I wish I could explain it. Much of the "balance" to which you refer is a matter of "feel". And every writer has his/her sense of what fits and what doesn't. But in my case my definition of "efficiency" applies: I only create what I need. Since, for example, I want the Land to feel like an idealized version of our world rather than like an utterly alien place, I've invented only those objects (Gilden trees, aliantha), animals (kresh, Ranyhyn), beings (Giants, Elohim, Haruchai) and creatures (too numerous to cite) that I find absolutely necessary. I haven't bothered to devise my own small woodland animals or ordinary foods (or fabrics, or construction materials, or etc.) because I don't need them. You might say that in the case of the "Chronicles" I'm operating on a continuum between the Land in its unthreatened state (where the difference between the Land and our world is primarily a matter of degree, not of kind) and the nightmares which crave the Land's destruction. The farther I move from "unthreatened" to "nightmares," the more I invent. But you'll find a different balance in every writer worth reading. I'll just mention China Mieville, in whose work ordinary people provide the familiar element while the reality in which they live is the stuff of nightmare. The continuum along which Mieville moves is entirely unlike mine (although there are some interesting sub rosa similarities). (02/01/2006)

The idea of a "Covenant" film remains purely speculative (although I've been paid for an option), and I refuse to worry about it. *If* such a film is ever made, its worth will depend entirely on the integrity and imagination of its director, designers, screenwriter, and cast, not (in fact, emphatically NOT) on anything I've done--or can do. (02/01/2006)

1) I'm inclined to say that "lore = knowledge + training + comprehension (which is not at all the same thing as knowledge or training) + passion/energy/commitment. I like karate analogies. Knowing what the techniques are, and practicing their execution, does not make an effective martial artist. Understanding of the techniques (on every level, from body dynamics to a multiplicity of applications to the judgment necessary for appropriate use) is also required. But in addition, the prospective martial artist has to *care*--and care in the right way (both passionately and selflessly). Ultimately the energy, the magic, comes from within its wielder. The various disciplines of lore enable the energy to emerge effectively. And those old songs: they're invocations, not accidental utterances empowered by age. In TIW, Lord Mhoram summons Caerroil Wildwood by singing the Forestal's song--and it works because it *is* the Forestal's song, accurately rendered from the Forestal's own being. The song has power because it is inherently and inescapably relevant, not because it's old or magical. 2) Yes, I suspect that Linden has a bad case of "hero worship" for Covenant. The passage of time allows us to idealize (or demonize) all kinds of things. And you're right: she's wrong about him (in the sense that her "hero worship" causes her to disregard his actual humanity--and to demean her own). Which he would be the first to tell her--if he ever had the chance. (He does the best he can in "Runes," but the poor blighter is *dead*, after all <grin>.) (02/01/2006)

It's true that the current publishing climate militates against people in your position. Life is full of exceptions (and miracles), but in general neither editors nor agents can afford the time and effort to look at unsolicited manuscripts. Of course, you can always go the "small press" route (although I have no idea how that works in practical terms). You can go the "vanity press" route, which has always carried a stigma. You can go the "e-publishing" or "published on demand" routes, but both of those methodologies are still in their infancy (so there are still a lot of problems to be solved). I can't advise you about any of those approaches. What I *can* do is describe the generally-accepted paradigm for coping with your problem. With (many) variations, it goes like this: First, you acquire a "credential" of some kind. You win a fiction contest. You earn an MFA in creative writing. You get a story published in a "literary" (i.e. non-paying) magazine. You survive a nationally-televised hostage situation. (OK, I don't recommend that one.) SOMEthing to make a professional reader think you know what you're doing. Second--or first, if the other "first" is out of the question--you concentrate on writing short stories and submitting them to magazines. Magazine editors--especially in sf/f--read (and even accept) unsolicited, unagented manuscripts all the time. To your "credential," you attempt to add a "track record." In the old days, they used to say that you should sell short stories steadily for five years before you try to sell a novel. That seems rather extreme to me; but who knows? Third, "track record" in hand (because the real purpose of the "credential" is to help you acquire a "track record"), you approach an agent with your novel. If you have a "track record," most agents *will* read your novel, for the obvious reason that they can believe they won't be wasting their time. Of course, if you are Blessed By The Gods, your short stories will be published by an editor who raves about you to an editor who publishes novels. In that case, you'll be able to show your novel directly to an editor. (But, I hasten to add, you'll still want an agent. As soon as an editor says, "Yes, I want to publish you," you should take your novel to a good agent. The agent will almost certainly accept you as a client, since you've already broken the initial ice--and after that you'll *have* an agent, which solves an enormous number of problems down the road.) Or, if you're blessed with extraordinary personal charm and persuasiveness, you can try to meet an actual editor (say, at an sf/f convention)--or an actual agent--and see if you can talk him/her into reading your manuscript. When this works, it works well because of the personal connection. But it doesn't work often. And trying to gain the support of some other writer or writers never works. Most writers are notoriously idiosyncratic readers, and both editors and agents have good reason not to trust them. Are you discouraged yet? <sigh> (02/04/2006)

