Marcus James: Mr Donaldson,
I first read your Covenant series when I was about 12, and then again several years ago. I've only just started reading the first book of the new series and it's given me an urge to re-read the first two once again. It's also reminded me of questions, which concern the use of wild magic, I had when I read the first two Chronicles both of those times.
Every time, throughout both Chronicles, Covenant uses wild magic, there's always a catalyst; a Lord's staff, the Illearth Stone, the poisonous venom (these are the ones that come to mind). In The Power That Preserves you write that Covenant knows how to use wild magic, or at least, you hint at it. In the Second Chronicles again, he seemingly knows how to use the white gold, but it's only ever used (as far as I remember) when there's another driving force there.
When Linden gets transported to the Land in the Third Chronicles she uses wild magic to heal herself of her gunshot wound (not knowing how she did it and without the aid of any catalyst either). Now, like I said, I've only just started the Third Chronicles so perhaps my question will be answered later in the series but I'd still like to know as it's been bugging me for years... How does wild magic actually work? From Linden's use of it, it doesn't need any other power present to activate it, but seemingly Covenant always does when he uses it. Or perhaps Covenant's unwillingless to use it throughout his time in the Land is the reason he only ever activated it in the present of another power. Does it work differently for different users (if I remember rightly wild magic is the antithesis of Law)?
Thanks for reading this, and thank you for the many hours I spent as a 12 year old in the Land (I probably learned more vocabulary from your books than I ever did at school).
 |
It's generally true in "The Chronicles" that power is about character. It's an expression of character. Or identity. Or the nature of the individual. Covenant's need for a catalyst or trigger arises from who he is: his reluctance to use power (which could be interpreted to mean "accept responsibility") is profound; so profound that it inhibits him. Linden is a very different person. Like Hile Troy, she's more inclined to assume too much responsibility than to accept too little. So what she needs in order to raise wild magic is not an external trigger, but rather an internal focus. (08/06/2008) |
Stephen L Wonders: I have to disagree with your assertion that you have no 'literary groupies'. The entire Fantasy Bedtime Hour run was exactly that, and with (apparently) scantily-clad women, in bed, discussing the finer minutae of your first work.
Or am I just a doh tard? :)
|
I stand--or perhaps lie down--corrected. (08/06/2008) |
STEVE M: Prefatorily, I thank you for your correspondence with me (and others) through this site over the past few years. You are my favorite author. What you have written over the past decades has had a profound influence on me. I have read various queries and responses in the GI regarding advice to aspiring writers and this is along those lines. Recently, I heard John Grisham respond to a somewhat generic question about how to write a novel and gave a simple yet cogent and very informative response. Commit yourself to a page a day and in one year you have a novel. So much for the preface, now to the meat. I am an attorney and my practice (especially the way I do it) is very literary. In college, I wanted to write as a career. Fears of a life of poverty and obscurity caused me to sell out and pick the career that delivered the “$”. The rationale was that at least I would have a career and along the way I could write “THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL”. Well, it’s been almost twenty years and I still haven’t gotten around to that “GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL”. I still pretty much lead a life of poverty and obscurity. Notwithstanding, I can write a killer appellate brief and the most kick-ass Memorandum of Law you will ever see. In any event, life experience has been engaging, to say the least. I have been thinking a lot about things and have been making notes and I think I am ready to write that novel. Of course I make the general pathetic request for any tips you might have but from a more practical business perspective I ask the following; what is the best way to a) get the attention of a halfway decent agent; b) getting an appointment with that agent and c) getting the damn thing published? I had a writing professor in college who said say that if you have the guts, call some bigwig at William Morris and tell the secretary, “I’m returning his call”.
|
Almost everything I can say on such subjects is already in the Gradual Interview (under "creative process" and "writing & publishing process"). But I'll add this. Taking your questions in reverse order: the best (most effective) way to get published is to get a good agent; and the best way to get a good agent is a) *find* one, and b) contact the agency to find out what that agent's submissions policies/procedures are. b) used to be comparatively easy through such publications as "Writer's Digest" and "Literary Marketplace". Maybe it still is: I'm not up on it. a) may also be easy, if you just take the time to find out who represents the writers you most admire. But above all I urge you to remember that agents are human beings, just like editors--and even writers. So DO NOT try any approach that would not work on *you* if you were in the agent's shoes. If *I* were said "bigwig at William Morris," I wouldn't agree to represent you: I'd have you whacked by my good buddies the mumblemumble brothers. (08/10/2008) |
Meredith: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I'm sure this is one of those 'get-a-life' questions, but I am interested in questions concerning words and language, so here goes.
