Hierachy: Roughly how large will runes of the earth be compared to the other books? I would have assumed about the same size as the others but I have heard rumours that it will be bigger, are these rumours true? Thanks for your time.
-Hierachy
 |
When I wrote "Runes," it was about the same length as one of the "Mordant's Need" books--roughly 200 manuscript pages longer than the longest previous "Covenant" book. However, I'm under severe editorial pressure to cut the manuscript down by, you guessed it, 200 pages. So the published version may be about the same length as "The One Tree" or "White Gold Wielder." (02/22/2004) |
Tori Gallagher: Will Cail come back? I feel like I'm using an Ouija board here, but he is my favorite character in the Second Chronicles.
-Tori
|
I don't want to answer this question because a) I don't want to give anything away, and/or b) because I haven't made up my mind. But you'll see in "Runes" that a great many things have become possible. (02/22/2004) |
jerry mcfarland: If you are required to cut down the size of the books....any future chance of seeing the "original" or something like Gilden-Fire?
Personally, I like the thicker books rather than scaled down. If I have to pay $25+ anyway, better for a larger novel.
|
Oh, I wouldn't cut down the book just to please my editor. She has to convince me that the cuts are necessary (and I don't mean "necessary to the publisher," I mean "necessary to the quality of the book"). And if they *are* necessary, I certainly wouldn't be inclined to restore them. In any case, I don't cut by whacking out scenes or characters (with the one obvious exception of "The Illearth War"): I prune a word here, a sentence there, sometimes an entire paragraph. And I do a whole lot of rephrasing to say the same things more efficiently. Trust me, when I'm done cutting I'll have a better book. (02/23/2004) |
Michael Rowlands: Mr Donaldson,
What do you think of the PostModern movement to 'reject the author's message'? I read that alot of writers now expect the readers to read their own interpretation into a text. Is this necessarily a bad thing, that the message can be ignored or missed?
Regards,
Michael
|
Here's what I think: there's less to this than meets the eye. Reading is an interactive process. Readers have always supplied their own interpretations of what they read. In my case, the issue is simple: I've never had a "message" I wanted to communicate (impose on the reader), so rejecting my message should be effortless. (I'm a storyteller, not a polemicist. As such, my only mission is to help my readers understand my characters and appreciate what those poor sods are going through.) In general, however, one might say that the task of any writer is to communicate his/her intentions so clearly that the reader will--as it were spontaneously--arrive at the appropriate interpretation. And if that task has been accomplished, what would be the point of rejecting the author's message? (02/23/2004) |
Tracie (Furls Fire): Mr. Donaldson, first let me just say thank you so much for continuing one of the greatest stories I have ever read. I have always known the story was not finished, so many doors were left open. My question is, and this goes all the way back to "Lord Foul's Bane" and has been debated back and forth of Kevin's Watch: what exactly was his bane? I contended that it was the Illearth Stone, because that is what Lord Foul coveted and the Stone, of course, was a major "character" in all of the First Chronicles. But, others have had other answers...Covenant, the ring, Drool. So, I just thought I would go right to the source and see what it actually was. Maybe it is all of the above? <smile>
Also, I just want to say thank you for The Wounded Land, Chapter 26: Coercri. I have read and re-read The Chronicles more times than can be counted. Laughed, cried, raved over various events and parts, but nothing touches me more than Coercri. It still brings my heart up into my throat and tears to my eyes. So, thank you.
|
And thank *you*! I'm touched by your response. Sadly, the answer to your question about the nature/identity of Lord Foul's "bane" is: I don't know. How could I not? you may well ask. Because I didn't make up that title, that's how. Lester del Rey imposed that title on the book for reasons of his own, mostly because he thought it would sell, not because it had meaning. *My* title, when I first wrote the book, was "Foul's Ritual," which I would cheerfully have amended to "Lord Foul's Ritual." But Lester wouldn't have it. And he's dead, so none of us can ask him what he had in mind. (02/25/2004) |
Peter B.: Do you have any indications what the cover artwork for Runes will look like? There is a certainly a variety of artist interpretations through the different editions of the First and Second Chronicles.
|
No, I don't know what the art will look like. But I *do* know that the artist will be Michael Whelan--and there's none better. After the atrocities that Darrel K. Sweet perpetrated on the earlier "Covenant" books, I'm blissfully happy to be in Whelan's hands. (02/25/2004) |
Derrik S: Well I am glad to hear that there is going to be a 3rd Chronicles. I am also glad i found this site. How many years will have passed for the "Runes of the Earth" since "White Gold Wielder"?
|
Do you mean for me, or for the story? You must mean for the story. Well, it's traditional--by which I mean that it's already happened once: Ten years passed in the "real" world (3500+ years in the Land) between "The Chronicles" and "The Second Chronicles"; so of course in "The Last Chronicles" ten years have passed for Linden Avery (and 3500+ more elsewhere). Time enough for the author to arrange pretty much anything he wants. (02/25/2004) |
James DiBenedetto: In another interview, you said of Lester Del Rey that he kept sending you "bad ideas" for the Second Chronicles..."And they got worse as Lester pushed harder. Finally he succeeded at sending me an idea so bad that before I could stop myself I thought, "No, that's terrible, what I really ought to do is--"
I'm really curious: if you're allowed/willing to say, what kind of ideas did Lester have? And what was the idea that was so bad that it made you agree to finally write the Second Chronicles?
|
Sorry. This happened so long ago--and the idea was so bad--that I've long since deleted it from my memory. Knowing Lester, however, it must have had something to do with a thinly-disguised rehash of the first trilogy. "Change Covenant's name to Berek and tell the whole story again," that sort of thing. (02/29/2004) |
danlo: Do you think you might write more Science Fiction after the Final Chronicles, or is it too early to tell?
|
You're right, it's WAY too early to tell. I have maybe nine more years of work to do on "The Last Chronicles," by which time I'll be, lessee, mumble, mumble, carry the 7, oh, nearly 318 years old. But if you held a gun to my head and forced me to guess, I would suppose that I'll probably stick to fantasy. After I write the last Axbrewder/Fistoulari novel. (02/29/2004) |
Derrik S: For one I meant the story. But which covers did Darel K Sweet do: the original ones or the later ones?
|
Sweet did the original DEL REY/Ballantine covers. Lester considered him the greatest fantasy artist alive, despite the fact that Sweet told everyone who would listen that he hated fantasy. After the del Reys passed away, and the "Covenant" books were reissued, they featured a rather grand Michael Herring painting: one huge painting cut into six panels, so if you place your books side by side you can see the whole work. But Owen Locke, the King of Complacency, had become the head of DEL REY books, and he never bothered to change the artist credit in the books, so for quite a few years Sweet got credit for Herring's work. However, I *think* the situation has now been corrected. (02/29/2004) |
Elton Pruitt: I just wanted to ask the correct pronunciation of Haruchai. I think I read in an interview with you once, but I can no longer find it, that it is pronounced Huh-ROO-cheye.
Thanks for bringing the Last Chronicles to life for us! I started re-reading both 1st and 2nd Chronicles a few months ago so I am glad they will be fresh in my memory when Runes of the Earth is published.
|
Really, I believe that the "correct" pronunciation is the one that works for the particular reader. After all, story-telling in print is an interactive process, and the reader's contributions are both necessary and valid. But I personally say: ha-ROO-chai (where "ai" is pronounced "eye"). (02/29/2004) |
Jerry McFarland: You stated you have nine more years to complete the Last Chronicles. Please tell us this was tongue in cheek.
|
I'm sorry: it's not tongue-in-cheek at all. I spent 20 months writing the first draft of "Runes," and (so far) I've spent 10 months revising it. Toss in a family emergency here and a health problem there (such things become increasingly common at my age), and 36 months a book seems like barely enough. Naturally, I wish I could work more fluently. But there's a reason (actually, there are several) why my characters struggle so much: it's because I do the same. As I've said elsewhere, for me writing is like wrestling with the Angel of the Lord. (03/04/2004) |
Eric Kniffin: In light of quotes like, "Come Unbeliever. Do not prolong this unpleasantness. You know that you cannot stand against me. In my own name I am wholly your superior. And I possess the Illearth Stone." and "When the Despiser was powerful enough to give them strength, they enslaved creatures or people by entering into their bodies, subduing their wills, and using the captured flesh to enact their master's purposes." can you give us any specifics about Foul's powers/abilities?
|
I don't want to answer this question, mainly because I don't want to limit my options. But have you noticed that Lord Foul works primarily through proxies and instruments? (Drool, the Illearth Stone, Ravers, the Clave, the Banefire, etc..) And that the Creator does essentially the same thing? (Thomas Covenant, white gold, Linden Avery, etc..) However you look at it, in these books "power" tends to be an expression of the essential nature of the person or being whose power it is. On those occasions when we've seen Foul act directly, he seems to exert the withering force of pure scorn. imho, that's pretty intense. And it has interesting implications for the Creator. Not to mention for "The Last Chronicles." (03/07/2004) |
birdandbear: Okay, this is a theory I've had for a while, and here's where it may get shot down....;)
Does the title of the fifth book in The Gap series, A Dark and Hungry God Arises, refer to vengeance? I swear I've heard somewhere, a reference to Vengeance, or Revenge, being a dark and hungry god, but I can't for the life of me remember where. There's a line in the musical, Sweeny Todd, that would seem to support this as well. And in this case, I can see it refering to the plans of a certain character, against another certain character beginning to come to fruition at last....
Am I on the right track at all? Or if not, to what does this incredibly cool title refer? ;)
Thanks for your time, and I love your site!
-Annie
|
Forgive me: "A Dark and Hungry God Arises" is the third GAP book, not the fifth. Which--to my eye, anyway--undermines your theory a little bit. And I have to ask you: is the story really about revenge (or vengeance, which sounds more righteous)? Which characters are motivated by a desire for revenge? And of those, which might reasonably be referred to as a "god"? And of *those,* which experiences a downfall in "This Day All Gods Die"? (03/07/2004) |
Bernie Margolis: Mr. Donaldson,
I have been a hearty admirer of your works since my junior high school days (when I was probably too young to be reading them) in the early '80s. I especially like your Mordant's Need novels and your short story compilations. Thanks for all the years of entertainment and intellectual stimulation that you've provided through the years.
I have a two-part question. The press release on your site indicates that motion picture rights have been optioned. Did the recent success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy influence your decision to sell these rights, or was it the other way around (they optioned your work hoping to capitalize on the untapped [good] fantasy movie market)? On a related note, the release doesn't specify what exactly Gordon and Winther have optioned. The article implies that they've optioned the Third Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, but this seems like an odd place to begin cranking out movies to me. Could you please clarify this?
|
No, I didn't suddenly decide to sell the movie rights. They aren't mine to sell: they are held by Ballatine Books. So your second explanation is correct: the movie people have suddenly become hungry for viable fantasy properties. Ballantine would have sold the rights decades ago if they had a buyer. (But remember: only one out of every one hundred options bought is actually made into a movie.) Hollywood having all the money and power, they get to make all the rules. So in a case like mine, here's how it works: xyz producers (or producer wannabees) buy an option on "Lord Foul's Bane"--and by doing so, they become the legal owners of the movie rights for ALL "Covenant" books. That's right: they buy one, they get them all. They can film *any* "Covenant" book, not just "Lord Foul's Bane." Or they can invent their own world and characters, give them my names, and call it "Lord Foul's Bane." And people like book publishers and agents (never mind authors) agree to this because they feel they have no choice. All the money is in movies. A dog of a movie which dies in the theaters can easily quadruple the sales of the book on which it is based. However, good agents (and sensible publishers, of where there are precious few) protect their authors by making sure that the author gets paid for each and every movie regardless of who owns the rights, or what the content of the move actually is. (03/07/2004) |
Pete: It's been roughly 20 years since you've written about Thomas Covenant and The Land. The world is a much different place from 20 years ago, and I imagine you've had many life experiences in that time. I think I've read somewhere that looking back on the First Chronicles you saw a lot that you'd like to change and were even somewhat embarassed about. My question is, has it been difficult to jump back into this series after so long and keep the same "feel" as you had two decades ago?
Thanks,
Pete
|
Strangely, recapturing the narrative tone and rhetoric of the earlier books has been relatively easy. I guess it comes naturally. The hard part has been convincing my editor to leave the "feel" of the prose alone. She's a modern woman, much younger than I am, who hasn't read any previous "Covenant" books, and who lacks my background in the study of Conrad, James, and Faulkner. Instinctively she prefers the kind of lean and ambiguous prose which never calls a spade a spade (never mind a ^#$%# shovel), and which certainly never identifies any of the emotions of the characters. Nor does she like the pacing of Covenant-style prose: to use a musical analogy, she would rather jump from key to key without modulations, which, she feels, "bog down the narrative." So my biggest technical challenge in revising "Runes" has been to preserve the stylistic essence of the previous books without outraging her sensibilities. (03/11/2004) |
Kay (Duchy): Of all of the vivid characters you have created which is your favorite?
|
I tend to have different favorites in different contexts. And I've always loved High Lord Mhoram and Saltheart Foamfollower. But secretly I feel an irreducible fondness for Castellan Lebbick and Hashi Lebwohl. (03/11/2004) |
MK: Thirty years later, your writing style has most definitely changed, developed, evolved. One can say that the original Covenant books are steeped in overwrought (overwritten?) prose. How will your matured attitudes change how you write this new cycle of Covenant? Will the language still be connected to the old books, or will it echo your later works?
|
As I suggested in answer to an earlier question, I'm trying to strike a balance between what I prefer to call the "operatic" prose of the earlier "Covenant" books and the less poetic sensibilities of modern readers. (03/11/2004) |
Joey: When is "The Man Who Tried To Get Away" going to be re-released? I devoured Brother and Partner both in less than a day and have been looking all over for book three- which at its cheapest is selling for $50+ online. Thanks so much.
|
"The Man Who Tried to Get Away" should be re-released in hardcover this fall (October or November, 2004), along with the paperback of "The Man Who Risked His Partner." (03/23/2004) |
Ying M.: I've had some vivid dreams about being in the Land. Maybe that's inevitable for anyone reading something as emotionally intense as the Chronicles. My dreams about the Land tend to be sad and a little morbid. Do you have dreams and/or nightmares about the Land as you write the Chronicles? Thanks, and sorry if it's a corny question.
|
Since story-telling (at least for me) is in some sense a process of externalizing the content of my subconscious, you might say that it serves the same function as--or possibly even replaces--dreaming. Only once in my life have I dreamed about anything that could even loosely be construed as Covenant-related (and remembered the dream afterward), and that was the night before I wrote most of "The Celebration of Spring" (Lord Foul's Bane). The next day, I simply transcribed the dream (the dream itself was composed primarily of words and sentences rather than of images). For the other 32 years of my full-time writing life, I've never knowingly dreamed about anything I have written, am writing, or will write. (03/23/2004) |
Steven Elliott: First, let me say thank you for bringing me to The Land. The first time I read the First Chronicles (with the Sweet covers), I fell in love. Then, when I started reading the Second Chronicles, I was mortified that the Land had been so ravaged as to be unrecognizable. I almost put the first book down in disgust. But, I couldn't walk away from your storytelling, much less from Covenant. Soon, I was of a single mind with Thomas... fix the Land. And it was fixed! But then it was gone. Story ended. I wept.
So, my question is this; Are we going back to a healthy Land?
|
It's difficult to answer such questions without spoiling things for other readers. But let me say two things. First, I have no interest in repeating stories I've already told. "The Second Chronicles" was fundamentally different in both design and content than the original trilogy; and "The Last Chronicles" will again be fundamentally different. Second, there wouldn't be much point to the story if the Land wasn't at least *threatened.* I can't spend four books simply touring the scenery while all my characters enjoy themselves. <grin> (03/23/2004) |
Josiah: Forgive me for asking a second questions so imminently, but I am curious about this.
Would you, yourself, like to see Thomas Covenant, or The Gap, or Mordent made into movies?
I've thought long and hard about this myself, and I realize that turning excellent and well loved fiction into film doesn't always end well, But after seeing Peter Jackson's overwhelming success with the 'Lord's of the Ring' series, I decided that, yeah, if there were enough time and effort, a movie could truly do the series justice, and bring a whole new group of fans to libraries and stores for your books. Also, hypothetically, who do you seeing playing as Thomas?
|
At its foundation, my work is based on language rather than images. In a sense, it would have to be "translated" in order to be made into movies, and that--as you observe--is notoriously difficult to do, even with fiction (such as Tolkien's) which is less internal than mine. But if I had to choose, I would pick the GAP books for film. Followed by "Mordant's Need." But the "Covenant" books are the only ones that are currently under option. Who could play Covenant? Twenty or thirty years ago, I would have picked Anthony Hopkins. Now I'm not sure. Dare we hope for Keanu Reeves? <grin> (03/23/2004) |
Josiah: First I'd like to say that I love everything you've written. My Mother suggested Covenent to me for years before I picked it up, and I've read the Gap series, Reave the Just, and Mordent since I finished Covenent. When I saw here, on your own site, conformation of a third Covenent series, I almost cried. Of all the books I've read, no place ever felt as REAL to me as The Land.
Sorry, I just needed to fit that bit of fan mail in.
My question: The new Covenent books aside, do you have any other short stories, novels, or series in planning, or (hopefully) even in production?)
|
Sorry, I pretty much have a one-track mind. I can only work on (or even imagine) one story or project at a time. Also there's the unfortunate fact that I write very slowly. So everything I've done is already listed in the "background" section of this site, and "The Last Chronicles" is all I'm working on. (03/23/2004) |
Anonymous: Dear Mr. Donaldson -
Your comments on the Stephen C. Mckinney Memorial Thread at kevinswatch.com?
|
My thanks to the several considerate people who have referred me to this thread (found on kevinswatch.com under The Collective in the index, Hall of Gifts). This is not the appropriate place for a discussion of that thread. However, I urge everyone who is interested in the importance of creativity, and in the relationship between creator and audience, to take a look. (03/24/2004) |
Michael S. Glosecki: Dear Mr. Donaldson, the covenant books are the best stories I've ever read and I go back to read them whenever I need some joy in my life. Thank you!
As for my question, the previous chronicles are made up of three books each but the last chronicles will be four books in length. How do you know that in advance? Is this a self-imposed limit?
Thanks again for your time,
-=Mike
|
I can't explain this; but I pretty much always know in advance how long a story is going to be. Often I know the length (roughly) before I know what the story actually is. For some reason, the germinating ideas for stories contain a "length attribute": I have only the vaguest idea of what or who the story will be about, but I know from the first whether it will be a short story, a novella, a novel, a two-volume novel, or whatever. To some extent, this is about "shape" (what I think of story architecture): x story is going to require three movements, structural units, while y story will require four--or possibly two, or one. And to some extent it is about an intuitive perception of content: x idea is only big enough to support the weight of, say, a novella, while y idea is so big that it will need, say, four large volumes. But really I don't know what's going on. All I know is that this is how my imagination works. (03/24/2004) |
Mark A. Morenz: First, I wanted to thank Mr. Donaldson for the always considerate and thoughtful responses to my (mostly sophomoric) emails over the years. He induldged me more than I would have.
My question: In several interviews you have described the various Chronicles as a "Systematic Theology". I wondered if you would expand on that?
For example: do you find writing a "theology" limiting or broadening your narrative possibilities? There are a lot of folks hung up on "Da Vinci Code" and "Passion..." right now as consumers examine what they define as metaphor and what they can enjoy as fanciful storytelling...
Thanks so much.
:-{)]
|
Let me try to be clear about this. As I've said before, I'm not a polemicist--or a preacher. It's confusing, I admit; but when I talk about writing "systematic theology" I do not mean that I'm trying to promulgate some specific set of organized beliefs. (Remember, that "sys. theo." comment was made looking back at what I had done: it wasn't intended as a comment on what I had set out to do.) Here's how it works. I decide to write a story for its own sake, because it moves or excites me in some way. Then, because I'm moved or excited, I try to bring all of my resources to bear on that story; to give it the best possible author. Now, it just so happens that my resources include an intensive background in fundamentalist Christianity, a fair acquaintance with French existentialism, and an instinct for conceptual thought. So what happens? My stories turn out to be full of organized theological implications. Go figure. S. P. Somtow once said (I hope I can quote this correctly without my notes), "Fantasy is the only valid tool for theological inquiry." Perhaps that's why I'm drawn to writing fantasy. Or perhaps it's the other way around: writing fantasy necessitates asking theological questions. (03/24/2004) |
Alis Mirak: Are you going to explain how Linden got Covenant's ring? I never quite caught how she ended up with it.
-Alis ;)
|
Alas, I can only tell you: wait and see. (03/25/2004) |
Ryan Thomas: I was wondering, everything I've read seems to have Linden as the main protagonist, how big of a role will Covenant play? Will he be a living, breathing character or some sort of behind the scenes entity, helping the people of the Land in their struggles with Lord Foul? Maybe stupid questions but he's one of my favorite all-time characters, I even changed my last name to his first, jk. Thanks for your time, and looking forward to the books!
|
I'm sorry, but this falls under the heading of Things I Don't Want To Give Away. "Spoilers" are called that for a reason. They satisfy some people--and really diminish the enjoyment for others. And, to be honest, I work hard at trying to generate narrative suspense. To reveal my secrets prematurely would cause me actual pain. (03/25/2004) |
Andrew: First I would like to thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. It is very kind of you.
I have read that it will be in the neighborhood of 10 years before the last book of the 3rd Chronicles is released. My question is, can you recommend some of your favorite fantasy books that your fans can read to help pass the time between the new Covenant installments?
|
Traditionally, I always recommend Patricia A. McKillip, Tim Powers, and Sean Russell. Now, however, I'm forced to add Steven Erikson to my list. Starting with "The Gardens of the Moon," his "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" is an astonishing achievement, and I drool over every book. Until now, his books have only been available in the UK; but Tor will soon start to release them here. (03/26/2004) |
Erik S: Please comment on the process you go through to write a series of books. Do you tightly plot the entire series and then go back in and fill in the verbage or do you have a good idea where the series is heading but the story evolves as you write? Also, do you write as the passion strikes you or do force yourself to write X amout of words per day or pages per day? Last question, please comment on characters you have created that have struck a note with you and why and characters that in retrospect have disappointed.
Glad to hear about the new series....
|
I'm always reluctant to answer questions like yours simply because they're so complicated. <rueful smile> First, let me say that there's only one way to be a writer, and that is to apply the seat of your pants to the seat of your chair and write. Everything else is just talk. So: 1) I don't force myself to write a certain amount every day, but I also don't wait for inspiration to strike. I write every day, and every day I give myself permission to write badly. If it *is* bad, I can always improve it when I rewrite. The important thing is to keep writing. As the music critic Newman once said of Beethoven, "Great composers do not compose because they are inspired. They become inspired because they are composing." 2) I learned long ago that it's important to avoid burnout. I write five days a week. And when it's quitting time, I quit, no matter how inspired I may be feeling. I don't write on weekends, or in the evenings, or on vacation. Rest refertilizes the brain. When I was new at this, I plotted everything. Before I had written very much of "Lord Foul's Bane," I could have told you in detail the entire story of the first "Chronicles." But after years of experience I've learned that I can trust the part of my imagination that "plots" without having to give it so much conscious attention. So now, in "The Last Chronicles," I could give you a general description of where I'm going and why, what the characters are about, how they fit together, etc., but I couldn't tell you the story: it still contains vast unspecified areas which I will discover as I tell the story. HOWEVER. One thing is absolutely essential to me: I have to know the ending (where I'm going, and why), or else I can't even start. In the case of the first trilogy, that meant the ending of "The Power that Preserves." In the present case, that means the ending of "The Last Dark." The ending is my reason for telling the story. If I don't have that reason, I can't write. One quixotic detail about how I work: I take lots and lots and LOTS of notes; I keep them in deliberately disorganized fashion; and I throw them away as soon as I've used them. In other words, when I plan ahead I force myself to review everything I have in mind; and when I need to check details for internal consistency I force myself to go over everything I've already done. This is--to put it politely--labor intensive; but it helps me keep the whole project in mind at all times. I don't really like to discuss my feelings about my characters. I've already written entire books about them. If I haven't succeeded in being clear, I can't improve the situation at this late date. But I mentioned earlier that I've always had an idiosyncratic fondness for Hashi Lebwohl. And my most disappointing character is Davies Hyland, not because he disappointed me, but because I think I disappointed him. He deserved a better author than he got. (04/13/2004) |
Don (dlbpharmd): Mr. Donaldson, as many have said above, thank you for writing my all-time favorite story, and thank you for continuing that story. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for Runes to be published!
