I think I've made it clear in the GI that writing has never been "fun" for me. I certainly don't approach it as a "hobby": it's a "calling"; something I feel *commanded* to do. On the other side of the emotional dynamic, I'm daily grateful that I can support myself and my loved ones by doing the work I was born to do (which also happens to be the only work I'm qualified for <rueful smile>). I never forget that I'm blessed in ways which few people ever experience. That said.... Things *have* changed since the days when I was writing the first "Covenant" books. Age and experience, of course. But in addition: although my rejection years were grim and cruel in many ways, and I paid a high price for them, they had one benefit which I lost as soon as I was published. Freedom. Since I was a failure anyway (or appeared to be), and nothing was expected of me, I could do absolutely whatever I wanted, however I wanted to do it. Take any risk. Push any limit. And that changed as soon as "earning a living" ceased to be a dream and instead became a necessity. A strange sort of role-reversal: affirmation took the place of rejection; and--for lack of a better term--responsibility took the place of freedom. I could go on about this at some length; but I'll just cite one example. Suddenly, as soon as I found a publisher, "artistic integrity" mattered. If storytelling were a job instead of a calling, I could have simply gone for the money--which would have made my life a hell of a lot easier. But no: I need a sense of creative purity. Which means that ever since I started to get paid my life has been a constant struggle between "earning a living" (i.e. pleasing my publishers, who are naturally all about money) and "artistic integrity". I like to believe that I haven't compromised. But I've paid a high price (emotionally as well as financially) for sticking to my convictions. (If you doubt me, consider the fact that I'm on my 4th publisher--and no one who has published me in the past is willing to do so again. I don't leave publishers: they send me away because my stubbornness costs them money.) (07/01/2006)

Thanks! I'm glad to hear other perspectives on this issue, which is clearly distressing to a number of readers. (07/01/2006)

Sorry, there's nothing I can tell you--apart from pointing out the difference in spelling ("Stevens" rather than "Stephens"). I've never heard of the book myself, or its author. (07/01/2006)

I keep coming back to the "Conscious vs Unconscious." On some level, everything contributes to everything. Everything I am and do builds on everything I was and did. But I wasn't *thinking about* Havelock when I created Anele. Rather I was trying to imagine a (thematically) logical extension of Nassic, Sunder's father. And I was--and am--struggling to comprehend what the consequences of being in Anele's position must be. (As I've said before, the fact that Anele is Elena spelled backward is just a happy coincidence: the unconscious mind enriching the conscious process.) (07/02/2006)

The actual line (from "Lord Kevin's Lament" in TIW) is "did You intend/that beauty and truth should pass utterly from the/Earth?" And yes, that's where I got the title for Covenant 9. And that gives you "a bad feeling"? In a *Covenant* book? <grin> Oh, dear. (07/06/2006)

They don't appeal to me. (07/06/2006)

Writers vary enormously--just like Real People. I know a writer who can comfortably write a, oh, 240-260 page novel in ten days. And I know a writer who struggles to produce a 240-260 page novel in a year. (These are manuscript pages, double-spaced etc.) I live somewhere between those extremes (although I'm slowing down with age). When I'm "in the groove," I can do around 30 pages a week (so 6 a day). At that rate, I could produce a 240 page novel in 8 weeks--if I ever wrote anything that short. <grin> And of course, I'm not always "in the groove." And I haven't yet mentioned rewriting. Over the long haul, my *effective* rate is probably closer to 10-15 pages a week (I haven't actually tried to figure this out). These days, you have to have an agent. Publishers no longer read unsolicited manuscripts. Just "slinging manuscripts around" isn't going to work. (07/07/2006)

