Tom Best: Hello, Mr. Donaldson,
I was wondering if you could elaborate on the following statements you made concerning fiction and non-fiction:
"I could actually say quite a bit about this, mostly having to do with my belief that fiction (storytelling) is a richer source of ideas and understanding than any non-fiction."
and
"I read almost exclusively fiction, in part because that's what I love to read, in part because I feel loyal to the kind of work I'm committed to, and in part because I believe you can learn more from a good story than from almost any form of non-fiction."
I've tried to argue the same point with my father and some friends of mine -- they think fiction is a waste of time, a bunch of "made up stuff" -- but, sadly, I'm not very articulate in defending my position. I say things like, "Fiction is the truth inside the lie," or I try to explain how you can live vicariously through the characters in fiction, thereby gaining a new perspective about the world, or about different ways of life. For instance, if the main character is homosexual, or a slave, or a president, or an alcoholic, or a leper, or whatever -- once you see the world through their eyes, it can open your mind to new possibilities, make you more empathetic to your fellow man.
Sometimes I'll pull this little nugget out of my memory (from Clive Barker's Sacrament):
"I am a man, and men are animals who tell stories. This is a gift from God, who spoke our species into being, but left the end of our story untold. That mystery is troubling to us. How could it be otherwise? Without the final part, we think, how are we to make sense of all that went before: which is to say, our lives?
So we make stories of our own, in fevered and envious imitation of our Maker, hoping that we'll tell, by chance, what God left untold. And finishing our tale, come to understand why we were born."
I find it quite profound myself (stories are a way to understand ourselves), but it doesn't go over well with the people I'm trying to convince -- too poetic and philosophical probably. Anyway, I would appreciate any of your thoughts on the subject.
Regards,
Tom
 |
I've been procrastinating about this because a) much of what I might say on the subject is highly subjective, and b) I've been trying to think of a way *not* to go on and on about it at length. Barker makes a good point, although he phrases it in a way that will make it unpalatable to some readers. Telling stories is the *essence* of being human. In fact, I suspect that it is the essence of *thought*. I suspect that people who read only non-fiction because they believe fiction is, say, a waste of time aren't paying any meaningful attention to the way their own minds work; to the ways in which they understand non-fiction and their own minds and the world. I doubt that there's a human being on the planet who can decide what to have for breakfast without engaging in some form of storytelling. In addition, I believe that non-fiction itself is only fiction concealed. Surely no one can produce a work of non-fiction which contains nothing more than a disorganized, discontinuous recitation of facts. As soon as the non-fiction writer attempts to arrange his/her facts in some form of meaningful sequence or narrative: that's storytelling. The raw materials (the undifferentiated facts) may not be "made up stuff": the organization of those raw materials *is*. But leaving all of that aside. Perhaps the only crucial difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction writers synthesize (combine and arrange) their facts across a broader spectrum of information, experience, and understanding. No one can doubt that both non-fiction and fiction writers tend to be intelligent, well-read, inquisitive, and searching. But fiction writers organize their materials according to different--I can't think of a better word at the moment--different protocols: protocols which allow them to roam more freely across the landscape of possible meanings. In my (admittedly idiopathic) experience, when people say things like, "I don't read fiction because it's just a bunch of made up stuff," what they really mean is, "Too much freedom to roam scares me. I'm more comfortable in smaller spaces." Or not. It takes all kinds to make a world. Maybe for some readers the restrictions of non-fiction are like the restrictions of sonnets for some poets: the comparative constriction of the protocols creates a special kind of freedom. Such paradoxes are also--like storytelling--an important part of being human. (05/06/2009) |
MRK: To my delight, I recently turned up (and just finished reading) a "Reed Stephens" edition of "The Man who Tried to Get Away". Definitely one of the best things you have ever written.
I was wondering if you have read and/or were influenced by Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre". I saw some similarities in language and theme (i.e., overcoming great social adversity). Also of course Mr. Rochester's grudging but dedicated caring for his violently insane wife.
