SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

"Here then, is a conundrum. If this is true, to defeat Lord Foul is to kill the Land, but to be defeated by him is also to kill the Land." Well, sure. But that's what we have storytellers for: to resolve--or at least elucidate--these conundrums. Ideally in a manner which "rings true" (unavoidable pun there), feels satisfying, and sheds some light on our own conundrums. (01/01/2008)

Am I allowed to declare that you're *all* crazy? <grin> But seriously: in my opinion (for what it's worth), you are all "right". Every writer is a different case. In each case, some things happen deliberately and some happen unconsciously. And in each case (and perhaps in each story), the mix is different. In addition, it's perfectly possible for any given writer to deploy any or all of the devices you mention *both* deliberately and unconsciously. Personally, I use "symbolism, metaphor, foreshadowing, etc." with care and attention, deliberately--and yet similar things also happen in my work without my conscious awareness. (01/01/2008)

This may be a problem in visualization. (The text may not be clear enough?) The Sunbane doesn't breach the "physical" borders of Andelain: it breaches the protective boundary (rather like a shield over the whole region) created and preserved by Caer-Caveral. And it doesn't break through *everywhere*: it appears in isolated spots here and there among the Hills. The Giants need rock because they're near one of those spots. Sunder and Hollian are not (plus there's the whole Earthpower thing you mentioned). And compared to the size of the whole area, the spots are small and few--at least at first. It takes time to erode the Forestal's magicks. Linden and Covenant confront LF long before the Sunbane has time to destroy *all* safety and beauty in Andelain. (01/02/2008)

I don't want to turn the Gradual Interview into a theological debate. And I certainly don't want to set myself up as an advocate for "dualism"--although obviously dualism (which I prefer to call paradox) is a constant theme in the "Covenant" books. Other stories have other themes, as they should. But (just expressing my personal opinions, and intending no offense to anyone) I don't agree that "...if dualism is true, then writing fantasy is pointless." I don't see how any form of storytelling can be pointless if it has the power to bring disparate people together in thoughtful discourse. And "If there are two eternal principles, who is to say which is "good" and which is "bad"?" Surely that's *my* job. And *your* job. Isn't it our supreme task as human beings to identify and affirm the meaning of our own lives? Nor can I accept your assertion that "...if the villain can never be definitively defeated, the struggle is stoic, vain, and hopeless." You appear to be saying that any being or effort that cannot attain perfection is wasted--unless we accept your specific conception of God. That simply doesn't seem true to me. I've experienced too much love, generosity, and, yes, Grace from people who reject the very notion of God/gods/divinity in any form. I cannot reject the value of such things on the mere supposition that evil "can never be definitively defeated". Just my opinions.... (01/02/2008)

Naturally I'm eager for a "renaissance". Naturally I hope that some momentum is building. But a little perspective. (Have I discussed this already?) When "White Gold Wielder" was on the NY Times bestseller list, it sold 190,000+ hardcovers. When "Fatal Revenant" was on the same list, it sold 60,000+ hardcovers. I hasten to add that much of this has nothing whatever to do with me or my "popularity". Books in general sell only fractions of what they sold 20 years ago. I remember the days when a John le Carre bestseller meant 450,000 hardcovers. Today a John le Carre bestseller probably means 100,000-125,000 hardcovers. And the same decline is true for both trade paperbacks and mass market paperbacks. I don't know why this is true (although I have plenty of theories). But it *is* true. We live in a world that reads less than it once did. (01/02/2008)

I never imagined *any* of the ships or stations in the GAP books having "windows" (or the equivalent). As far as I was concerned, any perception of what was "outside" came from various types of scanning equipment (including visual). Instead I imagined a cylinder (ship) or torus (station--or human station, anyway) with an inner hull rotating within an outer, "fixed" hull. Of course, if the ship is too small (Trumpet) or unwieldy (Bright Beauty) for such a design, the people aboard have to do without g. Why not have the whole thing rotate? I can think of advantages to both approaches. I decided on stations that rotated internally to facilitate docking ships. And I decided on ships that rotated internally to avoid the computational difficulties of constantly shifting scan, communications, weapons, thrust, etc.. But I admit that I didn't try to work out every conceivable implication of these concepts. And for the most part I left the Amnion to solve their own problems. <rueful smile> Throughout those books, I did my best to avoid ideas like "artifical gravity" because, well, because I figured the "gap" itself was already asking a lot of the reader's credulity. (01/11/2008)

