I'm not sure how much of my experience applies for you. As you describe yourself, you want to write what I call "polemics": you want "to write science fiction books that would hopefully inspire and interest folks who wish to see our space programs take off again." Which is perfectly valid, of course. Many writers have comparable aims. But because my own intentions are very different.... It may be, however, that the underlying themes apply to all writers--or indeed to all creative endeavors. So if my comments have been of any use to you, I'm simply grateful. In any case, it certainly pays to understand your own intentions. Many creative decisions become--well, not less arduous, but certainly less fearsome--when you know what you're trying to accomplish. (12/01/2010)

Not that my opinions count for much.... But I'm pretty old-school myself. Simply adjusting to a computer--gosh, more than 20 years ago now--after a typewriter was very tough for me. So I have very little interest in iPods, or Kindles, or "the current obsession with electronic technology." (E.g. I enjoy movies and tv shows on DVD, but I have absolutely no desire to download them for "instant" viewing on my computer--or even on my tv.) However, I've observed that many social phenomena swing like pendulums. For example, despite the prevalence of CDs, vinyl LPs are making a bit of a comeback. So I don't fear that "real," physical books will ever go away. They'll fade for a while: then they'll return to favor. As so many things do. (12/01/2010)

I have a fairly stringent ethic (for lack of a better word) about such things. I write books. I'm not in the business of selling them. Self-promotion (even in the GI) always makes me uncomfortable. I certainly don't want to do *more* of it. (You should see how eagerly I *don't* do book tours. <rueful grin>) (12/01/2010)

If you'll forgive some blunt responses.... I didn't send a Raver to Bhrathairealm because I didn't need him. Kasreyn and the Sandgorgons seemed like quite enough. Anything more would have made that portion of the story top-heavy. (Kasreyn becomes aware of the Raver. What do they do then? One of LF's minions witnesses Covenant's victory over a Sandgorgon. How does that affect later events at Revelstone?) And I killed off Kasreyn in part because he deserved it, in part because Covenant needed to take that kind of action, in part because those events reveal the extent of Findail's desperation, and in part because I had no further use for Kasreyn. When I was first planning "The Last Chronicles," I knew that it needed "extra layers of maneuvering characters." But I didn't know exactly what forms those "extra layers" would take. The Insequent--and much that concerns Esmer--were happy discoveries. (12/06/2010)

I want to take this opportunity thank all of the many, many readers who have posted messages of congratulations, appreciation, and enjoyment. I'm very grateful. And I hope that you'll accept a broadcast "Thank you!" instead of dozens of individual replies. Time presses cruelly upon me, and my need for short-cuts has become imperative. (12/06/2010)

If I may respond without any whiff of disrespect for Jim Butcher.... I'm posting this because I want to state in public that I have no problem of any kind with such things. (Or with more substantive examples, such as the "zone implant" in Spike's head in "Buffy.") Certainly no permissions or acknowledgments are needed. In this specific case: all other reasons aside, *I* didn't invent the phrase "leper outcast unclean." I merely borrowed (stole?) it from earlier sources. Other writers are entitled to do the same however they see fit. And as far as "Buffy" is concerned: I also did *not* invent the idea of mind control by technological means. Surely other storytellers are entitled to draw on the same sources I did. (12/06/2010)

Well, I wouldn't use a word like "murder." It's certainly true that everything I write conveys less than I intended. To that extent, I suppose you could say that I kill what I write. But what I write also says *more* than I intended. That paradox feels like magic to me, and it defies the notion of murder. Something similar happens whenever someone reads what I write. The receiver always picks up both less and more than I transmitted. Sometimes specific examples frustrate me; but in general I consider the process wonderful. (12/07/2010)

Yes, I saw that. It's painful, of course; but I remind myself that everyone screws up occasionally. Gosh, even me! I'm told that Putnams recalled every book they could while they printed new dust jackets. And I'm told (but can't confirm) that Putnams will send a corrected dust jacket to anyone who requests it. (12/07/2010)

Well, DAMN it! Thanks for letting me know. Clearly Putnams has made a change that I did *not* authorize to the text. Makes me want to tear my hair, that does. (12/07/2010)

I concede that all of this is at best ambiguous--and at worst impenetrable. Please don't think you're the only one who gets confused. (What? Moi?) And I further concede that Covenant wanted Linden to claim his ring at the end of WGW. However she did it (unconsciously, one assumes), she was acting in accordance with his wishes. Or at least with his tacit approval. But the brute fact is that Covenant *gave* the ring to Lord Foul. That made LF the "rightful" wielder of that ring. So he later dropped it. So Linden picked it up. So what? The point is that she *took* it. It wasn't *given* to her. It wasn't even *surrendered* to her. And Covenant certainly didn't *marry* her with it. That's an important distinction, even if its import is more symbolic than literal. (12/09/2010)

In fact, once I got as far as beginning the GAP books, I refused to even try to provide synopses. The effort seemed actively harmful to the way my imagination works. So my publisher offered me a different approach. Since the whole project was already under contract (once the first two books had been written), and since publishers have a reasonable right to know what they're getting into, mine asked me to submit the first 200 pages of each new manuscript: partly to pacify the lawyers, partly to demonstrate that I wasn't taking the money and refusing to do the work, and partly to provide reassurance that I wasn't taking the story in some insane direction. (Now, as it happens, I don't even do that much. And no one has asked for more than I've offered. Apparently my editors trust me.) I know writers who live by their synopses. I would just die. (12/09/2010)

