Typically, the author's involvement in the process of publication (and here I'm talking exclusively about the process of publication, not, say, about the process of book promotion) begins and ends with the text. Everything that pertains to the actual words is the author's department: the author does not have a say in ANYthing else. (For example, I *begged* Putnams to use a larger or more readable font for "The Runes of the Earth," but I was--politely--ignored.) And since publishers have so many departments, and those departments feel so little need to communicate with each other (never mind the author), "distance" is exacerbated in every direction. It's all about "turf," really. In an (extremely) insecure business like publishing, protecting your turf is probably more important than any other aspect of your job. I could bore myself by giving you lots of examples; but why bother? Among authors, only the mega-heavyweights (Stephen King leaps to mind) have enough clout to intrude successfully on the publisher's turf. The rest of us have to accept what we get. As I've said before, in theory I don't object at all. In fact, I *like* this system--in theory. *I* don't want to spend my days choosing fonts. In practice, I'm often unhappy with the results. But in practice, my publishers are no doubt often unhappy with *my* results; so that's fair. (04/01/2006)

Sorry, I can't answer either of your questions. Since I don't share your perception of "pace," I can't predict how you will react to the pacing of, say, "Fatal Revenant". (Remember that I spend 2+ years working on a book that you can probably read in a couple of weeks. Under the circumstances, it simply isn't possible for me to share your perception of pace.) And I can't comment on up-coming events--or non-events--in "The Last Chronicles" without diminishing the enjoyment of other readers. (04/01/2006)

It's inevitable, I think, that my study of the martial arts has affected my "understanding" (if that's the right word) of physical violence on every level, from the practical to the metaphorical to the spiritual. And I certainly agree that the way the Haruchai fight is described more realistically in "The Runes of the Earth" than it is in any of the previous "Chronicles." If you're interested in observing my, well, "development" on this subject over the course of my writing life, you might enjoy the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels. Read in order, they reveal rather overtly how my perception of physical violence is changing. (04/01/2006)

As far as I know, the only source for any of my earlier books in hardcover is the Science Fiction Book Club: there you can get "omnibus" editions of the first two "Covenant" trilogies. Other plans to re-release earlier books in hardcover have fallen by the wayside. The unpleasant truth is that I just don't sell well enough to justify the expense. (04/01/2006)

