No, I won't write the screenplay--although I've agreed to be a casual consultant. Yes, I anticipate enormous difficulties in translating "Lord Foul's Bane" to film. Curiously, the screenwriter involved disagrees: he thinks much of the translation will effectively write itself (although he acknowledges some crucial problems). However, the movie people are all primarily concerned with the difficulties of "selling" the project to a studio (in other words, they need vast amounts of money). If they can get a commitment from a studio, they're excited by the challenges of actually making the movie. (11/01/2004)

This is hard to answer, since I don't have an "outsider's" perspective on my own work. But I do see problems in both the first and second "Covenant" trilogies: there are some structural things that I would definitely do differently today; and I'm not always satisfied with how I presented my characters in those earlier books, especially in "White Gold Wielder." So I'm certainly striving not to make the same mistakes again. Only time will tell whether I actually succeed. (11/01/2004)

Well, I can't honestly say that "the core of [my] purpose" in "The Second Chronicles" was to make you cry. <rueful smile> But Covenant's and Linden's discovery of love for each other *did* lie at the core of my purpose. You will perhaps have noticed that the entire story revolves around "relationships": Covenant and Linden; Sunder and Hollian; the First and Pitchwife; on a different level, Honninscrave and Seadreamer; and on a *very* different level, Vain and Findail. One of the points I was trying to get at is that it is these relationships, rather than any individual heroism, which defeat Lord Foul and redeem the Land. As an old poem says, "Two are more than one and one." Even in the first "Chronicles," Covenant could not have done it alone; but that truth is explored (I hope) more deeply in "The Second." As for the body-count: what can I tell you? Hope is meaningless if it can't exist in the face, in the very teeth, of death and despair. I don't think it's possible to tell the truth about evil without confronting murder, mayhem, and self-sacrifice. But I'm afraid I don't understand your question as it pertains to Caer-Caveral. I don't believe that there are any conditions under which life can exist without death. It follows, therefore, that between them Caer-Caveral and Elena have opened the door for the utter destruction of the Earth. (11/03/2004)

If I had written only the first "Covenant" trilogy, we might reasonably be able to say something like: Covenant = Creator + Despiser. But such an equation is clearly too simplistic to be applied to "The Second Chronicles." I fear you may have to accept the possibility that my intentions are more complex than you've made them sound; and that "Covenant = Creator + Despiser" is merely a starting point. Unless you're asking me about the relationship between Covenant, the Creator, and the Despiser *outside* the context of the story; in which case I have no answer for you. (11/03/2004)

No, I don't approach writing differently when the story is set in confined space(s). It's all story-telling to me. The challenge is simply to find the right methodology (e.g. narrative "voice") for each story. However, I can certainly see that confined space(s) could help produce a certain kind of intensification. The characters in "The Mirror of Her Dreams," and in the GAP books, occupy a "hothouse" atmosphere quite unlike the expansive vistas of the Land. If I had an hour or two to spare, I could discuss at some length the *nature* of what words can and cannot communicate, especially as that compares to the *nature* of what visual images can and cannot communicate. But I'm always scrambling for time; so I'll limit myself to observing that I actually spend relatively few words on attempts to convey visual images. Instead I concentrate on trying to convey emotional impressions: impressions which I hope will inspire the reader's imagination to create (among other things) his/her own visuals. At least where you're concerned, my method appears to have been successful. (11/03/2004)

We've been over this. As *I* am the creator of the Land, the Land's Creator, Covenant, and Covenant's "real world," I am, of course, the same guy. Other than that, I find such questions impossible to understand, never mind answer. As I *am* the creator of Covenant's "real world," and as I am *not* present in the story, I cannot possibly be the same being as the Land's Creator (whom I also created). (11/03/2004)

First, a general comment for readers of the Gradual Interview. There are currently 85+ questions in the database for October, and another 25 (already!) for November. Clearly, I'm falling farther and farther behind. So please be patient. Second, a general comment about book tours. I don't do tours because someone holds a gun to my head: I do them because my career needs the help. So when I'm doing a tour, I accept it. There is no need for anyone to feel apologetic about attending one of my signings and asking for my autograph. Now, since you asked, I'll tell you one thing that I truly loathe: people who not only want my autograph, but who want me to write "something creative" just for them in their book. Please! Book tours in general, and signing sessions in particular, are the LEAST creative circumstances imaginable. On top of that, I never create ANYthing longhand: I can only create at the keyboard. So don't even ask. It just makes me want to scream. (11/03/2004)

Yes, I made up the name "Ranyhyn." There are plenty of names in my books that I borrowed from one source or another, but "Ranyhyn" is mine. In general, I believe that there are no wrong ways to pronounce the names in my books. But just for your information, I pronounce it: RON-e-hin (11/03/2004)

So far, I guess I would have to say that the US sales are going "very well" but not "great". "Great" means "on the NY Times Bestseller List," and that hasn't happened. On the other hand, "Runes" has appeared on the Publishers Weekly Bestseller List, so that constitutes "very well." (11/03/2004)

The movie version of "Lord Foul's Bane" is discussed elsewhere. But you raise some complex points about character. In my personal opinion, "the hero who always believes that they will win" is an inherently uninteresting concept: the guy is either just plain stupid or stone blind with denial. However, a more important point lies behind this issue. Again in my personal opinion, the best stories are the ones that happen to people who urgently *need* those stories: people who are lost, and who will remain lost unless some life-changing crisis overtakes them; people whose only hope for salvation (however loosely defined) lies in that crisis. I don't think of such characters is "anti-heroes": I think of them as people in need. And, to no one's surprise, "the hero who always believes that they will win" is seldom truly "in need". (Unless, of course, what that hero truly *needs* is something to break down his denial, or to break through his stupidity.) This is why Hile Troy doesn't become an interesting character until he realizes how badly he's misjudged Lord Foul's power. (11/04/2004)

Reeder. My mother's maiden name. (11/04/2004)