I'm sorry. I haven't been able to follow your reasoning. Doubtless you're thinking more clearly than I am. <rueful smile> And I probably haven't explained my position (as it pertains to the first "Covenant" trilogy) very well. But surely we can agree that human beings DO assign emotional, spiritual, or psychological importance to things (events, objects, beings, ideas, whatever) which are not tangibly or demonstrably "real"; and that therefore no mundane definition of what is "real" can serve as an accurate measure of what human beings consider important. Indeed, what human beings consider important guides their actions far more than tangible, demonstrable "reality" does. So surely we can also agree that "the ethics of belief" are always and inevitably a matter of personal choice. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assume that anyone who doesn't think the same way I do is automatically *wrong*--which is not a very functional stance for a writer to take. I'm sorry I can't be clearer. (01/11/2008)

I'm sure I've said before that I do get tired of being compared to Tolkien. If my work is any good, it pretty much has to be unique (in the best sense of the word), so such comparisons are meaningless at best, and invidious at worst. But does Tolkien's "success" *annoy* me? How could it? I firmly believe that what I do would have been impossible if Tolkien hadn't come first; if he hadn't, in a manner of speaking, shown me the way (not to mention showing publishers that fantasy is worth publishing). I owe him too great a debt to feel, well, *slighted* because he gets more acclaim than I do. (01/18/2008)

I'm glad you enjoyed hearing me speak. The kindness of my audiences helps me survive book tours. I've discussed the "rationale" (if there is one) behind the name, Lord Foul the Despiser, elsewhere in this interview. But briefly. Way back then, I was young, enthusiastic, and naive. I wanted to announce right from the start that my intentions were explicitly archetypal. And, frankly, I had no real expectation of ever getting published; so I had nothing to lose. Fortunately--or unfortunately, depending on your point of view--my editor at the time, Lester del Rey, *liked* my overt ambitions. As a result, he missed his chance to suggest that I might do well to be a bit less obvious. And now--well, there's no changing the past. (01/18/2008)

Here's my question. How many of the books you've seen advertised in TNY and TAM (never mind purchased) were sf/f? There is a perception among both the people who publish sf/f and the people who publish TNY and TAM that their readerships do *not* overlap. This perception is reinforced by the way "literate" magazines like TNY and TAM either ignore or sneer at sf/f. Sure, I'd love to see my books advertised that way. But *you* try convincing my publishers that it wouldn't be a waste of money. My publishers *do* advertise in genre magazines. However, their experience echoes mine: "gamers" are often not readers. Go to any sf/f convention, check out the people in the gaming (and Anime, and costuming, and...) rooms, and see how many of them attend *any* of the programming that's aimed at readers. Here, again, there doesn't appear to be any overlap. (01/19/2008)

And while we're on the subject of advertising: my publishers *do* advertise in online bookstores such as Amazon. But there is SO much competition for the available space (which jacks up the prices) that the typical online ad appears and disappears in less than a week. (Of course, if a book establishes itself firmly as a bestseller, more ad space follows. But this is usually a case of ads trailing after success rather than of ads inspiring success.) Meanwhile, I certainly empathize with readers who don't want to plunge into "The Last Chronicles" until the story is complete. As I've said before, in an ideal world I wouldn't even *publish* the story until it was complete. Alas, this is not an ideal world, and I have to eat while I write. (01/19/2008)

I don't remember specifying that *all* of the other Lords were sent into LF's trap. However, I haven't checked the text. Certainly you're right, at least to a degree. I suspect that my other explanation is also right, to a degree. (01/19/2008)

The short answer is: the conglomerates that own most US publishers refuse to do business that way. No "sharing" allowed. Individual publishers (e.g. Ballantine) may very well wish that they could engage in transactions like the one you describe; but the conglomorates forbid it. (01/19/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

