1) In a fantasy novel of this kind (explicitly epic in both theme and character), the answer would almost have to be: "epic nature." Elena was created to be who she became by the violence of her father and the disturbance of her mother (*not,* in this case, her mother's disturbed behavior, but rather her mother's disturbed personality). This fits the themes of the story. But it also fits the model of Covenant's Unbelief. If the Land is being invented by some aspect of his mind, then Elena's character could *only* have been formed by the consequences of his actions: nurture doesn't enter the picture. 2) The Lords who selected Elena to lead them were not "so wrong." This is a novel about paradox, remember. Elena was the perfect choice in the same sense that Covenant was the perfect choice. So she was discernibly unbalanced. So what? So was he. The other Lords--especially Mhoram--knew that she would (to borrow a phrase) "save or damn" the Land; and they chose to believe that she would save it, just as they chose to believe that Covenant would. None of them existed on the knife-edge of possibility in the same way that Elena--and Covenant--did. And they could so easily have been validated by the outcome, if she had simply made a different decision at the moment when she tasted the EarthBlood. Only characters with epic flaws are capable of epic victories. So I would argue that the issue isn't that the other Lords "had no indication of her insanity": they simply didn't think in those terms. They didn't ask, "Is she sane?" but rather, "Is she capable?" And in those terms, they made the best possible choice. (02/05/2005)

Well, it's true that I do think of time as being linear. That fits my own experience of life. It fits the way I think. It fits the form of communication through which my stories and their ideas are conveyed. And I'm writing fantasy here, not science fiction: I don't need to include quantum mechanics in my portrayal of time. But none of that means that I actually understand your question. How did you get from "time is linear" to "therefore there is no free will"? Perhaps the problem lies in how we're conceptualizing the Arch. I grant you that the word "Arch" suggests a created beginning and a (perhaps simultaneously) created end connected by a (once again, perhaps simultaneously) created sequence of events. If that's the source of the confusion, then it's my fault for not thinking of a better term than "Arch." My own conceptualization of the Arch of Time does not contain *anything* that is predetermined. Rather, as I tried to explain throughout "Runes," I see the Arch as the (admittedly linear) system of rules--e.g. cause and effect, sequence, linearity itself--which makes it possible for life (as I understand it) to exist; which makes it possible for human beings to think, feel, choose, and experience consequences. In *my* conceptualization, when the Creator created the Arch, he/she/it did not create a closed system in which everything has already been determined, but rather an open-ended *process* both enabled and constrained by a variety of *rules*, a process in which anything can happen as long as it doesn't break the rules (because breaking the rules destroys the process); and even breaking the rules can happen--as long as the being breaking the rules doesn't mind destroying the process. Hence free will. Hence the importance of making choices. Hence the significance of, say, Covenant's and Linden's efforts to determine the meaning of their own lives. Or here's another way to look at it. Think of the Arch as being "under construction" according to the rules of its original design; rules which guide *how* the Arch is constructed, but which do not determine the *shape* taken by the Arch as it is constructed. If the rules are broken, the Arch will collapse; but as long as the rules remain intact, the specific structure being built is determined by the on-going choices and actions of those individuals whose existence is made possible by the rules. Does that help? (02/05/2005)

I guess we need to make a distinction between (to pick two convenient terms) "mundane" and "magical" activities. People in the Land who have learned the appropriate wood-lore (lillianrill) are able to elicit fire from wood without consuming the wood itself: their fire is an expression of Earthpower. People who haven't learned--or can't access--the appropriate lore make fire the old-fashioned way: by expending the life of the wood rather than by drawing Earthpower through the wood. And there are a number of indications in the story that part of the lillianrill lore involves *preparing* the wood: even a Hirebrand can't draw fire from just any old stick without consuming it. So even when the Lords were at their most effective there were still (inevitably) plenty of fires that actually consumed wood. (02/05/2005)

I first created the character of Lord Mhoram at least a decade before I even heard of, much less met, Howard Morhaim. And, while I know that the subconscious works in mysterious ways, I don't think that the fact that I'd already created Lord Mhoram influenced my decision to pick Howard Morhaim as my agent. <grin> (02/05/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