I shouldn't touch this. It's a lose/lose proposition. I won't be able to persuade you; and I may well increase your sense of disappointment. But I'm going to plunge in anyway ("Fools rush" etc.) because the subject interests me--and because you aren't alone in your reaction. First, I think we need to make an important distinction. The "Covenant" books have always contained *profanity* ("Hellfire and bloody damnation": need I say more?). The real difference between the first six books and "The Runes of the Earth" (primarily the Prologue) is *obscenity*, which I will loosely define as "crude and hurtful references to bodily functions, organs, and actions." For example, the "F" word in various permutations. In the abstract, it seems to me that profanity is inherently more violent, vehement, and hurtful than obscenity. Consigning someone else to "the eternal fires of hell" (e.g. "Damn you") is (conceptually) *worse* than accusing someone else of unnatural physical acts. In practice, however, virtually everyone (myself included) reacts more strongly to obscenity than to profanity. I think this is true because obscenity is more, well, *real* than profanity. Most of us simply cannot wrap our minds around "the eternal fires of hell," but we all have way too much (intimate) experience with bodily violence, bodily crudeness, and even bodily perversion. As an idea, profanity may be "worse" than obscenity, but as a tangible experience obscenity is unquestionably "worse". Of course, none of the above pertains directly to your disappointment. The "distinction" doesn't matter to you: only the "fact" matters to you. And the "fact" is that "The Runes of the Earth" contains more "offensive" language (primarily in the Prologue) than the previous six "Covenant" books combined. So why did I do it? I have two reasons, one general, one specific. In general, and as a matter of personal conviction, I do not believe that *any* word is inherently good or bad, benign or hurtful, acceptable or offensive. Words are simply the tools of communication; and as a dedicated storyteller with extremely high aspirations, I can not afford to reject--or even judge--*any* of the tools available to me. As far as I can tell, what makes a word good or bad, benign or hurtful, acceptable or offensive, is the *intent* of the person who uses it. Which brings me to the specific. I consider it important to distinguish between *my* intent and the intent of the character I'm writing about. Barton Lytton is a useful example. *My* intent is to tell the truth about him, using every tool at my disposal: to do anything less would betray my own aspirations. *His* intent is to express his anger, humiliation, and feelings of intimidation toward Linden: he wants to regain some sense of personal authority, and even of personal worth, by attacking the person who has most strenuously criticized him. And how else can he *do* that? He's the sheriff: he can't exactly beat her up. He can't expose her as a professional sham, or prove that she obstructed a criminal investigation, or find personal skeletons in her closet. How else could he possibly strike back, except through language? He uses obscenity (and profanity) because he *wants* to hurt her. His language is offensive, not because the words themselves are offensive, but because he *intends* to offend. And that's the truth: some people *do* want to hurt others, and they don't care how they do it. (It's also an observable fact that people who use profanity and obscenity tend to elicit profanity and obscenity from others. Intense emotion or action elicits intense emotion or action *of the same kind* in response.) So I ask you: what would the effect be if I "cleaned up" Barton Lytton; if I made him less offensive in his conduct, therefore more comfortable to read about? Wouldn't that constitute *lying*? Wouldn't that imply that human evil isn't *really* as bad as we all know it is? Certainly circumlocution can convey the same information as direct utterance, but it doesn't have the same impact. And if the "Covenant" books contain any message at all, surely that message is that the desire to cause pain *does* have impact. (04/02/2006)

I hate to commit myself on subjects like this. But your speculations sure sound like "withdrawal symptoms" to me. <grin> Surely the "Covenant" books indicate SOMEwhere that the Ravers and the Demondim have separate etiologies. Not to mention distinct histories. (04/05/2006)

Yes, I was attending Kent State at the time of the infamous shootings. I wasn't on campus: I was working in Akron City Hospital while attending grad school at Kent in the evenings. But since I lived in Kent, I experienced more of the direct aftermath than 99% of the students (who were evacuated within hours). I could go on at some length about the various horrors of that time; but I'd like to spare myself those memories. I'll just mention that on a number of occasions people who were willing to pull the trigger pointed guns at me. Cops, security guards, neighbors. The effects were profound, but their impact on my writing (as I keep saying) was/is unconscious rather than conscious. They helped shape who I am as a person and how I view the world (people, situations, etc.). But I don't think about them while I'm writing--and I certainly don't set out to write *about* them. (04/05/2006)

I don't mean to sound dismissive; but this seems perfectly obvious to me. Our hands are what we use to *do* things. (Jacob Bronowski [sp?], if memory serves, wrote eloquently about the intimate relationship between the use of our hands and the development of our minds.) Damaged hands symbolize (at the very least) damaged function. Damaged coping skills. An inability--you should pardon the expression--to really get a grip. Which is pretty apt, if you ask me. (04/05/2006)

Believe it or not, there is--or was--another "Stephen Donaldson," a prison reform activist who wrote and campaigned extensively. I've heard (VERY indirectly) that in his case "Stephen Donaldson" was a pseudonym; and that he died several years ago, a consequence of his personal experience with "prisoner rape". (I really must emphasize that this is hearsay, and may be entirely unfounded.) Because of the similarity of names, people (I won't say who) have occasionally announced *my* death. As far as I know, that particular rumor is false. (04/05/2006)

I think of Haruchai communication as a kind of "gestalt" telepathy which conveys entire thought processes and personal experiences intact. Words are doubtless part of the whole, as are images, insights, and sensations. But I don't want to carry this idea too far: I don't mean to suggest that the Haruchai effectively share *one* mind--or that they all think alike. There's clearly a voluntary (and idiosyncratic) component in their mental "speech". Gee, did I use the word "liberal" in "The Runes of the Earth"? (And, speaking politically or ecologically, what does that word even *mean*?) I hope I haven't asserted that the "Covenant" books cannot be interpreted politically or ecologically. But I do insist that I didn't write them to promote my personal political or ecological--or even religious--convictions. What you find in my books is as much a function of *your* mind as it is of *mine*. (04/05/2006)