Primarily, it has to do with the messages/information/history/prophecy that Anele "reads" or "hears" in stone. But I'm also referring to the idea that (and I'm probably paraphrasing this badly) a person's fate is "graven in the heart of the rock." (02/05/2006)

In a word, bioengineering. The particular science/technolog/nature of the Amnion has enormous ramifications--and a huge array of applications which could be safely traded away (by "safely" I mean "without threatening the larger agenda of the Amnion"). I'm just speculating here; but I imagine that much of humankind's medical technology was derived or extrapolated from trade with the Amnion. (02/05/2006)

But seriously, folks.... There's an interesting issue hidden beneath the surface of this joke. It is a crucial aspect of LOTR that Gandalf does NOT "save the world". He guides and influences events in many ways; but he does not play a Covenant-like role in the story. (Shucks, he never even gets to throw down with the king of the Ringwraiths.) Neither does Aragorn, for that matter. Clearly it is important to Tolkien's intent that Middle Earth is saved by the smallest and most mundane (or at any rate least dramatic) of his characters: the Hobbits. People who consider Donaldson a Tolkien imitator should think more deeply about the differences between Gandalf and Covenant. (02/05/2006)

Yes, the term "kaze" is derived from "kamikaze," so your pronunciation is correct. And no, I didn't know about "karzy," but if I had known, the information would have made no difference to me. I do try to be clear; but I don't worry about every conceivable misapprehension: since I'm human, I'm always going to miss a few, no matter how hard I worry. OK, "cornhole". Brace yourself. It's a verb that refers to anal intercourse, usually forcible (and involuntary on the part of the person being "cornholed"). (02/08/2006)

Actually, we could spend hours on this. I'll try to be concise (or cryptic, whichever comes first). I suspect that no human endeavor is free of prejudice. This includes what we might call the "literary establishment," people who have dedicated themselves to the study and analysis of fiction as a form of high art. So defined, the "literary establishment" is comprised of most academics in most English departments, as well as many high-minded editors, those of the New York Times Book Review and the New Yorker notable among them. The self-described "intelligensia." And the vast majority of those people make the automatic assumption that "popular = junk." In part because we live in such a profoundly anti-intellectual society, intellectuals are naturally inclined to view everyone else (a population which out-numbers intellectuals thousands to one) as dolts. It's a form of self-defense. So it follows logically that if the dolts like something, it must be bad. By definition. Even in the (very) open-minded college--and university--where I studied literature, the "popular = junk" sub-text was pervasive and unavoidable. And that assumption is hard to argue with. Isn't it Sturgeon's Law that states, "90% of everything is junk"? From an analytical perspective, it's actually easier to defend the prejudice that "all popular literature is junk" than it is to prove that "90% of 'serious'--i.e. unpopular--literature is junk." But there's more. We're talking about jobs here, careers, people's lives. Academics, and intellectuals of all hues, can't live on art alone: they still have to eat. Which means that they must (as much as humanly possible) establish "objective" criteria by which to demonstrate the worth of what they do. And those criteria inevitably (if not deliberately) revolve around matters of intellect rather than of emotion--for the simple and obvious reason that emotions are too subjective and individual to be useful as criteria for excellence or worth. So what happens? The "literary establishment" ignores the emotional substance of literature in order to concentrate on more objective issues, such as "technique." Emotion isn't susceptible to critical analysis: technique is. (E.g. Shakespeare scholars don't try to analyse how a particular play makes an audience "feel". They don't even try to analyse how the characters in that play "feel". Instead they concentrate, say, on how Shakespeare's development of imagery and symbol enhances the meaning of his language. Of course, we all know that we wouldn't read--or watch--Shakespeare if his plays didn't have the power to make us "feel". And scholars know that as well as we do. They simply lack the intellectual tools to analyse emotion/passion in ways that are both useful and "objective".) Well, from the POV of the "literary establishment," King has two huge strikes against him. He's popular. And (although for his own needs he has technique to burn) his primary appeal is to the emotions rather than to the intellect. He deals in terror and courage, which are impossibe to quantify, and certainly can't be analysed objectively. By its very nature, the "literary establishment" is only comfortable with work that appeals primarily to the intellect rather than to the emotions. Unless you're dead. <sigh> Then it becomes OK for a writer to have been popular in his/her day. We can't be expected to "feel" the way people did "back then." Therefore the distance imposed by death and time allows us to ignore the emotional substance of literature and concentrate instead on its intellectual dimensions. (02/08/2006)

