NF from AU: Are you ever frustrated by the fantasy genre?
I ask this with respect, as part of my favourite memories of reading will always begin with your Convenant books, and out of general interest. I ask this because, many years ago, I wanted to write fantasy, and believed that it would be enough. Part of this came from looking up to your writing (as well as others, particularly C.S. Lewis). Now I write something along the lines of realism, where the protagonist must challenge public definitions of reality to find authenticity. I wouldn't call it realism, but the fictional mode is obviously based in this particular world and history.
Your general subject is universal, the complexity of human character, and your setting contains many trajectories of human imagination, which is why your books are fascinating and picturesque, and stand above genre in their relevance. Can you state what you love most about sci-fi and fantasy, which lets you write in those forms with satisfaction of the result, over pursuing other genre?
Best, and, always, with gratitude,
NF from Down Under.
 |
In most respects, your question doesn't make sense to me. The ideas that I get for stories usually imply the form (or genre, if you prefer) they require in order to be told; and if the ideas *don't* imply the form, they remain static in my imagination until I find the right form for them. In a very real way, form enables storytelling. So what is there to get frustrated *about*? The mystery writer Ross MacDonald was once asked why he wrote mysteries instead of, say, "serious" literature. Or so I've heard. He replied that the mystery form was what made writing *possible* for him. Well, it's certainly true for me that fantasy is what makes writing possible. (In fact, I wouldn't be able to write either sf or mysteries if I didn't first write fantasy.) My mind and imagination are what they are: I didn't choose them. And I don't choose my ideas. I often get frustrated with my ability (or inability) to carry out my ideas. And I absolutely get frustrated with the disdain many people feel toward "genre writing." But I can't think of a reason to feel anything except gratitude for the forms my ideas take. Without those forms, I wouldn't be able to write at all. Trying, however, to consider your question in a purely abstract, intellectual sense--well, I still can't think of a reason to feel frustrated. As an intellectual (in some sense a trained student of literature), I consider fantasy to be the "purest" form of storytelling. By its very nature (except in the hands of bad writers), it addresses more directly than any other form THE BIG QUESTION: what does being human mean? What is the significance (if any) of being who and what we are? In my (possibly self-serving) view, it's impossible to address that question directly without taking into account the dramatic discrepancy between our inner and outer "realities"; between, say, the ability to dream and the necessity of living in the mundane world; between what we're capable of loving and what we're capable of demonstrating. (In purely practical terms, human beings are *very* poorly suited to live in the mundane world--a fact which seems to lead most intellectuals into either cynicism or despair.) As I see it, this discrepancy is the natural subject-matter of fantasy. Even fantasy writers who don't acknowledge the discrepancy overtly write about it incessantly. In contrast, other forms (of every kind) require writers to approach THE BIG QUESTION more obliquely. More oblique approaches, I hasten to add, have their own virtues and rewards. If they didn't, I wouldn't love Conrad and James and Faulkner (and Meredith and Scott--Paul and Walter--and...) as much as I do. But I'm inclined by both nature and experience to write about the things that cause me the most trouble when I try to fit myself into my actual life. (05/03/2007) |
Captain Maybe: It was very interesting to see Jeremiah as a fully able character in the preview of chapter one. It made me think of Davies Hyland (Jr). Both characters suddenly come out of nowhere with fully formed minds (though Davies borrowed his, of course), and each is the child of the two main protagonists (Jeremiah is Covenant's son in as much as Covenant is Linden's partner). Does Jeremiah represent a way for you to redress the failings you feel you made with Davies? Or given that the idea of Jeremiah was presumably in your mind for the duration of the Gap series, was Davies a way of practicing for writing Jeremiah (a la Queen, I mean King Joyse and Warden Dios)?
|
A couple of things. First, you're asking questions that involve looking at my work in retrospect. But of course I don't *write* it in retrospect: I write looking forward. And I only think about the story I'm working on at the moment. I don't "carry forward" issues from work I've already completed (at least not consciously), or plan future stories based on the story I'm writing now. Sure, I can argue as well as anyone that King Joyse was a "warm-up" for Warden Dios. But to do so devalues King Joyse as himself--and falsifies how I thought and felt about Dios when I was working on the GAP books. Retrospect reveals--and distorts--many things. Second, the more you, well, get to know Jeremiah, the less you'll want to compare him to Davies Hyland. Which is about all I'm willing to say on *that* subject. <rueful smile> (05/05/2007) |
Bob Benoit: Dear Stephen -
I once asked you a question concerning the "Lysol in the Circle K" reference that you had made in regards to your ideas, and I read it again recently when read the afterword to The Real Story. (I really enjoyed that Afterword, especially your summar of Wagner's story.)
So I have two questions: 1) Do you know of any novelization or dramatization of the Rhinegold story? 2) Obviously Wagner's story had a direct impact on The Gap books, but it would seem that there are some connections to the Covenant books as well. To what extent (consciously and unconsciously) is that true?
Thanks again for your time.