After reading FR I started over with the 1st Chronicles, and when Mhoram is trying to explain the "insufficiency" of the New Lords (concerning the Lore) to Covenant, he states that "We translate the speech of the Old Lords..." That jumped out at me because Berek and Linden had no problems conversing... can you say anything about WHY translation is needed, or is it simply that the New Lords don't read much? :)
With undying appreciation,
Meredith DeVoe (deer of the dawn)
|
I grant you that the text is misleading. Poor word choice on my part. What I meant/mean is that the lore has its own language, a "grammer" unique to its particular application of magic. It requires translation because it wasn't written in, well, the "common speech". Now, if I felt like defending myself today, I could say that Mhoram could not have been aware of this distinction: having no direct knowledge of the Old Lords himself, he could have believed that Kevin's Wards were written in Kevin's common speech. But that sounds a bit like sophistry. After all, through the Bloodguard Mhoram *does* have access to direct knowledge of the Old Lords. So I'll stick with my first answer: poor word choice. (08/10/2008) |
Raymond Luxury Yacht: Over on the Steven Erikson forums, we're having a discussion comparing the reaction to Covenant raping Elena in your book versus Karsa raping many people in Erikson's book House of Chains. (If you aren't up to date on your Erikson, Karsa is a barbarian character who leaves his tribe, etc.)
The discussion is centered around this question: Why are people more accepting of Karsa's actions than they are of Covenant's? I've heard of many people who could never get over the fact the TC raped someone, to the point of quitting reading, but those same people are not as upset when Karsa does so.
The main theory others have put forward about this is that Karsa is a barbarian whose culture does not have the same stigma about rape, so it's more acceptable. On the other hand Covenant come from our world, where rape is thoroughly condemned. This raised the question of how much does a person's culture excuse them for inhuman acts.
Another posted reason is that Karsa changes as a character, eventually regretting his past brutality and pays for his past crimes. I don't think this is a good reason, as TC does the same thing.
I was wondering if you had anything to add to this discussion. Can a person's culture excuse them from doing terrible things? Do you have any theories about why people are accepting of one but not the other? If you have read House of Chains, do you have an opinion about who has done the worse deed?
Thanks for your time. Do you mind if I post your answer on the Erikson forums? If you want to look at the actual discussion, here's the link.
http://malazanworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10967
|
"Why are people more accepting of Karsa's actions than they are of Covenant's?" Gee, could it possibly be that everything about the stories, settings, characters, narrative methodologies, and authorial intentions is different? Erikson and I would be pretty crappy writers if we couldn't elicit very different reactions for very different characters, situations, and purposes. Of the many differences (not criticisms, differences: I'm a huge Erikson fan) I could cite, I'll just mention a couple. First, consider the victims. Covenant's victim, Lena, is a far more fully developed character than any or all of Karsa's victims (most of whom, as I recall, don't even have names). Of *course* her fate generates more outrage than that of Karsa's victims. Second, the nature of the relationship which Erikson builds between his characters and his readers is fundamentally different than the one I strive to create. For lack of a better term, I'm going to call the relationship he devises "objective": the relationship I'm aiming for is "subjective". He tells us a great deal about his characters' thoughts, but very little about their emotions: I positively wallow in my characters' emotions. And Erikson is a builder. He constructs his stories in chunks (even when he's focusing on a single character) with lots and lots of gaps (gaps of time, gaps of emotion, etc.). In contrast, I'm a weaver (at least in "The Chronicles"). Well, differences in method produce differences in effect. Erikson offers his readers a less "personal" relationship with his characters than I do. (Again, this is an observation, not a criticism. The worth or worthlessness of things like "objective" and "subjective" depend entirely on what you do with them--and I like what Erikson does with "objective".) Sure, post this elsewhere if you want. I don't know why anyone should care about my opinions. But they're public here, so why not public on the Erikson forums as well? (08/10/2008) |
Todd Lindstrom: Searching for the term royalty in the GI - I note the absence of any discussion on royalties that you get from audio or electronic (PDF/Kindle) versions of your books. I for one bought Scott Bricks version of FR and greatly enjoyed it. Did you (or will you) get a piece of that or does Scott Brick get the majority of my money in this case. thank you. TODDL
|
Since Brick's readings are formally "licensed" by my publishers (otherwise he'd be sued for copyright infringement), my publishers get a piece of the action. And if they get a piece of his action, I get a piece of their action. The size of my piece is specified in my original contract with my publishers (which covers every eventuality they can think of); but I haven't bothered to look it up. (08/10/2008) |
Shelley: I am still hoping to see a sequel to The Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through
Any hope of that?
Thanks
Shelley
|
Again. I can't write unless I have an idea for a story. I don't decide to write a story and then create an idea. I have to wait until an idea comes. And so far, I have no ideas for sequels--or prequels--for *any* of my books, including "Mordant's Need" (with the possible exception of my mystery novels). If I ever do get the kind of idea you want, of course, everything changes. But at present, the answer to your question is, No. (08/13/2008) |
Eric D: Dear Stephen - Thank you for bring these stories out for us to share. I've been reading the Covenant Chronicals since I was 9 years old and now at almost 40 I still get something new each time I read them. Also just because of the great dialog here in the GI, I am hunting down my old GAP copies and rereading those as well as your other books. More SRD!