I keep saying this: not consciously. Of COURSE what I do is shaped by who I am. And of COURSE who I am is shaped by my experiences (of all kinds). But I'm not *conscious* of letting my life, or my experiences, or even my beliefs "seep" into what I write. It seems to happen while I'm not looking. (02/08/2006)

You might be surprised at how many "little details" it's possible to plan from the beginning. Remember, as a general rule I design my stories from the back to the front. That method allows an enormous amount of preparation. However.... It was "The Mirror of Her Dreams" that taught me the benefits of not trying to plan *too* much too early. During the writing of that book, I began to develop a more flexible approach to, well, let's call them "mid-stream" details of all kinds, large and small. So, in regard to Eremis' defeat: the general pattern of what happened to him is implicit in the nature of Terisa's relationship with mirrors. She only has that one power, so naturally she was going to use it against him. I knew that all along. But the specific details--e.g. the fact that he was frozen in a priapic state--evolved during the writing, as I grew to understand him more and more. (02/11/2006)

I do need a way to make the transition between the "creative" and "critical" functions of my brain. Distance (in time) helps with that transition, so in some ways the fact that it takes me so long to write a ^#$%@! first draft is a plus: by page 1000+ I have a *lot* of distance from page 1. <sigh> But feedback also helps me adjust from the perspective of the writer to the (very different) perspective of a reader. So I do have 2-3 people who are willing to read for me, who will do so in a timely fashion (after spending so much time writing, I hate waiting for feedback), and who can be trusted to not talk about what they've read with anyone except me <grin>. Of course, I always need rest after I've finished a first draft. But I try to keep that as short as possible. As soon as I get some feedbag, er, feedback, I start rewriting. (02/15/2006)

Well, first I'd like to suggest that "unmotivated" might be a more useful term than "unmitigated". Baron Harkonnen has plenty of motivation: Iago, on the other hand, seems to revel in evil for its own sake (as does Master Eremis to some extent). In LOTR, Sauron appears "unmitigated," although I dimly recall that "The Silmarillion" supplies him with some motivation. And motivation--reasons; clear, comprehensible, and possibly even sympathetic goals--is what separates various "shades of grey" from "unmitigated" evil. In more realistic contexts, one might argue that "evil" is when "the ends justify the means"--and the "ends" are entirely self-serving. But there's also another factor at work in fantasy (moreso than in science fiction). Almost by definition, fantasy (good or "serious" fantasy, anyway) tends toward the archetypal. Think Satan in "Paradise Lost," or Vivien and Modred in "The Idylls of the King." Indeed, much of the vital substance of fantasy arises from its exploration of the power of archetypes in human desires and actions. (I might go so far as to assert that those "shades of grey" are created by the struggle between conflicting archetypes within the individual human mind.) Again by definition, archetypes lie at the core of "what it means to be human," and fantasy exists (in daydreams as well as in literature) as a quest for that core. On that basis, when fantasy addresses "unmitigated" evil without trivializing it, fantasy is "doing its job". In contrast, when fantasy offers us "unmotivated" evil, the quest for the archetypal has failed. Which is all as clear as mud, I suspect. My brain may have acquired a virus, possibly a trojan horse. (02/15/2006)

"Central Hills Close" and "Hidden Valley" don't ring any bells at the moment. (Which doesn't mean much: my memory is cheese.) "Llurallin River" is on the map. Other locations I have deliberately left unspecified, in part to avoid visual clutter, and in part because the exact locations are unnecessary to the story. (02/15/2006)

You're right. Using magic to coerce the ring from Covenant is no different, morally, than ripping it off his finger by force. But I refer you to previous discussions about the *degree* of power that can be wielded with white gold. If the Kemper gets Covenant to surrender his ring by magical manipulation, he (the Kemper) won't obtain power on the Planet Destroyer scale; but he might end up with the wild magic equivalent of a hydrogen bomb. A guy like Kasreyn would be happy to have that much force--until his greed (inevitably) moves up to the next level. (02/16/2006)