Tut, tut. This sounds like an (admitted light-hearted) attempt to create a "feud" between me and Steven Erikson--a writer whom I both admire and like. Nonetheless the simple fact is that Erikson and I are both "right" (in so far as anything that pertains to something as ambiguous as language can ever be "right"). My use of serial commas (red, white, and blue) conforms to Standard American. And as a fairly standard American myself, the guidelines of Standard American make sense to me. "Red, white and blue" seems to me to blur the distinction between white and blue. BUT. Erikson's use of serial commas conforms to Standard British. (He spent a number of years in England, after all.) Indeed, the Brits seem to be trying to rid themselves of the comma altogether. For example, my British copyeditor would have removed the comma from the previous sentence. And I had to fight to preserve any serial commas at all in the British edition of "Runes." So. Erikson's choices are validated by Standard British usage; mine by Standard American usage. But I must have some British blood in me somewhere (perhaps growing up in India did it). When I write, for example, "Involuntarily she raised her head," I'm following Standard British, not Standard American. My US copyeditor desperately wanted to put a comma after "Involuntarily". (02/06/2005)

These questions keep coming up. Until I get a FAQ in place, I guess I'll keep answering them. My contract for "The Last Chronicles" requires me to deliver a book every 36 months. I accepted 36 because I couldn't get 48. Deadlines are destructive to my creative impulse. And I need every scrap of that time. TLC <grin> is by far the most difficult challenge I've ever tackled; each new installment will be more difficult to write than the one before it; and I'm not young anymore, so even when I'm writing something simple I can't write as quickly as I once did. I'm sorry you consider this unfair. It isn't the fault of my publishers. They would love it if I could produce books more quickly. At present, a "Covenant" film remains entirely hypothetical. If one is ever made, I will have absolutely no control over it whatsoever. I post all of my tours and appearances on this site. If you don't see an Australian tour listed there, it isn't happening. (02/06/2005)

1) I suppose the questions I dislike the most are the ones that ask for my opinions about other specific contemporary writers. Every such question is a minefield. 2) Fortunately I don't have to. In my field (sf/f), every one who has the desire to meet writers (generally or specifically) can do so whenever they choose to make the effort. There's an sf/f "con" somewhere in the US virtually every weekend of every year; and attendance by all and sundry is pretty much always welcome. I have gladly met dozens of my fellow writers simply by going to "cons," and I could easily meet dozens more if I took the time away from writing "Fatal Revenant." Outside sf/f, things are more difficult. Being "a best selling author" gives me ZERO "status" outside sf/f, and would be useless to me in attempting to meet non-sf/f writers. 3) Anyone at all? George Meredith, the Victorian novelist and poet. He was perhaps not the greatest novelist and/or poet of his time; but he deployed his (arguably) modest talents with such fierce intelligence that he must have been a fascinating man. And many decades ahead of his time. Look up his sonnet sequence "Modern Love": it's accessible on the web. (02/06/2005)

I wonder why I really don't want to answer this question. Would you believe Lord Foul's "power" is "force of personality"? Would you believe his "power" is his ability to make people feel things that they don't want to feel--or that they secretly *do* want to feel? Maybe I just don't want to shackle myself by pinning this down. Still, it's interesting to observe just how charismatic cynicism and nihilism can be. Just look at American politics. It could be that Foul's surrogates follow his lead simply because they like what they hear. (02/06/2005)

I think the question is: who dies first, the summoner in the Land, or the person who is summoned from the real world? In Troy's case, he dies in the real world before Atiaran does in the Land; so he stays. But Covenant is still alive in the real world is when, say, Drool dies; so he goes. (02/06/2005)

<sigh> What is a nice--and profoundly gentle--guy like me doing in a conversation like this? Why do writers write what they write? I suppose I could fall back on the Stephen King answer ("What makes you think I have a choice?"), or the Ross Macdonald answer ("This is what makes writing possible for me"--a paraphrase, but I think a fair one). But here's how I look at it. It's all about physical metaphors. Physical metaphors for emotional states. Physical metaphors for themes and ideas. Physical metaphors for moral questions. I've argued elsewhere that all "good" (i.e. deeply moving and engaging, rather than merely escapist) fantasy is essentially psychodrama: internal journeys dramatized as if they were, for example, external quests. For a writer like me, such things must be communicated through specific actions and particular events: I'm not writing Chekhov-style character studies, I'm writing stories. So what else do you expect me to do? The "violence" of the action reflects the importance of what that action represents. (02/06/2005)

Actually, everything I know about Zoroastrianism I learned from reading your message. The missionaries made a point of preventing their children from learning anything about the countries and peoples they wanted to "redeem": doubtless they wanted to prevent their children from being "misled" or "confused." So what can I tell you? <shrug> Some ideas are simply too important or necessary to vanish from the collective human psyche. Those ideas find ways to perpetuate themselves somehow. Genetically? Who knows? (02/06/2005)

