No, I've never considered "broadening" my creative efforts. I am a person who "digs deep" rather than one who "spreads wide"--if you see what I mean. And I certainly don't have time to learn the mechanics (never mind the underlying strategies) of any new form of storytelling. And no, I don't play video games. I guess I satisfy that part of my nature by writing. (10/01/2007)

i) Please. There's absolutely nothing I can say about this that isn't a spoiler of *some* kind. ii) Publishers plan their schedules far in advance. My UK publisher could easily have nailed down some other book for October 9 long before D&A of "Fatal Revenant" (putting a book on the schedule *before* D&A is just plain foolish), which after all is being published rather quickly. (Not as quickly as "The Runes of the Earth"--six months--but more quickly than the usual 12-18 months.) But leaving such considerations aside, my UK publisher may have decided to wait a week in order to avoid competing with my US publisher for my "book tour" time. Publishers naturally want the tour to coincide with publication as closely as possible; but even they realize that I can't be in two places at once. (10/01/2007)

You say "finicky": I say "subjective," ("Let's call the whole thing off"--if you'll forgive an obscure--not to mentioned strained--joke). But here's how it looks to me. I understand your point about the rhythm of "final". To my mind, however, "last" asserts that there will not be any more "chronicles," whereas "final" suggests that there may not be any more of ANYthing. In other words, "final" sounds more, well, *final* than "last" does. As I say, subjective.... (10/03/2007)

According to my editor, releasing books in downloadable e-formats has become "standard practice"--at least for Putnams/Ace. I don't know what the release date will be, but I'm confident that "Fatal Revenant" will be available from sites like ereader.com. I can't read books on a computer screen--on or *any* screen--myself, so I'm stuck with "dead tree" versions (a fact which causes me some discomfort, since I love trees <sigh>). (10/03/2007)

Since I both like and respect the Haruchai, I find it difficult to think of them as "jerks". In fact, I'm not even confident that "arrogant" is the right word for them. But they do hold themselves to inhumanly high standards. And they do hunger to prove themselves equal to huge challenges, the bigger the better. Sometimes they appear to place more value on the attempt than they do on whether or not the attempt succeeds. At other times, they judge entirely on the basis of success. One way to look at this discrepancy is that when they fail and remain true to themselves, they accept the consequences, but when they fail and do NOT remain true to themselves (Korik, Sill, and Doar with the Illearth Stone v Ravers and Lord Foul; Brinn and Cail v merewives), they judge harshly. (From the view-point of the Masters, Stave falls into this latter category.) Occasionally, however, I think about the Haruchai from a completely different perspective. One thing has always troubled me about the Elves in LOTR: why haven't they died of boredom? They can live forever, they know virtually everything, and their lives are almost entirely static; so why haven't they collapsed from sheer ennui? OK, OK: maybe there's an explanation hidden away somewhere in their background or nature. That's not my point. My point is that the shared racial memories of the Haruchai pose a similar problem. Individual Haruchai don't live as long as Elves; but since they all know pretty much everything that any Haruchai has ever known, why aren't they bored stupid? Well, because they're driven to take on huge challenges, driven to push themselves past their known limits, driven to *strive*. There's nothing static about the way they look at life. Hence their present role in the story--and the passion (which may seem like arrogance) with which they fill that role. As for their attitude toward Linden: she undermines the *meaning* of what they're currently striving for. If that didn't anger them--if they were so complacent in their convictions that they couldn't be angered--they really would be arrogant. (10/03/2007)

It seems inherently reasonable that some form of "underlying reality" exists, even if that reality can only be discerned by "the view from nowhere". But everything I've read and heard about modern physics in recent years supports the notion that "perception defines reality". I can't actually wrap my mind around this in a "macro" sense; but on a "micro" level, I can't deny that my own reality is entirely defined by my perception of it. Meanwhile, one of my several answers to "critics" who automatically dismiss fantasy from serious consideration is to point out the obvious fact that ALL literature is fantasy. By definition, literature is an act of imagination: if the writer didn't invent it, it wouldn't exist on the page. It follows, therefore, with the pleasing inevitability of a syllogism, that the people who dismiss fantasy do so out of fear, rather than for any valid critical reason. (10/04/2007)

