mrC: Stephen,the two (or perhaps should I say four) books of Mordant's need, were sensational. Some of the best fantasy work I have ever read, and will stay within my heart for the rest of my life. Wonderfull characters plot and realm, but I need not tell you all of this. My question to you is will you ever write more books on Teresa, Geraden and Mordant itself, or do you feel that that the last book was the end of the tale? For I would personally love to read the further adventures of the characters which populate Orison.
 |
More than any other big project I’ve tackled, “Mordant’s Need” feels *finished* to me as it stands. I don’t know what the future holds--and I certainly can’t predict the various processes of my imagination. But I don’t anticipate ever returning to Terisa and Geraden--or to Orison and Mordant. (01/01/2006) |
Alex: I have a silly question to ask you... It is one, however that has nagged at me on and off when I've tried to discuss your Gap books. Ok, I lied, it's really two questions:
1) Who do most people think is the main character in Gap?
2) In writing terminology, how would you categorize the "point of view" your Gap books are written in? In other words... In the first person, In the third person...
There are a number of people in the story that are given near equal "paper time" if you will, which I have never seen anywhere else, even in your other works. I just love how you were able to tell the story through the eyes of so many characters to the point I would say, they are ALL main characters.
Thank you so much for the gift of the Land to us!
|
1) I can’t really answer this question because it’s never come up before. I’ve never met anyone who admitted wondering who “the main character” was. 2) The POV in the GAP books would probably be called “multiple third person limited”. “Multiple” and “third person” are self-explanatory: “limited” (which is probably self-explanatory also) refers to the fact that the flow of information to the reader never violates the boundaries of the POV character’s perceptions, personality, background, knowledge, and motivation. Like every possible narrative stance, this one has advantages and disadvantages. The obvious advantage is the ability to weave a (large) number of story-threads sort of at once. The less obvious advantage is the ability to weave those threads with more immediacy (therefore more suspense) than if they were presented indirectly--or by inference. The disadvantage--and it’s a big one--is that in order to play fair with both the characters and the reader the author has to completely re-invent reality with every shift in POV. One of the keys to using “multiple third person limited” successfully is to understand that each POV character is the protagonist (the main character) in his/her personal drama. Which probably explains why the GAP books seem to have so *many* main characters. In practical terms, Liete and Ciro are comparatively minor characters. But when they provide the POV, reality only exists through their eyes--and only their reality exists (which is not quite the same thing). (01/01/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen
What techniques do you have for coming up with names and words? Do you have any favourite words and names of your own creation, in terms of how they sound, what they look like on the page or their meaning?
Thanks.
|
I’ve discussed this before--several hundred questions ago (so finding it in the GI won’t be easy <sigh>). The short answer is: I do it by ear. The name (or made-up word) has to sound/feel “right” to me. But if I have a choice (and only if I have a choice) of names/words that sound/feel “right,” I go by meaning. I chose names like “Sunder” and “Covenant” and “Terisa Morgan” and “Warden Dios” because I had more than one option. I chose names like “Hollian” and “Mhoram” and “Geraden” and “Nick Succorso” because those were the only ones I could think of that satisfied my ear. Of course, sometimes my only option also has meaning (the various names of the Ravers leap to mind). But I don’t insist on that. If it sounds right, and I don’t have any better ideas, I’m perfectly content. (01/01/2006) |
Michael Johnson: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I don't know if this falls under the category of a question or not, so forgive me if this ends up simply being a note of praise...although I would hope one can never get too much praise, I don't want to waste time you could be using on Fatal Revenant :-)
I am a fan of all your works; I first read The First Chronicles when I was a kid, and it set me on a path to study not just literature, but the so-called "popular genres" in particular: fantasy, horror, science fiction, mystery, etc.
But, having begun to reread Runes of the Earth finally (being a teacher it is unfortunately hard to find the time to squeeze in books for pleasure nowadays), it occured to me that the emphasis on Corruption in the Last Chronicles has a curious relationship to history and story in the Land, more so than in the previous books. The Giants have always been storytellers (and tellingly seem to have absented themselves again due to the influence of the Masters), but it is interesting that you have placed the people of the Land within a vacuum where history and story are concerned - the with-holding of history and tales has caused them to lose touch with Earthpower, and in some ways, I have always equated Earthpower with the identity of the Land and those in it - and the Land was necessary as a kind of crucible for both Covenant and Linden to find their true selves, in a sense, and to find personal answers to their own inner despair.
I really feel like I am simply praising this as a theme in Runes, and perhaps in the novels to come, so I guess to justify this message I should pose a question somewhere :-) Was this a theme you had planned to explore and purposefully weave into the fabric of the Last Chronicles, or simply a happy accident of the story itself unfolding? Either way, the idea that our existence as individuals relies on an understanding of our own history AND as tellers of tales is a fascinating one - and one that I could easily see Corruption wreaking great havoc with. It seems to me that in the previous Chronicles Covenant's own story has been Corrupted so that he is known as the Land's greatest villain. I thought that was bad enough; but it seems we have now arrived at the annihilation of all stories - and worse, that the people of the Land have done it to themselves. In addition, it seems the caesures could have the unintended effect of rewriting history - which symbolically hints at the many ways those in control seem to make history and stories work to their own benefit. Is this possibly an element of Corruption you yourself feel strongly about in the modern world as well?
At any rate, I wanted to share the fact that I find the idea profoundly disturbing and dramatically compelling, and wished to congratulate you on upping the stakes consistently from one Chronicles (is that grammatically correct? :-) ) to the next.
Good luck with Fatal Revenant. I eagerly await finding answers to my questions in your books...and finding more questions in need of answers :-)
Yours,
Mike Johnson
Grand Haven, Michigan
|
I’m not sure how to respond. Have I deliberately “placed the people of the Land within a vacuum where history and story are concerned”? Yes. Do I intend to suggest that the absence of storytelling (personal, local, regional, and national history, etc.) *in itself* corrupts identity, and furthermore provides fertile ground for Corruption on a more global or metaphysical scale? Yes. Am I going to say any more about this here (including drawing parallels to the modern world)? No. I can’t think of any way to discuss the themes you’ve raised without committing spoilers. Except to confirm that I do consider storytelling essential to identity, and to assert that I believe storytelling is the most necessary “survival skill” humanity has. If we can’t tell stories, we can’t resolve conundrums of any kind. (01/01/2006) |
James DiBenedetto: Considering how long it's going to be from when you wrote the first word of "Runes" until the day you complete your final rewrite on "The Last Dark", are you concerned at all that you may well be dramatically changed as a writer (not to mention a person) in the decade it'll take to complete the Last Chronicles?
