Hmm. Well, "White Gold Wielder" is roughly 185,000 words. "The Mirror of Her Dreams" is more like 250,000. Does that help? (12/05/2006)

I've discussed this before in the GI. The short answer: yes, I've always been satisfied with where I left the story at the end of "The Second Chronicles." It's valid as it stands. If I had--for whatever reason--not continued with "The Last Chronicles," I might have felt that I had let myself (or my imagination) down, but I would not have felt that I let my readers down. (12/06/2006)

Yes, the "heavenly firmament" of "The Chronicles" does contain "celetial objects" in the sense that we commonly use the term (e.g. the moon is an actual moon). The fact that these objects may have magical or metaphorical import doesn't negate their existence as objects. And no, the story of "The Chronicles" is not going to become interplanetary. I hope I don't have to try to explain why. (Among other things, it has to do with *concentration*. It's a characteristic of this kind of fantasy that Everything Is At Stake *here*: the issues and conflicts aren't scattered around the planet--or the solar system--or the galaxy. Of course, fantasy *can* deal with a multiplicity of places, planets, dimensions, whatever. But those are different forms of fantasy than I'm writing in "The Chronicles".) (12/06/2006)

No, it's way too early in the process for there to be cover art. My editors are thinking about such things; but they probably won't turn the book over to their art departments until after D&A. (12/06/2006)

OK, in the most practical terms. You approach the holder of the rights (in the case of "Covenant," Ballantine Books: in the case of the GAP books, my agent) and offer to buy those rights. If the rights are available (no one else has an "option" on them), you begin to negotiate. This negotiation typically starts with how much you'll pay for the option (an option simply means that you put up money in exchange for a guarantee that the rights can't be sold to anyone else during the term of the option); but it includes virtually every conceivable contingency, such as how long the option lasts, how much you'll have to pay if you want to renew the option, how much more you'll have to pay if you do actually make a movie, how much *more* you'll have to pay if you make a sequel, how much you'll have to pay if you want a permanent rather than a temporary option, how much involvement the author will or won't have, etc., etc., etc.. In my (very limited) experience, such negotiations take 6-9 months and involve reams of legal documents. And when you've done all that, you've simply dipped your toes in the waters of actually making a movie. The next--and probably biggest--hurdle is to obtain financing (for which you may or may not need to have a screenplay in hand). Yes, the commercial success of the book is a factor in the negotiations for buying an option. But it's not the only factor. What I'll call "filmability" is another factor. Books which appear to have been written with film (especially "popular" film) in mind ("Harry Potter"?) cost more to buy at every stage of the negotiation. "Topicality" is another factor. It's very complex. And it's *very* expensive--if only because you'll have to pay your lawyer. (12/06/2006)

I'm sorry: I thought this was obvious. Linden needs *power*. She figures that she'll have to go through Lord Foul to get to Jeremiah. But she can't go up against Lord Foul bare-handed; and Covenant's ring doesn't suit her needs or her abilities (surely *that* is in the text?) to the same extent that the Staff of Law does. If you needed to fight for someone you love, which weapon would you prefer: a thermonuclear device that you can't reasonably hope to control, or a high-powered rifle with which you happen to be proficient? Plus, of course, the Staff is essential to the Land; and she *does* care about the Land. (12/06/2006)

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.

Do I take requests? Surely you jest. ("Danny Boy," anyone? How about the Dutchman's opening monologue? <grin>) But seriously. The reason *I* don't "take requests" is because my *imagination* doesn't do so. I have to take what it gives me: otherwise it doesn't work at all. I've often thought that an Axbrewder-like POV would be a good vehicle for a supernatural horror novel. But thinking that doesn't accomplish anything because I simply have no ideas for a story along those lines. Sorry. (12/07/2006)

