Robert K Murnick: Hello Sir. I understand that the covers of your novels are not something under your control. But if cover-control was offered to you, would you take it? ....and what would the covers show?
 |
As I've said before, I'm not a visual person. I wouldn't want cover control because I can't imagine what I would like to see. However, cover *approval* would be another matter altogether. When I see something, I know whether I like it or not--and I'm usually able to say why. But in my experience, publishers will go to extraordinary lengths to block powers like cover control and cover approval, even when those powers are granted to the author by contract. Publishers do NOT want to be told how to do their jobs. Which I can understand, at least to some extent, since I don't want anyone to tell me how to do MY job. (08/04/2010) |
j.r. gibson: i've read many of your books over the years but have only recently found the g.i., so i apologize for the anachronistic nature of this question: one of the themes in the movie "the matrix" is the idea that this has all been done before. i know in a previous post, "the matrix" was brought up but not specifically in this light.
much fantasy blurs the line between reality and fantasy, but "the matrix" struck me as very similar to "thomas covenant," in that idea of despair maintaining power (or at least existence) through the ongoing cycle of the rise of a savior, the ritual of desecration, the rise of a new savior, etc.
if this idea of a feedback loop didn't strike you as a ripoff, where else have you seen this in pre-halfhand storytelling? thanks.
|
"[T]he idea that this has all been done before" strikes me as very familiar. The example that first leaps to mind is E. R. R. Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros"; but I would bet cash money that the idea goes *way* back. (Any belief system that incorporates reincarnation....) In any case, I'm confident that the "Matrix" films are not a "Covenant" ripoff. The differences are far more obvious to me than the similarities. Plus, of course, "There is nothing new under the sun." (08/04/2010) |
Paul S.: I just want to say Thank You -- not just for the great stories but also for your kindness, openness (where appropriate) and honesty with your fans. You were honest back at the beginning when you said there would be four books and each book would be published three years apart -- and (so far!) you've stuck to it. No additional/split books, no changes to schedules, no "the story grew in the telling" excuses. And the quality of your work is beyond reproach.
With exception of you and Erikson, lately it seems that all of my favorite SF/F authors have fallen into those other traps. Just another small reason why you are my favorite author.
I know the writing process is different for everyone -- but seems you could provide some guidance in this arena for your fellow 'schedule/story-size challenged' peers.
|
Naturally I'm grateful for your good opinion. And I place a high personal value on being a man of my word. But let me make a couple of rather generic comments about my fellow writers. 1) Some people are just plain indolent, and they're everywhere. No writer of my acquaintance would disagree with that assessment. The observation that some writers are indolent is a description of human beings in general, not of writers in particular. 2) But more importantly: everyone works differently. My own method of planning stories backward, so that I know how big they'll be and what shape they'll take before I ever start writing, is highly idiosyncratic (some would say idiopathic). I know a number of writers, some of them very fine writers, who don't *plan* in anything like the same sense. They find a beginning that excites them; and then they just write, discovering the story as they go along. For such people, producing stories that defy their initial expectations is normal. (And wonderful.) But there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply a fact of life: different imaginations work differently. As they should. (08/04/2010) |
jeff: Hey,
I have been re-reading your gap novels, and then saw a documentary which had the (moving) image of a spider eating a caterpillar. It occured to me that the spider converts the caterpillar's cells into spider cells (digestion/metabolism) in much the same way that you envisioned the amnion converting human cells into amnion cells. Except of course they do it internally, but it's pretty much the same thing isn't it?
