1) This is one of the very few instances in which I wish I could make retrospective changes in the earlier "Chronicles." If I had that option, I would eliminate the issue you raise by subtly altering the explanation for why the Ranyhyn remain in TPTP. As matters stand, however, you'll simply have to imagine that some barrier prevents the Ranyhyn from hearing a summons when they aren't "present" in the Land (a barrier that pertains to the fundamental nature of the Land). 2) I don't know how to answer such questions because they compare situations that have virtually nothing in common. In the first trilogy, the Ravers have good reasons for wanting/needing to keep a "host" like Triock alive and active. The only comparable situation in "The Second Chronicles" involves Marid. Covenant is much more of a "known quantity" in the second trilogy. Creatures like rats are expendable. Gibbon can draw on the full force of the Banefire. Etc. etc.. 3) Naturally the idea that the Land is "unreal" becomes less and less relevant (therefore less and less plausible) as the "Chronicles" progress. That's inevitable: the themes of the story modulate steadily into new keys. If they didn't, the story wouldn't be worth telling. (06/04/2006)

Reorganizing a bit.... I've already said more than I care to repeat about how/why I survived 47 rejections for "Lord Foul's Bane." The core explanation is that the story itself kept me alive and working. Stories do that for me. And part of their salvific power lies in the fact that they are almost unendurably difficult. Now. Why would you *expect* to see the "magic" in your own work? You're on the inside looking out: the reader is on the outside looking in. Your perspective and the reader's have virtually nothing in common. The real "magic" is that communication occurs at all. The fact that some writers communicate more effectively than others (however you choose to define "effectiveness") is an almost incidental side-effect of the essential mystery. Which brings me to the issue of "rushed" and "stuff" in "The Runes of the Earth". I don't share your perspective: I can't. All I can tell you is: a) the pacing of the story is deliberately different than anything else I've ever done; b) my publishers consider the book "leisurely" (excessively so) rather than "rushed," so on a practical level I've been under constant pressure to "get on with it"; c) you didn't cite any specific "stuff"--and in any case I probably couldn't respond without spoilers--but I can assure (from my exclusive perspective "inside") that EVerything in "Runes" is intended to both enable and fortify the larger story (by which I mean both the larger story of "The Last Chronicles" and the larger story of the entire saga). (06/04/2006)

This is touchy issue because I don't own the publication rights to the various "Chronicles": my publishers do. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever excites you--as long as you give proper credit to your sources, you assure your readers that I have not read or "authorized" your work, and you don't accept any money. But I can't promise that my publishers will have the same reaction. And I have no control over what they may or may not consider "acceptable". "Authorized" is an important point. If you imply in any way that the *content* of your fanfiction (rather than the simple act of writing it) has somehow met with my approval, I'll be forced to contradict you vociferously. <sigh> And let me just add--ENTIRELY as a matter of personal opinion, so please don't take this the wrong way--that I wonder whether writing fanfiction is actually good for you. Wouldn't you be better off creating your own stories? Sure, coming up with your own characters, worlds, and plots is hard. But you might find the effort worthwhile. (06/04/2006)

I doubt that I would ever dissociate myself from a LFB movie. (The author--and publisher--get paid whether the author disavows the movie or not.) For one thing, I suspect that most people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the author of a book (or graphic novel) and the makers of a movie. For another, I agree that movies (even bad ones) can attract new readers. For another, I don't have any "ego" invested in a LFB movie (not yet, anyway <sigh>). And for yet another, history has shown that movie-makers who don't respect their sources alienate their "core audience"--which leads to a substantial loss of revenue. Just look at Lynch's atrocious "Dune". When I asked for exceptions to my assertion that "the oldest and most enduring works of storytelling...are *all* fantasy," I was thinking of works older than the Bible--and MUCH older than "Moby Dick". I had in mind works like "The Epic of Gilgamesh," "The Mahabhratha," "The Elder Eddas," and the ancient Japanese epics. (06/04/2006)

If I understand your question.... Linden has "too much power" in that she wouldn't survive trying to use both white gold and the Staff of Law *simultaneously*. Never mind the fact that wild magic and Lawful Earthpower are inherently antithetical. She's MORTAL: she has limits. Any attempt to channel such immense and divergent forces would tear her apart. As they would any mortal being in the "Chronicles"--and possibly the immortal ones as well. (06/04/2006)

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.