BB
|
1) Aside from the original source of Wagner's story ("The Elder Eddas"?), I'm not aware of any "novelization or dramatization of the Rhinegold story". Which doesn't mean much, considering that I read very slowly, and have a tendency to be rather isolated. 2) I think I've discussed Wagner's effect on my work in general elsewhere in the GI. But briefly. Of course, there's my use of the "lietmotif," on which I've relied more and more as the years go by. Of course, there's the *lush* nature of the "Covenant" prose (and Wagner's music is nothing if not lush). But in addition, there's the "operatic" quality of the dialogue, especially in the first six books. My characters (at least in those books) don't really have conversations with each other: they're more inclined to make speeches to each other. Well, arias connected by comparatively small amounts of recitative are normal in opera; but Wagner carried the approach further than most other composers (so far, in fact, that virtually everything can be seen as a form of aria). Of these three influences (if you want to call them that), the first was/is the most conscious and the third was/is the most unconscious. (05/05/2007) |
duchess: A recurring symbol in Mordant's Need is the call of horns in the distance. As a music lover, I have often wondered if you were thinking of any particular piece of music or any particular musical group (such as the Canadian Brass)as you wrote those scenes in the book?
|
No, I was thinking more along the lines of hunting-horns heard from a distance. Which is appropriate to the story, considering that most of the characters are hunting for their own identities. (05/05/2007) |
Jeff: When this question was asked.How was Kevin able to become so powerful andLater lords spent lifetimes trying to understand a small fraction of what he knew and was capable of doing.
Was it not the oath of peace that kept the new lords from learing Kevins lore?
I have wondered also who was your favorite character that you have written about. I am torn between saltheart bannor and mhoram
|
Certainly the efforts of the new Lords to relearn Kevin's Lore from scratch were inhibited by the Oath of Peace (or by their interpretation of the Oath of Peace): the text says so explicitly. But it's also conceivable that the Old Lords had some advantages in their acquisition of lore that the new Lords lacked. And then--pure speculation here--it's not unimaginable that Kevin's "curriculum" for his future "students" wasn't well designed (he was, after all, working under difficult conditions). Just a couple of ideas, for what they're worth.... My "favorites" change from day to day, mood to mood, context to context, even minute to minute. At the moment, I'm feeling especially fond of Hashi Lebwohl. (05/06/2007) |
Dan: Hi Steve-
This is a simple question(s) that may have been touched on before (I've read the whole interview but it's been a while). I read the first 2 chronicles in the early eighties and am re-reading them now in anticipation FR in October and I am more engrossed now in this story than I was before! It brings back the same frustration (with TC)and fascination that I remember as a young adult. My question is out of the countless letters and emails over the years have you identified what it is about your story/characters that captivates us the readers and makes us care so much and crave more? I was also wondering what it feels like to know how profoundly you've affected so many readers lives? I know that I drew strength and even courage back then and still now I do from the Chronicles, and that it can't help but transfer into my life. Thanks for this interview, it is great on many levels.
ps. pre-ordering FR now and excited about the GAP movie option!
|
Since you described your questions as "simple," I'm going to try to answer them simply (although they are of course anything *but* simple <sigh>). Based on my mail, the GI, and conversations with readers, I get the impression that people are drawn back to "The Chronicles" by one (or both) of two things: an attraction to the Land, with all of its magicks, beauties, and dangers; and/or a strong identification with Thomas Covenant, whose sense of alienation, struggles with despair, and striving to find wholeness/love/meaning seem universal to those readers. For some, the Land provides an escape--an escape which is made especially attractive or gripping because it is genuinely endangered. For others, Thomas Covenant suggests a kind of hope (if *he* can find a way, perhaps finding a way really is possible). It's very gratifying to hear that my work has meant so much to so many people. But I distrust my own sense of gratification. Two reasons. First, it's based on ego; and ego interferes with the kind of work I want to do. Second, when I'm told that my work has affected a reader's life, I suspect that there is an inadvertent but profound illogic at work. People change their own lives: I don't do it for them. My work may (or may not) serve as a catalyst or (I hate to use this term) role model for change; but the *credit* for the change belongs to the person who does the changing, not to me. Under the right circumstances, ANYTHING can be a catalyst or role model. (Someday when I'm feeling mellow, and I have *lots* of free time, I'll describe how "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" changed my life. <grin>) Therefore I do everything in my power to avoid taking my own sense of gratification seriously. (05/07/2007) |
John: What is your favourite cover art for Lord Foul's Bane?
|
The first British cover from Fontana. Hands down. Indeed, Fontana did beautiful work for all of their original editions of the first six "Covenant" books. (05/07/2007) |
Tink: You have been mentioned in this blog and a discussion was raised. I thought it would be a thrill if you would be so kind as to drop in with an answer to this question for us. Thank you, thank you.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=802
Comment #50 (April 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am)
tednugentkicksass says: I'm
reading the second chronicles of Thomas Covenant right now and I came upon this gem. what the hell does "unambergrised" mean? I can't think of a better place to ask. I know what ambergris is but what the hell does this mean?