I think I've been over this; but I'll risk repeating myself for the sake of clarity. "The Runes of the Earth" was published in a tremendous rush--by both my US and UK publishers. I finished work on the book in mid-April, 2004, and books have already been in the stores for a couple of weeks. That's six months for a job that usually takes 12-15. As a result, all of the normal chores of preparing a book--copy-editing, proofreading, designing maps, approving cover-copy (not to mention art)--had to be squeezed into a painfully short period of time. Twice. AND my US publisher asked me to autograph 7500 copies in advance. AND my UK publisher asked me to sign 1000 copies in advance. AND I've been asked to do perhaps 30 times as much advance promotional work as ever before in my career. AND I have to do book tours in both the US and the UK. The result? I've made *no* physical progress on "Fatal Revenant." I've had no TIME. (11/05/2004)

I wish I could dispose of this question once and for all. It's come up hundreds of times over the past 20+ years. Will I ever write "prequels" for the "Covenant" books? No, no, a thousand times no! As a general rule, prequels suck. In fact, they pretty much *have* to suck, since they involve telling stories where the outcome is already known. There are no imaginable circumstances under which I would write a prequel. To *any* of my books. This does not mean, I hasten to add, that "The Last Chronicles" will contain no prequel-like material. They may or may not: I'm not going to reveal my intentions. But one or more stand-alone prequels? Never. (11/05/2004)

I glad you liked Amok. But I pretty much said all I have to say about the character in "The Illearth War." Despite the length of my books, I'm really a very efficient writer: I create what I need to create; and if I don't need it, I leave it alone. (11/05/2004)

I apologize for my ignorance while I was writing the GAP books. I've done considerable research on the subject of autism since then, and, well, now I know better. I don't think you'll find comparable insensitivities in "The Runes of the Earth." (11/05/2004)

Sorry, the curious detail of Kevin's name has no particular significance. At least in my mind. When I was searching for a name, it just popped into my head--and as a matter of creative policy I virtually always trust things that just pop into my head (especially where names are concerned). "Sunder" was another name that just popped into my head--but then, so was "Hollian." (11/05/2004)

I'm answering this question--instead of simply deleting it--because I think you're making some mistaken assumptions about most of the readers who post questions here. Of course, in all walks of life there are people whose need to immerse themselves in SOMEthing, whatever it may be, is so great that verifiable reality no longer has any relevance to their interests and emotions. Why else do fundamentalist religions flourish? Why else do we keep electing GW Bush? And I'm sure that somewhere out there are "Covenant" readers, or "Mordant's Need" readers, or GAP readers, who fit this description. But you won't find many of them here. Why? Several reasons. One is simply that reading books takes *effort*--an exercise of both intelligence and imagination--and *effort* automatically weeds out the people who want their obsessions handed to them (which is what fundamentalist religions, politics, and even movies tend to do). Another is that, well, I don't know a better way to put this: the more intelligent, thought-provoking, and complex a piece of communication (book, film, music, whatever) is, the more it discourages the readers you describe. Intelligent, thought-provoking, and complex works throw the reader back on him/herself--which is decidedly *not* what the readers you describe are looking for. And a third reason. One of the defining characteristics of "intelligent, thought-provoking, and complex works" is that they *repay* study; they *reward* analysis. The more you pay attention to them, and the more closely you pay attention, the more you get out of them. Now, I'm not qualified to state that my books are "intelligent, thought-provoking, and complex works"--although I certainly hope they are. But I *can* state with confidence that it is a mistake to dismiss, say, the readers who post questions here simply because their interests or needs don't coincide with yours. Even those questions which most obviously blur the distinction between "fiction" and "reality" often have a valid point beneath the surface. And much of what you consider "over analysis" involves a search for continuity which (I believe) the reader has a right to expect. It's only "over analysis" when the author has nothing worthwhile to say. (11/06/2004)

The time ratio (1 day in Covenant's "real world" = 1 year in the Land) was built into the story from the beginning because I needed to be able to preserve the emotional continuity of what was happening to Covenant while still allowing enough time in the Land for important changes to take place. If you look at the first "Chronicles," you'll see that the entire story would collapse without that time differential. But the differential has also served me well since then. It permits truly *massive* changes to take place in the Land while Covenant--and then Linden--remains alive in his "real world." Just one example: the transformation of the Council into the Clave, and the rising of the Sunbane, would be ridiculous if they occurred within ten years of Lord Foul's initial defeat. I've already discussed the movie situation at length. The short answer is: no one knows when--or if--there will be a "Covenant" movie. (11/07/2004)

Yes, it's just a coincidence. I didn't notice the Elena/Anele spelling until a friend pointed out to me--too late for me to do anything about it. Sometimes these things just happen. (11/08/2004)

No. I have my priorities very firmly fixed where writing is concerned. I try to answer as many questions as I can when circumstances don't permit me to work on, say, "Fatal Revenant". That way perhaps readers of this interview won't feel *too* neglected when I finally (!) get going on the actual book. (11/08/2004)

I think this is safe to answer. <grin> In fact, I think I've answered it before. "The Last Chronicles" will be through-written as "The Second Chronicles" were, rather than divided into quasi-independent stories as the first trilogy was. (11/08/2004)

My productivity varies widely from day to day. When I was (much) younger, I used to consider 2000-2300 words a good day’s work, and there were some days when I went as high as 3000. But now I probably average 1500 words a day, with some days falling below 1000 and others getting slightly above 2000. I don’t work evenings, weekends, holidays, or vacations. Second (and subsequent) drafts vary much more widely, from around 1500 all the way up to over 7500. Of course, in my life until now my average per day is very different than my average per week. Having children and all, my average per week has been closer to 4500 (3 average days) than 7500 (5 average days). Now, however, my children are in college, so I’m hoping to improve my weekly (if not my daily) average. Roadblocks? I just mentioned children (although they enrich my life so much that I can’t think of them as “roadblocks”). Then of course there are the inevitable variations in daily--or even hourly--mental acuity. And then there are the research problems--questions like, What exactly has already been revealed about the history of Doriendor Corishev?--which can sometimes consume hours. And then there are all those necessary pauses for planning and reflection, some of which become very complex. But the worst kind of roadblock arises when I’ve gotten a scene, or a whole section of the book, off on the wrong foot. At first, “wrong” writing comes much more easily than doing it right. But the farther I go down the wrong path, the more arduous everything becomes, until I finally grind to a dead halt. Then I have to <groan> go back, figure out where I went wrong (often *very* difficult to do), and redo everything from that point forward. btw, Stephen King does only 2000-3000 words a day? He’s coasting. <grin> I know writers who can do 7000 words a day without strain. (11/09/2004)

