Vince Gregory: Vince Gregory
England
Hi Steve
I need to try and explain something to you. I hope you don’t mind.
I am one of the many (apparently) people who have mailed you regarding the female Haruchai. (“Oh no! not another one” I hear you sigh). Sorry for fetching it up again but I find it surprising to read that you seem flabbergasted by our interest and can’t understand why we care.
You don’t seem to realise how powerful your own books are and how REAL the world you have created and the characters that populate it have become to us fans. I have never read any other books where the characterisation is so beautifully complete, so powerful, so utterly believable. For instance how can Pitchwife never have existed except as an idea that you decided to put down on paper? Ludicrous thought! No. He did/does exist for us and our lives are massively enriched through our having had the chance to meet him. (Thank you).
And because your characters are so real, we become INTERESTED in them. What is the home of the Giants like. What are the female Haruchai like? What are their children like? Did Morham ever father children? Did Trell ever find any peace? Does Lord Foul prefer beans or tomatoes with his bacon? Etc., etc., etc., ………………
I have never read one of your books and thought “…..well, what a nice amusing tale that was” as I have with many other books. Your books transport me. I am there. I put your books down emotionally knackered! Your stories take us readers on a magical journey that will be many things to many people, but I am certain that to virtually every fan, the Land and everything in it and around it is incredibly VIVID and REAL. That is testament to your skill.
The Land is not two-dimensional to us so we can’t help being interested. It’s your fault for being so bloody good!
I hope you understand where I'm coming from Stephen, even if you find it difficult to understand why.
Take care.
(which can selfishly be translated as ‘Live a long time and keep writing’)
Vince.
 |
(Personal note: if you had included your email address, I would have sent you a private reply. I don't usually make messages like yours public.) Comments like this one always humble me. I wish I understood the--there's no better word for it--*magic* of communication. Here I sit, muttering endlessly about being an "efficient" writer who only creates what he needs--and there you sit, apparently getting more out of my books than I knew I was putting in. <sigh> How does that happen? I sure wish I knew. God knows, I *want* my characters to come alive. They feel alive to me. And yet they don't inspire the same kind of curiosity in me that they do in you. I'm deeply engrossed in how they feel *now*, and in what they're going to do *next*. But my curiosity doesn't spread beyond those boundaries. Perhaps that's because I have to actually *write* the books (which, as you know, takes me years): I can't afford the time to be too curious. Or maybe it's just a flaw in my own character.... <rueful smile> (12/03/2008) |
Daniel Yocum: Mr. Donaldson you have mentioned in the past how important archetypes are in your writing or for good fantasy in general. I was wondering if when you speak of archetypes, are you speaking of Jungian concepts or Platonian forms as illustrated in Charles Williams' novel The place of the Lion. It seems that the very nature of the Land and even the existence of the Elohim would point more toward the Platonic Ideals but I could be wrong and then I would have to rethink the staff of law.
|
This is difficult for me to answer. I'm not well educated in Jung, I haven't read "The Place of the Lion," and I don't think "philosophically" in the Platonic sense of the term. My background--the stuff that's bred in my bones--is in Christian archetypes: Good and Evil, redemption and damnation, the "covenant of Law" and the "covenant of Grace," sin, forgiveness, despair. Anthropomorphic interpretations of "the Divine". Creation. Armageddon. That sort of thing. As much as possible, I bring my whole mind to bear on what I'm writing. For that reason, Jungian and Platonic conceptions of archetypes are not irrelevant to my designs. I *have* put a certain amount of study into such subjects. But those versions of what I'll call The Big Themes are not--in a manner of speaking--my native tongue. (12/03/2008) |
Gerardo Blanco: Hi Stephen,
I've been thoroughly enjoying the Covenant series. I'm half way of the second chronicles.
I'm an avid reader of Borges, and can't avoid to wonder how much of an influence he was (is) in your writing. Any comments?
Also, I'm pretty sure Covenant was reading "The Circular Ruins" at the beginning of "The Illearth War" (although I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere). If so, that was a great way to bring the "reality vs. dream" argument there...