|
In a (perhaps doomed) effort to preserve my own sanity, I don't contribute to--or even visit--blogs. Lifeistooshort etc.. But "unambergrised". A great word, which (if memory serves) I stole from Gerard Manley Hopkins. Think of it like this. Long ago, ambergris (noun) was sometimes used to prepare bodies for funerals; more literally, to counteract the stink of an unburied body until an appropriate funeral (a show of respect and love) could be arranged. Inventing a verb from the noun, "to ambergris" denotes "to prepare a body for a funeral." By implication, therefore, the verb connotes treating something deceased or lost with love and respect. From there, it isn't hard to invent an adjective from the verb: e.g. "Men wept over her ambergrised corpse." And from *there*, it's a small step to the adjective "unambergrised," which means--drumroll, please--the opposite of "ambergrised". Which in turn brings us, through a series of connotations, to the unintended accuracy of asking, "What the hell does 'unambergrised' mean?"--"hell" having suddenly become appropriate to the discussion (via "treating something deceased or lost with contempt and/or disregard"). (I hear carping in the background, but I choose to ignore it. <grin>) (05/07/2007) |
Matthew Verdier: Hello Mr. Donaldson. The Chronicles have been my favorite series of books since I was a teenager and I still reread the series about once a year to this day. The emotional ranges explored in the books is tremendous, and for all the wonders we have in nature and science in the real world I am a little saddened that we have no giants to cherish. A world with out huge people with salt yearnings, loquacious demeanors and gentle hearts is similar to one that lacks a color of the rainbow in my opinion.
I also am an Ex Lego Afficianado, and was surprised and pleased to see the references to Lego in Runes. I was a little disappointed that it never occured to me to build a replica of Revelstone during all my Lego years. If you are curious, I have pictures of my models at http://www.mattandsusieq.com/mjvlego. I did win Cool Lego Site of the Week on three occasions back when I was still building if that can at all sway you to spend a few minutes perusing an old hobby of mine. I have spent so many hours enjoying your creations that I have a desire to share some of my lesser creations with you. But, hey no pressure! ;)
Hmm, Lets see, praise for your great work, statement of its impact on me, shameless plug of my website...I guess there was supposed to be a question in here somewhere. Let me see..... oh, hey, I know!
(tongue planted firmly in check) Imagine Joan Covenant (Lets face it, who picks the rings? All of this was her fault) had picked out not a White Gold set of rings but a Rose Gold or even Green Gold set of rings to marry our favorite Leper and the possible impacts this decision it would have had on Thomas during his time in the Land. If White Gold controls wild magic and Yellow Gold can be used for certain magical expressions ala Kaseryn, what are the possible uses of Green Gold and Pink Gold? Is it sort of like other colors of Kryptonite and Kryptonians? Would Green Gold kill TC and Red Gold make him loose his inhibitions?
Seriously, thank you for all you have written.
"Stone and Sea!"
|
All seriousness aside: your question assumes that the Land exists independent of Covenant (or Linden); *and* that it pre-dates him (or her). But you can't base your thinking on hypotheses which violate the known facts of the case. ("How different would the story be if everything on which it's based were different?" Gee, I dunno.) Even your notion that Joan picked white gold contradicts my experience, since I picked all of *my* wedding rings. Really, you'll have to try harder than THAT if you want me to think you're joking. (05/07/2007) |
Daniel Wolf: Mr Donaldson.
I had a look at the list of your publications that appears on this site. It said that the first three Covenant books were all published in the same year. I was very suprised. I had always assumed that they would have been released over three or five years. So did you have all three written before Lord Fouls Bane was published? I'm guessing, yes. Could you please explain these events? I imagine that as a young writer, you would have been very happy after all those rejections. Was there so much demand for the first novel that the other two were on the shelf as soon as possible? I mean three in a year,and now only one every three years. Has the publishing process changed so much. 2013 Hurrah!
Dan
|
(I think I've already been over this. If so, the answer is buried SOMEwhere in the bowels of the GI.) Speaking of hardcovers: yes, I had all three books written (and rewritten) before I ever found a publisher. With one exception (which I'll explain shortly), the three volumes of the first "Covenant" trilogy weren't just "all published in the same year": they were all published on the same day. Once Lester del Rey decided to publish LFB et al, his wife (and nominal boss), Judy-Lynn, read them--and promptly concluded that they would be hard to sell. ("They aren't books you can just laugh your way through over the weekend," or words to that effect.) So she came up with the brilliant tactic of persuading a "literary" hardcover house (Holt, Rinehart & Winston) to publish the trilogy before it came out in paperback--and to release all three books on the same day. This unprecedented publishing gambit attracted a vast amount of attention, primarily from reviewers (literary hardcover, all on the same day, wow, this must really be something special). As a result, the paperbacks (which began appearing less than a year later) sold by the truckload. (To her discredit, Judy-Lynn later refused to let HR&W publish "The Second Chronicles". But since Holt--in its present incarnation--is still getting royalties from the first three paperbacks, the company has never complained. Nonetheless I've always thought that retaining Holt might have enabled "Covenant" to remain in the mainstream, instead of being consigned to a much-maligned "genre".) The exception? Before she came up with her "Holt" idea, Judy-Lynn sold the bookclub rights for LFB (but not the subsequent books) to the Science Fiction Book Club. When the SFBC learned that Holt was going to release the whole trilogy on the same day in October, they rushed LFB into print almost immediately; so the true first edition of that book came out in April rather than October of 1977. Still the same year, of course, just not the same day. Yes, publishing has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Among many other changes, "genre" publishing has taken over the world--as has disdain for genre publishing. But I've changed as well. It simply isn't possible for me to write as quickly (not to mention obsessively) as I once did. (05/07/2007) |
John: I was re-reading the questions and answers about C.S. Lewis. Although as an adult you got bored with the Narnia books, I wonder what you think of Lewis' other fiction: the Ransom (Space) trilogy, Till We Have Faces; The Great Divorce and Screwtape Letters would probably fit this category as well.
