John: Mr. Donaldson,
As always, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to your questions. It is greatly appreciated.
Now. Throughout the G.I., you have written of two influences: your unconscious and conscious mind. You have responded you have little idea of how you unconscious mind works, and are sometimes amazed at the results. You wrote, “An enormous amount of what I write is unconsciously rather than consciously motivated--which I consider a Good Thing.” Have you been able to discern if upon learning of the results of your unconscious mind your future writing has been affected? Sure, you still have your conscious mind to work with, but even so, has such knowledge altered/influenced what you will write? As an example, the use of blindness in some of your works. You wrote you were not aware of such an influence “until Anele came along.” Now that you are aware of it, has your work changed on a conscious level, for this or any other unconscious influence you now recognize?
This question may seem a bit strange--on an entirely different topic altogether--but I imagine you spend much of your waking hours before the computer. Have your hands and/or wrist suffered from such overuse? I have read that long hours of repetitive movement (typing)and overuse could possibly cause damage, nerve damage among them. Or do you take precautions to prevent such damage? I ask this because I truly hope such things have not happened to you (no one likes pain), and because selfishly, I thing such an 'illness' would prolong the publication of your books, which would then be hard for *me* to bear.
Best Wishes!
 |
When my conscious mind becomes aware of what my unconscious mind has been doing, it often affects *how* I write (the actual sentences) but now *what* I write (the shape of the story, the nature of the characters, etc.). *Unless* my conscious mind has been struggling to solve a narrative problem to which my unconscious already knows the answer. Then, when my unconscious deigns to reveal the answer, my conscious mind does exactly as instructed (with a huge sigh of relief, I might add). I *do* have a "repetitive motion" problem with my right thumb because I use a trackball instead of a mouse--and because I've been injured there several times. But it has no real impact on my work, or my quality of life. (05/01/2006) |
Phillip: Again, I can't think you enough for this opportuntiy to ask you a question or two. So, very quickly:
1.) I was catching up on your GI and I ran across a statement you made about expending considerable effort on trying to get a good, accurate map for Fatal Revenent. Now, since the regular map of the Land has been pretty much established, dare I assume that we are speaking of a map of somewhere else and that the location of the story will be moving outside the Land?
2.) Like many of your readers I am wondering how progress is coming on Fatal Revenant. I can understand why you would not want to address this in the GI, as you would be bombarded with questions from here on, but would it be possible to have your webmaster give us a very short update somewhere else?
|
1) No, the map I was referring to is a map of the Land. "Established" or not, the published versions of the "Covenant" maps have always been full of inaccuracies. Not being a visual person, I've just tried not to worry about that. After all, the general shape of the place *is* accurate. But since the rights to the old map belong to DEL REY/Ballantine, my new publishers naturally want a map of their own. Since I have to start from scratch anyway, I really want to get it right this time. 2) I'm not willing to "tease" people with my progress on "Fatal Revenant". Definitive information, when there is any, is posted promptly in the "news" section of this site. (05/03/2006) |
Dave: I hope this question hasn't come too many times before...
I have been writing for about a year now and I have found that a surprising number of scenes I write about come to me directly from a nightmare or a powerful dream.
In your creative processes, how often have you lifted a scene directly from a nightmare?
If you do have scenes like this, how often do you remain "true" to the dream?
Oh, and by the way, I have to say that somewhere here in the GI, you mentioned how much pre-planning you put into your work. Understanding this fact gave me the confidence to begin writing, and for that too, I have to say Thanks!
Dave
|
No, I've never drawn any material for my stories from any dream or nightmare. In fact, I don't generally have a very "rich" dream-life. I attribute this to the way in which the dream-making part of my nature is allowed to express itself in storytelling. Apart from some recurring nightmares--which have no literal connection to what I write--I don't seem to *need* dreams (I mean dreams that I remember when I wake up). However, the half-awake state immediately before or after sleep is sometimes fruitful. My most dramatic example: one night long ago, in that half-awake state, I "heard" every sentence describing every detail of the Celebration of Spring ("Lord Foul's Bane"). The next day, I simply transcribed what I remembered--which was pretty much everything. But I was young then. These days, the most I get is a glimpse of a scene, or perhaps a full sentence. The unconscious works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. (05/03/2006) |
Dangerous Dave in Denver: Dear brother Donaldson,
In December 2004 you stated that you "don't read Card because I don't approve of his stand on censorship (he's all in favor--as long as the Mormons get to do the censoring)."