"What Has Gone Before" exists in the "Covenant" books because Lester del Rey commanded it. He considered some form of synopsis essential to the success of multi-volume fantasy (ref. LOTR). And while he was my editor (through "The Wounded Land"), he wrote the WHGB material himself. After that, my new editor continued the practice. And since WHGB has become part of the Covenant "template"--and because so many years have passed since "White Gold Wielder"--I did the job myself for "Runes". But I *hate* doing that kind of writing (reducing long years of work to a barely-articulate mumble), so I don't do it whenever I can avoid it. My editors for "Mordant's Need" and the GAP books saw no need for synopses, and I *gratefully* accepted their judgment. (04/05/2006)

My publishers will be of no help to you. They "remaindered" their editions long ago: as far as they are concerned, those books no longer exist. A helpful visitor to this site suggests: www.abebooks.com Apparently abebooks.com specializes in locating second-hand books in any format or condition you desire. I haven't tried it, but it might work. (04/05/2006)

Your Sauron/LF analysis seems accurate to me. I'm no expert on Sauron; but LF can't get what he wants without the destruction of "reality as we know it". Regardless of whatever I may or may not have said about LF as "the incarnation of Ee-vil" (the memory is the first thing to go--by which I mean that once it goes you no longer remember losing anything else <sigh>), he's still a contemptuous SOB. Finite beings are just so *puny*.... If he didn't laugh at lepers, he'd probably have to kill himself--except no, he can't do that because he's immortal. (btw, "immortal" for LF and "immortal" for the Elohim are two entirely different concepts. The Elohim are immortal *within the Arch of Time*. If time no longer exists, they won't either. LF doesn't have that problem.) (04/12/2006)

I've received some questions that seemed bizarre to me. But very few of them were intended that way. So why would I want to risk embarrassing well-meaning people who happen to think (very) differently than I do? (04/13/2006)

The Despiser is an immortal being. He's always going to find his way back to strength in one form or another. That form may vary according to the circumstances in which he finds himself. But since he can't be killed, he's bound to return. (And it's always theoretically possible that his servants work to restore him--or that he draws new energy from other evils, like the lurker of the Sarangrave, or from banes still hidden deep in the Earth.) The next book in "The Last Chronicles" will be "Fatal Revenant." (Information is posted under "news" on this site.) After that comes "Should Pass Utterly" and "The Last Dark." (04/13/2006)

Legends are like that. They're full of details which are difficult to trace. But I see no reason to assume that LF himself didn't tell the story. He might have a lot to gain by portraying Kevin that way. And he would *love* to spread the tale. How would LF tell the story? The easiest way would be through the Ravers; through people possessed by the Ravers; through people listening to people possessed by the Ravers. (04/13/2006)

I'm posting this, not because it asks a question (it doesn't), and not because I have anything new to say on the subject (I don't: as I've said before, epic fantasy--as I write it--is intended to reflect an "internal" rather than an "external" reality, and such things as Personified Evil are intended as *aspects* of that internal reality rather than as direct depictions of (over)simplified evil), but because issues are raised here which deserve attention. There are times when I'm both gratified and humbled by how thoughtful (I mean full of thought) my readers can be. (04/16/2006)