In regard to Chronicles of Narnia being too preachy: Coming at it from the perspective of being a preacher, they seem to me to be a creative way of telling the Story. But I can understand how readers who are not looking for that kind of retelling could be disappointed or disillusioned. Although, as you mention, many people have been turned off by Lewis' content, by some accounts a lot of Narnia fans didn't pick up on the biblical allusions and were surprised to discover that Lewis was a Christian writer.
Thanks for the gradual interview--it's always interesting. Looking foward to Fatal Revnant.
|
When I speak of other writers (e.g. C. S. Lewis), I'm just expressing my opinions. And opinions (by definition) are personal, idiosyncratic, and of limited application. I hope that I don't claim any particular "authority" for my views. If I do, I shouldn't. My opinions are just my opinions, nothing more. Over the course of my life, I've been bludgeoned with too much (judgmental, demeaning, even abusive) preaching. The preacher who delivered my mother's eulogy used the occasion to lash the mourners with fire and brimstone. As a result, I dislike being preached at--even when I agree with the preacher. But that's just me: I'm probably hypersensitive on the subject. As an adolescent, I was bored by Lewis' "space" trilogy. In contrast, I liked both "The Great Divorce" and "The Screwtape Letters". (For the latter two, Lewis didn't pretend that he had a story to tell: he simply used fictional tools to describe various aspects of his beliefs.) However, I haven't re-read any of those books since. Still, it's obvious that elements of Lewis' theology continue to influence me (although they've been through any number of sea-changes). Among the various theological perspectives with which I was bludgeoned during my "formative" years, Lewis' was the only one that struck me as being even remotely *humane*. I now believe (just my opinion) that any religion or theology which isn't first and foremost *humane* doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. (05/08/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
This is another one of those "how do you do what you do questions", kind of. My question is in relation to your descriptions of rooms, hallways, etc. Do you "test" your descriptions?
I have heard some authors rearrange thier homes to "fit" the descriptions they give by testing them. Is this something you practice or is it something you are able to accomplish mentally?
Thanks again for everything you do,
Perry Bell
Reno Nevada
|
I do it all in my head. As I've said often, I *see* with words. The more vividly (or at least accurately) I deploy words, the more precisely I'm able to see what the words describe. Using physical objects to "test" what I see is only one of many things (like using "real" settings for my stories) I virtually never do: I don't need to (or can't) because in my case "seeing" by necessity follows rather than precedes description. (05/08/2007) |
Mike S: A couple of other things I forgot earlier...
First, I know that there won't be a Covenant movie, but if there was, did you ever have a preference for who would play Thomas? Ever since I saw the first episode of "House", I always thought you could put Hugh Laurie in a robe, give him a staff, otherwise keep him exactly the way he is (unshaven, rumpled, and grumpy), and you'd have a perfect actor for TC. What do you think, hypothetically of course...
Also, I've always been intrigued by the idea in the first chronicles that the new Lords were always limited in their understanding of Kevins Lore by their lack of passion. Did this idea come from your martial arts background? Having studied Judo and other arts for a while, I've always been amazed by the difference in practicioners who internalize their art (call it Chi or Ki, if you will), and those who learn the external forms but never rely on the internal committment to the art. "Commit to the throw in your mind before moving a muscle" was a common command from my sensei in the dojo. Seems to be the same with the new Lords. Until they "intenalized" the Lore, committed to it, they would always be limited to the very base abilities the Lore offered.
Thoughts?
|
I've lost interest in playing Cast the Movie, perhaps because I'm convinced that a "Covenant" movie will never happen, perhaps because I've developed a poor memory for the names of actors, perhaps because US-trained actors (aiming at movie or tv rather than stage roles) don't *project* the dialogue the way I want them to, perhaps because I've been assured that if a "Covenant" movie is ever made it will use a no-name (i.e. cheap) cast in order to save money for special effects. Having seen Hugh Laurie since the last time his name was mentioned, I think he plays "House" well (or as well as the scripts allow), but I can't *hear* him as Covenant. Keep in mind that I wrote the first six "Covenant" books long before I started studying the martial arts. But what I've learned since seems consistent with what happened to the Lords in relation to Kevin's Lore and the Oath of Peace. To save myself time and effort, I'm not going to describe my entire martial arts philosophy. But I've observed in myself the same problem the Lords faced. Learning (as distinct from using, especially under extreme circumstances) a martial art (or Kevin's Lore) requires the student to separate emotion from action. I can't learn the skills, or use them effectively, if I'm congested with the emotions I would naturally feel in circumstances that demand those skills. But separating emotion from action--without falsifying either one--is HARD: it takes a great deal of training and experience. ("Commit to the throw in your mind before moving a muscle" is very easy to *say*, very difficult to *do*.) So I fall repeatedly into the (perfectly understandable) error of *suppressing* rather than separating emotion for the sake of my training. Yet emotion is an essential part of who I am and why I do what I do: suppressing it weakens me. Well, as I see it, the Oath of Peace was intended to describe separating emotion from action; choosing actions which are appropriate to the situation rather than to the emotions arising from that situation. But over time, separating modulated into suppressing. Which weakened the Lords by limiting their ability to go beyond what they had already learned. Of course, this is pretty much what you just said. Denying who you are limits your ability to commit to what you're doing. (05/09/2007) |
Dawn, England: Was the Ill Earth stone a reference to the Emerald Tablets of Hermes, maybe a reference to dealing with knowledge we would't know how to handle if such things were ever uncovered?