My other, "big" question came into my mind when I read that the major stumbling block for the creation of the Covenant movie was the Ring rather than the rape of Lena. It occured to me that no, that (the rape) really wasn't that hard to get around, you'd just have to re-write it as a consentual sex scene, which I thought wouldn't be terribly out of character for Lena, her being potentially an enamored Berek groupie, but it would be VASTLY out of character for Covenant. He would have to be a far more self-confident person who would feel entitled to take advantage of the situation. In other words, he would feel like he deserved what he was getting, that the Land was indeed REAL. And of course this is only one way in which the story would be completely altered. Do you think that this would probably be the Hollywood solution and how profound do you think would be the impact on the story and on Lena and Covenant's respective characters?
|
I was an English major fascinated by stories and novels in both college and graduate school: it's inconceivable that I was *not* influenced by "Jane Eyre". (And "Wuthering Heights" and "Emma" and "Bleak House" and "Middlemarch" and and and.) The fact that I don't consciously model my novels on "Jane Eyre" (or any of the others) is irrelevant: the influence is still there. But as far as I know, your thoughts on "rape" and the rejected "Covenant" movie are entirely your own. The only explanation I was ever given was: It's got a ring in it. In fact, the aspiring producers repeatedly assured me that things like rape and leprosy were *not* stumbling-blocks. I have no idea what might happen if we ever got past the "ring" problem. (05/06/2009) |
Basch: SRD - Hope all is well for you.
I was curious about your thoughts on the Kindle, or other ebook readers. As an author do you see this as something to be excited about, concerned about or just generally indifferent as it doesn't impact on your writing?
Thanks for your time on the Gradual Interview. It's great stuff.
|
Personally, I'm indifferent to e-books. And to audio books. They certainly have no effect on how I work--or on how I feel about my work. But so what? The future doesn't care whether I care or not. Some sort of metamorphosis is always inevitable. (05/06/2009) |
Steven H: Thank you for your amazing writings. I am a huge fan of the TC Chronicles, the Gap cycle, Mordant's Need and your short stories. I have not read all of your works, but everything I have read has been tremendous and completely absorbs me.
I just finished LFB and I have two comments/questions about the ending.
1) I felt as if the ending was very rushed, so much so that I feel it was done with intent. Was it indeed your intent to return Covenant back to his leprous life so abruptly?
2) Covenant makes the comment deep in Mount Thunder that he forgot to bring his 'earthly' clothes with him on the trip. He is very discouraged by this since when he 'wakes up' he will know that it had all been a dream since he will be wearing his jeans/boots/etc. In the land at that time he was wearing the robe the lords gave him that had since been stained by traveling through Morinmoss. These green stains on his robe are mentioned many times as if you intended us to take specific note of them. Upon returning to 'his' world we find Covenant in the hospital dressed in the standard issue gown. This of course plays back to TC's comment about forgetting his clothes and assuming that will enforce the idea that it had all been a dream. My question is did you intend specifically for us, and TC, to take this as an ambiguous token that the experience maybe wasn't a dream (I feel that is the case) and would it have gone too far to have let the hospital gown have some sort of fancy printed design that resembled the stains from Morinmoss? This kind of goes along with my first question as the ending was so abrupt, and TC has nothing to offer as far as any thoughts referring back to his previous thoughts under Mount Thunder. I felt that you intended for us to make some assumptions for ourselves instead of you dictating them in the narrative, but I am a little baffled since this is so obviously a blow to his unbelief, which is a central theme of the story.
Thank you for your time and for sharing your creations with us!!
Steven H
|
1) Yes, the ending of LFB is "rushed". I had hoped that the reader would be able to experience how jarring the transition was for Covenant. 2) Surely I've made it obvious by now that I was trying to provide *ambiguous* evidence on both sides of Covenant's personal debate (belief v unbelief). Sure, I could have put Covenant in a hospital gown that was a near-match for what he was wearing in the Wightwarrens. Similarly I could have had him regain consciousness while still wearing his "real" clothes. Instead I did everything I could think of to avoid supplying conclusive evidence on either side. Like all the rest of us, Covenant has to choose his own convictions and commitments in a world which flatly refuses to supply certainty. (05/06/2009) |
Johann de Wet: Hi Stephen!
I have noticed that you have the tendency to end nearly all you intermediate books as cliff-hangers. Is this just a commercial trick, or is it a sacred narrative tradition that all writers have to adhere to? Or do you have a deeply hidden sadistic streak that just like to make your fans suffer while they eagerly wait for the next book in the series?
