Mark C.: Hi, Stephen.
I have a question that has been nagging at me since I read Fatal Revenant two years ago.
I seem to recall someone saying in The Illearth War that the Old Lords spoke a different language and the Wards were taking a long time to translate because of this.
Yet, when Linden finds herself in the Land's past during Fatal Revenant, it appears that Berek and Damelon (and everyone else she encounters) speak to her in English.
Did the Theomach somehow enable Linden to understand them and vice versa (though she is able to understand Yellinan without the Theomach present)?
Or was Roger with his new hand from Kastenessan able to bestow the Elohim's gift of tongues onto Linden?
I would love it if you could save me from this torment.
Thanks,
Mark
P.S. Please forgive any spelling errors seen above. I do not currently have the texts in front of me in order to check my accuracy.
 |
The simplest version is that the language of lore isn't the same as the language of common speech (ref. the Seven Words). Berek and his lineage spoke the common speech, but they wrote and studied their lore in its (for lack of a better term) "native" tongue (which Berek probably learned from the Theomach). That lore-language was lost during the centuries after the Ritual of Desecration. Hence the difficulties translating the Wards. (06/01/2010) |
Jordan: Hey and how are you?
Okay, I don't get why the elohim wouldn't want Vain to accomplish his purpose and make a new Staff of Law? That's what they Appointed Findail to do in the first place since trying to get a fresh one from the One Tree would just rouse the Worm, so why try to hide and hold him? I can see Findail not wanting the quest to succeed, but not the rest of them: the Staff of Law is a good thing. It prevents stuff like the Sunbane which would threaten the Earth.
Another observation: when Vain remade the staff with ur vile lore, I assumed it would mean the restored Land would be altered so they and their lore would be a natural part of things and they wouldn't need to hate themselves anymore. How surprised I was to find the Waynhim were sick by the Staff's proximity.
Happy writing.
|
[possible spoiler] Infelice answers your first question at the end of "Fatal Revenant." As to the second, Vain didn't remake the Staff: Linden did. Vain was just one component; and she transformed him--as she did Findail--according to her own perceptions of health and Law ("the natural order"). (06/01/2010) |
English Major: Hello Dr. Donaldson I wanted to thank you for the many sleepless night's I spent reading your excellent novels. I remember you mentioning how William Faulkner has influenced you as a writer, Well I just finished reading "The sound and the Fury" for the 3rd time and Noticed some distinct similarities between Nick Succorso and Jason Compson. My question is, do you notice these similarities as well?
|
I have of course studied Faulkner. But several decades passed between my last reading of "The Sound and the Fury" and my writing of the GAP books. I certainly wasn't conscious of any similarities. [insert my usual provisos] (06/01/2010) |
Gary Barnett: Dear Mr Donaldson,
In the past, I have laboured under the (perhaps naďve) notion that authors are the ultimate arbiters and interpreters of their own works. Within the GI, you clearly explain that, from your point of view, once your works are in the public domain, you accept that any consistent interpretation of your work is as valid as any other (including your own).
Building on that, I wonder whether you deliberately include ambiguities within your work? Obviously you will include plot elements/detail that are ambiguous at the point they arise, but later resolve as the plot develops. But do you deliberately include elements where you yourself do not have a clear view as to which of several possible interpretations is the "correct" one? (It goes without saying that as a simple reader I labour under the weight of many unresolved ambiguities when I read your books and am happy to lay the bulk of that failure on my own limitations!)
To provide just one example to focus my question. When Covenant is about to be burned at the stake in During Stonedown, mutely watched by Vain, he turns to him to ask for help. Vain grins and Covenant erupts into argent fire. It seems to me that there are many different interpretations of what is happening here, all consistent in some way with the Chronicles. Vain's grin may actually be a deliberate way of helping Covenant access his power by heightening his ire. It may simply be a smile recognising the imminent eruption of power. Other possibilities exist. My question is whether, in writing an ambiguity such as this, you always have a clear view of which interpretation is "correct" from your perspective? Do you "know" why Vain smiles at this point?