No, Nom wasn’t based on anything in particular (that I know of). Although there has got to be *some* reason why I keep writing about people and creatures that have no eyes. <grin> And no, I’m not going to comment on whether or not Nom has a future in “The Last Chronicles.” Maybe yes, maybe no. (11/09/2004)

In a pure world, I would naturally have written all four books of “The Last Chronicles” before publishing any of them. Among other things, that would help *me* with internal consistency issues. But this is not a pure world: I need to put my kids through college (while continuing to pay my mortgage). <rueful smile> Hence the frustration you encountered. Knowing the essential story of “The Last Chronicles” before I ever started working on “The Second Chronicles,” I took great pains to plant the necessary seeds throughout those earlier books. Of course, I also planted lots of other seeds as well (as I did in the first trilogy), not because I expected to need them--although I might, you never know--but because they contribute to “world-building.” One of the standard techniques of world-building is to hint at more than is actually revealed, not in order to frustrate the reader, but rather to help sustain the illusion that this invented world is a real place. (11/09/2004)

I didn’t conceive the ambition to be a writer until Freshman orientation during my first year of college in 1964; but looking back I can see that I had been preparing myself for most of my life before then (I think I’ve discussed the details elsewhere). The concept for Covenant and the Land (again I think I’ve already covered this) exploded in my head in the late spring of 1972, when I heard my father give a talk about his work with lepers. (11/09/2004)

You’re right about the dangers. I can’t afford to be influenced by the way other people’s minds work. So I visit Kevinswatch.com only rarely, and I stay away from any discussions which pertain to “The Last Chronicles.” Self-protection, really. And as I’ve said elsewhere, I try not to get *too* caught up in ego issues. <rueful smile> (11/09/2004)

I think you’ll be able to find your answer now that we’re adding a word-search tool to the Gradual Interview. (I leave it to my readers to answer my webmaster’s question: is the GI “upper” or “lower”?) But briefly: the scene in “The Power that Preserves” where Lena and a Ranyhyn save Covenant from Pietten’s betrayal came to me while I was reading a Lysol disinfectant can in a truck-stop men’s room. (11/09/2004)

I tried very hard to write "The Runes of the Earth" so that it would be accessible to a reader with no "Covenant" background of any kind. And the editor who bought the book for Putnams has in fact never read any other "Covenant" book; so that's at least one reader who believes that I succeeded. (11/09/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

Actually, it would be very difficult to discuss this *without* providing spoilers. But let me just point out, as you may have noticed in virtually everything I write, that my attention tends to be focused on struggling individuals rather than on whole societies or races. E.g. Saltheart Foamfollower found a way to surpass himself, but as a group the Unhomed failed to do so. That's pretty typical of the way I work. (11/11/2004)

Your question is a bit of a smorgasbord, and it's difficult to know how to approach it. Yes, there are times when I can honestly say to myself, "Man, I really nailed that one." At other times, I know I'm floundering, and I'm just grateful that I'll be able to rewrite as often as necessary. Any writer who "sees" the story in his/her imagination and then has to translate it into words will be able to relate to the frustration you imply. Yes, lack of vocabulary can be a problem: the more words we have ingrained in us, the more resources we have to write (and think) with. Yes, every skill in life can be improved through study, practice, and reading. And yes, there is such a thing as inherent talent--which is very difficult to quantify or explain, but which is quite easy to recognize by its absence. <rueful smile> If you were to watch me draw for 15 seconds, you would know right away that I have NO TALENT WHATSOEVER. (11/11/2004)

I prefer not to think about such things because a) it's unknowable, and b) it's a bit scarey. <grin> (11/11/2004)

1) As I've said elsewhere, I signed nearly 7500 copies of "Runes" which were apparently intended for distribution in parts of the US where I did not tour. 2) Expect "Fatal Revenant" late in 2007, hope to see it late in 2006. (11/11/2004)

I don't know what other writers think (they may well be horrified <grin>), but my agent, editors, and publishers are delighted that I'm doing this, and they hope I'll keep it up for a long time. (11/11/2004)

A few details. It seems fairly obvious the the ur-viles had reinterpreted their Weird and decided to turn against Lord Foul. Why did they do so? Ah, therein lies a tale, without which "The Last Chronicles" might not be posssible. <grin> However, it's important to understand Findail is a reaction to Vain, Covenant, and Linden: Vain was not created in response to, or in concert with, the Elohim (although he may well have been created, in part, as an attempt to manipulate the Elohim). How did Covenant's Dead "wind up with him"? That's simple enough: the ur-viles *gave* Vain to them. Which may not have been *easy* to do--Andelain being rife with Earthpower and all--but it was certainly simple. After all, Caer-Caveral was "in the picture" as much as any of Covenant's Dead. (11/12/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

Sorry, I've never been to Baylor, and I don't know Greg Garret's books. My loss, I'm sure. (11/12/2004)

How can you be sure that I don't already do this? <you're grinning, so I am as well> (11/12/2004)

Building on the example of one of my heroes (Mark Twain), I intend to issue a number of "premature" reports of my death. That way, I can receive my "due" (whatever that is) while I'm still around to enjoy (?) it. <grin> (11/12/2004)

Let me see. I intend to write about more characters; more complex characters; more extreme situations; greater peril; more profound themes. And I intend to do all of that *while* unifying all (eventually) 10 "Covenant" books into one vast whole. On horseback, naturally, while playing the trumpet. Oh, and also creating artificial life. (OK, I admit it: I stole those jokes from "Canticle for Liebowitz".) But seriously: it's going to be *very* difficult. (11/12/2004)