Cheers!
Johann (South Africa)
|
Surely these are not the only possibilities! Either I have no artistic integrity, or I'm a sadistic bastard? Tsk, tsk. My stories are intended as organic wholes, not as detached pieces. They're *published* as detached pieces; but that's only because they're too long to appear in one volume--and because I need to earn a living while I'm writing them. They're intended to be *read* as single stories. And as single stories, they have no cliffhangers at all: they merely have pauses that allow you an opportunity to put down one volume and pick up the next. If you doubt me (if you *dare*!), try this exercise. First, lay out the whole story ("Mordant's Need" or the GAP cycle) as a single continuous creation. Next, pick the places where *you* think the story should be interrupted for the sake of publishing necessity. And keep in mind the obvious fact that both the publisher and the author want those interruptions to occur in places that will encourage the reader to immediately pick up the next volume. "Commercial trick"? "Sacred narrative tradition"? "Deeply hidden sadistic streak"? Bah! (05/06/2009) |
Phill Skelton: On the subject of Orson Scott Card and characterisation in Fansasy/sci-fi, you wrote: "That’s theory. In practice, I’ve read plenty of books--historicals and westerns as well as sf and fantasy--that place setting above character; and each and every one of them was junk. I’ve also read plenty of books--thrillers and mysteries as well as sf and fantasy--that place events above character; and each and every one of *them* was junk (although it is true that activity is usually more interesting to watch than scenery).
Think I’m wrong? Show me."
I guess it is a question of at what point you consider setting (or whatever) to be 'above' character. As far as I understand OSC's point, he is saying that SF/fantasy books often take the world they are in as the foundation of the story, and the characters are there to interact with the world for the benefit of the reader. Lord of the Rings wasn't born out of the characters of Frodo and Sam, with the plot developing out from there. LotR is one of the examples OSC has quotes elsewhere on this subject, noting that many of the characters are little more than stereotypes - token dwarf, token elf, interchangeable token hobits, Aragorn gets to be noble (and little else), and so on. Of course there *is* more to the characters than that, and without at least some welld eveloped characters a story *will* be junk.
The contrast is with, for example, Milan Kundera, whose stories (that I've read) are about pretty much nothing *but* the characters. Or Jospeh Conrad: what he was interested in was the personality interacting with the events, but the focus was still on the person.
I don't think you could say LotR was about characters in the same way that Conrad's "The Secret Agent" or "Nostromo" are. It is much more about its setting - the world of Middle Earth - than those books, and much less about the personalities, as important as those are (you may disagree of course). Whether you would say it is *more* about setting than character may be a matter of personal taste about use of language.
I think it goes without saying that the Covenant books (and pretty all your stories in fact, one or two short ones excepted maybe) are much more Conrad-esque in their interest in the character than the vast majority of SF/fantasy.
|
Ah, well. I believe I've helped create a problem for which there's no tidy solution. (Further proof, if proof were needed, that I should consider just keeping my mouth shut sometimes.) We are now at a point where the only way forward seems to be to define our terms ever more stringently. What PRECISELY do you mean by terms like "setting" and "character"? And "above"? And yet the more stringent we are, the more subjective our definitions will become. For example (and this is just an opinion), I disagree with you about LOTR. (Also about "Nostromo".) By all reports, Tolkien's inspiration *began* with setting. But (just my opinion) without the characters, no one would care. Sure, some of the characters are stock figures: that's true of many novels. But there's nothing "stock" or stereotypical in the characters that form the moral heart of the story; and without that heart, Middle Earth is just a place with trees and horses. In fact (JUST MY OPINION), I think there are more cliches in the setting than there are in the characters. Which leaves us exactly where? I have no idea. Card has one opinion (which I view dyspeptically). You have another (which you present sympathetically). I have another (about which I should have kept my mouth shut). So what? Even *I* would get bored if everyone agreed that I'm always right. <grin> And in the meantime: well, the situation calls for a cliche (the last refuge of the overwhelmed), so I suggest, "That's what makes the world go 'round." (05/13/2009) |
spoonchicken: Dear Dr.Donaldson......PLEASE tell me, that you DON'T go to kevinswatch.com & read some of the sillier stuff posted in there (epsecially by me!)
|
Is there "sillier" stuff posted on kevinswatch.com? You shock me. How is that possible? <grin> (05/13/2009) |
Charles Adams: I apologize if this is a question you have already answered (I don't even know how I would query for this particular question and answer).
