I can't think of a better analysis than yours. Certainly it's no accident that Covenant's second "bargain" turned out much worse than his first--for all the reasons you cited. His second bargain is inherently less honest. But be careful. It's a bit of a stretch to say that Covenant *knew* (even subconsciously) Elena's intentions for the Power of Command would kill her. As for my use of the word "bargain": it's also no accident that Covenant is named, well, "covenant." (05/17/2010)

Thanks for your good opinion--although I'm uncomfortable thinking of myself as a teacher (so thanks also for not using that word <grin>). I'm learning as I go along, just like other people. Yes, I've read both Bunyan and C. S. Lewis' space trilogy. I found the former interesting historically, but simplistic morally (like most allegorists). Lewis' moral thinking is more complex (while still allegorical), but his "Silent Planet" books were just too static to hold my interest. (05/17/2010)

Perhaps my subconscious *was* "getting ready for the Gap books." Your guess is as good as mine. Certainly the chronological sequence of those works is seductive: *this* followed *that*, therefore *that* must have caused *this*. But that's a logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. While I was writing "Mordant's Need," I was only conscious of wanting something that was easily "alien" to the Mordant world--something that didn't violate my essential paradigm (different realties operate by different rules, but human potential remains)--and I had already used enough "fantasy" monsters. Darsint was a convenient choice. As were many of my choices in "Mordant's Need." I consciously did *not* want to engage in Covenant-style world-building: I was preoccupied with other concerns. So I "borrowed" several familiar tropes in order to construct a comparatively simple background for the characters. (05/17/2010)

I'm primarily interested in striking and blocking myself. I have several joints that can't take the pressure of grappling; so if I ever end up on the ground, I'm toast. One reason (among many) that I love Shotokan is, it protects those joints. But I've been blessed with rather eclectic teachers. So far, I haven't seen a technique in any other martial art (including Jujitsu and Muay Thai) that isn't hidden away *somewhere* in Shotokan. I don't train most of those "hidden" techniques, but I know they're there. For that reason, I consider Shotokan a good "foundation" style: you can take it in almost any direction you want. (05/17/2010)

Thanks! If you had given me an email address, I would have sent you a personal response. (05/17/2010)

I'm not much good at debates. I don't think quickly enough. But the author this article is clearly working from extremely reductive definitions of both "fantasy" and "reality." (05/17/2010)

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 - Against All Things Ending

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.

1) We're outside the text again. But if I understand your question-- I imagine that Triock and Foamfollower would have simply failed. Nothing would have happened to Covenant. Or nothing substantial anyway. Until Lord Foul won his war. 2) Because (as I've said on other occasions) Unbelief is no longer a "foreground" theme in "The Second Chronicles." (05/17/2010)

The instructions for obtaining autographs are described elsewhere on this site ("contacts"). But there seems to be some confusion about the process. Readers are asked to limit themselves to three. This does not mean that you can *only* have three. It means you can only have three *at a time*. If you want more, simply wait a polite interval and then post your request again. (05/18/2010)

Well, *I* enjoyed the book--but that doesn't mean *you* will. Tastes vary. And blurbs are written for a variety of reasons (I mean, apart from the obvious one). Ego, for example. Or professional or personal courtesy. Personally, I don't make reading decisions based on blurbs. Even my own. <grin> (05/18/2010)

1) You seem to forget that Covenant is always striving for *restraint*; that he was afraid of his own power long before he learned how dangerous it is. In contrast, Linden wants *more*: she wants enough to impose her will on, well, practically everything. So just because she's wielded more power than Covenant *has* doesn't mean that she's wielded more than he *can*. 2) Do I need to remind you that LF has changed his tactics profoundly between the first trilogy and the second? In the first, his approach is comparatively simple. If he can't get Covenant to fight his armies, he would like nothing better than a direct confrontation: Covenant and wild magic vs LF with the Illearth Stone. That would have given LF what he wants: a contest sufficiently immense to break the Arch of Time. But Covenant foiled him by attacking the Illearth Stone instead of its wielder. In the second trilogy, however, LF's approach is entirely different--and one of its keystones is the venom which erodes Covenant's restraint. Hence Covenant's dilemma in the Banefire: he's been *poisoned,* for crying out loud. Surely, therefore, comparisons between Gibbon/Banefire and LF/Illearth Stone are meaningless. Do I need to emphasize that Covenant *still* has never fought LF directly? Do I need to ask, What would be the point? (05/20/2010)