It seems, particularly in the 1st Chronicles, that so much of what is happening to Covenant physically is mirrored in the Land. For example, when his leprosy is at its worst, the Land is suffering under Foul's winter. My question: Is there any correlation between the onset of Covenant's leprosy and the enacting of the Ritual of Desecration?
|
When I planned the first "Chronicles," the relationship between Covenant's leprosy and the Land's plight was foremost in my mind. In fact, I designed the Land as a reverse reflection of Covenant's dilemma; and as the story progressed I consciously brought those two opposing images closer together until they were virtually superimposed. However, the specific detail that you're asking about never actually crossed my mind. It's embarrassing, really, since it seems so obvious now that you raise it. But I didn't think of it for the same reason that I can't write prequels: as I suggested in an earlier answer, all of my attention is focused *forward*, on the ending. So I set up my reflections and then pursued their implications. I never asked myself about the implications of what might have happened *before* my starting point. Everything that I've ever created about "the past" in any of my stories is there because it helps me get where I'm going: it doesn't exist for its own sake. In this important sense, if in no other, the Land is less "real" than, say, Middle Earth. Its history does not exist independent of "current events." (04/13/2004) |
Earl Craine: Mr Donaldson,
Firstly I must say that your Thomas Covenant novels in particular and your writing in general have had a profound effect on me. Never before have I read characters so real and true to themselves and their beliefs, and so willing to follow those beliefs to wherever their destiny takes them. I first read the TC novels after I finished Tolkien, at the tender age of 11. TC and his trials later gave me the courage to continue through a difficult adolescence, as he didnt give up on himself and so neither would I. Your work has been an inspiration to me. Thank you!
Two questions.
Could you tell me your top ten list of your favourite fiction (any genre), with a sentence or two about each as to why each story makes the list?
Ive given many friends of mine the TC novels to read, and some of them gave me Lord Fouls Bane back after TC rapes Lena, saying that they will not read a story where the main character is a rapist. What would you say to people who want to quit reading at that point of the story?
Thanks for your time.
Earl.
|
With all due respect, I have to say that "top ten" lists are too subjective to be explained. And--at least for me--such things change constantly. So, without explanation, here's today's list in no particular order: 1) Faulkner's Snopes trilogy 2) Erikson's Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen 3) Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" 4) Scott's Raj Quartet 5) Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" 6) McKillip's "Book of Atrix Wolfe" 7) Powers' "Last Call" 8) Meredith's "The Egoist" 9) James' "The Sacred Fount" 10) Cherryh's "Downbelow Station" I'm always saddened to hear that someone has quit reading when, say, Covenant rapes Lena, or Angus brutalizes Morn. I certainly understand such a reaction. When I get the chance, I say several things. 1) I write about tormented characters because no one else could possibly *need* the story as badly as they do--and it is in the nature of tormented characters to do tormented things. 2) If you quit reading, you'll never find out *why* I wrote what I did. If you do go on, you'll discover that what I did is not gratuitious; that, in fact, the whole subsequent story is about the terrible consequences of such violence. 3) Terrible things happen in the real world all the time. God knows they happen to me. If I'm not willing to write about those things, I pretty much have to give up my claim on being a serious writer. I've been known to say other things as well, but only when I get really worked up. <grin> (04/13/2004) |
Jon-Ross Mallon: First off, I just wanted to say, that I have not read another book which compares to yours in any way... I have read both series of TCOTC many times, and they are by far my favorite books. I have been hoping ever since reading the 2nd series the first time, about 5 years ago, you would come out with another series, and I couldn't be more happy that you are.
My question is about the marrowmeld that Elena made for Convenant, could you elaborate on the symbolism of the cross between Covenant and Bannor in the marrowmeld?
|
Think of it as the sort of cryptic warning you get from an oracle. The warning to Bannor is fairly straightforward. Look at what happens to Korik, Sill, and Doar in "The Power that Preserves." The warning to Covenant is more subtle. Elena's sculpture hints at the danger for Covenant in the moral absolutism/purity of the Bloodguard. (04/14/2004) |
Joey: The Killing Stroke, Unworthy of the Angel, and Penance (while being short stories) are easily 3 of the most powerful and addicting pieces of literature I think I've ever read. I know you release a short story collection every few years (or decades, lol); Any new collection on the radar?
|
Sorry. I have two problems (well, two that are relevant to your question). First, I have a one-track mind. When a major project like "The Last Chronicles" is on that track, I don't write or even think about other stories. Second, I've never had a particularly fecund imagination. In other words, I don't get a lot of ideas. Which explains why I have to milk the ones I do get for everything they're worth. <grin> (04/14/2004) |
Ian Johnson: Hi. I'd like to know if your childhood in India has had an influence on your work - whether you drew on Indian culture in the creation of the Land. Also, are the Hindu terms used as names for Foul's Ravers deliberately in contrast to their Land and Giant names? - and is there any reason why you chose those terms and not others? ~Ian
|
Does India influence my work? Absolutely. And absolutely not. It has a profound effect because it helped shape who I am as a writer and as a person. India is a very melodramatic country, full of stark contrasts between exoticism/mystery/beauty and destitution/pain/cruelty. BUT. I *never* (by which I mean only once, in "The Man Who Fought Alone") draw consciously on personal experience when I write. I don't base characters on people I've known; I don't base settings on places I've been; and I certainly don't base situations on problems I've experienced (not in any literal sense, anyway). Yes, the Hindi (or, more properly, Sanskrit) names for the Ravers are deliberate. Moksha, turiya, and samadhi refer to various states of enlightenment. This reflects how the Ravers think of themselves. Their other names reflect how other people think of them. (04/14/2004) |
Johan: I once read an interview with you where you said that after each major undertaking (such as writing the GAP series), you were burnt out, and needed lots of time to get back in "normal" working shape. Do you have a special strategy for recovering from such exhaustions, or how do you manage to get back once again for another extremely lengthy and intense project?
I wish you all the best for your ongoing project!
|
My method for recovering from creative exhaustion has several stages. First, of course, I collapse. I simply don't have the courage to write ANYthing. But after some time (three months? six? a year?) I begin to feel capable of writing something short; something that I can actually imagine finishing. So I spend another unspecified period of time writing short fiction (hence my two collections, "Daughter of Regals" and "Reave the Just"). During that time (and I cannot explain this) I begin to feel that it would be important to write a mystery novel (hence the four "The Man Who..." books). And somehow working on a mystery novel helps me feel brave enough to tackle another big project. For close to 30 years now, this sequence has been perfectly consistent. (04/14/2004) |
Tracie (Furls Fire): "Wrestling with an Angel of the Lord." Oh, Mr. Donaldson, my gratitude and appreciation for your work has just been increased 100 fold. I have been patient for the last 20 years waiting for the rest of this amazing and heart-wrenching story. So, I can wait however long it takes for its finish. As a reader of fantasy, I've spent the better part of my years waiting for books, (yours included, back in the early 80's) sooooo, it's nothing I'm not used too. <smile>
My mind is full of plot questions for the new books, but I know you can't answer those. (Not sure I would want you too either!)But, I would like to ask you this. If you were to start all over from the beginning, would the choice of Covenant's disease still be leprosy? Or would you go with the socially devastating disease of AIDS? This question has also been kicked around a bit on the Watch. It would be great to hear your thoughts.
Thank you so much for answering my previous question! And since you don't really know what his "bane" is, I'm going to stick with my earlier claim and go with the Stone. I love this stuff! <smile>
Peace,
Tracie
|
If I were starting all over again now, would Covenant's illness still be leprosy? I'm not sure that question has a meaningful answer. If I were starting all over again now, I would be a different person (and writer) than the man who wrote the original "Chronicles." I might not write those books at all. But consider two things. 1) Where I grew up, leprosy was extremely familiar. My parents worked in a leprosarium. They hired lepers. I encountered them every day. Even today, my personal knowledge of, say, AIDS is trivial compared to my knowledge of leprosy. 2) In the context of the original "Chronicles," leprosy "works": it has an organic relationship with the characters, the themes, and the world. A different illness would demand a different story: different characters, different themes, different world. And (see (1) above) a different writer. As a side note: this appears to contradict an earlier answer in which I claimed that I don't base my writing on personal experience. That remains true even where leprosy is concerned. I was "familiar" with it; but I was a kid, and I never gave it a moment's thought. Covenant--and, by extension, the Land and the first "Chronicles"--is based, not on my experience, but on my father's. He was the one who knew and cared what it was like to be a leper. And he supplied me with all of the "facts" I needed for my story. (04/14/2004) |
Anonymous: Come on. Do you *really* base nothing on personal experience?
|
OK, I just remembered another exception. Haven Farm is explicitly based on Anchorage Farm, the place where I lived when I wrote the first "Chronicles." (I wrote the trilogy in an actual garret.) I had never written fantasy before, and I needed, well, an anchor. Incidentally, Anchorage Farm no longer exists. It was bulldozed for a housing development years ago. (04/14/2004) |
Esther Freeman: I have read that you wanted the 2nd Chronicles to be four books, but the publisher insisted on three.
To make three books out of four, did you cut large sections? If you did, I would really like to read the original version.
Or did you divide the four books into three larger ones with the ends of the books in different places? In that case, where were those endings originally?
Or was this decision made while it was still in outline form?
|
Yes, I planned "The Second Chronicles" in four books, but Lester del Rey refused to have it on that basis. With him in those days, it was a trilogy or nothing. However, his demand did not change my actual story in any way. If you look at "The Wounded Land" and "The One Tree," you'll see that each is divided into three parts. But "White Gold Wielder" is in two parts. That makes a total of eight. If I had been allowed to make the decision, I would have ended the first book after the soothtell in Revelstone, the second after the escape from the Elohim, and the third after the sinking of the Isle of the One Tree. But, as I say, my story remained the same: Lester merely insisted on a 3-3-2 trilogy instead of a 2-2-2-2 tetralogy. Things became much more peculiar when the French published the first "Chronicles" as a tetralogy (!) and "Mordant's Need" as a trilogy (!!). Until the stories were completed, none of the books ended: they just stopped. (04/14/2004) |
Tom Cummins (TOM C): Mr. Donaldson,
This is my first contact with you so I would like to thank you for the contributions you have made to my literary enjoyment. I anxiously await the release of Runes.
My question concerns fan fiction. I confess my ignorance with regard to how a published author might view the use of his or her characters and environments in this way. I contribute to a fan fiction site and I have been known to post short scenes on Kevins Watch purely for fun. I would like to know your thoughts on the subject. Is this a case of harmless fan flattery or do you feel uncomfortable with the practice?
Thank you very much for your time.
|
I'm sure every writer is different. Tolkien was notorious crochety about any "use" that other people might want to make of his work. But personally I always feel flattered when what I've written inspires creativity in someone else. When I was much younger, I wrote one entire novella based on Marvel's "Thor" comics, and another on Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." Of course, there are moral and even legal issues to consider. The legal issues typically involve money. If you, or the fanzine, or the fan site, gets paid for any use you might make of my world or characters, you have a problem. That's a copyright violation--unless you happen to have permission from the holder of the copyright. (For practical purposes, the holder of the copyright is not me: it's my publisher(s).) The moral issues involve giving credit and accepting responsibility. As long as you make it clear that what you've written is based on *my* work, but that *you* (not I) wrote it, you're covered. (04/14/2004) |
Dustin A. Frost (Syl): I know before you've stated that you are not a polemicist and you're just trying to tell a story, but when it comes to understanding the motivation of the characters or the "why's" and "what's," is it more important to take into account the logical series of events leading to an action or the ideas surrounding them.
For example, a much debated topic at Kevin's Watch is, "Was Kevin right?" Many have argued that Kevin made the wisest choice, stopping Foul from harming the Land for millenia. Others would argue that following Mhoram's example, even in the face of superior odds, a way could still be found to overcome foul without desecrating.
|
"Is it more important to take into account the logical series of events leading to an action or the ideas surrounding them?" Yes. Both. A good story is an organic whole, and the "events leading to an action" cannot be meaningfully separated from "the ideas surrounding them." I look at the issue in a very different way. As I see it, my job is to communicate who my characters are and what they're going through as clearly as possible. It is *not* my job to decide whether what my characters feel and do is "good" or "moral" or "right." That, if I may say so, is a job for the reader. (In the real world, of course, some readers care and others don't.) Now, it seems to me that any reader who cares about what he/she reads, or about living a life consistent with his/her values, needs to ask her/himself questions like, "Was Kevin right?" I certainly do. But I ask myself that as a person. As a writer, I don't. Instead, I ask myself to understand and empathize with Kevin--which isn't the same thing at all. (04/14/2004) |
Matthew Reed: While I love the Chronicles and absolutely can't wait for the new book, the Mordants Need series is actually my favorite of your works. I loved the characters and the setting and identified with Geradan more than I care to admit.
Do you think you might ever revisit Mordant? Maybe even if just in a short story?
Either way I hope you keep writing short stories, I love them and re-read Daughter of Regals and Reave the Just all the time. Thanks for entertaining me for the past 30 odd years. :)
|
Thank you! As it happens, "Mordant's Need" feels "finished" to me, so I will probably not go on from there. I certainly don't have any story ideas that would be in any sense based on "Mordant's Need". Please accept my regrets. (04/14/2004) |
J.R.: Why did the Urviles make Vain, when his purpose went directly agaisnt that of Lord Foul's who they serve?
|
The ur-viles created Vain *because* his purpose directly opposed Lord Foul's. Somewhere between the first and second "Chronicles"--we must assume--they engaged in a radical reinterpretation of their Weird. Hence the Despiser's attempts to destroy them in "White Gold Wielder." It's possible the ur-viles realized that they represent(ed) what we might call an evolutionary deadend. It's like this: in the name of their self-loathing, the ur-viles serve Lord Foul, who desires the destruction of the Earth, and who will therefore (if he succeeds) bring about the destruction of the ur-viles. As reasoning goes, that's nice and tidy. But it has a flaw or two. As a form of suicide, it's quite labor-intensive, and demonstrably unreliable. And self-destruction is not the only possible response to self-loathing. Conceivably the ur-viles were "corrupted" (in a manner of speaking) by the example of the Waynhim, creatures who clearly found a different use for their heritage of Despite. (04/14/2004) |
Arturia (Yorkshire): I think I read somewhere that the Last Chronicles involves the corruption of Time. Presumably Foul has found a means for this particular corruption (with all this corruption around, I think we need Serpico on the case) because Covenant became, to all intents and purposes, the Arch of Time; following his immolation in the Banefire, he became an amalgam of venom (I almost submitted this having typed "Vernon" - doesn't sound too scary to me!) and white gold, not dissimilar to the way in which Foul was able to corrupt the Earthpower following the destruction of the Staff of Law.
In the 2nd Chronicles, a vital support had been removed (the Staff); in the latter, the support has been weakened by the amalgam of venom and white gold.
More my musings than a question I suppose, but your thoughts would be welcomed.
By the way, the whole series to date has given me hours of joy and escapism through beautiful narrative (sometimes my thesaurus is my only defence), thought provoking dialogue and dilemmas, and deeply thought out plotlines that make sense.
|
I can't really give you my thoughts on this without "spoilers." But consider this: when Covenant surrendered his ring to Lord Foul at the end of "White Gold Wielder," Foul's subseqent attack on him burned away the venom. Hence there is nothing inherently flawed about Covenant's role as the keystone/defender of the Arch of Time. (Yes, even granting that white gold is an alloy, and in the Banefire Covenant transformed the venom into an element in the alloy of himself. The venom still represented a danger--a flaw--which is why Covenant then gave up using power altogether.) (04/14/2004) |
Beverly (caamora): Mr. Donaldson
I have been a devout fan since the first edition of Lord Foul's Bane was released and I cannot wait for the Last Chronicles. Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing them!
My question: Thomas Covenant is one of the most unique characters I have ever seen. Was he inspired by someone you knew or met? How about Linden Avery?
|
As I mentioned in an earlier answer, no characters in any of my stories are based on people I've known. (04/14/2004) |
Phil: I've just discovered your Reed Stephens books and I'm trying to read them in the "proper" order. Any comments about that series and/or advice on the best order to read them?
|
Mystery novels are supposed to stand alone, but--fortunately or not, depending on your point of view--I'm not that kind of writer. There is an underlying or sub-text story which unites the stories of the particular books; and so the order in which they are read *does* make a difference. The correct order is the order in which they were written: 1) The Man Who Killed His Brother 2) The Man Who Risked His Partner 3) The Man Who Tried to Get Away 4) The Man Who Fought Alone. Incidentally, I didn't actually get to pick the titles of the first two: they were imposed on me by a rather inattentive editor. But by the third book I figured out how to make the "formula" work for me. (04/14/2004) |
Luke (Variol son): You have often said when asked if you would write about any of the various races of the Land that you wouldn't as your work is story driven. However, you did for various reasons publish Gilden Fire, and I was wondering if there was a specific storyline/character/anything at all other than what took place in Gilden Fire that you would have liked to write, or would have liked to write in greater depth, but couldn't because it didn't drive the key story.
|
Sorry, no. As I've said elsewhere, "Gilden-Fire" was an aberration. It was a natural part of the original text of "The Illearth War." Lester del Rey convinced me to cut it out, for very good reasons. Well, there's nothing sacred about my outtakes, and I would cheerfully have left that material in my wastebasket. But Underwood/Miller, a publisher of collectors' editions, persuaded me that it would do no harm to make "Gilden-Fire" available to an extremely limited specialty audience. (My mistake.) Unfortunately, Underwood/Miller was a rather unsophisticated (albeit extremely honest) operation, and they sold the rights (which they did not own) to the Science Fiction Book Club. In fairness to Underwood/Miller, they did everything in their power to make the situation right. Nevertheless I was outraged by the idea that unsuspecting SFBC readers would pay $10+ for something that I got out of my wastebasket. So, in an effort to reduce the scale of the ripoff, I included "Gilden-Fire" in "Daughter of Regals". As you can imagine, I've been aproached many times for Covenant/Land related stories--not to mention prequels--but I have no inherent interest in doing such things. In addition, I have no ideas which might persuade me to change my mind. (04/15/2004) |
David: Will I ever be able to purchase the Covenant books on tape?
And what did you think of the film adaptation of the "Lord of the Rings."
|
As far as I know, the first six "Covenant" books don't now and won't ever exist on tape. However, there are plans afoot to release "The Runes of the Earth"--UNCUT--on CD. If that happens, and the (enormous) project makes a bit of a profit, other volumes in "The Last Chronicles" may follow. In my opinion, the film(s) of Tolkien's trilogy are about as good as they could possibly be, given the constraints of commercial movie-making, and the inherent impossibility of accurately reflecting such books in a visual medium. (04/15/2004) |
David Bowles: Upon reading the two chronicles for the umpteenth time, I was struck by the near epiphany that Covenant's paradoxical perception of the Land is identical to my own understanding of morality. Though I'm an atheist, I do not hold with those moral relativists who dismiss all morality as totally illusory: I understand and agree completely with their reasoning, but I simultaneously embrace an ethical system, as insane and indefensible as that might seem to my friends. But there, in the center of the paradox, I have found my balance, my purpose and sanity.
Do you by any chance view morality similarly? If it isn't graven in every particle of the universe or set up by some god, isn't ethical behavior, that which is good and right, essentially the Land for each of us?
|
As far as I can see, my personal views on "morality" or "the existence of God" aren't particularly germane. I did my part when I wrote the books. Thinking about them--if you choose to do so--is your job. However, I will say that in my view the underlying purpose of all literature--and perhaps of all art--is to answer the question, "What does it mean to be human?" This question can be rephrased in dozens of different ways (e.g. What is the meaning of life? or, Why are we here? or, Who is God and what does She think She's doing?), but the point remains the same. To the extent that my books justify your questions, I'm pleased and proud. And I'm very glad to have readers as sensitive and thoughtful as you obviously are. (04/15/2004) |
Nark W, Tomlinson: The Thomas Covenant series (which I first read starting in 1977) has profoundly affected me, as well as proving to be vastly entertaining. Some of the 1-paragraph-or-less philosphical statements ("Peace, my friend. Do not torment me. I have already learned that I cannot be justified.") I have quoted (with credit!) on numerous occasions.
However, to be blunt, the Gap series left me feeling disappointed, to the extent of outrage ("I bought this because it was Donaldson! And it's %^&*!"). (Sorry, but it's bothered me for years, and I've finally found a way to communicate it.)
Number one, is that just me? And, number two, will "The Runes of The Earth" bring back the "operatic", if you will, Donaldson storytelling? I realize that time has passed, language itself has changed and the impetus of the author may well be different than it was almost 30 years ago. Whatever the case, I look forward to a return to the Land and the challenges that await us there.
Regards,
Mark W. Tomlinson
|
I've answered some of your questions earlier in this interview. But where the GAP books are concerned-- You are, of course, absolutely entitled to your opinions and reactions. I would (sadly, I admit) defend to the death your right to hate any of my books. But as far as I personally am concerned, the GAP books are the supreme achievement of my writing life so far. They are, it's true, less "operatic" in their methologies. But they are considerably more complex and subtle than, say, the "Covenant" books. And I believe that they probe more deeply into the nature of good and evil. (04/15/2004) |
steve cook: having recently watched the movie version of 'lord of the rings' i noticed a lot of similarities between that and the first chronicles. am i losing it or did tolkien's work have any effect on your output. (i don't just mean that they both feature a ring).
love your work by the way and would love to see a film version of any of your books.
secondly there are also many paralells between mordants need and the chronicles. was mordants need some kind of re-write?
|
Actually, when I wrote MORDANT'S NEED I was trying to do a very different kind of fantasy than the "Chronicles": gentler and somewhat less magical, with a much greater emphasis on character and complexity. Of course, Tolkien had an enormous influence on me. As I like to say, he made the kind of work I do possible, in part by re-creating an entire genre (epic fantasy), and in part by demonstrating the existence of a market. And in fact LOTR first inspired in me the *desire* to write fantasy. When I'm asked to compare what I do to LOTR, I like to say that I'm playing in the same ballpark Tolkien did, but he's playing softball and I'm playing hardball. By which I do not mean IN ANY WAY to diminish or minimize LOTR. I'm simply pointing out a difference in the themes and intensity of my work. (04/18/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Do your characters often do things that surprise you, taking the story in an unexpected direction, or do you keep them on a pretty tight rein?
I've enjoyed all your work immensely. I found the most recent Axbrewder novel *impossible* to put down, and I'm looking forward to the first installment of the Last Chronicles.
|
I'm glad you liked "The Man Who Fought Alone"! That's good to hear. As I get older, I'm more and more often surprised by my characters--but not because they do things that surprise me, or because they take the story in unexpected directions. As I said earlier in this interview, I can't write at all unless I know exactly where I'm going, so unexpected directions (and, to a lesser extent, unexpected actions) are not an option. No, my characters surprise me--how shall I put this?--by becoming more and more helpful. I mean helpful to me. More and more, they seem to materialize in the narrative for reasons which appear to be entirely functional (e.g. I need to have SOMEone standing right *there* or else *this* spot won't be in shadow) and local (once the moment in which that shadow is necessary has passed, the character who cast the shadow no longer has a role to play). But once they have materialized, they--apparently--decide to help out with the rest of the story as well, taking on depth and significance as they go along. I can almost hear people like, for example, Castellan Lebbick saying to themselves (after their intial function in the story has been fulfilled), "Oh, dear, it looks like our god (the author) really doesn't know what he's doing. I'd better get busy and help him out, or else this story is never going to work." Of course, this is what people in literary studies would call a "conceit": a fanciful metaphor. Obviously everything that I write comes out of me. Therefore when I say that a character has surprised me I'm really saying that I've been surprised by the activities of my own mind. Nevertheless the conceit expresses a truth which the literal facts conceal: the work which my subconscious mind does on the story *feels like* it has arrived from somewhere outside or beyond my conscious mind; it *feels like* I've been handed a gift. As a result, these surprises are a humbling--as well as a gratifying--experience. (04/18/2004) |
Revan: Hi! I was wondering which bad guy you've created is your favourite? I like Holt the best. And what character you've created do you hate the most?
|
I don't hate any of my "bad guys." If I did, I would consider that a failure on my part. As the author, it's my job to understand, and to empathize with, every character I create. But "favorite" bad guys? Well, I'm quite proud of Sorus Chatelaine. And I'm rather fond of Master Eremis. (04/18/2004) |
James Killeen: Mr. Donaldson,
The thing that sticks out most in my mind about Thomas Covenant was his transformation upon entering the Land. It was a moment which was setup so beautifully. Will the new book explore the emotional wilderness of Covenant primarily, or Avery? And how much of a role will Covenant play in the new series? Hope you are well. Thank's for sharing your adventures with me. I'm glad to see you are still commited to beauty.