In the context of your question, I'm pretty sure that the answer is No. I've always believed that in the writing of fantasy, there are things that are much more effective if they are *not* explained (e.g. "How does magic work?"). To enter a fantasy story requires a particular kind of "suspension of disbelief". Internal consistency (the rational relationship between non- or a-rational elements) eases--and helps preserve--that suspension of disbelief. But any attempt to account for what is within the story that is based on ideas, perceptions, realities, or rationales which exist *outside* the story tends to undermine that suspension of disbelief. To pick a crude example: if I started talking about Earthpower in terms of the flow of electrons in a magnetic field, something profound would be lost. So: I have no intention of trying to justify what is within the story by *attaching* it to "external" ideas ("it's all a dream," "it's a microverse," etc.). Or putting the whole thing another way: I'm not going to go anywhere that my characters don't go. Their integrity is too important to me. Covenant and Linden don't think in terms of "microverses," so why would I? Covenant has moved beyond his whole it's-all-a-dream hangup, so why would I go back there? Meanwhile: much earlier in the GI, *I* had to ask what RAFO means; so I'm happy to be able to tell you that it means "read and find out". (01/21/2008)

This would be easier to discuss if I knew specifically what you're referring to. Of course, time, age, and experience have imposed some changes on me. Other changes I've chosen because I consider them beneficial or necessary--or simply appropriate. And *others* have concealed themselves entirely from my notice. But until I know what you have in mind, I don't know what else to say on the subject. (01/22/2008)

If you'll forgive an old joke: there's less to this than meets the eye. Just because the Elohim *call* themselves "equal to all things" doesn't for a minute mean that they actually *are* "equal to all things". Esmer discusses this point explicitly in "The Last Chronicles". Permit me a lame analogy (since I'm stuck in this airport for the foreseeable future, and by now I'm rather punchy). "Ordinary" beings and events look to the Elohim the way ants look to me. They're tiny. And I can kill them by the thousands. Easily. Which then makes it easy for me to forget that they have me outnumbered many billions to one, and that they are going to *be* here long after I--and every conceivable remnant of my DNA--have ceased to exist. Therefore (may we have the moral, please) it behooves me to be humble. Anytime a being or beings forget to be humble, it/they set it/themselves up to be humbled. (01/22/2008)

Just because a writer doesn't think of something does not mean that a reader who does is wrong. Let me see: can I phrase that more awkwardly? The ratio of conscious to unconscious content tends to be on the high side (in favor of conscious) in my work; but there is still plenty of unconscious content. So no, I did not have Roger and Joan in mind when I decided to amputate two of Covenant's fingers. But it's an interesting idea nonetheless. I would tip my hat--if I had one--to the person who came up with it. (01/22/2008)

This isn't a RAFO. It's an IOIWIN (I only invent what I need). I've never needed to know what a Ritual of Desecration looks like (in any sense), so I've never turned my imagination to the subject. But just on a whim--since I'm obviously in that kind of mood--I might suggest the type of withering you would get if a skurj 900 miles wide burrowed quickly from one end of the Land to the other. (01/22/2008)

Reactions like yours are a constant source of bafflement to me. Over the past, now, 30 years, I've spent HUNDREDS of hours listening to people whine about what a jerk Covenant is, what a self-pitying little bitch he is, what an unpleasant and even reprehensible individual he is--and now that my readers can finally take a break from him, what do I get? Why, what a jerk Linden is, what a self-pitying little bitch she is, what an unpleasant and even reprehensible individual she is, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE MORE COVENANT? (Of course, you didn't actually say those things yourself; but lots of other people have, and you implied the same.) There's an underlying message here that's much more profound than it sounds. But in the meantime, guess what? I am who I am. I write about the characters I write about because they need me to write about them. Or because they're the only characters I *can* write about. If you don't "get" that after 30 years, I can't help wondering why you're still here. (01/22/2008)

I really don't see the problem. Water flows downhill (in this case, west to east) until it hits an obstacle (in this case, a mountain). Then it pools until gravity--or sheer mass--leads it to a path around the obstacle. But in this case the mountain is huge, and the downhill tilt is significant, so water does it what does: it accumulates until gravity or mass discovers a path. For a while, there's a pool that becomes a large lake. However, before gravity finds a path around the mountain, mass finds a flaw in the ground under the lake; a crack opens into a chasm; and all that water pours down into the crevices under the mountain. Where once again it accumulates until it finds an exit: in this case, at the foot of Landsdrop. As long as the shape of the terrain in the west sort of funnels the water toward the mountain, and the flaws in the underlying rock reveal themselves before the water can run elsewhere, I don't see any paradox (any violation of the natural order). (01/22/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

Neither my "people" nor I have any say in the matter. The rights are held by DEL REY/Ballantine, and DEL REY/Ballantine has shown no interest in giving "Covenant" anything more than the most rudimentary support. If they don't ignore ideas like yours, they erect so many barriers that nothing happens. (01/28/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.