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT I want to take this opportunity to say something further about book tours. Just because I hate flogging my books around the country does NOT mean that I dislike, distrust, or feel any desire to avoid my readers. I'm *grateful* for the attention, respect, and (97% of the time) courtesy granted to me by my readers. I have more reason to thank *you* than you have for thanking *me*. As it happened, I knew several of the writers at the Poisoned Pen signing. Mick Stackpole is a good friend; and I'm pleasantly acquainted with Carol Nelson Douglas, Barbara Hambly, and Michelle Welch. Perhaps the greatest fringe benefit of working in sf/f is that I've been given the opportunity to meet and get to know a great many other authors. Most of the time, that is an honor and a privilege. Because I'm such a slow reader, I often haven't read their books; but by and large I consider my peers to be a likeable and even admirable group of people. (11/13/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

I don't feel any need to "explain what it is to be human," through my writings or otherwise. As I keep saying, I'm not a polemicist: I don't have any particular message or explanation or insight to impart (except to the extent that such things are inherent to story-telling). As it happens, looking at my own work--and at the work of other writers/artists/composers/whatever--from the outside, I've come to the conclusion that the underlying purpose of all art is to try to answer the Big Question of life: what is the meaning of life; why are we here; who is God, and what does she think she's doing; what does being human mean? (You can phrase it anyway you want it: it's always the same question.) But that doesn't mean that I focus on such things when I'm writing. I focus on telling the story that has come to me to be written. I let the Big Question take care of itself. As I've explained before, however, I see myself as the servant of the stories I tell; and as their servant I try to give them the best author I possibly can. So inevitably who I am as a person has a profound influence on how I tell my stories. Well, things like my religious background played a huge role in making me the person I am: naturally they influence my writing significantly. And I'm sure that's one of the reasons why people tend to think of me as a "moralist." I only object to the term because it places the emphasis in the wrong place: on me instead of on the story. My real role has more in common with being, well, a therapist. I don't answer questions about my "religious affiliation and/or beliefs" because I consider such things to be irrelevant. The only thing about me that's truly relevant is my commitment to the integrity of story-telling. (11/13/2004)

I believe it was T. S. Eliot who said, "Bad writers borrow. Good writers steal." The distinction, as I see it, is that borrowing (imitation) preserves the character of the thing borrowed in an obviously recognizable form, while stealing transforms the thing stolen until it appears to belong exclusively to the thief. Tolkien's work is heavily based on such things as "Beowulf" and the Elder Eddas; but people reading LOTR don't experience it as, "Oh, here's another retelling of 'Beowulf,' or, here's another version of the 'ring' saga." If readers ever become aware of such things at all, they do so upon reflection, upon re-reading, upon study. No matter how many older sources Tolkien drew upon, he made them uniquely his own when he wrote LOTR. In contrast, it's impossible to read Brooks' "Sword of Shannara" *without* thinking, "Oh, here's a retelling of LOTR." I hope that's clear. So: If I became aware that another writer had stolen from my work, I would feel both pride and humility. If I became aware that another writer had *borrowed* from my work, I would feel disgust and pity. Fortunately I'm spared such reactions. I read too slowly--and therefore I'm forced to read very selectively. The moment I suspect *any* author of *borrowing* from *anyone*, I toss the book aside and read something else. (11/13/2004)

Frankly, I don't think *any* of my novels could be made into an opera effectively. Words take much longer to sing than they do to speak (just as speaking them takes much longer than reading them). In addition, no stage could contain the "special effects" required by my big novels. And my mystery novels lack the kind of grand rhetoric necessary to opera. But a novella like "Penance": now that has possibilities. Lots of singable declamation and aria for a great baritone (Cornell Macneal rather than a darker voice like George London)(since they're both dead anyway <grin>). And Wagner would be the ideal composer--although Korngold might do well with the challenge. (They're both dead as well.) "Ser Visal's Tale" and "Daughter of Regals" also might work: I suspect that "By Any Other Name" or "The Killing Stroke" would not. However, Shostokovich might have made something out of "The Conqueror Worm." (11/13/2004)

That's not the source I was trying to remember. But it is certainly apt, both in its content and in its origins. I may well have encountered it from a similar source originally, and just don't remember. Strangely, the name that keeps nudging at the back of my mind is Edgar Allen Poe. (11/13/2004)

A helpful reader of the GI has pointed out that two of my mystery novels are legally available in (I believe) a PDA-compatible format from: www.ereader.com. This was news to me. Certainly none of my other publishers has ever mentioned "ebook" editions for any of my books. However, now that you've got me thinking about it: it's possible that I actually own the "ebook" rights for such things as "Covenant" and "Mordant's Need" (although I do *not* own those rights for "The Last Chronicles"). I'll have to look into that. My agent may be able to make something happen for my earlier books. (11/14/2004)

I'm particularly fond of "The Celebration of Spring" (LFB), perhaps the most ecstatic writing I've ever done. I also loved Covenant's caamora for the Dead in The Grieve (TWL), the soothtell (TWL), the scene in which Covenant acknowledges Lena as his "queen" (TPTP), and the quenching of the Banefire (WGW). (11/14/2004)

My personal view is that an essential component of excellence in any creative act is that it is incomparable. LOTR is great in part because it *is* LOTR--*and nothing else*. Therefore: if my work can be legitimately compared to Tolkien's, then my work is fundamentally flawed. Personally, I consider that "comparable to Tolkien at his best" quote an insult. But I certainly understand why publishers--and reviewers--do such things; and so I *don't* take it personally. It's a cheap bit of marketting--but then marketting is pretty much always cheap anyway. If I may say so, it doesn't actually deserve to be taken seriously, and I advise you not to bother. (11/14/2004)

And *I* thank *you*. Readers like yourself help make the (immense) difficulties of writing such books worthwhile. (11/14/2004)

As I've explained elsewhere, I got all of my information about leprosy from my father, who was something of an expert on the subject. However, I've never actually received a response from someone with Hansen's Disease. If such readers exist, I hope they haven't taken my work amiss. However.... Some years ago I encountered a vehement attack on the "Covenant" books: the writer was outraged because, even though the last "Covenant" book was published in 1983, I failed to take into account medical advances which have occurred since then! What can I say? Mea culpa. <grin> (11/14/2004)