OK, let’s get the simple stuff out of the way. “If a person who is summoned to the Land is dead in the real world, their deadly wounds do not *need* to be replicated, but *may* be.” That sums up the practical issues nicely. Clearly there is confusion (some of which I’ve created) on this point. The problem arises, I suspect, from the fact that we’re actually talking about several separate “Laws” without distinguishing between them. Your summation accurately reflects the “Law” that governs translations into and out of the Land on a pragmatic or procedural level. But there are aesthetic “Laws” which also come into play: Laws which deal with “how stories work” rather than with “how magic in the Land works”. Symmetry is one such Law: concentration (I mentioned this somewhere recently) is another. Other things being equal, it’s simply *better* (in terms of the aesthetics of storytelling) if Covenant’s “death” in the Land (TPTP) mirrors his death in the “real world”. And then there are--well, let’s pretend they’re “Laws”--which pertain to *meaning*. They involve the storyteller’s efforts to invest his/her story with emotional and/or symbolic resonance. This is where the “transformations” you mention become significant. Here Hile Troy’s example is more pertinent to Linden than Covenant’s is. After all, we could easily argue that Covenant’s death in the Land roughly coincides with his death in the real world (ref. the end of TOT). Like Linden, however, Troy continues to live a mortal life in the Land for quite some time after his death in the real world. And Troy’s eventual death in the Land does *not* mirror his death in the real world--if you assume, as I do (without being able to check the text), that he died in the fall rather than by fire. In his case, you might say that I gave *meaning* precedence over aesthetics: in Covenant’s case, I managed to combine the two (which is always preferrable--when it’s possible). My point--to the extent that I have one--is that I intend to respect the Laws of the Land as consistently as a fallible human being can. But that doesn’t mean you can predict what will happen to Linden based on what has happened before. I wouldn’t be telling this story if I didn’t think I had something new to offer. (12/11/2006)

Hmm. I’m having a little trouble sorting through all this. Let’s break it down. 1) Lena, Atiaran, Trell: forgiveness or compulsion? Why can’t it be both? Especially where Trell and Atiaran are concerned, asking them to view Covenant with anything other than severity might be a bit much. But they both have reason to be, well, less than proud of themselves--and humility does tend to make forgiveness a little easier. As for Lena, surely forgiveness was never really an issue for her. 2) Without repeating too much of what’s already been covered in the GI, “Gilden-Fire” is available in “Daughter of Regals and Other Tales”. As a stand-alone book, it is long out of print--and should never have been as readily available as it once was. It was (trying to keep this simple) cut out because it indirectly undermined the credibility of Covenant’s Unbelief. But I don’t know where you got “once Covenant returned to the Land, you affirmed that the Land was not a dream and that Covenant's Unbelief was rendered meaningless.” I do surely hope that I’ve never said anything like that. I don’t consider Covenant’s Unbelief “meaningless,” and I don’t want my readers to think that either. 3) Yes, one of my reasons for putting Troy in the DoD was to make him someone who couldn’t be traced by an ordinary civilian like Covenant. (12/11/2006)

Vincent, I’m “exposing” you like this because I think your paragraph raises an interesting point about storytelling and language. (In other words, you’ve activated the Teacher in my personality, and that guy never knows when to shut up. <rueful smile>) One of my core beliefs about writing is that the writer has to *earn* his/her effect on the reader. There isn’t a writer out there, from Shakespeare to King, Faulkner to McKillip, who can’t be reduced to gibberish by taking sentences or paragraphs entirely out of context. If I wanted to spend the time, I could easily find dozens of Donaldson sentences and/or paragraphs that would sound like screaming lunacy if I took them out of context and displayed them unexplained in the middle of an otherwise blank sheet of paper. My point? Storytelling is linear and cumulative. It has little or no inherent power: it generates or *earns* power as it accumulates. So. The short paragraph you gave me to look at--and the kind of writing it displays--might make me want to stop reading immediately. Or it might send shivers of excitement down my spine. It all depends on context. On whether or not what has gone before earns the impact you want that paragraph to have. I mention this because so few writers appear to understand it. Time and again, I pick up books written by people who imagine they can attain a white heat on page one; and of course I always put those books down unread. They sound silly. And worse than that: they sound like the writer doesn’t trust his/her story. Learning to understand how and why narrative power accumulates is crucial to the “success” of paragraphs like yours. (12/11/2006)

Certainly one could argue that there should be a comma after "Day". But I don't know anyone who would actually put one there--especially in a title. A comma would just be wasted space, since it would contribute nothing to the meaning or the clarity of the phrase. (12/14/2006)

I wish I knew. You can get it in mass market from the UK. But my US publisher hasn't yet decided when--or if--a mass market paperback will be released. (12/14/2006)

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.