And a related question. One thing that you have said in the GI has confused me. In relation to Vain, you state that "Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose". However, on a number of occasions Vain goes out of his way to save Linden - is this not because he recognises that Linden (though not Covenant) is indeed essential to his achieving his ultimate purpose?
Finally, I would like to say that the redemption of the Unhomed by Covenant in the white gold caamora at the end of The Wounded Land is one of the (if not the) most emotive, immersive and, frankly, brilliant pieces of fiction I have ever, ever read.
Thank you
Gary Barnett
|
I've been procrastinating with your question because I find it difficult to address. But first, a practical point. I wrote of Vain that "Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose." For the purposes of salving my bruised--vanity? conscience?--I'm going to pretend that you took my statement out of context. <rueful smile> Otherwise my assertion is patently absurd. Vain goes to considerable lengths to preserve Linden--for the obvious reason that he needs her. (How could I have failed to remember that? I have no idea.) So, duh, I was wrong on that point. But I didn't intend Vain's reactions to Covenant/wild magic to be ambiguous. To my way of thinking, Vain simply *likes* seeing wild magic deployed because it--like Linden--is essential to his purpose. As an entity, he isn't complex enough to be manipulative. (After all, the ur-viles aren't the Demondim--and they certainly aren't the Viles. I doubt that they know how to create a fully functioning sentience.) As to your more general inquiry. Do I know what I mean when I write? Yes, I do. Do I know everything that what I've written *can* mean when I write? No, I don't. Am I sometimes deliberately ambiguous? Yes, I am. But I don't do it to confuse anyone. I do it because I can think of a variety of meanings in a specific situation, and they all fit my intentions. Am I sometimes unconsciously ambiguous? Yes, of course. Perhaps the greatest glory of the creative imagination is that it can create *more* than it--or its wielder--intends. (Sadly, it can also create *less*. But that's life.) This, at least in part, is why I try to resist notions of "correctness" in interpretation: because sometimes what I've written means more than I realize. Another reason I try to resist such notions is that reading is an interactive--or re-creative--process. Written storytelling doesn't *do* anything unless the reader invests him/herself in the experience. Therefore, inevitably, the reader's mind provides much of the content of written storytelling. As a result, the reader can see ambiguity where the writer intended clarity; or, conversely, see simplicity where the writer intended complexity. But there's nothing wrong (or "incorrect") about that. The reader's experience of a book is inherently valid--for that specific reader. So it seems to me that readers, not writers, are always "the ultimate arbiters and interpreters" of the work. Why else do you suppose that we still read Dickens, but we don't read Galsworthy? The answer is certainly not that Dickens had a higher opinion of his work than Galsworthy had of *his*. In fact, if Galsworthy were any kind of "ultimate arbiter and interpreter," we probably wouldn't read anything else. (06/09/2010) |
John: Steve,
how do you like the cover art for AATE?
Cover art is NOT your book - it's not what you wrote and has actually nothing to do with the story you tell, but it occurs to me that a novel, in a way, becomes collaborative work: people buy and read your work, but also they also buy the artists work. Perhaps some people may buy a book because of the cover?
So, are you happy with the cover fir AATE?
John
|
It's not really good "politics" (for lack of a better word) for me to comment on the cover art for an on-going project. But...oh, well. To my eye, "The Last Chronicles" covers are too static (they don't convey the impression that the book contains a story) and too literal (they don't look like what I had in mind). But the AATE cover is an improvement over FR's: what is *Gandalf* doing on the cover of my book? And AATE is more "accurate" than TROTE. (06/14/2010) |
Richard: Hello Steve,
I am intrigued. I just saw the following response of yours:
"Considering "The Last Chronicles," perhaps the single most important thing that the GAP books enabled/required me to learn was a deeper engagement with a wider variety of characters. I like to think (or perhaps simply hope) that this deeper engagement "shows" throughout "The Last Chronicles.""
