John Huttley: Hello Stephen,
Comments on e-books, payments, profit and piracy occur at various times on this formum.
I suggest this will interest you.
http://www.baen.com/library/
I think his analysis is good (agrees with my prejudices).
Even better, ebooks are doing very well at Baen this last ten years and more, so it can't be a fluke.
Regards,
John
 |
This is a useful analysis of the whole situation. Hyperbole aside, it makes sense. For my part, I would simply like to emphasize one point which has already been clearly stated: the authors who participate in the Baen Free Library have given their consent. If I were offered a similar opportunity, I might well give *my* consent. With one proviso: I want a clean and accurate version of the text rather than the slop that fills my books when they've been pirated. (07/02/2010) |
Joey: Came across a website that made me think of the Gradual Interview. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
The author discusses the survivability of artistry in the modern era and comes to the - subtle but I think correct - conclusion that it's easier to be a successful artist today than ever before in history. The key is distributive patronage.
In fact, if success is defined as "earning enough money to make a living from creating art," rather than with the more common "mega-celebrity" definition, he argues that all any artist needs to be successful is roughly 1000 true fans.
Caveats abound, but suffice it to say that so long as any author has roughly 1000 people (True Fans) in the world willing to spend a day's wages (~$100) on consuming that author's work in a given year, it's economically feasible for the author to continue to produce.
The reason that I find this interesting in regards to your work is that the effort and energy you provide to maintain the Gradual Interview falls squarely within the realm of fostering your True Fan community - those people who will buy anything and everything you produce regardless of cost - and that THAT contribution to us is perhaps the more critical work of providing for a livelihood than the actual authoring of the books themselves.
Naturally this article and its insights are meant to apply mostly to NEW artists trying to figure out how to survive, and consequently how much easier it is for them to do so these days where they can publish and distribute their works WITHOUT a publishing/movie/record contract. For that matter, this might be stuff you've already thought about in the past - directly or intuitively - but hopefully when you're feeling down about making tour appearances (and responding to some of the ridiculous questions you get through this website) you can take solace from the fact that you only need about a thousand of us? Lol.
Thanks again for all the work you do for us, both on paper and on the screen.
-----
Excerpts:
A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce... They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work.
.
.
.
To raise your sales out of the flatline of the long tail you need to connect with your True Fans directly. Another way to state this is, you need to convert a thousand Lesser Fans into a thousand True Fans.
.
.
.
The technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this circle possible. Blogs and RSS feeds trickle out news, and upcoming appearances or new works...the entire digital domain conspire[s] to make duplication and dissemination in small quantities fast, cheap and easy. You don't need a million fans to justify producing something new. A mere one thousand is sufficient.
|
It's an interesting argument. Someday it may even become a reality: perhaps even in my lifetime, if Amazon succeeds at its stated goal of causing "bricks-and-mortar" publishers to cease to exist. But "distributive patronage" may not be as easily achieved as this author seems to think. Or so it appears to me. I'm blessed with a substantial number of "True Fans"; but I can't imagine that a *thousand* of them would be willing to fork over $100 *per year* to keep me writing. And of course that amount of money wouldn't begin to cover my family's educational and medical expenses, never mind living expenses. Include the fact that I'm unable to produce a book a year to justify that $100 per True Fan, and the whole model begins to seem fatally naive. But. I suspect that the days of "distributive patronage" are coming. On the one hand, traditional publishing may indeed crumble. (Or not. People who know more about it than I do have conflicting opinions.) On the other, one of the strangest (at least to my mind) byproducts of the explosion in cell phone usage has been a comparable explosion in Internet access. If memory serves, 10-15 years ago only 10% of US homes had computers. Today I'm told that 70+% of US *individuals* have Internet access via cell phone. If that isn't a tool for "distributive patronage," it certainly has the potential to become one. So...who knows? Come the revolution, I may be too old, too set in my ways, or too just plain stubborn to change with the times. Nevertheless I can believe that "distributive patronage" will eventually become viable. Someday it may even become the only option. (07/02/2010) |
Charles W. Adams: You had stated that you weren't happy with the cover art for the last book (US version), and in fact it really did reveal a lot about what was going to happen in the story.
