Gradual Interview
(answers from September 2007, as of Apr 30 2026, 2:48:08 AM)
www.StephenRDonaldson.com
© 2004 by Stephen R.Donaldson

Allen

Would you say you are a more popular writer in England than you are in America?

There's no question about it.  In England, I don't just reach a higher proportion of readers, I reach a higher total number of readers.  That's significant, considering that England has roughly 1/5 as many people as the US.

(09/04/2007)

Tom

I have a question within a question, I suppose. Do you read books for enjoyment while you are in the process of writing? Particularly books of the same genre for which you are writing? I have written on and off ever since I discovered fantasy as a young child, and I have always, without fail, been inspired to write stories whenever I am actually *reading* a good story.

It's almost like when you are watching TV and you see a good beer commercial and you immediately want a beer. The problem, however, is that I like epic fantasy (as your essay so well discussed). Those books take awhile to finish, and I often have put off my writing until I finish (and hear is the crux of the matter) for fear of being too influenced in my writing by what I am reading.

Going down that road further, I now have say 30 years of wonderful stories tucked into my memory and subconsciousness. These things cannot be avoided and it is very hard to not be influenced by them unless one actively seeks to avoid them as a writer. These two things concern me so much that I have thrown literally hundreds of pages of my writing in the garbage because I was not satisfied with their "originality" - even though anyone would be hard pressed to write something that is truly 100% original (see also: music).

For me it has always been the wonder of a great story, the feeling of actually being there that has pumped my creative juices, and I have always been wary of that trigger. I wonder what your thoughts were on the subject and if you experienced similar things. I also wonder if I should press on with my ideas even when caught up in reading, if that is in fact when I am often most motivated to write. 

Looking forward to FR and thanks so much for GI, it's really great.

Tom

To answer your last question first:  yes, you should press on with your own ideas regardless of what you're reading.  If reading gets your creative juices flowing, *use* that.  You can always revise later if you feel that what you've written has been unduly influenced by what you've read.

Yes, I do read books for pleasure (and inspiration, and reassurance, and education) while I'm writing.  When I was a "young" writer (the first "Covenant" trilogy), I stayed away from reading in the genre I was writing--but not because I was afraid of being influenced by what I read.  (Being influenced by what I read is one of the many ways in which I try to improve my skills as a writer.)  No, I was afraid of feeling depressed (if what I read in fantasy was bad) or intimidated (if what I read in fantasy was good).  During those years, I read widely in many other forms, including sf (and Renaissance poetry), but I avoided fantasy.

But then I got over it.  Writing my first books helped me to internalize the knowledge that creativity is not a competition.  Therefore (in my case) it doesn't matter what other writers have done:  it only matters what I do.  (Feel free to substitute your name for mine whenever you're ready.  <grin>)  And it doesn't matter whether I milk, say, Tolkien and Peake for all they're worth, as long as what I have when I'm done is honest Donaldson rather than ersatz Tolkien or Peake.

Does this address your concerns?

(09/05/2007)

Duane P. Dawson

Hello, Stephen! I really love your Covenant books, especially the first chronicles, and have read all of your fantasy and scifi stuff, though only two books out of four so far of your "the man who" series. I was always sympathetic to Thomas Covenant even after he raped Lena, you tried to get me unsympathetic, but I was anyway. I knew he would come through at the end.

I didn't have to do a search through the GI to see if my question has been asked because I've read everything now. (I have a lot of time on my hands.)

My question is about the genecide of the unhomed. I don't know why they just sat there and let themselves be killed. In the book you said something about they became what they hated, so they let themselves die. I don't see that they became what they hated. It wasn't their fault that the ravers took over the triplets. I'm still angry at them for not fighting or running away from danger. Is it because of the prophecy about the triplets?

I'm looking forward to Fatal Revenant, I'm sure you'll do a good job with that and the two remaining books after that.

(I deleted your second question, not because I'm unwilling to answer it, but because it veers into spoiler territory.  It simplifies my life if you--and other readers--post spoiler and non-spoiler questions separately.)

I'm not sure I can give you a satisfactory answer about the passivity of the Unhomed when they are confronted with the knowledge that they are too weak to resist possession by Ravers.  My problem is that the explanation is SO obvious to me, SO fundamental to my perception of the Giants--and perhaps also to my perception of myself--that I don't know how to put it into words.  But let me try this approach:

I've had dreams in which I appeared--to myself--as the most terrifying kind of homicidal maniac.  Well, the fact that these were only dreams has served as a motivator:  I've spent decades working hard to NOT become that person.  But if that version of myself ever took on flesh and became real....  I do honestly believe that I would rather be dead.

The Unhomed decided that they would rather be dead than risk becoming the playthings or embodiments of Ravers.  That's a rather extreme moral judgment, I admit.  But I can totally relate to it.  And after all, pretty much everything in the "Covenant" books is extreme.

(09/05/2007)

Pamela Knight

Is there any chance that The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Trilogies will be published in audio - like at audible.com.  It seems you are missing great market share by not being part of this technology.  I love audio books and just had these books recommended to me, but I cannot find them in audio format.

As I've said on many occasions, I have no control over such things.  And sadly, my books don't sell well enough to justify the expense to my publishers.

I believe that the "Covenant" books *are* available through the Library of Congress Books On Tape program.  But they aren't for sale, and I have no idea how you would get your hands on them.

(09/05/2007)

Jason D. Wittman

Hello again, Mr. Donaldson.

This may interest some people: a team of Canadian computer programmers have solved the game of checkers (known as "hop-board" in "Mordant's Need") and composed a checkers program that can achieve at least a tie against any opponent.  People can play against this program at www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook.  I wonder what King Joyse (or--gasp!--Adept Havelock) would think of this. :-D

I have a question regarding Lord Foul.  I just finished re-reading the GAP series, and this led me to compare Lord Foul's character to that of Holt Fasner.  Both are masters of monomaniacal manipulation, but each has a different objective: Holt Fasner wants to live forever, whereas Lord Foul is already immortal, but wants to be freed from the Arch of Time.  All his machinations, all the harm he inflicts on the Land's inhabitants, are done toward that end.

Here's what I was wondering: Lord Foul must not only be motivated by desire for freedom, but by hatred of the Creator who imprisoned him--he wants revenge.  If that is the case, would the harm he inflicts on the Land's inhabitants be a form of *vicarious* revenge against the Creator (who must love his creations, otherwise why would he lift a finger to help them)?  If that's true, wouldn't he do what he does to inflict pain as much as to gain freedom?  This would seem to indicate that he doesn't just see the Land's inhabitants as tools to be used--he sees them as the Creator's children, and, as such, to be hated.  That would mean (I think) that he places value on the Land's inhabitants as sentient beings.  And if he is capable of placing such value on beings he hates (here is my point) might he not be capable of love toward other beings?

I apologize if this is a bit rambling.  But it does bring to mind another question: what would Holt Fasner do in Lord Foul's place?  "Hmm, I get to live forever, and all I have to do is stay in this Arch of Time thing?  Hey, no problem!"