And I was wondering whether you had a preference, both as a writer and a reader, for stories that have a wider set of characters or which are more intimate?
No mere curiosity bids me ask this question. I remember a moment when a tutor of mine - against my expectations - told me a screenplay I had written was all the better for having few characters because I was able to explore them more fully.
I recognise novels and scrrenplays are different, both in style and in scope and in length, but I do find that the balance between emotion engagement and 'sprawling' narrative is often hard to find and excess is too often mistaken for artisry (and vice versa).
|
The simple answer is--and I hope that no one will be surprised by this--it depends. It depends on the nature of the story being told, and on how the author (screenwriter?) handles the characters. I have no inherent preference on the subject (except in the generic sense that I always prefer outstanding work that happens to suit or attract my personal tastes). But perhaps I can hazard a few general observations. Simple plots can easily become cluttered with too many characters. Complex plots tend to become mechanical unless they’re enlivened by complex characters. And any character can be one too many if the writer can’t make that character vivid enough to stick in the reader’s memory long enough to get through the story. (This last may be the most crucial factor.) In my own writing, my preferences are determined by my story: it doesn’t work the other way around. (06/19/2010) |
Bengt Hallberg: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I reread the Mordant's Need books every two years or so. It is such a pleasure to return to that world. I have noted that such a fundamental human feature as religion is nowhere to be found. Was leaving gods out a deliberate choice?
Best regards,
-- Bengt Hallberg, Nyköping, Sweden
|
Yes, the choice was deliberate. But my reasons for making it may not be obvious. First, I was trying to get about as far away from “Covenant” as I could and still be writing fantasy. Since “Covenant” is an explicitly archetypal “good v evil” story, I chose to make “Mordant’s Need” what I call “human-centered”: no gods, no religion, no non-human races, no archetypal trappings, and an almost sf-ish form of magic. Why did I feel a need to do this? Well, the story didn’t *require* any of the things I chose to leave out. And I felt an active desire to stretch different creative muscles (he said, displaying his familiar gift for a phrase). In addition, I wanted to prove to my readers that I could write a good story that didn’t sound or feel or even think like “Covenant.” Second, I’ve always suspected that our entire concept of “religion” (and, by extension, “gods”) would be altered if we lived in a world where “magic” is demonstrably and verifiably “real.” If (what I’ll call for the convenience of the moment) transcendance obviously existed *outside* us instead of only within us---and here I mean “existed” in the most mechanical and reductive sense--we might not feel that sense of discrepancy between our inner and outer lives which drives us to search for meaning in a-realistic notions. Then we as thinking, feeling beings might not need what are commonly called “religions” at all. Or we might be drawn to the kind of religion which pervades the Land during the time of the Lords. So I gave myself permission to leave “gods” out of “Mordant’s Need.” (06/19/2010) |
MRK: I recently saw a church sign that said "Fear is Unbelief in Disguise." I immediately thought that the reverse, Unbelief is Fear in disguise, made more sense to me. It got me to thinking then, that fear and unbelief are very closely related. Fears seem to be based on the idea of "I fervently hope this is not true." We fear the proverbial monster in the closet because it *may* be real, but we hope that it is not and find ways to rationalize and affirm that idea, so we can believe the monster does not exist and therefore will not devour us in our sleep. I think this applies to all of your major stories on some level. Covenant fears the ramifications to himself if the Land and its inhabitants are real, so he elects to believe it and they do not exist. Teresa Morgan is champion second-guesser of her own abilities and fears the responsibility that goes along with being an independent, rational, sentient (and powerful) being so she begins to question whether or not she is one. I believe her dilemma is similar, if not identical, to Mick Axbrewder's. Holt Fasner fears the idea that he might *not* live forever and control the universe so he refuses to believe in, or allow, any other possible outcome from his actions. Linden is slightly different; she disbelieves in her ability to make right decisions, at least at the beginning (and readers more cynical than I am agree with
her) and fears the consequences should she
even make the attempt, seeing herself as
morally bankrupt. I also found the sign
ironic, as, in my experience, Christians are about as fearful a group of people as any other. The sign implies to me that having fears mean you have no faith, but isn't fear one of the things that makes us human? Indeed, belief in a supernaturally-governed universe seems to be a whole HOST of reasons to be afraid. Everyone has fears, different ones, maybe, but fears all the same, and with the same underlying basis. Of course, a big part of life (both real life and the lives of the people in your stories) is deciding whether or not we will overcome those fears or if those fears will overcome us. Perhaps that is the difference between your protagonists and our antagonists. What are your thoughts on this and the relationship between fear and unbelief?