Do you worry that the Steve of 2010 who's experienced something life-changing (hopefully in a good way; the birth of a grandchild, or somesuch) will not want to (or not be able to, being a radically different person) finish the Chronicles in the way that you envisioned when you began them?
I only ask because (if memory serves), you wrote both the first and second Chronicles in a much more compressed span of time, with less opportunity for life to alter you while in the middle of writing...
|
Well, the GAP books took seven years of my life; and I didn’t waver then. And people of my age tend to change more slowly than younger individuals. And during the writing of both the first and second Covenant trilogies I experienced a number of life-altering shocks, all of which changed me as a person, and none of which changed my artistic vision. I probably can’t hope to convey the degree to which I perceive my work (the stories that have come to me to be told) as existing separate from--and even independent of--myself. On a rational level, of course, this is nonsense. In fact, my work probably wouldn’t be worth reading if it weren’t an expression of who I am. But I really don’t *experience* it that way. On my own purely perceptual level, stories like “The Last Chronicles” occupy a plane of existence entirely distinct from mine. So. From my perspective, LIFE doesn’t change the story: it only changes the resources (insight, experience, energy, moral fiber, time, attitude, etc.) that the teller brings to the story. A number of GI readers have already commented on various ways in which the narrative methodology of “The Last Chronicles” differs from that of the previous books (the compression of events into shorter periods of time, for example, or the proportionate increase of dialogue). Such changes reflect changes in me; in the tools that I have to work with; in the nature of my ambitions as a storyteller. But (from my own purely personal POV) these changes neither imply nor necessitate changes in the story itself. “The Last Chronicles” is going exactly where I intended it to go way back in the late 70s when the ideas first came to me. I’ve often said, as you may recall, that I can’t write at all if I don’t know where I’m going. My destination is the basis on which every decision is made. Therefore a change in destination would require me to scrap everything (including “The Runes of the Earth” and all of my work on “Fatal Revenant”) and start over from scratch. That isn’t just unlikely: for me, it’s probably impossible. (01/01/2006) |
Chris ( from Australia): Steve,
I finished Runes 2 months ago, , and have deliberately waited till now to write to you , because I wanted to think about all the Chronicles.
My greatest joy in getting 'Runes', was the need to reread my favourite 6 books after 12 years of dust gathering. It was a great joy rekindling memories of old friends like Saltheart, Lord Mhorham ,Linden and quietly yelling at Covenent to 'get on with it'.
My question. Why the decision to write a book that is so blatantly different in concept and style , in that it covers such a small period of time? Was this always your intention ? To be truthful, I found it difficult going, as I found the characters were bogged down in dialogue and analysis. Having said that,, the last chapter opened my eyes, so I will hang in there for 'Fatal'.
|
Since I consider it self-evident that different stories require different storytelling methods, your question isn’t clear to me. Do you mean, Why am I unwilling to repeat myself? or, Why am I a different person than I was 20 years ago? In either case, the answer is, Because the alternative is death (creative, personal, or both). If you didn’t enjoy “The Runes of the Earth,” I advise you to stop reading “The Last Chronicles.” Life is too short to spend it on books you don’t like. (01/01/2006) |
Kate Gowers: It seems to be, that by both name and character (mostly), Lord Foul is the epitome of evil. However, he has developed, over the course of the books, a more 'rounded' (OK, only just, but still) personality from the mwhwhahahah type thing he may have started with. Indeed, we now have him doing our heroes favours (even if it his for his own, no doubt nefarious purposes).
So...can good things come from evil intent? Can evil be changed? At the end of one of the earlier books (I don't have copies here in front of me), didn't Foul regress to pre-infanthood? Was Foul ever a child? If so, who raised him? Is there hope for redemption of Foul himself, or would your own beliefs prevent that? If Lucifer, as it were, can be a fallen angel, can we have a risen devil?
Even if (as I suspect), this is not a plan, how do you feel about the redemption of evil?
Cheers!
Kate
|
You raise a number of interesting issues which are difficult to discuss in the abstract--and about which I don’t want to be concrete for fearing of “tipping my hand.” So I’m going to restrict myself to a few comments. 1) Lord Foul has always had a “reason” for what he’s doing. Whatever he may have been before “creation,” he is a prisoner now; like many prisoners, he loathes everything about his prison; and if finding a way to escape involves doing massive damage to his prison, so much the better. The fact of his prison justifies all of his actions. 2) Imagery such as Lord Foul’s “regression” should probably be interpreted metaphorically. Or symbolically, if you prefer. If he is an eternal being, then notions like infancy and dotage have no literal meaning. And if he is not, then all we have to do is wait for him to die of old age. 3) “Can we have a risen devil?” I refer you to Angus Thermopyle. “Can good things come from evil intent?” Can bad things come from good intent? Can good things be accomplished by evil means? Consider Warden Dios. (01/01/2006) |
John Blackburn: I read a bit about leprosy recently (Wikipedia and WHO website). It seems with modern drugs it is not so terrible as it was for Covenant. With multi-drug therapy (MDT) it can be completely cured in 12 months, in the sense that the bacterium is destroyed. Of course, if nerves are damaged the body remains numb and VSE is necessary for the rest of the patients life. But, once cured, if Covenant cuts himself shaving and *notices the cut*, he is in no more danger than the rest of us. The leprosy will not reoccur and the disease doesn't prevent healing, it's not like hemophilia!
Another statement on the WHO site is that on the *first dose* of MDT, the patient is no longer contagious - the transmission of the disease is interrupted. So, if they can accept this, the townspeople shouldn't reject Covenant.
Do you think these statements are true? (I appreciate that my knowledge is very limited). If so, do you think it makes the books seem a little dated? It means most of the statements made by the doctors in the beginning of LFB are no longer accurate. In 2005, Covenant wouldn't be in such despair and wouldn't be rejected by other people so much.
Also, is there such a thing as a "primary" case of leprosy?
|
Yes, advances in modern medicine *do* make the first three “Covenant” books seem dated. On the other hand, the information you’ve acquired isn’t very widely known, in part because leprosy has always had a low profile in the US--and possibly in Europe as well--so the impact of my out-dated “facts” isn’t as severe as it could be. And people are *very* slow to give up their prejudices. And yes, there *is* such a thing as a “primary” case of leprosy--although nowadays medical people might speak of “unknown etiology” rather than “primary”. (01/01/2006) |
Ross: About Kurt's question on 10/5, I just wanted to mention that the end pages falling out of the Ballantine paperback is NOT an isolated occurrence. I owned two copies of Lord Foul's Bane printed around 1984, and BOTH of them lost pages. The one I'm holding now, from the 23rd printing, lost pages 429 to the end, with more pages just ready to fall out. Seems like the glue just gave out...