With newfound anticipation,
James Killeen
|
Well, with four books I'll be able to explore a variety of wildernesses. <grin> But, as you might expect, the story starts with Linden Avery. Who else *could* it start with? (04/19/2004) |
Jeff Smith: First, a quick thank you. I've enjoyed reading your work through the years immensely! And, while I have a special fondness for the Covenant books, I find that my favorite is the Mordant's Need duology.
With that said, I would like to ask two related questions: First, how did you develop the idea for translating images through mirrors, which is, indeed, changing the very nature of mirrors as both a social and physical construct? Secondly, have you ever considered going back to that world to pen another tale? I, for one, would very much enjoy hearing more about that land and its inhabitants.
|
As I said earlier, "Mordant's Need" feels *finished* to me, so I have no plans to revisit that world in the foreseeable future. Sorry about that. There is, of course, a tradition of "mirrors" in fantasy and science fiction. I'm thinking of books like "Through the Looking Glass" and (memory, don't fail me now) Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions." (Gosh, I hope I got that reference right.) But in my own thinking, the ideas for "Mordant's Need" started with Myers' "Silverlock." I was stunned by the lines, "Steeped in the vacuum of her dreams/A mirror's empty till/A man rides through it." That reminded me of Vonnegut's book, which in turn reminded me of "Through the Looking Glass." Then all I had to do was follow the suggestions those other writers had left for me. (04/19/2004) |
Mark Jeffrey: Mr. D.,
First, thanks for the supreme reading experience of my life -- 20 years later, Covenent reigns unchallenged as my favorite of favorites, and I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of Runes. :)
There seems to be a lot of themes of 'shared identity' throughout the series -- "You are the white gold"; Foul is Covenant's dark side, the side that despises himself. Foul is also the "brother" of the Creator. So, in a sense, they are all really One. This seems to be a rather gnostic or buddhist viewpoint (though i hate to label it like that) and the idea of these identities being separate is actually an illusion of the material world. Would say this is right, or rather your intent? And were these philosophical traditions the ones you drew on in constructing your mythos?
|
If anything, the tradition I was drawing on was Christian (because of my background in fundamentalist Christianity, not because I am in any useful sense a believer): the Trinity, God in Three Persons. Except I obviously wasn't thinking of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. More like Creator, Destroyer, and Holy Ghost (wild magic). Or Creator, Destroyer, and--what shall we call Covenant as the protagonist of the drama?--Acolyte. But you're quite right about the "shared identity" theme. I was explicitly thinking of the Creator, the Despiser, and wild magic as aspects of Covenant himself. And the part of himself which he denies--wild magic, his own personal power to assign meaning to his life and experiences--is the part which must mediate his internal conflicts (the struggle between the creative and destructive sides of his nature). Hence the thematic development from the first to the second "Chronicles." In the first, Covenant opposes his--dare I say it?--Dark Side and wins (an expensive--and temporary--victory). In the second, he surrenders to his Dark Side, and thereby gains the power to contain it (another expensive--and temporary--victory). "The Last Chronicles" will explore this theme further as Covenant's quest to become whole continues. (Linden Avery is also on a quest to become whole, but hers takes an entirely different form.) My general view of the kind of fantasy I write is that it's a specialized form of psychodrama. Putting the issue as simply as I can: the story is a human mind turned inside out, and all of the internal forces which drive that mind are dramatized *as if* they were external characters, places, and events. This is easier to see in the first "Chronicles" because the story is simpler: the Land and everyone in it is an external manifestation of Covenant's internal journey/struggle. Everything is more complex in "The Second Chronicles" because there are *two* minds being turned inside out. Which means that there are actually three stories at work: Covenant's, Linden's, and the interaction between the two. <sigh> And if I wanted to say more than *that* on the subject, I would write dissertations instead of novels. (04/27/2004) |
dlbpharmd: Do you plan to tour to promote Runes?
|
Sadly, I *will* be touring in both the US and the UK to promote "Runes." (I say "sadly" because for me tours are arduous, lonely, and--in the long run--soul-destroying experiences.) But it's *way* too early to tell exactly where I'll be touring. Those decisions (in which I have no say at all) probably won't be finalized until a month before publication--which is currently scheduled for mid-October in the US and early November for the UK. (I say "currently" because they keep changing their minds.) (04/27/2004) |
David. G.: What happens to bereks white gold ring? surely he would have passed it to his son damelon giantfriend and he would've passed it to his son so that all of the olds lords would have inherited it, but there is no mention of what happens to his ring, will there be an answer to this in the third chronicles?
|
Excuse me: does Berek *have* a white gold ring? If he does, it's news to me. Perhaps you would care to cite chapter and verse so that I can check the reference for myself. (04/27/2004) |
Sean Casey: Stephen
Thanks for being a brilliant writer!
In the last year or so I've read your four detective novels (and enjoyed them immensely). I was quite amused by the fact that about 15 years passed between the writing of the last two, but only a few weeks had gone by in the story. This meant that while previously Mick and Ginny were ringing their answering service every ten minutes, they could now use cell phones. How did you feel about writing this? Why did you decide against having the last book set in the mid-eighties?
|
Clearly, there are anachronisms in the four Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels which will be obvious to any attentive reader. In fact, the four novels together appear to take place in less than a year of "internal" time; and yet they reflect a world going through twenty years of changes. This, of course, makes no sense--a fact of which I'm well (not to mention painfully) aware. But the simple truth is that I wrote them the way I did because I had no choice. Nothing external caused this: it reflects constraints within me, constraints which involve my reasons for writing the books. This is difficult to explain. I don't fully understand it myself. But it's clear that the impulses which drive me to write mystery novels are fundamentally different than those which produce my other stories. And I do *not* mean that mystery novels themselves are fundamentally different than my other stories--although of course they are. No, I mean that mystery novels meet a unique need in me. On the one hand, they are more--you should forgive the term--autobiographical than my other stories; more private. (Private eye, get it? <groan>) And on the other, they serve a unique personal function: they consolidate what I've already done in my other stories, thus enabling me to write more of those other stories. Therefore I need them to be an expression of where I am at the time I write them--which, unfortunately, means that a number of years must pass in *my* time even though mere days or weeks have passed in the mystery novel's time. Not a very clear explanation, I realize, but it's the best I can do. (04/28/2004) |
Peter B.: First of all, let me thank you for all of your creativity and imagination through the years. Your stories and characters, especially those in the Chronicles, continue to touch me.
What are your thoughts concerning Joseph Campbell's The Hero's Journey and stages as it relates to the writing process? Author Neil Gaiman once said that he stopped reading Campbell's explanation of the steps because he didn't want to consciously be limited by them.
|
I don't actually have any thoughts on Campbell because I've never read him. I did, however, read an article in which he was quoted as saying something to the effect that there are no heroes in literature after World War I, and that if we want to understand "The Hero's Journey" in modern times we have to watch movies. I have nothing against movies, of course; but Campbell's assertion (always assuming that I understood it) was such rampant bullshit that the man lost all credibility with me. (04/28/2004) |
Daniel Fishback: Have you ever thought of making a movie/movie series about any of your books? Although, a Thomas Covenant movie would be compared to Lord of the Rings in too many places so my personal oppinion is to make a movie of the Gap series.
|
Making movies isn't up to me. I don't happen to have $100 million just sitting around. But if I *did* have the money, and could choose which of my books to film, I wouldn't choose "Covenant." Too complex; too interior; too operatic. Personally, I think "The Mirror of Her Dreams" and "A Man Rides Through" would make good movies. The GAP books also have possibilities; but my second choice would be to expand a novella like "Penance," "The Killing Stroke," or "Daughter of Regals." (04/28/2004) |
Drogo: G'day Mr Donaldson. Thank you sharing you worlds with us. Can you describe your writing day/week to us?
|
Well, I'm a very emotional, intuitive, and (secretly) dramatic guy; so in an effort to keep my balance I treat writing like "a job." I get up at 6am, get into my office by 8, take an hour for lunch, and quit at 5pm. I don't work weekends or evenings. I take vacations. Of course, the amount of actual writing that I get done while I'm in my office varies a lot. This is due in part to unreliable levels of mental acuity, and in part to interruptions both practical (e.g. my car breaks down) and personal (e.g. someone I love needs me). But I stick to it as if it were what people persist in calling a "real" job. Incidentally, reading is a crucial part of writing. I think it's fair to say that people who aren't dedicated readers don't amount to much as writers. I call the process "filling my head with words," but what I mean is that other people's creations spark my own creativity. (04/28/2004) |
Darth Revan: I was wondering... because I've had several discussions on this topic with my fellow members on Kevinswatch, Who is the "Dark and Hungry God" that you call book three of the Gap series? I think it's Holt. But others think Joshua.
If it is Holt. Then why is it called "Dark and Hungry God Arises?" Because he doesn't actually Arises... He has already arisen. He doesn't actually arise to anything.
Thanks for listening. - Darth
|
It's a bit embarrassing to admit this, but sometimes titles are more intuitive than literal. Ferinstance, what *exactly* is the "forbidden knowledge" in "Forbidden Knowledge"? Have fun with that one. But working backward in the GAP books, "This Day All Gods Die" clearly refers to--gasp!--both Holt Fasner and Warden Dios. Joshua isn't really a candidate, except in the sense that "transformation" (and Angus *is* transformed) is a form of death. So the "Dark and Hungry God" must be either Holt or Warden. Both of whom have literally already "arisen" before the story begins, but who "arise" to prominence *within* the story in book three. And of those two, Holt is plainly darker and hungrier than Warden. Strangely, there is a bookstore where I live that uses title abbreviations on their price-stickers; and the abbreviation this store used for book three was "Dark and Hung." (04/28/2004) |
Thomas Ferencz: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
throughout the Chronicles Lord Foul behaves like a "local villain"; he seems to concentrate on the Land, and seemingly people outside the Land do not know much about him, although he has a status of the Creator's brother, a god himself if you like. Was this concious planning on your side all the time, or maybe the Erath just expanded as your story evolved and you did not want to make Foul more "universal"?
Another question:
The two cosmogonic myths in the story, the Creator forming the Earth and the Arch, making the Rainbow and sealing it, and the myth of the Worm of the World's End seem to contradict - at least to me (the Worm isn't even a myth as we meet it "personally" in The One Tree). How would you reconcile these two facets of the same mythos to us?
Thanks in advance for your answers,
Amanibhavam
|
Ah, complicated questions. As if writing books weren't complicated enough. <grin> Here's how I look at it: the Land is the main "arena" for a struggle which obviously has implications for the entire Earth. Clearly there are important side-struggles taking place elsewhere (I'm thinking of the peril Kastenessen was Appointed to stop). But clearly, also, unique beings like the Elohim are aware of the Land and Lord Foul. And the first six books hint in various ways that Earthpower (while arguably universal) flows closer to the surface, or is more accessible, in the Land than elsewhere. Hence the Land has become the main battleground. Personally, I don't see any inherent conflict between the two main cosmologies presented in the "Chronicles." After all, life necessitates death. Anything that lives carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. (And our own bodies demonstrate just how *many* seeds there can be.) The alternative is stasis. Indeed, anything that doesn't both grow and die (usually in that order) can't really be described as being alive. So if the Creator wanted to make a living world, he pretty much had to supply the means for the eventual ending of that world. Hence, to my way of thinking, the tangible existence of the Worm of the World's End doesn't conflict at all with the general cosmology put forth by the Lords. (04/29/2004) |
Tim Barham: I've always wondered how much thought was put in to the names of the characters in the Gap books. It seems to me that each one was very deliberately thought out and chosen for specific reasons. The implications of a name like Warden Dios or Holt Fasner are far to obvious to ignore. I was wondering what went in to choosing those names, and if you could indulge us with the background of some of them?
|
Very broadly speaking, I do names "by ear." I'm sensitive to the feeling and color (the "music," if you will) of sounds, and I want names that sound apt for the people, places, and things they represent. Then, assuming I can satisfy my ear, I look for names that have relevant meaning ("Sunder" in the second "Chronicles" is a good example), or that convey appropriate--if sometimes very private--suggestions ("Holt Fasner" in the GAP books: very few people will realize that the dragon who sequesters the ring of power in Wagner's "Ring" cycle is named "Fafner," but that detail was explicit to me when I chose the name for *my* Dragon). But the GAP books are a unique case. There, for the only time in my writing life, the inspiration for the books started with names. One day the name "Angus Thermopyle" arrived in my head. For no apparent reason. But I chanted that name to myself like a mantra for six months or so, and then it was joined by another name: "Morn Hyland." So I chanted those two names until they were joined by a third: "Nick Succorso." The perfect story triangle: victim, victimizer, and rescuer. And the perfect opportunity to study how victim, victimizer, and rescuer can all change roles in the course of a story. That was the seed from which the whole GAP sequence eventually grew. And throughout the life of the GAP books as I considered and wrote them, names played crucial roles as sources of inspiration and insight. Angus (bullheaded) Thermopyle (famous battle where a few warriors struggled against insurmountable odds). Morn (morning) Hyland (the Highlands of Scotland). Warden Dios (the caretaking, defending, imprisoning god). Godsen Frik (Hagen in my favorite recording of "The Twilight of the Gods" is sung by Gottlob Frik, and Godsen Frik is the "dark and hungry god" Holt Fasner's moral son). Lane Harbinger. Koina Hannish. Hashi Lebwohl. Sorus Chatelaine. Min Donner. Marc Vestabule. Vector Shaheed. The names positively *sing* to me, telling me who these people are, where they come from, what they care about. In other words, I put a GREAT DEAL of thought into the names. But sometimes the "thought" was purely intuitive or musical rather than rational or explicit (Nick Succorso, for example, or Koina Hannish). (04/29/2004) |
Paul Mitchell: Would you ever consider giving permission for other authors to use The Land as the context for developing their own additional, parallel or historical stories relating to the characters and races that you have introduced. I know that this has been done with Jack Vance's Dying Earth and probably many others, but perhaps it works for those settings simply because there is no strong temporal element linking event A to event B and so on. Not sure if I think giving permission would be a good idea, but has the thought crossed your mind (and has anyone ever asked - particularly in the hiatus between the second and third series?)
Thanks for all your books over the years!
|
That would depend on what the hypothetical you wanted permission *for*. Permission to write stories for your own pleasure and the entertainment of your friends? Sure, go ahead. Permission to publish stories set in my world, conceivably using or at least referring to my characters and my situations? Absolutely not. If you (still using the hypothetical you) want to make money or build a reputation, you should do your own work, not borrow mine. (04/29/2004) |
Derrik S: I am wondering will the last chronicles be more like the first chronicles or the second chronicles?
(to make it more clear: at the end of each of the first chronicles, covenant goes back to his Earth. or is it like the second chronicles where the character stays in the land all throughout the trilogy.)
|
"The Last Chronicles" will be like the second, "through-written": one continuous story from beginning to end, with no interrupting returns to the "real" world. (04/29/2004) |
David Williams: Hey Mr. Donaldson, I was wondering . . . What kind of music do you like? A Beatles man, perhaps? Heh heh. Take care!
|
I'm 95% classical music. And of that 95%, 80% is either piano music or opera. Still, even tastes as stodgy as mine do evolve. 20 years ago it was Beethoven and Chopin, Verdi and Wagner. Now it's Liszt and Dussek, Donizetti and Bellini. (05/03/2004) |
Lord Fool: Mr. Donaldson,
It is mentioned earlier in this interwiev that you wanted "The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" to be published in four volumes; however, your publisher insisted on trilogy.
My question is: what would you have named the books? And, since you have already told us that Lester Del Ray made up the name of "Lord Foul's Bane", ignoring your opinion: are the names of the two last books of "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever" made by yourself, and if not, what would their names have been?
|
You know, my original four titles for "The Second Chronicles" must be buried away in my files SOMEwhere, but for the life of me I can't remember them now. Other than that: "Lord Foul's Bane" was pretty much Lester del Rey's title; he and I brainstormed "The Wounded Land" together (I wanted to call that book "Sunbane"); and the other four Covenant titles are entirely mine. As are all of my other titles, short fiction as well as books--with the exception of the first (and sort of the second) of my mystery novels. "The Man Who Killed His Brother" was *not* my title (mine was "City of Day/City of Night"), and "The Man Who Risked His Partner" was an uneasy compromise. (05/03/2004) |
Paul Mitchell: Have your opinions on environmental and social issues (I'm guessing you have one or two like the rest of us!) influenced your approach to any of the six TC books so far released (or the latest)? I am an environmental consultant, so I have a tendency to project these issues onto everything including the kitchen sink, but it does seem to me that The Wounded Land has some parallels with the issues that modern and developing societies are now facing.
Thanks!
|
As I said earlier, I'm not a polemicist. In fact, I don't *believe* in being a polemicist. In my view, my imagination does not exist to serve me (or my opinions). Rather I exist to serve my imagination. That said, I do try to put everything I have to work in the service of whatever my imagination has given me to do. And one of the things I happen to have is a visceral sensitivity to environmental issues. (I cannot begin to tell you how galled I feel by the knowledge that there is no place in this country so remote that a beer can hasn't already been there.) So it's not surprising that such themes crop up in my work from time to time. For example, I don't think it would be a stretch to view the Sunbane as analogous to toxic dumping. (05/04/2004) |
James: Mr Donaldson,
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions, I appreciate the window into the thoughts behind the books.
From some of the comments on the web page about how you were intimidated by the Last Chronicles, I get the impression that the series is one you may grow into, or that you are writing even though you don't feel totally ready for it.
That raises the possibility that the story will surpass you -- if that happens, will you just finish the 'imperfect' version, having done the best you can? Will you sit on it for a while (Stretching out those already long 10 years!!) until you do feel ready? Or...?
I hope the question doesn't offend, I expect to thoroughly enjoy the Last Chronicles as they come out, but they sound like a formidable task.
|
The difficulties of the project--and my sense of unreadiness for it--will undoubtedly affect my "speed" as I write "The Last Chronicles." But I won't stop and sit on it at any point (except the in the sense of taking occasional--and relatively brief--vacations). Once I commit myself to a story, I stick to it (with one exception) until it's done. Everything that I've ever written is "imperfect." It has to be: I'm human. My standard is not, Is this perfect? but, Is this the best I can do today? And I revise a LOT, so that each sentence has been measured by a number of todays. After that, I accept the results and move on. The exception was "The Real Story." That novella spent several years in a drawer after I wrote it, not because it was "imperfect" (although it was, desperately) but because it positively screamed at me that it was "unfinished". In other words, my imagination rather than my critical judgment was profoundly dissatisfied with the results. So you can see why I don't normally put things in drawers. Novellas turn into pentalogies (sp?), and then I'm in real trouble. <grin> (05/04/2004) |
Rob: A pet theory for you to gun down: Covenant begins the first chronicles by raping Lena. The second chronicles start with the rape of the Land and the Gap series starts with Angus Thermopyle..well - you know what he's like. In each case we then spend the rest of the story arc on a quest for redemption, either for the character or (in the case of the 2nd Chronicles) yourself. (I know several people who still haven't forgiven you for dreaming up the Sunbane and inflicting it on the Land!).
Given that, based on indications you've given elsewhere on this site, The Runes of The Earth is likely to be followed by nothing at all for at least 2 years can you at least offer a glimmer of hope that I won't be left suicidal by the end of it? If not I may have to wait until I can get the first two books together....
|
Well, "rape" is obviously a theme of mine. It's an apt metaphor for evil. Given enough time (and the inclination, which I lack), I could argue that virtually any act that might plausibly be called evil can be described as a form of rape. But will you be left feeling suicidal at the end of "The Runes of the Earth"? I certainly hope not. It's not that kind of book. And in any case I don't actually want my readers to start killing themselves until after book three. <grin> But seriously: "The Last Chronicles" is structured differently than either of the preceding "Covenant" trilogies. Unlike the first "Chronicles," the story doesn't jump in and out of the Land. However, the pacing of the various crises is unlike the second "Chronicles". (05/06/2004) |
Luke (Variol son): Thank you for your answer to my previous question. I must admit that the first chronicles was the first fantasy work I ever read that didn't leave me wanting to know more. When I finished reading it, it felt finished. Then I read Gildenfire and that destroyed my comfortable completeness. For some reason I now feel as strongly about the fidelity of the Bloodguard, the bravery of the Lords, and the survival of the Giants, as you appear to, and hence I have a nagging desire in the back of mind to know more about the mission to Seareach.
But enough rambling. I have always wondered about Elena's strange "other sight", and the way it was powerful when it came into focus with her normal sight. I always felt that this had to do with her participation in the Horserite of Kelenbhrabanal. Any comments on this?
|
I don't like to tell other people how to interpret my books. You read them: you have the right to think about them any way that suits you. But I will tell you that there's a bit more information about Elena and the horserite in "Runes". Perhaps that will shed some light on your question. (05/06/2004) |
Michael Rowlands: Mr. Donaldson,
I read alot of sci-fi. One thing in particular that I enjoy are the alien species in them. Beyond the characters and the story of the Gap sequence, I found the Amnion to be absolutely fascinating; one of the most imaginative alien species that I have ever read. I have a number of questions regarding them:
1. What was your inspiration (beyond the dwarves in Der Ring des Nibelungen) in creating the Amnion?
2. Was Holt Fasner's long-term goal possibly the most effective way to survive against the Amnion?
3. Is it possible that the Amnion would eventually win against humanity due to that they pass on their knowledge so effectively?
Kind regards,
Michael
|
Ah, questions about the GAP books. What a relief. <grin> 1. Shapeshifters are common in science fiction and fantasy--although more so in fantasy. (Shucks, even good ol' Dracula was a shapeshifter.) But I've often felt that they were nowhere near as scarey--or as impressive--as they ought to be. Like the awareness of gravity, the perception of form is so deeply embedded in the human psyche that it's almost entirely unconscious. Surely, I thought, the violation (the--forgive me!--rape) of such fundamental knowledge ought to carry a tremendous emotional force. Yet in fiction it virtually never does. Most of us have an "oh, yeah, another shapeshifter" reaction. So I tried to do something about that. One of my many goals in the GAP books was to communicate, if I could, the real terror of losing form. 2. Undoubtedly Holt's long-term goal was/is the most effective possible solution to the Amnion problem--for him. But consider the implications for humankind of the sort of effective "immortality" Holt envisions. (And never mind the mere detail that we would cease to be who we are.) Egalitarian imortality might well produce a population explosion adequate to exterminate the species. And totalitarian immortality (which is surely what Holt desires) would produce tyrannies of truly staggering brutality. Face it: life *needs* death. The sooner we trick our way out of that fact, the sooner we can kiss our sorry asses goodbye. 3. Good question. I don't have a good answer. Deep knowledge and unwavering communal purpose vs imagination and mass production (of humans as well as of equipment). I predict a *very* long stalemate. (05/06/2004) |
Sean Casey: Your current series is the *Last* Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and you've said that after that you plan to write another The Man Who... book - also the last in that series. Is it a coincidence that these are coming one after the other or is this a symptom of old age angst?
Also, how 'draft' is the draft version of the book cover? Do you like it? It looks very textured and much starker than any of your other books - which I think is interesting. It looks like something aimed at a more literary market.
