Nothing in my stories reflects my personal beliefs--except for my belief in the integrity of storytelling, and the importance I assign to my best understanding of my characters. However, I put an enormous amount of thought into my stories. And I *was* trained as a literary scholar. Very little in the way of "symbolism" and "irony" in my stories occurs by accident. And with my intensive fundamentalist Christian upbringing, Biblical references of all kinds can hardly be avoided. But don't be misled: if the stories can't stand on their own, entirely independent of my--to pick a random example--personal religious beliefs, then they can't stand at all; and I've failed at what I believe in most. (06/01/2005)

You're right, most of us really have to love it. And I do. There is no chance, none at all, that "poor sales"--or anything non-lethal--would prevent me from finishing "The Last Chronicles." I have a profound (not to mention obsessive) need to finish stories once I start them. There is a remote--but real--possibility that poor sales might cause my US publisher to dump me. (This issue doesn't arise in the UK, where sales have been excellent.) On the one hand, my US editors are loyal and supportive. On the other, Putnams is well known for dumping authors when sales are unsatisfactory--or even when sales threaten to be unsatisfactory. However, even in the unlikely event that Putnams dumps me, all would not be lost. Books would still be available from the UK. And another US publisher might be willing to pick up the project. In any case, there's no immediate danger. Hardcover sales for "Runes" were good (not great; but definitely good). (06/01/2005)

The "chaos vs order" theme which pervades the GAP sequence is certainly not original with me. (Only the specific details of how that theme is deployed are mine.) Indeed, the theme is so deeply embedded in Western thought that it might be impossible to determine who first put it into words. But speaking solely of my own intellectual development, I like to credit William Blake, who wrote, "Reason is the circumference of energy." This struck me when I first read it, and still strikes me today, as an ideal expression of the paradox which makes art, beauty, and even humanity possible. If energy (chaos) is not controlled by reason (order), it remains formless and destructive. If reason is not constantly challenged and stretched by energy, it remains rigid and destructive. (06/01/2005)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that my novels "have something to say." For one thing, as I keep repeating, I'm a storyteller, not a polemicist. I don't write to communicate messages: I write to share characters and emotions, situations and questions. And for another, the--for lack of a better term--"content" (political or otherwise) of any story is a synergistic creation: writer and reader bring it into being together. And since, like the writer, every reader is a unique individual, each reading experience--each synergistic creation--has its own unique "content". For example, "The Second Chronicles". For you, and possibly for me, it may be an object lesson about toxic dumping. But for another reader, it may be pure escapism. For yet another, it may be a welcome relief from the rather claustrophobic confines of the Land. For still another, it may be a troubling exercise in implausibly elaborate machination--a "conspiracy theory" book, in a manner of speaking. And for still another, it may be a patently dishonest assertion that any human being can ever transcend the abyss. On a conscious level, I'm a totally apolitical storyteller (although I admit that I have trouble turning off my environmental instincts). But that doesn't mean my stories lack political "content". In fact, my stories lack ALL "content"--until the reader makes his/her contribution to the creation. (06/04/2005)

There will be four books in "The Last Chronicles." The titles are hidden away in this interview somewhere. If I could explain how I do what I do (how, for example, the human imagination works; or how my particular ethos intersects with and shapes--or is shaped by--my imagination), I would become far more famous for that insight than I ever will be for my books. <rueful smile> All I can tell you is this: 1) my tastes in literature were shaped by greatness (from Shakespeare and Donne to James and Conrad); 2) the--I don't have a better word for it--"content" of my imagination was shaped by my childhood in India; and 3) and I've spent most of my life (certainly my adult life) making an intensive study of personal integrity. (06/05/2005)

No publisher that I know of plans that far in advance. Decisions about things like omnibus editions are made after--sometimes long after--all of the original books are published. And since what I call Covenant 8, 9, and 10 haven't even been written yet (although I'm making good progress on 8), no sane publisher would announce "release dates" for the paperbacks; or for any versions. Good luck with your own writing! I hope you fare well. (06/11/2005)