A couple of your questions have already been fully answered in the GI. But yes, I do sometimes "participate in teaching Shotokan," occasionally with the whole class, more often one-on-one. And no, I don't think that the skills of a Ninja were needed "to break Sifu Hong's neck in his sleep". After all, he was, well, asleep. Perhaps a quick nerve pinch to impose helplessness before a sharp, angled twist to the neck.... (12/19/2006)

Yes, Mhoram was "fully 'planned for'" in the way that you describe. But that doesn't mean I knew all of the particulars of his personality in advance. I often design my characters in rather broad strokes before I start writing, and then discover the details of who they are as I tell the story. As I've said before, I never base my characters--or even occasional details of personality--on real people. The sensation that I'm "making it all up" is important to my creative process. (12/19/2006)

When a Donaldson name sounds like a real word, it's never an accident. (Not to the best of my recollection, anyway. <grin>) Vector Shaheed is an extreme example--as is Warden Dios. And Thomas Covenant, for that matter. (12/20/2006)

Some writers need to have several projects going at once. Asimov was famous for that. Me, I have a one-track mind. I can't consider other ideas until I finish the one I'm working on. But this (like almost everything about writing) is a puzzle that each writer has to solve for him/herself. These days, it's almost impossible to get a novel published without an agent. But why would an agent take a chance on an unknown writer? So the standard advice to "new" writers goes like this. Get some short stories published in credible (i.e. commercial, paying) magazines. Establish a track record. Then use your track record to interest a reputable agent in your novel. Of course, that's not what *I* did. I'm a natural-born novelist. I didn't really learn how to write short stories (although God knows I tried) until after I finished--and sold--the first three "Covenant" books. And I didn't get an agent until after I had published seven novels. But publishing was a very different business then. Editors actually considered unsolicited manuscripts. Even in this day and age, however, there are agents who will consider unsolicited manuscripts. I'm afraid that you'll just have to do what feels right to you, and take your chances. (12/20/2006)

Gosh. The idea that the "real world" is mirroring my "fictional one" didn't occur to me until you mentioned it. On the other hand, I don't think it was very difficult--even way back in the 70s--(the 1870s? am I that old?)--to imagine that how our species treats the planet would have serious consequences. Of course, I didn't know what those consequences would be. But guessing wasn't hard. (12/20/2006)

If I--as a male--may be permitted to say so, female sexuality is notorious complex. <grin> It's an established fact, I think, that some individuals of both genders find "tolerable" levels of pain sexually stimulating. Well, I don't feel that way myself. Pain makes me clench up, which is automatically, well, de-arousing. So. I was trying to imagine how a relatively simple version of a zone implant (much more simple than the zone implants imposed on Angus) might stimulate a reaction as complex as female arousal. I decided to start with the hypothesis that Morn's abuse by Angus had enforced a neural connection between pain and sex. Then I stirred a defense against my own "clench" reflex into the mix. The result made sense to me. I can only hope that it makes sense to the reader. To the best of my recollection, I read "Victory" after I wrote the first "Covenant" trilogy. (12/23/2006)

A number of people have posted their good wishes: all much appreciated. Some readers of this site may wonder how it is that I--a putatively rational individual--can propose to live forever. Consider this. When so many people wish me well, what could possibly go wrong? <grin> (12/27/2006)

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. My editors have the power to publish or not publish my books. They do *not* have the power to impose changes on the text. (Admittedly, Lester del Rey used to arrogate such power to himself, although he had no contractual right to do so.) They can't even force me to punctuate according to their "house style rules". I haven't had to fight over a specific sentence, paragraph, or scene since Lester dropped me, oh, 25 years ago. Every editor I've worked with since has taken a much more constructive approach. The US editor of "Runes" *did* offer line-by-line suggestions about cuts and changes--but they were just suggestions. If I rewrite to suit the wishes of my editors, I do so because I agree with their assessment of the text--and because I want to give them the same respect that they give me. (12/27/2006)