Thanks and good luck with the new book.
|
Old age angst, probably. I've already outlived all of my known male ancestors by a considerable margin--and most of my known female ancestors as well (the ones who lived longer than I have fell into senile dementia at about my age). I'm very aware that time is running out; and I truly hate the idea of leaving stories unfinished. The "draft" cover posted here (from my UK publisher) won't change much when it reaches its final form. (I've begged them to eliminate that reference to "fantasy events." Maybe they will.) It is intentionally a genre-bending design. I like that; and I like the design itself. But the picture posted here doesn't really convey the intended cover. For one thing, Orion hopes to print the cover on canvas instead of paper (or cardboard)--which will be nothing if not distinctive in a tactile sense. The down side is that Orion's proposed cover doesn't "throw" well: it isn't eye-catching from across the room. But most people don't buy books from across the room anyway. (05/06/2004) |
Revan: Hi! Thanks for answering my previous questions. :)
I was wondering how much power do you have over the titles and editing of your stories? If the publisher wants to change them, do you have to go along with them?
|
I tried to answer this question once before (well, I might add). But somehow my response was deleted. <sigh> I'll try again. Here's how it works: the author has total authority over the content of the book, and editors (like Lester del Rey) who make changes which the author has not approved are in violation of contract; BUT the publisher has total authority over whether or not the book gets published. The existence of a contract guarantees nothing: the contract clearly states, "the author shall submit a manuscript suitable to the publisher." If the author submits an unsuitable manuscript (i.e. one that ignores the editor's requested changes), the publisher is free to cancel the contract. Fortunately, this seldom happens with fiction. Titles are another matter. Since they cannot be copyrighted, they don't "belong" to the author in the same way that the text itself does. It used to be said that "It's a rare author who can call his title his own." In my limited experience, however, most authors have it their way most of the time. "Lord Foul's Bane" and "The Man Who Killed His Brother" are my only titles which were unilaterally imposed by my editor(s). And "The Wounded Land," "The Man Who Risked His Partner," and "Strange Dreams" all went through extended negotiations. All of my other titles are mine. The exception to all of the above is what's called "work for hire." In those cases, the author agrees in advance to produce a work (usually novel or article) according to specifications provided by the publisher. The author receives a flat fee (no royalties or other income), and the publisher owns the work outright. (You can usually identify a "work for hire" by looking at the copyright information. If the copyright is in the name of a corporation instead of a person, that's a "work for hire"--unless the author has incorporated him/herself, which is possible, but which isn't common.) In those cases, the publisher can change anything at all: the author has no say in the matter. I hope it goes without saying that I *never* do "work for hire". (05/06/2004) |
Nick G: A quick thankyou for completing the Covenant saga. I've read a lot (read: too much) of fantasy and sci-fi, but whenever asked I point to you as my favourite author in both genres.
Will you be releasing limited edition signed prints (as you did for the gap series)?
|
There are plans afoot, but I don't know if anything will come of them. Keep in mind that I have no say in any of this. Such decisions belong entirely to the publisher. As it happens, Putnams has been approached by a publisher of signed limited editions (Hill House), and they may very well release such editions for some or all of "The Last Chronicles"--and, in fact, for some or all of the previous "Covenant" books as well. Or they may not. Hill House produces beautiful books, but the company is too new to have established much of a track record, so it hasn't yet built a reputation for follow-through. Only time will tell whether signed limited editions actually become available. And many such projects die for lack of sales. That's why Bantam/Spectra only released the first two GAP books in special editions. (05/06/2004) |
steve cook: thanks for taking the time to reply to my first question (which came on my birthday!), i've since read that the question i put bothers you somewhat... god knows you must have fielded it countless times. so i've read pretty much everything on your web-site... and here's hoping i can avoid a repeat...
please tell me are we going to have to wait any longer for a release of "runes...." here in England? I fervently hope not.
p.s. have you ever heard the eponymous album by Mark Hollis (once of a british band Talk Talk) it's the sort of music i can imagine Covenant rambling around haven farm listening to.
|
Last I heard, Orion plans to release "The Runes of the Earth" in the UK early in November. That will be approximately 2-3 weeks after the US release. Sorry, I've never heard of Mark Hollis. btw, I didn't mean to embarrass you when I suggested that your earlier question bothered me. Some questions just make me squirm more than others. I intended my comment as a personal revelation, not as a criticism. (05/06/2004) |
Peter Purcell: First, thank you for the Covenant series. I have read them many times - they are like old friends. I look forward to "The Runes of The Earth". [any possibility of posting an early excerpt on your web site?!]
Now to the questions. If Foul and Thomas Covenant are opposites where does the "Creator" fit in? Speaking of the "Creator", would you reconcile the "Worm of the World's End" creation ledgend with the "Creator" creation legend from the Land.
Lastly, tell me the giants will be back! Covenant's JOY at seeing them for the first time in the second series matched my joy at welcoming them back. I would miss them in the Third. [and perhaps the Ranyhyn as well!]
|
I'll have to consult with my publishers about posting an excerpt (or excerpts) from "Runes" on this site. They now own the right to publish the book, and anything which a) might be considered an enfringement on their right, or b) might conceivably be construed as marketting, requires their permission and approval. In other words, I can't promise anything. And I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea myself. I don't want to give anything away. Which is why I'm not willing to answer your question about the Giants. I work hard to build my stories (and their effects) in a certain way, and revealing anything ahead of time may undermine the actual experience of reading the book. I feel I've already given out too many hints as it is. I don't see Covenant and Lord Foul as "opposites" at all. Covenant is more like the battleground where Lord Foul and the Creator carry out their struggle. As for reconciling the Lords' view of the Creator with the Worm of the World's End, I gave that my best shot in answer to an earlier question. (05/06/2004) |
Mike White: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Several times in various interviews you have expounded upon the ability of the characters you create to surprise you - to grow in their capabilities and / or their character. My question - how do you define to what extremity you allow them to "grow" - do you have a defined sense of their capabilities, or do you allow them to move outside of your initial view of them?
|
Oh, I definitely allow them to move outside of my initial view of them. Saltheart Foamfollower's *role* in the story never changed, but his *effect* on the story increased exponentially as I "discovered" him. But that was long ago (the first "Chronicles"). These days my characters are free to take on new roles as well as new effects whenever they convince me that the change is appropriate. (05/06/2004) |
Mark Shaw: In a purely physical sense how do you write your books, has the method changed over the years say from typewriter to word processor?? Has technology had an impact on the way you write?
I'm talking about being able to cut and paste whole chunks of text around or destroy it with the delete key, have the computer thesauras suggest alternative words, things like that??
|
Oh, I never use a thesaurus, computer-based or otherwise. But modern word processing technology has dramatically changed my writing life for the better. And I like to think that it has improved my writing as well. Here's what I mean. When I wrote the original "Chronicles," I used a typewriter; and when I was done--including all revisions--I discovered that I had typed 27 REAMS of paper. That's a LOT of typing. And I'm not a good typist, never have been: even at 40 words a minute, I make a lot of mistakes. But now, of course, I only have to type the story once. After that, I only have to type the changes. This saves me many hundreds of hours a year. Not to mention sparing me the sheer tedium of all that retyping. In consequence, I now do a great deal more revising. On a day by day basis, I can afford the time. And it's so-o-o-o much easier. Sadly, using a word processor does *not* save paper. I've learned (the hard way) not to trust hard drives; so I print out hard copies frequently. But I feel guilty about that (wasting trees, you know), so I always print my own copies (as opposed to the ones I send to publishers) on the backs of other people's manuscripts. These have been sent to me by publishers seeking blurbs, and the publishers certainly don't want them back, so I "recycle" them. Incidentally, I should probably mention that I compose at the keyboard. Always have. If I had to write a novel--or even a short story--longhand, I'd look for some other line of work. (05/06/2004) |
Aaron Kraemer: HI my name is Aaron Kraemer and I am doing a class project on American authors. I chose you and one of the things I'm to do for the project is try to contact you and get a response. I have been all over the internet looking for a way to contact you and I finally found you. I also had trouble finding anything on your childhood experiences, so would you send me any information that you feel cofortable with regarding your childhood. I thank you for your time. I need a reply by 5/10/2004.
|
I'm sorry you had trouble contacting me. But you had reached me easily, it probably wouldn't have helped you. I'm a lousy correspondent. No doubt that's because I was forced to write letters home once or twice a week while I was in boarding school. Left deep psychic scars. <grin> Anyway, all the information I'm comfortable with giving out is on this website. I hope you got what you needed in time. (05/10/2004) |
Steve Anderson: Mr Donaldson,
I have been a huge admirer of all your works for many years, thanks.
I have often wondered to what extent ancient myths have influenced your work, it seems to me you have distilled certain elements of these from a variety of sources. I give some examples from Chronicles below, please say which of these have at least been a trigger in your work, or not at all.
The One Tree - Yggdrasill from Norse myth
Giants and Men - Norse myth
Lorik's Krill emerging from Glimmermere - Excalibur and the Lady of the Lake.
Covenant's ring - Wagner/ Tolkien
Covenant's death - the sacrifice of Christ
Vain/ Findail - Hermes/Aphrodite
The Sunbane - Biblical pestilence and plagues
Worm of the World's End - Numerous cosmologies
Elohim - the Gods in Homeric legends
many thanks
Steve
|
In a world where so much is written and--to an extent--known, it's difficult to be literate and *not* be influenced by sources in mythology. Of the details you list, only two were not suggested to me by the sources you mention. 1) I didn't have anything like "Hermes/Aphrodite" in mind when I envisioned Vain and Findail. 2) My source for the word "Elohim" was the Bible. Like Yahweh and Adonai, Elohim is one of the Bible's indirect references to God. (05/10/2004) |
Dustin A. Frost (Syl): Something I should have done the first time I submitted a question - Thank you, Mr. Donaldson. Covenant, Foamfollwer, and Mhoram gave me some insight in times that I really needed some.
"However, I will say that in my view the underlying purpose of all literature--and perhaps of all art--is to answer the question, 'What does it mean to be human?'"
With this statement foremost in mind, I'd like to ask a few questions concerning the Forestal:
First, what is the difference to you between similarly natured beings like Tolkien's Ents or McKillip's Queen of the Woods?
Second, other than being descended from the Elohim's power, what is the significance of the Forestals' power being expressed through music?
Last, is there any chance of seeing another Forestal in the Last Chronicles?
|
Well, I haven't encountered McKillip's Queen of the Woods, so I can't comment on that. But the Ents are clearly natural beings (natural to Middle Earth, anyway) who have essentially the same relationship with trees that shepherds do with sheep. The Forestals, on the other hand, are not natural in the same sense. They were created by the sentience of the forests, using the natural Earthpower of the trees and the knowledge of the Elohim. To that extent, at least, the Forestals are more truly the servants of the trees than the Ents are. The shepherd is the "mind" which tends the sheep, whereas in the Land the forests are the "mind" which articulates itself--and acts--through the Forestals. Is that clear? As to the significance of the fact that the Forestals express power through music: well, how else could they do it? Through flame and blade, as humans (in the Land) do? Unlikely--not to mention potentially self-destructive. Through physical action (as the Ents mobilize the trees)? Again, unlikely. The trees are the mind, and the mind--any mind--only acts through instruments (hands, legs, and all extensions thereof). Remember, this isn't an sf world. Concepts like ESP and telekenesis aren't options. In the Land, one being can only control or influence another through possession. So what's left? Of course, this doesn't answer your question about "significance." But I don't ordinarily think in terms of "significance." I think about trying to tell the truth. I don't know of any other way to address the question, "What does it mean to be human?" And the truth here, as I see it, is that music is the most natural and appropriate way for the forests of the Land to express themselves. As for seeing another Forestal in "The Last Chronicles": how is that actually possible? (No, don't tell me. I already know the answer.) (05/13/2004) |
Revan: Did Thomas tell a Prophecy about the Second Chronicles?
I'm going to quote something I asked in a topic at Kevinswatch
"I was thinking that the lady with the beautiful smile that Thomas described, when talking about his time in the leper house has a connection with what happens in the second chronicles. The woman aways has a beautiful smile, even before she starts falling apart, and then, all of her gets destroyed, but the most beautiful part of her remains. (I have got a point to this) Elena or Mhoram preceed to say the Thomas is a prophet. And another lord goes on to ask if he speaks the future of the land. Mhoram and Elena say no, but passionately.
In the second chronicles the whole of the land is destroyed; but the most beautiful part of the land is still intact, Andelain. So Andelain could symbolize the womans smile, because they both remain intact, despite what is being done to the rest of the Land/face.
Am I the only one who has thought about this, or am I speaking a load of rubbish? What do you think?"
Did you do this Intentionally?
|
By defintion, anything that you find in any book--or any work of art--which sheds light on that work in your eyes is valid. So it isn't actually possible that you're "speaking a load of rubbish." The practical fact, however, is that I did not imagine ever writing a second "Chronicles" while I was at work on the first. I didn't see that far ahead. (In contrast, I had "The Last Chronicles" quite clearly in mind when I wrote the second trilogy.) In that sense, I didn't intentionally try to make Covenant look like a prophet. But in another sense, of course, I did. Since the first trilogy already existed, I mined it for all it was worth when I wrote the second. So (to pick a more simple and concrete example) Sandgorgons exist in the second "Chronicles" because I mentioned them in the first; but when I mentioned them in the first, I didn't foresee their eventual importance. (05/13/2004) |
ghosa: Firstly I'd like to say how grateful I am to hear that your continuing work on the thomas covent chronicles.
Secodly I'd like to ask you some questions concerning ravers.
1. I dont know If im right about this but, Is it correct to assume that within the three raver brothers there exists a kind of hierarchy itself? I ask this because of samadhi/sheol's role as the possesor of the na-mhoram in the second chronicles and his role as satansfist in the frist, also (I maybe wrong about this) but isnt samadhi the orginal possesor of the king who fought berek?.
Dont worry I wont trobule you to much more with my idle curiousness, just one more question concerning ravers.
2.When Nom the sandgorgon consumes samadhi and absorbs all the intelligence and knowledge from the raver, does this mean the raver is dead? or will the raver eventually corrupt the snadgorgons after thousands of years? (if sandgorgons livethat long).
thank you, I wait eagerly for 'runes of earth'.
|
Ah, Ravers. I don't see any hierarchy myself. (These aren't Ringwraiths, after all.) Perhaps that's because none of them have enough individuality or personal history to outrank the others. They started out as brothers, they became Ravers as brothers, and they serve Lord Foul as brothers. (See "Runes" for a bit more information on the subject.) Samadhi, of course, wasn't *killed* by Honninscrave and Nom: the Raver was "rent," torn to shreds. Not the same thing at all, especially for a being which exists almost entirely as "spirit." So it seems natural--doesn't it?--that absorbing the scraps of a Raver would have a profound effect on Nom. But exactly what that effect might or will be I'm not prepared to say. However, you might ask yourself this: are the Sandgorgons inherently savage (and destructive)? or were they made savage by their imprisonment? or is the whole idea of their savagery simply a perception on the part of the vulnerable Bhrathair? (05/13/2004) |
Mark A. Morenz: Hello Mr. Donaldson:
Thanks again for your brilliant work and for answering my queries (past and present).
All of these questions do tend to be repetitive, so I will try to break the cycle and ask something more bold: Can you please tell us about yourself?
While you've obviously shared much about your childhood/early adult years, your personal life since becoming an author is more of a mystery.
I might ask this because there is a proud scholarly tradition of enhancing one's appreciation of creative works (both fiction and historical "fact") by attempting to understand the personal milleu of the author themselves.
Or maybe I'm just asking because I'm nosy. :-)
Your art has obviously captured our hearts and minds. And of course it stands on its own. But you should also please feel free to share the occasional personal triumph/tragedy directly with your audience, too. After all, these days you could probably post an annotated grocery list and get an interested readership (witness the blog explosion).
Best Regards,
:-{)]
|
You know, I've never felt that my appreciation for an author's work was enhanced by knowing something about his/her life. Although there are exceptions: knowing a little bit about Sir Walter Scott's life has clearly increased my admiration for him. But by and large.... I think that my writing is more deeply personal than that of almost any other writer I know. (This, I suspect, is why readers either love or loathe what I do: you either respond to the exposure of such psychic depths, or you feel threatened by it.) Perhaps this explains why I feel a strong need to protect my privacy in other areas. Indeed, I believe that in a perfect world (by which I mean, The World According to Steve), all novels would be published anonymously, just as Sir Walter Scott first published his. (Of course, in The World According to Steve--which goes by the curious acronym TWATS--many things would be different than they actually are.) (And if that joke appears to be in bad taste, please accept my regrets.) So I will certainly never write an autobiography. And if a biography appears during my lifetime, it will almost certainly be unauthorized. But if you're just DYING to know stuff about me: well, there's a certain amount of information available in the "background" section of this site. More specifically, the bibliography includes three "downloadable" articles, all of which contain some personal glimpses. (05/14/2004) |
Graham Ames: First, I want to thank you for your amazing books. Oddly enough, I came across The Wounded Land first, and then had to travel "backward" to the 1st chronicles, and then "forward" again as One Tree and White Gold Wielder were published. Not ideal, but the effect of discovering the beauty of the Land AFTER confronting the devastation of the Sunbane has stayed with me all my life. Having read most of what you've written thus far, I draw a lot from your insights into personal motivation and its external appearance and how confusing it all can be. It's colored my own outlook, and given me a much deeper appreciation for not "knowing" what someone's thinking or feeling at any moment, even if I think I do.
After picking up Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas Of The Land in the mid-80s, I've had a couple of questions nagging at me for years now. First off, it declares the Atlas is "Authorized" on the cover, but what to you think of this project? Second, I grew up in southern New Mexico, and have sworn for most of my life that places in the Land are based on features found in NM, and often "saw" the Land as I travelled around the area. Could that actually be the case?
Finally, thank you so much for the time and care which you apply to your craft. I have often wondered if there will be anything new from you coming out (and there will be -- hurrah!), but I'd rather have to wait 7 years from start to finish for something as amazing as the Gap, rather than have a hundred lesser-quality works from you in the same amount of time. I've lost interest in SO many "prolific" authors over the years, but I keep returning to your works time and again.
|
This seems like as good an opportunity as any to say to everyone who has posted questions and comments on my site: thank you! I value your good opinion of my work, and I will do my utter best to earn your continuing respect. Now, about Fonstad's Atlas.... Well, I wouldn't have done it myself, but her work is certainly "authorized." In fact, I spent a number of hours with her, going over her work in an attempt to achieve a literal accuracy which I actually believe runs counter to the spirit of my work (or of Tolkien's, for that matter). (We could get into a long discussion here about the nature of communication through language, and about how that differs from, say, the nature of communication through visual images; but frankly I don't have the energy for it.) Fonstad tackled an impossible job, and I think she gave it a valiant and honest try. But, no, sorry, none of the "Covenant" landscapes are based on landscapes in New Mexico--or anywhere else, for that matter--except in the sense that anything I see (indeed, anything I experience) has the potential to affect me subconsciously, thus shaping my imagination in unconscious ways. As I've said before, I don't write "from life." And that is particularly true of physical settings. I learned a long time ago that I can't write at all unless I have near-total control over "terrain" (in the broadest sense of the term). Which would be another long discussion for which I lack the energy. (05/14/2004) |
David Bowles: We're all very much aware of the impact that myth has had on your work, but I specifically wanted to ask whether you've read any of the Hindu epics... I'm actually thinking of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Perhaps it's just me projecting onto those ancient works, but I see echoes of their images in the Chronicles (for example, the thumbnail-sized Valakhilyas that dance around Sri Rama in Dandaka Forest, begging for his protection- I couldn't help but think of the wraiths in Andelain). Anyway, I was just curious, especially given your other linguist allusions to Hinduism and your childhood in India.
|
I should probably try to dispel a natural misconception.... The fact that I grew up in India doesn't actually mean that I know anything about India. Speaking very broadly, missionaries loathe (which usually means *fear*) the cultures and peoples they're trying to "redeem," and so missionaries do everything possible to insulate their children from those cultures and peoples. We lived in walled compounds and went to school in walled compounds. The mission school I attended taught zero/zip/nada classes in Indian languages, history, philosopy, or religion. My childhood in India offered me many things, but what is commonly thought of as "knowledge" was not among them. However, the college I attended (in the US, of course) had an extensive Indian studies program, and I used it to fulfill my "history" requirement. So I've read patches of the Mahabharata and Ramayana. But I can't honestly say that they influenced me on any deep level. (05/15/2004) |
James DiBenedetto: You've already answered a similar question to this, but I have a different take on it. I know it's hypothetical because you've already said you won't do it, but, just "for fun" are there any other authors whose take on The Land or any of your other worlds you'd be curious to see?
In the same vein, are there any other authors' worlds that you'd like to write something in/for (based on your comments about "What Makes Us Human" I suspect we already know the answer to this one)?
One more quickie: have you ever been approached, or thought about, licensing any of your works to be used as a setting for role playing games? Mordant's Need would seem to be a perfect world for a fantasy RPG.
|
Please understand that I'm only talking about myself here; but for me, the whole idea of "using" someone else's creation is antithetical to the very concept of creativity. "Shared worlds" don't interest me at all on any level. So no, even hypothetically there are no writers whose "take" on the Land would interest me; and there are no writers in whose creations I would like to participate. I've been approached many times about RPGs. When the gamers want to use my creations for their own private amusement, I give them an automatic Yes. When the gamers want to design a product which they could actually sell, I'm forced to refer them to my publishers (since my publishers hold the relevant rights); and my publishers always say No, typically by never answering the question. (Now PLEASE don't ask me to explain the behavior of publishers. I have a hard enough time dealing with individuals. Corporations give me hives.) (05/15/2004) |
Scott R. Kuchma: Mr. Donaldson ,
Can you give us an idea on how long it takes from the time we submit a question until you respond here on this Forum ? My first question seems to have vanished into the "Land" , so I'll ask a second and just wait.
I've been following the Q&A here and I don't think I've missed this one . You stated several times that the Last Chronicles will not bounce back and forth between the Land and Covenant's reality . Why then is the next book entitled "Runes of the Earth" and not "Runes of the Land" or have I missed the point altogether ?
Scott..................
|
Perhaps I should have called this a "desultory interview" rather than a "gradual" one. I answer questions when I can afford the time, and when I feel ready to tackle them. So some questions get postponed considerably longer than others. I didn't mean "The Runes of the Earth" to be confusing. The "Earth" of the title refers to the Earth which contains the Land, not the Earth of our world. In the Land, the bones of the planet are striving to communicate in the only way they can. (05/19/2004) |
Harry Kanth: Mr Donaldson, I want to firstly thank you for the gift of your works. I feel no shame in admitting that the Chronicles of TC helped support me through a difficult adolesence - something I had not realised until I started to read them again recently. I am really looking forward to reading the Third Chronicles.
My question(s) concerns the Creator. He has always been something of a figure on the edge of the story, perhaps because of his inability to intervene directly.
The explanation given by Lord Mhoram in the First Chronicle was that this was because direct intervention by the Creator would destroy the Arch of Time and so release Lord Foul to wreak havoc across the Universe. This always seemed to me in some way to parallel the impotence of people in The Land against Lord Foul by virtue of their oath of peace, something which Lord Mhoram realised,
Will the Creator also have a deeper role in the Third Chronicles now that Lord Foul is attacking the Arch of Time directly (by corrupting time as I read somewhere)? Will this involve him having to reconsider his own impotence?
|
Forgive me for repeating myself; but I don't want to talk about what is or is not coming up in "The Last Chronicles." I don't want to spoil anything for other readers; I don't want to create expectations which I may or may not be able to satisfy; and I don't want to commit myself to decisions which I might not be ready to make. With that in mind, I'm uncomfortable with your parallel between the restrictions which bind the Creator and the Oath of Peace which at one time bound the people of the Land. Sure, both are voluntary commitments to moral principles. And sure, both restrict the options of those committed to them. But if a Lord (say) violates the Oath of Peace, he/she has only violated him/herself, his/her personal integrity. And if, in consequence, another being is harmed, that harm is a secondary effect of the essential violation. If, on the other hand, the Creator violates the restrictions which apply to all "creators," he/she/it has violated the creation. The Creator has *not* violated him/her/itself because the creation, in a fundamental sense, *belongs* to the Creator; and so the Creator can do whatever the hell he/she/it happens to feel like doing. But if the creation itself is to have integrity, then--having been created--it must be allowed to exist on its own terms. It must have "dignity": its beings must be free to determine the meaning of their own lives. For that reason, the Creator of the Land/Earth cannot interfere (reach through the Arch of Time) without effectively destroying the creation--i.e. without destroying the integrity of the creation, which comes to the same thing. This moral distinction has already had profound effects in the "Chronicles." Doubtless it will continue to do so--if I (the creator of the "Chronicles") continue to respect the integrity of my creation. (05/20/2004) |
Scott R. Kuchma: Hello Mr. Donaldson ,
Well , imagine being able to converse with the writer of the Thomas Covenant books , amazing ! I read the entire series each year and am very much looking forward to the next and last Covenant series . Well not as much to this being the last , but you know what I mean .