Having had the pleasure of meeting Julie and Cameraman Jenn (Heatherly was apparently "asleep") during a book tour last fall, I find that I've now been invited to appear as the "final expert" on Fantasy Bedtime Hour. I can't honestly say that I feel equal to the challenge <grin>, but I don't see how I can refuse. And for those readers of the GI who are *still* wondering who should play Thomas Covenant in the hypothetical film version of "Lord Foul's Bane": can anyone compare with Gamecat on FBH? (06/11/2005)

I'm passing this along for people who might enjoy it. I haven't had time to check it out myself--although typically I enjoy such things (witness my fondness for Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour). (06/15/2005)

This is a more complex question than it probably ought to be. But consider the fact that in LFB the Lords promised Foamfollower Gildenlode keels and rudders (if memory serves) for the Giantships. From this one might well infer that when the current "searching" Giantship returned to The Grieve it stayed there--and no new ships were sent out--because the Giants were hard at work retrofitting all of their ships. Plus, of course, the sea is a perilous place. Any number of Giantships might simply have never returned. A more probing question, I think, is: why did Lord Hyrim et al find no Giantships at all when they reached The Grieve in TIW? "The Last Chronicles" may conceivably suggest an answer. Or not. Authors have been known to be very clever. They've also been known to be badly confused. (06/15/2005)

This makes me squirm because, well, you *almost* got it right (which means that your memory is considerably better than mine); but I don't know how to correct any misapprehension without committing a spoiler. So let me try it this way: "victory" works; "self-sacrifice" is close enough (I usually refer to "surrender," but lo those many years ago I could easily have said "self-sacrifice"); but "sacrifice of others" is way off. Admittedly, Covenant is a pretty expensive guy to be around through much of the first trilogy. But by the end of the second he has become adamant about trying not to sacrifice others. And whatever inclination Linden may have had to let other people take the fall was--in a manner of speaking--cleaned out of her during the second trilogy. It's difficult to imagine either of these people considering "redemption through the sacrifice of others" to be anything except an oxymoron. I am (very) consistently following through on my original model for the whole "Covenant" saga. But in some respects your memory has played you false. (06/15/2005)

Meaning is where you find it. Speaking purely for myself, I did not intend anything more than a thematic connection between Berek's victory on Mount Thunder and Covenant's reaction to his first encounter with another leper. But if you see more--well, enjoy it. I stay away from message boards concerning my writing. As I've said before, I'm not the intended audience, and for that reason (among others) the experience isn't good for me. (06/15/2005)

You've asked a number of questions, here and elsewhere. I'm sorry I'm so slow getting to them. I didn't consciously set out to create cliff-hanger endings for "The Runes of the Earth," or for any of subsequent installments. Rather the story itself seemed to dictate that structural device. (I refer you to "Mordant's Need," which is also organized in four parts, three cliff-hangers and a resolution.) Frankly, the only way that I could have extended "Runes" past the point where I ended it would have been by including all of "Fatal Revenant"--which would then have required me to include all of "Shall Pass Utterly"--which would then have demanded the inclusion of all of "The Last Dark." And that was not a practical possibility on many levels. And yes, four volumes is definitely "in stone." The way my imagination works doesn't allow for variations which would change either the shape or the structural units of the story. I'm sorry: neither my webmaster nor I can afford the time to send out e-mail "notifications" when questions are answered in this interview. Considering the lag (!) between question and answer, I can certainly understand *why* you would like to be notified. But then my answers would be delayed even further. Yes, Mistweave left Revelstone with Cail. But Mistweave had a necessary purpose for going to Seareach; and in any case Cail would almost certainly have refused company on his quest for the merewives. (06/15/2005)

I'm sure you could argue that subconsciously Covenant was still trying to "rescue" Elena--or to expiate for his failure to save his daughter. But on a conscious level he was responding to an immediate--and very real--crisis. Indeed, *I* could argue that consciously he had learned from Elena's example and was refusing to repeat her mistake. Putting it another way: he was now humble enough to understand that he was neither wise enough nor grandiose enough to "save the world." Trying to save an endangered child who happened to be standing right in front of him, on the other hand: that *did* lie within his abilities. (Incidentally, I consider it self-evident that Lord Mhoram would have made exactly the same decision in Covenant's position.) (06/15/2005)