This is another question about "unconscious influences." As I keep saying, I do not consciously base characters (or anything else--with the obvious exceptions of information about leprosy, the martial arts, and karate tournaments) on anyone or anything "real." I certainly don't base them on any aspect of myself (although I do allow touches of my personal rhetorical style to bleed into Axbrewder's narrative voice). But OF COURSE everything that I write is an expression of myself on one level or another. And OF COURSE who I am (and therefore what I express) is profoundly influenced by external factors. So the short answer is, "Neither one. Both. Yes. No. And all of the above." As for your second question: my conscious mind has never once, not even for a second, "considered any similarities between the Bloodguard and Vulcans". But unconsciously? I sure doubt it. I'm still trying to figure out what those "similarities" might *be*. I mean, aside from a general disinclination to express emotion directly.... (02/16/2006)

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.

No, I would never give "commercial" permission (i.e. permission that involves money and commercial publication, as distinct from the writing that some people do for their personal enjoyment and the enjoyment of their friends) for other writers to "use" either my worlds or my characters. I've already told (or am in the process of telling) the story of those characters: any addition or adjustment from a perspective outside mine would undermine and possibly even falsify my work. And, unlike the example you cited, there is an organic relationship between my characters and their worlds. Those worlds exist so that I can write about those characters: the worlds make the stories possible. So any story that inserted new characters into my worlds (or that took even the least central of my characters in new directions) would have the effect of, well, polluting the vision and purpose which form the foundation of my work. Plus, leaving aside issues that pertain to the integrity of my work, I believe (just my opinion) that it's *bad* (damaging, self-limiting, perhaps even self-demeaning) for writers to borrow or "lift" characters or stories from someone else. In my view, using someone else's imagination instead of your own hurts you (I'm using "you" in the generic sense here). Riding on the back of someone else's imagination dooms you to mediocrity. JUST MY OPINION. (02/20/2006)

Do I need to repeat that I'm not a visual person? <grin> Clearly some of my readers know more about eye-color than I do. Now. I urge you not to interpret what follows as a "spoiler." I'm responding to a question about storytelling logic: I'm not (by which I mean *not*) commenting on the direction of "The Last Chronicles." Sure, I see how Covenant = Despiser = Creator might imply the eventual and necessary destruction of the Land, the Earth, and even Time. But I could also argue that your equation contains an illogical assumption. The statement "Creator/Despiser/Covenant = same person" suggests "Creator/Despiser/Covenant = (only) same person" instead of, say, "Creator/Despiser/Covenant = same person (plus)". Putting it another way: your postulate seems to assume that a person can only be the sum of his/her parts. But what happens to your reasoning if you consider the idea that a person might be greater (or less) than the sum of his/her parts? Also you appear to assume that because "Despiser = Covenant" is willing to take direct action while "Creator = Covenant" is not, "Despiser = Covenant" is therefore *stronger* than "Creator = Covenant". Or perhaps you assume that Covenant has somehow surrendered his freedom, thereby diminishing himself. That ain't necessarily so. The fact that Covenant is dead doesn't automatically mean that the outcome of the equation has already been determined. What do you suppose that Linden is *for* in "The Second Chronicles"? She adds to and complicates the equation exponentially. Meanwhile, there seems to be considerable confusion about what "the necessity of freedom" means. Choices freely made do not deprive anyone of freedom: those choices are the very definition of freedom. So when Covenant, in effect, picks the Creator's "side" instead of Lord Foul's, he hasn't surrendered any aspect of his necessary freedom. In fact, he has affirmed his freedom by acting on his own choices. In contrast, filling Covenant's veins with venom in an attempt to tamper with or coerce his choices is a doomed strategem because it violates "the necessity of freedom". (Unless, of course, Covenant breaks down under the pressure--unless he shows himself to be less than the sum of his parts--by surrendering responsibility for his choices and actions, his freedom.) (02/20/2006)

You raise an interesting point. My response is: show me where it says that in the text. Show me where the text says--or even hints--that "Covenant is a drooling psychopath whose very aceptance of the Land is a betrayal of his own sanity." In the meantime, I'll counter that after four visits to the Land in the first trilogy, Covenant functions both effectively and constructively in the "real world" for ten years. "Drooling psychopaths" don't usually do things like that. I'm reminded of a woman who once told me--strenuously--that "Mordant's Need" is a sexist nightmare in which women are destroyed for the glory of male egos. My response there was the same: show me where it says that in the text. She couldn't, of course. Her interpretation was based on a set of psychological beliefs which required her to view the text as if it had been written in a code which only she could decipher; as if the text did not--and *could* not--mean what it said. Well, when the interpretation of a text necessitates ignoring the content of that text, we're faced with an insurmountable breakdown of communication. (02/20/2006)