I am now trying to acquire the "The Man who..." series and found that the TOR Books have released them in your name and not Reed Stephens ! Why ? I also have been able to get the first , The Man Who Killed his Brother , in Paperback and the last , The Man Who Fought Alone (also in paperback) but the second and third are only in Hardcover with the third only to be released this November (2004) . Makes it a little difficult to maintain the flow . I haven't been able to locate the Reed Stephens published works anywhere .
I have read ALL your other published works and have enjoyed them all . Thanks.
I do see Kevin Spacey as Thomas in any movie deal .
Scott................
|
Thanks for your interest! I'm always pleased when someone reads an Axbrewder/Fistoulari novel (readers of those books being so few). Meanwhile, publishers continue to be what they are: inexplicable. Ballantine published my first three mystery novels, but required the pseudonym ("Reed Stephens" was never *my* idea)--and then declared all three out of print and reverted the rights within a week of publishing book three, "Tried to Get Away." As a result, those three were unavailable for a decade. Well, since I didn't want the pseudonym anyway, when I wrote "The Man Who Fought Alone" I went looking for a publisher who would release all four with my name on them. Tor jumped in. But then they made their own inexplicable decision: they decided to release #4 first, followed at yearly intervals by !, 2, and 3. So as matters stand: 4, 1, and 2 have appeared in hardcover; and 4 and 1 have appeared in paperback. This fall, at about the same time "Runes" comes out, Tor will release 2 in paperback and 3 in hardcover. And a year later 3 will finally see print in paperback. Of course, God alone knows how long Tor will keep these books in print. Longer than Ballantine, I hope. Meanwhile, the Brits (Orion) cleverly published a "Reed Stephens" omnibus at the same time as "The Man Who Fought Alone," and all four novels are now available in the UK in paperback. (05/20/2004) |
Peter B.: You've mentioned that The Gap books are based, at least partly, around Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung. I believe you've even said that some aspects of The Chronicles are derived from Wagner. Have any other composers or musical works influenced your stories and do you listen to music when you write?
|
I listen to music constantly when I write. I create what I think of as a "cocoon of sound" which isolates me from the outside world and helps me concentrate. Toward that end, I have a stereo that can make semis stagger as they drive by. Wagner has influenced everything I write, primarily (with the obvious exception of the GAP books) in a technical sense. Over the years, I've developed my own version of the "lietmotifs" which characterize Wagner's mature work. I'm sure most of my readers have noticed how words, phrases, and sentences tend to repeat throughout a given story. On one level, this expresses the attempts of my characters to make sense out of what's happening to them. On another level, it represents one of the several ways in which I strive to make sense of what's happening for my readers. It's my way of saying, "See, *this* connects to *that*--which in turn connects to *that*." And on still another level, I'm trying to increase the efficiency (and, by extension, the effectiveness) of my writing by using "signposts" or "reminders" instead of full-scale exposition (never mind endless dislogue) to develop my themes. I hope it works. (05/20/2004) |
josiah: I have kind of an odd question. Do you ever 'wonder' of the fates of characters and worlds you leave behind when the story is done? Like, whether Theresa ever went back and fixed things with her father (important to her, but not "book worthy" in and of itself), or if Morn ever was able to settle into a relationship, or if trauma from Angus' and Nick's treatment of her kept her away from love and physical contact?
On another note about the Gap series, did Morn love Angus? Towards the end of the series he did protect her, at risk to himself, and she had grown to trust him (more than anyone else could have trusted someone like him). She also knew that, in his way, he DID care for her and her son. When I say "Did Morn love Angus," I don't mean, did she want to leap into his open arms and fly off into the sunset, part of her, a large part, would always despise him. I meant, in your view, as their creator and their author, do you think at least a small part of her forgave him, and cared for him too?
An interesting question about Covenent: is The Land real? I assume it is, I'm sure all the readers assume it is, but, unless I'm mistaken, it was never actually stated that it was real. Thomas may have just excepted it as a place in his own mind, were he was not an angry, old leper, but rather someone who was able to help, and wanted to help (here i'm speaking of the last book of the first Chronicles, were he fought off the summons to save a child, then gave in to letting them call him into the land). Granted, the very begining of the second chronicles kinda dashes that to hell, but i thought i'd like to ask you about that anyways.
Also, will Thomas' ex-wife, or (i hope) son have any role in the upcoming books? And though I know their relationship was... taboo for lack of a better way to put it, I'd have liked to have seen Thomas and Elena stay togeather. Did a part of you regret writing her out, or do you wholey feel her death was nessasry, and her relationship with Thomas was simply a dead end?
In the above questions, that others have asked, i've noticed some of the fantasy fiction you've recomended, and noticed that a series I had finished short months before I picked up covenent wasn't there, so I thought I'd inquire: have you read Sara Douglass' "The Wayfearers Redemption" series, and did you like it if you did? I was very acustom to Tolkien style fantasy, so her world was very new, and very enjoyable to me (as was The World when I finally read Covenent).
In the Gap series, the physics of space flight, space travel, combat, etc, seemed so... real. Most Sci-fi (that i've seen/read) has either ommited such things, or has come up with cheap excuses to avoid dealing with them (Star Trek's 'Innertial Dampeners' are a good example of that). Did the reasoning behind the truer-to-life physics you used in the Gap come to you naturally (you accelerate, and are pressed against your seat, pressed harder of you accelerate fast, makes sense) or had you taken physics classes (or just have a friend perhaps, 'school' you in it for the sake of the novels) to make the Gap that much more real?
Lastly (lol, i truely appologize for such a long submission), as you are in ancreadible story teller, and an obvious fan of well told stories, do you ever roleplay? By that, I mean both videogames, in which you take on the role of a character, play through to save the world/humanity/the universe, and the story unfolds for you as you progress (one such game i played had a deeper story and more dialog than, say, Shogun, a 1000+ page softcover), or even table top, such as classic D&D. If you do or don't, what's your view on those kind of games? and would you, personally, like to see any of your works be turned into such games (though i think table top would be better, allowing for more detail, and a wider range of stories to play)?
dear lord, i did not realize i wrote so much! if you choose to answer this, and it's easier for you, i kinda sugest breaking it into 2 or 3 parts lol
|
Actually, you *have* asked quite a few questions; and some not easily answered. I'm going to tackle a couple of them here, and then I'll ask you to repost your other questions just two or three at a time. That way it will be easier for me to, well, make sure everybody gets a turn. Now, do I ever wonder what happens to my characters and/or worlds after I leave them? No, I don't--but I'm not sure I can explain why. It has something to do with the fact that writing stories is (at least in part) a process of getting things *out* of my head. When I've done my job the way I think it should be done--specifically when I've told the story that came to me to be written as well and thoroughly as I can--that task is done; gone. It no longer engages my imagination. If it did, I would know that I hadn't done my job right. So I have no particular curiosity about, say, what happens to Angus or Morn. Did Morn love Angus? Not by any definition of "love" that I'm comfortable with. He did her too much harm, and that kind of damage lingers. But "grudging respect"? That's certainly a possibility. After all, he eventually became a man who "played straight" with her; a man upon whom she could rely--in the context of their shared predicaments. For him, that was a huge change. And she was clearly capable of recognizing the value of that change. But love, it seems to me, requires something a whole lot deeper and broader than just, "He did what I hoped he would do in a crisis." In fact, I would stop short of saying that she forgave him. Why should she? And why would he want her to? But I do think she came to accept both him and what he had done to her; and *that* I consider a huge personal victory. More later.... (05/20/2004) |
Darth Revan: How often do you visit KW?
|
Ordinarily I would consider this question an invasion of privacy. But Kevin's Watch is a special case; so I'll try to explain why I don't visit very often. 1) For some reason (technophobia, perhaps, or an extremely specialized sense of curiosity), I don't "hang out"--or even browse--on the web. I can't find things easily, the commands never do what I want them to, and I quickly lose interest. 2) Writing, as I'm sure you realize, is a very private occupation. I do it totally alone. So when I'm not writing, I want *people." The (admittedly very human) interactions which can occur on the web are too intangible to meet my needs. Even if we all had cameras and could look each other in the eye while we typed our exchanges, I would find that too, well, *removed* to feed my hunger for people. 3) And then there's the problem that doing anything on the web usually involves typing; and I already do more than enough of that. I'm neither an accurate nor a fluent typist. And any form of writing seems to require irrational amounts of thought. As a result, interacting with anyone on the web--or with the web itself--is, well, "too much like work." 4) Plus there's the complex problem of ego. Of course, I have as much ego as anyone else. But I've learned over the years that my ego gets confused easily. And the kind of writing I do (the kind that has attracted the attention of the members of Kevin's Watch) is NOT a function of ego. At its best, it is almost entirely devoid of self. So going to places where people take my work seriously and talk about it alot can create ego-confusion. (Hmm. That probably isn't clear; but it's the best I can do tonight.) Anyway, the point of all this is: don't take it personally. (05/20/2004) |
Renny Richardson: Mr.Donaldson
like many others your tales have had a deep effect on me and I have returned to them many times over the years.So much so that my eldest daughter was named Hollian when she was born as a living reminder of the beauty of the Land and it's people.
my question is simple really:have you started work on volume 2 yet?And if not,why not?lol
thanks and regards
Renny
|
No, I haven't yet started work on "Fatal Revenant"--except to the extent that I've been planning the whole project for actual decades. The reason is simple: my publishers are in a tremendous hurry to release "Runes," and so they need me to do things like revise the manuscript, check the copy-edited manuscript, and proofread the finished manuscript *very* quickly, and with little or no "free time" between tasks. As a result, I haven't had a chance to even think about starting book two. Life isn't normally like this. If my publishers were not in such a hurry, I would have lots of gaps between assigned tasks. Under those circumstances, I would certainly have started on "Fatal Revenant" by now. (05/20/2004) |
Harry Kanth: Hello, Mr Donaldson! I have a question about White Gold. Why did you decide to use this as the key element representing or channeling wild magic in the Land?
|
Secondary reasons: 1) I *like* white gold; and 2) it's different than Tolkien. Primary reason: I needed a material which would plausibly be beyond the capabilities of a non-technological world (although of course they do make swords and stuff), a material literally not found in the Land, and white gold (being an alloy and all) seemed like a reasonable choice. Then how, one might well ask, do the people of the Land even know about white gold? Prophecy, lore, myth, take your pick. (05/27/2004) |
Todd Haney: Finally! The wait is nearly over! Next to waiting for Stephen King to finish The Dark Tower, my other wish was always to see just a bit more of the Land--sounds like it's coming with a vengance!
I've started on Man Who Fought Alone before finding out it's one of the latter books of the series, but I can't stop now! You have a way of creating the most noble SOB's in fantasy/science-fiction (Covenant, Angus, and now Brew). You make me want to follow them wherever they go, no matter how horrifying it may get.
Thank you for creating such compelling characters and plotlines. The Runes, I'm sure, will follow in this tradition.
A question about covers--What is up with the SFBC's collection of the Second Chronicles? As far as I can tell, it has almost nothing to do with the tale contained within.
Thanks again for providing years of fine entertainment!
|
Generally speaking, SFBC covers are a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Back in the day when I was acquainted with an artist who actually did SFBC covers (at least 25 years ago), I was told that the artists were not *allowed* to read the book. Instead they were sent 1 or 2 pages of the manuscript with a paragraph circled which they were supposed to turn into a cover scene. Hence the truly extraordinary art on the SFBC's first edition of "Lord Foul's Bane." In the case of the present omnibus editions, the artist (?) may have said, "Oh, I read those years ago," and relied on his/her (faulty) memory to produce those, well, unique images. Or not: I'm just guessing. (05/27/2004) |
Vain: A shade over two years ago we took the old Kevins Watch discussion forum, dusted it off, and breathed new life into it.
Little did we know then that we would be honoured by your kind gesture to recognise the Watch as the official discussion forum.
On to my question though: I am interested in understanding what part the internet will have in further promoting your works - do you see it as a valuable marketing tool or simply as a means to stay in touch with your readers?
|
For myself, the chief value of the internet (aside from research) lies in allowing me to engage in a dialogue with my readers. For my publishers? Well, I'm not sure they quite know what to do with the 'net. Of course, they maintain web sites of varying quality. But they don't yet appear to have a coherent strategy for using the 'net to promote books, mine or anyone else's. Perhaps they do--or will--rely on the kind of service Amazon.com provides (readers reviews to help buyers make informed decisions--which is more than you can hope for from bookstores these days). (05/27/2004) |
Don (dlbpharmd): How did you choose the name "Covenant"?
|
A couple of people have asked this. Remember, I was raised and educated (through 11th grade) by Christian fundamentalists; so naturally I was thinking of the profound differences between the Old and New Testaments, specifically as those differences pertain to the relationship between God and Man (forgive the male word Man: it's appropriate in this context), the "covenant of law" versus the "covenant of grace." That this is apt won't surprise anyone familiar with the Bible. The "old" Thomas Covenant can't survive unless he abides by the strict rules of his illness (hence his Unbelief, his rigidity, his difficulty giving or accepting forgiveness). The "new" Thomas Covenant finds the grace/love/open-heartedness to transcend his old laws. But I hasten to add that while all this is very "Christian" in its sources it is by no means "Christian" in its application and development. It was a natural starting point for me, but I have taken it in directions which would doubtless have horrified the missionaries of my childhood. (05/27/2004) |
Sean Casey: Stephen, I'm sure I speak for all of your readers when I say that we're deeply appreciative of the chance to communicate so directly with you. Thank you for taking the time to answer all the questions asked (or the ones that appear on the site, anyway!). I was wondering what you feel you get out of this communication. Do you enjoy it, value it, feel challenged by it, feel obliged to do it? (Not sure if that's one question or four...)
Also, my compliments to the web master: this morning I sent a comment about preferring the month-by-month breakdown of the gradual interview; when I logged on this afternoon: voila! There it was, restored to its former bite-size glory.
|
Well, I'm not sure I would use the word "enjoy." Answering all these questions is a bit too much like holding my toes to the fire. <grin> But "value it, feel challenged by it, feel obliged to do it" all apply. I value it because writing is such lonely work--and once books get written they take so *long* to get published. The sort of Q&A I'm doing here gives me the sense that I'm writing for actual people who appreciate what I do. That means a lot. I feel challenged by it because so many of the questions force me to *think*--which is good for me on a number of different levels. Certainly the more thinking I do the more clarity I can bring to my work. And thinking counteracts the natural human impulse to function on automatic pilot. As for feeling obliged, well, that's the kind of guy I am. I can hardly get up in the morning without turning it into a *duty* of some kind. Doubtless this is an arduous way to live, but it's so deeply engrained in my personality that I can seldom turn it off. btw, my webmaster looks at all these questions, so he has already received your compliments. I'm sure he appreciates them. If he doesn't, I'll appreciate them on his behalf. <grin> (05/27/2004) |
Tracie (Furls Fire): You never use a thesaurus?? My goodness!! You mean all those beautifully huge and complicated words are in your head?? I am now in utter awe of you, not that I wasn't before, but man oh man if there is a threshold for "awe" I've just been pushed over the edge! A true wordsmith you are, Mr Donaldson. {big smile}
Oh, and Happy Birthday to you on the 13th!! Be well and happy!
Peace,
Tracie
PS. You don't have to respond to this. It was just a moment of mush on my part and I just had to pass it on to you. {big smile}
|
Certainly I'm glad for all the "mush" I can get. <grin> But don't give me too much credit. I compile word lists almost obsessively. Especially when I'm reading writers whose prose avoids the "modern" flavors we're all so familiar with. Good ol' Sir Walter Scott has been a veritable cornucopia of words: "oast," "eyot," "dromond," "surquedry." And I add to my list from such diverse sources as China Mieville, Steven Erikson, and John Crowley. (And yes, just in case you were wondering: I do use the OED, complete with magnifying glass.) (05/27/2004) |
Peter B.: Although this is not my first time submitting a question I would like to thank you for the opportunity to communicate with you. It is very generous of your time and energy, and is much appreciated.
Runes is now listed on Amazon.com with an October 14 release date and 496 pages. Is this accurate? Also, will there be a "What's Happened Before" section summarizing the previous novels, a map, or Author Note in the upcoming Runes?
|
October 14 should be reasonably accurate. 496 pages is just an approximation. I'll be surprised if it isn't longer. Yes, a summary of the previous books (affectionately [?] known as WHGB, What Has Gone Before) will be included. It is entirely different than the summaries in the previous books. And yes, there will be maps--although they may not be quite what you're expecting. No "author's note": I hate writing such things almost as intensely as I hated writing WHGB. (05/29/2004) |
David Booker: When my warm and tender-hearted daughter turned 14 or so she picked up my well-worn copy of Lord Foul's Bane and began reading.
A few days later she burst into our living room with tears running down her cheeks and sobbed "Dad, he turned Hile Troy into a tree".
While I'm sure that at that time in her life Stephanie missed many of the subtle points and messages you convey in your works, I think she held Hile Troy's transformation against you for some time after that time.
The question? Well, Stephanie is a bit older and wiser now. She went off to college this year and is majoring in journalism. However, these many years later she maintains that Hile Troy is one of her favorite characters in literature. So, for Steph. Gived us an anecdote or some insight on writing this fascinating character.
|
I'm not sure how to react. I'm touched that your daughter cared enough about Hile Troy to cry over him. But I'm also baffled: he didn't fascinate or move *me* to the same extent. And I'm a bit troubled that a 14-year-old was reading "Covenant" in the first place. I didn't intend the story for someone so young. Doubtless she's been traumatized for life, and it's ALL MY FAULT. <grin> Frankly, I conceived of Hile Troy as an antidote to WhyDoesn'tCovenantGetOffHisButtAndDoSomething-itis. I was acutely aware that many of my readers, especially readers with a background in traditional sword-and-sorcery, would be very impatient with Covenant's ambivalence. I wanted a chance to discuss the implications (by which I mean the dangers) of *not* being ambivalent; and I created Troy as an exemplar of everything Covenant is not. You see the results. The only reason Troy didn't effectively destroy all of the Land's defenses is that Mhoram created an opportunity for him to sacrifice himself instead. Whatever the "answer to evil" may be, it cannot involve Hile Troy's unwillingness to question his own assumptions. Just try to imagine what would have happened to the Land if Troy were the ring-wielder. (05/29/2004) |
dlbpharmd (Don): Have you had an opportunity to review the "Dissecting the Land" forum on kevinswatch.com? If so, what do you think of the detailed, almost rabid way your fans examine every minute detail of your work?
|
I've had occasion to glance at some of the "dissecting" threads on KevinsWatch.com. Frankly, I'm flattered. FINALLY (or so it seems to me) I have readers who are willing to put as much thought into reading my books as I put into writing them. When you spend as many hours laboring over every aspect of a book as I do, you're just plain *grateful* to be read with such attention to detail. (05/29/2004) |
David Wiles: Dear Steve; I hope this finds all is well. Thanks for everything. Steve, I was wondering if you have ever had the chance to sit with a group of people and tell your short stories. If I could draw an analogy, think of Atiaran as she retold the Legend of Berek Halfhand to the stonedown or Foamfollowers tales. He did say that joy is in the ears. I picture a small outdoor setting far from any noise or disturance. Thanks David Wiles
|
It's hard to explain; but I'm not really an oral storyteller. In some fundamental sense, storytelling is a "manual" process for me. If I'm not writing, I can hardly think; and if I'm not writing at a keyboard, I can't think fluently. My kids used to ask me to make up bed-time stories for them, and I just couldn't do it. Which is a bit surprising, because in other ways I'm very oral (by which I mean I've been known to talk a LOT), and I've been told that I talk *about* writing eloquently. But on some level speech is an exercise of intellect for me: imagination flows primarily through my hands. (05/29/2004) |
Kim Coleman Healy: Are you familiar with Cordwainer Smith's work, and especially the short story "Scanners Live In Vain"? Though it's SF rather than fantasy, it has some interesting resonances with the Covenant mythos. The Scanners, who are surgically modified for space travel, experience sensory losses even more pronounced than Covenant's losses to leprosy (and monitor themselves and their crews by a VSE-like method); and they make a commitment as irrevocable as the Bloodguard's, though it doesn't make them even conditionally immortal.
I'm wondering if these similarities are by design.
|
I read that story an exTREMEly long time ago, and it did not affect my writing of "Covenant" on any conscious level. Unconscious levels are, of course, well, unconscious, so I don't know what happens there. (05/30/2004) |
Peter Purcell: Thank you for answering my last questions and for considering my request!
The Creator is a very interesting character. One of his comments discusses the Power and Impotence of Creators - plural. At the end of the first trilogy he talks about the rules of the "real" world and his ability to heal Covenant of the snake venom due to the "special" circumstances. Did the "Land" world Creator get permission from the "real" world Creator? It would be interesting to pursue the relationship between the two Creators. Have you considered this line of thought?
Do you have a background cosmology fleshed out ala the Tolkien notes that became the Silmarillion?
Lastly, I found Nom's "rending" and consuming of the raver very interesting (and gratifying.) But I wonder - Nom got power from the consuming (as if he needed more!) and knowledge. Is it possible that he might also be "infected" by the evil of the raver? A raving sandgorgon - now that would be frightening!!
|
I think it's safe to say that *I* was the only other "creator" that the Creator of the Land/Earth had to deal with. And no, sorry, I don't have anything resembling a Tolkien-esque background or cosmology fleshed out for the "Chronicles." I've never been able to compete with Tolkien in that kind of world-building. Since what I do is almost exclusively story-driven, as a general rule I don't try to figure out anything I don't need for the story at hand. I find that this approach leaves more doors open for things like "The Last Chronicles." And sorry again, I either can't or won't (you'll have to figure out which for yourself) answer your question about the effect of ingesting a Raver on Nom. If I can't, it's because I don't need to (see above). If I won't, it's because the answer would be a spoiler. (05/30/2004) |
Peter B: What is your philosophy or attitude toward literary criticism and praise as it relates to your work and how has this changed over time? The UK draft cover of Runes has a VERY complimentary aspect to it, one that may or may not make you squirm even as it congratulates.
Peter
|
David Frost once said, "When a writer asks for constructive criticism, what he really wants is a few thousand words of closely-reasoned adulation." Well, I have as much ego as anyone else. But for that very reason--I tried to explain this earlier in the interview--I distrust literary praise. And I did more than squirm when I saw the "comment" on the UK draft cover for "Runes": I screamed aloud. Fortunately, that was a *draft,* not an actual cover. Unfortunately, the actual cover has replaced the objectionable "comment" with an--to my mind--equally objectionable quote: "comparable to Tolkien at his best". <sigh> I've always disliked that quote. WHOSE best, I'd like to know? Mine? Tolkien's? And what is the *point* of these comparisons, I ask, since excellence is by its very nature incomparable? Comparing me to Tolkien is like admitting that I'm not very good. (But try telling *that* to a publisher....) Literary criticism in the scholarly sense of the term is entirely another matter. In that sense, "criticism" means "analysis," and I'm always interested in hearing how other people analyse my work. If nothing else, it helps me understand how clearly--or poorly--I've communicated my intentions. (05/30/2004) |
appointed one: what are the names of the last chronicles?
|
1 "The Runes of the Earth" 2 "Fatal Revenant" 3 "Shall Pass Utterly" 4 "The Last Dark" (05/30/2004) |
Dennis Glascock: In my opinion, there are three important fantasy series: LOTR, the Covenant books, and the Wheel books by Robert Jordan. Have you read the Wheel books (10 books and counting) and do you have an opinion upon them? I especially enjoy long series, so I encourage you to exceed Mr. Jordan's book count!
many thanks!
|
Well, I don't read Jordan, so I can't comment. As I think (hope?) I said earlier in this interview, I have tremendous respect for Tolkien's achievement. He re-created an entire genre (at least in English), the epic. (For more on this, you might want to look at my essay "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World". It's on this site under "publications".) Without Tolkien's work, what I do would have been impossible. (05/31/2004) |
Ryan H.: Mr. Donaldson,
If you are a visitor to the Kevin's Watch forum, you might have seen a post in the TC discussion about a PC adventure module I am creating for the RPG game Neverwinter Nights which uses elelments of The Chronicles.