|
Since I had never heard of "the Emerald Tablets of Hermes" until I read your message, I doubt that they had much influence on my thinking. <rueful smile> The theme of "knowledge we would't know how to handle if such things were ever uncovered" is certainly germane to the "Chronicles," but I had Kevin's Lore (and later applications of power/knowledge) in mind, not the Illearth Stone. (05/10/2007) |
Jeff: Hi Steve, a question, but first a request: Not everyone is reading the Fatal Revenant Chapter 1 preview. Many people are waiting for the book. I know the GI question I just started to read didn't give away *that* much that I wouldn't have guessed, but I still didn't want to know it. Please keep putting FR questions/comments in spoilers? Many thanks!
Now to my question (another one about names). Where did you get "Linden Avery" from? Almost all of your major characters' names have some meaning (implied or overt). But hers just seems to be a "normal" name. Is this an instance where the name just came into your head -- like Angus/Morn, although those both have implications -- or is there more to it?
As always, many thanks, and looking forward to October!
jb
|
First, sorry about the "spoiler". My mistake. I'll try to be more careful in future. Linden Avery. Well, if you think of the "linden" or "lime" tree (with its heart-shaped leaves and fragrant yellow blossoms) and an "aviary" (not as a "cage" but as "a place rich with birds"), you'll be on the right track. Both can be seen as references to the beauties of the natural world, which would certainly fit my intentions for the character. (05/10/2007) |
Ted Nunes: Firstly, having a female lead character, are there any special challenges (AND advantages) to working with a publisher (editor?) who is a (presumably-younger) woman? (heh-heh...that'd you'd be willing to cop to publicly here.)
Secondly, I see where you're finding frustration (and your publisher finding expense) in getting an accurate map illustrated. I'd be beyond happy to do it for you for nothing. (I bet I'm not the first to make this offer, but what the hey?) Being a rabid fan (and a professional artist BTW--I can actually draw you a map), I can't imagine how/why anyone would disregard your instructions and wishes; other than ignorance, apathy, or incompetence. At the very least, I--and I'm sure everyone visiting this site--would love to see that doodle of the Land you work from.
Thanks for everything!
|
Well, lessee. The editor who discovered me, Lester del Rey, was (duh) male--and unalterably opposed to the whole idea of a female lead character in a story like "The Second Chronicles" (although he didn't object to Terisa Morgan in "Mordant's Need"). His stated position was (and I swear I'm not making this up), "You can't have a 'Tarzan' book with Jane as the main character." If the president of Ballantine Books had backed him up, I would have been out on the street (metaphorically) with "The One Tree," even though "The Wounded Land" was already in print. The original editor of "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" (a woman) took violent objection to Queenie Drayton's medical problems. If she had had her way, Ballantine would have kicked me out then and there, instead of when I started work on the GAP books. When my agent went looking for a publisher for "The Last Chronicles," the sf/f editor at Ballantine (a woman) wasn't interested, apparently because she prefers fantasy that feels more like science fiction. My point--if I have one--is that women are (double duh) people too. They come in all varieties. Working with an editor who happens to be a woman is a function of personality rather than of gender. Or of age. In my experience. Thanks for your map offer. Fortunately my publishers have finally achieved a map that pleases me for "Fatal Revenant". I consider it a real breakthrough. (05/10/2007) |
Jason : Hi and thanks! Quickly, do you know if any of the Covenant international versions (English) are longer (less edited?)than the US versions? I know other books sometimes end up like that, so I was just wondering if any of yours were. I'm asking becuase I'm stuck in the UK for a few months and am considering picking up a complete 1st and 2nd Chronicals. WOOHOO! New cover art and possibly more pages!!
Jason
P.S. Watch out for alien abductions; you're too close to Roswell. We'll all flip out if you dont get the 3rd Chronicals finished.
|
Apart from "Anglicization" (is that a real word?), which I've discussed earlier, all English language versions of my books are pretty much exactly the same. All of my publishers everywhere start from the identical text. The UK editions always *look* longer because the paper is thicker--and the font is often slightly larger. Why is the paper thicker? Because it's cheaper--which means that the ink is more likely to "bleed through"--which necessitates marginally thicker pages. (05/10/2007) |
John Blackburn: I was wondering, why did you nedd to postulate "Gap drive" in the Gap books? Most of the action takes place on space stations and asteriods, but these are available in our solar system. In a way, you could have stuck to conventional rocket power and told the same story. Most writers who postulate hyperdrive do so so they can have lots of exotic, romantic earth-like planets and/or a galactic empire, eg Jack Vance's Gaean Reach, Isaac Asimov's Foundation or even Star Wars. Such works often become more like fantasy with spaceships added (science-fantasy?). Yet Gap has a Arthur C Clarke hard science feel. Did you consider this issue in detail?
In recent news, an Earth-like planet has been discovered as close as Libra (20 light years), so scientists postulate millions of earth-like planets. Given gap drive wouldn't humanity have found some habitable planets? Or is it too early for this?
