP cycle, and then to "The Last Chronicles".

(10/28/2009)

Bob O

I just watched the trailer for Pandorum. I don't think I'll see it...too scary;) Pandorum seems a lot like Gap Sickness. Do you think it is a separate strain? Maybe it's just a coincidence but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. Do you ever get that feeling that someone is using your ideas?

I've never seen the trailer for "Pandorum".  Or the movie itself.  Or heard anyone talk about it.  But do I "ever get that feeling that someone is using [my] ideas?"  Very rarely.  And in general I don't waste my time thinking about it.  After all, I "use" other people's ideas all the time (in my own way).  Why should I worry about it if other people use mine?

(10/28/2009)

Karl

Hi Stephen,

I was wondering what you thought about Google's attempt to provide instant paperback printings of out of copyright books, and even more significantly, out of print books.  (check this link for some overview: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551363,00.html ).

It actuallys seems like a great idea, even for the author since I think this would encourage publishers to keep books in print as long as possible, in order to prevent them from becoming public domain for printing purposes.

What is your opinion on this?  Obviously, I want whatever happens to be as profitable as possible for the authors in return for the work they put in to creating the books.

As I've said before, I don't really understand what Google is doing (except possibly the part where Google wants to take over the world <grin>).  So I'm not qualified to express an opinion.

(10/28/2009)

Colin R. Grimes

Hello, Stephen!

I was wondering if you were aware that Amazon.com.uk is currently taking orders for "Against All Things Ending" with a listed release date of October 28, 2010.  Has Orion/Gollancz declared "delivery and acceptance"?  Is someone just hopefully jumping the gun?  Or are the Brits just that much faster at recognizing your genius? <smile>

No, I wasn't aware.  My publishers never tell me such things.  The Brits have definitely jumped the gun.  But not without reason:  they've seen (and liked) the second draft; they know when I've promised to deliver the third draft; and they know from experience that I'm a man of my word.  So they are not being irrationally optimistic.

(10/28/2009)