I have too much to say about this, and I probably won't get able to cover it all in the time I have. But several things are important to keep in mind. 1) Corporations are formed of human beings, and those human beings need the same attention and respect that writers do. 2) Nevertheless corporations do develop their own personalities, their own internal cultures; and those personalities often dictate the behavior of the human beings within the culture. (E.g. DEL REY/Ballantine has developed an arrogant and complacent corporate culture which subsumes the personalities of the actual individuals who work there.) 3) No one who works in publishing actually knows what he or she is doing. Publishing is all guess-work: it's all gambling: it's all hope. Therefore it breeds tremendous insecurity. At the same time, however, it punishes any sign of insecurity. As a result, the people who work in publishing often over-compensate dramatically. Your life as a published writer will be much less stressful if you can keep these guidelines in mind. My cover art problems at DEL REY/Ballantine were essentially a "turf war." Because I loathed the US art for the "Covenant" books, and because I had become hugely successful, I demanded--and got--the right to approve future cover art. But this was deeply offensive to the art department: it aggravated insecurities among people who could not afford to feel insecure. So the art department did what human beings often do when they find themselves in emotionally unteneable positions: they cheated. The artist for the "Mordant's Need" books (Michael Whelan) submitted to the art department a series of sketches for possible covers; but the art department did not show those sketches to me. Instead they simply picked the one they wanted. Then they informed me that the artist had only submitted that one sketch--and they informed the artist that I had demanded that one sketch. Thus both Michael and I were effectively cut out of the loop. As it happens, however, Michael and I have been friendly for years. So the next time we saw each other, we discussed the situation. Unfortunately, we learned too late that we had both been treated dishonestly. Sadly, this sort of thing happens in publishing all the time. Which is why the guidelines above are so important. Any writer who cannot keep those guidelines in mind ends up loathing his/her publisher--which is *not* a happy state of affairs. (11/15/2004)

Buried away somewhere in the GI is a discussion of music's role in my writing life. Trying to keep it simple: I listen to music constantly as both an aid to concentration/creativity and as a means of insulating myself from the outside world. My tastes run to 99% classical music. I usually start my days quietly (piano music, string quartets) and then build up as the day goes along (piano concertos, symphonies, opera). On those days when I have a lot of creative energy, I often find myself singing along with my favorite operas. (11/17/2004)

All you have to do is read a few of my other works to know that the language (someone once called it "high diction fiction") of the "Covenant" books is a conscious choice. I don't usually write that way. In fact, I only write that way in "Covenant." But my intent is more complex than the rather simplistic suggestion you quoted from Nabokov. As I've indicated elsewhere in this interview, my use of language is--at least in part--a world-building tool. But it is also intended to increase the *range* of the thoughts and feelings which can be expressed. The more words we have to think with, the more things we can think about and communicate. (11/17/2004)

Thank you for your comments! I can't begin to do them justice (it's 4:30am here, but I'm jetlagged and can't sleep), but I appreciate what you have to say. And I certainly feel that one of the most dangerous aspects of any religion is the tendency "to conceive of things in absolute black and white terms." No matter what religion we're talking about, the outcome of such thinking is horrific. Having said all that.... 1) Well, *I* see Vain as "an idealized human (all in black)", but that doesn't mean you have to. <grin> Every reader is engaged in an act of imaginative re-creation, and the results are--by definition--unique to that individual. 2) If there was, I couldn't see it. On a purely mechanical level, of course, there must have been a way to spare Seadreamer. All he really needed, after all, was for one of the people around him to be a different person than they actually were. (There are times when we all need that. But we don't get it, and neither did Seadreamer.) But I decline to redesign my characters simply because it would be convenient to do so. And on an emotional and thematic level, I saw no way out of his conundrum. And he *did* make an absolute contribution to the redemption of the Land--not through Vain, but through Honninscrave. The "rending" of Gibbon-Raver was a pivotol moment in the racial history of the Giants; a response to evil that transcended the despair of the Unhomed. Good can come from death in the same way that good can come from pain. (11/17/2004)

As I've said before, I can't write at all until I know the ending of the story in front of me. In the case of the first "Chronicles," that means the ending of "The Power that Preserves." Although the story is broken into three units (Covenant's visits to the Land) so that Lord Foul will have enough time to carry out his intentions, I always saw that trilogy as *one* story. As a side-note: it is a characteristic of the "Chronicles" that they have all been planned backward. In each case, my original inspiration was for the ending of each story (the ending of "The Power that Preserves," the ending of "White Gold Wielder," the ending of "The Last Dark"); so I've had to work my way from back to front in order to figure out how to *start* the story. With other books--"Mordant's Need," the GAP sequence--my ideas have imposed different methods of story design. Research for "The Last Chronicles" has been made considerably easier, ironically, by the fact that the first six "Covenant" books are illegally available on the web. I downloaded pirated copies for my own use--which I guess is fair, since the person who scanned and posted those books did so without permission. <rueful smile> (11/17/2004)

I really can't explain it. Sometimes names just pop into my head: Angus Thermopyle, Saltheart Foamfollower, King Joyse, Koina Hannish, Stave. Sometimes I have an explicit communicative purpose: Thomas Covenant, the names of the Ravers, Sunder, Min Donner, Warden Dios. As a sub-category of the foregoing, sometimes I play "sounds like": caesure (from "The Last Chronicles"). And sometimes I just juggle sounds until I find one I like: the skest, Kasreyn, Geraden, Scriven, Rant Absolain, Hollian, Handir. But wherever a name comes from, I always regret it if I don't trust my ear: I need names that "sound right" in an almost musical sense. The right name provides me a kind of doorway into the character, place, or thing. The wrong name forces me to struggle. (Trivia freaks should seek out the original Ballantine "The Man Who Killed His Brother" and compare it to the recent Tor/Forge reissue. The original features some truly leaden names which were "adjusted" for the reissue. But in my mystery novels generally, I didn't really hit my stride, name-wise, until "The Man Who Tried to Get Away".) (11/17/2004)