Just a little "criticism", hope you don't mind! In Forbidden Knowledge, (I think) Captains Fancy and an Amnion ship are on collision course at speeds a and b and you say their closing speed is a+b. This is not true owing to relativity, the closing speed will be less than a+b. In particular if a=b=c (c: speed of light) then closing speed is c (not 2 * c).
Thanks for your great work, good luck with FR!
|
Some of what I want to say here may not be perfectly clear. <sigh> You've touched on one or two issues which are so, well, axiomatic for me, so inherent to the kind of stories I want to tell, that I find them difficult to explain. First, yes, I did want the GAP books to have a certain "hard science feel". Think of it as a kind of ballast or anchor. I wanted to avoid the "fantasy feel" which (I think) weakens many space operas ("sword-and-spaceship" doesn't work for me). In addition, I know that fantasy comes more naturally to me than sf; and I wanted to push myself out of my, well, let's call it my comfort zone. I was sure that my story wouldn't *work* unless it FELT like sf. But I only wanted a hard science "feel": the story isn't *about* hard science. So the fact that humankind might plausibly have colonized some congenial planets, instead of concentrating on space stations, doesn't trouble me. (And I won't even mention the *control* issues which motivate organizations like the UMC. Space stations--being both more vulnerable and smaller--are easier to *rule* than inhabited planets. So why would the UMC want to find habitable planets?) Nor does the fact that my version of future medical technology doesn't really take nanotech into account. I invented what I needed to tell my story. I didn't (and don't) worry about the fact that our future (if we have one) may hold very different possibilities. Now. Why did I need the "Gap drive"? The crudest answer is that I needed "Gap sickness". But there are other answers as well. One pertains to my desire to compress time in storytelling. If you counted the days from the beginning of "A Dark and Hungry God Arises" to the end of "This Day All Gods Day," you probably wouldn't come up with more than a week. The stories in my mystery novels hardly extend to 72 hours. And a number of readers have observed that the events of "The Last Chronicles" occupy many fewer days than those of the previous "Covenant" books. Well, I want the kind of emotional continuity and concentration that I can only get in relatively compressed timeframes. During the course of an ordinary day in an ordinary life, any ordinary person thinks and feels MANY different things. As a result, skipping ahead, say, two weeks in the life of one of my characters gives me the sensation that I'm writing about a completely different person. I want to weave my emotional threads *intact*, and that is much easier to do if I work within a tight temporal continuum. In this respect, the story I'm trying to tell, the effects I'm trying to create, etc., would all fall apart if travel occurred at space-normal speeds. It seems essential to who I am and what I'm doing that my characters get where they're going quickly. (For this reason alone, "Forbidden Knowledge" was much more difficult for me to write than the subsequent installments.) Another reason for presupposing a Gap drive is that I think the story absolutely requires a certain *vastness* (which could work against the compression I've just described). Frankly, I don't think it's plausible that a species like the Amnion could exist a mere 10-30 years of space-normal travel away from Earth. If they did, I suspect that they would have discovered Earth and destroyed humankind long before we could develop defenses against them. The alternative is to insist that their evolutionary track is roughly the same as ours in both time and technology--and I find *that* more difficult to believe than the notion of a Gap drive. No, I'm convinced that Amnion space and Earth have to be pretty damn far away from each other for my story to make sense. In addition, putting my characters through decades of space-normal travel would require me to visualize the MANY technological and political changes which would inevitably occur during those years. (Hell, Holt Fasner himself might actually *die*.) From that perspective as well, the Gap drive is a preferrable storytelling device. You are far from the first--and you certainly won't be the last--to observe that I don't really understand general relativity (not to mention quantum mechanics, or the mathematics--and therefore the effects--of acceleration). I've already discussed (at some length) my view of "criticism" within the context of this interview: I won't repeat myself here. But if you feel you really have to criticize my work, you should get in line. Dozens of other people have already told me the same things over and over and over.... (05/14/2007) |
Hesham: Dear Mr Donaldson,
My take on much of your writing is really about the human spirit and our capabilities as individuals, knowingly and unknowingly. Do you believe as individuals we can make a difference even in this day and age? Although perhaps individuals can begin processes to make a differnce, you still require the pull of the many to make it work. Even Thomas with all the power he poses could not have done it without the help of many who ultimately gave their lives for him.
It seems to me the age we currently live in our leaders are not what they used to be. Although they are the figure heads there are many machinations behind them that actually control the processes. In our human past perhaps an individual can make change, I just don't believe it's possible in the world we live in now. I would love to know your views.
Best regards
Hesham
|
I find it difficult to get my mind around the idea that individuals *can't* make a difference. On what we might call a macro level, our current leadership has certainly changed the world (for the worse <sigh>, in my opinion). Martin Luther King leaps to mind as a different kind of example. And on a micro level, I know too many people who have absolutely changed *my* life. Such influences ripple outward in unquantifiable ways. (Chaos theory seems relevant here.) That said, it's obviously true that "No man is an island, entire unto himself." (John Donne, if memory serves.) I often think that none of us really live except in relation to other people. You're quite right that Covenant could not have achieved his victories without the aid, support, and self-sacrifice of other people. As someone once wrote, "Two is more than one and one." Another paradox.... (05/16/2007) |
Captain Maybe: What do you, Stephen Donaldson, call a series of four books: a quartet? a quadrilogy? a series of four books?