For once, I'll try to avoid a jokey answer. (Surely you understand that this is an uncomfortable subject? At my age, I'm forced to think about death--my own, and that of the people I care about--with some regularity; but it ain't exactly fun. Hence my impulse to defuse the issue with jokes.) First, I need to emphasize that I *do not* have a plan for this contingency. I don't know what I would do if the situation came up. So everything that I'm about to say is pure speculation. (And please: no volunteers. Do I need to say this? If/when the situation arises, I'll make my own plans, thank you. If nothing else, that will be consistent with the way I've lived my writing life.) Being as detail- and care-oriented as I am, I can't imagine "rushing" anything--unless I happen to be somewhere quite near the end of a particular volume, or a particular phase of the story. In that case, I might try to put on a burst of speed. One thing that I believe I would *not* do is authorize my publishers (or my estate) to pick some random writer to finish the project for me. Sorry, but this is the inside of *my* head we're talking about. No strangers allowed. At the moment, I'm torn between two scenarios. 1) I contact a writer whom I know and respect personally, and I ask him/her to finish the job for me. If s/he agrees, I spend as much time as I have left discussing the story so that my candidate has as clear an idea as possible of my intentions. 2) I just give my notes to my publishers and ask them to publish the notes verbatim at the end of however much I've completed. That way, each reader can imagine the conclusion of the story for him/herself. Of course, these are only the thoughts of the moment. Assuming that I don't think otherwise later: "how much time I have left" will be a big factor. I can think of two examples of writers in the predicament you describe: Mervyn Peake (who appears to have rushed "Titus Alone" in order to complete his trilogy), and E. R. R. Eddison, he of "The Worm Ouroboros" [sp?], who left behind dissociated fragments of a projected trilogy or tetralogy (for some reason, I can't remember which right now). Whatever happens, I won't follow Eddison's example, for the simple reason that I write the story in the same sequence that I intend it to be read; I don't "skip around" in the tale, as Eddison did. (07/08/2006)

1) Lovecraft's work doesn't appeal to me. As to the sentences you quote: in my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there is less to them than meets the eye. If "Any great and lasting book must be ambiguous," then I guess we'll have to forget a lot of Shakespeare. Ambiguity is only one of many possible creative tools/goals. It has no inherent value: its importance depends upon the skill, intelligence, purposes, and talent of the writer who deploys it. And that second sentence: what does that even *mean*? I grant you that the best writers don't go around trumpeting the "significance" of their work. That kind of ego is almost always a symptom of mediocrity. The best writers concentrate on the story at hand: they let "significance" take care of itself. (They also let story-as-mirror take care of itself.) But that is not at all the same thing as "must seem to be unaware of the significance". One of the qualities that I treasure in great books is that the authors know what they're doing: the authors as well as the stories have a clear sense of purpose. 2) So far, my favorite aspect of "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" is the emergence of Quick Ben and Captain Paran as major players. But in my opinion the most *powerful* installment so far is "Memories of Ice". Just opinions, folks. Take them for what they're worth. (07/08/2006)

When Covenant entered Andelain with Atiaran, the Law of Death had not yet been broken: hence no Dead. TWL implies that "ordinary" people who enter Andelain do meet their Dead. However, the story reserves such encounters for the primary characters. (Note that in WGW the First and Pitchwife do not meet their Dead--since, apart from Honninscrave, their personal dead did not die in the Land.) If caesures could not be taken back before they were actually created, Linden would never have been able to retrieve the Staff of Law. (07/08/2006)

Warden's feeling that "It's got to stop" isn't personal to Angus. Warden knows perfectly well that he's committing the same crime against Angus that he deplores in Holt Fasner. No, the "It" in Warden's declaration is the whole moral/political/economic climate which permits and even encourages "wedding and welding": the climate which Holt has created (with Warden's initially naive and later despairing aid). When Warden announces that "It's got to stop," he's proclaiming his intention to *use* Angus--and Morn--in order to bring Holt down. (07/09/2006)

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.

