Tony Powell: I am in the early stages of an MFA in fiction. It's a "low-residency" program and students are only on campus twice a year for a ten-day workshop. Otherwise I am on my own and turning in work about once a month.
If you would, I would appreciate any advice you may have on persistence. It's not a matter of writing, per se (I write all the time), but of adherence to the work at hand. I admire your work for its language, depth and ideas. But I am absolutely agog at your discipline. My MFA mentor tells me I have the voice, the narrative movement, et al, all pretty much down. What I am dreadfully deficient in (and she hasn't mentioned this, but only because I am so good at hiding it) is the discipline for the "long-haul" work --- long stories or the novel.
I recognize that one of my "fears" is committing myself (plot, character development) to one direction or another, as if I might "get the wrong answer." So my question is two-fold:
Does the discipline come easy to you? And how do you know when (not where) to begin?
 |
Such questions are difficult to answer because they're rife with unspoken assumptions, many of which I'm not qualified to address. Just one example: How do you know that the "long-haul" suits your talents, personality, desires, or needs? You seem to think that you *should* write long stories or novels. Why? Maybe your problem has nothing to do with discipline--or fear. Maybe your problem is that you're trying to go against the grain of who you are. If your goal is "to create something of value" rather than, say, "to make money," then your real task is to discover what suits and satisfies you. Imposing artificial objectives (a long story, a novel) can be a very useful learning experience; but it's a bass-ackward way to write. On the other hand, if all you want to do is make some money, then you had better learn discipline. And the only thing I know about effective discipline is that it starts with *respect*: respect for who you are and who you want to be; respect for the obstacles you face, and for your limitations in facing them; respect for what you want to accomplish. Although I'm often accused of self-discipline, I don't see it. As far as I'm concerned, discipline has nothing whatever to do with writing. I start here: 1) storytelling gives my life meaning (a strong inducement); and 2) telling the kind of stories I tell, and telling them the way I tell them, makes me feel more alive than almost anything else (another strong inducement). After that, everything on every level (for me, if for no one else) comes down to a tug of war between fear ("failure" is only one of my many fears) and frustration (losing the benefits described above drives me crazy). At the beginning of the day--or the beginning of the story--frustration wins out over fear (eventually) because (I think) I acknowledge, respect, and address my fear. (Sometimes I do this by writing about my fear instead of trying to write my story.) But after that initial hurdle, it's all about, well, "Service enables service": I'm able to write because I *am* writing, NOT because I have discipline. Storytelling brings me to life--and life strives for life. That's the nature of life. I'll admit that my approach to fear could be interpreted as discipline. I'll also admit that simply setting an alarm clock and getting out of bed when it goes off can be interpreted as discipline. And sometimes it does *feel* like discipline. Especially on a Monday. <sigh> But usually it feels (at least initially) like a profound dislike of frustration. Later it modulates into a profound preference for feeling alive. In all of this, I'm given immeasurable aid by my specific creative process. Planning stories backward and then writing them forward in a way that makes me experience them as fully as possible increases both my frustration when I'm not writing and my sense of being alive when I am writing. I *yearn* to know what it feels like to reach the goal that I see so clearly ahead of me. <whew> Because of the unspoken assumptions mentioned earlier, all of this may be irrelevant to you. But it's what I have. (10/02/2006) |
Matt Vomacka: Hey. I sent in some questions recently but I've got something to add; a few additions to the GI interview have been on the topic of art of The Land and your other works.
Wayne Barlowe wrote the book "Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy", a book with dozens of illustrations of various mythical characters and creatures and short blurbs on the works in which they are contained. One of them was Drool Rockworm, from Lord Foul's Bane.
Now, I actually can't find the book; I haven't looked for it in years anyway so I have no idea if it's even in my house. I hoped to turn up results with a google search but unfortunately I just got various book sellers and such. However, I *also* found this post from Kevin's Watch by a quickly departed member (2 posts); it's fairly informative and gives an opinion on the quality of the illustration.
"Howdy! First post.