I can say with certainty (at least for me) that the cover art for this book reveals practically nothing. I'm clueless. The only thing I can derive is that at some point of the book the Worm hasn't consumed the Earth yet (and Chapter 1 revealed that already, and the fact that there's a 4th book is a pretty big clue).
If you do in fact have influence over the cover art, and if you expressed a desire for the cover to be less revealing this time, they seem to have taken your advice.
|
My US editor knows how I feel about putting Caligula on the cover of "The Runes of the Earth," and especially about putting Gandalf (or Saruman) on "Fatal Revenant." More to the point, she cares how I feel. And she had more lead-time with "Against All Things Ending," so she was able to consult with me fairly closely on the artist's behalf. So far, so good. (07/02/2010) |
Andrew Kennedy: I have two questions for you.
1) Why do you think as a genre that fantasy novels are so often written in trilogies or series? I find it odd that in other genres that even where there are series, there is far less dependence on what has gone before (Tom Clancy's Ryan and Ian Fleming's Bond come to mind here). Is it something about the genre?
2). Is there any hope that after TC is over that you would turn to lighter fare similar to Mordent's Need (which is under appreciated, I think)?
|
I wish these issues were as simple as they may sound…. 1) The easy answer is that the “requirements” of each genre are predicated on reader expectations (or on perceived reader expectations). Since, say, mystery novels, or spy/suspense novels, or western novels have pretty much always offered complete-in-one-volume stories, readers (and therefore publishers) expect writers to continue doing the same thing. And since each story is complete as it stands, without any necessary reference to previous stories, readers expect to be able to read Ryan books, or Bond books, in any order without missing out on something crucial (e.g. character development). So: like most systems, this one is self-perpetuating. The writers create it, so the readers expect it, so the writers create more of it, so the readers expect more of it, and so on. In contrast, most expectations about modern fantasy--especially epic fantasy--were created by Tolkien. (Exceptions exist, of course--at the moment, I’m thinking of Moorcock’s “Elric” novels--but they can’t compare with Tolkien’s power to create reader expectations. Especially when LOTR builds on a foundation that includes both ancient epics and more recent works like “Gormenghast.”) LOTR was *so* popular that it was only natural for publishers to believe that fantasy readers expect multi-volume sagas rather than complete-in-one-book stories. Another self-perpetuating system. But I think there’s another explanation at work as well: world-building. Putting the matter crudely, it takes more words to create an alternate reality and make it feel, well, real than it does to work within the boundaries of a pre-existing and accepted consensus reality. Ryan stories, or Bond stories, may be exotic and (from my perspective) implausible, but they take as given many of the same basic assumptions we all live with. They don’t have to build entire worlds: they only have to adjust a few details of the world we already know. So it seems only natural to me that world-building stories require multiple volumes that have to be read in their intended sequence. Non-world-building stories have different requirements, so they take different forms. 2) As I’ve tried to explain on other occasions, I have absolutely no idea what I’ll write after “The Last Chronicles.” On an entirely personal level, I’m praying for some short stories simply because they don’t take 12 *^&%$^ years to write. And I really would like to be able to do more with Mick Axbrewder and Ginny Fistoulari. But (as I’ve also tried to explain on other occasions) my personal preferences are largely irrelevant. (07/06/2010) |
Phil: Stephen
Thanks for your answer to my q on relativity (early 09 I think). I am back on the Chronicles and have decided to read them slowly this time to pick up the bits of self-reference I have missed on quick re-reads. And what a lot that seems to be! Page 4 of LFB for example has a paragraph on the authors creative process burning like lightning, creating land and peoples, with even a white bolt smiting the heavens. Meaningless at this stage to a first time reader, and almost certainly forgotten 10 chapters later. And on checking the GI I note you have clearly referred in the past to the fact that wild magic embodies the spirit and passion of imagination. Amazing I missed this on previous re-reads. Or perhaps I did and have forgotten so I can renew the joy of discovery. Another example half a page later (which I certainly did note before) was the link between Joan and horses. Which all brings me to my question. In all the analysis of Chronicles over the years by so many fans, is there anything that you are aware of (and are prepared at this stage to reveal) , as a thread like these examples, which you deliberately wrote in, or an allusion which seemed important to you, but which you are surprised that no-one has ever picked up and commented on ?