I am following up with a previous question concerning RPG adventures and possible copyright infringement. I wish you to know that I have nothing but the utmost respect for your work and consider The Chronicles my favorite piece of literature. You mentioned making an RPG for "private amusement" is OK. I have been making a module that can be played on this Neverwinter Nights game, but I don't sell it to anyone (Bioware, the makers, wouldn't allow it anyway) and no one paid me to create it. Does private amusement mean I can give it away for other people to enjoy FREELY? I really hope so because I have so much fun bringing some of your characters, settings, and plots to the digital domain. (I hope you might possibly be interetsed in trying it out!?)
Thank you.
|
In practice, the key issue is MONEY. My publishers hold the relevant rights, and in theory they could object to virtually anything. But in reality they only care if money is changing hands. As long as you were not paid to create your game module, and no one has to pay to use it, you have no problem. *I* certainly don't object. But I'm not interested in trying out your module--or in RPGs generally. Nothing personal: it's just (as I said in another context) "too much like work." One could well argue that role-playing is what I do for a living. For recreation I want activities which are as much unlike writing books as possible. (05/31/2004) |
Revan: Hi! First I want to thank you for answering my other questions Steve. I'm grateful.
Anyways... gratitude aside, I will ask another. :)
In my opinion, and others of Kevinswatch, The character Thomas Covenant had generally inspired loyalty. And considering in the Third Chronicles he has been somewhat replaced as the main character; some people, I do not doubt, are going to be vexed at this... Has this matter crossed your mind at all during your creating of the Last Chronicles?
|
Ah, I fear you are making assumptions about "The Last Chronicles"--assumptions which I'm not prepared to confirm or deny. Clearly "The Runes of the Earth" starts with Linden Avery. You can see that for yourself. But so did "The Second Chronicles." And the fact that Covenant is dead certainly *seems* to diminish his potential as a point-of-view character. <grin> But there are several clever authors out there who wouldn't let a little thing like, "He's dead, Jim," stand in their way. So if any potentially vexed readers are perusing this interview, I would like to suggest that they try not to make assumptions. (05/31/2004) |
Russell: the continuation of the tale of the land and it's redemption has been my fondest wish for over 15 years. thank you so much for taking the effort to finish the greatest tale in fantasy literature.
Now then, I probably won't get a straight answer for sake of spoilers, but, will the last chronicles combine aspects of the past present and future of the land?
|
"The past present and future of the land," hmm? Now, that--as they used to say--is a poser. The present? Well, yeah. The past? I certainly hope so. I think I've already stated that my goal is to write "The Last Chronicles" in such a way that it unifies the entire saga into one vast whole. But the future? Um, er, well.... How exactly do you imagine I could do that? Presumably it would have to be described in some way, either by the (theoretically) omniscient author or by some point-of-view character--and wouldn't that make it "the present," in effect? If it exists to be described, it either has happened or it is happening. To say that it *will* happen is inherently speculative. But you know me. I'll probably solve the problem by just nuking the whole place. <huge grin> (05/31/2004) |
obscurity: Hi, thanks for answering these questions. I'm a huge fan of your work, and like a previous questioner I'd particularly like to thank you for spending the time to write the books well, rather than churn 'em out by the truckload.
The first question I'd like to ask is about how you tackled the Gap series. The thing that strikes me most about those is how well designed they seem to be - the character's actions arise from the intersection of the information they have and their motives with no discernable (to me, at least) hand of the author pushing them towards the plot. Given the scale of these books, the complexities of the plot, the conflicting agendas (hidden or not) of the characters and the various layers of subterfuge they engaged in, the large (and ever-expanding) canon of established 'facts' in the created universe, and the length of time over which the books were written, how on earth did you make it all seem so self-consistent? How did you keep track of it all? How much of it did you plan out in advance, and how much did you make up as you went along? Were you actually able to hold the whole thing in your head at any one time, or were you constantly having to 'research' the previous books when writing a new one? And considering that you couldn't revise a previous volume (since it had been published) while working on a new one, just how terrified were you of not being able to tie it all up at the end? :)
Secondly (or, um, sixthly, depending on how you're counting) how do you feel about the fact that whilst you consider the Gap series to be your best work (or so I recall reading), it seems to be the Covenant books that get all the attention and praise? Do you feel at all jealous of the Covenant books on the Gap books' behalf? Or over-protective of the Gap books' reputation? Or do you not mind at all?
Wow, I wrote a lot more than I intended to there. Sorry about that. If you're still awake at this point, thanks for sticking with me :)
|
There appear to be several questions about internal consistency, especially as it pertains to the GAP books. I hope I can answer them all here. I consider internal consistency to be absolutely crucial. Readers may not notice inconsistencies consciously--especially when those breaks in coherence are separated by hundreds of pages--but I believe that inconsistences *always* make themselves felt unconsciously. In the short term, they diminish the reader's emotional engagement in the story. In the long run, they damage both the reader's trust in the author and the re-readability of the story. Sometimes consciously, but always unconsciously, readers feel manipulated and ultimately disappointed by stories which are not rigorously self-consistent. But rigorous internal consistency is difficult to achieve in any extended work. And it is made more difficult in my case by two things: how I work (about which I'll say more in answer to a later question); and what my goals as a story-teller are. On this latter point, I believe I've already mentioned (after answering a few score questions it becomes hard to be sure) one of my dominant goals: I want all of my significant characters to have dignity. By this I mean that I want all of them to do what they do, not to satisfy *my* requirements (such as my requirement for internal consistency), but for their own reasons: because of who they are, what has happened to them, what they know, and what they want. In other words, I want them to be as much like "real people" as possible. So the question is: how do I strive for internal consistency *while* writing in a way which makes such consistency difficult *while* giving all of my characters dignity *while* attempting to achieve my other dominant goals (such as intense engagement, or harmony/symmetry/aesthetic beauty)? Of course it helps that I'm good at what I do. But frankly, well, I ain't *that* good. So I use a number of aids. For one, I take a lot of notes. I mean a LOT of notes. For another, I write those notes on pages of notepaper, several notes to a page in a completely random fashion, and I make no attempt to organize those notes. (This forces me to look through all of my notes whenever I want a particular note, which has the effect of refreshing my memory of everything I want to do.) For another, I throw my notes away as soon as I use them. (This forces me to re-read what I've already written whenever I want to check something.) For another, I do other forms of self-research extensively: my "work" copies of the first six Covenant books are heavily annotated, and covered in those little sticky arrows that help me locate important passages quickly--and then I make separate notes based on my annotations. For another, I rewrite both extensively and intensively--and I take *more* notes while I'm doing so. In addition, I rewrite backwards as well as forwards. In other words, sometimes I change what lies behind me to suit what lies in front of me, and sometimes I change what lies in front of me to suit what lies behind me. For another, I re-read books *after* they are published, taking still more notes, and checking the published text against my other notes. This I do with the hardback editions, so that if necessary I can beg my publishers to make changes in the paperback editions. (One quick example: despite all of my other self-checking mechanisms, when I read "The Mirror of Her Dreams" in hardcover, I discovered that Terisa's sole bedroom window faced the sunrise AND--400 pages later--the sunset. Naturally I was horrified. But I had real clout with my publishers in those days, so they cheerfully allowed me to make the necessary changes before they released the paperback.) And for yet another, I always have at least one personal reader--someone who has nothing to do with publishing--whose job-description includes telling me whenever he/she thinks I might have screwed up. <whew> So, no, I don't (can't) hold the whole thing in my mind at once. And I don't try: I reserve as much energy as possible for the actual writing--which includes doing things like making sure my characters have dignity. Instead I rely on all of my aids to help me be consistent. How much do I plan out stories like the GAP books or "The Last Chronicles" in advance? I think I've answered that earlier in this interview; but the short answer is: quite a bit, but not as much as I once did. Over the years I've learned to believe that as long as I know where I'm going I'll be able to get there somehow. As for your other question: yes, I have been known to feel jealous of the "Covenant" books, especially on behalf of the GAP books, but also on behalf of my mystery novels and--to a lesser extent--"Mordant's Need." At times I have even felt resentment toward my readers for so soundly rejecting everything that isn't "Covenant." But I got over all that. After years of therapy. <grin> Now I (mostly) accept that life is what it is, and both jealousy and resentment are wasted emotions--not to mention being inherently toxic. (05/31/2004) |
Allen Parmenter: Mister D. I wish to thank you personally for writing the Gap Cycle. It remains your greatest work and it interprets Wagner far better than that impoverished thug Hitler ever did. The Gap was the literary sound-track of my youth (wont bore you with details.). You will be amused to learn that a friend of mine pictured Pat Robertson playing the role of Holt Fasner. My question concerns the endless speculation about your religious or anti-religious proclivities. I understand you are not a "believer" but do you think a Creator exists? And - anything to say about that strange and complicated man from Nazareth? Again, thankyou for the Gap. It is a juggernaut that towers above most s-f written in the Nineties along side of Gene Wolfe's wonderful Book of the Long Son.
|
I've tried to say before that I don't think my opinion on the existence or otherwise of a "real" Creator matters. My opinion is just that: *my*...*opinion*. Everyone has opinions. Everyone is entitled to them. End of story. But since so many people want to know, I'll say this. It is my opinion that the question of whether or not a Creator (let's call her God) exists itself does not matter. If God does exist, her existence will not be affected by my belief--or lack of belief--in her. If God does not exist, no amount of belief on my part will call her into existence. Either way, asking the question doesn't make any difference. But I'll go further. I think that asking the question *shouldn't* make any difference. Here's what I believe *is* important. (Take it or leave it: it's just an opinion.) 1) Every human being is responsible for the meaning of his/her own life. God's existence, or lack thereof, doesn't change that. And in fact the very notion of God is often a destructive concept, since so many people use their belief in God as a means to avoid accepting responsibility for their own lives. Hence it is my *opinion* of the man from Nazareth that his story enriches some people's lives and degrades others, depending on whether or not those people use his story as an excuse to avoid their responsibility for their own lives. 2) We live in what I like to call a "possible" world; a world in which far more things are possible than we will ever be able to know, recognize, or name. "God" is certainly a convenient term of reference for many of those possibilities. So is "soul." So is "ghost." So is "Grace." But the terms of reference only exist for *our* convenience: they have no bearing on what actually is or is not possible. And now I suppose I'm in trouble. <sigh> I've probably alienated every third person who reads this site. Certainly my poor mother is turning over in her grave. (My father was more inclined to the idea that religion is something you *do* rather than something you *believe*: he might conceivably have understood what I'm saying.) But, gol durn it, you DID ask. (05/31/2004) |
David Hughes: Steve,
No question here; merely a statement of deep admiration and gratitude for your work. I'm a 41 year-old corporate exec, country club golfer, who hardly fits a stereotypical view of a fantasy fiction reader. And in truth, I'm not much of one. That's actually all the more reason that I hope you'll accept my gratitude as sincere and perhaps unusual. I've read the Chronicles through twice, 15 years apart, and have never been more impressed by any work, in any genre. Period. It's astonishingly sweeping, majestic, and unforgettable stuff. Thanks again for bringing such grace (and as passing an attempt at literary appreciation as I can muster) into my typically predictable, hectic but mundane, modern American life. After reading your responses today it's my new mantra to try to make future decisions based on how closely they advance the concept of "Control with passion".
David Hughes
Atlanta, GA
|
THANK you. I'm touched--and gratified. But remember that "Joy is in the ears that hear." All I did was write the books. You're the one who read them--and responded. I think that says at least as much about you as it does about my work. (05/31/2004) |
Julia van Niekerk: Seeing as you've basically answered my previous question in response to someone else's question, I'll give this another go.
Do you read your own work on a recreational basis? Once you've put all your energy into crafting a story, editing it, revising it, fine-tuning it, do you say "Enough of that!" or do you pick up your own books and read them? If you do, do you gain any "new" insight into your characters and storylines that you didn't realize you were writing into them?
|
Well, I've been known to pick up a book--usually one of my short story collections--and read a page or two here and there. But in a broader sense, no, I do not read my own books for recreation. Once I've done all of my work on them, I try to forget about them (except in the sense of occasionally thinking back on them with--I hope--pleasure). The exception, of course--and it wasn't recreation--is the "Covenant" books. I studied them hard to prepare myself for "The Last Chronicles." Maybe someday.... (05/31/2004) |
Lindsay Addison: Hello Mr. Donaldson. It's been a pleasure to find this site and (more so) to read your books, including, most recently, the Reed Stephens myeteries.
I had to laugh when I read in this gradual interview that you made lists of interesting or arcane words. It's a vice of mine as well, and man, I had a HUGE list derived from your books--it was an entertaining and enlightening exercise. So, my deep and weighty question is, what's your favorite "list-worthy" word? (Or more likely, what's the first one that comes to mind? <g>)
Peace.
|
As with books and characters, I have different favorites for different reasons. Not to mention for different days. I even have different favorites at different times of day. But two list-worthy words which are unlikely to find their way into "The Last Chronicles" are: "rachitic" and "nystagmus." (05/31/2004) |
Mark Shaw: Do you ever get recognized by fans in your day to day life , and how does it make feel, what's your reaction ?
|
It happens very rarely (and usually only by members of KevinsWatch.com <grin>). There is a good reason for this, and it helps to explain why I live in NM. Around here, I like to say, you can't throw a rock without hitting an artist of some kind. This area is fantastically rich in creative types. As a result: a) everyone knows writers, artists, potters, etc., so they don't consider just one more writer worthy of comment; and b) to avoid being overwhelmed by sheer numbers, everyone has to "filter," to concentrate on a few and ignore the rest, and this tends to happen along regional lines; so everything "Southwestern" gets serious attention and everything else is usually ignored. Tony Hillerman probably can't cross the street without being accosted by a fan, but for me it happens once every couple of years at most. How do I feel about being "recognized"? Well, how would *you* feel if someone you had never seen before in your life rushed up to you and began behaving in a way that demonstrated a considerable knowledge of your life and work? Unless your life is ruled by ego--and you never read newspapers--you might feel significantly uncomfortable. As I do. It's different, of course, when I'm in a place where I expect to be recognized (e.g. an sf/f convention). There it's rather a blow when someone peers at my name badge, shakes his/her head in bafflement, and walks away. <grin> But I try to treasure such experiences as exercises in humility. (06/01/2004) |
phillip andrew bennett low: First, I would just like to express my admiration and gratitude; I'm a playwright who suffers from chronic illness, and in both areas of my life your work has had a profound impact.
Two questions:
1) I've lately developed an obsession with the Book of Job; I don't know if this is something I'm imposing on the text, but the parallels between this book and the Chronicles are so striking that I can't help but wonder if it was an influence. Both open by recounting a man who has everything: health, wealth, and family, all of which are stripped away in the first few chapters; then, the bulk of the story involves the man railing, both passionately and rationally, against his fate, with other characters drifting in and out of the action, attempting to reason him away from his position of defiance; and both culminate in a philosophical confrontation with a divine force. (I happen to think that Covenant bore up a little better under the pressure.)
So, ahem. Was it an influence? And
2) For a writer who is generally so private, has taking part in this gradual interview affected your process at all? In other words, does engaging in an ongoing dialogue about your work while writing trigger any ideas or cause you to re-evaluate what you're working on?
Thanks!
|
First an announcement (the relevance of which will become apparent shortly): Very soon now I will begin answering questions in this interview much more slowly. Between now (or whenever they arrive) and the end of July I will need to proofread four (!) novels: "Runes" in both its US and its UK incarnations; "The Man Who Risked His Partner" in paperback; and "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" in hardcover. At the same time, my US and UK publishers want me to undertake a project which I'm not supposed to talk about, but which will be so back-breakingly burdensome and vastly time-consuming that I'll have no choice except to simply cease living until the project is done. (Sorry, I can't tell you more than that.) So if you think I'm answering questions slowly now, wait until you see what happens soon. <sigh> Now, your actual questions. With my Biblical background, I must have been influenced by the Book of Job; but the influence is entirely unconscious, I assure you. I don't *approve* of the Book of Job. By the time I was in junior high school, I considered God's *capriciousness" toward Job to be actively immoral. Of course, in the real world people suffer as Job did all the time. But if that suffering is God's doing, then I say God is a rather despicable individual, and we're all better off without him/her. As for your question about how participating in this interview has affected my writing process, I'm afraid I don't know the answer. I've never done anything like this (the interview) before--and I haven't yet had a chance to start on Book Two. I only finished going over the copyeditted manuscript for "Runes" last week, and any day now the labors described above will hit my desk. So the earliest I can get started on "Revenant" will be mid-August. Of course, if working on this interview has an adverse effect on my ability to write, I'll have to ditch the interview. But at the moment I have no idea whether or not that will turn out to be true. (06/01/2004) |
Julia van Niekerk: Well at the risk of sounding trite, I've been a fan ever since my father sent me the First Chronicles when I was 13. It's been great to read your gradual interviews (or desultory, as the case may be) and get a little insight into the man who wrote the books that moved me so profoundly. I won't say that they changed my life, or opened my eyes, but on an emotional level, they definitely touched me in a way no other story has. The first time I ever cried over a story was when Elena died - and this even though I knew in advance that it was going to happen. (A 13 year old with access to the next book will never resist the temptation to "peek ahead").
At any rate, I'm wondering whether the curiosity runs both ways. Do you do so-called "vanity searches" to find out what people are saying about you? Read the reviews at Amazon.com? The only attempts I've made at publishing anything I've written have been on websites (with varying degrees of selectivity) and so I don't get to see a lot of unbiased feedback. At the same time, I don't know if I'd be "strong" enough to open a page of reviews and see someone shredding one of my works to bits. I think, though, that curiosity would prevail - at least the first time. I'd follow the question up with "And do you take any of it to heart?" but I think I might have a good guess at the answer to that one ;)
Oh, and over the years, I've apparently developed a strange predilection for dashes. Do you mind if I blame it on you?
|
By all means, blame your predilection for dashes--or any other personal foible--on me. I'm here to serve. <grin> As a general rule, I do not do what you call "vanity searches." (Oh, maybe once every couple of years, when someone suggests that I look at something specific. But, I promise, I always feel guilty about it, and I swear I'll never do it again. <still grinning>). Reading reviews, like peeking in your lover's diary, is all about ego; and I find that ego is an obstacle to creativity. If you happen to spot something favorable and allow yourself to feel elated, you're simply setting yourself up to feel miserable when you spot something unfavorable. And neither reaction is particularly useful when you sit down to do your own writing. Not to get too sententious about this (he said sententiously), but I know whereof I speak. Back in 1983, "White Gold Wielder" was the #3 bestseller in the country for the year. As you can imagine, I was riding high. But then "Mordant's Need" only sold 15% as well as WGW, and the GAP books only sold 20% as well as "Mordant's Need," and more than one publisher has been unable to give my mystery novels away on streetcorners, and last fall my agent had a hard time finding publishers for "The Runes of the Earth" (more than one US publisher called me a "has-been"). In other words, I've had my ego jerked around by experts. So when I say that "writing isn't about ego"--or shouldn't be, anyway--I'm trying to communicate something that I've learned to consider desperately important. (06/01/2004) |
Lou Sytsma: Greetings!
Does the advice for a writer to read and write on a consistent basis ring true for you?
I'm curious to your take on Stephen King's Dark Tower series. His writing style is so different from yours.
Thanks for your time.
|
I love the Dark Tower books so far (I've read four). If the subsequent installments don't disappoint me, I'll be very glad King wrote them. Advice for writers? Well, the most important thing I can tell you is that every individual has to figure it out for him/herself. Writing is like life in that respect. Everyone is different, and what energizes one person paralyzes another. With that in mind, however.... I don't see how anyone can even try to be a writer without both writing and reading consistently, stubbornly, regularly, deliberately, whatever you want to call it. If you don't "apply the seat of your pants to the seat of the chair and write," you're just kidding yourself about being a writer. And if you don't read constantly, even obsessively, you're denying yourself the greatest possible source of tools to write with. After all, we don't just write with words: we write with sentences and paragraphs, with imagery and timing, with mood and detachment, with denotation and connotation, with insight and irony, with ideas and emotions, with character and self-understanding: and other people's books are the best school in the world for studying how to do those things. (06/01/2004) |
Thomas Ferencz (Amanibhavam): Dear Mr. Donaldson,
first of all thank you for anwering my previous question. Your answer to my next one may shed light on a very intriguing problem. I concerns the Seven Words of Power. As far as I know, the words we know from the books are: Melenkurion abatha! Duroc minas mill khabaal!
Now please tell me, whether:
- the seven words are in fact six:-)
- there _are_ seven words, but the seventh one is Yet To Be Revealed
- the whole phrase above is _one_ word, and we do not know anything about the other six (this is contradicted by the fact that Elena says about Melenkurion Skyweir that it shares its name with one of the Seven Words)
I am really looking forward to your answer.
Amanibhavam
|
There are in fact *seven* words, of which only six have ever been revealed. All such lore was hidden in Kevin's Wards, but several of the Wards were never recovered. Presumably Kevin hid the seventh word for the same reason that he concealed the Seventh Ward: he was trying to create a sequence of knowledge (a curriculum) in which people would learn (and earn) their way from one level to the next. The idea is to try to ensure that people only receive knowledge/power when they're ready for it. Now, of course (I mean after "The Second Chronicles") *all* of Kevin's lore has effectively ceased to exist. (Linden's new Staff of Law doesn't even have *runes,* for crying out loud.) And without that lore to give it substance, the seventh word--if anyone chanced to discover it--would be meaningless. (06/01/2004) |
Todd: I met you at a fantasy convention in Chicago back in 1983 when I was a disgustingly immature and single minded teenager. After the session during which you and other authors answered questions, I was lucky enough to stand with you and a small group of other people while you answered yet more questions. It was then that you said that you had a third trilogy "mapped out", and to be very frank, I have been waiting for this third trilogy with more anticipation than any literary event. (Perhaps if George Martin continues to take even MORE time in releasing the fourth book of his excellent series, there will be some competition, but that's not likely.)
You said something to me that I found (while simple), rather profound. I was completely taken with the inventiveness you displayed in creating Vain, and asked how you came up with him. You looked at me and replied, "I needed him." As a writer myself (after too many years of creative contemplation, I'm writing my first novel of a projected five book series), that answer has helped me a great deal. Whenever I find myself lost, I ask myself, "What do I need?" So, thank you for that simple answer that has helped me immeasurably.
And thank you, finally, for ending my own personal twenty-one year wait. While you have expressed doubts concerning your ability to write this series, given the challenges it will present you with, I have every confidence that those are nothing more than the typical insecurities that all writers (well, most that have any common sense) possess, and that these books will crown an already remarkable achievement.