The crucial point for me is feeling that I'm "finished" with the present book (in this case, "Fatal Revenant"). Typically this happens when I'm done proof-reading the text (twice, once for the US, once for the UK). But not always: sometimes the impulse to get started on the next book kicks in after I've reviewed the copy-editing (which comes before the proof-reading). However, this is rare. Copy-editors regularly savage my books, and the struggle to retrieve my work from their depradations often leaves me so enraged--and exhausted--that I can't even imagine writing another book. Proof-reading, on the other hand.... Well, it's tedious; but it does tend to concentrate my mind on what I intend to do next (which may be why I'm not actually very good at proof-reading <rueful smile>). In one sense, however, "work and/or effort specific to the next book" goes on throughout the whole project. I generate *stacks* of notes for the future while I'm writing--and rewriting--and rewriting again. In fact, I now have more notes for Covenant 9 and 10 than I had for the whole of "The Last Chronicles" before I began. (12/27/2006)

I've already answered "reading" questions often. Look under "reading" in the GI. But as to your second question: "A hero-figure etc." When you put it that way, it sounds pretty lame. But there are (at least) two important points to keep in mind. First, the essence of fiction--in any genre--is specificity, particularity. Uniquely-defined characters, places, and conflicts. To describe LOTR as a story about "A hero-figure on a quest to defeat an impending doom in a another land and so on" is to leave out everything that makes LOTR worth reading. Second, "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayth the preacher. There is nothing new under the sun." Except the writer. Putting it another way: there *are* no new stories. In any form. There are only new ways of looking at those stories. New ways of telling them. New way of finding meaning in them. New storytellers working in new contexts. The only thing that you have to offer the reader is, well, you. You are the only part of the storytelling process that hasn't already been done a gajillion times. The market has already been "over saturated" with LOTR rip-offs. It can never be over saturated with what I think of *authentic* storytelling. (12/27/2006)

This is a more complex question than it may appear to be. Frankly, I can't think of a way to address it that doesn't cross over into "spoiler" territory. But I can make one general comment which is at least somewhat germane to your question. One reason (of many) why Linden has assumed such narrative prominence is that for a long time now (perhaps since the beginning of TWL) Covenant has threatened to become a static character: a character whose attitudes and convictions don't change, and whose actions simply follow the logic of those attitudes and convictions to their necessary conclusion(s). I'm not saying that he *is* static. But the danger that he might *become* static is very real to me. (Perhaps this is an effect of having--as you say--to "channel" a rather old inspiration in order to write his character. I don't know.) I didn't have a story for "The Second Chronicles"--or "The Last Chronicles"--until Linden Avery entered my imagination. And I well remember, way back when Lester del Rey first started pushing me to continue the story past the first trilogy, that I rejected the whole notion *because* (among other reasons) Covenant was in danger of becoming static. I consider it axiomatic that static characters have no stories. (12/31/2006)

Well, I suppose the example of Tolkien does *loom*. It's possible that later writers (like me, just to pick a random example) feel a need to compete with, or somehow measure up to, LOTR. But I like to think that the verse (I don't consider it poetry) or songs in "Covenant" have evolved an organic role in the storytelling. Certainly the "Covenant" songs--and music in general--serve a very different function than Tolkien's poetry. No editor has ever pressured me to include "poetry"--or even made a suggestion to that effect. I know of no one who has attempted a modern epic fantasy in verse. And of my favorite contemporaries who write fantasy, few include poetry; and none give it the prominence that Tolkien did. btw, I don't remember any "poetry" in "Mordant's Need." Still, the impulse to include poetry--especially in "epic" fantasy--seems natural to me. If you think of poetry as "the most concentrated, elevated, or efficient use of language," then why wouldn't a writer who aspires to the stature of *the epic* want to include or achieve poetry? (12/31/2006)