I profoundly enjoy your books. Congratulations on creating the bigger brother to LOTR!
|
As it happens, I've read a fair amount of Borges (which of course I wouldn't have done if I didn't enjoy his work). I don't aspire to write stories like his, but I'm sure he's influenced me in any number of unconscious ways. (12/03/2008) |
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Through the course of the GI you have made reference to several authors whose work you have read, or admire or both. Patricia McKillip comes to mind and most recently Chris Moriarity. I purchased books by both of these authors in the hopes that I would find something akin to a “Donaldson” type of story, sadly however I was unimpressed by either of them and stopped reading about halfway through each book (which by the way, is an idea I got from you…I believe it was you who said, “why read something if you’re not enjoying it”?)
I mention this because it disturbs me that I so completely disliked the books recommended by an author whose own works I so enjoy…there must be something wrong with me, right? I mean, I know there’s not, but the thought does cross my mind, “Why don’t I enjoy these books? They must be good, Donaldson likes them!”
Secondly, while I was in my 20’s I read, The Catcher in the Rye,” I did not enjoy reading it on any level but I read it anyway because I knew it was considered a “classic” and felt it was something I SHOULD read and I STILL feel that way to this day, that there are SOME books that everyone should read if only for the edification that one hopes glean from the story.
Would you please give me your thoughts on this subject? Should everyone read Treasure Island, or a Tale of Two Cities, or The Iliad, War and Peace, etc., etc.? Is there some reason to do this other than being able to say that I read it? Should I read a book I don’t enjoy in the HOPE that by the time I get to the end I will have learned to enjoy it?
I ask this of you not only because you’re my favorite author, but also because you’re a former instructor and the only person with a degree in English that I am at all acquainted with on any level! And besides that, I really do respect your opinion on the matter.
|
I hardly know where to begin. I guess my most immediate reaction is: what's wrong with trusting your own likes and dislikes? Why should you force your way through any book that doesn't appeal to you? Sure, if you have what I'll call a "professional" interest (as a teacher, say, or as a writer: as someone for whom "how writing works" is of significant importance) in considering yourself well-read, you would be wise to gain an acquaintance with anything that has achieved "classic" or literary stature. But if that isn't what floats your boat (as it does mine), why worry about it? Life is too short to spend it second-guessing who we are. (btw, *I* haven't read "A Tale of Two Cities". And I actively disliked "Catcher in the Rye".) But on a completely different level: what would be the good of having more than one writer who writes the same kind of stories that I do, in the same way that I write them? Surely one of the defining characteristics of excellence in any form is uniqueness. It can't really be compared to anything else (except for contrast and edification) because there's nothing else like it. Or, saying the same thing in another way: much of the value of a Donaldson book derives from the fact that no one else could--or would--have written it. Well, one crucial reason why I love McKillip, and admire Moriarty, and drool over Erikson, and weep at Dostoevsky, and feel awe at Conrad is that absolutely no one else could or would have written their books. That said: Donaldson's Law (which I formulated back in my teaching days) states that *bad* is objective but *good* is subjective. If writing or storytelling are *bad*, their badness can be demonstrated, even proven. But as soon as we move into the realm of *good* writing or storytelling, any individual reader's reaction will be almost exclusively a matter of taste. Of course, taste also applies to *bad*. Some readers love *bad* books, even though those books are demonstrably *bad*. But that's a comment on the readers involved, not on the books. When badness is no longer present, only individual taste distinguishes the pleasurable from the uncomfortable. Some readers don't or can't enjoy Shakespeare. But so what? If we weren't all different, the human race would have died out centuries or millennia ago, made extinct by sheer boredom. If you want to see my views on this subject in action, track down a copy of the short story anthology "Strange Dreams," which I edited. Those stories were collected for no better reason than because I liked them so much that I found them memorable. But if you read the whole thing, you won't find a single "Donaldson-type" story. "I think I think. Therefore I think I am." Ambrose Bierce. (12/10/2008) |
peter minister: Dear Stephen,
A couple of things really. Just wanted to point out to you and others what a refreshing experience it is to listen to Scott Bricks audio of Lord Fouls Bane. Forget any notion of a movie version. It couldnt work. Scotts reading works on so many levels and I have found myself gleaming more from listening than I did when I first read the book. Scotts skill lies in his ability to add that special intonation when needed and it is obvious he is a real fan of your work. This audio helped me through a pretty traumatic recouperation period after surgery.