Hmm. It's important to keep in mind that my US and UK dealings are completely separate contracts. They agree on how they're going to divvy up so-called "foreign" markets. Other than that, they don't work together: they make their own decisions for their own reasons. (Of course, the web forces US and UK publishers to pay attention to each other's schedules. They can't afford to ignore the fact that readers can easily buy books from other countries. Nevertheless the US edition typically comes first because a) I signed that contract first, and b) my UK publisher tends to run behind schedule.) In this specific case, Gollancz was looking for a time when no other publishers were launching "major" books. They hoped to give AATE an open field. Whether or not they succeeded, I have no idea. (12/09/2010)

I think I've covered this. That's the Harrow--or rather, the artist's version of the Harrow, which is only approximately related to *my* version. (12/10/2010)

Well, *I'm* always surprised to find that I'm hungry.... <sigh> But seriously, there are several issues here. (Before I get distracted, however, let me say that I've read a number of fantasy novels with more varied diets than mine.) One is simple practicality. How many different ways do you think there are to describe Covenant's face/expression without violating previous descriptions? (Keeping in mind that I want to be helpful to readers who haven't recently immersed themselves in previous "Covenant" books.) How many words are there that refer to magic? How do you imagine that I could avoid repeating all kinds of things? In books this long? Another issue is technical. I'm trying to develop an elaborate web of what I call "leitmotifs": recurring words, phrases, entire sentences which are intended to form links (perhaps subconscious) in the reader's mind between the story's present moment and the story's past events/passions/themes. I'm trying to accrete meaning and emotion. Whether or not I *succeed* at my intentions is a separate question. My intent is to enhance substance. Yet another issue has to do with how language is patterned deep within my own mind. These patterns exist far below consciousness, and they express themselves reflexively. To some extent, I can violate them whenever I wish: consider the variety of styles I've deployed throughout my writing life. But some patterns are inherent to the way I think, and I can't think my thoughts without them. On this point, the same is true of every writer; even every person. (12/13/2010)

Sales (as measured by bestseller lists) were significantly impacted by the fact that Putnams released the book with a typo on the dust jacket. When the mistake was discovered, Putnams stopped selling the book until new dust jackets could be printed. But subsequent sales? Sales over time? I have no idea. Publishers often don't release that information until a year or more later. Why? Protection against "returns": books which were sold to bookstores etc., but which later come back to the publisher because they weren't purchased by readers. But leaving all that aside, I find it very difficult to be "happy with the sales results"--and I suspect that most writers my age feel the same. A major bestseller today sells--at best--1/3 as many books as a major bestseller did, oh, 25 years ago. Those of us who have had to live with the shrinkage are seldom happy about it. (12/13/2010)

I've already discussed discovering order or pattern organically vs imposing it, well, inorganically (from the outside, according to some more or less arbitrary set of rules). I won't repeat myself here. But I've certainly heard of writers writing according to a "formula" of one kind or another: a chess game; a political or psychological agenda; a theory about the characteristics of a bestseller; a design required by a publisher (Harlequin romances leap to mind). In some sense, all "work for hire" (e.g. Star Trek novels) is produced this way. In my (very) limited experience, however, the results read like exactly what they are: exercises in formula rather expressions of real imagination. It seems to me that the best creative minds simultaneously accept and defy the expectations generated by formulas. But in fairness, I should add that I also know of writers for whom formula is *necessary* to creativity. For them, the restrictions of formula enable rather than inhibit imagination. Whether or not these writers produce work which can stand the test of time is entirely another matter. (12/29/2010)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Against All Things Ending

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 lost interest in Tolkien "residue" after "The Silmarillion," so I haven't read anything since. (12/29/2010)

I've discussed the comparative meaninglessness of bestseller lists before: I won't repeat myself here. But being on the NY Times list *does* gratify me--to the extent that it raises my stature with publishers (on whom my life depends). However, it has no effect on my writing process. (12/29/2010)

Hmm. Never with different outcomes or characters. (I believe in what I've done.) But often with better narrative skills (especially organizational skills: parts of the first and second trilogies are poorly organized even though they're written well enough). (What? You want *details*? You want to know what I'm actually talking about? <sigh> Well, look, for example, at those portions of TIW and TWL where the main characters take separate paths. In retrospect, I don't like the way those paths are laid out. They result in--for me, at least--unsatisfying reconnections.) (12/29/2010)

It is indeed interesting. But I wonder if it has any general relevance. It looks to me like a very particular interaction between a specific artist and a specific audience. Change any one of the many variables, and the outcome might be dramatically different. Or not. What do I know? (12/29/2010)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Against All Things Ending

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.

The short answer? No. My mind (or my inspiration, if you prefer) doesn't work that way. If I heard a soundtrack for a potential "Covenant" film, I would no doubt react to it. Perhaps vehemently. As I do to visual representations of my work. But such things don't exist for me until someone else creates them. (12/29/2010)

I've discussed this in some detail elsewhere in the Gradual Interview. Here are the simple facts: I still own the e-rights to the first six "Covenant" books, and I haven't released them because I don't believe that my publisher is capable of producing an accurate e-text. (12/29/2010)

Relief? Ha! What I mostly feel is dread. I react this way for more reasons than I care to explain. (Do I fear the continuing shrinkage of my audience? Did I say that out loud?) But riffing on your "birth of a child" analogy.... If the mother is carrying quadruplets, has been for three years, but only one of them is born (with excruciating difficulty), after which she has to wait for another three years for the next to come to term--and the only thing she knows for sure about the whole process is that each succeeding three-year term and birth will be vastly more arduous than the one before: then you might have a viable comparison. Of course, I do experience relief from time to time during all this. But it usually happens when I finish the first draft, not when the book is eventually published. (12/29/2010)

I'm posting this as a matter of general (?) interest. I haven't checked it out myself--although I'm sure I will at some point. (12/29/2010)