Verrrrrrry slowly. Too many (inevitable) interruptions. The time between D&A and publication is always complicated, even under the best of circumstances (which these are not). (10/04/2007)

If the geography and continents are all different, and the moon can actually shine red for an extended period of time, why wouldn't the star constellations also be different? (10/04/2007)

You managed to squeeze several questions into a small space. <grin> But since I never base what I create for my stories on real people, real places, real situations, etc., some of your queries are self-answering. The obvious exception is the Ranyhyn--but I got away with that (in a manner of speaking) because I personally dislike horses (having had many bad experiences with them), so creating "lordly" horses did not seem "real" to me. However, I suppose I was influenced in a certain (negative) way by Tolkien's horses. He never explained how his horses could run so far so fast so long without collapsing. That detail probably pushed me in the direction of creating more overtly "magical" horses. Since I virtually never listen to contemporary music, I've never heard of Genisis, or heard "home by the sea". (10/05/2007)

A nice idea, but impractical. My UK publicist is a professional: he's already working his brain down to the white meat: if he could get me on UK television, he would. The last thing he needs from me is some backseat driving. (I certainly wouldn't let *him* tell me how to do *my* job.) (10/05/2007)

Russia, like other countries from the former USSR, has had a curious history in relation to the rest of the publishing world. For much of the 20th century, Russian publishers simply *took* the books they wanted: no rights, no royalties (or payment of any kind), no acknowledgment. Then Russia signed on to the international copyright agreements that guide publishing in (most) other countries. Since then, the situation has improved somewhat. These days, Russian publishers do pay advances so that they can publish foreign books "legally". But they supply no accounting, and never pay any royalties. "Mordant's Need," it seems, was released in Russia during the Bad Old Days. This is the first I've heard of its publication there. Recourse? You must be joking. Impenetrable bureaucracy has been a staple of Russian society for centuries. (10/05/2007)

Long life was an effect of devotion to Earthpower and Law. Of the old High Lords, Berek was the only one to spend a significant part of his adulthood as an "ordinary" man. Ergo he fathered Damelon comparatively early in his life--and Damelon didn't become High Lord until comparatively late. But Damelon and Loric were in no particularly hurry: they started their families (much) later in life. It's conceivable that Loric knew his grandfather, and that Kevin knew his. But I wouldn't want to bet on it. (10/05/2007)

Well, "most of the joy"? I wouldn't want to say that. It's true that my intensive and painstaking study of literature has made me harder to satisfy. I'm no longer truly able to read uncritically. So I suppose you could say that I'm no longer truly able to "lose myself" in books. But it's also true that my "joy" when I *am* satisfied is greatly enhanced. The sheer delight of observing a master at work is not to be underestimated--even when I can't stop thinking things like, "I wonder why he did it *that* way?" or, "Wouldn't it read better if she did it *this* way?" I'm sure there are (a few) exceptions; but in general I'm confident of two things: you can't really be a writer if you aren't an avid reader; and you can't really be a writer if you prefer not to *think*. I'm a storyteller. I don't want to do anything else. If you held a gun to my head and said, "Write a book about writing," I think I would ask you to just shoot me. Never mind the fact that everything I might say on the subject would be *wrong* since--as I've stated many times--there *are* no *right* answers: every writer, like every writing process, is unique. (10/05/2007)

You're right: in "The Second Chronicles," vitrim is described in milder terms. But I didn't intend the stronger language of "The Last Chronicles" as a comment on the ur-viles--although it makes sense that their darker lore would produce less palatable results. Rather I was thinking about the greater discernment of health-sense (restored--if in temporary bursts--in "The Last Chronicles," mostly absent--with the obvious exception of Linden--in "The Second Chronicles"). (10/06/2007)