"Peeved" is the wrong word for my current emotions. Saddened, sure. Disappointed, unquestionably. It's hard for a writer to come down from the Olympian heights achieved by the first six "Covenant" books in paperback, and "The One Tree" and "White Gold Wielder" in hardcover. That's human nature, I suspect. When you're "on top," the fall is never pleasant. And since I write to be read, I naturally hate to lose readers. But excuse me: "Runes" was a NYT bestseller? Not on any NYT beseller list I ever saw. When my publishers in their promotional efforts refer to the NYT beseller list, they're talking about the first six "Covenant" books, not "Runes". (To be fair: "Runes" has sold *very* well in England.) But what makes a novel "successful" to its author? There are probably more answers than there are authors. I have several myself. Sure, I would love a huge readership. And a movie based on something I've written *might* be good for my ego. (Or not.) But at the end of the day, it's being able to look myself in the eye that matters most to me. The GAP books haven't sold 10% of the "Covenant" books. And my mystery novels haven't sold 10% of the GAP books. But I can still look myself in the eye. (07/09/2006)

Yes, I was asked. I declined for several reasons. The main reason is that I had/have no suitable ideas. My imagination doesn't work that way. But I also know myself: I would have wanted to contribute a *better* story than any of my peers; and that kind of ego-based competitiveness is bad for me--as well as bad for storytelling. (07/09/2006)

It's true: I *do* write faster as I near the end of a story. The closer I get to my reasons for telling the story, the clearer my path becomes (for the simple reason that there are fewer and fewer possible ways to get where I'm going). But keep in the mind that the end of this particular story is still two long books away. "Fatal Revenant" is way too early for my usual acceleration to kick in. No, I wrote FR more quickly than "Runes" because a) I've suffered fewer interruptions, and b) I'm in much better health. (07/11/2006)

1) I'm having a little trouble identifying your actual question. It sounds like you're asking: if I hadn't planned "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles" almost simultaneously (in other words, if I hadn't known where the story was going to go after the end of "The Second Chronicles"), would I have killed Covenant off at the end of WGW? And I'm afraid you're right: I can't answer. This isn't a RAFO/spoiler issue. It's just that the ideas for the "Second" and "Last" stories arrived so close to simultaneously, grew so naturally out of the first trilogy, and felt so inevitable to me, that I simply can't imagine them in any other form. However. The fact that "The Second Chronicles" has endured the test of time so well (20 years, anyway) suggests that Covenant's sacrifice fits the story and can stand on its own--without reference to "The Last Chronicles"--just as his victory in TPTP fits the story and can stand on its own without reference to "The Second Chronicles". 2) As I've said before, I'm vaguely horrified at the idea of children--or even young teens--reading "Covenant". I intended the story for adults. The fact that so many readers have tackled the books "too young," and have not been irretrievably scarred by the experience, is a great comfort to me. <grin> As a human being--never mind as an author, or a reader--I abhor censorship. The moral flaws of censorship are so many and so obvious that I can't discuss them coherently. I'll just mention one: censorship dehumanizes the people who are denied access to whatever is being censored. However. I also believe that "teaching" your children is one of the fundamental responsibilities of parenting. Just as a matter of my personal opinion, I happen to think that censorship is not a particularly effective or humane parenting tool. But I will defend the right of any parents to make their own decisions on this subject. If I don't, I'll be engaging in a kind of moral censorship myself. (07/16/2006)

Remember, we're dealing with myth, symbol, and epic in "The Chronicles". They are not intended as a literal reflection of the reality in which we live. Rather they are intended as a symbolic reflection of *some* of the realities of being human. With that in mind: I've always assumed that if the Worm destroys the world, "reality as we know it"--not just in the Land, or in the planet of the Land, but in the entire created universe which contains the Land--will cease to exist. So yes, I've always assumed that destroying the world implies (or even necessitates) destroying the Arch of Time. And the universe cannot exist without Time. (07/16/2006)