Now, a question. How different would The First Chronicles have been had the Lord of the Rings never been written?
|
I think you're giving me too much credit. "I needed him" sounds to me like the kind of answer I give when I'm too tired to actively think about the question. <grin> Still, I'm glad you found my reply useful. If I haven't said so already, I should state clearly that I don't think the "Chronicles" would exist *at all* if LOTR had not been both written and published first. As I've said, Tolkien brought an entire genre back into being. I don't think I could have done that for myself. And Tolkien (importantly aided by his publishers, Ian and Betty Ballantine) also created an entire market, which I certainly could not have done for myself. Just to give you a hint of how deep Tolkien's "enablement" of my work runs: Ian and Betty Ballantine founded Ballantine Books and made LOTR successful; they hired Lin Carter to follow Tolkien's success with his "Adult Fantasy Series"; when Carter's series failed miserably--for obvious reasons--the Ballantines replaced him with Judy-Lynn del Rey; Judy-Lynn then hired her husband, Lester del Rey, to handle fantasy while she edited science fiction; and Lester discovered *me*--but not before first publishing "The Sword of Shannara," which was the first book to follow Tolkien's success, well, successfully (and which was, not coincidentally, a direct Tolkien ripoff). In more ways than one, LOTR literally made what I do possible. (06/01/2004) |
John Gauker: I am very excited about another Covenent series. Is there a possibility that there could also be another Gap series?
|
This question appears more than once. Forgive me for saving time (and energy) by only answering it once. Anything is possible; but there will be no "sequel" to the GAP books in the foreseeable future. The problem is simple: I have no ideas for a story that could be set in the future (or even the past) of the GAP books. They feel "finished" to me the way they are; and although I have tried to think of more that I could do, I haven't been able to come up with anything. Ditto for "Mordant's Need," incidentally. On the other hand, I'm very aware that the underlying story of my mystery novels is *not* finished. And my novalla "Penance" seems to imply possibilities which I am so far unable to define. (06/01/2004) |
Peter Purcell: Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
The excerpt you posted is outstanding - I can't wait until the book is released! But at least I can re-read the posted chapter until then!
|
I'm glad you like it--and I certainly hope you won't be disappointed by what follows. (06/01/2004) |
Allen Parmenter: Contemplating the excruciations in the Gap Cycle I wonder if you were at all informed by Elaine Scarry's important book "The Body In Pain". Davies Hyland is a mighty interesting character and I wondered if you took time to study psychological hermaphroditism before writing. You are actually a master ironist - I mean an ironist of big proportions equalled by few in Western literature really.(Hashi covers his eyes to keep the light in but in essence he is actually blind to the situation.) Does your mind naturally generate paradoxes and ironies or do you force yourself to do that? A bit of both? One last question - how about Sigourney Weaver as the always enchanting Sorus Chatelaine, a dowdied up Mark Hamil to play the God-character, Vector Shaheed, and , of course, James Earl Jones to play that transcendant power: Dolph Ubike?
|
Sorry, no, I've never read--or even heard of--Elaine Scarry's book. And no, I didn't do any particular study of psychological hermaphroditism before or while I worked with Davies Hyland. (Perhaps I should have. Then he might not head the list of characters who have reason to complain about me.) But irony comes naturally to me. I don't have to force myself to generate ironies and paradoxes--but occasionally I do have to force myself to *not* generate them (close personal relationships don't always function well on a steady diet of irony). Sigourney Weaver would be good at Sorus Chatelaine--but she would also handle Min Donner well. Personally, I would prefer Anthony Hopkins for Vector Shaheed--that is, if he refuses to play Warden Dios. I think there are several black actors who would be good at Dolph Ubikwe--but the names I want have suddenly fallen out of my head (except for the always stellar Morgan Fairchild). And of course who but Vin Diesel could play Angus? (06/02/2004) |
Brad Thompson: SRD,
I am a devoted fan of both chronicles who returns to them every few years and reads voraciously from beginning to end. In a weird way, I feel that the excellence of these six books has prevented me from committing to my own works. On the other hand, this is almost certainly an excuse of mine. When I read the chronicles, I am always constructing little stories in my mind to deal with the peripheral races and areas around the land. I know you will never write a novel about the Haruchai or the Giants, but do you have the same urges that I do? Do you fantasize spin-off stories and histories when you write (or read) your books?
|
No, I never "fantasize spin-off stories and histories" in relation to my own books. As I've said before, I'm not a terribly fecund writer. I don't get many ideas. Which is why I milk them for all they're worth when I do get them. <grin> And it's also why I feel that when I do get an idea I must use it. If I ever start turning down ideas, my imagination is going to stop giving them to me. As for letting the "excellence" of the "Covenant" books prevent you from committing to your own writing: yes, that is certainly an excuse. However, it's an excuse with which I'm intimately familiar. I'm not going to describe the long and messy process by which I finally got rid of that excuse. But here's what I learned by going through that process: "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayeth the preacher. There is nothing new under the sun." Nothing, that is, except you. What I've done, or what Tolkien has done, or Shakespeare, or Joseph Conrad, or George Meredith, or Willian Butler Yeats, or Steven Erikson, or Gerard Manley Hopkins: none of that is relevant. The only question that matters is, "What can Brad Thompson do?" And you'll never find out what that is if you don't stop making excuses. (06/02/2004) |
Scott J. Ecksel: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for all that youve written and for taking the time to communicate with us here. I find your eloquence as you answer these questions to be as inspiring as your novels and stories themselves.
Theres so much I would want to say, but Im going to limit myself to two comments and one question.
Comment: I began reading the Chronicles shortly after they were published, when I was around 11 or 12, and there has been one particular aspect of The Land which has had quite an impact on me: the health sense experienced by the denizens of The Land. More than anything else, that idea made The Land always stay in my memory; it made The Land a place I would desperately want to live in. (And Ill admit I was heartbroken when in The Wounded Land we discovered that the health sense had been lost for the people of The Land and for TC). Through the years, Ive come to think of health sense as something which isnt so much unique to The Land but is, rather, something we all possess to a degree when we pay attention to whats around us. Or, to use TCs terms, when we think of the landscape as mere scenery we have no health sense, but if we were to live life noticing nature and being more attuned to...well, to everything...perhaps wed be able to better develop our health sense. I know youve said on several occasions that youre not a polemicist, but I have to thank you for planting within me the seeds of my environmental conscience. As I write this, I am listening to the 17-year cicadas singing in the trees outside my window, and I wonder if some of the ills of our society might be more readily resolved if more people had the health sense to notice such beauty.
Comment: As a writer myself, it was interesting and encouraging to learn that you like to fill your head with words (i.e. read voraciously) and that you use music to create a cocoon of sound when you write. I tend to be the same way. In fact, Ive actually used that same phrase (fill my head with words) to describe what its like when I go on reading binges (and how necessary they are for me when I go ahead and write). I also seem to write best when I have headphones on. I listen to music that doesnt interfere with my thoughts (Chopin, Delerium or other ambient music, Peter Gabriel's The Passion and The Long Walk Home, The Lord of the Rings soundtrack, etc.). The music blocks everything else out but doesnt require me to focus on it...sort of a beautiful white noise.
Question: Youve answered several of the questions I might have posed, so Im going to ask something very simple: Which Wagner recording do you listen to? I have The Ring on cassettes and have no idea where it was recorded or by whom, and Ive been considering buying it on CD. Is there a particular version youd recommend?
Best wishes as you continue writing. Im really looking forward (understatement) to The Last Chronicles.
Scott
|
Many thanks for your comments! Under the circumstances, it won't surprise you to hear that *every* professional writer or artist I've ever talked to uses "sound" in some way as insulation against distraction. In fact, "a cocoon of sound" is one of the main requirements for any form of concentration which resembles self-hypnosis--and as far as I'm concerned, writing (like painting or any other art) definitely involves self-hypnosis. How else are we expected to access our unconscious minds while we're awake? Which recording of Wagner's "Ring" cycle do I listen to? It would be easier to name the ones I do *not* listen to (Levine's leaps to mind). But if you're thinking of CDs, you can hardly go wrong with Solti's recording (Nilsson and Hotter are incomparable). Or Boehm's recording, which might be a bit cheaper. However, if you're interested in DVDs, the best available (of an admittedly unsatisfactory lot) is the Boulez/Chereau production. Chereau's "industrial revolution" concept doesn't work very well; but Boulez has towering performers like McIntyre, Altmeyer, Hoffman, and Jones to compensate. Nothing that I've ever seen has moved me as deeply as the Boulez DVD of "The Valkyrie". (06/02/2004) |
Tom O'Toole: Mr Donaldson,
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
You had a letter published in Avengers #98 in 1972. Were you happy with the reply that you got?
Do you still read comic books? If so, which ones, and if not, when and why did you stop? Do you still have your collection?
Tom
|
Actually, I had *two* letters published by Marvel Comics. I remember nothing about the reply to my letter in Avengers #98. But I won a "no-prize" for my letter in Fantastic Four #?? I stopped reading comics a couple of years ago when my kids stopped reading them with me. Unlike 20-30 years ago, when it was all Avengers and FF, I came to prefer the "X franchise". And I still treasure Starlin's three "infinity gem" limited series. But Marvel regularly wrote out my favorite characters (Havoc, Adam Warlock), and I find I haven't regretted giving up comics. I still have about half of what was once a rather extensive collection (06/02/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you so much for spending the time to answer our questions, particularly given the pressures from your publisher. If it's any consolation, the publisher's urgency is due to *our* eagerness to read your work!
I want to reiterate my fondness for the Axbrewder series. I was fortunate enough to buy and read them when you were still Reed Stephens (although I knew it was you). I particularly like "Fought Alone", as it seems like Brew is on the mend. And I'm not talking about his gut wound, obviously.
My question relates to Mordant's Need. Did you ever have a map of Mordant, and if so, was there a reason that you didn't include it in the published work? It would have been handy to refer to, particularly while reading the second volume.
If a map does exist, is there any chance you would post it to this site?
|
Yes, I did have an exTREMEly rudimentary map for "Mordant's Need." I drew it myself--and if you knew how I draw, you would know that no more need be said. Of course, DEL REY/Ballantine would have had the thing redrawn by a professional, if I had considered it appropriate. But my editor felt it was unnecessary. And I had my own complex reasons for withholding it. The vastly simplified explanation: unlike "Covenant," where the Land is at least a much a character as Mhoram or Foamfollower or Covenant himself, "Mordant's Need" is not about the world in which it takes place. I withheld my map because I didn't want to distract attention from the characters. (Incidentally, this also explains many of the *other* differences between the "Chronicles" and "Mordant's Need".) I'm confident that I never actually threw away that map. On the other hand, I sure can't find it now. Sorry about that. (06/02/2004) |
Jim: Dr. Donaldson, i love your books (that i've read). I am currently reading the gap series (3rd book, and i am enjoying that one also)
I've wrestled most of my life, and i have just recently taken up Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (a martial art very simialar to wrestling).
I was wondering where your interest in Karate comes from, and if you practice any other martial arts.
|
I took up karate because I was commanded to do so by my therapist (and no, I don't want to explain that statement). But then I fell in love with it, and now I couldn't give it up. I only study Shotokan. But that statement is a bit misleading. All three of my senseis have been fairly open-minded, and the second in particular exposed his students to Muay Thai, boxing, Jujitsu, Silat, Kali, and Wing Chun (among others). As for my current sensei, he is now satisfied with my grasp on the Gojo-Ryu kata he taught me, so I'm now learning one of the White Crane ch'uan fa forms. I've also taken a couple of Gracie Brothers seminars, as well as several from Fumio Demura. And I study sparring at a local Kajukembo dojo. With your interest in the martial arts, you might enjoy "The Man Who Fought Alone." (06/02/2004) |
Esther Freeman: >except for the always stellar Morgan Fairchild<
Presumably the name you mean is Morgan Freeman?
This question not meant for publication.
Best :-)
|
Please see a deeply embarrassed expression on my face. Yes, of COURSE, I meant Morgan Freeman. My apologies to the entire created cosmos for *that* unique malfunction. (06/03/2004) |
Thomas May: Of course, thanks for all your works, and for opening my eyes to reading by my first wife insisting that I read "Thomas Covenant."
In reading your written work, you (SRD) seem to "feel" the pain while you're writing. Any truth to my observation?
Thanks,
Thomas May
|
Earlier I promised some comments about how I write. Here goes. The simple answer to your question is Yes. Writing has never been "fun" for me, for a variety of reasons; but one of them is certainly that I "go through" everything my characters do in the course of a story. My writing "method" is very subjective and, well, let's call it "experiential." Specifically, I try to *become* my point of view (POV) character, and then to see and touch and feel everything that character does. So of course I write everything in the sequence in which my POV experiences it. I start at the beginning of what happens to them, and I stay with them until the end of what happens to them. (This is true even in stories like the GAP books, where I change POV almost constantly. At the beginning of that POV's share of the narrative, I--in essence--create the entire world from scratch from their perspective, and then I live inside his/her head until the narrative shifts to another POV.) Along the way, of course, I try to experience the other characters as vividly as the POV does, to react to them and strive to understand them the same way the POV does. (I've often told my kids that I'm the oldest person in the world. Not in years, of course, but in experience, since I have effectively lived through every one of my stories from the perspective of every one of the significant characters.) The primary advantage of my method is that it helps me engage the reader as strongly as possible. However, there are some disadvantages. One is that my method makes it difficult for me to give all of my significant characters dignity (see my discussion of dignity earlier in this interview), since I am (apparently) constrained by the sympathies and knowledge of the POV. This obstacle I attempt to overcome by knowing my non-POV characters so well, and by articulating them so urgently, that my POV is forced to grant them the dignity which I desire for them. (This, of course, was not a do-able job in the GAP books, since characters like Nick and [at first] Angus don't give a ^#$%# about anyone else's dignity. Hence all the POV shifts in that story. I had to keep moving around in order to give my characters what their companions would not.) And then I work ESPECIALLY hard on the non-POV characters when I rewrite. Consistently the single thing that evolves most when I rewrite is how I articulate the non-POV characters--and how they articulate themselves. Another disadvantage of my method is that it is bloody exHAUSTing. Especially when I shift POV, because then I have to re-create the entire world in different terms, with different assumptions, sympathies, exigencies, and knowledge. Which is why I need *so* much recovery time between big projects--or even between books within a project. There are other disadvantages, but I'll only mention one. So much "engagement" isn't to every reader's taste. Readers either love or loathe what I do, virtually no one is indifferent; and I think the reason is that some people don't want to, or aren't willing to, FEEL as intensely as I ask them to. (And of course this problem is exacerbated in the GAP books, where what I'm asking the reader to FEEL is so intensely unpleasant most of the time.) On the other side, people who *do* want to FEEL when they read tend to value what I do a LOT. (06/03/2004) |
Revan: Whom do you consider to best written character(s)? And what is your personal favourite story you've created?
|
As I've said before, I have different favorites at different times for different reasons. If I answered the same question tomorrow, I might give a very different response. But for now.... My best written character? Hashi Lebwohl. My personal favorite story? "The Killing Stroke" (06/03/2004) |
Scott Ellithorpe: Mr. Donaldson,
I just finished reading the first chapter of the prologue posted on this site. Having also read your earlier concerns regarding your ability to successfully write the 3rd Chronicles, let me say I believe you will succeed.
I found a copy of The Power That Preserves on my fathers coffee table when I was 14, and was instantly hooked. Just last year I picked up Lord Fouls Bane and read all six books (in order this time). It is amazing what you can forget in twenty years (Im 34 now). I had completely forgotten about Nom, among other things! Looking back I can see how your tale has influenced who I am today. Thank you.
I have only two questions. Are hardcover books from the previous Chronicles still in print? If not might there be a re-print, maybe special edition signed by the author :) The paperbacks are usually falling apart by the time I have finished them. Secondly (and obviously completely optional) do you believe in the Creator (God), in the Judeo-Christian sense?
Greatest Gratitude Scott Ellithrope
P.S. What in the world DID happen to Bereks white gold ring? ;>
|
Thanks for your reassurance! I've already said all that I'm going to say--and probably much more than I should have said--about my views on "the Creator (God)." At present, the only source I know of for hardcover editions of the first six "Covenant" books is the Science Fiction Book Club: they currently have an omnibus of each trilogy. As I think I've mentioned, Hill House is planning a collector's limited edition of "The Runes of the Earth," and if the response is favorable, Hill House hopes to go back to the earlier books eventually. But right now that's pure speculation. Hill House will have to succeed with "Runes" before they tackle any other Covenant books. (06/03/2004) |
Earl Craine: When will 'Runes' be released in Australia?
|
I'm trying to get an answer from my UK publisher. Please post your question again, so I'll remember to reply when *I* get an answer. Or keep your eye on the "news" section of this site, just in case I'm smart enough to post the information there. (06/04/2004) |
Mike Berg: I am (as most others here) a huge fan of the TC books, and am anxiously awaiting the Last Chronicles. My question is about artwork... I have seen almost no artwork for the TC books other than the cover art for the various editions.
Have artists submitted artwork to you? Is there somewhere on the net with a collection of TC artwork? If I were to create some artwork of my own, would you be interested in seeing it?
I have a great hunger for visual representations of the vivid images raised in my head while reading the series.
Thanks,
-Mike
|
I, on the other hand, have no hunger at all for "visual representations" of anything I write about. Artists do (very) occasionally send art to me, or make their art available to me (e.g. on the 'net), but I secretly wish they wouldn't. Such things have the curious effect of making me feel inadequate. This is difficult to explain; but the plain fact is that I'm not in any useful sense a "visual" person. I don't think in visuals, I think in words. Mentally I "see" with language. This is true in many, many areas of my life. If a blue car drives past me, it may very well be blue until the end of time, but I won't know it's blue unless I look at it and say the word "blue" to myself. When I look at something like a painting, it conveys absolutely nothing to me--until I hear someone talk about it. Then the words seem to bring the painting into being for me. Without the words, the painting might as well not exist as far as I'm concerned. btw, this explains why I love "symbolic" cover art (such as the UK draft cover for "Runes" posted on this site), and always feel sad when my US publishers insist that cover art must depict "a scene from the book." (The Tor/Forge covers for my mystery novels are a wonderful exception.) The US approach to sf/f covers simply doesn't speak to me. So no, please don't send me your art. And don't take it personally. Looking at your art, or anyone else's, simply reminds me of abilites which other people have, but which I entirely lack. (06/04/2004) |
Bryan: Mr. Donaldson -
I would just like to add my deep appreciation for your works. I've enjoyed them a great deal over the years.
Are there any plans for publication of new editions of the First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Convenant to coincide with the publication of Last Chronicles (hard cover or otherwise)?
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Bryan
|
Please check the "news" section of this site occasionally for any information that comes my way concerning the re-publication of the earlier "Covenant" books. (06/04/2004) |
Harry Kanth: Hi Mr Donaldson,
I recently read the five books of the GAP series over a recent holiday (so I had about 8 days) one after the other for the first time. I found myself as engrossed as during my reading of the Chronicles of TC but in a different way.
It is diffult to explain but the energy and emotions the GAP series raised in me were very different to my reading of the Chronicles. Did you specifically aim to achieve this in your readers or was that just a natural result of the story being told?
I have by the way ordered your mystery books recently and plan to see how these effect me within the next week or so. Without trying to 'creep', talent in a writer in my view results in quality stories in whatever genre, so I do not think I will be disappointed!
My second question is a technical one in that as a writer when you write in different genres do you have a special method of going into a paticular state of mind to write in that genre or do you simply sit down and get on with the job at hand?
Thank you for taking the time to read this and also for very kindly answering my earlier questions.
|
I don't set out to achieve different effects when I write different stories. I just try to tell each story as well as I can. But since each story is inherently different (because each story is by its very nature *specific*: it deals with very particular people in very individual settings and situations), each requires me to do different things in order to tell it well. Each story demands a different style, a different mood (and style and mood depend on language, imagery, timing, a whole host of factors); each deals in different themes (because different individuals face different issues); each needs a different length in order to express itself. Therefore each story *should* achieve a different effect, and each of these effects is (ideally) unique to its specific story. Writers who try to achieve the same effects that they have achieved before, or that other writers have achieved, are pretty much wasting their time--and the reader's. When I find that I need to change genres (because the story I want to tell requires it), my only--what shall I call it?--*external* form of preparation is to do a fair amount of extra reading in the genre I'm about to attempt. I try to fill my head with the conventions and expectations and language of that genre so I'll know what I'm, in a manner of speaking, "up against" in the reader's mind. Other than that, my preparation tends to be pretty much the same for every story, regardless of genre: I need to know where I'm going, and why, and which technical tools (e.g. narrative stance) will best help me get there. (06/04/2004) |
Russell: Just finished reading "Tull's Tale." Man, the destruction of the Unhomed always gets to me.
Thanks for recommending Steve Erikson, I just recieved my "Gardens of the Moon" from a special order, looking forward to it.
Question on pronunciation ( your pronunciation )
of "Bhrathair, Bhrathairealm."
|
Well, that depends on whether or not you can aspirate a "b" as you do the "t" in "the." If you can't, here's how I pronounce those names: Bhrathair: BRA-there Bhrathairealm: BRA-there-realm (but run "there" and "realm" together so that they only have one "r". (06/04/2004) |
Anonymous: Thank you sir for your talent and work. Your books have changed my life from an early age. For over twenty years TCoTC has remained, and always will be, my favorite series. You have my respect, my admiration and a sincere love for the worlds you have made including your other works such as the GAP series and novels. I wish I had more time to sing your praises, but instead here are some questions.
How important is "Empathy" to you as a writer and to being a writer in general. In my personal life I am very empathetic with people, events and places. How can I use the inherent "empathy" in my personality to make myself a better writer.
In the "The Power That Preserves" (Hail SRD! er, I mean Hail YOU! *grin*) my question is about Mhoram and the Ritual of Desecration. In the chapter of the same name it's said that "That secret contained might-might which the Lords had failed to discover because of their Oath of Peace-might which could be used to preserve as well as destroy. Despair was not the only unlocking emotion."
I have always felt this reasoning was self explanatory. Others have spoken about how Kevin, while not being bound by the Oath of Peace certainly demonstrated it in his dealings with the Haruchai. He did not destroy them using his power instead he gave them gifts so powerful they in turn pledged their Vow. I know you don't like to dictate to your readers how they should interpret your books. Funny enough by writing this out however I have answered my own question. What better example do we need other than Kevin's willingness and subsequent desperate act to desecrate the Land and lay waste to it to show how different the old Lords were from any Oath of Peace? LOL. I guess my question is, do you feel my reasoning and thought process sound in regards to this issue. I don't feel the new lords were "afraid" of power, which is what some have stipulated. I simply feel the new Lords did not have the comprehension or knowledge. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, till one day someone has an epiphany like Lord Mhoram and intuition leads to the right answer. IE. "Thinking outside the Box".
Thank you again sir, your willingness to interact with your fans in this medium, in spite of your value for privacy and need to work on TLCoTC this line of fan questioning and answers from you personally is a tribute and testimony to you as a writer, person and human being.
|
If by "empathy" you mean "the ability to relate accurately--and non-judgmentally--to what someone else is feeling," then empathy is crucial to the kind of story-telling I try to do. In effect, I try to put myself into as many different heads as possible, to see and feel the world through as many different sets of eyes as I can. And I want all of those heads to be fundamentally separate from mine (in other words, none of my characters is "me in disguise"). And I want to inhabit them with the same loyalty of perspective that real people have for their own points of view. When I talk about "engagement" and "becoming my characters," I'm very serious; and I couldn't even attempt those things without empathy--and imagination. But there are as many different approaches to writing as there are writers, and I can't begin to guess how important empathy is to other writers. Certainly, judging by their books, some writers appear to do without empathy entirely. Others convey the impression that their personal engagement is real, but shallow. What the truth may be, I can't say. I can only speak for myself. I can't honestly say that I understand your question about Kevin and Mhoram, the Ritual of Desecration and the Oath of Peace. But here's what I *can* say. Kevin saved the Bloodguard (and the Ranyhyn, and the Unhomed, and most of the people of the Land) because he genuinely cared about them. (Yes, I know there were other factors as well.) And he performed the Ritual of Desecration for essentially the same reason: he cared more intensely than he could stand, and so the prospect of failure became unendurable. Attempting to avoid the dangers which result when action is ruled by extreme emotion, the new Lords codified a moral principle in the form of the Oath of Peace. (It's the same principle Gichin Funakoshi proposed when he wrote, "If your hand goes forth, withhold your anger. If your anger goes forth, withhold your hand.") But every moral precept has its disadvantages--just as every strength is also a weakness. The advantage of the Oath of Peace was that it taught the people of the Land not to act on the basis of strong emotion. The disadvantage was, well, it taught the people of the Land not to act on the basis of strong emotion. In other words, it taught them to distrust strong emotions (of which there are too many to be covered by any one precept), and thus it left them without constructive outlets for their strong emotions. Mhoram's great insight was that strong emotions themselves are not the real problem: the real problem is the lack of constructive outlets. The key to "constructive outlets," of course, is the ability to act on strong emotions while still using good judgment. That's a learned ability, and it can only be learned by people who first *trust* their strong emotions (i.e. trust themselves). The core of Kevin's dilemma is that he felt despair because he did not trust himself. Does that help? I hope so. If it doesn't, maybe you shouldn't tell me. <grin> I don't think I can do better. (06/04/2004) |
C.S.: After having discussed this with my friends who have also read the Second Chronicles, we have agreed that the sole purpose of "The One Tree" is to create the availability of Nom for "White Gold Wielder". Is this true, or was there some deeper purpose that did not come across so clearly?
|
Please. Do you really I think I would--in effect--waste an entire book just so I could introduce one character? "The One Tree" is crucial to "The Second Chronicles" in far more ways than I could possibly list here. However, I'll just mention that if Vain weren't partially transformed by the crisis of the One Tree, and if Findail weren't forced to trail after Covenant and Linden for so long, the eventual creation of a new Staff of Law would have been entirely impossible. (06/06/2004) |
James: Greetings, Mr. Donaldson. Thanks much for allowing me to pose some questions.