Of course, I can't ever bring myself to throw away books, and I'm not about to start with THIS ONE!
|
FYI (01/01/2006) |
Karen: Hi Mr Donaldson.
Firstly I just wanted to say congratulations on writing an excellent epic fantasy; there are too many run of the mill stories out there today that don't really capture the imagination.
Now on to the question. I know you have often stated that you have no interest in writing a prequel to the Chronicles, even though many people have stated a wish to read such a tale (myself included), but I wondered if you would actually know how to write it if you were so inclined? I mean in the sense that obviously you have brought elements of the Land's history and past characters into the Chronicles but did you explore them in enough depth to base a whole book on them?
|
Prequels. <sigh> Since I’ve never seen a viable role-model, I have nothing to guide me. And, as I keep saying, I’m an “efficient” writer in the sense that I only create what I *need*. So the amount of “background” that I carry around in my head--or in my notes--is far too sketchy to be considered a story (or stories). I have no material to work from. In other words, no, I would have no idea *how* to write a prequel. Assuming that I *wanted* to write one, which I don’t. (01/01/2006) |
Jenkins: You comment that "Fantasy is not *about* material reality, or even material plausibility. It does not describe or comment upon rational or tangible observations of the external world; the world of science and technology." Yet in my opinion Fantasy and Science Fiction are both about other-worlds, so how would you respond to Sir Arthur C. Clarke's dictum that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." There are borderline books like Frank Herbert's Dune for example where it's not always clear what is "magic" and what is science.
|
I don’t know how to explain this any better than I already have. Writers like Clarke--and Hal Clement--and Larry Niven--are reductive materialists. (OK, OK: from time to time, Clarke is a bit less reductive than Clement or Niven.) For them, there can exist only one form of transcendance: that which transcends our present knowledge. In the end, therefore, everything comes down to physics. If it *looks* numinous or spiritual or immeasurable, that’s because our perceptions are limited by ignorance, not because reality actually contains anything numinous or spiritual or immeasurable. I disagree. (Of course, I could be wrong. But so could they.) As far as I’m concerned, life is palpably greater than the sum of its parts. As far as I’m concerned, life *by definition* transcends measurement. Naturally, not all science fiction denies transcendance--and not all fantasy affirms it. But if you want to grasp the difference between what Clarke (for example) is trying to communicate and what I’m trying to communicate, you’ll need to recognize that he and I are working from radically distinct paradigms. Or if that doesn’t help, try this. A writer like Clarke is looking outward at the “mysteries” of the universe. I’m looking inward at the “mysteries” of identity, emotion, and imagination. (A sour critic once said of Clarke, “He writes about human beings as if he’s never actually met one.” Well, guess why.) So even if you assert that “science” will eventually be able to elucidate all the “mysteries” of identity, emotion, and imagination, you can still acknowledge that “magic and monsters” are useful metaphors for describing the actual experience of *having* identity, emotion, and imagination. Such issues don’t interest the Clarkes and Clements and Nivens of the world, but they fascinate me. (01/01/2006) |
Tim: Mr. Donaldson:
I picked up Lord Fouls Bane at a used bookstore sometime in my teen years. (1980 or 81)
My question, and I have many, but I'll ask the one that scratches me the hardest:
I astonished myself when I kept reading after this deformed coward raped Lena upon having his health restored.
Thomas is not, by any means, a like-able person. When you decided to portray your hero as a diseased rapist that spent the first two books refusing to help, refusing to believe, were you astonished at his growing popularity?
Are you still?
|
Yes, the popularity of the “Covenant” books when they first came out absolutely astonished me. I was amazed enough when they were published at all: their subsequent success left me dumbfounded. Whenever I chance to look behind me, I’m still taken by surprise. Since the first trilogy, of course, the protagonists of the “Chronicles” have become a bit easier to live with. <rueful smile> As a result, it’s easier for me to understand why people continue reading than why they started in the first place. (01/01/2006) |
Bruce Leckart: In "The Man Who Killed His Brother," How did Brew manage to spend time in the police station after he rescued Teresa Maria, without getting busted. Recall that she had his coat and he was wearing his shoulder holster and his .45!
|
He has a license for the gun. Why would he be busted? (01/01/2006) |
Charles W. Adams: I've researched the GI, and can't find an answer to a question that has puzzled me for a while. I'll start with questions not meant for you to answer, but to help explain my lack of understanding:
When Covenant is summoned at the start of the 2nd Chronicles, Foul tells him something to the effect that white gold is now powerless against him. Did this mean that if Covenant had a go at Foul (such as at the end of the first chronicles), wild magic would have been no more potent against Foul than a light breeze? If Linden got the ring, would the ring retain the same level of effectiveness (or lack thereof)? If so, what was the cause or catalyst of white gold losing it's effectiveness against Foul? If not, why only in Covenant's hands: The fact that Covenant chose to be summoned? Or his life being saved by the Creator? His becoming a tool of either or both Foul and the Creator? Does this mean that wild magic does in fact follow some law, which rendered the ring effectless against Foul?
So the real question comes: If this doesn't spoil anything, can you offer some additional insite and explanation as to what happened to cause the white gold to become powerless against Foul?
|
It’s useful to remember that Lord Foul tells the truth in ways that are intended to mislead. In one sense, he is speaking the literal truth: he can no longer be defeated by raw power, in part because circumstances have changed, in part because his tactics have changed, in part because Covenant has changed. But in another sense, the “literal truth” is a form of misdirection: during the course of Lord Foul’s manipulations, Covenant will become *too* powerful to fight without simultaneously destroying the Arch of Time. So white gold has become “powerless” in the sense that Covenant can’t afford to use it. If the Despiser actually wanted to be *honest*, he might have said, “By the time I’m done with you, you’ll be more dangerous to the Land than I am, and your love for the Land will prevent you from being able to fight me effectively.” A hydrogen bomb isn’t “powerless” to knock out the back wall of your house so you can add that sun porch you’ve always wanted--but it might as well be. <grin> (01/01/2006) |
Jacques Poitras: I recently re-read The Illearth War for the first time since I discovered it as a teenager (I'm now 37), and I was struck by something.