I feel compelled to warn against a few generalizations. First, I doubt "that most great genre writers are great because they read deeply and enthusiastically *outside* their genre." Writers are too distinctive--not to mention idiosyncratic--to support broad assertions. For example, I know of mediocre genre writers who "read deeply and enthusiastically etc." This suggests that the nature of the reading cannot be a defining characteristic of greatness. Second, I'm concerned about generalizations concerning "greatness" itself, since--as I've argued elsewhere--one obvious characteristic of greatness is uniqueness (e.g. LOTR simply could not have been written by anyone other than Tolkien). Generalizing about anything which is inherently unique is laden with conceptual pitfalls. Third (which follows from my first two postulates), my example isn't likely to be of real use to anyone else. Certainly when I talk to other writers I invariably find that their reading is wildly different than mine. Everybody (and I do mean EVerybody) has to find his/her own path. With all of that in mind: I studied James for story structure and Faulkner for rhetoric. I studied Conrad for style--and for his demonstration that "adventure stories" can be used for the most serious literary purposes (a vital lesson which I could not have learned from, say, James Joyce). Tolkien (I don't know a better way to put this) gave me "permission" to write fantasy: he created the modern fantasy epic. And Peake showed me that fantasy can do great things which don't involve wars and quests. He also deploys a wider variety of narrative strategies than Tolkien does. As for Questions For Famous (Dead) Writers: I don't have any. (I think I've said this before.) Everything I want to know is contained within their work. All I have to do is find it. (07/16/2006)

This, in a nutshell, is one reason why I worked so hard to establish Linden Avery as a POV character in "The Second Chronicles": to enable "The Last Chronicles". I've spent so much time with Linden that the transition has been comparatively seamless. *Other* consistency issues, however, have been far more troublesome. <sigh> I've mentioned several of them elsewhere in the GI. (07/16/2006)

OK, I made up "unhermeneuticable". <sigh> And I'll admit that it does sound unlikely, coming from Pitchwife. I just couldn't resist the temptation: words like that are too much fun. But its implied meaning extrapolates rather nicely, I think, from "hermeneutics". Pitchwife refers to a "peril" which defies "the methodological principles of [spiritual or religious] interpretation." That fits the themes of the story, if not the characteristic rhetoric of the Giants. And I do occasionally have a good reason for underscoring those themes. (07/16/2006)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Clave was "based" on "the christian church"--or any particular church or religion. But there's no question that the Clave (intentionally) reflects my personal experience with specific churches, specific brands of fundamentalism. And the distortions of the Rede mimic the scriptural distortions practiced by religious fanatics of every description. Christianity and Islam appear to be uniquely susceptible to such distortions; but I suspect that they occur in every religion. Just my opinion, of course. (07/18/2006)

As far as I'm concerned, imagery is the life-blood of writing. It is a rich tool for making the reader *see* and *feel* the story: it inspires sight in the reader's mind; and it also creates mood, atmosphere, emotional resonance. It can be used to control timing and pace--which also have a direct effect on emotion. But it can do more: it can enable and enhance meaning. A material detail can achieve the concentrated import of symbolism and universality through imagery. Of course, many writers think differently. Some aspire to the reticence of Hemmingway or Vonnegut rather than the profusion of Shakespeare or Peake. Some consider imagery a form of laziness or self-indulgence: it's easier to describe something by saying it's "like" something else than to actually *describe* that something. And some consider mood, atmosphere, emotion to be the province of the reader rather than the writer: the reader should find those things because they are inherent to the material, not because the writer added them by using imagery. But I disagree. (Just my opinion, of course.) And I might add that almost any use of language can contain a wealth of "implied" imagery. The simple fact that we're talking about this is an example--because of course we aren't actually "talking" at all. My use of the word "talking" implies a simile. Many writers who appear to eschew imagery are merely embedding it rather than deploying it directly. (Notice the abundance of implied images in *that* sentence.) (07/19/2006)