Would you elaborate on that statement? I'm a Mormon. I own and read your work (as many other Mormons do). As far as I know, the church has not banned members from reading/buying SF/fantasy, or any other genre.
All I can tell you is that this Mormon will continue to buy and read your work for as long as you publish.
Thanks, Dave
|
I really don't have anything to add. I've heard Card speak passionately in favor of censorship. The view he presented in his speech is that his (Mormon) values are the *right* values, and that those values *should* be imposed on everyone else. Book burning is good--as long as it's done in accordance with Mormon doctrine. Of course, I'm perfectly well aware that a whole host of Mormons don't share his views. But my repugnance for his stated position defies utterance. (05/04/2006) |
phillip andrew bennett low: Quick question about the Gap series: why was everyone falling all over themselves to proclaim the antimutagen "the salvation of humankind" -- when it seemed to be a genuine concern that the moment the Amnion got their hands on it, they would be able to find a way to neutralize it? It can hardly be a very effective form of protection if it can't be used in a widespread, defensive manner.
|
Hmm. Are you absolutely sure that the Amnion *would* get their hands on it? And that they *would* be able to "neutralize" it "the moment [they] got their hands on it"? (And who is this "everyone" who's "falling all over themselves" anyway?) Sure, any new technology (biological or otherwise) only gives its wielder a temporary advantage. But sometimes wars are won with temporary advantages. And sometimes one temporary advantage buys enough time to create another. And another. (05/04/2006) |
A devoted fan.: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have a quick question regarding Fatal Revenant; will the same artist who did the cover art for Runes of the Earth do the cover art for the Putnam edition of Fatal Revenant? I thought the cover art for Runes was very good and was hoping that the subsequent books maintain a similar style so that you can tell they’re all books in the same collection.
Thanks for the great books!
|
Last I heard, Michael Whelan *does* plan to do the cover art for "Fatal Revenant"--with one condition: he isn't willing to work under the kind of deadline pressure that was placed on him for "The Runes of the Earth". (Makes sense to me: I feel the same.) So if my publishers try to do a rush job on FR, as they did on TROTE, we can probably count Whelan out. (05/04/2006) |
Scott Carpenter: Greetings. I must have read the first TC books around 1980, and have been a great fan ever since (I hope I'm not the only one to memorize verse from TC). The original trilogy was edited a bit, as I recall past "from the author" tidbits. Is there any possibility of releasing (in hardback, esp.) the original stories? The one chapter excerpt from the second book mentioned that you had to re-write the journey to Seareach as a report given by the bloodguard. I assume much was left unsaid in their traditionally terse account of events. Thanks for your time here, and know that your stories are much appreciated and enjoyed by us poor souls who would love to visit The Land. (If you want a proofreader, I'm free)
|
I hope I've said before--but it bears repeating--that I have no, zero, nada intention of publishing my "out-takes". Not under any conceivable circumstances. They are "out-takes" because the book is *better* with them, well, taken out. The passages to which you refer (from "The Illearth War") are merely the most dramatic examples of a process in which I believe passionately and engage diligently: improving my work by *honing* it. I'm much more concerned with cutting out *enough* than I am with cutting out *too much*. (05/05/2006) |
Usivius: "Words, words, words"... I love that line from Hamlet. So simple, yet in the context of the play, means so much for those who choose to see it.
Relative to this, I just want to say again, "Thank you for pointing me in the direction of Patricia McKillip." Point blank, you are my favourite fictional writer. Ms. McKillip now runs a close second. After gobbling up 4 of her books in a couple of months I am astounded at how words, from the proper mind/pen can do soooo much!
My elaborately drawn question has something to do with the subjective and objective view of writing: Are the 'best' writers those whose stories 'touch' people? And I guess the obvious answer is subjective: 'Whatever touches the reader is valid'. But I have a feeling it goes beyond this. There are etherial (objective) truths here, that some writers are better than others, AND some authors can 'touch' people (viscerally and to the core of their 'soul') like no others.
(Yes, another topic from me about creativity, but one I have tried to explore and question for many years). Any thoughts, o' wise and esteemed writer?