|
I really don’t have much to add. It seems so *obvious* to me that fear is the most primal human emotion. Ergo any church or religious group that claims otherwise (“You’ll stop being afraid if you just believe the things we believe”) is simply lying. That church or group could say more honestly, “You’ll stop being human if you just believe the things we believe.” I probably shouldn’t make such strong statements on a subject that people feel so strongly about. But I have a lot of very painful experience on this subject, and I think I’ve earned the right. (06/19/2010) |
Peter Bejmuk: Hello Again Mr D,
1 As you may have been informed, cable channels such as HBO have been having success translating novels into edgy TV shows. Do you think that HBO would be a good venue for the Gap series, considering the mature content of the books? I know you mentioned in the GI (many times) to have no willingness to write screenplays, but if you could have "creative input" over such a series, how much input would you want over such a show?
q2 As GRRM's series is currently being pushed through the gears of HBO, they recently hired a linguist to develope a language of one of fictional ethnic groups of those books. The majority characters of the Land all seem to speak english, but have you ever given any thought to how the non-english languages (such as the Ur-Viles) would sound? Or how the accents or dialects of various regions would sound (how different would a giant vs a Stonedowner vs a Ramen accent be?). Or going back to the Gap, how different would Morn's speech patterns be to Nick or the Dragon? How often do such details come into the mind of an author?
q2.9 Final little question - wikipedia states that under UK publication, you are published as Stephen Donaldson (without the middle initial). Would you prefer a standard author credit across the globe? Or is a single R not enough to be bothered about, as long as they don't leave out any other letters/words on the pages between the covers?
Keep up the excellent work. Looking forward to the next book. I've already made room on my bookshelf.
|
1) I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I don’t want *any* input. (I’ll concede that my input might be useful; but that wasn’t the question.) The idea fills me with horror. If or when one of my books is turned into an atrocious film, I want to be able to say honestly that I had nothing to do with it. 2) The only answers I have to such questions are already in the text. If what I’ve written doesn’t convey the information you’re looking for, I’m probably not capable of providing it. I am *not* a linguist. 3) Actually, I *would* prefer a standardized name (with the R). But when my career started, my UK publisher didn’t give me a choice: in general, UK publishers don’t use middle initials--unless the author doesn’t use a given name (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, etc.). And after 30+ years of precedent, I can’t justify insisting on a change now. (06/20/2010) |
Michael Quigley: Hello Mr Donaldson
I am currently in the final year of my A Level examinations and chose for my English coursework piece to write a 1500 word argument on why your first chronicles should be entered into, if not the main English canon, than the canon of High Fantasy. One of the things I have chosen to look at is your re-invention of the traditional fantasy symbol of a ring of power, however I don’t think my analysis of how you make this a focal point around which to explore the nature of power and how you craft a far more complex and engaging ring than even Tolkien really does it justice. To have done that I think I would have needed more than 1500 words on that alone.