I have a pretty basic question at the moment - I just finished the second chronicles and I noticed that Thomas did not find any hurtloam in Andelain. I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation why it isn't there but because there wasn't any mention of it I noticed its absence. My thought was that with Andelain being a bastion of law and earthpower that hurtloam would be present and that Thomas might seek it out and then discover why it was missing or why it had retreated from Andelain as well as the rest of the Land.
Thank you Stephen for your time on these questions - they really are great food for thought!
|
I guess I think about these things less literally than you do. I suspect that people would find all the hurtloam they needed in Andelain--if they ever needed it. But in my mind, anyway, the whole place is so entirely *healing* that the need for hurtloam never comes up. (Shall I mention the Wraiths here?) Certainly the need hasn't come up so far--at least in the context of the story. (08/13/2008) |
A. Buonarroti: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series is the very first fantasy I read when I was in high school. Many years later, I am working on an MFA in fiction with an emphasis on fantasy. As you may imagine, I get no end of grief from faculty and other students about how I am "wasting my talent writing genre." I have a very different view of fantasy and its function in our modern lives, so now in my "essay semester" I'm writing about this issue.
Because it was through your books that I first stumbled onto fantasy literature, I wonder about your opinion on this. While it's true that there is a lot of "escapist" fantasy, that is, fantasy that is for sheer entertainment, there is plenty of fantasy that seems to me to be parallel to, and as "literary" as magical realism. I think these literatures often share as a motivating influence oppression, either the oppression of the writer or the writer's observance of the oppression of others. And what I mean by oppression here is the subjugation of a person or group of people to another.
Do you think that any of your fantasy work is motivated by oppression, either oppression you've experienced or that you've witnessed? (Obviously, Covenant could easily be classified as someone who has experienced oppression, but did your writing about him arise out of your own experience or witnessing of oppression?)
I posit that fantasy and science fiction are serving the function of religion and myth at a time in history when actual religion has a less important role in many people's daily lives. In our culture we are no longer able to have blind faith as in times past. (Some would say that we're no longer able to believe in an all powerful deity or deities, though I'm sure many would argue with that.) Do you see a possible spiritual interpretation of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? Can you see a way in which your fantasy novels provide an answer to the longing for the presence of a powerful force to which we can turn when all worldly aid has failed? (And by this, I don't mean that people would treat the books as sacred text or assume the mythology, but that in reading them, they would feel the satisfaction of that longing even if only for the duration of the reading.)
Last question: How important was it to you when you began your writing life that your work be considered literature and how important is it to you now?
Thanks for considering my questions.
Adrianna Buonarroti
|
You'll find a better-organized response to your questions in my essay, "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World," downloadable from this site. I'll just add a few comments. In my view, the whole idea that "genre" writing CANNOT be literature represents a serious breakdown of cognitive function on the part of people who believe it. In fact, anyone who espouses such an idea has surrendered his/her intellectual credibility. Do I need to point out--to writers, of all people--that in his day Shakespeare (like Dickens) was considered too *popular* to stand among the greats? ("Ben Jonson: now there was a real writer," forsooth!) Or that all the oldest and most enduring forms literature in every culture on the planet are fantasy? Sheesh! You appear to use the word "oppression" in a personal sense that doesn't connect to my sense of my own work. I think, for example, of oppressions like slavery; and I haven't written about such themes. Now if you substitute the word "abuse," I'm all over *that* action.... <rueful smile> On the other hand, "religious" themes are omnipresent in my work. In particular, "The Chronicles" are rife with "spiritual interpretations"--and deliberately so. I once heard the writer S. P. Somtow state, "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry." I agree (although I admit that we could debate the use of the word "only"). Meanwhile, I have *always* aspired to the stature of "literature". Future generations will determine whether or not I've succeeded; but God knows that I've given it my best shot. (08/13/2008) |
Sharon: Found it hard to do an effective search on this topic. Too many hits on the keywords. Apologies if this is a rerun.