I picked up a book by one of my favorite illustration-artists, Wayne Douglas Barlowe, called Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy. It is a follow-up to his Hugo-nominated Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials of the late seventies, which illustrated beings from many science-fiction classics. The Guide to Fantasy is a collection of depictions of beings from classic fantasy. On pages 28-29 may be found an illustration of Drool Rockworm, the cavewight. On first sight I thought "What the hell was he thinking?", but after some reflection and a re-reading of SRD's description, I can see it. Barlowe took the description of Drool's head as "like a battering ram" to an unexpected conclusion, but his cavewight design is strangely effective. Seeing this image makes it easier for me to imagine the antlike Sunbane-warped cavewights that make an appearance in The Wounded Land. There are problems with the illustration. In it, the Illearth Stone is held completely within one of Drool's fists, so that all that is visible of it is green light leaking through his fingers. I got a strong impression from the books that the Illearth Stone was quite a bit larger than that. The Giant-Ravers held flakes from it in their fists, and the flakes were clearly visible. Also there is a side-illustration of the Staff of Law which might work with the description of it from Lord Foul's Bane, but the desciption of Vain sliding the metal heels of the destroyed staff onto his wrist and ankle from The Wounded Land could not possibly work with Barlowe's design. Still, his work is interesting and informative. The two Guides are not Barlowe's best work. If you are curious about this artist, I can solidly recommend his book Expedition, which is a travelogue of an exploration of another world's ecosystem, and Barlowe's Inferno, which is a travelogue from Hell. It is terrible, beautiful, and not for the faint of nature."
Truth be told, I have no idea about the quality of the work in comparison to your description. One might suppose that I had purchased the book because I saw Rockworm in it, or had at least known of your work by that time, but in fact I did not. Instead, when I saw Lord Foul's Bane on a bookshelf one day, I knew I had heard of it before - I figured out pretty quickly that it was in connection with Barlowe's book. So, actually, you got at least 1 sale from the guy, regardless of his quality as an artist :)
|
[posted without comment for people who may be interested] (10/02/2006) |
Ted: Mr. Donaldson,
First, let me say that the "Covenant" books are to me the absolutebest in fantasy. Also, Mordant's Need was incredible. Being totally blind, I only have access to your books through talking books and none of your other books are indexed there. Again, you are truly a masterful storyteller.
My questions:
1. I noticed in the second chronicles that Covenant was in an inordinate amount of danger. I understand that he needed to be full of venom in order to bring about the utter danger of his power... but at times it seems you were using him for target practice. Like you were somehow disgusted with the whole Covenant thing and were taking out frustrations on the poor bastard. I've recently read how you were pressured into the second chronicles by your publisher. Was I wrong? Or was it just that Covenant had to go through everything to get where he was supposed to be?
Actually, I'll come back with my other questions as they pertain to "Runes of the Earth" and I want to go over the archives and make sure I'm not covering settled ground.
Thank you,
Ted
|
I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "inordinate". I don't waste my time putting things into my books that I don't need. From that perspective, nothing seems "inordinate" to me. With that in mind: 1) Yes, my publisher did "pressure" me to write "The Second Chronicles"--but that isn't why I wrote it. I wrote it because I believe in it. I certainly wasn't "taking out frustrations" on Covenant. 2) The *nature* of the danger in "The Second Chronicles" is fundamentally different than the danger in the first trilogy. Lord Foul isn't sending armies against the Lords (a rather "generic" threat which poses little personal danger to Covenant). Instead his machinations and malice are focused directly and intimately on Covenant--and Linden. In addition, his personal attacks serve to distract Covenant and Linden from the larger dangers of his real intentions. Which makes sense (at least to me), considering the failure of his previous strategy. 3) I didn't want to write a "re-tread" of the first trilogy. Instead I felt a very conscious desire to raise the stakes. As I do in "The Last Chronicles". (10/02/2006) |
M.R.K.: Mr. Donaldson, I hope you are doing well. I didn't know if you were aware of this (I didn't see it anywhere else in the G.I.) but there exists an audio-cassette recording of The Gap into Conflict: The Real Story. (my local library circulates it) It's abridged (only 2 cassettes) and the abridgement was approved by yourself, or so the case says. I am planning on re-reading the print version to get the full experience. This brings me to my actual question: Do you feel that audiobooks in general are just as good as printed books, i.e., do you listen to them yourself? I listen to many as well as read printed ones; I was first exposed to Thomas Covenant via the audio version of ROTE and I am very glad that I decided to go back and read the story from the beginning. The Real Story (read by Stephen Lang by the way, who does a great, gruff Angus Thermopyle) also left me wanting much more of the Gap. Many people I know argue that audiobooks do not give the same experience as printed ones. I argue that they do, or can, since they are the same material but simply in a different medium. I was wondering what you thought about that...?