As you have stated many times, you envision an end, and then you work backwards from that end to tell the story.
When you wrote SCOTC, were you writing to the end of that story, or writing to the eventual end of the Last Chronicles? Or some hybrid?
|
While I was working on "The Second Chronicles," I was writing to the end of that particular story ("White Gold Wielder"). I like to think that I concentrate on the story I'm actually writing, not on stories which I hope I will eventually write. However, the fact that I also knew the end of "The Last Chronicles" enabled me to spend a bit of narrative space "preparing the way" for the eventual end of the whole saga. (05/13/2009) |
Tom: Just wondering if you seen this website.
This one has a 3D computer rendering of a cavewight and an ur-vile:
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?p=508831
I was wondering if they come close to what you picture in your head. The ur-vile in particular is very close to what I picture (although the one on the website isn't painted yet). Anyway, it's amazing what people can do with computers these days!
Tom
|
For what it's worth, I particularly like the ur-vile. Other artists have shown that it's very easy to make ur-viles look like stupid creations. So I'm pleased! (05/13/2009) |
Peter B: Hi Steve--
I ran across one of your responses to a July 2004 GI question concerning who the Creator is and was amazed at what you appear to be disclosing. Here's your quote:
Having rid ourselves of those assumptions, we can then consider the possibility that the Land's "Creator" is Covenant himself (an act of imagination which he later shares with Linden); that--in a manner of speaking--both the "Creator" and the man in the ochre robe are Covenant's dopplegangers, externalized versions of aspects of himself.
Was this an attempt at crafty misdirection or should we take the clarification at face value? My guess (hope) is that the integrity of the Chronicles and ending remain.
Many, many congratulations on finishing the first draft of AATE!
|
"Crafty misdirection" or actual "clarification": are those my only choices? Can I pick both? Neither? Am I allowed to be overtly self-contradictory? In the absence of comfortable alternatives, I'm going to avoid responsibility by insisting that the crucial words are "consider the possibility". If the Land is a dream/delusion, then OF COURSE Covenant is its Creator. But surely other possibilities also deserve consideration. (05/13/2009) |
Joe: Mr Donaldson, firstly I would like to thank you for creating Covenant, Giants, Lords, Bloodgaurd, the Land, ALL of it! I first read Lord Fouls Bane in 1986, have read Chronicals 1&2 at least 4 times in the last 20 years and just spent the last 6 months reading all 8. You definately deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as the likes of Tolkien and others. The depth and detail to every aspect of the stories, not just the central characters and primary locales, transends personal and spiritual levels. If I did not know better I would say you lived it. I wish I could. Sorry, to my question, you have said that your finished 1st draft of Runes was 1052 pages long! Revenant 1209! And now 1179 for Against All Things Ending! Has that been true of all the other books of Chronicals 1 & 2? Would it ever be possible to read any of your unrevised Covenant works? What am I missing from those 500 or so weeded out pages? Thank you again for sharing wonderful imagination and amazing talents with me.
|
Each book in "The Last Chronicles" has been significantly longer than *any* of the first six volumes. But trust me when I say that you aren't missing anything by not reading my first drafts. In fact, you're much better off. I *improve* my books by revising them. Sometimes I improve them almost beyond recognition. You do NOT need to know how badly I can write in my first drafts. (However, keep in mind that published books contain many more words per page than manuscripts. The published versions of my books have not been as drastically cut as you might think.) (05/13/2009) |
Steve C: Stephen,
Just another one of your long time fans for decades and decades:
My questions are about the Harauchi. Obviously their senses and their defenses are superior to many peoples since they are not affected by Kevin's Dirt. Also throughout the Chronicles we've seen their ability to discern more than others.
To what extent can they assess or diagnoss the forces and banes affecting the Land? Linden was informed that the Demondim were using a Fall to gain access to the Illearth Stone thousands of years in the past. Discerning the Fall and the mechanism in which the Demondim wield their power seems like quite a feat. How far does their discernment go? We learn of the source of Kevin's Dirt from Esmer, but since the Haruchai remain unaffected, do they understand the nature of Kevin's Dirt? How and why it affects other people's of the land? Although understanding causality doesn't necessarily translate into a solution, it certain goes a long way!