This isn't a forum for political discussion. But I think that the answer to your question is obvious. Bush needs a better speechwriter--and he didn't ask me. <grin> Like *that* was ever going to happen. (02/22/2006)

Not to my knowledge, no. And I can see why. How could the results be anything other than disappointing--not to mention bizarre? Although now that I think about it, "The Conqueror Worm" might work.... (02/22/2006)

An interesting question. There's only one problem: I didn't read "Something Wicked This Way Comes" until long after I'd written the first "Covenant" trilogy. Of course, Bradbury's book was published years earlier--so obviously he must have been imitating a novel that he knew I would write some day. <grin> (02/22/2006)

Well, it isn't up to me: those rights are held by DEL REY/Ballantine. But naturally I would have no objection. Covenants 1-6 *are* available in omnibus hardcovers from the Science Fiction Book Club. And Hill House has talked about doing limited collector's editions. But since Hill House is already 15 months late with "The Runes of the Earth," I'm not counting on anything there. (02/22/2006)

As it happens, I've had the pleasure of Terry's acquaintance. In fact, we were introduced by Lester and Judy-Lynn del Rey. And he did me a huge--if indirect--service with "The Sword of Shannara." The astonishing success of that book opened doors for a number of other writers, yrs trly included. But we haven't laid eyes on each other in many years. (02/22/2006)

You're quite right: there *is* a "larger purpose" behind TMW books. I can't seem to help myself. Everything turns into an epic eventually. As for the next installment in the series (because at least one more installment is obviously necessary): I know where the story goes, but at the moment I have absolutely no idea how to get there. If that makes any sense. But I'm not worried about Brew/Ginny right now. I have too many other characters on my mind. (02/22/2006)

I've already discussed this at length in the Gradual Interview. I'm not going to repeat everything here. The short answer? I simply can't write any faster. Not without surrendering to a terminal disappointment in my own shortcomings. (02/22/2006)

As far as I'm concerned, you can pronounce things any way that suits you. But personally, I pronounce it COOR-cree. I was thinking of the French word for "heart" (coeur [sp?]) and added "cry," but I made some mental adjustments while I thought about it. (02/27/2006)

File this under "unconscious influences." I'm a closet eco-hippy myself--although I have no particular desire to "get back to nature." <grin> Humankind's rape of the planet strikes me as inherently self-destructive. But, as I keep saying, I don't write to preach. I'm a storyteller, not an advocate for my own convictions (except as they pertain to storytelling). When I created the Land, I wasn't trying to imagine "an idyllic world": I was trying to create a place that could stand as the opposite of leprosy--and of the way in which lepers have been treated historically. (02/27/2006)

Well, OBviously you didn't consult your Spanish-English dictionary. <grin> Or maybe I made that part up. The text describes "latias" pretty well. A "latia" is a long stick, typically about as thick as a wrist, and as straight as possible, used to support a roof of some kind. Of course, they don't necessarily form a lattice. Usually they're laid side-by-side to form a platform on which roofing materials (sod, leaves, tar-paper, whatever) can be placed. Latias are not uncommon in the US Southwest, even in up-scale homes (they aren't really practical for commercial structures). (02/27/2006)

Well, since you asked.... (And remember that this is JUST MY OPINION.) The film exacerbates all the flaws of the book. By making the text literal, the film prevents the imaginations of the audience/readers from supplying what Lewis left out: a quality which I might describe as a "sense of scale," physical, emotional, even moral. The film makes Narnia look tiny; Aslan doesn't seem even a little bit numinous; any literal "Father Christmas" is a joke; and the "winter wonderland" conveys absolutely no sense of evil. Of course, I could make all of these same statements about the book. In that sense, the film is genuinely faithful to the book. But Lewis gives his readers' imaginations room to work for him instead of against him. The film thwarts that essential process. JMO! (02/27/2006)