thanks very much,
M.R.K.
|
Many years ago, Bantam Audio released "abridged" cassette tapes of both "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge". I did the abridgement of "The Real Story" myself because I only had to cut out 10% of the text. I refused to do the abridgement of "Forbidden Knowledge" because I was unwilling to cut 80-90% of the text. The tapes didn't sell at all, and the project was quickly abandoned. As a matter of principle, I disapprove of abridged editions in any form. If my story can be accurately conveyed in 50% or 30% or 10% of the original text, I must be a pretty lousy writer. I don't listen to audio books myself, abridged or otherwise. I can't "follow" stories in that format. And I do believe that the "medium" is essential to the "message": when you change the medium, you change the message. But I do *not* object to unabridged audio books in any sense. For some people, they are simply preferrable to printed books. (I see no harm in that.) For others, they are more practical than printed books. And for still others, they are the only viable option. In practice, I'm always glad when my publishers decide to release an unabridged audio version, even thought I don't/can't listen to them myself. (10/02/2006) |
Paul S.: Thank you for answering my previous questions!
Are you going to do a "trailer" for FR like you have on your Home Page for Runes?
Secondly... I just watched that trailer again... and something jumped out at me; one of the lines said "Linden never thought she would see TC again... " next slide says "But Despite cannot be killed."
Soooooo... just because Despite cannot be killed she will see TC? Or because TC IS Despite and Despite cannot be killed then she will see TC again? Or because Despite cannot be killed both Linden and TC are needed to help battle it? Or...???
I just never noticed that phrasing until now and in light of the recent "is TC really Lord Foul or vice versa or both and neither" discussions this could take on new meaning.
I guess the question is, why that phrasing?
|
I'm sure that we'll have a "trailer" for "Fatal Revenant" when the time comes. But if I were you, I wouldn't try so hard to *interpret* such information. For one thing, it's a "tease": it attempts to pique curiosity by giving hints which both reveal and obscure what's coming. And for another..., well, *I* didn't write the "trailer" for "Runes". (Kudos to my webmaster.) I approved it because I think it accomplishes its purpose; but I certainly don't feel *bound* by it. (10/02/2006) |
John Kottman: First, your work is amazing. Before reading RotE, I went back and reread all the previous ones. Fantastic. I reread Mordant's need at least once a year. Classic.
In Runes, the Haruchai, have set themselves up as defenders, and oppressors, of the people and the Land. Now we all know men are tough, but women can be down right nasty when backed into a corner. Can't their wives come down out of the mountains and kick some sense into them and save the land?
|
I'm morally certain that Haruchai women are as tough as their men (although perhaps in an entirely different way). But I think that the unique character of the Bloodguard/Haruchai is defined as much by what they give up as by what they strive for. Bringing their women "on stage" would require me to sacrifice an important dimension of their story. (10/02/2006) |
Preston: Mr. Donaldson,
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a fan of your Thomas Covenant series of books. I have enjoyed them immensely and they are one of the very few books I have voluntarily purchased in hardcover. That said, I would like to offer some unasked for, and assuredly unwanted, comments.
A couple of years ago I reread the entire six-book series. I had bought a number of your non-TC books over the years and had never been able to finish them -- they seemed to bog down and get decidedly uninteresting. I did make it to the end of the first of the Axbrewder books, and along the way I realized that you really like to write. By this I mean that you really enjoy act of writing and finding the most accurate way to express your intended meaning. I suspect this is one of the reasons I think your later books get bogged down.
I read Lord Foul's Bane when it first came out and as many others have written, was disturbed by the rape of Lena. After reading The Illearth War I understood enough of your reasoning for this act to understand its necessity. I reread the six-book series again this past summer and only after that did I learn that you had started a final four-book series. I bought a copy of Runes, and almost put it down several times, unfinished. For me, the story didn't start to take-off until three-quarters or so of the way into the book. And I made another realization.