:)
U.
|
I'm not sure that your question *has* an answer. After all, there are plenty of readers who explicitly do NOT read to be "touched" as you describe. Their definition of "good" or "best" might have nothing to do with their emotional response (or lack of response) to a work of art--and might also tell *us* nothing about that work of art. Back in the days when I taught writing, I used to say (sometimes strenuously) that "Good is subjective: bad is objective." Just to pick one trivial example. Confusing pronoun reference is an "objective" problem: a writer who can't keep his/her pronouns straight actively prevents comprehension (which, I think we can all agree, is *not* a Good Thing). The same principle applies on every level of storytelling. But the farther we move from the objectively bad, the more we enter the domain of the subjective. I call Patricia McKillip "the most elegant and evocative stylist writing today." Someone else (this is purely hypothetical) might call her work "effete and juvenile." To such a reader, I could never *prove* that I was right. Nor could such a reader ever persuade me. No, I'm afraid that *time* is the only reliable judge. And I don't mean 5 years, or 10, or even 50. There are reasons why we read Shakespeare instead of, say, Marlowe, or James instead of Galsworthy. But the only convenient way I can think of describe those reasons is to say that Shakespeare and James have "passed the test of time." Not exactly original; but there it is. (05/08/2006) |
Phil: My question is about fantasy. What the hell is this genre, really? I've read your own description of the aspects of good fantasy, but I wanted to know if you had any comments about all the damn elves and dwarves and dragons lining the shelves at bookstores. Does fantasy really need to be written in a medieval-type period with magic and knights and all? Don't get me wrong, I like swords and magic and dragons (I could do without all the damned songs), but the term fantasy to me seems to not be constrained by these cliches. Why are these images so popular? Could it really have been Tolkien, or is this coming from somewhere more universal?
I'm trying to find my own voice as a writer and I love fantasy and relate to the epic struggles and such, but I'm just not sure I understand the current state of the genre enough to not make these mistakes. Any comments would be great.
|
Actually, there's a fair amount of what's called "urban fantasy" out there (fantasy in which "traditional" fantasy elements--e.g. elves, demons--intrude on "realistic" settings). There's "magic realism," in which unexplained "magic-like" powers influence "realistic" lives. There are entire sub-genres of werewolf/vampire fantasy (where "realistic" settings are crucial to the horror--and attraction--of the "monsters"). And there's fantasy which blends elements of fantasy and science fiction (China Mieville leaps to mind). My personal, condensed definition of fantasy: storytelling which uses metaphors of magic and monsters to explore what it means to be human. Certainly the marketplace is glutted with what's called "epic" or "high" fantasy (although most of it is too cliche-ridden, implausible--I mean the characters don't make sense--and even boring to deserve either of those labels). But that's because the ^#$%!@ stuff SELLS. Why does it sell? Your guess is as good as mine. Mine include: 1) People actually *like* cliches. They're familiar; therefore comforting. 2) There really is something archetypal, something profoundly human, about "medieval-type" settings, magic swords, dragons, etc.. Most cultures on this planet produce "fantasy" in one form or another, and in every example I'm aware of, "medieval-type" settings, magic weapons, and monsters like dragons play an important part. This can't be an accident. (05/10/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't think this has been asked...if you had to pick one book that you would be stuck reading the rest of your life, what would you pick? (The old stuck on desert isle question).
As an aside, I was looking at a copy of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation's Edge" today. The Dedication said: "Dedicated to Betty Prashker, who insisted, and to Lester del Rey, who nagged" this made me smile due to all the stories you've told us about the "love-hate" relationship you had with Lester - looks like other authors had similar experiences. :-)
|
This is a whimsical question, and I can only give it a whimsical answer. (And whimsy, by its very nature, changes constantly, so I might come up with a different answer ten minutes from now.) <ahem> At the moment, it's a toss-up between the complete poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins and George Meredith's sonnet sequence "Modern Love". But Hopkins' poetry would probably be a better choice. One could spend a lifetime learning the music of those lines. And "Modern Love" is SO full of sadness and pain.... (05/10/2006) |
Doug Lynch: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
Thanks for maintaining the GI in addition to your writing schedule. I find it fascinating to read your on-going dialogue with readers who all love your works.