|
I don’t usually think this way: I don’t try to second-guess or pre-judge my readers’ reactions. And I don’t *expect* them to respond (at least to me). As a result, I’m almost always surprised--to one degree or another. But I’m more acutely surprised by reactions to subjects I hardly thought about at all (e.g. what are Haruchai women like?) than I am by reactions to themes or connections about which I thought intensely. Other than that, I don’t really have an answer for you. When I’m done with a story and I look back at it, I think *very* differently about it than I do while I’m writing it. Much becomes clear to me in retrospect (and rewriting) that I grasp only intuitively during the first draft. (07/06/2010) |
Tom: I guess this is a "how do you do what you do" question, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I don't think it's appeared in the GI before (but I could be wrong).
Anyway, I've often wondered how an author creates subtext -- all the implied, implicit meanings that seem to float beneath the surface of a work. For instance, in your Gap books, despite the unrelenting pace of the "surface" action, I would find myself time and again pondering the "deep sea" issues that seemed to be swimming right below the words I found on the page. All the implications and connections that lurked just out of sight. These implied meanings, which you leave to the reader to puzzle out, are one of the major reasons I find your books so compelling. When I would go back to study how you did it (I've read the Gap book at least five times now), I can never pinpoint exactly what you did to create this effect. Of course, I realize that words have denotations and connotations, and that's part of how you do it. I also realize that stories accrue meaning over time, and that the further along in a story you are, the more connections you can make. But I still feel like I'm missing something. For instance, do you know at a given point in your story what connections your readers are making? If so, how? What if they aren't making those connections? Or are you sure they are making those connections because of the way you structured the story? You *lead* them to make those connections somehow? Which brings me back to the beginning: How do you do that? It's never explicitly stated in the text, so how does it end up in my head?
Hope that made sense, and I'm sorry for using the word "connections" so much. It's been a long day, and that's the only word I could think of.
Once again, thank you for your time.
Tom
|
I've had occasion to say--more than once--that I don't know how I do what I do. I don't even know how *language* works. That's an enduring mystery to me--and even more so when we're talking about language in print rather than spoken. I certainly don't know how my approach to storytelling achieves its particular (or peculiar) form of effectiveness. Still, there are a few things I can say with a modicum of confidence. "For instance, do you know at a given point in your story what connections your readers are making? If so, how? What if they aren't making those connections? Or are you sure they are making those connections because of the way you structured the story? You *lead* them to make those connections somehow?" No, no, no, no, and--was that five questions?--no. I'm not inside my readers' heads: I'm only inside mine. I have no idea what my readers are thinking. I only know what *I'm* thinking. And then I try to share that as best I can. As I see it, there are two forces at work. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I think on two tracks at once while I write. 1) I'm what I call an "experiential" writer. I try to experience the story as it happens, in sequence, to each character. You might say that I try to become each character simultaneously (as much as that's possible) and live the story with them through every event and interaction as those things accumulate. I want to *feel* what it's like to be that character in that situation with those other characters, based on everything that has gone before. Then I try to share that experience with the reader. 2) At the same time, I am constantly looking for connections myself: implications, references, *resonances*. After all, that's what real people do, even when they aren't aware of it: every action and emotion is predicated on a whole network of connections that stretches from the person's distant past to his/her rational or irrational imaginings about the future. And every time I find one of those connections or resonances, I try to share it with the reader. (Without, of course, pausing the story to deliver a lecture on the subject. <grin>) With both of these forces or tracks, I have one supreme advantage: rewriting. The obvious benefit is that I can find and enhance more connections, thereby increasing the story's ability to accrue meaning. But there's another benefit, one which is mostly hidden from the reader: in the first draft, I actually *can* (and DO) pause the story to deliver lectures about the connections--entirely for my own edification. The vast majority of those lectures I cut out in rewriting; but writing them the first time through does me a world of good in my efforts to understand my characters and experience their story. All of the above, I hasten to say, does not constitute *advice*. I'm only describing what I do: I'm not suggesting that anyone else should do the same. What would be the point? Every writer has--and *needs*--a personal approach, one tailored to her/his desires and abilities. But you asked; so I tried to answer. (07/07/2010) |
Anonymous: I'm re-reading FR in order to get ready for the release of AATE in October. It is hard for me to believe that I missed all the clues that TC was really Roger. Now that I have had time to take my time and digest the writing, this was rather artfully done. It was like I suspected something was wrong but I was hoping that it wasn't. Everything from the title, to how Roger and Jeremiah spoke and acted, etc..all pointed to a very logical conlusion. Caught with my eyes wide open....