Taking your questions in reverse order.... Earlier in this interview, I suggested that the One Tree moves around. I stand by that. Such mythic icons lead lives of their own. At one time, the One Tree may well have been close to--or even in--the Land. If so, it's conceivable that the "affront" of losing a branch to Berek may have inspired the Tree to seek a safer haven. Earthpower, as its name suggests, is inherent to the Earth. At least in my view. All power (whatever it happens to be called) everywhere in that world is Earthpower. Witness the nature of the Elohim, or the various abilities of the Giants, or the fact that Kastenessen was Appointed to stop a peril far north of the Land. However, it seems to me that Earthpower flows "closer to the surface" in the Land than elsewhere. Witness the existence there of the One Forest, Andelain, and the EarthBlood. (11/17/2004)

The Science Fiction Book Club now carries "omnibus" editions of "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" and "The Second Chronicles": three novels in each volume. But you won't find "nice leatherbound" editions there: the SFBC publishes *cheap*. Easton Press, I believe, has done a "nice leatherbound" edition of "Lord Foul's Bane," but has expressed no interest in the subsequent volumes. Ballantine's hardcovers of "The Second Chronicles" are long gone. However, I recently saw a hardcover "Lord Foul's Bane" with the Henry Holt imprint. The first trilogy was originally published in hardcover by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston: Henry Holt is, I believe, the current avatar of that company. So that's a possible source, although I can't vouch for it. (11/17/2004)

I'm not a checkers enthusiast. In fact, the only game I play with any enthusiasm is bridge. But I chose checkers (hop-board) for "Mordant's Need" because of something Poe wrote (I can't remember where): he claimed that checkers was superior to chess (as a game) because all you need to win at chess is better concentration than your opponent has, whereas to win at checkers you need more *imagination*. Doubtless his assertion is debatable. But I found his ideas useful. Your question about games in the Land goes pretty far outside the text; so my instinctive reaction is that your guess is as good as mine. But I imagine that a predominantly rural, non-technological society would have simple games involving simple toys (e.g. rocks, bits of rope): games like pitch-and-toss, hopscotch, or jumping rope. And of course the de rigeur attempts to build models of Revelstone out of mud. <grin> (11/18/2004)

In the past month, there have been a lot of questions about "a timeline for the rest of the books"--although I've already covered this. So here's the short version: hope to see "Fatal Revenant" in two years; expect to see it in three. Sorry. I know it's frustrating. But, as I've already explained at length, my publishers have allowed me no, zero, nil time to start the next book so far this year. And as I get older--and as the complexity of what I try to do increases--I write more and more slowly. (11/18/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

Well, yes and no. Yes, there is "a not-so-fatherly aspect to Covenant's feelings for Elena." How could he possibly feel like her father? They haven't had one iota of a father-daughter relationship. And when he returns to the Land in "The Illearth War," he's actually younger than she is. And he still has all those messy reborn sensations to deal with. But no, he doesn't go toward her in anger because he's about to strike--or rape--her. (It wouldn't be rape in any case, since she's obviously willing; even eager.) People often react angrily when they feel grief and shame: that doesn't necessarily--or even usually--mean they're about to do something violent. And I think it is a measure of how much Covenant has already changed that he both recognizes and acts on his shame so quickly (you'd be amazed how rarely *that* happens in real life). (11/18/2004)

Yes, my relationship with Lester del Rey could politely be described as tempestuous. But elaborating on it wouldn't serve much purpose that I can see. The poor man has been dead for nigh on 15 years, and can hardly speak up for himself. It's enough to say that he had a fine eye for new talent; that he single-handedly invented contemporary fantasy publishing; and that he tended to have contentious relationships with virtually everyone. (OK, I'll add one detail, since I know he wouldn't take it amiss. He had an unexpectedly well-developed sense of whimsy. When he and his wife were traveling, they called home every day--to speak to their stuffed animals.) (11/18/2004)

Gosh, the details we could discuss.... I'll have to control myself. I've often referred to the Land as an "arena." And I suggested recently in this interview that Earthpower flows closer to the surface in the Land than elsewhere. Naturally Lord Foul would be drawn there. BUT. A close reading of the first six books reveals that LF came to the Land from elsewhere in the Earth: the Land knew Ravers well before it met the Despiser. During the ages of the One Forest's flourishing, humankind hardly existed in the Land at all--and LF would naturally go where the people are. Furthermore, there is evidence that LF has been at work elsewhere in the Earth (long ago if not presently): the shadow on the heart of the Elohim; the fact that the Elohim appear to have an established tradition of Appointing one among them to stop evils here and there (personally, I find it difficult to believe that Findail, Kastenessen, and the Elohim sent to aid the One Forest were the *only* Elohim who were ever Appointed). And then there's the curious fact that Kevin's Council failed to recognize LF. How, I ask myself, could that have happened if the Old Lords had any previous experience of the Despiser? I may be getting myself in trouble here; but I suspect that LF didn't come to the Land until the Old Lords became powerful enough to be useful to him. (11/18/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

As it happens, all of the locations for a "Covenant" film have already been scouted for us. Check out www.fantasybedtimehour.com to see what I mean. <broad grin> But more seriously: I suspect that computer graphics would play an even larger role in a "Covenant" film than they do in LOTR. I agree that NM has great landscapes, but I haven't seen any that would fit my images of the Land (at least in the first "Chronicles"). And I suspect that Tolkien would say the same about New Zealand. (11/19/2004)

You should use your own judgment on this. As a general rule, titles cannot be copyrighted--so it would be difficult for a lawyer to argue that a title constitutes copyright infringement. And you can always CYA by giving credit for the source of your title somewhere in the printed matter for your recording. Personally, I have no "wishes" on the subject at all; so in that respect you should feel free to do whatever you want. (11/19/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