Next question is about the Haruchai's sharing of minds. Stave has developed a way to silence his thoughts. In all of Haruchai society, does this set a precident? Is all that Handir thinks always always shared with the Haruchai hive? To what extent do the Master's regularly communicate with the Haruchai of their home? Perhaps these last questions are outside the scope of your story... But since I wonder if there is more going on with the Haruchai than just the keeping of secrets, I muse on these issues...
Having enjoyed your books over the decades, I've always felt the Bloodguard and Haruchai have unrequieted as well as self-imposed grief. Passion, it seems, can come in many forms. I am glad that you have been delving deeper into their culture and shared psyche. I suspect that there is a lot more to come about the inner workings of the Haruachi and that their long-standing and unresolved issues will be central to the remainder of the books...I eagerly await your next installment. And then the next...and then your next after Covenant. Just keep on writing!
Thank you,
Steve
|
I don't want to say too much about this, mainly because I don't want to limit my options, or--horrors!--introduce an inadvertent internal inconsistency. But I'll go this far. 1) Like the Ranyhyn, if in an entirely different form, the Haruchai are Earthpowerful beings. Hence their great strength, their longevity, and their immunity to Kevin's Dirt. But their discernment may not be as great as it can seem. Being able to perceive both the presence of a Fall and the emanations of the Illearth Stone within the Demondim horde does not imply that the Haruchai can extend their senses thousands of years into the past. It only suggests that they are able to draw rational conclusions from what they perceive in their present. On the other hand, I believe they *are* capable of discerning, say, the absence of health-sense in others. 2) Like the Ranyhyn, the Haruchai are mortal. Therefore they have limits. Specifically they are limited in *range*, both with their discernment and with their ability to communicate mind-to-mind. The "hive mind function" that they've developed over the millennia is only accessible if they're physically close enough to each other. And they've become dependent on it (another form of limitation). How else could a single Haruchai know everything that the entire race remembers? Does Stave set a precedent? Possibly. But if enough other Haruchai make the effort to follow his example, the "hive mind function" will effectively collapse. Why would they want to do that? Wouldn't such a collapse reduce their prospects for survival? (05/20/2009) |
Terry Hornsby: You've written a fantasy epic, a science fiction epic and a detective/crime trilogy. Do you feel any particular allegiance or preference to any genre? What I mean is, do you think, "I'm going to write fantasy. Now, here's the plot." or is it more "I've got a great idea that just happens to be fantasy"? Finally, what's next? A western? A romance? A horror?
|
As I've said over and over again, I don't choose my ideas: they choose me. In a very real sense, I do what I'm told. And so far, I haven't been told what I'm going to do after "The Last Chronicles". Within that general principle, however, it's clear that fantasy comes more naturally to me than sf or (so far) mysteries. Hence the preponderance of fantasy in my short story collections. (05/20/2009) |
Dale Cebula: Just a very silly question for you here:
I recall that Covenant is a successful writer in the first book (although he learned to hate his earlier work) and with his success was able to live a fairly comfortable life and purchased Haven Farm.
Now that you are (or rather have been for a while now) a fairly successful writer, do you think that maybe you overstated the income that Covenant earned from his first book? Do you think that maybe you overstated the material benefits that he gained from a best seller?
Can hardly wait for the next one!
|
Not for the time when the first "Covenant" trilogy was written. Back in those days, bestsellers often sold five times as many copies as they do today, and consequently made five times as much money. I would be pretty comfortable myself today if my circumstances then had allowed me to keep even half of the money I made during the first ten years of my career. (05/20/2009) |
cwmallard: Just a comment regarding Amazons "Kindle".
I only found one Kindle discussion on this site. I want to push the corporate publishers more to release the 1st and 2nd chronicles--in fact all of Stephens work-- in an E-format.
I don't care for an audio format and the publishers can opt out of the text to speech option on the Kindle.
Beg,plead,beg,plead.
Release Kindle versions of Stephens work.