Regards,

Jason D. Wittman

Much of your analysis makes sense to me.  Certainly your point about "*vicarious* revenge against the Creator" does.  But I see a couple of issues.  First, the Despiser is an explicitly archetypal character.  Despite is his nature.  For such a character to enjoy and even feed off of the pain of other beings is a far cry from experiencing anything which might (even remotely) be called love.  If he loved anything (except himself), he wouldn't be the Despiser anymore.  And I suspect that even his self-love looks suspiciously like contempt.

Second, the hunger that drives Holt Fasner isn't static.  It's like a black hole:  it can't be satisfied--just as Despite can't be satisfied.  Put Fasner in Lord Foul's place, and it won't be long before he realizes that he wants MORE.  Seen from that perspective, Fasner is simply a human version of "the Despiser" archetype.

(09/05/2007)

I have two interests that I can't read enough about 1) the motivations for people who climb Mt. Everest and the torments they experience in doing so 2) How do authors write / plot / construct their books.  I have no intention in doing either, but rather respect the people who do.  
Question:  I am reading a book by Stephen King named "On Writing" written in the late 90's and rather surprised at the number of intersections between this book and some of the previous responses you have made regarding your own writing style & methods.  For example, he also wrote about that the genesis of two distinct ideas that converge, and help him form the basic plot for his books.  I believe that closely echoes what you have written here before.  He also went on about many of your same thoughts on grammer, reading, music (though he writes to Hard Rock music like AC/DC), etc...  Have you ever spoken to him before or from your experience with other authors are these thoughts more universal truths? 

In my limited and (admittedly) self-defined experience, when writers get together as individuals (rather than as public figures), they don't talk about how or even why they write.  Paradoxically, that's too private for private conversation.  Instead they talk about Life in a way that may include reading but virtually never includes writing.  In the grand total of maybe 10 minutes that I've spent with Stephen King, the kinds of subjects that he discussed in "On Writing" never came up.

As "public figures," however--in books, for example, or on panel discussions--writers talk about writing all the time.  From such occasions, I've gleaned that writers (and artists) in general seem to require some form of self-devised isolation.  They need to close out the external world somehow.  And the "hows" almost always involve the use or manipulation of sound:  as an aural barrier against distraction, perhaps, or as an aid to concentration/self-hypnosis.  But other than that, the only "universal truths" I've gleaned are a) if you don't sit down and actually write, you aren't writing (duh), and b) every writer is unique (who'da thunk it?).  Pick a subject (where do you get your ideas? or, how do you develop them? or some such), and every writer on the panel reveals an approach that wouldn't work for anyone else.

(09/05/2007)

John

Steve,

I have looked through the G.I. but have not really found an answer to a a few questions, or I have missed such answers if already given... 

When the Creator trapped Lord Foul within the Arch of Time, did the Creator violate the nature of Lord Foul? Foul is what he is, how could the Creator have been surprised by what Foul did? Not to say that I think Foul should be considered innocent, but how can you blame a rock for being a rock?

The Covenant books are in one very real way, I think, a story regarding confronting the consequences of our actions. Covenant raped Lene.. has he really confronted his action? The Creator trapped Foul with his creation... a place I do not think Foul belongs. So another question: has the Creator confronted the consequences of his action, or can he not, as he *needs* to protect the integrity of his creation?

Thanks!!!

Did the Creator trap Lord Foul deliberately?  As I recall, the available "creation myths" are ambiguous or conflicting on that point.  But please keep in mind that Lord Foul is a thinking, feeling, and acting being, not a rock.  <grin>  It seems pointless to hold a rock responsible for whatever it is--or isn't.  But beings that think and choose are always responsible for their own actions, regardless of how good their excuses are, or of how legitimate their complaints may be.

You're right in observing that "confronting the consequences of our actions" is one of the major themes of "The Chronicles" as a whole.  But in view of the fact that significant portions of TIW and TPTP involve rubbing Covenant's nose in the consequences of what he did to Lena--and that the outcome (for Covenant) is a complete commitment to saving the Land--I think I'm justified in claiming that Covenant has indeed confronted the consequences of the action we're talking about.

Has the Creator confronted the consequences of his actions?  Think of it this way (just an analogy, so don't take it too literally):  the Creator is like a parent who both loves and respects his child.  With the best will in the world, no parent can avoid causing pain and even damage to the child.  Nor can the parent see inside the child well enough to recognize *all* the pain and damage that arrives from other sources.  The parent may well identify much of that pain and damage, and respond to it lovingly.  The parent may do everything in his/her power to confront the consequences of his/her actions.  But deep inside, the child remains invisible to the parent (as we all are to each other).  The parent simply can't know everything there is to know about the consequences of his/her actions--and is pretty much fighting blind when it comes to the consequences for the child of other people's actions.  The result?  The best parents in the world raise children who have been damaged, and who are intimately familiar with pain.  At a certain point, the parent has no choice except to just let the child grow up (i.e. cope with the child's own pain/damage)--if the child can.  And at that point, the whole notion of "confronting the consequences" ceases to have much meaning.

Well, obviously this analogy carries a lot of weight for me.  But leaving that aside, I think it suggests a valid point about the Creator's relationship with his creation (including all the consequences of everyone's actions).

(09/07/2007)

Marc Dalesandro

Mr. Donaldson,

I have to object to something you recently wrote on the GI. You said the new covers for the original trilogy of Covenant books were "the worst example" of a type of "trick" because they feature Covenant's ring prominently.

I'm assuming you mean because the One Ring from Tolkien looks similar, you think the publisher is attempting to deceive people into purchasing the books because of an implied tie-in to LOTR.

I have to say, I believe you are not giving yourself and your own work the place they deserve. Tolkien does not own the concept of a magical ring. There have been magical rings before Tolkien, and many after. Furthermore, YOUR books probably contain the second-most recognized "ring" in the entire fantasy genre.

If ANYONE besides JRR Tolkien deserves to have a ring on the cover of his/her books, and have that ring be displayed prominently, it's you. You've earned the right, through several decades of great storytelling, to put that ring up there.

Yes, perhaps the publisher *was* trying to fool people somehow. But that hardly matters. The White Gold is one of the key concepts of your entire Covenant mythos, a mythos first published 30 years ago. You've added whole concepts to the fantasy genre. I don't think you need worry about comparisons to Tolkien by readers or anyone else.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: the thought that you would look at the cover of one of your books and think "they made it look like Tolkien's ring" bothers me. It's not Tolkien's ring on your covers - it's yours.

Marc

Gee, doesn't the fact that it's a *yellow* gold ring on the covers count?  <rueful smile>

As I think I've said before, I believe that I need the ring more than Tolkien did.  I certainly have the right to use a ring if I want.  And I like to think that my work has its own stature.  But none of that has anything to do with the realities of the marketplace.  One of those realities is:  many times many more people have seen the LOTR movies than have ever read Tolkien's books--or mine.  So put yourself in the place of a person who has seen and loved the movies, who knows nothing about Tolkien or Donaldson, and who happens to be browsing in a bookstore.  What message do the DEL REY/Ballantine covers convey to that person?  I think the message is, "If you liked LOTR, and you don't have anything better to do, here's a pale imitation to help pass the time."