I'm glad you enjoyed "Runes"! And thanks for your support. There is no substitute for readers who are willing to do what you do. For obvious reasons, I don't like to comment on questions like, Will we see Foamfollower again? I don't want to give anything away--or commit myself when I might later change my mind. <rueful smile> But in general I would advise you not to hold your breath. The internal consistency problems would be staggering. Considering your feelings, I'm sorry to have to tell you that this will definitely be "The *Last* Chronicles." You'll understand why when we get farther into the story. (11/19/2004)

I don't really know what you mean by "(literary-oriented) SF conventions". Over the years, I've attended a lot of cons, and have been GoH at several. But these days 3 or 4 a year is about my maximum. My real life has become too full to accomodate much traveling. And writing takes so much time.... However, I generally welcome invitations; and I make decisions on attending on a case-by-case basis. (11/19/2004)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I've already answered this; but it probably bears repeating. Assuming my publishers don't object (they usually don't, but you never know), the subsequent volumes will be: "Fatal Revenant" "Shall Pass Utterly" "The Last Dark" (11/19/2004)

I edited out most of your message, not because I didn't appreciate it--I did--but because it wasn't germane to your question. I haven't read much Delany. He strikes me as perhaps the most purely intelligent writer I've ever read. But his purposes as a storyteller are far removed from mine; and so I don't find myself drawn to his work. (11/19/2004)

I've discussed the location of the One Tree elsewhere in this interview; but that isn't really your question. Forgive me for falling back on a couple of things I've said before. First, I consider myself an "efficient" writer, by which I mean (in part) that I only create what I need. And second, until some years after I finished the first "Chronicles," I had no intention of ever continuing the story: as far as I was concerned, I was *done*--until Lester del Rey tricked me into realizing otherwise. So-o-o-- While I was working on the first trilogy, I didn't give much concrete thought to the One Tree. I didn't need to. But I realize now, looking back, that I had always assumed the Tree was *not* in the Land; or even nearby. As a side-note: much of my preparation for writing "The Second Chronicles" involved, well, *mining* the first trilogy for possibilities; looking for hints which could prove useful precisely because I had said so little about them. Elohim, Sandgorgons, and the One Tree all fall into this category. And now (surprise, surprise) much of my work for "The Last Chronicles" involves more mining. Unfortunately, I now have *six* previous books to delve through. Fortunately, the fact that I knew my present story while I was writing "The Second Chronicles" makes mining those books *much* easier. (11/19/2004)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

I'm sorry, but I'm not inclined to answer such questions. They take the problem of "spoilers" to a whole new level. I've begun to respond to "spoiler" questions as they pertain to "The Runes of the Earth," since that book has already been published. But I'm entirely unwilling to reveal my intentions for the subsequent volumes. Even my agent (a very dear friend) and my editor (who might well have a valid reason for wanting to know) have no idea what I'm going to do next. (11/20/2004)

The Torrence crowd was about average for what I get in the US. Much larger audiences in the UK. The centipede, as I recall (I wrote that story a *very* long time ago), represents the "demon" of the husband's jealousy and possessiveness. It's the external manifestation or avatar of his emotional state. As such, it dramatizes--in the most dramatic way possible <grin>--the self-destructive nature of his emotions. (11/21/2004)

In the most literal sense, death in the "real world" for a character like Hile Troy, or Thomas Covenant, simply means that character can no longer return to his/her "real" life. But of course the implications go much farther (and are explored more fully in "The Last Chronicles"). Literal death in the Land as well is a significant possibility. But neither Troy nor Covenant actually died in the Land: rather they were transformed; became beings of an entirely different kind. In Troy's case, a series of transformations were involved, resulting in a new Forestal. In Covenant's case, the destruction of his mortality freed his spirit to support the Arch of Time (the fact that he retains some form of sentient identity is demonstrated by his ability to speak to Linden during her translation back to her "real" life). In both cases, huge powers were required to cause transformation instead of literal death. So: literal death in the "real world" does not *necessarily* impose extinction in the Land. In the "real world," Troy's body suffered literal death not long after his accident. (11/21/2004)

I can't actually tell you how Mhoram's imagination/insight works: hell, I don't know how *mine* works. But I think I do know *what* he saw: the empowering paradox of passion and discipline. That's cryptic, I know. There's no good way to explain the potential hidden within paradoxes. But look at it this way. The Oath of Peace is, in effect, "modeled" on the Bloodguard. (I mean thematically, not literally.) The Bloodguard are all about emotional control: so is the Oath of Peace. Witness Atiaran's appeal to Triock when he wants to kill Covenant--and her own subsequent attitudes. Covenant, on the other hand, is all about passion (in this context, "passion" means "intense emotion"). Witness his rape of Lena, and the way he wears his emotions on his sleeve. Elena's marrowmeld sculpture put forward the notion that the control of the Bloodguard and the passion of Covenant are two faces of the same dilemma (the need of passion to be controlled, the need of control to be enlivened by passion); and that those two faces can be combined into one. From this, Mhoram extracted the understanding that the Oath of Peace has been, well, misapplied. It is literally a prescription for behavior; but it has been taken as a proscription against passion. Yet passion is power, as Covenant so often demonstrates. (And power is dangerous: therefore the Bloodguard knowingly, and the people of the Land unwittingly, have suppressed their access to it.) Mhoram learned to find his own version of "the eye of the paradox": the point where both passion and control can be affirmed. Mhoram's great insight most definitely does *not* involve "a willingness to harm, hate, or do violence." Rather it involves a willingness or ability to make choices which are not ruled or controlled by passion (e.g. hate, anger, despair, or fear), and then to act on those choices with absolute passion. Blake wrote, "Reason is the circumference of energy." Gichin Funakoshi wrote, "If your hand goes forth, withhold your anger. If your anger goes forth, withhold your hand." Someone (I've forgotten who) wrote, "Beauty is controlled passion." Mhoram learned to understand this. The fatal flaw of the Haruchai (and of Atiaran, and of Trell, and of Troy, and of the Unhomed, and of Kevin--and of Covenant early on) is that they did not. (11/24/2004)