I'm quite proud of "Mordant's Need." I very much wanted to get away from the "Dark Lord mode" of my earlier work (and, as you say, most of modern fantasy), not because I was tired of it, but because I wanted to stretch myself in new ways. (In retrospect, "Mordant's Need" does look like preparation for the GAP books; but I wasn't aware of that at the time.) And I'm not at all unhappy with the way I ended the story. The fairy-tale-ish elements of the story (explicitly stated in the "bookends") were essential to my original conception; and I probably wouldn't have written the story at all if I hadn't been pleased by my original conception. As I've said repeatedly, I don't consider my personal "religious" belief to be relevant to this discussion. My beliefs about *writing,* on the other hand.... Instead of thinking of characters like the Creator, King Joyse, and Warden Dios as "God" figures, you might try thinking of them as "author" figures: not because they "speak" for the author (they do not), but because their dilemmas--and their solutions to those dilemmas--closely resemble the problems that I face as a storyteller, and the solutions I devise to those problems. How can I create something that I not only believe in but also consider beautiful *without* violating the independent and organic integrity of the thing I'm trying to create? I intended Linden's last message to Sunder and Hollian to be obvious in context. Apparently I failed. But if you want to read the sentence literally, the word was probably "Goodby." If you're willing to read the sentence more figuratively, her message was probably a combination of "farewell" and "I love you" and "I'm sending you the Staff of Law". (02/11/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

Well, my “idea” process certainly doesn’t seem “esoteric” to *me*. <grin> And it is nowhere near as visual as the process you describe. I’ve talked--and written--about the “story shelf” where my ideas sit waiting for something to happen to them. But that is a rhetorical convenience: I don’t actually “see” the shelf, or the ideas. In my case, the process by which ideas (eventually) make connections with each other is far more verbal. For example, if a story idea seems static or inert to me (if it lacks the imaginative connections that would bring it to life), that simply means that I need to change the words with which I describe the idea to myself. Putting it into different words creates different possibilities. I probably would have never found the connections that made the GAP books possible if I hadn’t changed one of my descriptive words for the original idea from “fantasy” to “science fiction.” Sometimes being creative is just that simple. (02/12/2005)

First we need to define “enter.” I see “possession” (“entering”) as operating along a continuum which ranges from “merely whispering nearly-inaudible suggestions” to “complete control.” And on that continuum, the degree to which Lord Foul can enter a mind in the “real world” is severely limited to the low end. He couldn’t do it all until the structures of Law which sustain the Land began to break down. And he still can’t assume control: he can only whisper persuasively. (The Ravers can’t do this at all to a mind in the “real world”: only LF is that powerful. When Linden feels turiya in Joan’s mind, Joan is already dead; already in the Land.) But I’m puzzled myself: what does RAFO mean? (02/12/2005)

1) I have no control over any of this. And if I had any news, I would post it on this site (as “news”). So if it isn’t in “news,” it isn’t happening. 2) As I keep saying, I don’t think my personal beliefs are relevant to this discussion. I have never, EVER set out to write a story that expressed or embodied my views on any subject. Instead I place myself at the service of the stories that come to me to be written; and I try to give them whatever they need for their own unique organic vitality and integrity. Which may or may not bear some resemblence to my personal view of life. 3) The only source of “Covenant” hardcovers I know about (apart from “Runes”) is the Science Fiction Book Club, which currently has omnibus editions of each trilogy. I’ve put a methodology in place that enables readers to obtain autographs: the procedure is described elsewhere on this site. But since you ask: God, I hate fishing! <grin> (02/12/2005)

I’m occasionally shocked and sometimes horrified by the number of people who feel that the name “Kevin” doesn’t fit in fantasy--or at least doesn’t fit in *my* fantasy. Clearly many readers have the same reaction--and then go to great lengths to think of an explanation for the apparent discrepancy. But the simple truth is: I don’t feel the discrepancy myself. Your reaction, like those of many other readers on this subject, comes as a complete surprise to me. To my ear, there is no difference in kind, no difference in tone, no difference in substance, between a name like “Mhoram” and a name like “Kevin”--except for the one obvious fact that most of us have actually known someone named “Kevin” while very few of us have actually known someone named “Mhoram.” On this specific subject, I think that the same imaginative talent, the same suspension of disbelief, which allows me to “hear” Mhoram as a real name belonging to a real person prevents me from “hearing” Kevin as a name that is, in a sense, too real. I regret the confusion. If I had ever once imagined that my readers would feel that Kevin’s name doesn’t fit, and then would try to assign meaning to the discrepancy, I would have chosen a different name in a heartbeat. (02/12/2005)

