SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

Yes, I think that the Gradual Interview has an inevitable effect on what I put into--and what I leave out of--"The Last Chronicles". (Consider the possibility that, because of the GI, I may well know more about the "Covenant" readership and its desires/expectations/doubts/curiosities than any writer before me has ever known about his/her readers.) And yes, as you say, much of the effect is un- or subconscious: I couldn't define it even if I wanted to--which I mostly don't. But occasionally the effect *is* conscious: a question that refers to a story thread which I might otherwise have neglected to tie off, perhaps, or a comment that suggests a possibility which I might not have thought of without prompting. However, I am *not* (possibly ever) going to give you any specific examples. To do so would be--at best--a spoiler, and--at worst--positively embarrassing. ("What? You mean to tell us that Linden's murder by Liand was *not* part of your original design? Quel dolor!" If you see what I mean.) As far as I know, the Insequent played no part in the first six "Covenant" books. P.S. I've just (May 15) been informed that it should be "Quelle douleur!" Or perhaps "Que dolor!" <grin> (05/14/2008)

My personal reaction might well be, "The more fool you." But I suspect that the reaction of my publishers would be far more, well, aggressive. And events might well compel me to denounce the profiteers--if for no other reason than to avoid confusing my more loyal readers. (05/14/2008)

My opinions on theology carry no more weight than anyone else's. And I've been trying to avoid turning the Gradual Interview into a theological discussion (for many reasons, one of which is that it could easily degenerate into a flame war). But predetermination as you describe it sounds to me like a distinction without a difference, since it implies that the illusion of free will is effectively identical to *actual* free will. Predestination, in the view of my parents, was much more personal: God-the-puppeteer is busily pulling everyone's strings at every moment. Admittedly, most modern Presbyterians might react in horror to a definition that literal; but my parents thought that way (or *thought* that they thought that way, since they still believed in "sin," even though "sin" and "predestination" are mutually exclusive concepts). (05/20/2008)

My knowledge of Norse mythology is not as extensive, or as deeply engrained, as my knowledge of Wagner. And I am not making any conscious attempt to draw on either for "The Last Chronicles". But none of us ever gets away from the stuff that's bred into us. Those things become inherent to how we think. So I can't pretend that you won't find parallels between "The Last Chronicles" and some aspects of Norse mythology. But I would caution you against drawing conclusions on that basis. (05/20/2008)

1) Yes, I use a QWERTY keyboard. That's what I learned on in middle school; and after using it for nearly 50 years, I couldn't change if I wanted to (which I don't: I have enough problems already). 2) The first thing I always want to do after finishing one of my epics is slit my wrists. <rueful smile> But I get over that--at least in part because the whole concept of "finishing" a book is misleading. (Do you mean finishing the first draft? Ah, but there's all that rewriting to be done. Or do you mean finishing the rewriting? Ah, but there's all that proofreading to be done. Etc..) In my experience, writing a book never actually *ends*: it just dribbles away, gradually taking up less and less time, until finally--without any particular moment of completion or vindication--it's just gone. (05/20/2008)

1. Of course not. I need all the free advertising I can get. <grin> 2. My webmaster and I don't start talking about trailers until after D&A ("delivery and acceptance" of a finished manuscript). "Premature" would be a pretty polite way to describe it if we tried anything sooner. (05/20/2008)

I've covered some of this elsewhere in the GI--possibly a number of years ago. The short answer to your first question is that I pay attention to what I read; I make word lists; and periodically I treat myself to "word orgies" during which I look up the words on my lists and write down the definitions. I would be surprised to learn that "Fatal Revenant" contains more unfamiliar words than, say, "The Wounded Land." But it could be true. In FR in particular, and "The Last Chronicles" in general, I'm trying to "make real" concepts and beings that defy any mundane description. I need exotic language to convey what I have in mind. I have so many responses to your friend who prefers familiar language that I can't remember them all at any one time. But I'll limit myself to this one: words are the tools of thought. Experience tells me that neither I nor anyone else can think about ideas, emotions, insights, beliefs, or even sensations for which we have no language. And the more precise the language at our disposal, the more accurately we can think about those ideas/emotions/insights/beliefs/sensations. Believe it or not, the "exceptionally difficult words" in my books express what I mean more accurately than "simple" words could. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe I'm just trying to justify a failure of skill. Some very highly regarded writers would agree with that assessment. But I'm not convinced. (05/21/2008)