Question: In 2nd chronicles you explored the whole idea of necessity of freedom of choice and even in FR you mention that Joan's ring is not really usable by Roger or Foul to break the arch of time since her mind is broken. But I guess the idea of tricking someone in to giving up their ring is okay?? Seems like semantics. Linden is not freely giving up her ring (with intent)to Roger if she thinks that it is TC, so isn't the ring not really able to help break the arch of time?? In WGW, TC gives up the ring intentionally and that is why LF can make us of it. Thanks for the website, I really enjoy it!
|
I admit that "the necessity of freedom" can be confusing. But keep in mind that people who have not been explicitly given white gold can still use it (e.g. Linden): they just can't exert its full potential. And beware of comparing unlike situations. If, for instance, Roger had obtained Covenant's ring in the past, he wouldn't need wild magic's full potential in order to commit significant violations of the Land's history, thereby undermining the Arch of Time indirectly. To that I would add that being tricked or manipulated is not the same as being coerced. With trickery or manipulation, the person handing over the ring is still doing so intentionally. The fact that the person is not aware of all the implications of doing so doesn't change the fact that the person *could* have chosen otherwise. As long as the giver retains the power of choice, the necessity of freedom is satisfied. Compare Kasreyn in TOT. He's trying to use coercion rather than trickery or manipulation. He tries everything he can except physically cutting off Covenant's finger (which he is probably afraid to do because something deep in Covenant may still be capable of striking back). Well, if he succeeded, he wouldn't acquire anything like the full potential of wild magic. But he doesn't want that: the idea of destroying the Arch of Time would horrify him. All he wants is more power (OK, a *lot* more power) WITHIN the world as he understands it. The power to "create perfect works and fear nothing" (if I remember rightly). So he has no reason *not* to attempt coercion. (07/08/2010) |
David: Hi Stephen,
Upon recent re-reading of "Reave the Just and Other Tales", was struck by a thought that some of Reave's abilities seem to mirror those of the Insequent, in particular the Harrow (e.g. ability to come and go as he pleases, and the ability to withstand physical beatings with no apparent lasting effect). Just curious if anything in writing "Reave.." and "By Any Other Name" sparked your ideas for the Insequent?
Cheers
David
|
There's no conscious connection in my mind. But the present always builds on the past, so you might be right. (07/08/2010) |
Captain Maybe: What made you decide to give each book of the Gap series two titles (or a title and a subtitle)? It's quite unusual for novels to be subtitled like that - was there anything you drew inspiration from for that? And what was the attitude of your editor/publisher to it?
Thanks.
|
I did almost the same thing with the "Mordant's Need" books. My intent was to let my readers know that there was more than one book to the story (without going through endless repetitions of Book One, Book Two, etc.). And in the case of the GAP books, I also wanted to suggest the progress of the themes from book to book. The technique is actually fairly common: for example, my edition of "Lord of the Rings" uses it. My editors/publishers had no objection--although my UK publishers have felt compelled to attach numbers to the paperbacks. (07/08/2010) |
Würm: I've scoured the GI and don't see this question asked anywhere. What would have happened if, at the end of Dark and Hung, Liete had obeyed Nick's orders to attack Soar?
|
Hmm. Your guess is good as mine? I never know how to answer questions that stray outside the text. And in the case the problem is exacerbated by the fact that I haven't worked on the GAP books for 15+ years. (07/22/2010) |
Würm: Steve,
Matthew Yenkala wrote: 'While the article is mainly about (slamming) Cameron's AVATAR, if you make it further down, Lewis, Tolkien and fantasy in general come into the discussion.