The first TC trilogy is different than the second in one very important way: the brutality of the actions you force the characters to endure, and their consequences. Lena's rape may be the most striking, but look at the cognitive rape done to Pietten and Foamfollower's decision to let the act stand unhealed by hurtloam, the genocide of the Giants, to list just a few examples. The few examples in the second trilogy are tempered by ideas of sacrifice to notions of a greater good or ideals and so lack the intellectual punch that the raw horror of an unameliorated death would otherwise convey. This starkness of also lacking in Runes, and is one of the differences in how you are tempering Linden Avery compared to Thomas Covenant, and why it is less effective in my view.
As the saying goes, war is hell. The horrors and savageness of the battlefield are difficult to grasp until one has experienced it first hand, even if the modern-day battlefield often as not occurs in a corporate office or in an academic setting. This savageness punctuates the first TC trilogy, is tempered in the second trilogy, and entirely lacking in Runes. Runes is too long for the actual content of the story being told, and it is my thought that one reason for this is that the brutality has shifted to the timid side of the scale and away from the savage side. Your skill, the craft you display in your writing, has certainly improved through the years, yet in my opinion your storytelling was best in the first TC trilogy and the expression of your craft has gotten in the way of that.
To put this simply, consequences need sufficiently strong motivators, and in your later writing both are reined in, but especially the motivations that drive the characters have been timidized (if I can make up a new word here). Strong, bold writing is more effective, more enjoyable to read, and is better storytelling.
Best regards,
--Preston
|
It has been said (or at least implied) that I delete "criticism" (negative feedback) from the Gradual Interview. I do. I've given my reasons. Among them: 1) Criticism isn't what the GI is *for*. Negative feedback violates the tacit protocols (the "etiquettes") of this exchange. It's rather like criticizing the food when you're the guest at a dinner-party. 2) Criticism here serves no useful purpose. Since it focuses on books which have already been published, it cannot possibly do me any good. Ergo: 3) *Uninvited* criticism exists solely to feed the ego of the critic. To pretend otherwise is (at best) hypocritical. Preston has provided an apt demonstration of my point. (btw, he deserves credit for supplying an e-mail address. Most people who post such messages are too, well, let's call it "timid" to risk a personal response.) (10/02/2006) |
Anonymous: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I saw recently on the Fantasy Bedtime Hour website that the series is down to its final six episodes. Naturally, though I know you've said you *would* do another episode, this begs the question, are there any concrete plans for the return of Higgins O'Higgins?
Cheers
|
Sadly, Higgins O'Higgins is missing and presumed dead. He went home from Episode 27 haunted by the "arguing like earth and sky" question (which he botched something awful), and is believed to have perished of terminal frustration. Alas. (10/02/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You majored in English throughout your academic life. I majored in Computer Science myself, but always wanted to be an English major and took quite a few English classes for my electives. When taking those classes we were always given very regimented writing assignments. For example, "write a short story that explores these themes and uses sybolism to convey such an such an idea"...etc. My question for you is, after reading 1300+ answers you've written for the GI, I don't get the impression that that sort of "assigned" writing would appeal to you very much. Now, I understand you are in college and you have to do what the instructor wants, but how did you feel about your writing in college and did you ever clash with any professors about it?
|
I was an English major because I wanted to study English literature, not because I wanted someone to teach me how to write. In other words, I've never taken a "creative writing" class: in part for the reason you describe (such assignments are too generic to meet the needs of individual students), and in part because I distrust "creative writing" classes (and seminars, and workshops, etc.) on principle. (I say this having taught writing workshops myself. God knows *I* deserved to be distrusted.) I believe that "creative writing" cannot be taught: it can only be learned. And it can only be learned by people who want to learn it for themselves, who ask for criticism when they need it (that's *invited* criticism, folks, not the other kind), and who work hard to profit from the feedback they receive. (10/02/2006) |
MARK G: you have stated that the second draft of "Fatal Revenant" is at 1088 pages. any idea how many pages the published version will be?
have you ever tried an internal martial art like Tai Chi or Ba Gua Zhang btw? your writing is very focused on the internal aspects of life so it is interesting that you would choose an external art like karate.