As a matter of personal philosophy, I decline to prejudge or "oppose" anyone else's creativity. Real artists are capable of some astonishing achievements. But comics, like movies, are an "outside in" medium: they show the outside and suggest the inside. My books are predominently "inside out": I live inside the heads of my characters, and every aspect of what's outside starts there. I don't see how what I write could be accurately communicated in any "outside in" form. (05/21/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

In fairness to Scott Brick and his distributers: this is not their fault. It's a consequence of the fact that my books are contracted separately in the US and Great Britain (which includes most of the non-US English speaking world--except Canada). These contracts divide the world stringently, for the obvious reason that the publishers don't want to have to compete with each other. So: Brick's contracts with Putnams (for "Fatal Revenant") and Ballantine (for "Lord Foul's Bane" etc.) cannot allow him to sell his work outside the markets covered by those contracts. Before he can make his work available to the rest of the English-speaking world, he'll need separate contracts with Gollancz and HarperCollins. Gollancz may eventually cooperate: remind me to look into that. HarperCollins almost certainly will not. For reasons known only to them, they refuse to cooperate with anything that benefits either me or my readers. Do I need to point out that it's pretty easy to get around these restrictions? (Oops! Did I say that out loud? I wasn't supposed to. <rueful grin>) (05/23/2008)

No, no one ever tells me about these things (apart from you, of course <grin>). But I saw an interview with Shannon Lucid in “Ad Astra” where she mentioned “The Mirror of Her Dreams” and “A Man Rides Through,” and I could’ve sworn in the photo I could see a copy of “Lord Foul’s Bane” on the bookshelf behind her. (05/23/2008)

Thanks! I’m posting this complete because, well, it gratifies my ego. And also because it offers a new (to me) explanation for the fact that 90% of “Covenant” readers will not read anything else I’ve written. As you can perhaps imagine, I need all the explanations I can get. But I’m afraid I don’t have a really satisfying answer for your question. To a large extent, this is a “How do you do what you do?” question; and the underlying truth is that I have no earthly idea. I was born with a certain amount of talent and intelligence; and I’ve trained those strengths as strenuously as I know how: a statement which is perfectly true, but which doesn’t *explain* anything. On a more practical level, all I can tell you is that I use a LOT of notes. And that the narrative challenge isn’t quite as daunting as you might think. Especially in a story like the GAP sequence (although the same may be true in every story, to one extent or another), what a character knows (or thinks he/she knows), and when s/he knows it, is a function of (among other things) setting: *where* a character is, and when, has a significant effect on what that character can know. For example: sure, everyone aboard Captain’s Fancy may have secrets; but they also all share a common body of experiences and even perceptions (most of them wouldn’t be part of Nick’s crew if they didn’t see things Nick’s way). In practice, writing from multiple POVs is more a question of understanding how different people think and less a question of understanding what they think about because much of what they think about is determined by their specific circumstances. (05/23/2008)

It’s pretty generally true in the “Covenant” books that power confers longevity. Characters like the Haruchai and the Giants and Anele, who are all in some sense inherently magical, live considerably longer than what we might consider “normal” for mortal beings. And characters like the Lords and the Insequent, who devote their lives to the study and use of magic, experience similar effects. I don’t want to fall into the trap of trying to quantify this aspect of the story. But I’ve been writing under the assumption that much of what the Insequent know about each other (speaking of specific individuals) is a result of over-lapping lives: *very* few of them actually move through time; and they *all* live, grow old, and die; but some of them live lives so extended that their experience of each other lasts for centuries. (05/23/2008)

I’ve answered this so often I’ve run out of ways to explain it. I only invent what I need for the specific story I’m telling. (The only exception I can think of is the novella “Daughter of Regals”: writing that story, I found that I had way more background than the story inself required; so I did a lot of cutting when I revised.) This is both a conscious and an unconscious aspect of my creative process. I don’t “wander imaginatively in [insert name of world here]” because (consciously) I’m just not interested--for me, the world is chiefly a reflection of the characters whose story I’m telling, and I’m only interested in the characters and their story--and because (unconsciously) I probably *can’t*: the story is so essential to my imagination that if I were to wander away from the story my imagination would simply stop working. This latter point, I feel constrained to add, is pure speculation. The whole point of the unconscious mind is that it’s UNconscious. If I actually knew what it’s doing, or why, it wouldn’t be what it is--and both my work and my life would be much more drab than they are right now. (05/23/2008)