I suspect that the transmission of books in various forms through electronic media is the wave of the future. But at present, there simply isn't enough money in e-books for publishers to invest much time and effort in them. And my books, in particularly, don't sell well enough to inspire extra time and effort from my publishers. In addition, most people who are comfortable in the world of the Internet, e-mail, iPods, and PDAs don't realize that they are still a rather small segment of the general population. The last figures I saw indicated that only 10% of US homes have computers. The larger population isn't *ready* for e-books. And just to give you a bit of context: when "The Runes of the Earth" was high on ereader.com's bestseller list, it had sold somewhere between 20 and 25 copies. From a book publisher's perspective, that's chump change. So in the foreseeable future, no publisher is going to expend the time and effort to make my "back list" available in e-formats. (You may be interested to know, however, the DEL REY/Ballantine *does* want to release e-books for the first six "Chronicles". But DR/B doesn't own those rights: I do. And DR/B is unwilling to *pay* me for those rights. Well, as a career move, it's suicidal for an author to give away his/her work for free. I don't have the time, expertise, or money to become an e-publisher myself. And if I did, DR/B might sue me under the "competing publication" clause of my contract.) And that won't change unless I somehow become one or two orders of magnitude more successful than I am now. (04/16/2006)

Subjects like this tend to rile me. I'll try to stay calm. 1) You're right: once a book is published, criticism (valid or otherwise) doesn't do any good. During my writing and rewriting process, I seek out the most intensive feedback I can find, especially negative feedback. Mostly from my editors, my agent, and my friends. Then I'm done. 2) I didn't create the GI so that readers could review my work, positively or negatively. I took on this task to answer questions. Criticism (valid or otherwise) is out of place here. 3) There *is* no such thing as "valid" or "constructive" criticism--unless the person on the receiving end asks for it. If the recipient doesn't *ask*, he/she isn't, well, receptive; and the criticism is wasted. So it follows that what people choose to call "valid" or "constructive" criticism exists for the benefit of the critic, not for the good of the person being criticized. It serves the ego of the critic. 4) In my experience, so-called "valid criticism" is seldom based on an accurate reading of the text. Your critique of "The Man Who Fought Alone" is a good example. The text makes clear that Sternway and Hardshorn are acquainted with each other. Well, speaking as a man who has been beaten up people I know, I can assure you that there is nothing inherently "incriminating" about Hardshorn's protest. I've said similar things myself for the most obvious of reasons: I don't like getting beaten up, and I wasn't expecting it. In addition, Brew does *not* ignore Hardshorn's protest. In fact, he repeats it to himself several times. But he isn't in a very coherent frame of mind (again I speak from personal experience). In his condition, he finds it difficult to distinguish between "natural" protests and "incriminating" objections. If you still find his reaction--or lack of reaction--implausible, I can only surmise that you haven't been hit in the head as often as I have. So yes, it's probably fair to say that I'm "dismissive of negative feedback"--in this forum. It doesn't do me any good, it distorts the purposes of the GI, I didn't ask for it, and it tends to be debatable. But does any of this mean that I consider my work to be "above" criticism? Of course not. I'm at least as fallible as any other human being. And I'm more dedicated than most to learning from my mistakes. My only point is that I have reasons for being "dismissive of negative feedback" when I didn't ask for it. (04/19/2006)

"Must what?" Must experience the story, of course. Every writer is different. I know many; and I don't know anyone who works the way I do. However, I suspect that every writer needs to feel a sense of "discovery," of imaginative surprise, in one form or another. For me, that sense seems to come primarily from putting the story into words (truly telling it rather than merely summarizing or describing it). No doubt this is an effect of the fact that I see and feel most intensely through language. For other writers of my acquaintance, that sense of discovery or surprise seems to come from finding out what happens next. For others, the discovery is learning what kind of character would do what the story requires. There is no right or wrong approach. There is only "what works" for each individual writer. (04/19/2006)

1) I suppose I would have to mention "Dune," "Star Trek," and E. E. Smith's "Lensman" series. Also Asimov's original "Foundation" books. Blish's "Cities in Flight". But those are unconscious influences. I wasn't *thinking* about any of them when I wrote the GAP books. 2) I'm not really going to answer this question. But I will say this: what infuriates me the most is when talented writers produce stupid books. Usually I attribute the problem to laziness (or some other form of self-indulgence) because I find it difficult to believe that true talent and true stupidity can both exist in the same mind. (04/19/2006)