"Emma" is my favorite Austen novel. (Is it everyone's?) Having just read "Persuasion" for the first time, I see so much more precision, vividness, and variety in "Emma". And the vindications in "Emma" seem more honestly "earned" than those in "Persuasion". "Emma" is one of those books that I re-read every ten years or so because it really is good for me. Back in my day, high school reading involved a seemingly interminable trudge through books like "Silas Marner" and "The Pathfinder". The goal, apparently, was to teach us to hate reading through sheer boredom. For my children, unfortunately, the goal was to teach them to hate reading by immersing them in despair. "A Separate Peace." Sylvia Plath. Toni Morrison's darkest works. "The Catcher in the Rye." Etc. I did everything I could at home to undermine this process; but its effects run deep. In my opinion, if we want to raise a generation of readers, we need to teach them that reading is exciting. Please, let's have some Alfred Bester. Some selected Heinlein (before he became self-righteous and pedantic). Some Patricia McKillip. Some Doris Piserchia (if she were still in print: "Star Rider" is really quite extraordinary). And I wouldn't neglect Susan Cooper or Diana Wynne Jones. (07/22/2006)

No, I was never "a halfling-hippie": my missionary blood precluded such possibilities. In any case, I've always lived pretty far outside the current fads/fashions, whatever they may be. You couldn't have dragged me to Woodstock at gun-point. <grin> But that didn't stop me from falling in love with LOTR. Still, it's true that the Hobbits have never been my favorite characters in that story. The "hippie" movement of the 60's influenced me only to the extent that its purer spirits were non-judgmental and compassionate--and its actions exposed the darkness and cynicism of The Establishment. The Kent State shootings (I was there) affected me far more than the hippies I knew. (07/22/2006)

No. I prefer to live life straight. No distortions. No excuses. (To the extent that such ideals are humanly possible. <sigh>) (07/22/2006)

I don't think that way myself (much), but I don't dismiss the possibilities you suggest. After all, I've often said that my ideas for stories seem to come to me from somewhere "outside" my conscious reality. And while I'm not entirely persuaded that the universe (as we currently know it) is in fact "infinite" (for example, I enjoy imagining that galaxies are molecules in the body of the universe--which in turn sort of implies that the universe itself is only one body among many--which then implies that the universe must be finite), I like the idea that "In an infinite universe all things are not just possible but likely." (07/22/2006)

Yes, I do enjoy movies, at home and in the theater. But I've seen so *many* that picking a favorite--or favorites--would be unpleasantly difficult. Just for grins, however: "Fist of Legend," starring Jet Li, and "Hospital," starring George C. Scott. Oh, and I've found "The Andersonville Trial" (Richard Basehart, William Shatner, et al) impossible to forget. (07/22/2006)

You make a valid point. But I don't think I've ever felt that way about "The Second Chronicles." I won't mention shorter works because they aren't germane; but there it's obvious to me that my work has been uneven. (07/22/2006)

I've always operated under the assumption that Troy died in his fire *before* Atiaran died in hers. Certainly "The Last Chronicles" is predicated on that assumption. (07/22/2006)

Anele *is* a challenge. I struggle to keep all of his multiple personalities straight. But he doesn't irritate me at all. Really, I'm proud of him: proud of who he is, and proud of having created him. I feel similarly about the Haruchai. This may sound glib, but it contains an important truth: I love all of my characters. When I don't feel proud of them, it isn't because they have failed me (or lost my interest, or whatever); it's because I have failed them. Since I don't think I've failed the Haruchai--at least not so far.... (07/23/2006)

The only example that comes immediately to mind is (brace yourself) LOTR. I never saw the appeal of the Hobbits, and Bilbo's birthday party made me want to quit reading half a dozen times. (Years later, when I read "The Hobbit," I did so entirely out of a sense of obligation to LOTR. I never actually enjoyed it.) The process by which I fell in love with the books was so gradual that I didn't notice I was in love until I reached the Mines of Moria [sp?]. (07/23/2006)

The "Narnia" books are *very* uneven, but at their best they're well worth reading. Phillip Pulman [sp? sorry, I don't have my library here] and Susan Cooper come to mind. And many Diana Wynne Jones books deserve high recommendations. Patricia McKillip's early work, including "The Forgotten Beasts of Eld". "Watership Down"--although it is pretty slow for that age group. If I had my brain with me today, I could come up with other suggestions. But sadly.... (07/23/2006)