|
I call it a tetralogy. For whatever that's worth. (*Five* books, on the other hand, I gleefully refer to as a "Pentateuch." <grin>) (05/16/2007) |
J.L. Slipak: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
My question is one I've been struggling with for some time and hopefully, you'll be able to shed some insight on this for me. It is: it has been suggested, that my writing style is considered "masculine" and that I should write under a pen name since I'm a woman. Not entirely sure if I should. What are your thoughts regarding writers who write under a pen name for one genre and then under another pen name for a different genre?
|
The only thing I'm confident of in a situation like this is that there *is* no "right" answer. We all just give it our best shot (in one form or another) and take our chances. On a practical level, modern publishing is dominated by women. I can't speak for fields other than sf/f; but here for every writer like C. J. (Caroline Joyce) Cherryh there are a dozen writers like Patricia A. McKillip, Barbara Hambley, Robin Hobb, Melanie Rawn, Anne McCaffrey, Susan Matthews, Janny Wurts, Sherri S. Tepper, Octavia Butler, etc., etc.. (I don't mention J. K. Rowling because I don't know what the J. K. stands for. However, she's British, and the UK has a strong tradition of writers--of both genders--who use initials instead of full names.) I have no idea what constitutes a "masculine" writing style, but I don't doubt that some of the writers I've just named would qualify. My point is simply that sf/f (and horror, and mysteries, and...) is wide open for women of every description. I'm sure that there are many reasons why some writers choose pen names. The reason with which I'm personally familiar is that some publishers insist on a change of names to go with a change of genres for the sake of marketting. Crudely put, the argument goes like this: "You can't sell cars and microwaves, and call them both Buick. People will get confused. Similarly, you can't sell fantasies and mysteries and call them both (say) Tepper. The people who buy books don't browse entire bookstores. They only browse the genres they happen to like. If they find a Tepper mystery among Tepper fantasies, they'll resent the intrusion--or even feel cheated." My opinion? In an ideal world, no one would worry about such things. Publishers certainly wouldn't treat authors like brand names. But this is not an ideal world, and it really doesn't care what I think. (05/16/2007) |
Anonymous: In a recent response to who is you favorite character, you answered; "My "favorites" change from day to day, mood to mood, context to context, even minute to minute. At the moment, I'm feeling especially fond of Hashi Lebwohl."
==============================================
Hashi happens to be my favorite character and I was wondering why (after all this time) your thoughts would be centered on him of late? Just curious!
|
<sigh> I see it's Embarrass the Author Time again. But you couldn't have known, so you're forgiven. One of my guilty pleasures is that I watch TV shows like "NCIS". (This is a guilty pleasure because it isn't exactly a productive use of my time.) David McCallum plays Dr Mallard; and watching him (probably the best actor in the cast), I was recently struck by the idea that he might make a good Hashi Lebwohl. I think he has the necessary "range". And he has a gift for seeming simultaneously befuddled and insightful. So Hashi has been on my mind. (05/17/2007) |
Kevin (yes, my name): I'm writing in response to the last few 'queries' because I also have been asked 'why do you write what you do' and 'why "waste" your time on fantasy' instead of doing something "real".
I have been a 'gamesmaster' for over 25 years. I've created a continent,nations,cities, societies, and so on, solely for the pleasure of myself and my friends. To you I owe the perfect description of what I do and why I do it.
"I own the true Giantish exhilaration which needs neither victory nor success in order to feel satisfaction."
Any written work of any kind, is in fact,
fantasy. It is merely the writer's words put on page, regardless of the source or subject. The elitist attitude of some 'academics' towards literary subject material is deplorable at best.
The 'BIG QUESTIONS' which involve us all can only be answered in one place.
The depths of our own human hearts.
|
Well said! And thank you. (05/17/2007) |
Captain Maybe: Apart from Wagner and the Ring, who/what are your favourite composers/pieces of music?
(By the way, a search for 'composer' revealed three instances of Newman's composition/inspiration quote. I suppose it's inevitable you'll repeat yourself once or twice in three years of answering questions.)
|
Everything changes. Years ago, I probably would have said Verdi ("Rigoletto") and Beethoven (the piano sonatas in particular). Now I'm more likely to gratitate toward Donizetti ("Anna Bolena," although he composed a number of gems) and Liszt (the "Trancendental Etudes," especially #11, "Harmonies du soir"). What, I've only quoted Newman three times? Count my public Q&A sessions, and it's probably more like three *hundred*. (05/22/2007) |
Nathan Eddy: Mr. Donaldson,
I’m confused about lore vs. Law as it applies to Demondim-spawn (Waynhim and ur-viles). On page 413 of Runes, you wrote, “For that reason," [Esmer] explained, "the Staff of Law is inimical to them. Though Waynhim serve the Land, and have always done so, their service stands outside the bounds of Law. Their lore is in itself a violation of Law. The fact of their service does not alter their nature.”
If the lore of Waynhim is a violation of Law, then the ur-viles shouldn't be an exception, even when they are working to serve Law, as the Waynhim do. So the lore which they used to create Vain should be a violation of Law, too. I'm still a little confused how the addition of Findail and wild magic can transform a *violation* of Law into the *Staff* of Law.