Unfortunately I only found this forum with four days left till my deadline so this is not a desperate plea for advice. Purely a hindsight request to satiate my own curiosity that writing this piece has awoken. Now finally to my question; I understand to a degree the paradox of the white ring, how it represents both in a literal sense the power to save or damn the land and the metaphorical representation of aspects of Covenant that can either save him from his own self hatred or consume him but I am having trouble expressing this and all the other pieces concerning the ring clearly so would you kindly please tell me if I am on the right track and help me to get my head round one of the most engaging aspects of your novels.
|
With the usual proviso that I’m not interested in passing judgment on the interpretations developed by my readers…. To what you’ve already said, I would add: the wedding band is a symbol of *voluntary* commitment, a promise motivated by love. Of course, this hasn’t always been true historically. Nor is it always true now. But in Western societies it *is* the idea behind the choice to get married, and it has been for quite a while. It isn’t biologically driven (procreation can occur without it: duh), so it doesn’t resemble the bonds that attach most parents to their children. And it isn’t compelled because it can’t be (although it can be simulated on a temporary basis for manipulative reasons): love doesn’t work that way. No, it’s a *choice*--which lies at the heart of Covenant’s “ring” dilemma as you’ve described it. (06/20/2010) |
John: Steve,
Ok, you said you work on one story at a time. But I'm dying here waiting for the last (?) Man Who... Novel. While writing something else, do thoughts of other things *never* pop into your mind? Maybe you jot something down on a note pad for later reference?
Just wondering,
John
|
Actually, dozens of ideas for the last (?) “The Man Who” book have popped into my mind over the years. But none of them has had a story attached. Put another way, those ideas haven’t fit the trajectory of the characters I’m working with. So in practical terms: nada. In general, the circumstances under which I “jot something down on a note pad for later reference” are limited almost exlusively to the story I happen to be working on at present. I have more notes now for “The Last Dark” than I had for the whole “Last Chronicles” before I started. (06/20/2010) |
Colin R. Grimes: As a matter of artistic curiosity:
Since you have already started on "The Last Dark" and made a special deal with your publishers to get out of book tours so that you can work on it, I was wondering if this was prompted solely by the difficulty of the work, or did you find yourself upon completing AATE so caught up/inspired that you just felt you had to plunge right in? My curiosity in this matter was aroused by statements of yours that this is far from your usual practice (i.e. that you don't like to start work on a new book during all the tedium of the process of getting another book ready for publication).
|
First, I have to say clearly that I did NOT make “a special deal” with my publishers to get out of book tours. I simply preempted their desires by announcing my refusal. They looked baffled for a moment, then said, OK, and, We aren’t really surprised. My contract does not obligate me to help my publishers promote my books. That said, I do feel a desire to get a jump on “The Last Dark.” The difficulty of the task contributes to my feeling of urgency, no doubt. But I’m sure that much of my internal pressure comes from just how *long* I’ve spent both working on “The Last Chronicles” (9+ years) and waiting to work on “The Last Chronicles” (30+ years). I want to be DONE with the &%^@%& thing. It’s true that I don’t like to start on a new book when I’m constantly interrupted by the chores of preparing the previous book. Those interruptions make me crazy. But these are special circumstances. Plus, of course, I’m not getting any younger…. (06/20/2010) |
Bob Benoit: Dear Stephen - I didn't see in any of the 12 questions that mentioned "Kindle" whether anyone asked you if you have tried a Kindle/Nook/Ipad, and if so what you think of them? I have a Nook, and after a little getting used to I love it. I ready voraciously, and frequently will have 2 or 3 books going at the same time. So it's great for me. Have any plans to own one any time soon?
Thanks.
Bob
|
I’ve never used an e-book reader, and I have no intention of starting now. No doubt I’m perfectly capable of sounding like a Luddite on the subject. But really, I just love physical books, and I don’t want to give them up. This doesn’t mean that I think other people should feel the same way I do. My agent and I are currently working to try to negotiate an e-book deal for the first six “Covenant” books; and I’m doing that because I know many readers want books in that form (and also because the physical convenience of e-book readers is pretty obvious). Nevertheless the growing popularity of e-book readers is irrelevant to my personal preferences. My personal preference on this subject is to stick with physical books. (06/22/2010) |
T Patrick: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Hope you have not fielded this question before. I have done some research into giant myth in medieval Europe for an undergraduate university degree; I am very fond of the Covenant books, but was not inspired to carry out my research by your work. However, it was very interesting to find some real similarities in the way you portray the giants and the sorts of myth and legend that certain european socio-cultural groups maintained.