Actually, the explanation is pretty simple. A lot of people who waited for the paperback of "The Wounded Land" got excited after they read it--and couldn't/didn't wait for the paperback of "The One Tree". Hence the huge increase in hardcover sales. (10/07/2007)

Bring it. You--and el Senor--have no idea with whom you are messing around. (10/08/2007)

How do I spend my days? Working on the GI, mainly. Or so it seems. At this stage, I can't concentrate well enough to make much progress on AATE. My dominant emotion is dread, but that has more to do with book tours than with the release of "Fatal Revenant". Despair comes later. <grin> (10/08/2007)

<sigh> I suppose I should admit up front--if I haven't done so already--that I hate writing things like "What Has Gone Before" (which is why my editors did the job for me throughout the first two "Covenant" trilogies). So I don't really try to be thorough--or even textually exact. My goal is to provide the reader with what he/she needs to know for the up-coming book, not to write an "ideal" (or even approximately ideal) synopsis of the previous books. That said: you make a perfectly valid point about the Elohim/Findail/Appointment/Vain/Linden/Covenant/white gold/etc.. However, the explanation I gave in WHGB is also valid. One does not contradict the other. Or so it seems to me. I think you'll find that both explanations "work". Just keep in mind that trying to squeeze such long stories down into such a short space requires any number of compromises. (10/08/2007)

I like chapter lists ("tables of contents") myself, so I always provide them--when I'm writing a book in which the chapters *have* titles. (Otherwise there's no point.) Sure, a table of contents can be seen as a "spoiler". But it can also be seen as a "tease". Or as an "appetizer". On a much more mundane level, however, Lester del Rey would have insisted on chapter titles and a table of contents if I had neglected to supply them: he considered such things important to the success of fantasy novels. I'm not wise enough to figure out the (hugely) complex interrelationship between nature and nuture, talent and desire. I'm inclined to think that talent can be nutured, but cannot be created by nurture--and that desire can *only* be the result of nuture rather than of nature. However, that's pure speculation. And I may think differently tomorrow. (10/08/2007)

The issue you raise about Gibbon sounds familiar. Surely I've discussed this before? In any case.... As I see it, Lord Foul has long since subsumed the individual identities of the Ravers. They are no longer distinct "characters" with their own agendas: they are "minions" pure and simple. So they don't ask questions like, Gee, what happens to *me* if you win? Long ago, of course, LF may have made any number of "promises" (e.g. I'll take you with me when I escape Time) to seduce the Ravers. If so, those promises ceased to have any meaning (or even any necessity) centuries before Our Story begins. (10/08/2007)

Judging by what sells these days (and not just in sf/f), it seems likely that the kinds of characters I write about (significantly?) reduce sales. And there's no doubt that my ego and I would be better off if my books were more widely read. But *regret*? What would be the point? I can't change who I am, or how my imagination works. Nor do I want to: I would be bored blind if I tried to write, well, let's call them "simpler" stories. (10/08/2007)

Hmm. A non-spoiler comment about Esmer? Well, there's this: as I've gotten older, I've become increasingly aware of the manifold ways in which human beings in general, and I in particular, are internally conflicted. More and more, I find it axiomatic (never mind transparent) that human beings work against themselves much (most?) of the time. They suffer from opposing desires, opposing fears, opposing comprehensions. So why not write about a character who *personifies* internal conflict? And where else could I write about such a character, if not in a fantasy novel? Especially a fantasy novel that has always been about *paradox*? (10/08/2007)

Sure, Lord Foul was helping Linden--for his own oblique purposes (if she's, well, let's call it "restricted" by the Masters, she won't be of any obvious use to him). But his paraphrase of Keats is intended as a put-down. "Your actions are too trivial, too ephemeral, to have any lasting meaning." Which may be what Keats meant about himself. In any case, the paraphrase was definitely unconscious on my part. I've spent too much time studying Keats to pretend that I've never read his epitaph before. But I had (consciously) forgotten all about it when I wrote "The Runes of the Earth". I did not intend to imply that LF is a kind of "lost Keats". (10/09/2007)