Now on to a question, and it is admittedly a "light weight" one: I noticed that your literary agent is named "Howard Morhaim." Is it just a coincidence that "Morhaim" and "Mhoram" look a lot alike? I have searched the site in order to find out if this has been answered before, and it does not appear so.
|
And speaking of being whimsical: No, it's just a coincidence. I first created Mhoram close to ten years before I met Howard Morhaim. (05/10/2006) |
Jason Smith: Mr Donaldson,
I began reading your books at a very young age and was shocked when I walked into a bookstore and saw "The Runes of the Earth" after twenty years. After reading the new book (and finding your website) I remembered the one thing that bothered me about the Second Chronicles.
At the end of "The Power that Preserves", Lord Mhoram makes reference to finding a new way to serve the Land. Obviously, something happened to the Council of the Lords before the Sunbane took hold or they would have fought it. Did the Lord's abandon the use of Earthpower? In the new book the Haruchai believe Earthpower is the cause of evil in the Land and actively move to stop its' use. It seemed, at the end of "The Power that Preserves", that Mhoram was disenchanted with the way they (the Lord's)were using Earthpower and that their use ultimately led to Kevin invoking the Ritual of Desecration. I guess my question is: Was High Lord Mhoram partially to blame for the Land again falling under the grip of Lord Fould by steering the Lord's in a new direction?
|
Well, they say that "No good deed goes unpunished".... <grin> But no, I think it's a mistake to blame Mhoram for failing to foreseen *every* possible outcome of his actions--for *millenia*. Most of us can't foresee the effects of our actions an hour from now. You're holding him responsible for everything that everybody ever did for three and a half thousand years after he was High Lord. The Oath of Peace was a Good Thing. The fact that it gradually came to be misinterpreted (or interpreted in a restrictive way) doesn't invalidate it. Life is simply like that. People take the ideas they're given and move in new directions. Sometimes those directions are constructive: sometimes they aren't. The "fault"--if there is any--doesn't lie with the people who first came up with the ideas. Mhoram recognized the need to change how the Oath of Peace (and perhaps lore in general) had come to be interpreted. That was a Good Thing (witness his unprecedented victory in defense of Revelstone). He can't be blamed for the universal truth that "change happens". Nor can he be blamed for the fact that subtle manipulation guided (inevitable) change in a destructive direction. (05/17/2006) |
Stephen (from England): Dear Stephen,
Kind regards to you!
I hope you like my questions!
Question 1:
I read that after the success of the original "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever", (and you were thinking about may be doing a sequel) that you thought up the ideas for *both* the second and third chonicles at the same time!
As you have said elsewhere that your story-ideas very often begin with the story-endings (which you then build a story towards), I was wondering whether actually the idea for the third chronicles "arrived" before the idea for the second! Is this what happened? Did the idea for the third chronicles, give rise to the idea for the second?
Question 2:
Kevin Anderson has revealed on his "Dune 7 Blog" (at dunenovels.com) that he dictates his work into a microcassette recorder. Can you imagine ever working this way? Have you ever done it? And I wonder whether their are any oral storytelling competitions that you might have taken part in! And can hold your own in *telling* a tale "off the cuff"! :-)
I hope you have great fun and success. And I cheekily hope that you find unexpected joy in all future booktours! ;-)
Best wishes and thanks,
Stephen
|
1) The process was sequential. After the first trilogy, I realized that the story could *only* go to the conclusion of "The Second Chronicles"--and if it went *there*, then it would logically have to go where it's going now, toward the end of "The Last Dark". In other words, the ideas came in the order in which I'm using them. 2) I'm not really an oral storyteller. I couldn't write a *paragraph* aloud--in ANY form--never mind an entire story. (When my children were young, they used to ask me to make up stories for them--which I did by "tricking" them into actually making up the stories themselves.) In part, this is because I do a lot of flipping back and forth through what I've already composed--which would be impossibly unwieldy in an "aural" medium, so I would (in effect) have to memorize the story word for word as I composed it. The mere idea makes me want to scream. But another part of the explanation is that for me being creative is fundamentally "manual": it is utterly dependent on the interaction between my fingers and my imagination (Bronowski, I believe, talks about this eloquently in "The Ascent of Man"). Other writers are different, of course. Some can only create longhand. Some require a typewriter. And some--Henry James leaps to mind--are perfectly capable of dictating their work. Me, I just require a keyboard (although I dislike the "touch" of most modern computer keyboards). (05/17/2006) |
Allen: This may sound like an odd question but here goes -
A reviewer once wrote "Covenant is Donaldson's genius." Note that he did not say Covenant is a PRODUCT of Donaldson's genius; also, he did not say Covenant is a product of PURE GENIUS.