Yes, I'm still a dedicated student of the martial arts. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, there is wisdom hidden deep within the martial arts that I find invaluable. And I know that such exercise is a good pressure-valve; but I'm less conscious of that benefit than I am of other, more (for lack of a better term) spiritual benefits. (06/15/2005)

I will not be the Guest of Honor at the World Fantasy Convention in Madison for the simple and sufficient reason that the organizers didn't ask me. No, wait a minute, that's not it. Or it *is*, but it's not *why* they didn't ask me. The real reason is that I've already had my turn. I was the WFC GoH way back in Tucson 20 years ago. More about Scriven and the "Penance" world? I'm sorry, you'll have to ask me that question after I finish "The Last Chronicles." I have a one-track mind, and I don't want to risk derailment by even pretending to think about other stories. (06/15/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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, it's true: I'm human. Ergo there are always things that I've missed, ranging from thematic implications (apt or otherwise) to details of internal consistency. And this forum has brought a number of them to my attention (which I find embarrassing, but almost always valuable). So yes, there are occasionally "mistakes" that I simply have to "write around"--or to bury in bullshit as cleverly as I can <grin>. In some happy cases, however, having my mistakes pointed out to me (or discovering them myself) opens doors for the material that remains to be written. As to how I achieve as much internal consistency as I do: I've already discussed that at some length in this interview. I'll just reiterate here that I do a great deal of research on an almost daily basis, primarily into the "past" of the "Chronicles," but also into the "future" of what I haven't written yet. (06/16/2005)

Your interpretation seems apt to me. I didn't have anything specifically "Taoist" in mind when I first created the Haruchai/Bloodguard. Nor have I thought in those terms since then. Rather I've been thinking about the inherent destructiveness of moral absolutes; and in particular about the dangers of "extremism" in the face of dilemmas which appear to demand extreme solutions. (E.g. exactly what *does* a person who abhors killing do when someone or something dearly loved is about to be killed?) But such themes consort well with the ideas you've expressed. One practical point, however: Berek swore his particular service to the Earth and Earthpower long before the Haruchai came along; the Haruchai never swore *his* vow, they swore their own; and they have good reason to distrust the ramifications of Berek's oath as it was handed down through the old Council of Lords. (06/16/2005)

Such questions are posted often in the GI, and have been answered several times. In the absence of a FAQ, I'll simply say that news about "Fatal Revenant" will be posted as soon as it becomes available in the "news" section of the site. However, I'm unwilling to provide vague "status reports." That seems too much like teasing. So I'll only post news when I have something concrete to report. (06/16/2005)

<sigh> This keeps coming up. And God knows I can understand why. But I always want to ask: how have I failed to demonstrate a) the thematic revelance (even the thematic necessity) of Covenant's crime? and b) the enduring consequences of such violence? You say, "His character as a leper already puts all the hardcore emotions needed at his disposal." I disagree. In my view, "his character as a leper" casts him in the role of "victim"--and that is decidedly *not* where I want him. I want the reader to see that he is in truth a potential Despiser; or that he has already assumed the role of the Despiser. Otherwise there's no story. A bit of narrative theory. (All such theories have severe limitations, but they also offer useful insights.) There are really only three roles that a character can play in a story: Victim, Victimizer, and Rescuer. And what makes the difference between what I think of as Real Stories and mere plot spinning is this: in a Real Story, characters change roles because of what happens to them. So Covenant starts out as a pure Victim. But I happen to think that being a Victim (or even thinking of oneself as a Victim) naturally inclines a person to become a Victimizer. Being cast in the role of Victim is morally damaging; and that damage tends to breed a desire to impose Victim-hood on someone else. Hence the rape of Lena. To my way of thinking, however, the really interesting question is not how a Victim becomes a Victimizer, but rather how either a Victim or a Victimizer becomes a Rescuer. How does a human being find the resources to step away from that kind of damage (Victim or Victimizer) in order to become the opponent of damage? This theme manifests itself in one form or another in virtually everything I write. (Sidebar: of course, there are plenty of Real Stories out there that deal with how Rescuers become Victims or Victimizers. But that doesn't seem to be my natural theme.) Another way to look at this whole question is to think of "rape" as a metaphor for all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical. And in those terms, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of "rape." Speaking purely for myself, I've been on the receiving end of metaphorical "rapes" many times. Sometimes I've engaged in such actions myself, with or without provocation. Sometimes I've responded to the "rape" by holding myself to a higher standard of conduct--but I've done so entirely without forgiving the "rapist." And sometimes, just sometimes, I've both held myself to a higher standard of conduct *and* learned how to forgive my "rapist." (Which is, of course, the only road that leads to the place where I might be able to forgive myself.) Considering my own actions, I can only hope that the people I've "raped" (deliberately or inadvertently) will find it in their hearts to forgive *me*. (06/16/2005)