To explain this a bit better - giants in germanic/scandanavian tradition are often associated with having constructed great works in the ancient past (the original Saxon settlers of Britain described ancient Roman ruins as 'the work of giants'), just as your giants constructed Revelstone. Your giants are also described as originating from distant lands - medieval belief (inspired by biblical sources) also associated such creatures as occupying far off realms.
Stumbling across this website while looking up details for your new book, I thought I would ask, out of interest, if your depictions of giants were based on research you had done on the subject matter, or if the similarties I see were arrived at unknowingly?
With many thanks for your time.
|
No, I didn’t do any research about “Giant-myths,” European or otherwise. (I *have* read an English translation of a version of the Elder Eddas; but “research” wasn’t my reason for doing so. In any case, I had created my own version of Giants before I did that reading.) My creative impulse doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, I can’t pretend that I wasn’t familiar with Wagner; so I was at least obliquely aware of *his* sources. That almost certainly influenced my view of Giants as makers of huge habitations. And on a very different level, I remember disliking--even while I was in middle school--how C.S. Lewis used the idea of Giants. That also influenced my creation of my own characters. (06/22/2010) |
Charles W. Adams: I'm not a lawyer, and certainly no expert of copyright law. My career is with computers, so the conversation of digital copies (perhaps pirated) vs. physical is of interest to me.
There is a clear difference between a library book and a pirated digital copy. The phiscal library copy is a purchased book. This book may be handled by many people, much in the same way that a personal copy loaned out to other people. A person who loans the book out gives his/her right/ability to read the book to someone else. I think this concept is called "fair use".
A pirated digital copy is not physically restricted. It can be shared with many people, each of who can read it simultaneously, each of who has not paid for a "use license". This is beyond "fair use". In this case, it's possible to share the material with another person and not give up the ability to continue to read the book.
In the second case, a single purchase of a book (and the piracy of such) can result in hundreds or thousands of people being able to maintain ownership of their copy while sharing it with others.
Besides the morality of behaving this way, there's a practical matter: What incentive does an author have to write, if he knows that he isn't going to be able to make a living doing so?
The digital world continues to evolve, and the laws which govern it will also have to evolve. But who here doesn't want Stephen R. Donaldson to be able to support the life to which he wishes to be accustomed?
Pay for the books!
|
Judging by the extremely unscientific sampling that the Gradual Interview represents, readers who want digital Donaldson books are perfectly content to pay for them. Apparently some people out there do favor pirating books; but it seems that none of them post messages here. Some readers here *do* justify taking advantage of pre-existing pirated books (which is not at all the same thing as justifying the original piracy) by saying, a) “I’ve already paid for legal copies of the books fair and square,” and b) “I can’t find e-versions anywhere except by patronising pirates.” Well, I can’t argue with that. Just remember that patronising pirates encourages them: an intangible consideration, I confess; but perhaps one not entirely devoid of substance. (06/22/2010) |
Anonymous: S-
In the trailor that is on the site, could you tell us where Linden (?)is and what is the green stuff coming out the door on the left?
Thanks
|
Sorry. That would be a spoiler. In fact, simply acknowledging that the answer would be a spoiler is in itself a spoiler. <grin> In FACT, simply acknowledging the existence of your question is probably a spoiler. And I could probably go on; but if I don’t quit now I’ll never get rid of this headache. (06/22/2010) |
Sam: I was just curious after the Last Chronicles is complete are you contractual "bound" to continue this gradual interview for certain period of time? If not would you continue for certain amount of time on your own to answer quetions about the last book?
Thanks for your time. -- Sam
|
Although my publishers *did* pressure me to start my own website, I’m under no contractual obligations whatsoever. And in fact the GI was my webmaster’s idea, not my pu blishers’. So how long I continue answering questions here is pretty much up to me. But I can’t foresee how long that will be. Some days I’m ready to call it quits right now. Other days I don’t know why I would ever stop. (06/22/2010) |