I think I've made it pretty obvious that I don't want to discuss (or even think about) my own views on religion, politics, and personal morality. (btw, I'm only half kidding when I say I don't want to think about such things. My creative ethic requires me to avoid imposing my own issues on what I write.) It's clear from the obsessive way I write about violence (and queries like, "Does the end justify the means?") that I consider it an important and troubling question. But you might not want to draw too many conclusions on that basis. Violence in storytelling is also a vehicle for communication (which tends to be less true in real life)--and a rich source of metaphors and symbols. These are shark-infested waters. <sigh> But I'll stick my toe in this far: using religion to justify killing is undiluted bull*hit. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide behind a rock. (07/26/2006)

Hoo boy. "Identity, emotion and imagination are limited to the individual"? "Gandalf is essentially a religious figure and therefore impossible in nature"? Them's fightin' words where Ah come from. <grin> Reality is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask any good quantum physicist. Your comments on LOTR are equally interesting--and equally open to debate. But as for how I "keep a character like Lord Foul from dominating everything in the story," that's dead easy: I just don't let him on stage very often. <grin> I suspect that you would find him (and Sauron) somewhat less charismatic if you spent more time in their company. (07/26/2006)

As you observe, we are profoundly different in this regard. My worlds exist to serve their stories: my stories do not exist to serve their worlds. What I fall in love with is language and character, emotion and meaning. Setting is the outward manifestation of those loves. It has never taken on a separate reality, identity, or value in my imagination. So no, as far as I can tell I never think about my imagined worlds for their own sake. (Since my unconscious mind has a life of its own, I can't speak for it with equal confidence. But it has never drawn me back to a world when I thought I was done.) (07/26/2006)

Implicit in your question seems to be the notion that creative types (Shakespeare, Beethoven, et al) *choose* their "late style". But I'm not sure it works that way. I suspect that "late style" is something that audiences perceive, but that creators don't intend (and may not even notice). Well, how would I know? I really only have myself to go by. But I never, ever think things like, "Gee, I'm almost 60, so I better get started on ripeness (or fragmentation)." No, I only think, "What do I need to do to make this specific story work?" Of course, my age (in experience, skill, and energy) affects the resources that I bring to bear on a specific story. And I'm not blind to some of the ways in which my resources have changed over the years. But none of that actually matters to me (expect to the extent that I don't like getting older <sigh>): the only thing that matters to me is the specific story I'm trying to tell. And I suspect that the same is true for other artistic personalities. "Late style" (whatever it may be) only becomes apparent in retrospect; from the outside (as it were). It doesn't develop consciously. (07/29/2006)

No, I've never lost any substantive battles over my work. I had to go all the way to the wall to prevent Lester del Rey from imposing inferior work on me. But I went to the wall. I would have given up publication before I gave up what I perceive as "artistic integrity". I've never published anything that "would have been better if I hadn't been pressured to cut/change x, y, or z". (Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I always *like* making cuts and changes. But it's the effort I complain about, not the objective. I don't make any cuts or changes unless I approve of the objective.) "What Has Gone Before" is an entirely different subject. That stuff is a convenience for the reader: it is not a substantive component of the story. So there I don't worry about issues like "artistic integrity". (07/29/2006)

Sorry. I could probably write down on the back of my hand everything I know about geology/volcanology. Apart from obligatory high school science classes, and looking at the pictures (*very* infrequently) in magazines like "National Geographic," I know squat: it's all imagination. (btw, "pyroclastic" is a very cool word!) (07/29/2006)

1) Actually, I *can't* write screenplays. They are an entirely different form of communication, and I lack pretty much all of the necessary skills. 2) The screenplays that I've seen contain NO visual information. They contain lines like, "Establishing shot: Revelstone," and everything else is left to the directors and designers. The screenwriter has absolutely no say in matters like visual presentation. 3) Even if all of the above weren't true, I *wouldn't* write screenplays. I have too many other things to do: I'm not going to spend my life reworking earlier stories. And I can't work with committees (surely it's obvious that film--like theater and tv--is all done by committee?). (07/29/2006)