Procedures for obtaining autographs are explained elsewhere on this site. (06/16/2005)

In some form, yes--if only symbolically or metaphorically; or perhaps by "sympathetic magic". After all, the people of the Land can summon individuals out of the "real world"? So why couldn't a power like Lord Foul affect the thinking of obviously vulnerable individuals like Joan and Roger? (06/16/2005)

I don't want to comment on Michael Warden's work. But the subject of "intellectual property rights" holds some interest. As I see it, it's impossible to write without drawing on "sources"--things read, studied, seen, experienced, felt, etc. And how those sources are used ranges along a continuum from, for lack of a better term, "creative transformation" (Tolkien is a good example: anyone who wishes to make the effort can identify any number of his sources; but he has "re-created" those sources, "made them his own," so uniquely and well that no one can fault his artistic integrity) to literal plagiarism, direct quotation from someone else's work as if it were one's own (otherwise known as stealing). Everything else falls somewhere between those two extremes. And how a given "source" (presumably a living, copyrighted author) responds to being used to one degree or another is as much a matter of personality as of ethics. Speaking purely for myself: if a case of literal plagiarism came to my attention, I would certainly take offense; and I might well take legal action. But anything short of literal plagiarism seems to me, well, a tempest in a teapot. The person who, let's call it, "leans heavily" on my work will be damaged more than I ever will (as soon as anyone notices what's happened); and I see no need to respond with anything more than a snort of derision. But other writers feel otherwise. I've seen "intellectual property" lawsuits filed--and won--on the most improbable grounds. IMNSHO, writers who do that are taking their own egos way too seriously. Sidebar: it was T. S. Eliot, I believe, who wrote, "Bad writers borrow. Good writers steal." Clearly he was referring to theft in a different sense than I did above. He meant that a good writer takes his/her sources and transforms them into something entirely his/her own. A bad writer, on the other hand, commits something short of literal plagiarism. He/she simply and obviously fails to transform--or even digest--his/her sources. Then, mercifully, that writer lapses into oblivion. (06/22/2005)

Ah, where to start. The lore of the Old Lords was not contained in, nor did it require, the Staff. Berek's *ability* to make the Staff was one expression of that lore. But the Staff itself was/is merely an instrument for wielding Earthpower in the service of Law. Both Law and Earthpower existed long before Berek became aware of them. The Old Lords simply studied what they could, taught what they knew, and did their best to understand. Think of their lore as a body of knowledge (but only *a* body of knowledge, not all possible knowledge) about how the world works, and about how to benefit from how the world works. As the story demonstrates, the Staff is not necessary to the validity of the lore, and the lore is not necessary to the existence or power of the Staff. Sure, the lore of the Old Lords is still valid (taking into account that some crucial Laws have been broken). But who's going to rediscover it? And how? It isn't a book you can suddenly find misfiled in the library and, ah ha! there it all is. It has to be built; learned in stages. And it requires a starting point, which Berek had, but which no one else since the corruption of the Council has had. (06/22/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

I discussed this at some length (much) earlier in the GI. But briefly: My use of POV is always dictated--nay, positively required--but the nature of the story I'm trying to tell. The stories you mention--and all of my short stories--and all of my mystery novels--simply could not have been told in any other way (at least by me). The perspective is inherent to the nature, the content, and the structure of the story. How does this affect me? Well, I suffer from an a-rational dislike of first person narration; so I have to master certain aspects of myself in order to write stories which require such narration. (And don't even get me *started* on present tense narration. <grin> Or on third person omniscient narration.) And I find the use of multiple POV characters (most obviously in the GAP books) extremely arduous. From my perspective as the storyteller, multiple POVs require me to completely re-invent the world every time I change "heads". For me (I can't speak for other writers), this is exhausting in the extreme--which explains in part why I got so little writing done in the first few years after I finished the GAP books. (06/26/2005)