I think those covers are cheap--and deliberately misleading.  In saying that, I'm not denying myself whatever stature I may deserve:  I'm criticizing DEL REY/Ballantine.

(09/07/2007)

Dave 

Steve, 
A recent GI reader wrote in to make you aware of a copy of Fatal Revenant that was on ebay. You said "I pity the fool that falls for that kind of nonsense". Curiosity got the best of me and I noticed there are several Advanced Reading Copies (ARC) on there. How many of these "ARCs" go out? Do they only go to reviewers? In your opinion, how do they end up on ebay?
Thanks.

Others know more about this than I do.  It is my unconfirmed impression that publishers tend to produce between 500 and 1000 ARCs for review and other promotional purposes.  But I could easily be wrong about those numbers.

How they end up on eBay is simple:  the people who receive ARCs free (often reviewers, but book buyers and distributers, and sometimes even bookstore managers, can get copies) want to make money without having to work for it; or they give the ARCs to their friends, relatives, acquaintances, who in turn want to make money without having to work for it.  In fact, there's a entire business enterprise out there that revolves around obtaining free ARCs and selling them for as much money as possible.

This is, obviously, a flagrant distortion of the purpose for which ARCs are intended.  But there's probably no cure for the problem.  Greed makes cynics of everyone it touches.  Still, I remind myself that a comparatively small percentage of all possible ARCs are sold.  Most people who get them don't accept them--or seek them out--for personal gain.

(09/10/2007)

Daniel H. Carroll

I was aware from the "git-go" that you had been a conscientious objector and admired your  integrity in your declaration. But I couldn't help noticing that that your stories are full of heroes who find their heroism in acts of horrific violence. And what makes things more curious is that, especially in Covenant, that your stories seem to reinforce that innocence isn't enough. There is no salvation in just being pure and apart.  And the question is what am I not seeing between your pacifist side and your art that is so raw and violent?

Well, that's it for me. Apart from my drooling praise (no pun intended), I did have a serious question in there about SRD the CO and SRD the artist. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

[message edited to save space]

Storytelling serves many purposes, one of which is to confront those aspects of ourselves--or of humanity in general--that disturb or frighten or confound us.  Certainly one of my many reasons for writing is to explore my aspirations toward who I want to be, and to face my fear of who I do not want to be.

In addition, it seems inescapable that "exaggeration"--viewing complex themes and emotions in their most extreme forms--is a fundamental and inherent part of how my imagination works.  One of Stephen King's answers to the question, Why do you write about such horrible things? is, What makes you think I have a choice?  That response makes sense to me.  I couldn't write the kind of subtle and oblique "drawing-room morality tales" that, say, Henry James handled so well if my life depended on it.

As for the notion that "There is no salvation in just being pure and apart":  how could it be otherwise?  The mere concept of "being pure and apart" seems inhuman to me--not to mention inhumane.

(09/12/2007)

Dave Evans (UK)

Hi,

sorry, one more comment that is probably not particularly interesting - just a comment on changing "Vacation" to "Holiday" for Brit readers.

I am *well aware* that you are American, no doubt speak like an American, think like an American. But somehow the word "Vacation" or "trunk" (of car - we call it the boot, I think it's that way round anyway, the bit at the back where you put your suitcases!) - generally when I read your books I read the characters as being similar to myself in tone and inflection.

Sorry, I'm not able to put anything concisely today - what I'm saying is, I think it probably does help some/many readers that certain very american words are replaced with the brit equivalent (for the same reason that father christmas in Narnia is just wrong). I couldn't be certain, but I think it's probably true in my case, anyway.

Now I will leave you in peace.

Thanks again.

You make a valid point, of course:  one which I often overlook.  I'm the kind of writer who wants his readers to be able to immerse themselves in the story.  That immersion becomes more difficult to achieve when the usage of certain words is inadvertently jarring.  (*Deliberate* jarring is an entirely different issue.)

(09/12/2007)

Emilio Bueso

The spanish translation of your books seems to be out of print since 1992. Any plans to reissue The Chronicles in Spain?

There are no current plans to issue--or reissue--any of the "Covenant" books in Spanish.

(09/12/2007)

lonomon

what's the deal with Jeremiah's red car? 

Please!  That would be telling.

(09/12/2007)

Michael

Dear Sir, I notice your animosity towards Christianity, as have some other people who wrote you through your gradual interview.  I was interested to know if your parents as missionaries were likeminded with you or was it in retaliation to your upbringing that you have taken the opposite tack to them? Your tales of Thomas are absorbing to a certain extent but would seem to advocate a Yin/Yang philosophy as opposed to Christianity, with which I am sure you are conversant from what little I have read of your upbringing.  I have heard that the author Phillip Pullman is antagonistic to God and Christianity too, and from my somewhat long question, you have probably gathered that I would be what you would probably call a judgemental Christian.  I won't argue over you about Islam and Christianity but mind you the crusades can't be justified from the Bible and before Mohammed the Middle East was not muslim, so for it to extend to where it had by the time of the crusades, I would think some sort of long extended martial display had happened.  Oh well, time for bed.  Yours sincerely,  Michael  ps. I am sure your parents expressed to you that Jesus died for our sins and if we neglect so great a salvation when we die we won't go to heaven but to hell.  I am sure this has probably completely turned you off and is illustrative of your contention about judgemental Christianity, but when we die we will all stand before the judgement seat of God (and not man's government).  Also the devil and his angels will be thrown into the lake of fire and is a created being not a co-equal or other facet of God, it was only the Lucifer's pride which caused him to think he could overthrow God.  Sorry, you have heard it all, I am sure but this is my two cents worth.

I wish I could give you a satisfactory response, although I'm sure that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these subjects.  But keep in mind that people are often formed as well as informed by up-bringing and life experience.  I internalized early the idea that "Faith without works is dead."  And since pretty much all of the most abusive and even cruel people I've ever known personally are Christians, I drew the obvious conclusion.

(To be fair, I should admit that I have also known some truly wonderful human beings who are Christians.)

As for standing before the judgment seat of God:  I like the idea that C. S. Lewis expressed in the final Narnia book, "The Last Battle".  In simple terms, Lewis suggested that anyone who looks into God's eyes and likes what he/she sees goes to Heaven:  everyone else stays where they are.  That strikes me as a uniquely humane and gentle interpretation of Christian theology.