Probably the best answer is the extended quotation from Douglas Adams which appears, oh, a couple of months ago in the GI. But my instinctive reaction is: ???? You appear to be looking for some way to distinguish between the Land's "reality" and Covenant's "reality". But there isn't a way to do that. It's all fiction: I made it all up. And I made it all up at the same time. No part of it is any more or less "real" than any other part of it. And since I'm always striving to create an organic whole rather than a clutter of independent (and ultimately gratuitous) parts, I wouldn't waste my time trying to create a fantasy world and a protagonist that didn't *belong* to each other in every conceivable way. Asking me if one part of the story *would* have been different if another part of the story *had* been different is like asking me why I didn't write a completely different story. I have no answer. I believe that the internal logic of "The Chronicles" is consistent. What else is there to say on the subject? (10/09/2007)

I'm not sure we can discuss this unless someone is willing to hazard a defintion of "innocence"--or of "purity". I'm aware that my thinking on the subject is skewed by my childhood immersion in judgmental theology. "Original sin" is only one of the many distortions that I was programmed to accept without question. Since then, I've learned to think in ways that would doubtless horrify my parents (or at least my mother); but the templates underlying the beliefs I was raised to share still influence me. So I find it difficult to think of things like innocence or purity as being either viable or desirable. Hence my rather assertive comments on the subject in other contexts. But I could be wrong. If you have definitions in mind that don't rely on some specific belief system.... (10/10/2007)

Newspapers, mainly. Occasional scraps of broadcast news. (10/10/2007)

1) The late and lamented Fred Saberhagen was entirely responsible. He approached an assortment of his friends and colleagues (how he picked them, I have no idea; but he and I--and Roger Zelazny, now that I think about it--were friends at the time) and asked them to write "Berserker" stories. The only requirement was that the Berserkers had to fit Fred's description of them. (You may have noticed that the word "Berserker" never occurs in my contribution.) The writers were not asked to consult with Fred, or with each other. The gimmick of "Berserker Base" was that Fred would then take the resulting stories--over which he had exerted no control whatsoever--and somehow weave them into a simulacrum of a novel. As a result, "Berserker Base" was not a "collaboration" in the usual sense of the term. 2) Nope. (10/10/2007)

As I've said on any number of occasions, I'm a very slow reader. There's no way that I could keep up with all of David Drake's books, or Terry Pratchett's, or Fred Saberhagen's. But I'll take this opportunity to mention one of Pratchett's novels, "Reaper Man," and two of Saberhagen's, "The Holmes-Dracula File" and "A Matter of Taste". (10/10/2007)

As soon as I say this, you'll find that you aren't surprised. It's all about money. I live in the West myself, so sending me on Western tours is cheaper than sending me anywhere else. In fact, I haven't been east of Colorado and New Mexico on tour since 1980. (10/10/2007)

Like you, I'm stuck with books. I can't *read* in any other form. I write at a computer: I've learned to rewrite at a computer: but I can only *read* books. (btw, I'm even worse when it comes to audio books. I can't absorb stories AT ALL that way.) I like to pretend that I can't read e-books because computer screens (even laptops) are too bulky to carry around conveniently, and with all other displays the print is too small for my failing eyesight. But the truth is that I'm just not willing to learn how to change on this point. I have no particular insights on how technology will affect the delivery of text from writers to readers. However, my agent--who pays much more attention to these things than I do--believes that e-books will never be more than a "niche" market. The future, in his view, belongs to "print on demand," books that aren't manufactured at all until someone places an order. The publisher will simply program an entirely computerized (and doubtless web-based) printing process and then wait for someone to place an order. Each individual order will be met by the printing of one book. This will keep publishing alive as a business by eliminating vast amounts of overhead and waste. My question--if my agent is right--is: where and how are people going to *browse*? Personally, I find the web far too unwieldly for browsing. As for your second question: I don't doubt that movies and tv have exerted some subliminal influence on me; but I'm not conscious of it--much. As I keep saying, I'm not a visual person: what reaches me is what the characters *say* (plus the sound of their specific voices). But dialogue is becoming increasingly irrelevant to movies and tv; and once words are eliminated, I'm no longer influenced. (10/14/2007)