Thank you! Other readers have given me the meaning of RAFO, but the Poe citation on checkers and chess eluded me until you came along. Ah, "Penance." I didn't reveal Scriven's original or "actual" name because the story doesn't require that information: the story only requires that the character has a substantial past--which I can adequately convey through hints rather than with elaborate and digressive exposition. (As I keep saying, I'm an "efficient" writer: I only create what the story I'm writing absolutely requires. So no, I don't actually know Scriven's previous name(s).) All of the names I chose primarily because their music spoke to me. But I also chose "Scriven" because it resembles "shriven" and implies something written down (a story told). As you suggest, I chose Aposter because it might refer to both Apostle and Apostate. (With my religious background, such references are unavoidable.) And I chose Straylish because it includes "stray" (suggesting that Straylish has taken Mother Church far from its more benevolent roots). (06/26/2005)

If my father knew Dr Brand, he never mentioned it to me. But he obviously knew Dr Brand's work. He cited Dr Brand when he wrote a paper for me on the subject of leprosy and its emotional consequences. (06/26/2005)

Well, he could do it--because he can do just about anything. So can Johnny Depp. But Oldman fits better because he's, well, older. (06/26/2005)

Thank you for your long and thoughtful message. I've pruned it significantly, not because I don't value your views (I do), but because there's little I can say in response. (I certainly can't comment on your analysis of Senior's book. <grin>) Your view of Lord Foul is certainly defensible. Indeed, it is "authorized" (in a manner of speaking) by the explicitly archetypal intentions to which I've made reference throughout this interview. Further, it is consistent with the ideas I wrote about in "Epic Fantasy in the Modern World": if fantasy is a form of psychodrama in which a mind is turned inside out so that its aspects and conflicts can be dramatized as external characters and events, that implies a certain, well, let's call it single-minded-ness among many of the players. The Bloodguard. The Ramen and Ranyhyn. The Cavewights and ur-viles. The jheherrin. And, obviously, Lord Foul. So it follows that if he is a pure characteristic (evil, for example) rather than a true character (with a back-story, complex desires, and the power to make choices), he might well be considered a "Necessary Opposite"; essentially static. In a case like that, the whole "necessity of freedom" concept simply doesn't apply. And yet-- Everything that I've just said only fits comfortably around the original "Chronicles." It seems obvious (at least to me) that my own perception of Lord Foul (like my priorities as a writer) is undergoing a sea-change. In "The Second Chronicles," for example, Lord Foul plainly demonstrates an ability to change and adapt. His tactics have changed radically--and his stated agenda has shifted subtlely (less emphasis on "eradicate hope from the Land," more emphasis on breaking the Arch of Time). (Curiously, a cursory glance suggests that the word "arch" isn't even capitalized until "The Second Chronicles.") And he adjusts "on the fly," as it were, to Linden's presence (even though the attitude of the Elohim seems to imply that her presence has been foreseen). Doesn't that entail an ability to make meaningful choices? One could argue legitimately, of course, that no prisoner is free. By definition. But one could also argue with equal legitimacy that even a prisoner is free to choose his/her attitude toward imprisonment. Indeed, one could argue that self-mastery (the ability to choose one's own thoughts and emotions) is the only truly human form of power. So where does that leave us? Beats the by-products out of me. All I can tell you for sure is that the comparative moral simplicities of the first trilogy have been left behind. And that this change affects the characters--all of them--as well as the story on every level. In my (current) view, Lord Foul is like Nick Succorso: the fact that Lord Foul chooses only ruin doesn't mean he hasn't made a choice; it simply means that--consciously or otherwise--he has rejected the alternatives. Shucks, even in "Paradise Lost"--a far more didactic work than anything I've ever written--God's highest Angels themselves have the power to choose. In short, if you want "Necessary Opposites," you may have to look at Elric instead of Covenant. (06/29/2005)

Sorry, no. The Mahdoubt is a subject on which I can't offer "spoilers" of any kind. This is firmly in the category of RAFO. (From which you may safely deduce that the story isn't done with her. <grin>) (06/29/2005)