Does anyone ever *intend* "to create a near mythical world which can be sown into the fabric of our own myths etc"? I don't think it works that way. In fact, I suspect that attempting to accomplish such a feat would preclude success. It is only by focusing exclusively on specific characters in specific situations, on specific stories, that writers (occasionally, mysteriously, without forewarning or premeditation) tap into universal insights. (06/04/2006)

Actually, I asked if there were any ancient *stories* which were not fantasy. And I was thinking of stories which pre-date Ennius. btw, how *do* you distinguish between "theogony" and fantasy? Can't both be described as attempts to understand, well, life by using "metaphors of magic and monsters"? (06/04/2006)

I've said it before: I don't know what my writing future holds. I'm often surprised by the ideas that come to me. Once I'm done with "The Last Chronicles"...well, who knows? But I'm fairly sure that I'll never write any prequels. The idea bores me. And I have no plans to continue anything I've already done (except the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels). I rather like the open-endedness of the GAP novels. And I have no particular itch to write more about those characters and/or situations. (06/05/2006)

Actually, if memory serves--which it probably does, since I have "The Power that Preserves" right in front of me <grin>--Covenant *does* try to confirm Hile Troy's "reality". Apart from hiring a private detective (probably not a good idea in his situation), he does the only thing I could think of if I were in his position: he makes a phone call. With what we might politely call unsatisfying results. Plus there's the whole "mental and emotional isolation of the leper" problem.... (06/05/2006)

<sigh> Picture the author muttering to himself, "'Creator' questions! Is there no end?" Yes, I intend(ed) the old beggar to represent the Land's Creator. The fact that this idea has been used before is one of several reasons why I decided not to be more explicit about it. As for the beggar's absence from "The Runes of the Earth"--yes, that would be telling. 1) Linden is aware of the pattern because Covenant told her about his previous experience. 2) As I've said, the Land's Creator does appear in Covenant's "real" world. But what does that have to with "our" world? Covenant's "real" world is just as fictional as the Land. (06/05/2006)

"Plans" might be too strong a word for it. There have been discussions about a GAP "option" off and on for years. If anything actually happens, I'll post the information in the "news" section of this site. (06/05/2006)

This seems like a suitable--i.e. completely arbitrary--opportunity to mention that I'll be taking a hiatus from the GI for a while. Some people use the word "vacation," but since I've never been away this long, I don't know what to expect. In any case, I won't come back on line until July. Now. "Fundamentalist Christianity" is "bred in the bone" for me; so deeply ingrained that it can never be extirpated, no matter how hard I may try. (As Flannery O'Conner has observed, people are defined as much by what they run away from as by what they run toward.) My conscious mind no longer lives in that world: my unconscious does what it wills. Still, one can hardly look back on Donaldson books--*any* Donaldson books--without becoming aware that they're about redemption. My protagonists *always* have to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling." Clearly this is a Humanist--or even an Existentialist--view of "redemption". Yet the stuff in the marrow of my bones never goes away. To the idea that "nobody [in the GAP books] seems worth redeeming," my instinctive reaction is: Would Christ have said that? Who needs redemption more than those who appear least worthy? (06/08/2006)

(Just personal enough to make me squirm; not personal enough to refuse to answer.... <sigh>) We all have our unique vulnerabilities. Mine tend to involve "validation". The scene in "A Man Rides Through" where the Tor begs to be assured that he hasn't failed his King. The scene in "This Day All Gods Die" where Morn reads her message from Warden Dios. That sort of thing. (06/12/2006)

As I've said before: Hey, they're your books, you can pronounce the names any way you want. Personally, I say "Joyce" (like "James Joyce") and "GER-a-den" (hard g). (06/12/2006)

(Well, I'm back. Didja miss me? <grin>) As a writer who labors with equal intensity (and growing ambition) over everything I write, I'm naturally saddened that none of my other work "speaks" to my readers as powerfully, or as consistently, as "Covenant" does. Nonetheless the fact that readers, well, love the Land more than, say, the world of the GAP seems perfectly natural--and even predictable. (In fact, I've been predicting it myself at every stage of my career.) What's at issue, I think, isn't either the stories themselves or my skill in telling them. It's a function, rather, of the setting. The Land is simply *bigger* (in every sense except physical scale) than any other world I've created: more magical, richer in history, more diversely populated, more inherently epic; in short, just plain more *attractive*. My readers are more interested in the Land (its history, its characters, its implications and possibilities) because the Land is simply more interestING. (Plus there's the whole psychodrama/journey inward/transcendentalism dimension of good fantasy which I've discussed at length elsewhere.) Or so I tell myself. The alternative is to believe that I've been losing it as a writer for decades now; and that way lies madness--or at least seppuku. <sigh> (06/29/2006)

One of the great pleasures of writing sf/f is that it has enabled me to meet many of my fellow writers. As a group, they are as diverse as any other group of human beings. In fact, the only thing I can say with confidence about us as a group is that when we get together we don't want to talk about writing. (Writing is, after all, an intensely private occupation for everyone who does it.) We only talk about writing when we're talking to readers. Among ourselves, we discuss agents, publishers, other writers, books in general. But mainly we talk about life. Just like normal folks. <grin> (06/29/2006)