Thanks! I'm a little worried about your mental and emotional well-being. <broad grin> But I'm glad that at least *one* reader isn't vexed with me for taking so long. (10/14/2007)

First, let me say that the absence of the other two "The Man Who..." books from ereader.com is sheer sloppiness on the part of their publisher. My agent is trying to correct the problem, and he'll probably succeed. But moving backward in time: my contract with the publishers of the GAP books gives them the "electronic" rights: they could do e-books legally. But their publishing methologies in the early and mid 90s did not automatically generate e-versions of the text. Therefore they would have to Spend Money in order to create e-books. And they've already lost so much money on the GAP books that they aren't willing to spend more. In fact, I'm lucky that they keep those books in print at all. Meanwhile, back in the days of the first six "Covenant" books (and "Mordant's Need"), no one thought about e-books. Therefore those rights aren't covered by my contracts. Therefore--in theory--those rights belong to me. So one might think that *I* could release those books in e-formats myself. But no: this falls under the "competing editions" clause of my contracts. Those publishers cannot do e-books themselves because they don't own the rights; and *I* cannot release e-books because I'm not allowed to compete. As it happens, DEL REY/Ballantine *might* be willing to publish e-versions of the "Covenant" books. But they are decidedly NOT willing to Spend Money to obtain the rights. And my agent and I, as a matter of professional principle, are not willing to give rights away free. Impasse. Sadly, the issues I've just described will never be resolved unless virtually all of my books experience a MASSIVE increase in popularity. (10/14/2007)

I can't tell you what to expect from a "The Man Who..." book which may never exist. But I can (sort of) explain the steadily increasing length. When I began with "The Man Who Killed His Brother," I was striving to emulate what I perceived to be the stylistic conventions of the genre. Good discipline for me as a writer who always strives to improve his skills. But with each new book in the series, I've become less and less interested in the conventions of the genre, and more and more interested in trusting my instincts as a storyteller. Put another way: each new book in the series is less a "mystery" novel and more a "Donaldson" novel. This hasn't increased my readership at all <sigh>, but it has increased my personal satisfaction. (10/14/2007)

Ah, yes. You "assume". And "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." Or, as I prefer to put it, "When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of u and umption." (I *wish* that were original, but it isn't. It's from a Geena Davis/Samuel L. Jackson movie, the title of which escapes me at the moment.) If we can do so without reference to what I choose to call the Douglas Adams Fallacy, let's discuss this when I've finished "The Last Chronicles". (10/14/2007)

As I've often said, I have no plans to write *anything* after "The Last Chronicles". I don't mean that I intend to quit writing: quite the opposite. I mean that I've never tried to plan my writing life ahead of the story I happen to be working on at the moment; and I don't intend to start now. Like almost every writer I know personally, I'm inclined to think that my books aren't promoted very well. Naturally I should be a household name in every civilized country. Isn't that The Way Life Is Supposed To Be? <grin> But honesty compels me to admit that if I were Putnams/Ace, or Forge/Tor, or Bantam/Spectra, or Ballantine/Del Rey, I wouldn't be able to do any better. I have absolutely no idea how to promote books effectively (especially in a society that secretly hates intelligence)--and I suspect that my publishers share my dilemma. If, say, my editor at Bantam/Spectra, or my editor at Putnams/Ace, could make my books better known by sheer force of will, they would do so in a heartbeat. They *believe* in what I'm doing. But lacking that power, they do what they know how to do, and then (metaphorically) throw up their hands. As I would in their place. There is, of course, the problem of "market over-saturation"--but who do we blame? Editors who choose to publish junk? Or readers who make bestsellers out of junk? As long as junk continues to sell better than intelligent and imaginative storytelling, we really can't blame publishers for doing what they do. (10/14/2007)

I remember being perfectly sane once: I think it was in 1543. But of course no one is ever been perfectly safe. <grin> (For those of you unfamiliar with the reference, the idea of being perfectly safe and perfectly sane is sort of a mantra in "Mythological Beast".) (10/15/2007)

SPOILER WARNING!