The shift to Hile Troy's point of view would suggest The Land is "real" -- because someone other than Covenant is experiencing it. This takes place well before Covenant himself comes to this realization (when he sees his wound upon his return to our world at the end of the book).
This device must have been a conscious choice for you as the author, because you could have structured the story to maintain Covenant's point of view (and thus maintain the possibility he is imagining The Land) ... i.e. by having Troy recap it all for Covenant when they meet up after Melenkurion Skyweir.
Why, then, reveal The Land's reality to the reader before Covenant realizes it?
(Or did you just structure it this way because having Troy recap it for Covenant would prevent the Elena-Convenant-Kevin-Bannor sequence being climax of the entire book?)
Thanks ... and by the way, I'm finding the books hold up quite well now that I'm a "grown-up."
|
My reasoning--and Lester del Rey agreed--was that since Troy comes from Covenant’s “reality” his POV doesn’t violate the underlying premises of Covenant’s Unbelief. However, I will ruefully admit that if I were writing the original “Chronicles” now I would structure them more rigorously to support the “integrity” of Covenant’s dilemma. (01/01/2006) |
Emil van Zuylen: Dear Stephen,
It's been a while... but one question keeps coming up in my mind, insisting to be asked:
When you conceived of the Last Chronicles as being four books, how did you come up with the titles?
Meaning, did you already have an overall structure in mind, and the titles came as a natural consequence. Or was there a more intuitive road.
Or none of the above?
Keep up the good writing. Thank you for your time,
Emil
|
I’d have to say that I took a more intuitive road. Although the general story has been clear to me for a long time--including its division into four books--I’ve gone through quite a long list of possible titles over the years. Some of which were impossibly unwieldy, while others proved inappropriate. Some I discarded with regret; others with active relief. I didn’t settle on the titles I’ve announced until I began making concrete preparations to begin work on “The Last Chronicles.” (01/01/2006) |
Dave Robinson: Hi
The Chronicles are my favourite books. Thank you for writing them, and especially thanks for undertaking the huge task of writing the Last Chronicles. My question, however, is about your other books.
I found myself comparing Joyse and Warden. At first I thought perhaps they were similar (both are powerful men who inspire great loyalty, but for secret reasons take actions that lead others to doubt and suspect them), but on greater reflection I think perhaps they are more antithetical. Joyse risks everything because he doesn't want to sacrifice anyone for the greater good; whereas Warden is prepared to do unconscionable things in order to take a shot at saving his world by undermining Holt's power. Did it occur to you writing Joyse that it would be a more interesting king (i.e. Warden) who was active in deeds of seeming wickedness pursuant to his goal of ultimate good? Or perhaps Warden's character arose completely out of your interpretation of Wotan?
That may seem like an obscure and geeky question, but it's interesting to me.
Thanks again.
|
While I’m working on a story--any story--I never really know what I’m going to write next. Looking back over my writing life, I can easily see “Mordant’s Need” as a kind of gentle warm-up for the GAP books, and King Joyse as an analogous preparation for Warden Dios. But stories aren’t told looking back; and as I’ve just said, I don’t look forward either. So I didn’t have Warden Dios sort of hidden in the back of my mind while I was dealing with King Joyse; and I didn’t look back at Joyse while I was dealing with Dios. The differences I see revolve primarily around the differences in the stories themselves. The GAP books have a number of down-and-dirty qualities which are entirely absent from “Mordant’s Need,” despite some similarities in theme and even structure. Compared to the GAP books--or even to the “Chronicles”--“Mordant’s Need” is conspicuously less harsh. So naturally the actions of the characters in general are less harsh. But there’s another point which may be worth mentioning. Joyse is “king”: Dios is not. You might say that Joyse occupies Holt Fasner’s role, while Dios’ position more closely resembles Castellan Lebbick’s. In that respect, Dios’ actions/motivations/exigencies can’t really be measured by Joyse’s. (01/01/2006) |
Allen: I loved "Strange Dreams" - the anthology of other writer's short stories which you chose for your own good sweet purposes. Orson Scott Card's story was particularly gratifying. And I am saddened that the story doesn't remain in print.
Could you (post hoc, of course) say what the two or three central purposes of the anthology are?
Best wishes, Allen
|
I explained my “purposes” in the preface to “Strange Dreams”: the anthology is simply a collection of short stories I haven’t been able to forget. My only other intent--to the extent that I had one--was to try to make more people aware of those stories (and of their authors). (01/01/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen
The UK editions of your books (I think I'm right in saying) all use British conventions of punctuation and spelling ('single' as opposed to "double" quotation marks, 'colour' as opposed to 'color' etc). You've said that you have both a US and a UK editor, but isn't producing two versions of a text a bit redundant? Most American writers published in Britain seem to use American English. Why is your work different in this respect? (Or have I just not read enough US authors?)
|
Seems a bit odd, I agree. But my British publishers have always converted my punctuation to standard British usage--as they do with other US authors--and they usually convert my spelling as well. (I’ve even seen books where some of the words are changed. “Realtor” becomes “estate agent,” “vacation” becomes “holiday,” etc..) However, the same thing happens in the opposite direction: US publishers routinely “Americanize” books by British authors. I suppose it has to do with making the book “easy” for its intended audience. (01/01/2006) |
Jodi Whitmore: I read your first two chronicles over twenty years ago. I enjoyed them so much I have kept the books and the memory of reading them all these years, so when the first book of the last chronicles came out I bought it right away, read it immediately and was anxious to find book two. While I was looking, I was bothered by all of the pieces I had forgotten from the first books, so I reread them. I finished that much too quickly, and went back to my search for book two. After coming to your web-site, I find that I shouldn't expect it until late 2007 and the following books years later. I'm dismayed. If the books were conceived years ago, is there any way to shorten the time line? I'm so looking forward to getting back to the story.
|
<sigh> I hate how long it takes me to write at least as intensely as you do. If I were younger, less ambitious, and didn’t care so much about the important people in my life, I might find a way “to shorten the time line”. But as matters stand, we’re all pretty much stuck. The best I can offer you is that I’m giving it my best shot. (01/01/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe (NOT Mike G (who is NOT from Santa Fe)): So, I have to ask, you mentioned that you may guest again on the last episode Fantasy Bedtime Hour. Do you know if they plan on doing "The Illearth War" next?
|
"Fantasy Bedtime Hour" will NOT be doing "The Illearth War," or any other Donaldson book, when they finish killing off "Lord Foul's Bane." Heatherley and Julie told me what their next project will be. But it's *their* project, not mine: you'll have to ask them what it is. (01/01/2006) |
Bryan J. Flynn: Hello Steve. I hope all is well with you. I've been catching up with the GI as I haven't been to your site for five months. I must say your dedication to the GI is amazing and I wish my other favorite authors were as accessible in this medium.