I suggest that you re-read the last page of "Lord Foul's Bane". It's all there (obliquely, of course)--including an explanation for why Covenant has so little "back-story" (not to mention information about his personality and beliefs). In practice, it's obvious that we know a great deal more about Linden Avery's background than we do about Covenant's. I did not intend to present Covenant "as [a] character with deep religious beliefs or values": I intended to present him as a character whose struggles are *about* "deep religious beliefs and values". (I hope the distinction I'm trying to make is clear.) And in keeping with my argument that fantasy is internal drama acted out as if it were external drama, everything else is addressed, well, in disguise. You mentioned healing the leper and Covenant's idiosycratic profanity: details like that are pretty overt. But look at other details: the Land has cathedrals (Revelstone, Revelwood), scripture (Kevin's Lore), bishop-figures (the Lords), a seminary (the Loresraat), pastor-figures (the teachers in the Loresraat), prophets (the Unfettered), even lay preachers (Atiaran). (Just because they don't talk about "God" doesn't mean they ain't got religion. <grin>) However, I hasten to insist that none of this is intended to reflect Covenant's personal beliefs. Rather it is intended to shed light on the meaning of his personal struggle. (07/30/2006)

You'll understand that I'm not prepared to say anything about the content of what I'm writing now. But I can assure you: 1) I *never* intended the Coursers as "corrupted" Ranyhyn; it was always my vision that the Ramen would take the Ranyhyn to safety during the crisis of the Clave/Sunbane, just as they did during the Ritual of Desecration; b) Nom's ability to answer Covenant's summons to Revelstone was a function of Kasreyn's magic in creating Sandgorgons Doom; it was not a power inherent to the Sandgorgons. In the GAP books, I probably enjoyed Hashi Lebwohl more than anyone else. But I also want to mention Min Donner and Koina Hannish. And I have quite a fondness for Liete Corregio's brief center-stage appearances. (07/30/2006)

I've always been a good Straight Man. (07/30/2006)

To say that the style in the GAP books is "literal" while that in the "Covenant" books is "impressionistic" is as good a description as any. And the difference is definitely deliberate (not to mention strenuous). But I don't think that the difference is a function of setting (sf vs f)--at least not directly. I see it as required by the differences in the stories (which then necessitate differences in setting). Of course, the "tone" of the GAP books is intended to have more *edge*, and this is reflected in the prose on every level. But the most obvious difference in the stories (a difference which positively screams for different styles) revolves around the use of POV. The GAP books have perhaps 20 (I haven't actually counted) POV characters: the "Covenant" books have very few. Well, long stretches of story with a single POV allow me the luxury of exploring character, mood, setting, etc. "impressionistically". But when the POV changes often, I have to "get to the point" as efficiently as possible: I simply don't have *room* to do anything else. Hence the more "literal" approach to communication (both between me and the reader and between one character and another). This really isn't setting-dependent (I mean "setting" in the generic sense, sf vs f). There are many fantasy novels out there that use multiple POVs, and their style of communication is typically more "literal" than "Covenant". In contrast, some of the most "impressionistic" fiction I've ever read is sf: "The Stars My Destination" (Bester) and "The Void Captain's Tale" (Spinrad), just to pick two obvious examples. (07/30/2006)

Well, you're right: what little humor there is in my work tends to be both bleak and oblique. It usually relies on irony and sarcasm (although there *is* a pillow-fight in "Mordant's Need"). But this isn't a deliberate choice on my part: it's just one of my many limitations as a writer. I can't *do* humor--not in any sense that's useful in storytelling. I would love to be able to compose, well, let's call it "broad humor" when it would fit in a story. For example, some of the ancient tales of the Giants posilutely cry out for broad humor. Sadly, I ain't got it. Broad humor isn't in my toolkit. If memory serves, while I was working on "The Second Chronicles" I wrote a Giantish song about a character called "Scroll the Appalling". But I cut it out later because it just wasn't funny. (07/30/2006)