|
I can't possibly answer your first question. I don't know how much my editors will ask me to cut the present 1088 pages. In addition, I'm talking about manuscript pages; but you asked about "the published version," which seems to imply book pages--and there is no simple correlation between manuscript pages and book pages. Depending on type size and lines per page, a 1088 page manuscript can become a 500 page book--or an 800 page book. I've been exposed to elements of Tai Chi and Ba Gua, but I've never studied any version of either. However, I don't buy the internal/external comparison with, say, Shotokan karate--although God knows those terms are used often enough. I can vouch for the internal dimensions of Shotokan, and I've witnessed the external dimensions of Tai Chi and Ba Gua. I'm more comfortable with descriptions like soft/hard, or circular/linear, or redirective/ballistic. But sticking with internal/external for the sake of discussion: Shotokan (external) is perfect for me precisely because I'm so inclined to the internal. It's all about balance; about challenging myself in ways which correct rather than exacerbate imbalances. People who are instinctively external need to study the internal. People (like me) who are instinctively internal need to study the external. (By the same reasoning, people who are inclined to pure form need to concentrate on fighting: people who are inclined to fight need to concentrate on pure form.) (10/03/2006) |
Ryan (from Australia): Dear Mr Donaldson,
I recently re-read 'The Illearth War' to confirm that Hile Troy never met the beggar/creator before going to the land. I was wondering whether this was because of the nature of his summoning, or if there was some other reason for this.
Thanks Greatly,
Ryan.
|
Well, both. From Troy's perspective, his summons was too sudden--and his life too hermetic--to permit an encounter like the one Covenant "enjoyed". From the Creator's perspective, he has to let Atiaran make her own choices. Asking him to foresee actions like hers is rather like asking him to control what happens within the Arch of Time. And from her perspective--I don't know how else to put this--her efforts were simply too ignorant to accomplish what she intended. She was after Covenant: she didn't mean to summon Troy. In contrast, Drool/Lord Foul knew exactly who they wanted *and* exactly how to get him. Another way to look at the whole situation is that the Creator is only "free" to encounter/affect someone like Covenant when Lord Foul is actively engaged in breaching the barrier between realities. Since LF had no intention whatsoever of summoning Troy, the Creator was--inevitably--"out of the loop". (10/03/2006) |
Joshua Ubaldo: Okay, I just found out that you were also interested in martial arts. I am actually an aspiring writer, and I was wondering if you got any inspiration from your travels down the way of the warrior? Or does it just help you concentrate more?
|
Actually, I've developed an entire shtick about "The Writer as Warrior"; but it's purely for my personal edification. Broadly speaking, however, it deals with facing fear, accepting consequences, and striving for balance. (10/04/2006) |
Ed from Phoenix: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for the opportunity to share in this open communication. I am very grateful for the thought provoking entertainment and reflection your stories have given me over the years.
To my question: In a few places in the GI you refer to Elena’s mental imbalance while being High Lord and during her end-battle with High Lord Kevin I believe you said she was “out of her mind”. Admittedly, it has been a while since I last read TIW, but I never perceived her to be a character with a significant thought disorder (in contrast with characters such as Nassic or Anele). Certainly I saw her as a tragic figure, driven, impulsive and misguided. And certainly given the circumstances of her upbringing I can see how she could have become “out of her mind”. Also, I understand that if she had a thought disorder there is an important issue of degree when comparing her with a character like Anele.
Why do you view Elena as a character who is mentally imbalanced? What clues in the text did I miss suggesting her imbalance besides her misguided belief in the power that can be found in despair? I’m just curious and looking forward to a little more insight on this.
Thanks!
Ed
|
The problem with such questions--and my answers--is that we tend to talk about Elena's mental state as if it were binary, either on or off, sane or crazy. But there are many hues and degrees of mental imbalance, and we all have them. Under the right circumstances--and the right kind of pressure--any of us might do something crazy. If Covenant had never returned to the Land, Elena might have been a fine High Lord. Clues to her imbalance? Well, the fact that she has a "thing" for her father (a known rapist) is certainly a sign that something is out of whack. (10/11/2006) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Several short questions:
Is it possible the Land will lose its "Gods"? Will 'Brew' lose his "Gods"?
You posted a rhetorical question a while back in one of your responses that asked how many Laws have to be broken before the entire system collapses. Would it be fair - in the context of the Last Chronicles - to rephrase that question to read how corrupt must a system become before it is better to start over?