It's difficult to disapprove of libraries. Sure, they make books available for free--in a manner of speaking. And writers (not to mention publishers) have been trying for a long time to figure out how to get royalties (without putting libraries out of business). But do keep in mind that libraries are a public service (an accepted institution of public policy) supported by both user fees and tax dollars. Readers are *paying*, even if the money doesn't go to writers or publishers. And libraries do buy the books they lend out. In addition, there's the significant historical detail that libraries existed before royalties did. The present system of paying writers takes for granted the presence and legitimacy of libraries. None of those statements can be made about the kind of Internet piracy that undermines writers and publishers today. Copyright law may be a comparative recent invention, but it's a LOT older than the Internet. "Gee, I really like these books, so I'll do my best to make sure that their author never earns another dime--and therefore can never write another book." Does that make sense to you? (05/20/2010)

If you don't mind my saying so, this seems a bit disingenuous. I mean, considering the fact that "chiaroscuro" occurs any number of times in the first trilogy, and (if memory serves) is not entirely absent from the second. There may even be precedent in "The Last Chronicles," although I can't be bothered to check. (05/20/2010)

I'm posting this as a matter of general interest, not because I want to turn the GI into a debate about what is or is not offensive. I'm grateful for the understanding and support. I would have sent a private reply rather than a public message if an email address had been provided. (05/20/2010)

Deciding what and what not to explain or develop in a story is always a complex narrative challenge. In the end, I have to rely on my instincts (as most writers do, I suppose)--and in this case, I decided that Vagel would be a more "potent" figure if I kept him in the shadows (as it were) instead of revealing him clearly. After all, he *is* essentially a "background" figure, peripheral (but not irrelevant) to the main story. So the question then becomes, How can I make him interesting without bending the story out of shape to accommodate him? Naturally my instincts can be wrong. But I have to trust them anyway. At the end of the day, what else can I rely on? (05/20/2010)

[contains possible oblique spoilers] If you can see a parallel between Lord Foul's "fall" and Covenant's, you're doing better than I am. LF's plight--or so it seems to me--is more like keeping your mind and losing your body. Covenant, of course, is regaining his body and losing his mind. It seems plausible to me that LF might have occasion to need a name that doesn't announce his nature. "Hey, guys, I'm Foul the Despiser, and I want to become a Lord by tricking you." "a-Jeroth" works well for me because it *sounds* right, not because it has any literal meaning (at least as far as I know). I acknowledge that the chronology of the Old Lords is confusing: they lived so long that there must have been significant overlap. Well, I didn't work this out when I was writing the first trilogy because I didn't think I needed it; and now I'm stuck with it. Almost anything I might say goes outside the text. But as "Fatal Revenant" reveals, Damelon was an adult long before Berek became High Lord. And it seems likely that Loric's "trajectory" resembled Damelon's. So again it seems likely that Loric knew Berek. But Kevin may--or may not--be another matter. Loric, apparently, was a real risk-taker. If he fathered Kevin late, and died (comparatively) young, that might account for some of the confusion. In any case, I suspect that a-Jeroth came along after Loric was gone. (05/25/2010)

I have to say that no offense was intended to any martial art--or any martial artists--in "The Man Who Fought Alone." Apart from the stealing, and the subsequent murder, at the martial arts tournament, everything that happened there is something that I've witnessed or overheard personally. But what's in the book is specific to the particular characters and situations I'm writing about: unlike my characters, I'm not drawing general conclusions. Meanwhile the notion of battles between martial arts schools (for whatever reason: prove superiority, attract new students, seek justice, keep the peace by containing the conflict, exclude outsiders) has a long tradition. I am FAR from the first storyteller to employ such narrative devices. Sadly, many people who pursue that martial arts do so for reasons of ego, not for what Funakoshi called "perfection of character." (05/25/2010)