Do you see The Land more as a place than as an entity/character? Or the opposite? Or equal measures of both? Supposing it is at least part independent character...is it hard to represent the "will" of something so near and yet so far? Would it be so subtly implied in the desires and actions of certain other characters as to be nearly imperceptible? Would the implication be a conscious representation of the will of the Land (as a character)on your part, or more just something necessary for the advancement of the story? Supposing again the Land is at least part entity/character, from your omnipotent point of view, are you more conscious of that fact than many of the other characters? Just curious. Don't need to respond to the specific questions. Rambling welcome. Thanks.
|
I don't think there's much room for argument on this point. "The Land" is definitely an "entity/character" in the story. It's not an accident that the very *stones* possess sentience; or that the Old Lords made a virtual religion out of service to the Land. That said: while I'm working, I don't assign a set of concrete thoughts or intentions to the Land. It's not a character in the sense that it makes decisions and takes action. So "living entity" might be a better description than "character". Nevertheless I'm very conscious of it *as* a living entity. (08/13/2008) |
Mark: Hi. I have more of a comment than a question. You said in one of your responses (don't ask me which one) that you do not know what Lester Del Rey meant when he decided to name the first Covenant book "Lord Foul's Bane." At first I thought that it was pretty intellectually incurious of you to not want to know this sort of thing, but then after reading some of your responses in this gradual interview, it didn't seem that you and Lester were the best of friends, so it makes a lot more sense that you could have come this far without ever knowing what the title meant. Just looking at the events of the first trilogy, I think it makes the most sense to suppose that Lord Foul's Bane would be the Staff of Law. A good part of the book concerned the Quest to find the Staff of Law, and I do believe that I remember that in "The Power That Preserves" one of the characters said that the reason that Foul possessed Elena and made her wield the Staff of Law in the way that he wanted was because Foul would never try to touch the Staff of Law himself for fear of ending up like Drool Rockworm. I know I can't know for sure, but given the information that we have to work with, I think this explanation fits the best of any. Just my two cents.
|
I can't speak for Lester; and he isn't here to defend himself. But if I had to guess.... He might say that the "bane" in "Lord Foul's Bane" has a double meaning. It refers to both the curse or doom which LF intends for the Land and the curse or doom which Covenant represents for LF. (08/13/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: In the news section you stated:
"To my vast astonishment, the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland, has just announced a desire to offer me an honorary degree, Doctor of Letters, in June 2009. I sure hope nothing goes wrong!"
Hey! My ancestors are Scots! Are you insinuating that things go wrong in Scotland??!! Well, I never...
|
Are you kidding? Things are already going wrong. The University of St. Andrews *still* hasn't received any of my letters accepting their invitation. And when I send e-mails, I get replies asking me to bid on cabinet-making jobs. As Dave Barry used to say, I swear I'm not making this up. (08/13/2008) |
John: For some reason I didn't seem to have a hard time coming up with a female villain of yours - Sue Rasmussen, but as far as I can tell she is one of the very few in your works. And I wonder if its telling to note that she is a 'henchman' of the main villian, Sternway.
|
Well, bless you! Can you believe that *I* forgot about Sue myself? <rueful smile> (For those readers who don't recognize the reference: "The Man Who Fought Alone," the 4th of my mystery novels.) (08/15/2008) |
BookMaiden: As far as I can see, the audio version of Fatal Revenant has only been relased to Audible.com, or is available as a Kindle book at Amazon. As a librarian who orders audiobooks for a mid-size library outside of Seattle, we are waiting for an audiobook version to come out. Is this happening??? Our library users are desperate for the 2nd in the series. Thanks!
|
I'm saddened and frustrated by the absence of a "physical" audiobook for "Fatal Revenant"--or for *any* of my books except "The Runes of the Earth". (In this context, I don't count the Books on Tape program from the Library of Congress.) There are two related problems. First, the "Runes" audiobook sold poorly: too poorly to justify the cost of manufacture. Hence Putnams' (and Orion's) decisions not to continue. Second, "Fatal Revenant" (and now "Lord Foul's Bane") exist as "virtual" audiobooks only because Scott Brick, the reader of "Runes," decided that the project was worth continuing on his own; so he acquired the rights from Putnams (and Ballantine). Not an easy thing to do, under the circumstances. I don't know the details of his contract: he may not have the right to produce physical audiobooks. But that's not really germane. The important point is that he is a private individual launching his own business; and he simply doesn't have the up-front money to manufacture (and warehouse, and ship) physical audiobooks which may never sell. Naturally I wish that my books were more popular: I have as much ego as anyone else. But I concentrate on being grateful for Scott Brick's efforts, and on wishing him every possible success. (08/15/2008) |
Ryan: I've read the Thomas Covenant Chronicles as an almost fanatical fan, happily, but have never found an answer to this: What happened in between Covenant's exit from the Land, and his return? I know about the Corruption, but was there anything that really happened you never put in the books? I've always wondered what had started the Corruption, how the Ravers could even possibly do such a thing, even over time? Despite the end of danger, at first they pratically worshippers for Earthpower.
|
"Was there anything that really happened?" Thousands of things happened. TENS of thousands. Leaving every other conceivable subject aside: the patient manipulation required to corrupt the Council of Lords would have taken many centuries (which is one reason I decided to have so much time pass in the Land between stories). But the stories of those events simply don't interest me. And I certainly don't *need* them in order to carry out my intentions. As I've (often) said before, I only invent what I need. (08/15/2008) |