Peter Minister
|
This is only the first of several positive reviews I've received for Scott Brick's reading. Given time, he intends to have all of the "Chronicles" available for download. The last I heard, the restrictions against UK downloads have been resolved. (12/15/2008) |
Steve Vickery: Hi Steve
A recent question asked about an address for Peter Goodfellow, the cover artist for some of the early UK Covenants. Well, he can be found at the www.lostgallery.co.uk.
He may be able to help with some images of his work but I know he has no original art left.....I've already been there and tried that!
I did manage to get his original artwork for The Fantasy Encyclopedia which I thought had a very 'Land' feel, so that sits on my wall now.
Regards
Steve
|
Posted for the information of readers interested in Peter Goodfellow's UK "Covenant" art. Thank you. (12/17/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: For the questioner who asked about other books that have someone from our world transported to a "fantasy" realm, besides the ones you mentioned I know of:
The War of the Flowers by Tad Williams
The Barbed Coil by J.V. Jones
The Spellsinger Series by Alan Dean Foster
The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay
The Outlander Series by Diana Gabaldon
(this is more of an Historic series than straight fantasy but if you like Scottish history (and hey, who doesn't?) then it should appeal)
|
Posted for the information of readers who like stories with "real world" characters transported to fantasy worlds. And a note about the current state of the Gradual Interview. I know it looks like I haven't been very active recently. But appearances can be deceptive. As it happens, the GI has been crowded in recent months with messages that aren't suitable (usually for the most benign of reasons) for a public forum. So I've been sending out a fair number of brief--OK, *very* brief--personal responses. (12/17/2008) |
Jason D. Wittman: Hello again, Mr. Donaldson,
I recently came across this article online ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html ), which begins "Harry Potter has become the latest target for Professor Richard Dawkins [Oxford professor and author of "The God Delusion" -- methinks he's an atheist] who is planning to find out whether tales of witchcraft and wizardry have a negative effect on children."
Poor J.K. Rowling! She can't please evangelicals OR atheists! (Could Dawkins be going after her just to get publicity? Noooo, couldn't possibly be that...)
Seeing how fantasy (and SF) is your bread and butter, I thought you would like to comment. (I wonder what self-proclaimed atheists like J. Michael Straczynski or Harlan Ellison would say?) Myself, I think anything Prof. Dawkins winds up saying regarding HP will say more about Prof. Dawkins than about HP. But that's just me.
Hope all is well, and keep writing!
Jason
|
I may have mentioned years ago that I once heard the writer/film-maker S. P. Somtow say, "Fantasy is the only valid form of religious inquiry." Or words to that effect. I happen to agree. In fact, I don't see how it's possible to write about people, powers, or events which demonstrably transcend, well, let's call it "consensus reality" without raising religious issues. Surely "transcendence" is the essential subject-matter of religion. Harlan Ellison may well be an atheist (how would *I* know?), but his stories are rife with religious themes. However, the key word here (at least for our present purposes) is "inquiry": the posing of questions rather than the formulation of answers. J. K. Rowling's intended audience may be adolescent, but she obviously has things to say about the meaning of human experience--and those things are inherently religious in their implications. How could they be otherwise? As for Professor Richard Dawkins (about whom I know absolutely nothing), he sure sounds--at least in your description--like he has an axe to grind. If so, his conclusions (whatever they may be) will *by definition* say more about him than about Harry Potter, or indeed about J. K. Rowling. And if not (I mean if he doesn't have an axe to grind), he may offer some interesting insights. (12/17/2008) |
Vincent: Greetings again Mr. Donaldson,
I was reading through some recent questions in the GI and I was struck by an epiphany. Well epiphany may be too strong of a word, but it started me thinking anyway.