One question: it seems in your writings generally and in Covenant specifically that organized groups tend not to fare well in your narrative. For example, the Haruchai as a body have been unhelpful to the Land; the Unhomed were Undone by their faith in the birth of triplets; the Old Lords failed in their stewardship; the cult that harbored Joan and Roger caused them harm and placed them in a susceptible position to Foul.
At the same time the Unfettered Ones are treated with reverence, Foamfollower as the last of his kind became the Pure One, Findail and Vain as avatars of their kind are ultimately noble, and of course Covenant and Linden’s individual strivings against Lord Foul are the essence of these novels.
A long-winded way to get at my question, but is it a conscious/unconscious choice on your part to esteem the individual, a personal preference, or is it dictated by the genre?
Warmest Regards and Thanks,
Bryan
|
I suspect that it's largely an unconscious choice. Of course, storytelling by its very nature tends to focus on individuals rather than groups (if for no other reason than because "mob psychology"--or bureaucratic psychology, for that matter--is so much less diverse, and so much more predictable, than the mental/emotional interactions of individuals). In addition, I'm inclined to believe that human experience is fundamentally defined by what happens within us as individuals rather than by what happens between us as groups (a debatable assertion, I realize). But underneath all that, I suspect, lies the unconscious--and possibly unwarrented--assumption(s) that everyone else feels as alone and out of place as I do; that groups in general are defined by the fact that they exclude *me* (sometimes in really astonishing ways); and that humans in groups generally behave worse than they do as individuals. (All of which may be entirely perceptual--and perhaps even self-imposed--on my part; but there it is.) (01/11/2006) |
Allen: My question considers the physical violence depicted in "The Man Who Fought Alone" and the Gap Cycle. I've had some experience of violence in "real life" situations and my basic feeling is that the best depictors of violence in art over the last thirty years are Martin Scorsese and yourself. I am really tempted to ask you an obnoxious question like 'Have you ever experienced or witnessed violence outside of the studios and tournaments in a martial arts context?" That question is really none of my business but - inquiring and experienced minds want to know. Alas.
Second question. When I read "The Man Who Fought Alone" I was puzzled - why is the mood less grim than say, the Gap Cycle? Or is that an odd question?
Thank you very much for your consideration and great labors. You are an American treasure ( but I hope Bush doesn't give you an award. )( Oops.)
|
I've never been beaten up, or caught in an angry mob. I didn't witness the killings at Kent State, although I was a student there at the time. In that sense, no, I haven't experienced "real life" violence. On the other hand, I've experienced lots and lots of emotional, moral, political, and bureaucratic violence and abuse. I suppose that the violence in my books seems real because I know what violence "feels like". Why is "The Man Who Fought Alone" less grim than the GAP cycle? Gosh, there are so *many* reasons.... The obvious one is that the stakes are much higher in the GAP books. But look at it this way: at its core, Mick Axbrewder's personality is less grim than Angus Thermopyle's. Brew's sardonic sense of humor expresses itself in all kinds of unexpected ways: Angus may not have a sense of humor at all. And since these characters occupy "made up" worlds, it almost goes without saying that their worlds are extensions of their personalities (perceptually and metaphorically, if not literally). (01/11/2006) |
Christian Bonn: Please don't take this in a negative way. I enjoy reading your ongoing 'Gradual Interview' as much, if not more so, than some of your published work. I find the way you fence with readers and their 'questions' vastly entertaining.
From the way you compose your responses, I get the sense, right or wrong, that you delight in the challenge of interacting with your readers. Which is why I find the Interview so engaging -- I can't wait to see in new response how you bob and weave, parry and attack, and occasionally, like a matador, wave a red cloth in front of your questioners.
Is responding to these questions really as fun for you as it seems (to me)? I hope so...keep it up if you can.
|
There's no denying it: sometimes I *am* having fun. Of more than one kind. There's outright humor, of course (sometimes rather cleverly disguised, if I do say so myself--which I just did <grin>). But at times I also enjoy the challenge of both revealing and concealing myself simultaneously. Naturally it isn't *all* fun. Different questions present different challenges. Inevitably my emotional responses (both those revealed and those concealed) vary. But pleasure is one of the many motivators that keep me coming back to the GI. (01/11/2006) |
Alison: A couple of very simple ones for you which you may have answered before... Have you ever considered playing with mirrors again? And how did you come up with such characters that are so depressed yet optimistic? So often, especially when I read Covenant, I want to scream that it's o.k. to have a pinch of pity for yourself, which although he might not appreciate it, Thomas Covenant deserves!
And as for your work being hard to get a hold of, we were lucky enough in Australia (and hopefully the rest of the world) to have both Covenant series published in two Omnibus versions. Although I must say that your Gap work is very hard to come by. Us poor sods down under... Always the last to know!!!
Seriously though, as a great fan of all things fantasy fiction, we really appreciate all your time and effort that must go into your work... Keep it up!!
|
I've discusssed Mordant's future--or the lack of it--several times recently. Doubtless those answers appeared after you posted your question. That's the problem with being so far behind.... <sigh> As for how I create my characters: I wish I could explain it. It is an act of imagination (and I wish I could explain *that*), but it feels more like an exercise in empathy. What would it feel like to experience x when y has already happened to you, and you were expecting z? On a semi-hypnotic level, I do try to *become* my characters. And that's about all I can tell you. The rest is a mystery, at least to me (which is probably why I write mysteries <grin>). (01/14/2006) |
Terry Rawlins: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Have you ever considered having any of your "Covenant" books illustrated and re-issued. For example, the George R R Martin, "Songs of Fire and Ice" series is being done one by one and are fantastic. Your stories are so rich with imagery that I'm sure major artists would jump at the opportunity. Plus, those of us who can't visualize things as well as others would really enjoy the "help". :-)
Thanks for great books,
Terry
|
As I've said in other contexts, I don't make these kinds of decisions--especially where the "Covenant" books are concerned. For reasons which I think I explained (much) earlier in this interview, when I signed the contracts for the first six "Chronicles" I pretty much gave away all the rights. So illustrated editions are entirely in the hands of DEL REY/Ballantine, a company that has shown no actual interest in promoting the "Covenant" books. Not being a visual person myself, I don't regret the lack of illustrated editions. And there's another factor. (Now *here's* a bit of Donaldson arcana for you.) When the original "Covenant" books were first translated into German, they were illustrated (if that's the right word for it)--and I was absolutely astonished by the number of naked women (!) who had crept into my books behind my back. Sadly, these drawings lacked the necessary lubricity for a "Girls of the Land" calendar. But in every other way they were truly bizarre. An illustrated "Covenant" trilogy might actively scare me. <grin> (01/14/2006) |
Linda Olson: Mr. Donaldson;
The necessity of evil and the paradox of power are questions that have challenged great philosophers for centuries. Do you consider yourself a philosopher,as well as an author? It must gratifying to know you have inspired so much discussion/examination of our fundamental nature as human beings.