Is in the same for me? No. By the time I get done writing, and rewriting, and REwriting, and proofreading, and re-proofreading, and RE-proofreading (and possibly promoting) a story, I'm a) tired of it, and b) focused on moving on to new work. Plus I'm a very slow reader, and there are a LOT of other books out there. Of course, I re-read the first six "Covenant" books when I was preparing for "The Last Chronicles". I re-read the previous mystery novels whenever I prepare to write a new one. But no, I've never read my own work "just for the enjoyment". (05/23/2008)

I'm posting this for the information of readers who may be wondering whether or not to invest in Scott Brick's work. (05/23/2008)

Writing is writing. I write at about the same pace no matter what I'm working on. And I do about the same amount of rewriting for everything. If you assume I can write 3-4 pages a day, and rewrite 6-8 pages a day, and I only do two rewrites.... Well, you do the math. (Of course, I'm talking about manuscript pages, which are considerably shorter than published pages.) When I was younger, I did everything faster (alas). (05/28/2008)

Which--if you'll pardon my saying so--is why statistics are an unreliable guide to life. If I see a shelf of 10 books, only one is good, and I can pick only one, I have 1 chance in 10 of picking the good one. If, in contrast, I see a shelf of 100 books, only ten are good, and I can pick only one, I have 10 chances in 100 of picking a good one. Statistically, these odds may be indentical. Experientially, they are very different. In practice, my chances in the second case are more like 1 in 100. And it gets worse. I can probably read the cover copy of 10 books, looking for some kind of guidance before I make my choice; but there's no way in life that I can stand there and read the cover copy of 100 books. Didn't Twain say something about statistics...? (05/28/2008)

Covenant, in a fit of pique, might well vote for Ralph Nader. Lord Foul doubtless would urge the current administration to declare martial law and suspend elections. Linden, bless her, might actually try to make an informed decision. (05/28/2008)

We're talking about a fantasy novel here: EVERYTHING is connected. But I mean that thematically, emotionally, spiritually, not literally. *I* certainly have never intended any literal connection (or even similarity) between the Ravers and the Elohim. (05/28/2008)

I've said pretty much all I can say about how or why I do what I do. Look in categories like "creative process," "writing & publishing process," and "personal topics". If what you want to know isn't there, I have no answer. (05/28/2008)

Personally, I've never had any difficulty breaking out of the "mindset" you describe. My sense of--alienation is a bit too strong, but I can't think of a better word at the moment--from the intellectual climates of college and graduate school didn't cause me to question the worth of my own response to sf/f: it simply inspired me to dig more deeply into my perception of what sf/f are "good for"--and to try harder to emulate the strengths/skills/insights I learned to admire in mainstream literature. But in other ways, I encounter prejudice everywhere: the number of literate people who sneer reflexively at sf/f is much greater (at least in my experience) than the number willing to consider the possibility that sf/f might demonstrate artistic seriousness. Publishers don't sneer: they only care how many copies they sell. But reviewers, librarians, teachers, scholars, academics and intellectuals of every description.... Of course, the notion that sf/f don't or can't have literary merit is aesthetic nonsense: as I often have occasion to observe, all the oldest and most endurings forms of literature in all languages on this planet are fantasy. In addition, any writer who somehow acquires the label "literature" can write as much fantasy or sf as he/she wants without being sneered at. And yet: as far as I know, I've never persuaded ANYone that sf/f can serve the same high purposes, and meet the same needs, as more "realistic" (i.e. mimetic) fiction. (05/28/2008)

For reasons I can't explain, I don't find it "challenging to write from a woman's point of view." Maybe it's because I was raised in a house full of sisters. <rueful smile> Or maybe it's because I decided decades ago that women are people--"just like us" <grin>--and writing about them pretty much has to be the same as writing about men. (If it isn't, there's something wrong with our ability to empathize with the human beings around us.) Or more accurately: writing about a specific woman has to be the same as writing about a specific man. They're all individuals, not genders; and if we can't see them as such, we're stuck. And yet (he admitted sadly), I do have one problem writing about women. Quick, name a female villain anywhere in the Complete Works of Donaldson. I had to think about that for a while myself before I came up with any examples. (And no, I don't mean Infelice--who isn't a villain--or the merewives--who aren't individuals--or Elena--who is just misguided.) Thanks, no doubt, to my upbringing ("Women are inherently Pure: Men are inherently Sinful"), I find it difficult to overcome my impulse to make all women "good guys". (05/28/2008)