(09/12/2007)

Mr Donaldson
Just a quick one. I went to a bookshop and they told me Fatal Revenant is available for sale here(in Tasmania)on October 1st. I was wondering if you had arranged this for me personally. (insane grimace)
Also how many people have already read it? Friends, family, persistant well wishers? 
Over and out.Dan

I don't control the distribution of ARCs (also known as bound proofs), so I have no idea how many people have already read "Fatal Revenant".  Lots.  But yes, I did in fact send an advance copy of the book to Tasmania just for you.  <grin>

(09/12/2007)

Mark

Hmmmm...I guess this is more of a comment than a question. I just started reading the Thomas Covenant series, and I have to say that I am a bit dismayed at some of the things that you have been saying on this website. Well, actually just one of the things. In the last portion of the gradual interview section you said, "No one can deny that Covenant and Linden have *some* kind of fundamental and essential relevance to the 'reality' of the Land." It is a bit unclear what exactly you mean by this, especially since you said that whether or not all of this is in his head is irrelevant. Also, a couple months back you said that it does not matter whether the Land is real or not. I think it does. If it did not matter, then it would also necessarily not matter, nor do I think that it would have been important enough for you to take the time to let us know, that Covenant and Linden have some kind of fundamental and essential relevance to the 'reality' of the Land. But moving past all of that...you have said before that the whole Covenant series, as well as the Covenant character himself, was inspired by people who do not take fantasy seriously, or at least that's what it said in this article:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=5&id=39095

As an aside, this is the article that got me interested in the Covenant series. I had never heard of it before I read that article. I thought that it was a good idea, and I also thought that for sure the Land would be a real place that exists regardless of Covenant's or anybody else's state of mind. After all, if you are going to use the Covenant character's disbelief of the Land as a metaphor for snooty critics who don't take fantasy seriously, then it would have to be the case that the Land is a real place. If the Land was not a real place that existed regardless of Covenant, then Covenant's disbelief of the Land was right all along, thereby metaphorically reinforcing the attitudes of the snooty critics that you set out to undermine. Not to mention on a more superficial level, as the producers of the Lost TV show said (and I'm paraphrasing here) - it would be a real cop-out if it was all a dream. As far as Lord Foul's Bane goes, I like what I've been reading so far, but given what you have been writing on the website about the truth of the Land, and even about the truth in general, I may not be reading it much longer...

This is a difficult question to answer.  You appear to be reading the "Covenant" books on the (possibly mistaken) assumption that you already know what they mean.  And you appear to have taken my after-the-fact comments about the "reality" of the Land out of context.  I guess I have four comments.

1) I don't accept your (apparent) assertion that the *importance* of the Land is dependent on its "reality".  Throughout our history, we human beings have assigned importance to any number of things that have no demonstrable reality.  This, to a significant extent, is what the "Covenant" books are about.

2) All of my comments about the Land's "reality" were intended for discussion by people who have already read the books, not to encourage--or discourage--new readers.  Interpreting my intent in "The Chronicles" after reading part of "Lord Foul's Bane" is like deciding what the previous sentence means after reading only the words, "All of my comments."

3) Perception always defines reality.  That's a fact of life as well as of fiction.  Even if you and I were standing side by side, we would see different worlds.  And since Covenant and Linden are the primary "windows" through which we view the Land, the Land's reality is necessarily defined by their perception of it.

4) If you find yourself doubting that the "Covenant" books are worth reading, please stop.  We all have different needs and tastes, just as we all have different perceptions.  Life is too short to spend it reading books that don't suit you.  I promise I won't take it personally.  <grin>

(09/15/2007)

Talia

Dear Mr. Donaldson,

I have been thinking about the meaning of “Thomas Covenant.” We know “Thomas” is an allusion to Doubting Thomas. And “Covenant” means promise. You have also pointed out the double-reference to the Covenant of Grace and of Law. Now the meaning of “Thomas” is twin. And it seems pretty clear you are exploring the theme of twin in the Second and Last Chronicles. In the GI you have recognized both the Creator and Joan as doppelgängers of Covenant. And we have pairs: Covenant/Creator; Covenant/Foul, Creator/Despiser, and Covenant/Jeremiah. 

First: When you initially wrote the original Chronicles, did you intend to explore this theme? The contrasts between Berek (Law) and Covenant (Grace) would suggest this (and there are other suggestions such as Covenant/Bannor). Yet I can’t help thinking that this isn’t really (or at least not fully) taken up until the Second and Last Chronicles. 

Second: Does the exploration of “twinship” also apply to Linden? Or is this specifically about Covenant? Linden will no doubt be impacted in terms of her relationship with Covenant. And there are pairs: Linden/Joan and Linden/Elena. Yet there is a difference between the regular literary use of character parallel and foil and the deliberate exploration of twinship. 

Last: Would you be willing to briefly reflect upon the theme of twin (if you haven’t done that in answering the other questions)? I know your work isn’t philosophical exposition; it provides readers the opportunity to explore these themes on our own by “showing” us characters interacting under specific circumstances. Still. I don’t doubt you have something to say; and I was hoping you would share a little bit in a way that furthers rather than hinders your project of inviting us to explore more fully this theme on our own as the story unfolds. 

Thank you for this gradual interview. It is a wonderful gift to us, your readers.

Talia

Serendipity sometimes comes to the rescue when mere human planning and intelligence prove inadequate.  I had no idea that "Thomas" meant "twin" until you told me.  So "twinship" per se has never been a *conscious* theme in the "Covenant" books.

Nevertheless the details to which you refer are obviously legitimate.  And it's really a pretty small step from "twinship" to "duality," which in turn is only a small step away from "paradox"--and *now* we're definitely in the realm of conscious themes:  themes, by the way, with which I'm far from finished.

Keeping that in mind:

It's obvious that the first "Chronicles" are heavily concerned with paradox.  Consider the paradox/duality/contrast between the "covenants" of Law and Grace.  If you think of Law as the rigid rules which govern Covenant's survival as a leper, and Grace as the forgiveness/friendship/acceptance that he is given in the Land, you'll see what I mean.

"The Second Chronicles" are more complex, in part because they can be interpreted as a stage in a journey that doesn't culminate until "The Last Chronicles."  But even there, Covenant has become both the man who most wants to save the Land and the man who is best able to destroy it.  And Linden is both the woman who most needs love (and healing:  in this, she is analogous to the Land) and the woman who is most likely to violate those who love her.  In this context, I'm inclined to think of characters like Joan and Elena as foils rather twins.  It's the inherent paradox of Linden's nature (and of Covenant's) that concerns me.

Your last question is more difficult.  I'm a person who "reflects on themes" by writing stories, not by considering themes in the abstract, independent of the needs and passions of my particular characters.  But one could argue that the simple fact that I write such stories is a reflection of my own essential twinship/paradox.  Why would I do this, if I weren't--pardon the cliche--a square peg in a round hole; if I didn't contain within me realities or identities wildly divergent from the ones which I demonstrably occupy?  And can't the same (while I'm on the subject) be said of most human beings?  Most people may not write and publish stories; but most people do experience profound discrepancies between their inner and outer realities--and they usually cope with those discrepancies by telling themselves stories (whether or not they're conscious of doing so).  Hence my conviction that storytelling is one of the most necessary--and humane--human activities.  It's how most of us determine the meaning of our lives.

(09/18/2007)

Dave Evans (UK)

Hi,

I have just finished reading the entire GI - wow. That's a lot of questions.

Anyway, I had a few points/thoughts, both about the GI and about your books!