If “the fact of their service does not alter their nature,” then what altered the nature of the ur-vile’s lore?
|
Gee, I've always assumed that Vain was indeed a violation of Law. But asking me how he could be transformed into something completely different is rather like asking me how magic "works". In books like mine, that kind of question leads in circles. But consider that chemistry is rife with similar transformations. The human body can hardly survive without chemicals which are inherently toxic (homocysteine leaps to mind)--until interactions with other chemicals transform them into beneficial substances. Or consider the profound artificiality of written storytelling: an artificiality so extreme that it can be (and in fact has been) considered a violation of Law. Yet somehow arbitrary black squiggles on paper are transformed by the reader's intelligence and imagination into something as organic as thought itself. And if that isn't enough, remember that the One Tree (and/or the Worm of the World's End) played a part in Vain's transformation. The ur-viles and Waynhim certainly exist as violations of Law; but that doesn't render them incapable of understanding and serving Law--as the Waynhim have demonstrated since the beginning of "The Chronicles". (05/22/2007) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: Steve,
I think you need another reader. One who can help you reconcile Creation myths. So you never are bothered again by such questions! I offer the following, as evidence of my awesome literary talents!
and then ....
in the vault of the heavens
there was nothing
and the Creator
was lonely
so he called into being ...
the cosmic bottle ....
of tequilla!!
and he drank!
and it was good
and as he drank
the cosmic worm ...
slid thru his blessed teeth!
PTTTTTTEWWWW!!!!
spit!
do not swallow the worm
and it writhed
and theron formed the earth!!
whatchya think?
Hopefully good for at least a chuckle!! I look forward to seeing you in NM!!
|
To quote the great Stan Lee, "'Nuff said." (05/22/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I understand that you (and other writers) are paid through royalties, or the advance of those royalties, on the sales of your books. The royalty is such and such a percentage of the book price. How often are these royalties paid (monthly, quarterly, yearly)? Because it seems to me it would make budgeting for the "big" expenses in ones life (car, house, kid's college, divorce (sorry), etc.) a nightmare. Now, I'm sure for some writers who make LOTS of money it's not a problem (J.K. Rowling, Stephen King) but for most wouldn't you need some idea of how much of a royalty payment you are getting on such and such a date in order to plan accordingly? And since it's all based on book sales, how can you know how much you are going to sell in any given period? Or does the publishing industry have this all down to a fine science.
|
But first--for no particular reason, except that I'm in the mood--a few comments about the current state of the Gradual Interview. Regular readers may remember the time when I was 250+ questions behind in my answers. I'm now less than 30 questions behind. This is the result of two changes. First, fewer questions are being asked. (Well, duh, Steve. You've already answered 1500+. How many new ones are still possible?) Second, the nature of the messages posted for me has shifted. The proportion of messages which are too personal to be made public is now much higher than it once was. In those cases, when I've been given a return e-mail address, I usually give a personal reply. (Those of you who have received such replies know what they're like.) Naturally those messages--and their replies--do not appear in the GI. My point--if I have one--is that I write more replies than I appear to write. Sometimes many more. Now. Your question. Unfortunately, this gets complicated. Publishers operate on 6-month accounting cycles. They pay royalties twice a year. But. After closing their books on a particular cycle, they hang onto the money for 5 more months before they cut a check. With a hypothetical January-through-June cycle, if a book sells in January, the author gets paid in December. Why do they hang onto the money? Self-protection. Any publisher knows exactly how many books have been sold to bookstores--and has no idea how many of those books have actually been sold to readers. (Computers are slowly changing this problem--the key word being "slowly".) But bookstores can always return unsold books to the publisher for full credit. As a result, it's perfectly possible for a publisher to sell 100,000 books to bookstores--and 9 or 11 months later receive 90,000 of those books back in returns. So the publisher hangs onto the author's money as long as possible ("exclusion against returns") in order to avoid paying for books that didn't actually sell. (Incidentally, this is why bestseller lists are compiled from bookstores rather than from publishers. Such lists attempt to reflect books actually sold to readers. Unfortunately, bookstores have been known to report "stock on hand" rather than actual sales--which sort of defeats the whole purpose of bestseller lists.) In theory, therefore, the author receives two checks a year--and has absolutely no idea how large (or small) those checks will be. Well, this is clearly an impossible situation for most writers. Most of us simply cannot function financially under these conditions. Even publishers recognize that. Hence the "advance on royalties"--and the primary function of most agents. The publisher gives the author some up-front money (thereby increasing the publisher's risk and decreasing the author's) to--one hopes--live on. Then the publisher does not give the author any more money until the author's royalties have paid the publisher back for the advance. For obvious reasons, the publisher wants to pay the smallest advance possible--and the author wants to receive the largest advance possible. (This is where agents come in: they fight for authors more effectively than authors can fight for themselves. They know the publishers--and the market--much better than most authors do.) The smaller the advance, the smaller the publisher's risk. The larger the advance, the more easily the author can budget--and live--on his/her income. In this one aspect of the business, the best interests of the publisher and the author conflict. (Which is another good reason for the existence of agents. They spare the publisher and the author the potentially crippling necessity of fighting with each other directly.) On virtually every other subject, the best interests of the publisher and the author are nominally the same, even though the publisher and the author may have radically different interpretations of their own best interests. It gets very confusing. (And I haven't even mentioned book distributers, who facilitate the delivery of books to bookstores--and whose corporate agendas effectively prevent publishers from getting accurate information from bookstores.) Life would be simpler if "the publishing industry [had] this all down to a fine science." But no one does. (05/30/2007) |