!!!
|
Could happen. I've just signed a contract amendment with Bantam that allows them to release e-versions of the GAP books and "Reave the Just". Eventually something similar may occur with Ballantine for the first six "Covenant" books, "Mordant's Need," and "Daughter of Regals". But publishers and agents are still wrestling with the underlying issues, which are more complex than you might think. Just to cite one example: if a book is no longer available in any physical form, but *is* still available as an e-book, is it still "in print"? (Remember, the rights revert to the author when a book goes "out of print".) And does mere availability suffice as a definition of "in print"? (Publishers naturally want the answer to be Yes: authors naturally want the answer to be No.) If not, how many copies have to be sold to qualify an e-book as "in print"? My present contracts with Ballantine answer such questions for physical books. But back in those days, no one had imagined the possibility--never mind the ramifications--of e-books. And then there's the whole piracy problem, which is increasing exponentially. One e-book legitimately purchased can easily become 5000 bootleg downloads. Quite reasonably (I think), I would like to see Ballantine get a handle on the piracy problem before I sign away EVEN MORE of my few remaining rights. (05/20/2009) |
David Marcum: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I’ve wanted to write to you for a long time, but I didn’t have a question that hadn’t already been asked. I finally thought of something, and I couldn’t find if anyone has asked this before. My question requires something of an explanation...
I am a Civil Engineer specializing in water/sewer/infrastructure projects. A few weeks ago, I was at a job site in a small rural town, and we needed to locate some water lines in a site where we were going to be digging. The town’s public works director showed up to help us find the lines. I thought he’d have blueprints, or maybe a metal detector. Instead, he pulled out two bent coat hanger pieces and started dowsing. In a minute, he was joined by another town employee and one of the construction workers. They walked up and down the field, muttering and painting marks on the ground at various points. Oddly, every place they marked corresponded to a buried water line.
Of course, I’ve heard of dowsing, but hadn’t seen it in person. I asked the head contractor about it. He didn’t know what I meant for a minute, and then he said, “Oh! You mean ‘witcthing the water.’” He then went on to say that it was common practice. I later talked with my boss and an old professor, and they both said it was a more common practice than I had known, and often the only thing that would work.
I personally believe that the world is much more complicated and amazing than humans can understand, and that there is a lot going on around us we’ll never know. (Kind of like an ant trying to comprehend the internet.) I keep an open mind, and I even got a white gold wedding ring when I got married 20+ years ago...just in case I get hit on the head and need it somewhere else. But I have a hard time with the idea of dowsing – There just doesn’t seem to be a reason it would work. That day I was in the small town felt like I had wandered into a village somewhere that was using magic – or earthpower – just because no one had told them that they couldn’t.
So my question (after this long explanation) is...How do you feel about something like this in the real world? Do you believe that there actually is some sort of power (magic? earthpower?) around us now for those who can access it, or do you think what I saw was just some quaint superstition and magic is just something you write about?
Thanks again for everything that you have done, and I – along with all the others – can’t wait to see what’s going to happen next.
David Marcum
Maryville, TN
|
It's easier (safer?) to respond to your more mundane question. *I* can think of a possible explanation for dowsing: it relies on the fact that absolutely everything has an electromagnetic field (an "aura") of some kind, and on my personal observation (as well as a fair amount of more objective documentation) that some people are remarkably sensitive to the existence and character of those fields. Indeed (he said, since he appears to be in an unusually disclosive mood today), all of the physicians who are currently keeping me alive use methodologies which are comparable to dowsing, both to diagnose my many ailments, and to determine appropriate treatments. And their rates of accuracy/success are *far* higher than the results achieved by the more traditional MDs who (putatively) opposed my deterioration for most of my adult years. Nothing demonstrates the inherent limitations of The Scientific Method better than the practice of "medicine" as it currently exists in the US. Give me a good ol' fashioned dowser any day. Which I suppose implies my reply to your larger question. In my (entirely personal) experience, the real magic is life itself. And I suspect that the more we know about it, the more magical it's going to seem. (05/27/2009) |
Jeff: In a recent GI response, you said "the single most rewritten facet of my first drafts is always the dialogue". This made me wonder what your thoughts are on plays/theater as literature? Do you ever go to see plays? Are there any plays/playwrights you particularly admire? [feel free to ignore the obligatory nod to "The Bard"...unless you have some unexpected/unusual insight?] For what it's worth, I find reading scripts unsatisfactory or incomplete...I don't fully appreciate the work till I see it "on its feet."