Linda Olson
10/07/05
|
Merciful Heavens! A phiLOsopher? That sounds suspiciously like a polemicist. <grin> No, I'm just a storyteller who happens to have an intensely fundamentalist upbringing, a profound distrust for all things bureaucratic, and a fascination with ideas. The "content"--if that's what it is--of my stories is a tribute to the stories themselves, not to me. Still.... I've never forgotten (and no doubt have mentioned before) hearing S. P. Somtow say, "Fantasy is the only valid tool for theological inquiry." My entire pscyhe twanged when I heard that. (01/20/2006) |
Revan: Hi Stephen.
I've been looking over your bad characters lately, and when i read aboutpeople like Eremis and Holt Fasner, I wonder, can all their hungers and amibition ever be fulfilled. Would they ever have the ability ro sit back and say, "That's enough?"
My second question is this: If they did achieve all their hearts desires, what kind of people would they be? Would they become self-destructive; considering the seeking and longing for power and/or are the only things that they strive for?
Cheers - Revan
|
If I may pretend to quote from a textbook for a moment: "It is characteristic of profound and systemic narcissism that it can never be satisfied." In the course of my life, I'm met far too many people who were/are, in essence, black holes. If they could do it, they would devour the entire created cosmos--and then feel sorry for themselves because they deserve more. Eremis and Holt Fasner may have enough mental toughness to avoid self-pity. (Nick Succorso, on the other hand, does not.) Nevertheless I suspect that a) their hungers could never be satisfied, and b) any surrender to an unappeasable appetite is inherently self-destructive. Look at any dictator. I have a few hungers like that myself, so I think I know what I'm talking about. What saves me (if you accept the unsupported assertion that I'm *not* Eremis or Holt or Nick <grin>) is that I decline to be ruled by the abyss within. (01/20/2006) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
1) I one of your recent replies in the GI, you state (rather slyly, in my opinion) that "as matters stand, the lore of the Old Lords is just plain irretrievable."
"As matters stand"? Is this some sort of hint that Kevin's Lore might feature in Fatal Revenant? Your answer sure sounded like a heads-up or teaser! :)
2) Is Lord Foul bound by all the Laws of the Earth, since he is imprisoned there? I know he cannot violate the Law of death, etc without help, but could he be affected by the Power of Command, or the might of the Elohim? Or is Foul somehow beyond such things?
|
1) Some days I simply can't resist my impulse to tease. I get an entirely malicious pleasure out of creating misleading expectations. Of course, that's one of the keys to my writing in general. I work hard at setting up expectations which I intend to both frustrate and fulfill in unforeseeable ways. 2) Yes, Lord Foul is bound by Law: otherwise his existence in time wouldn't be a prison. Such things as the Power of Command and the strange resources of the Elohim are not *in themselves* violations of Law. Obviously, they can be used to *threaten* Law. And Lord Foul might conceivably be impacted by them. But it is not an accident that LF is never defeated by gambits like High Lord Elena's. In such cases, Law preserves as well as imprisons the Despiser. (01/20/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen - Yet Another Question About the Rape of Lena.
If I remember correctly, the viewpoint changes from Thomas to Lena at the moment he assaults her. Why did you write it that way, and would you have done the same if you were writing that scene now? (I can't help thinking that The Man Who wrote The Real Story would have stuck with Covenant's point of view.)
Thanks.
|
It’s difficult to say what the man I am today would have done 30+ years ago. But I did have a clear and deliberate reason for taking the risk of that shift in POV (I mean the risk that I might undermine Covenant’s view of the Land). I *wanted* my readers to think ill of Covenant. To judge him harshly. To see him, not as a victim, but as a victimizer. To realize that he really could turn into the Despiser. That was vital to my intentions, both tactically and strategically. Therefore I decided to “watch” his violence from the perspective of its victim. Further, I feel constrained to point out that Angus/Morn is a very different situation than Covenant/Lena. Right from the start, Covenant is introduced to the reader *as a victim*. It would be difficult to say the same of Angus. So of necessity the narrative logic (the logic both of what happens and of how those events are described) is also very different. (01/22/2006) |
Tom: Stephen,
Every time I write a question, I include a "thank you" that I end up removing before I click on Submit. On re-reading it always sounds way too fan-boy, and never really captures what I want to say. So this time, just two words. Thank you.
I have a vague memory of reading an interview with you, perhaps around the time of the publication of The Wounded Land. In it you say that you never write down your ideas, because if an idea is not worth remembering it's not worth putting in a book.
My first question is, was this something you did say? If so, my second question would be, is this still the case?
Tom
|
Speaking very loosely, I’ve always worked this way. But I need to be clear about one thing. When I say that I never write down my ideas, I’m talking about *germ* ideas, the original hints of stories. If such an idea clings to me even when I make no effort to hold onto it, I can feel confident that it both deserves and needs to be written. (Once I actually start to work on a story idea, however, I write down EVerything. Even subsidiary ideas that turn out to be bad or unusable live for a while--possibly for years--in my notes. I’m simply too fallible to trust my memory for every detail. As evidence, I need only cite the problems of internal consistency in the hardcover edition of “The Runes of the Earth”. In addition, writing things down is crucial to how I think.) But there are exceptions. When my *germ* idea takes the form of an actual sentence--which happened with “Reave the Just,” “The Kings of Tarshish,” “By Any Other Name,” and, obliquely, “The Man Who Tried to Get Away”--I *do* write that down, even though at the time I can’t imagine what the sentence actually means. Actual sentences feel like spells or invocations: they don’t work unless I get them exactly right. (01/22/2006) |
Jason D. Wittman: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First, a thank you. You were kind enough to sign my copies of your books in the hotel lobby at WFC, and I thought I should take another opportunity to voice my appreciation. You were very gracious.