I'm a major "Buffy" fan. I enjoyed "Angel" and "Firefly" ("Serenity" not so much). Of course, Whedon didn't write *all* of those stories. But his dialogue (like his stories) often has serious power. Dialogue does *not* come easily to me. In fact, no other single aspect of my books gets rewritten as extensively (and intensively) as the dialogue. And yet-- As I get older, I find dialogue more and more *exciting*. (Com'on. Who else d'ya know who would use an "argument" for the climax of a fantasy novel?) No doubt that's why there's more dialogue in "Runes" than in any other "Covenant" book. (04/19/2006)

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.

Certainly the "background assumptions" of the "Chronicles" seem to imply that at one time (before the Earth was created) LF occupied the same version of eternity that the Creator does. If the Creator was OK with *that*, we can probably infer that he (He?) doesn't really care about keeping LF prisoner: he cares about his creation. In fact, if he could do so without destroying Time, he might conceivably set LF free just to spare his creation more pain. Two points. 1) Don't confuse "breaking in" with "breaking out". Those are two ENTIRELY different problems. They pertain to the nature of existence, eternal vs temporal--a distinction which I perceive to be vital, but which (sadly) surpasses my poor powers of explication. 2) It's worth asking, What's creation *for*? What was the Creator hoping to accomplish when he made the Earth? (04/19/2006)

I'm not sure I actually have a position on this. But I feel constrained to point out that the absence of a feeling of guilt does not necessarily imply an absence of guilt. Our world is rife with sociopaths, and none of them feel guilty. Does that make them innocent? Hardly. But it does allow them a certain, well, latitude in the exercise of power. I'm a storyteller: I'm not in the business of passing judgment. But I've seen that "power corrupts." Surely that's not an accident. (04/19/2006)

No, I haven't read Campbell's famous book. And I probably shouldn't. Anything that might make someone like me self-conscious tends to be damaging. ("Self-awareness" good: "self-consciousness" very bad. Although the distinction is hard to explain. Self-awareness involves being fully present in the task of the moment. Self-consciousness involves *watching* the task of the moment. People who feel self-conscious are almost always at their least creative.) (04/23/2006)

I'm glad you like "The Man Who" books. You're right: they would be much easier to make into movies than "Covenant". But then, almost everything I've written would be easier than "Covenant".... <sigh> I think you're making too much of a meal out of why the Ravers serve LF. In the real world, as we all know, people who *hate* are perfectly willing to nuke anyone, even their natural allies. Change the skin tone, or the accent, or the pagination of the holy texts, and EVERYONE is an enemy. But "Covenant" is fiction; and in fiction--especially in fantasy--writers are allowed (even expected) to concentrate their themes in ways which aren't always literally realistic. Certainly in fantasy, like attracts like. Giants are drawn to Lords. Ravers are drawn to the Despiser. And remember, LF's only *known* power is his ability to influence minds; to make other people and beings do his dirty work. Directing the energies of souls which are already full of hate (like the Ravers)? Piece of cake. Or perhaps I should say, Radial segment of baked confection. <grin> (04/26/2006)

With trepidation, I'm not filing this under "spoilers". A mistake, perhaps.... This whole conundrum would be much simpler if you accepted Mhoram's statement ("You are the white gold") as a metaphor. (He could have said of Linden in TROTE, "You are the Staff of Law".) In the kind of fantasy I write, power always comes from within (within the Earth, within Covenant, within the ur-viles, etc.). It may require an instrument of expression (white gold, a staff, Gildenlode, orcrest, whatever), but the instrument is primarily an enabling device: it isn't *really* the source of the power. And the source uses the instrument, not the other way around. Linden (or LF) can no more control Covenant through white gold than I can control you through my computer. Putting it another way: wild magic is an expression or manifestation of who Covenant is: *he* is not an expression or manifestation of what wild magic is (he's so much more than that). Sure, a certain kind of "power by proxy" is possible through *possession*. But such power is limited by the necesssity of freedom: possession violates the identity, the integrity, of the power-source, which weakens the power enormously. (04/26/2006)