1. How about putting a FAQ - frequently asked questions - list at the top of any search of the GI.  Perhaps your top 10-15 most asked questions - to save you writing as well as "us" reading. Just a thought.

2. About "Should Pass Utterly" - I know it's been done to death, but who on earth do your publishers think is likely to buy the third book of a third series with no history at all? Now, I'm not saying book titles are good or bad, yours or others, but surely a study of sf/f buyers would reveal that the fraction of people buying books partway through a series solely because of the title is miniscule... I'm reading (well, will read) the Final Chronicles because of who *you* are, not because the book is called "Linden Avery Gets Cross" or "Aliantha in the Spring" - it's you, and the series, I'm buying. Surely in genres like this, that is understood?

Now, story questions - rather than rants ;)

I was very interested with the discussion on Laws. I got the impression that you are saying "if a law is broken, it cannot be unbroken" - would you envisage a replacement law "growing naturally" - to have similar effect if not the same underlying structure (rather like the staff of Law, I guess), or if it really is "now you can see dead people in Andelain. Full Stop."

I'd rather like to ask the question "Why did Berek make the staff of Law in the first place?" - but I suspect the answer would be "because I needed a staff of Law, and someone had to make it" - it just seems curious to me that someone initially taught by the Earthpower would do something so violent to the One Tree - and it doesn't seem to have done the Old Lords much good (well, aside from them being very powerful - having a sturdy tool through which to focus their power).

I had always thought the 7th word of power had something to do with the Power of Command, but... I guess not. Though, you said in one question about the Haruchai (maybe) not listening to the Old Lords - clearly Bannor (iirc) listened enough with respect to this Power.

Finally (sorry this is long, but hey I started reading your books before the GI existed, so I'm allowed a couple of months credit - right?!?) - I really loved the "hard" sci fi of the Gap Series. I know, the characters are the story, but the technology is fascinating and gripping for me, too - poor old Punisher with the knackered spin. In fact, after finishing the Second Chronicles last week, I think I will start the Gap series this very evening.

Good luck - I suspect you are more appreciated than you know (yes, ok, by complete strangers like me - odd and weird no doubt, but true nonetheless).

FAQ.  I'm still waiting for some poor suck, er, I mean brave soul to volunteer for the job of creating a FAQ (contact my webmaster if you actually want to make this your life's work <grin>).  I don't have either the time or the energy.

God willing, I'm only going to discuss the title for Covenant 9 one more time:  then I'm done.  Granted that my editors think "Against All Things Ending" is a much better title than "Should Pass Utterly," their reasoning isn't as vacant as you make it sound.  They're hoping for something like this:  a) a bookstore browser spots an interesting cover; b) the cover lead the browser to an intriguing title; c) so the browser reads the jacket copy, which makes the book sound pretty good; d) but the browser can't fail to notice that this is Book Three of "The Last Chronicles"; e) so the browser locates "Runes" and "Fatal Revenant" on the shelves and buys all three books.  Admittedly, bookstore browsing has become less common than it once was--and the Internet facilitates targetted buying more than browsing.  Nonetheless it seems to me that my editors' hopes are neither irrational nor implausible.  After all, most of the success of the first six "Covenant" book came *outside* the sf/f genre.

On the subject of broken Laws, I refer you to a recent answer (sometime during the past month).  But no one has ever asked me why Berek made his Staff in the first place.  Well, why wouldn't he?  How else can he keep his promise (the one he made on Mount Thunder) to the Land?  After all, the Land is obviously under attack.  The King was inspired by a malign spirit.  The King was aided by an unnatural and malific shadow from the east.  And meanwhile the forests are being destroyed left and right.  Why wouldn't Berek want some kind of appropriate instrument/weapon to help him defend health and beauty?

Meanwhile, sorry, but all questions about the Seven Words fall under the heading of, Aw, come on, how can I say anything about that, anything at all, without committing SOME kind of spoiler?  Even if I were to say, Sometimes important things get lost, life is like that, deal with it--*that* would tell you something I might not want you to know about the future of the story.

On the other hand, I'm gratified that you enjoyed the GAP books.  Taken as a whole, I still consider them my best work so far--although I believe that "Fatal Revenant" has raised the bar.

(09/18/2007)

Michael Middleton

Just as several others are, I too am curious about the stories of Berek, and Kevin, and others.  But I read your responses to the same question (which you have repeated several times <smirk>).

And then I realized that I believe I agree with you, as much as I hate to admit it, being a reader hungry for The Land's lore.  But I think about it in my fantasy world.  The history is the setup for what's happening in the "now".  It's irrelevant.  I personally enjoy thinking about that kind of history (I'm thinking of choosing to be a History Major in University), but I can understand your distaste for it.

But this may sound like the same question, but I hope you understand the difference:
Do you -personally- have a general idea for how these events took place, deeper than what you've written?  This isn't asking if you'll write more, as that's not what I want to know.  I want to know if I'm like you in that I have an idea of what goes on in my own world, but with little or no intention of producing it.  Now, please don't take this as a "Write moar Thomas Covenant plz."  I want this to be more of a question about you as a writer.

Thank you for your time, I truly appreciate it!  You're nearly a hero to me.  You saved me from illiteracy!

[message edited to save space]

My knee-jerk reaction is to say--as I've often said before--that I only create what I need.  But closer self-examination reveals that this assertion isn't quite true.  There *are* a few situations (that I'll never identify for anyone) in which what I've created rests on one or more automatic assumptions that I've taken for granted without looking at them very closely.  Put another way:  on rare occasions, when someone asks me a specific question about the "Chronicles," I realize that I actually know more on that subject than I wrote down.  In those cases, either my subconscious did more groundwork than I realized at the time, or it (my subconscious) has continued to chew on the subject during the intervening years.

So why won't I give any examples?  Because surprisingly often that little bit of extra information turns out to be very useful for the work I have ahead of me.

(09/19/2007)

Michael from Santa Fe

Did you see the study released recently on the reading habits of Americans?  Some study findings:

* One in four Americans read no books last year
* More women are avid readers than men
* Southerners read more than rest of country
* Democrats, liberals read slightly more books than GOP, conservatives

Of all these, the first one strikes me as appalling.  25% of Americans didn't read a single book last year!  I guess my question to you is, as someone who makes their living on the premise that people like to read books, do you find this surprising (it surprised me), what do you think we as a society should do to "improve" this statistic, or are we beyond help?

Actually, I'm surprised that 75% of us read at least one book last year.  And I don't actually believe it.  Other studies I've seen suggest the opposite:  75% of Americans did NOT read as much as one book last year.  If you want to talk two or more books a year, we're down to 5-10% of the adult population.

Can this abject situation be corrected?  Only if we want to--and I see no sign that we do.  The US has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual society (just look around you), and I suspect that the problem is getting worse.  Here in NM (picking an example at random <rueful smile>), many of us are *proud* of how little we spend on education.  Meanwhile the literate--never mind the open-minded--among us are viewed with increasing suspicion.

Just my opinion, of course.

(09/19/2007)

Charles Adams

I reviewed your book tour schedule, and I look forward to meeting you when you make your appearance in Denver.