Now to my questions: you stated in your afterword to _The Real Story_ that listening to Wagner's _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ inspired you (in part) to write the Gap series. Does that mean that you are fluent in German? Do you know any other foreign languages? You also said that some of your literary techniques in TCoTC "were extrapolated from the way Wagner used musical ideas." I'm curious to know how that worked, though I'd understand if you found it difficult to explain.
Finally: have you read China Mieville? You've stated on the GI that you're a fan of Mervyn Peake, and Mieville is a big fan of Peake, and tries to emulate him in his writing. I highly recommend him to you, though you should be forewarned that he is weird, weird, weird. :-)
Take care, and keep writing,
Jason
|
Sadly, I’m not fluent in any languages except English and Cliché <grin>. I found going to India when I was 4 more than a little traumatic; and one symptom of my particular distress is that I locked my mind against languages I didn’t understand. And now I sort of *can’t* learn foreign languages. In college I missed Phi Beta Kappa by .003 in my GPA because of my Ds in German. No, I understand Wagner by reading the scores (in piano reduction) and libretti while listening to the music. Because I wanted to understand the emotional power that Wagner’s music has over me, however, I’ve read a fair amount *about* his music. For example, he used repeated musical motifs to (literally) underscore the links, the relevance, between the various aspects of his composition. And when I became conscious of how his techniques affected me, I began trying to develop stylistic analogues in my own writing. China Mieville: I’ve read “Perdido Street Station” (and have referred to Mieville elsewhere in the GI). I wouldn’t describe his work as “weird”: in good sf/f, “strangeness” is one of the norms (which makes it something of an oxymoron <grin>). But I would describe it as dense, difficult, and disturbing--all of which are either strengths or weaknesses, depending on the predilections of the particular reader. In my case, those qualities elicited admiration. (01/22/2006) |
Colette Harman: SOJOURN is not synonymous with journey, as you improperly use it, over and over again in the Thomas Covenant series! The definition of sojourn is 'a temporary stay or rest' (noun) or 'to temporarily stay or rest' somewhere (verb).
OKAY?!
P.S.: I enjoyed 'The Runes of the Earth'.
|
<sigh> Just in case anyone is inclined to doubt me when I call myself fallible…. (01/22/2006) |
Charles Adams: One of the most enjoyable parts of ROTE was when I as a reader had the opportunity to observe Foul's direct reaction to events not going according to [his] plan. I think this is our very first direct view of his reactions to such events.
I tried to think of other times when things didn't go as expected by Foul, and all I could come up with was when Covenant refused his summoning to save the girl in his own world. At this point, though, we did not see Foul's direct reaction to this unexpected development.
Which leads to my question: Did you ever construct what events would have occurred if Covenant had been successfully summoned? And if that "story" is more detailed than "Covenant is summoned as planned and the Land is destroyed...", are you willing to share some of the details?
Thanks!
|
A couple of issues. On a practical level, I don’t need to “construct” a detailed sequence of events in order to see that particular idea won’t work. OK, so early in “The Power that Preserves” Mhoram succeeds in summoning Covenant. Now what? How can Covenant possibly end up confronting the Despiser in Foul’s Creche? The distance from Revelstone is much greater than from Mithil Stonedown; the timing is all wrong; and Lord Foul’s entire army is in the way. As a matter of story design, it can’t be done. I would have had to re-plan virtually the entire trilogy in order to make that idea work. But on a deeper level, I don’t construct those kinds of hypothetical story-lines (and this is especially true of the first “Covenant” trilogy) because--for lack of a better description--I design my stories backward. I start with the ending, the climax (my reason for telling the story), and I figure things out in reverse until I reach a point where I can begin the story. So I knew that Covenant needed to arrive late in the final war, and that therefore he needed to refuse Mhoram’s summons, long before I knew what had to happen in “Lord Foul’s Bane”. I doubt that I spent five seconds considering the possibility that Covenant might *accept* Mhoram’s summons. All I cared about was *why* Covenant would refuse. This is part of what I mean when I describe myself as an “efficient” writer. Because I build my stories backward, I only think about the things I absolutely have to have in order to reach my ending. (01/22/2006) |
John Blackburn: 1) Foul's stategy is always to manipulate covenant into an excessive use of wild magic. This implies that he cannot simply kill covenant and take the ring for himself, he has to get covenant to use it (excessively); or make covy give him the ring voluntarily. BUT in TPTP, Foul orders two people to kill covy and take his ring: Pietten and dead-Elena. So what happened? has Foul given up hope of escaping the Arch of Time through covenant-manipulation? Does he think he, or dead-Elena can now use the ring directly? and the krill turns green which seems to indicate he CAN! When in Foul's throne room, even covy thinks "hmm, the only reason he isn't rippin' my fingers off to get the ring is he thinks I know how to use it". So Covy thinks Foul can use the ring directly if he wants!
2) Why did Hile Troy use Ramen as messengers? Why not use proper soldiers, preferably horse-mounted (best of all: Bloodguard on Ranyhyn). The Ramen are only reluctantly loyal to the lords. Gay/rue is a terrible messenger, not only is she late, but she can't say how big the army is. And are there no other ramen messengers except gay? Troy went through so much hell as a result, it seems it was his own fault! But even with the extra 5 days, there'd still be lots of marching! Why not camp somewhere in the center plains?
|
Boy howdy…. 1) Sure, Foul can take the ring and use it. Anybody can. They just can’t use it *enough* to break Foul out of his prison. Two Laws prevent it: the fundamental identification of Covenant with his ring; and the necessity of freedom. Only when Covenant uses excessive wild magic by choice will the Arch of Time fall. And Foul is smart enough to know this. But he’s also smart enough to think of more than one path toward his goal. If someone else (e.g. dead Elena) takes the ring and chooses to use it, s/he may eventually damage enough Laws in enough different ways to make the whole system crumble. (Elena certainly got off to a good start by destroying the Staff of Law.) Foul always has more than one plan at work. He’s always trying to create new possibilities. And he’s always eager to capitalize on new possibilities, even unexpected ones. 2) What exactly do you think Troy should have done? Send out all of the Bloodguard to watch every league of Landsdrop and just hope that enough of them returned alive to help him fight Foul? (And do you really think that the Bloodguard would have agreed to such a plan?) Remember, Troy and the Lords do NOT know what Foul is going to do. They only have hints. And there’s no theoretical reason why Foul couldn’t send his army north of Andelain rather than south. So why isn’t it reasonable to trust allies who happen to live near one possible line of attack? In addition, I think you underestimate the Ramen. Sure, they don’t ride. And sure, they’re reluctant allies in the sense that they distrust anyone who rides Ranyhyn into danger. But they have other resources (e.g. stealth--and I won’t even mention their skills as scouts and trackers) that the Bloodguard lack. And they do both love the Land and hate Fangthane. Why is it a mistake to trust them? (01/22/2006) |
Mark Holdsworth: The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Wards of High Lord Kevin's Seven Wards are not described in any detail in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Series (as far as I remember), and all we know concerning the Third Ward is that it was discovered between the times of the First and Second Chronicles. Should these missing Wards be considered lost lore, destroyed during the Ritual of Desecration, or will their purpose(s) be revealed in the Third Chronicles?