The sales figures are clear: my least popular books are the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels. Even my short story collections sell better. Why? I'm just guessing. But I suspect that there are two factors. 1) Mystery readers want longer series, and they want the books in the series to appear more often. As an extremely broad generalization, mystery series don't "take off" until there at least 5 books. And the (many) years between Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels tend to conceal the fact that a series even exists. 2) Mystery readers (and they are not alone in this) *like* the conventions of their preferred genre; but the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels violate those conventions relentlessly. (04/27/2006)

Other readers of this site have had succcess with www.abebooks.com. Nothing I write sells well enough to justify hardcover reissues--except for things like omnibus editions from the Science Fiction Book Club. Paperbacks are another matter. WGW is readily available from Amazon.com. (04/27/2006)

Yes, the reference you noticed for "the last dark" is intentional. It's actually sort of difficult to find a Donaldson character who can't be viewed from a "psychoanalytical angle". <sigh> Goes with the territory of being me, I suppose. Certainly all of my characters (the main ones, anyway) seem to be engaged in some sort of struggle for identity. And the classic identity triangle (victim-victimizer-rescuer) can be found almost everywhere you look. Davies is only one (overt) example. Angus and Morn also qualify. (04/29/2006)

1) Sure, Elena could have done as you suggest. If she were a completely different person. And if you don't mind the fact that the whole remainder of the first trilogy falls completely apart. And achieving nothing more than a comparatively minor and brief victory doesn't bother you (sure, LF loses his home, and presumably also the Illearth Stone, but *he's* just fine, thank you very much, and he'll be back--soon). "Disasters which enable victory" are a constant theme in the "Chronicles". 2) The bad guys in big fantasy novels always seem to have this power. Who supplies all those orcs and other allies in LOTR? And what could possibly *grow* in the ruined earth which surrounds Foul's Creche? No, I think we have to assume that LF's armies are the product of magic, not any form of "natural" reproduction or food supplies. (04/29/2006)

If/when my publishers give their approval, I probably will post an excerpt from "Fatal Revenant" here. But I can't begin to guess *when* that might happen. Aside from the crucial issue of "approval," there's the complex question of supplying an excerpt which a) doesn't give too much away, and b) won't be rewritten before publication. (04/29/2006)

My dictionary agrees with yours; but there is also an implication of "culmination," of an epic process carried through to its final crisis/transformation. I think that Covenant's becoming a crucial part of the Arch of Time might qualify as "elevation to divine status". (OK, so he's not the Creator. But who is these days? <grin>) And the story certainly intends Covenant as "the perfect example" of a *redeemer*--or at least of an opponent for Despite. (04/29/2006)

No, I didn't have any premonitions of that kind. None whatsoever. I never actually expected to get published at all. (However, since my premonitions--when I do get them--are pretty much always wrong, I would probably be better off if I *had* had a premonition about the state of my subsequent career. <grin>) (04/29/2006)

No, I've never asked anyone's permission to dedicate a book. (And I do try to keep it a surprise.) Dedications are my way of saying "thank you" to people who have been especially important in my life. Since the dedications are about *my* emotions, not those of the dedicatee, I feel I have the right to express my gratitude publicly. (Of course, it probably depends on what the gratitude is *for* <grin>.) (04/29/2006)

Surely you realize that I can't answer your question without sounding disingenuous at best, and at worst downright specious? I'm afraid you'll just have to assume that: a) I don't have an answer, and I don't care; b) I do have an answer, and I don't want to reveal it; or c) I don't have an answer, and I'm going to scramble madly until I come up with one. <grin> Take your pick. (04/29/2006)

Hmm. Perplexing. Making a pronunciation guide available on this site is certainly do-able. And I can't imagine that my publishers would object. But think of the *work*! It's not like I don't already have plenty to do. And it's not like I actually care how people pronounce particular words (although I am bemused when readers correct *my* pronunciation). (04/29/2006)