|
I don't particularly enjoy reading plays (with the obvious exception of Shakespeare): I miss all the specificity and tone that good actors, a good director, and a good designer would supply. But in fact, I've tried writing plays myself--with rather unfortunate results. By a curious coincidence, one my plays was actually performed in the "experimental" (i.e. graduate student) theater at Kent State. Somehow the director managed to find in my script the exact opposite of my intentions. Cringing my way through that experience convinced me that I *need* all the words that provide context for the dialogue. In retrospect, it's easy to see what the problem was. Performed drama is both a creative and a re-creative art. As a result, it can break down on a variety of levels before the audience ever gets a chance to (mis)interpret it. Sure, some of the faults of my play were mine alone. (A good playwright can write lines that practically force the director and actors to respect his/her intentions.) But some were the director's: he brought sarcasm to bear on lines that were written with empathy. In any case, I'm with you: I'd rather see a play "on its feet." (05/27/2009) |
Mark in Japan: Hi Stephen,
I just read some comments on Patrick Rothfuss's blog that I thought you'd appreciate. It concerns the interactions between popular authors (like yourself) and their fans in these days of blogs and e-mail, especially fans who can't wait for the next book. You can see it here:
http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/blog/2009/02/concerning-release-of-book-two.html
Wishing you good health and good fortune!
|
[posted for the amusement/edification of curious readers] (05/27/2009) |
Stewart Brewer: Hello Mr. Donaldson.
My question relates to your use of the term "Elohim." Given the meaning of this term in Jewish and Islamic texts, how/why did you select this term for use in your Covenant Chronicles books? Also, were/are you aware of the Mormon belief that "Elohim" is the name of God, rather than "Jehovah"? Just curious. Thank you.
|
Yes, I was aware of the Jewish, Christian, and even Islamic (but not Mormon) meanings of the word when I decided to use it. As with the "personal" names of the Ravers (moksha, turiya, and samadhi), my intentions were both descriptive and ironic. The Elohim certainly think of themselves in God-like terms. And they *act* like gods (if you define "gods" as the supernatural beings that populate, say, Greek, Roman, Germanic, and Indian mythologies): capricious, indifferent, cruel, ambiguous; eagerly spiteful; reluctantly benign. (05/27/2009) |
Michael: Stephen:
A casual re-read of the my favorite parts of Fatal Revenant has led, as such activities usually do, to a re-read of the Second Chronicles. I'm deep in The One Tree, and this question came to mind.
Honninscrave talks about the 100 of the Lost/Unhomed who chose to stay with the Elohim, only to never be seen or heard from again. When the quest approaches the Elohimfest, they come to a mound encircled by a ring of bare, seemingly dead trees.
My question: is there some connection between those trees and the giants who remained? I have no rational or defensible reason for thinking this, but somehow I always suspected those trees *were* those giants.
As always, thank you so much for sharing your gift and stories. They are truly old friends who never stop giving familiar and new joys.
|
Sorry. I don't have an answer for you. The answer, if there is one, exists outside the text--and (all together now) I only create what I need. (Could it be that the author simply *forgot* about those Giants? Say it isn't so!) (05/27/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I think it's time we started a serious, sentence by sentence breakdown of the Chronicles. So, to begin: Lord Foul's Bane, Chapter 1: Golden Boy, First Sentence:
"She came out of the store just in time to see her young son playing on the sidewalk directly in the path of the gray, gaunt man who strode down the center of the walk like a mechanical derelict."
Hmmm...interesting beginning. The one item that has puzzled me about this is the use of the word "gray" (although I remember the "mechanical derelict" really puzzling me when I was younger - now I understand since I'm older and most mornings I wake feeling like a mechanical derelict myself). What does "gray" refer to? Covenent seems a little young to have gray hair. His clothing? His temperment? His eyes, which I believe are described as being "gray"? Can you shed any light on your use of the word "gray" to describe Covenant at this critical first sentence jucture?
Next month - Sentence Two! Just kidding...:-)
|
I was referring to the color of Covenant's skin: that ashen hue some people get when they're sick. (05/27/2009) |