I must say, that schedule looks brutal!  Everyday you'll be on a plane flying off to someplace different.  You had mentioned that you "unfortunately" agreed to the book tours.

Is it just the schedule and physical/mental demands of a book tour which you dislike?  Do you have concerns meeting fans?

Last question:  What is the proper etiquette (or what makes you most comfortable) when fan meets author?

No, "meeting fans" is not--in itself--a source of concern.  What I dislike most about book tours--apart from the sensory overload of being in a different city and sleeping in a different bed every day (which is a big deal for those of us with ADD)--is that they're so *draining*.  I'm actually pretty good at standing in front of an audience and doing Q&A; but being good at it doesn't help me.  Nor does being appreciated for doing it.  How to explain this?  Someone once told me that the difference between an extrovert and an introvert is that an extrovert feeds off the energy of others (applause, laughter, smiles of appreciation, whatever) while an introvert cannot.  Well, I'm an introvert (although I work hard to hide the fact).  I've had audiences in the palm of my hand, I've had standing ovations, I've had people fall out of their chairs laughing--and there's no emotional *food* in it for me.  It doesn't replenish what it takes out of me.  No matter how successful I am in public, I always feel exhausted afterward--not to mention vaguely suicidal.  (And of course my US book tours usually are *not* successful:  that does make the problem worse.)

As for etiquette:  when I ask for questions, I'm serious.  Please.  If you have a question, ask it.  (Remember, there are no stupid questions.  There are only stupid peo--, er, I mean, stupid answers.  <grin>)  But not while I'm signing books.  Slapping down autographs is the most dehumanizing part of the process (not to mention the fact that I'm already exhausted), and I want to get it *over* with.  In addition, there are usually other people in line who shouldn't have to wait while, say, you ask a question.

As a matter of policy, I'm willing to sign as many books as you want.  I'll stay there signing until everyone is satisfied.  But if there's a line, I ask people to limit themselves to three at a time (as a courtesy to the rest of the line):  then you can go back to the end of the line for the next three, and so on.  As for pictures, I endure them (usually with a deer-in-the-headlights gape), but I don't encourage them.

(09/19/2007)

Jonathan Hirsch

Has anyone in Hollywood optioned Mordant's Need?  Have you considered shopping it around to screenwriters?

No one has ever expressed any interest in the film rights to "Mordant's Need".  And I (apparently) can't emphasize enough how little control I have over such things.  Neither I nor the people who represent me (like my agent, or his Hollywood sub-agent, or the subsidiary rights departments of my publishers) have the power to "shop" anything "around".  That isn't how the system works--at least in my admittedly-limited experience.

(09/20/2007)

Joey

Ok this is stupid but I can't resist. Every time I hear Ziggy Stardust I think of Covenant... and I quote:

"Making love with his ego Ziggy sucked up into his mind

Like a leper messiah

When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band."

Now obviously Bowie travelled back in time to 1972 after having heard of your Leper Messiah a few years later.

So my question... did he use a caesure? Or is that a RAFO too?? :)

Bowie has *always* used caesures.  I thought everyone knew that.

(09/20/2007)

Tracy G.

Mr. Donaldson,
I wanted to let you know I just finished reading the first book in the final Thomas Covenant series and was very pleased.  To what do you attribute the "poor sales" that you mention in the gradual interview?  I know I wasn't aware that this book had even been published until I spotted it in a (gasp) discount book sale (new, hardcover, for only $5.00!, what a deal).  Do you feel that the book has been under-promoted?  Admittedly, I have recently been far to overworked to do much reading at all, but publicity for a new Covenant book would surely have caught my attention at once, had there been much at all.  I have already read the first two chapters of Final Revenant published here, and eagerly await the release of the book itself.
Tracy

I think you've already identified one explanation.  80% or so of the people who made the first six "Covenant" books so successful don't realize that I'm still alive, writing, and publishing.  (You'd be amazed how many people I meet who call themselves my "biggest fans," and yet are completely unaware that I've published 14 other books.)  The original "Covenant" audience (if I may call it that) was composed almost entirely of non-genre readers.  But since 1983 my publishers have promoted my books exclusively to genre readers.  Why? you may well ask.  Because--and I say this without any implied criticism--they honestly don't know how to do anything else.  And nor do I--apart from the complex issue of packaging.  More than once, I've begged my US publishers for non-genre-specific packaging (cover art, etc.).  But their experience tells them that fantasy with non-genre-specific packaging and promotion sells *less* well than books packaged and promoted exclusively for genre readers.  And I sure don't have any other suggestions.  So what *can* my publishers do?

I suspect that the US success of the first six "Covenant" books resulted, at least in part, from two, well, let's call them conditions that simply don't exist today.  Judy-Lynn del Rey was a promotional genius--and she's been dead for 20 years.  And back in those days, the VAST audience of LOTR was almost literally starving for other books to read.  Today anyone who is even casually willing to read a fantasy novel has hundreds of books to choose from.  And since most of those books are pretty bad, casual willingness evaporates quickly.

(09/20/2007)

David

Mr Donaldson...

I have searched your GI database concerning a chapter in The Power that Preserves, Lord Mhoram's Victory. As I read and wont quote the chapter, but as I understand it, Mhoram understood the need of the lore/Earthpower when he was wielding the Krill of Loric fighting the Raver, it involved passion and emotion, right?. Now, was this the secret to unlocking the lore that Kevin left? Did this coincide with unlocking the lore of the Wards and Could Covenant have understood the Ward's where the Old Lords could not? Where any of the old lord's transposed into the Land like Covenant, Linden and Hile Troy?

Please feel free to answer what you will, I keep trying to understand the lore and Earthpower and how Kevin used the lore as he had hidden away the 7 Ward's and the power they contained. I feel that the lore and the power to use it involved emotion and passion, which the Lords around Mhoram's time either didn't understand or were afraid to use fearing the desecration of the land a second time.

Was Mhoram's recognition that an *appropriate* commitment of emotion/passion was vital to his ability to wield power important?  (Give me enough time, and I'll think of an even more awkward way to phrase that question.  <sigh>)  Yes, absolutely.  The Oath of Peace had the unintended negative effect of making people think that they needed to swallow their emotions.  But emotion is crucial to *any* form of real power.  (*Appropriate* is the tricky part.)  But was Mhoram's recognition the key to unlocking Kevin's Lore?  In part, sure.  (See above.)  However, as any student of the martial arts can tell you, emotion alone isn't enough.  (In fact, emotion alone is usually destructive--which is one of at least two reasons why Covenant could not have understood the Wards.  Another, of course, is that he could not have *read* them.  They were in a language he didn't know.)  Even emotion and knowledge together aren't enough.  There's also the small matter of rigorous training; endless repetition to get it right.  Plus *appropriate* *commitment*, two separate and complex issues, neither of which can be equated with emotion, knowledge, or training.

<whew>  Considering all that--and the fact that they didn't have a teacher who already understood the subject--I'm not surprised that the new Lords didn't make more progress with Kevin's Lore.  I'm impressed that they made as much progress as they did.