Though I think he's mainly referring to visual art, one can probably infer that he falls into the "if it's not reality, it's silly and pointless" camp.'
I don't see that take in the review in question at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/avatar-and-the-flight-from-reality. What the reviewer writes is:
"I mention this difference between the fantastical as it existed in olden times and today, which some may think a trivial one, because we are or ought to be coming to realize that acknowledged fantasy, of the kind the movies have inherited from science fiction, is a different kind of thing from fantasy that doesn’t know it is fantasy." And this: "But if there is no longer any attempt at imitation of reality but only the aptly-described “magic” of the movies making new realities, then there is no longer any such thing as art as it has been understood for the last three thousand or so years in the West."
James Bowman, our reviewer here, is operating on a definition of art as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." That is an Ayn Rand definition, and the New Atlantis site is based in Randian philosophy.
Bowman is here decrying the invention of new realities - represented on Pandora - versus the re-creation of reality which is art, and which is, in this context, represented by Tolkien, et al.
Therefore, Bowman is not lumping Avatar in with Tolkien as equally worthless fantasy. He is sketching out the stark differences between older and newer fantasy. He is saying that Hollywood fantasy is empty and escapist, whereas, on the contrary, Tolkien wrote art.
Bowman is not the first reviewer to state that Avatar is fluff. It is thematically unoriginal eye-candy, ending with the usual "nerve-wracking count-down" (30 seconds until the bomb drops) followed by a simple physical conflict in which the "good guy" will obviously come out on top. But did Bowman ever imply that Tolkien, Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare wrote fluff? Not once.
|
[Posted as a matter of general interest. Since I never actually read the review in question, I've probably already said more than I should on the subject.] (07/22/2010) |
Todd: Stephen,
I just recently purchased what is (I think) the fourth set of the First Chronicles. I must be hard on paperbacks or something.
Anyway, I was looking on the very first page, opposite the inside cover, and STILL, after all these years, all the different editions and publications, right there smack in the middle of the "The Warning of Lord Foul" page, it STILL reads "Drool Rockworm has the Staff of Life.."
You'd think that somewhere along the line that someone over at Ballentine would have corrected that. Has it ever bothered you?
Do things like that and any typos which may have been missed ever get corrected in between printings?
|
I feel some chagrin at the fact that I've never noticed this before. <sigh> Of course, I'm not responsible for my publisher's mistakes. But still.... After all these years, you'd think I *might* have noticed. When I get a chance, I'll urge the people at DEL REY/Ballantine to correct the problem. Yes, things like typos *do* usually get corrected between printings; but only when the author calls them to the publisher's attention. (07/22/2010) |
Captain Maybe: You've answered lots of questions about the challenges of writing, but I don't think you've ever said whether you actually _enjoy_ writing. (I've just done a search for 'enjoy' and, although I didn't read every answer, the closer I found was an answer to one of my earlier questions in which you said you didn't enjoy _re_writing.)
So - do you enjoy writing? And, of course, I mean enjoy in a broad sense - I don't mean 'Is it fun to write?', but is it broadly a pleasurable experience? Are there certain things that are more enjoyable to write than others, or does it depend on your state of mind at the time?
I did creative writing at university and I remember one of my lecturers saying something along the lines that if writing is fun, you're probably not very good. Is that something that rings a bell with you?
|
"If writing is fun, you're probably not very good." I can't speak for anyone else. And in any case, the assertion is too broad to be useful. But it sure rings a bell for me. I would never use a word like "enjoy" to describe the experience of writing. I call it "wrestling with the Angel of the Lord": it's always arduous, painful, and frustrating. In fact, whenever I'm writing easily, I know I'm doing something wrong. Which explains, at least in part, why it takes me so &^#$% long to produce a book. So why do I do it? Why do I bother? Well, this is the work I was born to do. I'm more consistently *alive* when I'm writing than I am under most other circumstances. Writing makes me--for lack of a better term--a bigger person than I could hope to be otherwise. So it's hard. So what? Name something that you consider worth doing on a profound level; and if you think it's easy--or even fun--I'll be inclined to think that you aren't putting your heart into it. (07/22/2010) |
||X|||: Ok, time to split some hairs.