Thanks for creating the Land. Your novels flow like a great musical score. I seem to listen to the words you write more than just visualize what they portray. I consider myself a visually oriented person, so this is no small feat!
|
Tsk tsk. Y’all are becomin’ increasingly clever in your attempts to elicit spoilers. <grin> (01/22/2006) |
Daniel Bauer: Mr. Donaldson:
Thanks for creating and sharing a wonderful world with the Thomas Covenant novels. It is great to immerse myself in fantasys like this.
I confess that as a reader I tend to only get the first layer of many things. I've tried repeatedly (back in my college days) to interpret depth, but my creative writing teachers always seemed to indicate that my interpretations were beyond what the author intended. How they knew, I still don't know - but I learned to stop "reading into things."
To that end, I'd like to know if I'm missing one thing in particular, regarding the "Wierd," "Wurd," and "Worm of the world's end". I get that these are different interpretations of the fundamental make-up of the land, similar to concepts of "God," "Jehovah," and "Allah" (which I believe are different interpretations based on the same supernatural being). Different people see the same things differently, hence the different terms. However, you must delicately choose when to use each word (and sometimes you use all three).
Am I (again) trying to read more into your text than is there? Or am I missing something more by skimming the surface?
Thanks again for the Land, and for the opportunity to connect with you in this forum.
|
I have no idea what your “creative writing teachers” (?) thought they were talking about. Any truly creative act, almost by definition, has more depth than the reader/viewer/hearer/recipient is able to absorb “by skimming the surface.” Very broadly speaking, bookstores seem to be full of books written by people who don’t think enough (or at all). It seems strange that “creative writing teachers” would encourage you to think less. But I assure you that my use of “Weird”, “Wurd,” “Worm,” and “Wyrd” is not an accident. And I chose them all because they sound sort of like Word: “In the beginning was the Word,” which is certainly a fundamental truth about *my* creative process. I can’t speak for concepts like “God,” “Jehovah,” and “Allah” (or “Vishnu”); but I *can* say that I’m nowhere near done exploring Weird/Wurd/Worm/Wyrd/Word--and that I intend these near-homophones to convey a meaning which is difficult to communicate by other means. (01/22/2006) |
Garrett Pyke: Dear Sir,
I've enjoyed your Covenant series more (and on more levels) than anything else I've read. I especially enjoyed the chapters called Lord Mhoram's Victory and The Healer.
For curiosity’s sake I would like to know the translations of the names of the Ravers (Moksha, Turiya, Samadhi). Also, has anyone ever asked you what the healer saw when the root of Covenant's mental illness was revealed to her?
Thanks,
-Garrett
|
<sigh> My current theme seems to be fallibility. When I came up with the names moksha, turiya, and samadhi for the Ravers, I knew exactly what they meant. But that was 30+ years ago. Now I only remember that the words are Sanskrit, and that they refer to states or forms of enlightenment. It can’t be difficult to deduce “what the healer saw when the root of Covenant’s mental illness was revealed to her”. She saw the nature and scale of his pain, the extent to which he had *become* his pain, and the dark potential consequences of his pain: in other words, she saw what *she* would have to become/endure in order to heal him. (I refer you to the description of Christ crucified at the end of “Lord Foul’s Bane.”) A daunting prospect, in my opinion. (01/22/2006) |
Phillip: Hey there,
I find that I'm fascinated by the fact that my second or third favorite author (Gene Wolfe clearly being my favorite and you being more or less tied with Tolkein) has given us such a clear and easy way to communicate with him about his writings. I chack back regularly to see what you have added to your gradual interview and greatly appreciate the opportunity to read your responses from your fans. I have several questions and thought I might give you the opportunity to respond if anything I ask strikes a chord in you.
1. First of all, where did you get the idea for a gradual interview in the first place? I believe that you have touched on some of the things that you get out of it in the past, but what was the genesis of this and what did you originally hope to acheive by it?
3. I've seen several questions (esp. relating to runes)that comment upon how the Land does not seem to progress technologically. That has led me to wonder about the relationship between your understanding of history and it's relationship to the fantasy worlds that you have created. Do you consciously draw any inspiration from real world historical situations when you develop. say. the political or social settings that you present?
4. In the Second Chronicles, the Ranyhyn were notably absent from the story. Did you ever consider incorporating them into the narrative? Why did you choose not to bring them back?
I'd like to thank you for the body of work that you have released and to let you know that I eagerly await the publication of anything that you have written.
|
Because I'm running so far behind in the GI, I usually ask people to limit themselves to two questions at a time. So I've deleted all but three of your questions. Please feel free to post them again. I'll get to them eventually. <sigh> 1) This interview was my webmaster's idea. I was originally reluctant, but I decided to go ahead in the hope of encouraging more people to read my books. Wanting to be read goes with the territory of being a writer. 3) As I've said in response to other questions, no, I don't draw any conscious inspiration from the "real world". That includes history and politics and religion, as well as places, people, and situations. For reasons I'm unable to explain, I *need* the sensation that I'm "making it all up." Otherwise my imagination shuts down. 4) The Ranyhyn were absent from "The Second Chronicles" because that's exactly what they--and the Ramen--would do when threatened by the Sunbane. They can't fight it. As since the Ranyhyn have a unique relationship with Earthpower, they would be uniquely vulnerable to the corruptive effects of the Sunbane. Oh, I suppose they could have hidden out in Andelain for an unforeseeable number of centuries. But that doesn't fit my understanding of either the Ranyhyn or the Ramen. So what else could they do? The Ramen, at least, are nomadic by nature. As soon as I realized that I would be writing about an evil like the Sunbane, I knew that the Ranyhyn would not appear in the story. (01/29/2006) |