His remark makes me think Genius = duende or tutelary spirit. Do you feel in any way that Covenat represents in some fundamental way the core generative powers of your imagination and is not merely a product of your imagination?
Ok. Well, I told you it was an odd question.
Thank you for your consideration,
Allen
|
The reviewer in question definitely meant that Thomas Covenant was my "tutelary [or inspiring] spirit." The reviewer implied that without TC "The Chronicles" would not be worth reading--and neither would anything else that I ever wrote. But he was wrong. Whatever my "genius" may be (in his sense of the term), it isn't TC--or *any* of my characters. (05/17/2006) |
Sean Casey: If you could ask questions of your favourite authors in a GI-style forum (regardless of whether they're alive or dead), what kind of thing would you ask and of whom?
Thanks.
|
I wouldn't do it. Don't get me wrong: I like meeting writers I respect. But it isn't because I want to ask them questions. I like to express my appreciation. And I want to form an impression of who they are as human beings--which is something I can only do in person. (On the other hand, I don't want any of that enough to wait in line for it. <sigh> One reason I enjoy sf/f conventions is the opportunity to meet writers casually.) Basically I'm a one-to-one kind of guy. Forums like the GI are too impersonal for me. (05/21/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I saw in the news section that the first draft of "Fatal Revenant" was completed! Yeah! Congratulations, and thank you! I also saw that it is probably going to be longer than Runes but that you wrote it faster. Any comments on why this book, although longer, was produced quicker? Was it just that Runes was first and so it took a little extra time to get "back into" the story? Was this one more fun and so went faster? Am I postulating on something I know nothing about and so should just shut up now?...
|
"Fun" has nothing to do with it. This story is only going to become more and more difficult to write as it goes along. No, the fact that I was able to write "Fatal Revenant" more quickly than "Runes" has to do with the decreasing complexity of the decision-making process. I know exactly where I need to go in the story; but at the beginning of "Runes" I was, say, 1,200,000 words--and at least 1,200,000 possibilities--away from my destination. Finding my way toward my goal, and only my goal, through such a vast thicket of words, actions, interactions, characters, emotions, etc. is an enormous challenge. But each choice, each decision, eliminates all of the *other* choices that I could have made at that particular moment. So at the end of "Runes," I was "only" 900,000 words, and 900,000 possibilities, away from my destination. Believe it or not, a 25% reduction in the sheer complexity of the decisions ahead of me does make certain aspects of writing the story easier. Sadly, as the complexity of my decisions declines, the complexity of my characters' emotions increases. Where Linden is at the start of "Runes" is far simpler than where she is at the start of "Fatal Revenant". So as the story goes along, it becomes less and less a test of my ability to make decisions and more and more a test of my ability to understand the implications of those decisions. Still, it's an historical fact that I do tend to write faster as I get closer to my original reason for telling the story. I attribute this to, well, Grace--i.e. the mystery of my subconscious mind. I wrote the last three chapters of "Fatal Revenant" much faster than the first three--and it sure ain't because I became smarter, more talented, or younger. <sigh> (05/21/2006) |
Karen: Hi there
Hope you are well.
I have a question about the chronicles and some of this may form a Runes Spoiler.
Is it in any way significant that Joan was the one who selected white gold as the metal for the wedding rings? Is this what gave Covenant the power of the wild magic, because he didn't consciously choose it for himself in much the same way he didn't choose to enter the Land? Does this also therefore, mean that in the Last chronicles Joan is not free because she did choose and that is why the attacks on the Land in the Last chrons are in the form of casures rather than a direct attack on the Arch?