(09/20/2007)

Richard

Leading on from a recent GI question as to your schism in popularity between UK and US, I was wondering if you had any thoughts as to why this might be.

I must admit, with one singular exception in Washington, on the times I have been in the US and gone book hunting in the hope of finding novels difficult to find at home in the UK, I have always been surprised, if not more than a little dismayed, at the manner in which, certainly on those shelves where novels which would be considered of a 'genre' would reside, were filled with novels that I would consider generic, which is of course a world apart from novels which can be said to exist within a genre.  The UK is not always any better but I wasn't sure if any paucity of range in bookstores might have an effect on sales.

I've never been able to come up with more than two explanations.  1) The UK is not as fundamentally opposed to the very notion of education (and by extension, literacy) as the US is.  2) UK publishers--and readers--are not as firmly welded (wedded?) to the underlying assumptions of genre publishing.  If I may say so without any implied criticism of individuals who happen to read books or work in publishing, those underlying (and almost entirely unexamined) assumptions are profoundly cynical.  (Incidentally, this hypothesis--IF TRUE--supports my perception that US culture places a surprisingly low value on education.)

(09/23/2007)

Bob Benoit

Stephen - Did you struggle with the idea that the Healer in TPTP actually burned wood as part of her healing process, in light of the fact that for the most part in the 1st chronicles the inhabitants of the Land were able to use wood without consuming it? Would it have been possible for the Healer to use the wood as part of the healing process without consuming it?

Thanks again for your time and efforts.

1) I'm a storyteller.  I don't "struggle" with ideas that help me tell my stories as well as I can.  I'm grateful for those ideas.  2) The ability to bring fire out of wood without consuming the wood was always a specialized application of magical (lillianrill) lore.  And "lore" by its very nature is simply too vast for everyone to be able to master all of it.  Just because *some* people could use wood without consuming it doesn't mean *everyone* could.

(09/23/2007)

Andy Schenk, Germany

Hello Stephen,

30 something days left for the last chronicles to appear in the States.
As I read all the Thomas Covenant Books in german, published by Heyne, I wonder when the last chronicles will be published in Germany. Not that I am unable to read the origin, but translations differ in some ways (Names of locations, rivers) and it would be quite hard to switch. At the same time your written language is very complex and needs concentration. Are translation efforts going parallel with your writing? Any idea of a publishing date to enjoy the final part?
Thanx a lot for your answers and still my opinion is: the zyklus of T.C. is the best written fantasy together with Tolkien and Tad Williams Otherland.

So to say goodbye, Andy

I'm sorry:  I don't know when Heyne will release "Fatal Revenant" in German ("The Runes of the Earth" appeared some time ago).  I never know such things because no one ever tells me.  But I can assure you that translations are *not* composed "parallel" with my writing.  For reasons which seem obvious to me, foreign publishers wait until I have achieved a finished and polished text before they begin their own efforts.  If they didn't, the cost of translation would go up because the translator would be forced to, well, back-track in order to find and incorporate my changes.  As a result, translated editions appear after--sometimes long after--the original texts are published.

(09/24/2007)

ahmet kurt(aku)  tr.

Hi Mr Donaldson,
no one dont really know the sense of the live.or?
But we are here and now.
Ok what i want to ask you is not this Question,not about the live but about the Death.
First i will say(pray) as a fan of you and of your work that you shall live for a long time.
Ok my Question is only this:You are in the mid of the LCoTC,what if you are dead before the story is telling to the end?
Have you a Plan B? (sorry for one more Q)

LONG LIVE FOR SRD

Do I have a Plan B in case something happens to me before I finish "The Last Chronicles"?  This question has come up several times this month.  I've answered it more than once in the GI.  But that was some time ago.  For those of you who can't figure out how to locate the answer (I would be one <sigh>)--and for those of you who don't believe I'm going to live forever (such skepticism!)--and also because I have something new to say on the subject--I'll tackle it again.

The short answer is:  no, I don't have a Plan B.  Of course, I'll feel bad if I don't actually finish the story--unless I'm, you know, DEAD, in which case who knows what I'll feel?  But I don't have a Plan B kind of mind.  And I refuse to live my life in fear that something terrible is going to happen to me.

However, I've given the matter more thought over the past year or two; and I've evolved something that sort of resembles a Plan B.  IF I'm faced with dying--and IF I get some months of advance notice--and IF whatever I'm facing leaves me with my mind intact for a while--I *may* (and I need to emphasize *may* because many things could change between now and, well, whenever) turn the problem over to my children.  In their distinctive fashions, they are both fine writers.  I'll give them whatever work I've completed; I'll give them all of my notes; I'll explain my notes as best I can; I'll tell them as much as I can about my intentions for the remaining story; and I'll give them the option of completing the story for me--if they feel so inclined.  (I will *not* give anyone *else* permission to finish my work.  If my children decide not to do it, it won't get done.)

Of course, if I get struck by lightning, or a truck, or a drive-by, all bets are off.

Meanwhile, let me assure you that I'm in good health.

(09/26/2007)

Mr. Moore

So, I have a couple "just out of curiosity" questions.  They deal with something that's been discussed briefly in this interview already, namely that of "borrowing or stealing" from other authors.  In your original response to this issue, you quoted TS Eliot:  "Bad writers borrow.  Good writers steal."  I have to agree.  You also mentioned that if you were reading something and suspected the author of "borrowing", you would toss the book immediately aside.  

I have just completed reading the Harry Potter saga.  Admittedly, I avoided this for years due to the fact that it was so popular--usually a sign that the thing is not for me.  But after moving to Uzbekistan, and having a very unforseen and unwanted traumatic experience, I just needed some comfort reading.  (Besides, the books are in my classroom library, and since it's my goal to have read everything in that library so as to better direct my students to books they might find interesting, I figured "what the hell...")  Anyway,

without giving specific details (don't want to ruin it for you if you ever do read these books), there were at least three parts of the final installment that immediately struck me as unoriginally Rowling's borrowed from Donaldson (your Covenant works).  For me, it is clear that she has not only read your works, but has ganked certain details and placed them ineffectively into her own writing.  She shoehorned them in for what I found to be no good reason.  So my questions:

1.  If you had read these books and had a similar reaction to these details as I had, what might you say to Rowling about it if anything (if given the chance)?

2.  Have you ever singled out specific details or aspects of another writer's work to re-craft in your own writing?  If so, what or from whom?  Or do your "thefts" come without conscious choice?

As always,
Hail,
Mr. Moore

I usually avoid subjects like this.  But today I'm in the mood to blunder ahead.  So--

1) Not having read Potters 2-7, I really can't comment.  But let me observe that there may well be no new ideas anywhere.  One could argue that no writer ever does anything except polish up old ideas until they look shiny.  So it's perfectly possible that Rowling has written something that *sounds* Donaldsonian for her own good and sufficient reasons.  Maybe she made those ideas work, maybe she didn't:  I wouldn't know.  But keep in mind that people are forever accusing me of taking all kinds of things from Tolkien.  If you're willing to cut me some slack, maybe you could do the same for her.