-To the best of my (admittedly flawed) abilities, I have striven mightily throughout "The Chronicles" to preserve the theoretical possibility that everything in the Land flows outward from the many layers of Covenant's consciousness--and later of Linden's.-
I have noticed how much the Land changes when someone new becomes involved with it.
When Thomas came it was a beautiful place with 'spots' of illness, like a reflection of Thomas's leprocy. The general emotion was one of beauty being corrupted, (his fears that his son might become infected?) and Thomas's feelings of not belonging, the same feelings he expirienced in his own home town.
When Linden came the Land was in ruins. All hope was lost, everything was sick and dying. The strongest emotions were that of depression and futility. (Depression due to her guilt at killing her mother, and futility at not being able to stop her father from killing himself?)
Now she returns after losing her son, and the Land is blinded. Reflecting her feelings of being lost and unable to find Jeremiah? (Or is it a reflection of Jeremiah's not being able to communicate? Meaning that Jeremiah is the centerpoint of the Land in the incarnation?)
-Miyamoto Musashi, the legendary Samurai, and author of "The Book of Five Rings," once wrote, "He who is the master of one thing is the master of all things."-
The Land seems more and more like a test that can only be completed by achieving that 'Mastery of self' by working through internal issues in an external situation. A harsh learning tool, like Purgatory, or even Hell.
Just a thought.
|
An interesting perspective on the reality/unreality of the Land debate. Naturally I like it <grin> since it lends credence to the admittedly fragile position I take in this debate. (12/26/2008) |
Thad Coons: Dear Mr. Donaldson;
In the first Chronicles, it occurred to me that Joan's divorce of Thomas Covenant and his subsequent emotional devatation had something to do with the Ritual of Desecration. I haven't seen that possibility mentioned or discussed, so I wonder whether you intended such a connection, or whether it's entirely out of my own imagination?
My other question would be whether Joan is somehow tied into the same kind of unconscious processes that Thomas mentions to Linden at the beginning of the Wounded Land, except I think Lord Foul already gave the answer to that one when he offered his teaser "Of my deeper purposes I say nothing."
|
Hmm. Certainly Joan's "betrayal" of Covenant at the beginning of LFB can be compared to the betrayal (the invitation to an ambush disguised as a parley) which set Kevin up emotionally for his Ritual. The various ways in which Covenant has been "prepared" to become a Landwaster himself are certainly integral to my design. That "Joan is somehow tied into the same kind of unconscious processes that Thomas mentions to Linden" is difficult to dispute. How else is LF able to have his way with her? But saying that implies nothing about the nature of LF's "deeper purposes". (12/26/2008) |
Rob Smith: Hi Steve,
It has occurred to me that one of the repercussions of indulging all your fans with the gradual interview is that as we near the end of the chronicles the speculations of we, the humble readers, on how all this is going to end are going to get closer to the truth.
Clearly this will result in an increase of the RAFO responses but I was wondering how you deal with the readers who are not going to like your decisions. As the end looms and speculation on Kevin's Watch and other forums reaches fever pitch there are clearly going to be some people who you will realise are not going to like the ending (unless of course you come up with one nobody at all has thought of....)
Clearly we the faithful will defend your decisions in the usual ways (offers of counceling, hostile emails, burning the heretics etc.) but I wondered if you might feel the traditional Ivory Tower approach of other authors might have made this bit at least a little easier...
|
With occasional exceptions, readers don't tell me when they don't like my storytelling decisions. (What would be the point? I write what I do because I am who I am. Expecting something different from me goes nowhere. And then there's the obvious fact that people don't dislike what I do until they read it--which means that it's already in print--which means that I couldn't change it even if I wanted to.) They either quit reading--and tell their friends not to waste time on my books--or trudge on, hoping for some kind of eventual satisfaction (which, btw, I try strenuously to provide). From time to time, of course, the fortifications of my Ivory Tower prove inadequate. (After all, *every* writer has to deal with editors. <rueful smile>) But in my experience, the GI has not significantly weakened my defenses. (12/26/2008) |