Thanks.
|
These may be "short" questions, but that doesn't make them easy to answer. Ferinstance, who/what are Brew's "Gods"? I don't know what you're referring to. An argument could be made that the Land has already lost its "Gods". After all, the "Creator" is effectively impotent (since he can't intervene in events without violating the Arch of Time)--and no one worships him anyway. Meanwhile, the distinction between "corrupt" and "broken" or damaged seems more appropriate to Brew's version of reality than to the Land's. Lord Foul went down the "corrupting the system" road in "The Second Chronicles," and failed. "Broken" is a better description of what's happening in "The Last Chronicles". (10/11/2006) |
Captain Maybe: O, sagacious and logophilic Donaldson! Dost thou feel like a guru?
OK, I expect your answer to that is something along the lines of 'No,' but what I want to get at is your thoughts about the relationship between writer and reader. A fair fraction of the questions you answer on the GI (and presumably at book-signings etc) are about writing and the publishing industry. For people who read your work, are aspiring writers themselves and who may not have anyone else to ask, your willingness to field questions would appear to make you an obvious source of literary wisdom. How do you feel about this (albeit very minor) mentoring role? More broadly, is it an implicit part of an author's unwritten job description to take on this role?
|
It seems natural that aspiring writers (and students of writing) might want to question someone in my position. Its also natural (considering the many obstacles that I've had to overcome) that I have strong opinions on the subject of writing. And since I enjoy the illusion that I'm an expert of some kind <grin>, I often try to answer. But "is it an implicit part of an author's unwritten job description to take on this role?" Absolutely not. Some writers are entirely unsuited by personality, by inclination, by ego, by ethos, or by writing methodology to talk about what they do; or to generalize based on their personal experience. This has nothing whatever to do with the quality of their writing. It's a description of who the writer is, not what the writer does. Hel*, for all we know, *Shakespeare* was utterly inarticulate about writing. And no, I do NOT feel like a guru. <grin> If I did, I would probably be dangerous. (10/11/2006) |
GomeUr-Vile: The Power That Preserves. I always assumed this title was a reference to Covenant's power supply; the electricity powering the fridge that preserves the food. Which is a link in itself because he has to go to town to pay the bills. Therefore the land's struggles are a metaphor for his difficulty in paying the bills. If he cant pay the electricity bill the power that preserves the food in the fridge is wasted; hence the land is under threat.
|
This is a novel interpretation. (To which you're welcome. Whatever floats your boat....) I've always assumed that "the power that preserves" is love for and commitment to the Land; love and commitment which can only be found (as both Covenant and Mhoram find them) in "the eye of the paradox". (10/11/2006) |
Brian, UK: I have picked up the impression from the GI that one of the reasons for the "Man Who" books was that you wanted to write a detective book "properly". Are there any other genres you would like to write (assuming you could come up with good ideas of course)? Westerns? Romance? Comedy?
Although I enjoy reading less demanding fantasy series (no names) I wouldn't dream of re-reading them several times as I have with your books (and a few others) Are there any statistics that you know of on the re-reading of books? I suspect you would be a lot wealthier if you were paid by the number of times your books were read.
|
I'm uncomfortable with the word "properly". Perhaps because I read so many mystery novels in my youth, I felt a desire to write something that would satisfy me more. As I grew older, I became disenchanted with the comparative "impersonality" of most mystery novels. I wanted (for lack of a better description) crimes that would matter more to the sleuth(s). On occasion, I've wished (vaguely) that I could write a supernatural horror novel. But I've never had any ideas for such a story. I don't know if it would even be possible to compile statistics on re-reading. I've certainly never heard anyone in publishing (writers, editors, agents, publishers, journalists) say anything on the subject. (10/12/2006) |
Ossie: You have said that you planned the Last Chronicles at the same time as the Second Chronicles, seeding the 2C with “all of the loose ends and back doors” you would need to create the LC. However, obviously no-one else knew this & it took you 20 years to finally get around to the LC, after the publication of the 2C. If your plan to live forever had failed & you had joined the Creator before anyone even knew you had always planned to make the LC, would you have been happy with people thinking that the 2C was the ending you always intended for the entire story? Do you feel that, if circumstances had prevented the LC from ever existing, the 2C is a satisfactory end to the series? Or would it be a case of “I’m horrified you all actually thought I meant to end it with *that*?”