Naturally I hope that what I write will touch my readers in important ways. And I work very hard at juggling a number of different priorities simultaneously: e.g. preparing "surprises" that will affect both devoted "Covenant" fans and new readers without violating the integrity of my chosen POV. But I can't honestly say that I'm able to predict how these things will work out in practice. One of my problems is that I put a great deal of effort into *preparing* my surprises; so much effort, in fact, that I always suspect myself of *telegraphing* what I have mind. The technical challenges are quite complex. The "jump out of the closet without forewarning" surprise is dead easy, dirt cheap--especially with a restricted narrative POV--and I consider it cheating. By my standards, the ideal surprise is both genuinely unexpected and (in retrospect) entirely inevitable. Which is only possible when the ground (as it were) has been effectively prepared. I don't know how often I achieve that ideal, but I sure do try. (02/27/2006)

No, seriously, it's a TAG Heuer. Didn't I make that obvious? An enormous amount of what I write is unconsciously rather than consciously motivated--which I consider a Good Thing. (*How* I write it, on the other hand, is very consciously motivated.) The only "thoughts or experiences" I've had "after the Second Chronicles that are influencing the [Last] Chronicles" *consciously* are the first six "Covenant" books themselves. Re-reading those books in preparation for "The Last Chronicles" affected what I'm doing now in all kinds of ways. I'll only mention one: the things that I wish I could "fix" in the first six books (primarily structural and what I'll call "psychological" problems) multiplied my determination not to make those same mistakes again. Unconsciously, of course, everything in my personal life (e.g. writing the GAP books; studying karate; getting older) *must* be affecting "The Last Chronicles." But I'm not aware of it--and I probably won't be until after this project is done. (02/27/2006)

Yes, a fine writer named Midori Snyder once suggested that she and I write a fantasy/martial arts novel together. I like her, I like her work, I liked her idea, and I wanted to do it. But it just didn't come to life for me. Which was predictable, I suppose. Only once in my life have I ever gotten a story idea from a person (instead of "out of the blue"); and in that case I twisted the idea so dramatically that the person who gave it to me disavowed it. (The story was "Animal Lover," and the person who really should have gotten credit was Max Sandler.) I guess I'm dependent on the sensation that my story ideas come to me from the universe (i.e. from my unconscious) rather than from someone who has opinions about what should be done with them. (02/27/2006)

Sure sounds like "The Real Story," the first book in my 5-volume sf saga collectively called the GAP books (or cycle, or sequence, depending on my mood). (02/27/2006)

In some ways, your question is unanswerable. (Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? Why does anyone do what they do?) In others, I've spent some time on it earlier in this interview. The short answer? This is the work I was born--and raised--to do. I was born verbal, dependent on language (don't ask me why: *I* didn't choose my genetic makeup); and my childhood taught me that storytelling is perhaps my most essential survival skill. So here I am, doing the only work in the world that suits who I am. (02/28/2006)

As I've said before on occasion, I don't consider my personal convictions (religious, political, ecological, whatever) relevant to the content of my work--or to this public forum. In practice, the content of any communicative work arises from an interaction or synergy between the work and its audience. And (speaking now exclusively of books) in this interaction or synergy the author is conspicuously absent. Only the text is relevant to the reader. In other words, what you see is what you get. If you see Christian allegory in "The Chronicles," that's what you get. If, on the other hand, you see an existentialist diatribe against any attempt to impose external meaning on human actions--or perhaps against any attempt to alter the relationship between human actions and their consequences--that's also what you get. Under the circumstances, it's remarkable that audiences do often achieve a degree of consensus. Both Lewis and Tolkien claimed that their works (Narnia and LOTR) were not allegorical. At a guess, I would say that 90% of readers dismiss Lewis' assertion and accept Tolkien's. Of course, we could discuss whether or not the text of "The Chronicles" qualifies as allegory. But first we would have to define allegory. By any definition that I'm familiar with, I dislike allegory in general, and I strive against it in my own work. (02/28/2006)

"Machinegunned the first two chronicles"? Oh, my aching sacro-iliac. Is that what you call ten years of my life? Sure, the fact that 6 books were published between 1977 and 1983 conveys the impression that I worked fast when I was young. But I'll mention that I had all three volumes of the first trilogy written before I found a publisher, and I began working on them in 1972. That's 11 years for 6 books (well, 7, since we should probably count "The Man Who Killed His Brother"). It sure didn't feel like "machinegunning" to me. Still, it's true that I'm a lot slower now. Age and infirmity combine badly with higher expectations. So how do any of us cope with the delay? Well, there are a fair number of good books out there, and some of them are going begging. I'll just mention (again) Tim Powers, Patricia McKillip, Steven Erikson, Melanie Rawn, Peter Straub, Sean Russell. I hear some interesting word-of-mouth about David Keck, so I'm looking forward to giving him a try. And don't even get me *started* on non-fantasy writers.... (02/28/2006)