Sorry actually 2 questions:
I am also a little confused about the necessity of freedom in the sense that in the 2nd Chrons, Covenant believes because he made a choice about his course of action that he is in a sense no longer free. Does this just mean he is no longer keeping the Despiser guessing as to what his intentions are and if so, curtails his freedom in the sense that his options are no longer open? Of course he could've always changed his mind!
|
No spoilers here. No, I've never considered it significant that Joan chose white gold for the wedding rings--except to the extent that it underscores Covenant's initial perception of his own helplessness. As the story progresses, his relationship with himself modulates (he becomes determined to take action in spite of his perceived helplessness), and so the fact that Joan chose white gold originally becomes less and less meaningful. (To use an overly-dramatic analogy: none of us chose to be born, but that doesn't spare us from responsibility for our own actions and commitments.) If you're confused about "the necessity of freedom," that's probably because Covenant himself is confused. <sigh> By committing himself to the Land, he hasn't really surrendered his "freedom" (after all, he chose that commitment freely): he's only surrendered his unpredictability (which in turn makes him easier to manipulate: an important detail in "The Second Chronicles"). If he had indeed given up his "freedom," his power would be thereby contricted, and he wouldn't need to worry so much about destroying the world. (05/24/2006) |
tia: Has your 'gap series' been recorded for any type of 'book on tape'? We own the books, love them and would love to own them on tape. Thank you so much.
|
Long ago, "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" were released on heavily-abridged tapes. But they didn't sell at all, so the project was dropped. The Library of Congress "Books on Tape" program may or may not include the GAP books: I don't know. But I don't think that those tapes are for sale to the general public. (05/24/2006) |
Andrew Roy: Mr. Donaldson,
In reading the Wounded Land (which was the first I had read - a birthday gift) I had to read the whole series start to finish about six times. I would also like to say that there are too few books today that are *worth* picking back up. I love the chronicles and am *super* happy that you picked them up again.
A couple of questions: (From Wounded Land) You wrote the only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken. I'm curious as to the origin of this staggering revelation.
(From the Gap Series) I loved this series as much as the chronicles and was amazed by the versatility you've shown in writing an epic fantasy double trilogy then the Gap Series. In the Gap Series, most chapters (I believe the Real Story is excluded) are named after a character, and set up to be their perception of the events that progress. I've never before seen it done in that fashion and it fascinated me as to how you as the author now had an even greater measure of control as to the experience of the audience. Is this a "Stephen R. Donalson" original idea, or were you inspired by something else you had read?
|
"Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayeth the preacher. There is nothing new under the sun." Sometimes I think that an idea is original. But I can't swear to it because I never know what my unconscious mind has picked up while I'm not looking--or what my conscious mind has conveniently chosen to forget. As far as I know, the "only way to hurt a man" idea is original. But I'm not sure. On the other hand, I *am* sure that the way I named chapters in the GAP cycle is NOT original: I simply can't remember where I've seen it before. <sigh> (05/24/2006) |
Peter B.: In the G.I. you stated (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that the reason Lord Foul doesn't simply rouse the Worm of the World's End himself is that he's afraid of being eaten. I would like to point out that he has a natural defense--he would taste QUITE foul.
It seems incongruous, though, that the Worm could really make Lord Foul squirm. Even if Foul were diminished for countless centuries from the encounter and floated in the vastness of space without real substance he would still be free, wouldn't he? The only way his hesitancy makes sense would be if such an action, and its resulting incapacitating consequences, would put Foul at the mercy of the Creator.
Then again, everything Foul does and strives for is through the manipulation of events, and is dependent upon an individual's freedom of choice. One could argue that the Creator operates in a similar manner, albeit in a less direct manner and more benign. One can see them then as separate metaphors, underlying landscapes of human thought and direction. And when was the last time an archetype, even a powerful one, ever DID anything by itself?
|
Matters of "taste" aside <grin>, you raise some interesting points. Certainly both the Creator and Lord Foul work indirectly. I would argue, however, that the Creator does so because he respects the independent integrity of his own creation, while Lord Foul does so because he's trapped within that creation, and indirection is required of him by the nature of his imprisonment. (If he could rouse the Worm himself and escape, he would have done it eons ago.) There are strong similarities to the "Chained God" in Erikson's "Malazan" books. The Chained God can do many things, but he can't shatter his fetters. He has to get other powers to do that for him. (I say this only having read the first five books, so I can't be sure where the story is going.) (05/24/2006) |
Andrew: Mr. Donaldson:
I am a huge fan of your work and had read the first and second chronicles 5 times over. I am fascinated by the Haruchai and more so by the Bloodguard.