I edited out most of your question because it seems to be based on a misunderstanding. I *do* think that Sauron was “evil personified.” My point, which I must have phrased rather badly, was simply that Tolkien doesn’t *announce* Sauron as “evil personified” (at least not in “The Hobbit” and LOTR, which is really all I know on the subject). To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien just told his story--and then stubbornly resisted all attempts to “interpret” it or assign meaning to it. Well, the story still is what it is; and Sauron qualifies as “evil personified”. But I got into this mess by trying to explain why I gave *my* “evil personified” a name as obvious as “Lord Foul the Despiser.” At the time that I wrote the first “Covenant” trilogy, I felt a young man’s desire to be VERY CLEAR that my story was not an imitation of Tolkien’s. (02/12/2005)

I want to say, “Because I didn’t think of it,” but the real reason is, “Because I don’t care.” I mean, I don’t care how any of my readers pronounce any of these words or names. And I certainly don’t want to foster the notion that *my* way is correct and everyone else’s way is wrong. I believe that anyone who bothers to read a book should be allowed to deal with the experience in any way that suits him/her. If your eye sees “Ranyhyn” and your brain says “Rrrrrrrrrrrrrr” or “huh?” or “whinny” or “poppycock,” that’s fine with me. Just read and I’m content. But there’s a deeper issue as well. As far as I’m concerned, how language functions *at all* is a profound mystery. I make arbitrary black shapes on a piece of paper; and years later people whom I’ve never met send me arbitrary black shapes on a computer screen which SOMEhow my brain interprets to mean, “Tell us what sounds we should hear in our minds when we see these arbitrary black shapes?” Apparently communication is taking place--but HOW? How is it even possible? The fact that individual human beings (each cruelly isolated inside his/her own skull) somehow contrive to send and receive information with an appreciable degree of accuracy *to people who aren’t even present* amazes me. And I do *not* want to mess with that mystery by trying to impose something as trivial as “correct pronunciation” on it. Frankly, I fear that the more literal I am in my relationship with that mystery, the less that mystery will function effectively on my behalf. So I have no interest in “correctness” here. And I seldom tell people how I happen to pronounce certain words. But since you didn’t ask--<grin>--it’s mel-en-COOR-ion ah-BAH-tha. Two words. (02/12/2005)

The explanation is pretty simple. Covenant's impotence was psychological, not physiological. Leprosy doesn't necessarily cause impotence. The degree of psychological health that he regained during the course of the first "Chronicles" enabled him to return to writing; and with creative potency came, well, procreative (I mean sexual) potency. (02/12/2005)

Yes, "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" is currently only available in hardcover. But in October or November Tor plans to issue a paperback edition. At that point, all of "The Man Who" books will be in print in paperback (and, I devoutly hope, on ereader.com). Long may this state of affairs last! "The Man Who" books have never succeeded at staying in print for long. On the other hand, Tor has a good reputation for keeping books available. (02/12/2005)