I've been studying the martial arts for, oh, 18 years now. I'm glad that it shows. But I don't "use" it consciously (except in the case of "The Man Who Fought Alone" and "The Killing Stroke"). Instead it has simply become one of the many resources that I bring to everything I write, like my "ear" for language and my sense of narrative timing. (06/29/2006)

Yes, the questions I'm asked in the GI *do* occasionally prompt me to think more clearly, and in greater detail, about issues over which I might otherwise be inclined to gloss. (And no, I'm not going to tell you *which* questions--or which issues. That would lead me almost immediately into the quicksand of spoilers.) That's one of several reasons why I persist with the GI, despite the fact that I've already answered 1200+ questions. At unexpected moments, this dialogue becomes a fecund and challenging experience. Even questions like "Could Saltheart Foamfollower beat up Hercules?" are not entirely devoid of merit. <grin> As a general rule, I find that questions are only "entirely devoid of merit" when I permit myself to scoff at them. In other words, a question is only "entirely devoid of merit" when I make it so. ("Creator" questions leap to mind. <sigh>) (06/29/2006)

It's easy to see how that could happen. But it always comes down to the unique ethic and discipline of the particular writer. In my case, I only use non-work time for my web site. Today, for example: I'm jetlagged out of my mind, effectively incapable of accomplishing anything useful on "Fatal Revenant"; so instead I'm trying to reawaken my brain here. (06/29/2006)

Well, here's my explanation, for what it's worth: the Sunbane and Kevin's Dirt are very different forms of evil. The Sunbane was a corrosion of Law itself, an attack on "the natural order." Kevin's Dirt is more like, well, a fog; a veil which obscures perception, but which does not alter what lies behind it. Ergo, the "transcendant" nature of the Haruchai was affected in "The Second Chronicles" but is not in "The Last Chronicles". (06/30/2006)

Another example of Unconscious vs Conscious influences. As a man with both a B.A. and an M.A. (and a Litt.D) in English literature, I can hardly be anything less than well acquainted with Coleridge in general, and with his Ancient Mariner in particular. But I wasn't *thinking about* Coleridge's poem when I wrote "The One Tree." The poem's influence simply leaked out of my subconscious while I was concentrating on other things. (Which, by the bye, is one of my primary reasons for continuing to do what I do. I *live* for those occasions when--as I like to say--"I write better than I know how"; when my unconscious puts more into the prose than my conscious mind is able to provide. As I get older and more experienced, those occasions become increasingly subtle. But they still occur--for which I'm devoutly grateful.) By now, I hope I've made it clear that I have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether or not anyone ever makes a "Covenant" film. At extremely rare intervals, circumstances grant me the power to say Yes or No to a movie option. When that happens, I always say Yes (unless they want me to write the screenplay, in which case I say No without hesitation). But the circumstances themselves are entirely outside my control. As they should be: it ain't *my* money. <grin> (06/30/2006)

Can I pick "none of the above"? Of *course* Mhoram didn't become corrupt. And it seems unlikely that the title "na-Mhoram" would have evolved simply to hurt Covenant's feelings. Please keep in mind that 3500 years passed between the end of TPTP and the beginning of TWL. I think we can assume that for a significant number of centuries after his defeat, Lord Foul was powerless, and the Council flourished. When LF did begin to exert his influence again, he chose an extremely subtle--and very time-consuming--approach: the gradual corruption of the Council into the Clave. This was done by tiny increments over many centuries. One of those increments (but only one) was changing the "High Lord" title to "na-Mhoram", a change which was doubtless justified as an act of homage to the greatest of the new (post Ritual) Lords, but the real significance of which involved the slow re-definition of the Council and its purposes. The "na-Mhoram" title was an attempt to lend authority, validity, to that re-definition. I hope that's clear? I'm too tired to tell. <sigh> There is no charge for my signed bookplates. You don't even have to pay for postage. (06/30/2006)

The term "bestseller" refers to *speed* of sales: sales in a specific time period. A book that sells 300,000 copies in one month is a major bestseller, even if it never sells another copy after that. A book that sells 1,000,000 copies in a year, and continues to sell for 20 years, can easily *not* be a bestseller. (Of course, there are sub-categories of "bestsellers". A book can easily stay at the top of the sf/f genre bestseller lists for months without ever appearing on the NY Times Bestseller List.) Leaving genre lists aside, only two of my books have ever been hardcover "bestsellers": "The One Tree" and "White Gold Wielder". The five "Covenant" books after LFB were all paperback bestsellers. BUT. After nearly 30 years, every book I've ever published is currently in print. I'll take that over bestseller-dom any day. (06/30/2006)

Ah, but you missed one of the subtleties. <grin> "Hara-kiri" was only performed by the grandest and most consequential of lords: it's far more ceremonial and elaborate than seppuku, which is reserved for us lesser mortals, and which can be authentically performed in private (although having a good friend standing by to finish the job is always advisable). (06/30/2006)