|
Although I conceived "The Second" and "The Last Chronicles" at the same time, I was never absolutely sure that I would ever write the final story. As I've said before, "The Second Chronicles" convinced me that I wasn't a good enough writer to tackle "The Last". And of course I had no way of knowing what the "trajectory" of my writing life would be. So I was careful to leave the story in a place that satisfied me. If I had faced a premature death, say, ten years ago, I'm sure that I would have felt personally "incomplete"--because I hadn't finished what I started--but I doubt that I would have felt any aesthetic frustration. (10/12/2006) |
Joe Van Gompel: I note with both fascination and disgust the apparent real-world manifestation of your "Community of Retribution" in the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas. I had to disable all of my parental controls to get into their shameful, hate-filled website godhatesfags.com. They profess, among other things, that nobody is redeemed and that God doesn't really love everyone, which is pretty much contrary to the rest of Christianity's teachings. The only significant difference is that Westboro claims to disavow violence.
Were their teachings, or like teachings, an influence on your building of the Community of Retribution? The parallels between the two are startling.
And keep up the good work. Your descriptions of landscapes and vistas are second in quality only to Tolkien.
Joe
|
The parallels are certainly startling. But they're purely coincidental. (Which, curiously, I find more frightening than if I had known about the "Westboro Baptist Church".) I just grew up among too many "Christians" who used the word "love" when they meant either "fear" or "hate". Of course, using words to mean their opposite is a common practice in our society. (10/12/2006) |
Lynne H: I tried to find "shotgun" and "vigilantism" in the GI and didn't, so here goes.
Twenty mmpfh years after my first reading of the first two Covenant trilogies, I am certainly a different reader and a different person. I wasn't yet a parent and my husband hadn't yet become a law enforcement officer, so firearms weren't a "given" in our lives back then. So this time through, I was struck by Covenant's having purchased a shotgun in The Wounded Land when I had scarcely given it a thought the first time I read TWL. Nowadays the thought of someone's owning a firearm he's not sure he will make use of is mind-boggling. People I know either have them intending to use them or they refuse to even let their kids play at a friend's house where there may be a weapon, even if the weapons and ammo are locked up separately. Myriad plot points would have been altered if Covenant had used his shotgun, so I won't even get into that, but I am curious: Is this any reflection of your own . . .aversion? whatever? (I am thinking of your having served in a hospital as a conscientious objector).
Thanks for the opportunity to ask. It's been great rediscovering your work and, even better, sharing it with those of my children old enough to appreciate it.
|
Actually, I'm vaguely fascinated by guns. I've even taken shooting--and safety--lessons from a SWAT officer. For another perspective on the subject, you might look at "The Man Who..." books, especially "...Tried to Get Away". But Covenant has a shotgun precisely so that he can choose not to use it. Which sounds to me just like something I might have done in his situation. After all, Joan's return might (for good reason) make him feel, well, let's call it embattled. I thought that buying a shotgun and then deciding not to use it revealed a great deal about his inner journey--and about Linden's early effect on him. In very few words, I might add. <grin> (Thematically, of course, I was also trying to prepare the way for some of the events early in "The Runes of the Earth".) (10/25/2006) |
Anonymous: So, have you asked your editor when "Runes" will be released in Mass market paperback?
|
I have. Sadly, Ace has no immediate plans for a mass market edition of "The Runes of the Earth." The profit margins in mass market are very small, and Ace is still unsure that my sales justify the risk. This, I hasten to say, does not mean that there won't be a US mass market edition eventually: it just means that Ace isn't yet ready to make the decision. (10/25/2006) |
Gilbert Martinez: Mr. Donaldson,
I have a question concerning the World Fantasy Convention in Austin, Texas (Nov. 2-4). I'm planning on being there -- in fact, you are one of my favorite authors and I couldn't pass up a chance to meet you and perhaps hear you read an excerpt from Fatal Revenant.
I've looked over the schedule for the World Fantasy Convention, but don't see you on it. Can you provide details about what you plan to do at the convention? I'd greatly appreciate it so I can plan my visit.
Also, have you been to Austin before? It's a great town.
Thanks very much.
Gilbert
Austin, Texas
|
I am not scheduled for any programming at the Austin WFC. But I will be there. And I do try to be accessible on such occasions--whatever "accessible" turns out to mean at any given moment. <rueful smile> No, I've never been to Austin before. (10/25/2006) |