Interestingly, the same observation/complaint/criticism can be levelled at “Mordant’s Need” and the GAP books: it’s all insanely meticulous; no hero or bad guy regardless of intelligence could possibly predict, much less plan, the actions of other people that far ahead (chaos theory alone forbids it). But my own view of the situation is rather different. As far as I’m concerned, there’s really only one question that matters: does the author violate the integrity, the dignity, the independent reality, of his characters in order to contrive his elaborate plots? If he does, well, then the sorts of questions you raise really don’t apply, since we’re talking about *contrivance* rather than *character* and therefore predicting and planning are dead easy. Or at any rate as dead easy as playing chess. But if the author does *not* violate the integrity/dignity/independence of his characters, and the plots *still* seem insanely, impossibly meticulous--ah, then the problem must lie elsewhere. Not in the apparent meticulousness of the plots, but in how those plots are visualized by the reader. It seems to me that some of the difficulty for the reader arises from the fact that the reader is looking back on the action, while everyone within the story is looking forward. (After all, these plots don’t seem insanely meticulous until you think about them afterward: the perspective of retrospect seems to change their nature.) One example--and only one, because I don’t want to spend hours writing about this. In the case of the Quest for the One Tree, Covenant’s Dead don’t actually need to predict and plan for the encounter with the Giants, the willingness of the Giants to redefine their own quest, the voyage to the Elohim, the actions of the Elohim, Vain’s ability to escape the Elohim, the Appointment of Findail, *and* Brinn and Cail’s surrender to the merewives (because without that event Brinn might not have been able to deal with the Guardian). What Covenant’s Dead *do* need is an understanding of character: the character of the ur-viles (Vain’s purpose), the character of the Elohim (why the Elohim might fear both Covenant’s power and Vain’s purpose), the character of Covenant (his instinct for extravagent solutions), and the character of Linden (her need to come to terms with her own capacity for evil). Given such resources, only a little imagination is required to see a variety of possible roads which could all conceivably lead to the same end. One such road: it is Linden rather than the Elohim who unlocks the location of the One Tree from Covenant’s mind (because she must encounter her power to take possession of Covenant in time to learn how wrong such an action is); she and Covenant travel south along the coast of the Land until they encounter a sea-faring race; Covenant wins an approach to the One Tree with wild magic (thus triggering the forces which catalyze Vain); meanwhile the Elohim *have* to take action (it’s really a convenience for them that Covenant and Linden visit them, since Vain’s creation and Covenant’s purpose automatically impose the necessity of a response: the Elohim are obviously going to Appoint one of them regardless of whether or not Covenant and Linden stop by for a sacrificial visit), so the Appointed is “in play” regardless of how Covenant and Linden approach the One Tree. My point? From the perspective of Covenant’s Dead looking forward in the story, there are a variety of conceivable scenarios. Hope doesn’t lie in predicting and planning exactly what Covenant and Linden are going to do: it lies in understanding who Covenant and Linden are. Another way to say the same thing: Covenant’s Dead supply the “raw materials” for a solution to the Land’s plight--and then step back, trusting Covenant and Linden to figure *something* out. Lord Foul’s position is similar. He’s more of a control-freak, and more directly manipulative; but he still needs to do what Covenant’s Dead must do: understand who he’s dealing with, grasp what must happen *within* those characters to make them do what he wants, and then supply the “raw materials” (venom, etc.) which will make his desired outcome both possible and likely. The more scenarios he can imagine, the more “apt” his raw materials can be; but he really doesn’t have to plan or predict everything that’s going to happen, he simply needs to use his imagination and supply as many catalysts as he can. In other words, I’m arguing that Lord Foul, like Covenant’s Dead, like King Joyse, like Warden Dios, does not engage in insanely meticulous plotting: rather he engages in a highly creative kind of open-ended thinking; thinking that revolves around the manipulation of characters rather than the manipulation of events. I hope this helps. (02/14/2005)

I'm sorry it took me so long to get to your question. The procedures for obtaining autographs are described elsewhere on this site. And they work, I assure you. (02/14/2005)

I don't really know that it would be possible for me to feel the *same* sense of delight that you do. For me, anyway, writing is so-o-o not the same as reading. For one thing, it's so experiential. For another, it's *much* slower. But I feel pride and pleasure on several different levels simultaneously: I'm proud of myself for creating them, and for what I'm doing with them; and I'm proud of *them* in a way that's quite separate from myself. Somehow I think they and I bring out the best in each other. (02/23/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

I've discussed these subjects earlier. But briefly: I'm not a visual person. I'm quintessentially verbal. So I don't see movies playing in my mind. For me, it's more like hearing movies--or the stories of those movies--described as eloquently as possible. I have no inherent problem with "fanfiction." In my view, "Imitation is the sincerest form of learning." I did a lot of it during what I think of as my journeyman years; my apprenticeship. It's only plagiarism if you try to pass it off as being more, well, original than it really is. (02/23/2005)

There are people who provide editorial services of various kinds. (Naturally they expect to get paid for their work.) I don't happen to know any of them personally--although many years ago I worked for a company (now defunct) that provided such services. Look in the yellow pages. Or a book callled "The Literary Marketplace." Or various other publications intended for aspiring writers. Or just ask an honest and reasonably intelligent friend/relative to help you out. (02/23/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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 - The Runes of the Earth

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.

My answer would also be: No. The life I'm leading right now is the only life I'm actually qualified for. <grin> (02/23/2005)

Sorry for the confusion. I did *not* intend any kind of reference to Egyptian culture or cosmology. My near total ignorance of the subject precludes that. And in fact I suspect that an Egyptian reference in this context would be thematic gibberish. (Although synchronicity occasionally accomplishes miracles.) No, I was simply--and I don't mean to make this sound frivolous--playing around with sounds: Ranyhyn, Ramen, Plains of Ra. (02/23/2005)