This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

Although I can easily relate to your personal journey, I find questions like yours difficult to answer. And I also find it difficult to explain *why*. But it seems to me to be an important part of what I call my "creative ethic" that I need to withhold my personal allegiance from any particular point of view--or set of beliefs. As I've said from time to time in this interview, I see myself as the "servant" of the story ideas that choose me to write them. As such, I need to be as, well, *flexible* as possible in my thinking, so that I can "serve" each character and story as I think they deserve. So when people ask me what *I* believe, I'm at a loss. When I reply that "I believe storytelling should be done as selflessly as humanly possible," or, "I believe the world can only become a better place through selfless storytelling," my answers don't convey much in the way of useful information. <sigh> I wish I had a better answer. (10/15/2007)

You don't wish it any more than *I* do. <sigh> Now if I wrote by Divine Inspiration instead of by Divine Intervention.... <rueful smile> Sadly, I resemble Linden in at least one respect: sheer inadequacy to the task slows me down. (10/18/2007)

I'm entranced by the self-righteousness of this message. And I can't help noticing that the people who post such comments never sign their names--or risk leaving an e-mail address. I suspect that there's a link between self-righteousness and cowardice. And yet this person keeps reading...! (10/18/2007)

I guess it bears repeating that I don't choose where my publishers send me--or when. It's their money: they have the right decide how to spend it. (10/18/2007)

Thank you. And thanks to the other readers who posted this information. You're right, of course. How could I have forgotten? (btw, this seems like as good a place as any to mention that I'll be away from the GI for at least a couple of weeks. My time in England will probably not let me answer questions.) (10/18/2007)

I do firmly believe that writing is not a competition. But *publishing* seems unavoidably competitive, in part because editors simply don't have time to give equal attention to every possible writer, and in part because shelf space in bookstores is severely limited (of course, Internet outlets like Amazon have theoretically unlimited "shelf space," but they are less able than bookstores to *feature* particular books, and they're pretty useless for browsing). In that respect, the sheer glut of titles hurts the accessibility of any individual title. Back in the days when I was massively popular, there were very few other books on the fantasy shelves. Now many readers are completely unaware that I'm still alive: my work seems to drown in the flood of other books. On top of that, it's possible to argue that a plethora of choices *inhibits* rather than encourages readers. Having too many choices certainly has that effect on me. In my personal opinion, Drout is out of his mind. He's assuming that there can be only one valid model for a "sub-creation" (Tolkien's linguistic expertise)--*and* that everyone who tries to create a fantasy world MUST have the same goals and priorities that Tolkien did. Such assumptions are patently false. Different writers create different "realities" for different reasons--and those reasons *demand* different methologies. In addition, it seems to me that the multi-racial nature of my cast of characters more than justifies any lack of "linguistic consistency." (10/18/2007)

I'm going to keep this short because I'm supposed to be packing. <sigh> 1) You appear to assume that the Elohim care equally about defeating Lord Foul and quenching/repairing the Sunbane. I'm not sure that such assumptions are warrented. 2) Come on. The Creator in this story is supposed to be a humane guy. We know this because he does things like offer Covenant a life in the Land--and because he doesn't *Appoint* anybody (he doesn't deprive people like Covenant, or the people of the Land, of their right to make their own choices). He didn't pick Covenant: Lord Foul did. If Covenant is enabled to live out his life in the Land (complete with white gold), LF would eventually have to come up with entirely new strategies, strategies in which the Creator might have no "say" at all--and I would be writing an utterly different story. The Creator certainly wouldn't go around *Appointing* new champions. 3) You appear to underestimate the importance of the Ranyhyn. You also appear to be making some very broad assumptions about time-lines (e.g. that the Ranyhyn and Ramen were present in the Land early in the history of the High Lords) as well as about the nature of the communication between the Ranyhyn and the Ramen. It's significant, after all, that the Ramen have never participated in a horserite. (10/19/2007)