In the second chronicles in Andelain Bannor had requested that Thomas Covenant redeem his people as their plight was an abomination. It's never a gentle story for these Haruchai, but now in the final chronicles the Masters serve Foul as surely as the Ravers. Cail's son is as full of self loathing as Covenant himself at his worst moment. Their plight is as bad or worse now, and their history, originally haunted only by their failure of letting Kevin Landwater send them away for the Ritual of Desecration, is now plagued by failure.
In Runes of the Earth, Stave, at his own peril, has chosen to take a path that differs from the group. I'm no Haruchai expert, but the only other times that this had occurred ended badly. Bannor revealed the seventh ward, the bloodguard with the chip of the illearth stone tried to confront Corruption and were maimed in Covenant's image, and there was Cail who threw himself to the merewives. (I exclude Brinn - by my knowledge, any Haruchai would be honored to try himself against the guardian of the One Tree.)
Knowing that in your books, old concepts don't die off, but lie dormant waiting to gain collossal magnitude, my question is this:
Knowing that this redemption is still pending, will three books be enough?
|
Ha! This sounds like a roundabout attempt to trick me into a spoiler. <grin> But seriously: I'm just me. I don't have any God-like powers. (If I did, I would be a danger to all of us.) Only time will tell whether I'm capable of achieving my intentions. But I can tell you this: there ain't going to be any more than three more books. Win or lose, triumph or disaster, "The Last Chronicles" will have four--and only four--volumes. (05/24/2006) |
J C Bronsted: This may seem a strange question.
I believe you said you write on a computer. Do you compose in standard manuscript formatting? (Courier 12, double-spaced, etc) And if so, do you print those pages during the first draft?
This question as I type it suddenly reminds me of John Gardner's observation that the most frequent question many people asked at university was "Do you write with a pen, a typewriter, or what?", and that he "suspect[ed] the question is more important than it seems on the surface. It brings up magical considerations--the kinds of things compulsive gamblers are said to worry about: When one plays roulette, should one wear a hat or not, and if one should, should one cock it to the left or to the right?" ... "The Question...also implies questions about...vision and revision, and at its deepest level, asks whether or not there is really, for the young writer, any hope." (Gardner, On Becoming a Novelist, 119)
Not to levy too much significance on my question of passing curiosity <grin>
[again, tremendous thanks for this forum]
|
Gardner raises some fascinating issues. But your question itself was simple: I'll stick to that. I use a 14-point non-proportional font, Financial. It puts a different number of words on a page than Courier 12, but I find it easier to read, and I became accustomed to it a *long* time ago. I double-space (so that I'll be able to see the words more clearly). And I print out everything, in part so that I'll have a backup (one of many), and in part because sometimes working longhand with a piece of paper helps me to think in new ways. But I compose on legal (8 1/2 X 14) paper instead of normal manuscript pages (8 1/2 X 11). I started doing this back in my typewriter days, when using longer pages meant that I had to roll in new sheets less often. But I've continued the practice because it saves paper. Incidentally, I use the cheapest paper I can find. And I often reuse paper, printing out one novel on the back of another. I only use "good" paper when I submit a (normal size) manuscript to my publishers. (05/24/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I'll ask this question, although you may not wish to answer. I was thinking about the current state of modern fantasy. Just glancing around my own bookshelves and the fantasy/sf bestseller lists it seems that we (being readers of fantasy) are being bombarded with what I would like to call "the neverending series". I understand authors, the popular ones anyway, can make a great deal of money "milking a series" for want of a better term. I'm sure most would deny they are doing this, but geez...Brooks comes out with a new Shannara book EVERY year. Feist publishes a new riftwar book almost every year. Don't get me started with Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time. Terry Goodkind also seems to be stuck on the Sword of Truth. I know most people would just say, "so, don't read them". Some I am considering doing just that - but I guess my complaint is the time/money investment I've made in reading the earlier novels (not knowing most of the time that the series I've just started reading may NEVER END). Plus, I like theses authors, they are smart people, can't they give us some NEW stuff. I know you had questions about returning to Thomas Covenant, but hey, at least you said - boom, it's going to be four books, here are their titles - read'em if you want. Sorry for the rant, so to my question - what do you think of all this? I know you probably don't read any of the series I mentioned (from what I've gathered earlier in the GI) but you must have some thoughts on how modern fantasy is being sold and marketed to us unwashed masses. My own personnel feelings, and all of the above is JUST MY OPINION, is that in the long run this is bad for the genre.