2) My own (conscious) thefts have all been matters of storytelling technique:  design, style, timing, whatever I happen to need.  To my eye, at least, the links between my work and Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and William Faulkner are pretty obvious.  But I'm not privy to the secret counsels of my unconscious mind:  I just take what it gives me and say Thank You.

(09/26/2007)

Annie Wood

How did Lord Foul get ahold of fanatics in Thomas Covenant's world?  I remember reading how they "invoked" Foul by putting their hands in the bonfire, but don't remember if it was stated how he was able to communicate with them in the first place.

I have enjoyed reading all of the books about Thomas Covenant, (many times over), and am thrilled that there are more to come.  I have already read the first book in the Last Chronicles Of Thomas Covenent and can hardly wait for the next one to become available.

Thanks!
Annie Wood

I suppose you could say that "like responds to like":  those fanatics were already Despiser-surrogates of a sort, so they were easily influenced.  Or I suppose you could say that the barriers between realities are breaking down, thanks to LF's original abuse of Drool and the Staff of Law.  Or I suppose you could say that some things are better left to the reader's imagination.  <rueful smile>

(09/27/2007)

William G. Smith

Steve,
I am excited to read FR, but I will have to wait 3 years for the next installment... Can you come to Columbus, Ohio on your book tour?
A big fan, I am starting on the GAP series now.
Bill

It probably bears repeating that I don't choose where I go on book tours.  My publishers pay the expenses, so they make the decisions.  Naturally one hopes that their choice of venues reflects a larger promotional strategy; but one never knows....  <sigh>

(09/28/2007)

Michael Prince

I've looked and have not found this question asked elsewhere in the GI. But in looking over other questions in the GI, I wondered what might Lord Foul choose if he were confronted with the possibility of actual death.

I realize that his goal is to beat the Creator by breaking free from the Arch of Time. Or is it to break free by overcoming the Creator. Or is that the same thing? Nevermind. That is not my question.

Anyway, I also know Foul is evil and therefore perpetual. So really this is purely a hypothetical question... about a fictional world, I know. But now that the question exists in my mind, and this opportunity to ask you exists, I'll ask. I figure the worst is that you'll tell me not to bother with such a silly notion.

So, hypothetically, if the Despiser was faced with the possibility of actual destruction, death, which would in a way be freedom from the Arch of Time, would he accept it or fight against it? Is that even an answerable question?

(And by the way, since I'm here, I'll add my thanks to those of the vast multitude for the books you have written. Your books, the Chronicles in particular, make my world seem just that much wider.)

We've entered a realm of rather abstruse theological speculation.  After all, what do *we* know about how gods think or feel?  But I'm inclined to believe that benign beings generally are more likely than malign beings to accept the possibility (the necessity?) of their own ending.  Benign beings can accomodate the notion that The Greater Good may require their dissolution:  malign beings cannot see any Greater Good than themselves.

If any of that is true, the Despiser could never acquiesce in his own destruction:  the Creator might conceivably do so.  (What?  Did you think it was an *accident* that no one appeared to warn Linden before she entered the Land for "The Last Chronicles"?  <malign grin>)

(09/28/2007)

Chris

Stephen, you have referred to sales numbers a few times on the GI.  You referred to WGW as being one of the top 10 best sellers of the year it was released and you also referred to the lower sales of The Gap Cycle, Mirror etc.  Do you know, or know how to find out what those actual sales are?  There is an entire cottage industry around tracking things like move 'sales', record sales, etc.  We like to track things, I guess...

I guess I am curious about what it actually takes to be a best seller.  You previously described this by saying 'it depends'.  A book could sell a lot of copies in one week, make the best seller list and then drop off the planet.  Another could have slow and steady sales for years, I guess, and never make a best seller list.  How many copies (within a 'best guess') has RotE sold?  How about WGW?  Or books from the GAP cycle.  Does the industry track these things?  I'm guessing someone knows, so you can be paid.  But that doesn't mean it is public information...

Thanks for your time!

Publishers *do* keep track of sales figures.  How else could they know whether or not they owe the author any royalties? or whether they themselves are making a profit?  But *how* they keep track resists easy interpretation, especially by a layman (me).  (I've discussed this elsewhere in the GI.)  Typically years pass before I'm given numbers I can rely upon--assuming that I'm able to extract any meaning at all from my royalty statements.

But I can tell you that WGW sold around 200,000 copies in hardcover, and has sold well over 1,000,000 copies over all.  (I'm only talking about US sales here.)  So far, TROTE has sold approximately 65,000 hardcovers and about the same number of trade paperbacks.

The GAP books?  Maybe 30,000 hardcovers each.  150,000 total copies each.

The numbers--to coin a phrase--speak for themselves.

(09/28/2007)

Duane P. Dawson

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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

(09/28/2007)

Jim Melvin

Did the original Covenant series become an instant hit? Or did it take months -- or even longer -- to catch on?

The first three "Covenant" books became substantially successful as soon as they were all available in paperback.  But none of the "Chronicles" appeared on non-genre-specific bestseller lists until "The One Tree," which in hardcover out-sold "The Wounded Land" (in hardcover) nearly 5-1.

(09/28/2007)

Richard

Hi Steve, 

One thing that has struck me since reading the Runes of the Earth and then pieces the GI and noticing cover design, etc., that one big difference between US and UK editions is that the US edition appears to be very heavily 'fantasised', whilst the UK edition, in rather more elegant and ambiguous black and gold, stands out as a cover that intrigues.  I guess, being a UK citizen, I do wonder why such designs are used more globally.  it has, for want of a better term 'fantasy' overtones and yet at the very same time is not bogged down in generic images.  I noticed the same, coincidentally, with The Gap covers when I bought the US edition of the final novel when it was yet to arrive in the UK.

Thanks, Richard

I agree with you about my US and UK covers in recent years (decades?)--although the UK mass market paperback of "Runes" is pretty drab, as is the UK omnibus of "Mordant's Need".  But every US publisher I've posed this question to has the same answer:  "UK-style cover art just doesn't *sell* in the US."  And I can't argue.  After all, the Ballantine editions of the first six "Covenant" books all started out with cover art that I personally loathe (just my opinion)--and my first huge US bestseller, "The One Tree," had the worst cover of all.

(09/29/2007)

Curtis R. Heath

Long before Mr. Eastwood blurred the black hatted villians and the white hatted heros, you created  entire worlds full of heros with dark secrets and villains with 'spasms' of honor and integrity. However, my question is not about the absolutely ingenious characters that you have created. (enough flattery) What was the inspiration for the way you use mirrors in Mordant's Need?  In over 40 years of reading for the pure pleasure of it, your works have proved to be intensely gratifying.  Thank you. 

Of course, much of the original inspiration came from the lines I quoted from "Silverlock".  But I was also influenced--this should come as no surprise--by "Through the Looking Glass".  And by Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions" (is it the character Kilgore Trout who refers to mirrors as "leaks" into other worlds?).

(09/29/2007)