I've discussed this elsewhere in the Gradual Interview, but briefly: I've had this story in mind ever since I first considered writing "The Second Chronicles." The saga of "Thomas Covenant's struggle against Despite in the arena of the Land" won't be complete without "The Last Chronicles." And forgive me, but: you don't like "reluctant heroes"? Then it seems to me you must not like human beings much. In fact, I'm not sure that real heroism is *possible* without reluctance. People who don't have fears to overcome never actually accomplish anything. (Just an opinion, folks--as I've said so often before.) (11/26/2004)

And thank *you* for letting me know about the e-book versions of "The Man Who..." books (two of them, anyway, at least so far). I'm always interested in such information. As long as you do so purely for your own benefit, *I* certainly don't care if you tear apart your books, scan them, and convert them into, say, PDA formats. You *bought* them: you have the right to do what you want with them. Including hate them, or burn them. <rueful smile> It's only copyright infringement if you *share* your e-book files, either for free, or (worse) for money. So go ahead with my blessing. If you can stand the violence necessary to render your books scan-able. <grin> (11/26/2004)

For me, there is no literal relationship between the music I listen to and what I write. It's just, if you'll forgive the expression, background noise of a kind that encourages my creativity. To the extent that what I'm listening to and what I'm writing are connected at all, it has to do with my energy level: the more energy I have--or the more energy I feel I *need* to have--the more energetic my choices of music. (11/26/2004)

Actually, I don't agree that LF is more "imprisoned and limited" than any of the other characters. They are--as we all are--imprisoned in their bodies and limited by their mortality. LF simply exists on a grander scale than ordinary mortals. But I would argue that he's just as free to make his own choices as the other characters are; and that therefore he's just as responsible for his actions as the other characters are. We should all be able to relate to his desire to escape his prison. Wouldn't we all? But some of the rest of us manage to find answers to despair that sustain us. If LF's answer is malevolence, which naturally isolates him from anything that might relieve his despair, he has no one to blame but himself. He's free to choose otherwise. (11/27/2004)

This is essentially the same question (discussed earlier) as, Why weren't the Unhomed able to find their way back to where they came from? The Land is geographically isolated (very much so), but I grant that is probably not an adequate explanation. And in fact we know from the text that people *did* migrate to the Land at various times: witness the ancient history of the One Forest, and the fact that the inhabitants of Doriendor Corishev went to war with SOMEbody. Here's how I look at it. 1) To the north, there ain't much except that world's version of the Arctic. To the east lie the dangers of sea travel, particularly Nicor and the Soubiter. To the west are the Haruchai. And the south beyond the mountains has become the kind of place that would only appeal to nomads. 2) It is my intuitive perception that magically-oriented cultures aren't as "expansionist" as tool/technology cultures because they don't have technology's insatiable appetite for raw materials. 3) As the place where Earthpower is most readily accessible (see earlier discussions), the Land has *some* of the mythic/iconic status of things like the One Tree and the Worm of the World's End: it has a tendency to baffle ordinary quests and explorations. (Think of places like Shangri-La and Atlantis.) Magically-oriented cultures may well know that a place like the Land exists, but if they don't go looking for it in the right way, they're unlikely to find it. Does that help? (11/29/2004)

My mystery novels are exceptions to my usual writing in several ways. (Style, setting, and genre all leap to mind, but there are others.) As to your particular question: I've known the eventual end toward which these novels are building for a very long time; but I haven't known how many stages would be required to get there. I've been "feeling my way" more than usual. The reason, I think, is that in this case each stage needs to stand alone as a complete novel--which changes the way I think and plan. (The argument could also be made that my mystery novels are more "autobiographical" than anything else I write, and that therefore I--duh!--understand them less. <rueful smile>) At present, I think that the fifth will be the last in the sequence. But who knows? That could easily turn out not to be true. (11/29/2004)

Well, you caught me. I didn't know the "real" meaning of the word "dervish" (I just looked it up). Like Kleenex and Xerox, the word has become so commonly used that it has taken on a generic meaning. Which is what I had in mind when I wrote the sentence you cite. Had I known that "dervish" has such a concrete and extensive meaning in our "real world," I would have chosen a different description. As a general rule, I'm very aware of the issue, and I try hard to keep my descriptions and references appropriate to the context (the "reality") in which they're used. To do otherwise creates the moral equivalent of anachronisms. But sometimes I screw up.... <sigh> (11/29/2004)

Well, really, everybody and everything gets damaged. That's one of the rules of life. If this weren't empirically obvious, I would cite the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But the physical condition of people, places, and things is a *very* apt and useful source of metaphors and symbols. From my perspective, the question is not, Why is everything damaged? The question is, What does each particular instance of damage *mean*? Damage is an essential part of my communicative "language," as well as an essential part of my reasons for telling each individual story. Maybe because my father was a doctor? Or maybe because I grew up in India, where personal damage was a more obvious part of life than it is here? I don't know. I didn't create my imagination: I just use it. (11/29/2004)

I'm a passionate supporter of our space program. I would jump at a chance to experience space myself--if my health permitted it (no pre-flight doctor in his right mind would "pass" me)--and if I could afford it (I can't). (11/29/2004)

I read "Silverlock" because so many people told me it was a fun way to play the "references" game. But it turns out I'm not very good at that game. <sigh> And, as I recall (this was 20+ years ago, remember), the story itself was too light to satisfy me. When I'm reading, I don't particular enjoy cleverness for its own sake. (11/29/2004)

By George, I think that's *it*! I know I studied "The Narrative of A. Gordon Pym" in grad school (albeit 30+ years ago). Whereas (in reference to a different message posted here) I've never read "Silence--A Fable". (11/29/2004)

Well, assuming that I've actually accomplished any of the things you credit me with.... <grin> You might want to take a look at my mystery novels. That's the only genre I've ever tackled because (in part) I thought it needed fixing. (11/29/2004)

In my case, that wouldn't be vanity. It would be stupidity. My books are *better* because I edit them so strenuously (even when I do so under protest), and I have absolutely no substantive regrets about any cuts or changes that I've ever made to any of my stories. (I *have* been known to whimper a bit over the loss of a particular sentence here or there. <grin>) (11/29/2004)