|
OK, without discussing anyone specifically.... First, we all have to live with Sturgeon's Law (at least I *think* it's Sturgeon's Law): 90% of everything is junk. That's unfortunate; but it ain't gonna change. Second, writers (even some of the writers you've listed) often complain about the same thing you do. It's a market-driven problem: series sell. They sell better than anything that stands alone. And "never-ending" series, series which can (at least in theory) repeat themselves eternally without ever doing anything imaginative or original or insightful, sell better than any other kind of series. Even publishers complain: they say that they get tired of publishing the same old thing year after year. But what can they do? They're in the business of making money; and the market has proven over and over and OVER again that repetitive, open-ended, pointless series make more money than anything else. Personally, I consider this a symptom of the fact that our society is in decline. But then that's just *my* opinion. <sigh> (05/27/2006) |
Daniel Bauer: Regarding the second chronicles:
At first, I was put off by Elemesnedene and what seemed to me to be the ephemeral whims of the Elohim. After time, I came to understand their purpose in the story and thier need to be polar opposite to Vain (whom I adored). Not that I liked them any more, but I understood their purpose. But, the essense of the Elohim's nature leaves me with a question:
The people with a permanent-yet-ephemeral existance (is that possible?) have a literal creation theory. The theory is validated in "the one tree" when the quest nearly wakes the worm of the world's end. It seems odd to me that beings that can change their physical characteristics with a thought and an attitude of "do whatever makes you happy" would have a true literal understanding of the creation of the world. Perhaps it's not actually a question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
On a totally different vane: Another author I've read claims to never have suffered from writers block because he's never stopped writing. I wonder if you've suffered writer's block or have thoughts on how to get over it.
Again, thanks for taking the time to communicate with your readers. Your stories are wonderful, and do stand on their own - but your dialoge adds depth I appreciate.
|
The Elohim are part of their world. In some ways, they are an *essential* part of their world. How could they *not* have a literal view of creation, in one form or another? (btw, I wouldn't describe the Elohim as "permanent-yet-ephemeral". The Giants got it right (as usual): "permanence at rest, and permanence in motion". The Elohim are a defining example of "permanence in motion".) People use the term "writer's block" to cover a wide and conflicting variety of problems. As a result, writer's block itself becomes difficult to talk about. So: my understanding of writer's block (which is not at all original with me: I may have gotten it from Bruno Bettleheim) is as a paralysis induced by (premature) self-criticism. The writer cannot put anything down on paper because nothing seems good enough. This may well be an over-simplification. Nonetheless it's useful because it gives us something we can actually talk about. No. I've never suffered from writer's block. A very long time ago (in college, actually) I learned a crucial lesson: whenever I sit down to write, I have to give myself permission to write badly. Not because I want the eventual result to be anything less than excellent, but because paralysis is a far worse problem than inadequacy. If what I write sucks, I can always rewrite. But if I don't write at all, I'm dead right from the start. Writing enables writing ("service enables service"). A music analyst/historian named Newman (I'm sure I've quoted this before) wrote of Beethoven, "A great composer does not compose because he is inspired. He becomes inspired because he is composing." This is vital to the creative process. But from time to time I *have* experienced what I call "life block": a paralysis induced by pain, trauma, abuse, fear, depression, PTSD, whatever you want to call it. At those times, I can't write, not because I'm self-critical, but because the act of writing causes more pain (emotional, not physical) than I can stand. Later I get over it. Which has taught me (far too late in life) that in addition to giving myself permission to write badly, I also need to give myself permission to tend to my own well-being. (05/28/2006) |
Michael Hand: I have been a major fan ever since first picking up Lord Fouls Bane, and have read the first and second chronicles countless times. I was ecstatic to hear of the release of the first book in the last chronicles.
I am perturbed, however, about the release date of the last book in the 'Last Chronicles'. On www.kevinswatch.com, the release date for 'The Last Dark' is shown as 2013.
According to the Mayan prophecies the world is going to end in December 2012 which means we are all going to miss out on the last book.
Would it be possible for you to have the series complete so we can all read the conclusion before the end of the world?
|
It's possible that "human error" has led to a few small miscalculations about when the end of the world will actually occur. I see no reason to believe that the publication of "The Last Dark" won't coincide exactly with (or even cause) the end of the world. <grin> (05/28/2006) |