Is this something you considered when you came up with the idea?
|
Not really. When a spider eats a caterpillar, that's digestion (correct me if I'm wrong), not reproduction. Reproduction is a separate function. If the spider were Amnion, when the spider was done there would be two spiders, not one well-fed spider. (08/04/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't think I'm way off base when I say that Vain has always been a fascinating character for a lot of fans of the Chronicles. There have certainly been a good many GI questions about him. He's just very cool, even though he never says a word. He's mysterious yet very powerful (maybe that's why he's so cool, the ultimate "dark, silent type" :-). Well, here's another question about him. I've always wondered about his name. I assume since the ur-Viles created him, that they named him (?). I would also assume (perhaps, wrongly?) that their name was in their language and that perhaps "Vain" is the human translation of that ur-Vile name. The word vain can have two meanings, 1) to be conceited, full of self-importance, etc. or 2) futility. I've always wondered which of the two meanings you were thinking of when you named him? Both? Since the ur-Viles were so full of "unworth", I guess for lack of a better word, I thought his name was more about definition number 2 and the futility of their situation. But over time, and in reading the GI, I think number 1 also fits, it's their conceit in trying to oppose Foul by creating something of Law (or that will become Law). Am I in the ballpark of how you saw him and why you named him the way you did (sorry for all the baseball metaphors, just that time of the year I guess :-)).
|
Remembering that I wouldn't have used the name if it didn't *sound* right to my ear, I can honestly say that I had both definitions in mind. They work well together. The self-loathing of the ur-viles urges them to think of anything *not* themselves as a kind of perfection (perfection of form and function as defined by Law; perfection of their Weird): hence the sheer conceit of their ambitions. But perfection--or any desire to be something substantively different than what they are (e.g. "natural" rather than "artificial")--is unattainable: hence the futility of their ambitions. But I also had something more obscure in mind. "Vain" is a homonym for "vane"--and (wait for it) Vain is a kind of weathervane: he shows which way the wind is blowing for the ur-viles. Jeez Louise. Are authors really this lame? (08/18/2010) |
Anonymous: Have you ever been invited for an interview on a late night talk show? If not, would you attend one if you were invited?
|
No, I've never been invited. And I've never seen a writer of my general seriousness on a late night talk show. But if I *were* invited, I would be eager to say no--in which case my publishers would probably shoot me straight in the head. <rueful grin> (08/18/2010) |
Captain Maybe: You've answered a couple of questions lately about the cover art of the upcoming US edition of Against All Things Ending, but I was wondering what your thoughts on the UK edition were. It seems to me it's not as mysterious as the previous two - it's too clean - almost happy. But I do like the continuation of the elemental theme - forest, mountain, sea. And I much prefer the less representative, more oblique approach of the UK covers.
What do you think?
|
In general, I prefer the UK approach rather than the US one. And in general, I don't think that the UK "Against All Things Ending" is up to the standard of the previous two books. But have you seen the "revised" UK cover? I'm told that the unrevised version (before both my agent and I screamed) is still floating around on the web somewhere. It makes the book look like a box of laundry detergent. By *that* standard, the revised cover is a huge improvement. (08/18/2010) |
John : Steve,
We all know that when you wrote the first chronicles you had no plans for the next two. At the end of TPTP the Staff of Law was destroyed. So my question is did you originally intend to mean that the Land did not need the Staff? I know this is asking you to reach back in decades to other thoughs, but at the end of the first chronicles was your intent that the Land would eventually be whole without the Staff to support Law, considering you had no plans for two more chronicles?
Thanks for your Time!
John
|
This is simple. The Land existed for ages without the benefit of a Staff of Law. Berek created his Staff in response to a terrible threat. With that threat (Lord Foul) removed, no one at the time had any reason to think that the world wouldn't go back to being fine without the Staff. (08/18/2010) |
Richard Nortcutt: Mr. Donaldson,
A few years back I was in New Mexico somewhere around Nogal. I remember driving by a gate that said "Haven Farm".... would that be YOUR Haven Farm?
|
No chance. "My" Haven Farm was in New Jersey. I've never been to Nogal. (08/18/2010) |
Usivius: Just reading the GI, and there it was: the title of your autobiography: "I'm Not Getting Any Younger."
;)
|
Not bad. But I already have another title in mind--which I have no intention of using. (Is it already in the Gradual Interview? I think so; but I could be wrong.) (08/18/2010) |