I've noticed that there is a spell-type mechanism used in the COTC that is very little noted, namely the Word of Warning, encountered by the Good Guys towards the end of LFB. We have since then seen no trace or mention of it, but hey, why use a plot device twice when you don't need to, right? Meanwhile, elsewhere in the GI is, in a different context, the discussion of the deliberate similarity/ambiguity of the words "Word, wyrd, wierd, worm, etc." Could we then retroactively apply this idea to the Word of Warning, making it just as easily the Wyrd or Wierd of Warning?
Also, as an at least former comic book fan, do you have any particular favorites among the MANY comic book film adaptations that have been released over the last decade or so? (you might be interested to know that a Thor movie is in the works with none other than *Kenneth Brannagh* at the helm).
|
For a variety of reasons, I distrust retroactive reinterpretation. When I wrote the first "Covenant" trilogy, I had NO intention of writing more; and I certainly did not foresee getting involved in the similarity/ambiguity you describe. Looking back, I would be very reluctant to assign any special meaning to the term "Word of Warning"--if for no other reason than because it was a puny thing compared to the scale of the issues I'm dealing with now. I suppose my favorite comic book film adaptation so far has been "Iron Man." "X-Men" showed promise, but quickly became too bloated--and too dismissive of my favorite characters. But the worst examples, in my mind, were "Ghost Rider" and the several "Punisher" movies. Those were even worse than the "Fantastic Four" movies. (Just my opinions, folks.) (07/26/2010) |
John Carr: I love all your books.
However, I do have a question that has been nagging me for a while.
I don't think either Covenant or Linden deserved their ring and staff to go black. I mean they are good people with a good conscience, who are trying to do good, from my perspective. Sure, they may make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that their hearts are black, does it?
Which is why I think I have missed the whole point!
Yet I still love all your books :)
Thanks
|
There's more than one way to look at it. A few examples. Sometimes good people do black things, intentionally or inadvertently. Sometimes good people get tricked into doing black things. Sometimes good people have conflicting motivations, some of which are black. And sometimes good people have to go through black places in order to reach the light toward which they strive. Actions always have consequences. And that seems especially true for black actions. But the blackness isn't necessarily the whole story about the person, or about the consequences. (07/26/2010) |
Bernard Roth:
Space travel got you down? Does jumping the gap just make you want to fly your ship into an asteroid and kill everyone on board? Did they have to tie you down and shoot you full of rhinoceros tranquilizers the very first time you traveled away from your home star system?
Quacko Enterprises has the answer! Gap sickness is a thing of the past with the new and improved Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant! Now you can control those nasty homicidal impulses that transform you from a mild-mannered milquetoast at sub-light speeds into a murderous maniac after even the smallest gap jump!
All it takes is one brief out-patient procedure to install your new Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant, and you will instantly have full control of your life! You will finally have the freedom you’ve always wanted! Freedom to travel anywhere in the known universe on any modern day gap-ship! Don’t wait! Get it now! The new and improved Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant! Quacko Enterprises: making space travel bearable for all!
Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant has been proven safe and effective in clinical trials. Mild side effects have been reported, including headache, brief psychotic episodes, catatonic seizures and death (although we suspect the deaths were really only misdiagnosed catatonia.) Notify your physician if hallucinations persist more than four hours. Never loan your Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant controller module to anyone. We mean that. Really. Please implant responsibly.
|
Now why didn't *I* think of that? It seems so obvious, now that you've explained it to me. (07/26/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: In answer to a question a few years ago you said:
"Obviously you've never tasted my cooking."
Do you like to cook? And if so, what is your favorite dish to make?
|
I hate to cook, so I only do it under duress. My favorite dish to cook is "hamburger surprise" (officially called "Stephen R. Donaldson's Imponderable Hamburger Surprise") because even I don't know what's going to be in it. (07/26/2010) |