(1) Why did Linden never make an attempt to use (or why did it never occur to anyone that she make an attempt to use) such things as the krill (which Covenant allowed Sunder to use), or Hollian's lianar (who died using it in an effort to alter the Sunbane), or Sunder's orcrest? At least until the time came for her to have to make use of Covenant's white gold ring.
(2) Vain demonstrated his ability to defend himself and others mightily on several occasions. Why did he refrain from going back into Revelstone or near the Clave the 2nd time? Couldn't he have used his hand gestures of power to protect against attacks aimed at him?
(3) How was the Creator able to offer to do certain things for Covenant at the end of The Power that Preserves (or able to heal Covenant from his deadly reaction to the antivenom in the "real" world), and not break the Arch of Time in so doing?
(4) How is "Atiaran" pronounced?
Thanks again!
James
|
OK, here goes. 1) There are too many reasons to list here (mainly because I'm sure I'll forget some of them), but I'll give you a few. a) Linden is hanging by her fingernails trying to cope with her vulnerability to the Sunbane, and she can't handle much more. b) She fears Covenant's surrender to Lord Foul, and all of her attention is focused on him. c) Nothing in her background or personality has prepared her to be a "warrior," and the whole idea of using "implements of power" as weapons goes against her nature. d) None of the "implements" you mention *belongs* to her. She isn't the kind of person who just takes precious things away from other people. e) The idea of "power" itself is foreign to her, and she has no inherent grasp on how to use it or what it can do. Only her desperation in Kiril Threndor, and the oblique knowledge gained by being possessed by a Raver, enable her to use Covenant's ring, and then the new Staff, at the end of the story. 2) Vain certainly has the power to defend himself. But he is, in a manner of speaking, a robot with very limited programming. He protects himself, and attacks Sunbane-warpped ur-viles: that's it. (With the one obvious exception that Covenant is allowed to command him once.) Other than that, he only does what he has to do to serve the purpose for which he was made. So, for example, he enters Revelstone the first time because he needs the iron heels of the old Staff, but stays outside the second time because (in terms of his programming) fighting the Clave is irrelevant to his purpose. Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose. Only Findail and the ring matter. (Remember that Vain's makers don't want to expose him to dangers--e.g. the full force of the Banefire--which may be powerful enough to damage him.) 3) OK, that does it. I'm not going to answer any more questions about the Creator(s). I think I've figured out what's wrong (I mean intellectually wrong) with this line of inquiry. It's rather like asking me whether Patrick Stewart and Leonard Nimoy ever get together when their Federation duties send them to Earth. An important and necessary distinction between "reality" and "fiction" is being blurred. The Land, the Arch of Time, and the Creator do not exist: I made them all up. That's what gives fiction its power. When fiction "works," the author's imagination is speaking directly to the reader's imagination, and thus a community which enriches both is brought into being. But this process depends entirely upon imagination, fabrication, invention, "lies" (falsehoods which have the gift of being "true" instead of "factual"). So any question that implies some sort of necessary relationship between my "fiction" and our "reality" is inherently illogical. As to your specific question: When the Creator addresses and even effects Covenant, Covenant is in a state of transition between my fictional worlds (my fictional "Land" and my fictional "reality"). He isn't actually in the Land, but he hasn't actually returned to his "real world" yet. Therefore things literally "could go either way." And the same is true for Covenant's physical condition in my fictional "reality." Just because he has a negative reaction to the antivennin doesn't mean he can't "pull through." Stranger things happen in *our* reality all the time. 4) As far as I'm concerned, you can pronounce anything in my books any way you want to. You earned the sovereign right to do so by reading the books. But I understand your curiosity. As it happens, I pronounce Atiaran: A-tea-ARE-an. That first A is long (like "a cat") rather than short ("ah"). (06/07/2004) |
Jonathan Meakin: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I suspect you may well not know where your reading tour for "Runes of the Earth" will take you. However, are any visits to western Canada even on the radar?
Cheers,
Jonathan Meakin
|
Sorry, professional visits to Canada are highly unlikely. Canadian publishing is a separate business (although often closely tied to US publishing), and the population of Canada is too small (no aspersion intended) to justify the (rather high) costs of a tour. Of course, there are exceptions; but typically Canadian publishers reserve their cost-intensive promotions for Canadian authors (as I think they should). (06/07/2004) |
Victor: Hello. Long time TC reader, first time caller.
Just curious as to what was the initial concept ro character idea for the Covenant series. Did you say, "I want to write a fantasy series" and proceed from there, or did you have a Thomas Covenant character lurking around in your brain for some time before discovering a setting for him to exist?
What was the spark?
And if you'll indulge me, in the initial creation of your story, was there ever a dramatically different (or alternate) direction the story almost headed before your deciding to go with the story we hold in our hands today?
Thank you for the many hours of enjoyment your books have provided.
|
Short answers first. Since I can't write at all unless I know where I'm going in a story, what the ending (purpose) of a story will be, my stories never change directions while I work on them. Details about how to get from here to there sometimes change (more often as I get older) as I get new ideas and become more familiar with the characters. But the shape and direction of the story never change in any substantive sense. <sigh> There's a whole long story behind the initial conception of the first "Covenant" trilogy. I'll try to keep it short. 1) Reading LOTR in college inspired in me a desire to write fantasy, if I ever got an idea. Tolkien was generally sneered at by my peers and teachers in college and graduate school. However, I felt sure that they were wrong, although I couldn't at the time explain why. As I said to myself back in those days (1966-1971), LOTR convinced me that "fantasy was fit work for a man to do." Unfortunately, I had no ideas for a fantasy. 2) During xmas vacation in 1970, I had what Patricia A. McKillip has called a "tail of the comet" experience. I remember exactly where I was when it happened, but I won't bore you with the details. Out of (apparently) nowhere, my head was set fire by the notion (the tail of the comet) of a man from the "real world" confronting the archetypal evil of a "fantasy world" and emerging victorious because he knew that the "fantasy world" was not "real." This was terribly exciting to me, it felt like a mind-altering experience--BUT it was completely static. I had no story: no information about the man, no information about the world, no information about the evil. Nothing. It was fiery as all hell, but it simply didn't go anywhere. 3) In the spring of 1972, I attended the college graduation of one of my sisters. As it happened, my parents were in the US, they both attended the graduation as well; and while we were in town, my father, the orthopedic missionary, was asked to speak at the local Presbyterian church. Well, he was no preacher, so whenever he was asked to speak he described some aspect of his work. On this particular occasion, he spoke about his work with lepers. This, of course, was all stuff I'd heard before; but as I half listened on this particular occasion, I suddenly thought: if a man rejects a "fantasy world," he should be someone for whom fantasy is infinitely preferrable to reality. A man with a good life who experiences a horrible fantasy is only too grateful to label it a nightmare: that is mere self-interest. But if a man with a horrible life experiences a wonderful fantasy and *still* rejects it, that is not self-interest: it is a statement of principle; a rigorous and expensive and even self-sacrificing conviction about the nature of both "reality" and "importance"; a--in effect--religious affirmation. And *whose* "real life," I suddenly asked myself, could possibly be worse than a leper's? Every essential detail about the first "Covenant" trilogy grew from that fortuitous intersection of leprosy and unbelief. NOW I had a story. (06/08/2004) |
Rob Smith: Steve,
Not so much a question - more an observation.
In an earlier response you said that the fact your readership responded more to the Covenant novels than the Gap series used to cause you some discomfort (but you got over it - good for you <grin>). I just wanted to let you know that for me at least the Gap series has taken over as my favourite of your works. It was a gradual process over many re-readings and I think I've identified at least one of the reasons.
There is no inherently evil character in the GAP series. Oh there are lot's of villainous types who are willing to sacrifice pretty much everyone & everything else to achieve their own ends (Holt etc.) and the likes of Angus who, as a damaged individual, tries to damage everything and everyone else, but there isn't an equivalent of Foul. Foul is different. Whilst it might be argued his intent is to break the arch of time his methods seem cruel for no other reason than he thinks it's fun - He laughs at Lepers. (I know you don't like Tolkein comparisons but I have the same issue with Sauron who is nasty just because he can be.)
Having said all that the next time I re-read Covenant (in preparation for Runes in October) I'll probably discover more new stuff and it might take over as favourite again - Certainly The Wounded Land is (for me) the strongest single volume of any of your series' ("How do you hurt a man who has lost everything - give him back something broken" - That is truly cold man!)
By the way - in spending your valuable time answering these questions you are doing your fanbase an incredible favour and we salute you. (Just don't use us as an excuse for delaying the next volume - right!)
|
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. From my perspective, the "evil" in the GAP books--and "Mordant's Need"--is pretty much the same as the "evil" in "Covenant": it's all just Despite in one form or another. (Do remember that Lord Foul has what he considers a legitimate grievance. And all of that laughing at lepers can be seen as tactical: of course it expresses a certain inherent contempt--as does Holt's treatment of, say, his mother--but its primary purpose is, arguably, to manipulate.) The difference (just my opinion, folks: I'm not trying to lay down the law here) is one of *scale*. Lord Foul is an explicitly archetypal character (hence the crashing lack of subtlety of his name). Men like Holt Fasner and Master Eremis are (deliberately) more "human-scaled": they have more of the dimensions and limitations that real people have; they are less "single" or "pure" in their natures than Lord Foul is. As a result, the GAP books and "Mordant's Need" appear to be less about GOOD vs EVIL and more about good people vs bad people. But one of the many points that I'm trying to get at in stories like the GAP books and "Mordant's Need" is that the essential themes remain the same. Putting the same point another way (in a floundering attempt to be clear): sure, Lord Foul is a "trapped god," while Holt and Eremis are not; but all three of them would probably behave disdainfully and even destructively no matter where they happened to be, even if they somehow achieved their hearts' desires. (06/08/2004) |
James DiBenedetto: This might be asking you to give too much away (in which case, please accept my apologies and ignore the question), but since you're probably not going to be able to answer questions for the forseeable future, and since October is still 4 long months away, I'll ask...
Can you give us a list of the chapter titles for Runes, and/or the titles of the books/sections that Runes is broken up into?
|
I'm not sure my publishers would want me to meet your request, but I'll risk their disapproval to this extent. The Prologue has five chapters: Mother's Son Gathering Defenses In Spite of Her Malice The Cost of Love and Despair (06/08/2004) |
David : Mr, Donaldson:
First off, let me say thank you for such incredible writings. My friend whom I used to work with at my old job kept telling me and telling me, "Man, you have GOT to read Stephen R. Donaldson!" So I broke down and bought a copy of Lord Foul's Bane. Yeah, he was right. I was hooked. After that, I read the Gap and REALLY fell in love with that story. My last job was very tedious, boring and sometimes stressful with the amount of overtime we were made to do. Every break I had at work I was reading your books and forgetting about everything in the meantimee, and I have to admit, they helped keep me going. And when I was working, I could not stop thinking about what was going to happen in the next chapter and was eager to get back to turning pages.
Your stories also helped inspire me and grow on a very creative level as well since I'm an artist myself and loved drawing my own interpretations of your characters.
Anyway, what I wanted to ask you was your opinion concerning the required reading of literature in schools. I notice in text books and novels assigned by teachers there are hardly any fantasy or science fiction genres listed save for books in older sci-fi classics such as Farhenheit 451 or Frankenstein. Now in your opinion, why do you suppose we don't see more of the fantasy/sci-fi genre in schools as opposed to the amount of realistic or historical fiction? Doyou think the school boards don't feel the genre should be taken as seriously as Mark Twain or Chaucer? I mean, does the genre matter as long as the main ideas, themes and character development are strong and well-written, and if you can also learn something valuable?
Just something that's been on my mind for awhile, so I thought I'd ask someone who was splendid at writing in many different genres. :)
Take care and have a good day!
-Dutch
|
I should probably say far more often than I do that I'm grateful for all of the compliments, congratulations, and kindness I've received in the course of this interview. You all are very nice to me, and I appreciate it. IMNSHO, the reading curriculum in high schools (and even middle schools) is explicitly designed to teach students how to hate reading. I've watched my children suffer through their reading assignments for many years, and my natural reaction is one of unvarnished outrage. (Of course, the same thing was true when I went through school; but fortunately I became an obsessive reader long before the schools tried to stamp it out of me.) But the problem as I see it is not one of genre (although there is an enormous amount of intellectual prejudice out there against "popular" genres like fantasy, science fiction, and mysteries), but of "age-appropriate-ness" (if you'll forgive such an unwieldy term). 30+ years ago, I was sitting in an airport once when a young girl plopped herself down beside me. As it happened, I was reading "The Great Gatsby." The girl glanced over at my book and said (and I swear I'm not making this up), "We read that in 8th grade. I thought it was pretty superficial." Well, "The Great Gatsby" is a great book--for adults. For children it is at best a terrible waste of time, and at worst a destructive experience. Or a contrary example. My dear son, of whom I am very proud (and who will forgive me for revealing this), discovered the Piers Anthony "Xanth" books at age 12. He loved them (while I secretly cringed). And because he loved them, he kept reading. And naturally his tastes matured as he did. The result is a man for whom books are a source of joy instead of a form of torture. Why do schools do this? Beats the by-products out of me. I'm sure that intellectual prejudice plays a role. So does the distorted conviction that children should read books which are somehow "good for them." So does the way parents sue school systems whenever their children read books which expand their minds. Whatever the explanation, it's perfectly obvious that our educational system has nothing to do with education: it's a babysitting service designed to replicate the worst qualities of the parents. Now, aren't you glad you asked? <grin> (06/08/2004) |
Cate: Stephen, Just don't ever die, OK? ; )
Promise you will keep writing and keeping us happy.
|
OK, OK. I PROMISE I will NEVER DIE. How's that? <grin> And none of this "living on in the hearts of my readers" nonsense for me. I'm just going to go out there and NEVER DIE. What a relief. (06/09/2004) |
John McCann: I've been a fan of yours since highschool (before there were barcodes on the back of the trilogy). I actually read the TC trilogy before reading LOTR. Making you the founding father of my interest in fantasy. TC was an annual ritual for me while I was waiting for the second trilogy to be completed. Since the completion of the second trilogy I've read everything of yours as soon as I was aware of it except the Gap books. For the most part I have loved everthing. I reread all six books in 2000, the first time in 15 years. They were far better than I remembered. Rereading them was such a pleasure.
For Christmas a couple years ago I gave a friend the UK omnibus edition of the Man who books. Somewhere it stated these editions were revised. I have the old ballantine paperbacks. Are here any substantial differences between the originals and the newer editions? Will the Man who tried to Get Away also be a revised editon? BTW I enjoyed "The Man Who Fought Alone" more than any novel of yours since "The Woundwd Land."
What would you suggest for someone who really wants to finish the Gap cycle but can't imagine starting over again at "The Real Story" I read the first 3 as they were released and like the 3rd the best of those, but by the time I got "Chaos and Order" (a pre release copy even) I felt lost and never got more than 30 pages into it. This is coming from a person who has already picked up his copy of Lord Fouls Bane to refresh his memory for the upcoming "Runes of the Earth".
|
All three of the "Reed Stephens" novels ("The Man Who Killed His Brother," "The Man Who Risked His Partner," and "The Man Who Tried to Get Away") were *slightly* revised for their re-release by Tor/Forge in the US and Orion in the UK. I don't believe in attempting substantial revisions of older work: I'm not the man I was when I wrote those books, and I think I would damage their integrity if I altered them to suit my current perspective. So I just did a little polishing on the prose so that it would read more smoothly. If you compared the old Ballantine editions with the modern versions line by line, you would soon see how truly minor the changes are. Gee, what *can* I suggest for a reader who can't stand to revisit "The Real Story"? Well, if you also can't stand to revisit "Forbidden Knowledge" (affectionately known as "Forbidden Cannelloni"), then my only suggestion is to re-read "A Dark and Hungry God Arises" (affectionately known as "Dark and Hung"). (06/09/2004) |
Anonymous: LOL!!! Well put sir! (In reguards to the education spiel) *Wonders if he spelled spiel right* Hmm..Sh?....Screw it.
Have a wonderful day sir.
I know I will.
Oh! And great books man. Thet are greatly appreciated. heh.
Thank You
J. Depp
|
Well, I probably shouldn't have gone off on our educational system the way I did. I know for a fact that there are many *many* excellent teachers out there, and some of them are actually able to triumph over the curriculum imposed on them. But our educational system itself, like so many of our systems in this country.... Ah, well. (06/09/2004) |
Bryan Tannehill: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I first read The First Chronicles at the end of my 7th grade year in 1988 at the behest of one of my favorite (and crustiest) teachers. Your description of the Land and it's inhabitants evoked emotions in a way no books have done before or since. Fast forward to 1998 when I'm stuck in the middle of nowhere (1 hour drive to the nearest McDonald's, 2 to nearest Wal*Mart) with no more than an internet connection as a lifeline. I met a woman on the net a continent away whose alias was Linden_Avery. I contacted her using your books as a starting point for conversation. Well, we've been married for four years. On the inside, our wedding rings bear the inscription "There is also love in the world."
The question that goes with this long winded story is whether you are surprised by the strong emotional reaction the Covenant series seems to cause? People seem to either love or hate your works and style, and in those who love them they seem to strike a deep emotional chord. What in your writing do you attribute this effect to?
Oh by the way, thanks, from the both of us, for brining us together.
Bryan & Janis Tannehill
|
Just don't blame *me* if your relationship breaks up. <grin> I had nothing to do with it, honest. I mean, I wasn't even *there.* I suppose I'm *not* surprised by the strong emotional reactions that people have to my work. I've discussed the issue as I see it at various points during this interview. My writing (if the writing can in any sense be distinguished from the stories being written) is explicitly and deliberately emotional--far more overtly so than virtually all of the writing I've read. My characters and I are unusually naked in our needs and passions. Some people respond strongly to such openness (elsewhere in this interview I call it "engagement") while others are repulsed or even threatened by it. Put it this way: what's your reaction when you see someone you know sobbing openly? I know from personal experience that my reaction is a deep and almost irrefusable desire to put my arms around that person and comfort him/her. And I also know from personal experience that other people feel a deep and irrefusable desire to leave the room. (At least that's what they do when *I'm* sobbing. <rueful smile>) Well, readers of the latter type are unlikely to feel anything except disgust when they try to read one of my books. (06/09/2004) |
David : I enjoy the names you give your characters, but I think I'm having trouble with proper way they some of them should be pronounced, notably names such as Mikka Vaseczk. How do you pronounce her last name? I also had doubts about "Ubikwe" and "Waynhim".
By the way, I noticed one of the questions earlier had been brought up about what actors would play well as what characters in the Gap. You mentioned Vin Diesel would be a good Angus. Now I know this is your story, but I have to admit, that took me WAY by surprise. :) For some reason, John Goodman was the first person I visualized. :)
-Dutch
|
Pronunciation. There *is* no correct way to pronounce the names in my books. Honest. *You're* the reader: you have the right to pronounce anything the way you want. Of course, I have my own pronunciation, but I really don't want to impose it on anyone. With that in mind: Mikka Vaseczk (Mikka rhymes with FLICK-ah, and in VAS-ah-check the VAS-ah is pronounced like the "vase" in "vaseline") Ubikwe (you-BICK-way) Waynhim (WAY-n-him) John Goodman for Angus? I can't see it. Certainly Goodman has far more "range" as an actor than Vin Diesel has shown so far; but I've never seen Goodman produce anything that resembles the squalor of Angus' early malice. Diesel could do the malice (I'm not sure about the squalor). (06/09/2004) |
Peter Purcell: Thank you for answering my prior questions.
I just received a first edition signed copy (in GREAT condition) of "Reave the Just and Other Tales". It's outstanding!
A thought occured to me - please accept my apologies if it's an inappropriate request of a famous author! Would you (or your publishers) offer your Kevins Watch fans & friends an opportunity to purchase a "special" Kevins Watch signed first edition? [Or are the logistics of fulfilling such a request so complex that it's rude of me to ask!? If so, again accept my apologies!!]
Otherwise, your site mentions planned tours. If your planning to tour the Washington DC area, I could get a signed edition in person. That would be WAY cool. [Some of us can't come to Elohimfest!!]
Best regards and sympathies for the hectic times ahead for you as you described in an earlier post!
|
The problem is partly one of logistics and partly one of cost. Until Kevin's Watch's membership numbers in the (high) thousands, my publishers simply couldn't make enough money from a special Kevin's Watch edition to justify the many complications of producing such an edition. Books may seem expensive enough already, but publishers actually get to keep very little of that money. Without sheer *volume* they would all go out of business--unless they, say, tripled the price of books. (06/09/2004) |
Mark Dickerson: Your series "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" was the most amazing series i'd ever read. It was my favorite set of books to read. The two tearjerking moments were when we thought FoamFollower died, and the retelling of end of the giants in the second series. I've always looked for a new set of books - imagine my joy at hearing that you're writing more (though i'm guessing that (sadly) it won't be from Thomas Covenants viewpoint as he's departed).
I know, i know - so far there isn't a question..
Well - my partner just made some peach and lime jam which he says is delicious - and from what i remember, aliantha supposedly tasted similar to peaches and limes - here's the question - would you like a jar?
|
I'm sure your partner's jam *is* delicious. But please don't send any to me. Jam doesn't get eaten at my house. (06/10/2004) |
Jeremy Gauker: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for sharing your stories with us. No other author has moved me in so many different ways. Until recently, I had only read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and The Gap cycle. Those alone were enough for me to say you are my favorite author. Currently, I am reading Reave the Just an other tales and have just finished Penance. I am now avidly searching for anything published in your name.
My question is: Do you have any plans(or ideas) to write another science fiction novel or series?
Again, thank you for your stories and your precious time. The previous Gauker was my Dad, who intrduced Covenant to me.
|
I think I mentioned earlier in this interview that my only (extremely) tentative plan for the future (after "The Last Chronicles") is to write one more mystery novel. This is normal for me: I don't try to think that far ahead, or in that way. My goal is always to concentrate exclusively on the story at hand, and to let ideas for future stories reveal themselves as they see fit. Sometimes I have ideas tucked away in the back of my head: sometimes I don't. But in either case, I pay no attention. Instead I focus on what I'm actually writing. (06/10/2004) |
Will Reidhead: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Thank you for answering our questions and thank you for committing yourself to another 10 years of work - for our pleasure!
I have always been intrigued by your choice of obscure words. In a previous question you responded that you collect such words for later use in your work. I have come to savor these words for their sound and texture, and don't even bother to look up most of the ones I don't know. I am curious though, since you presumably know their meanings, do you always employ them in their strictly intended usage?
A second question: in a recent reply, you quoted the Giants' "Joy is in the ears that hear." Do you find yourself frequently quoting your characters in your everyday life, and if so, how do people respond?
By the way, my mother passed on Lord Foul's Bane to me when I was 13. However, I was mortified when on page 19 Convenant had some fairly sexual thoughts about a woman. I couldn't bear the idea of my mother knowing I had read such things, so I lied to her and told her I gave up on the book on page 18!
|
I do try to use words "correctly." But "correctness" in language is not a simple matter. Words often have several meanings, some of which are much less commonly used than others; but I have no qualms about using the least common meaning of a word. Indeed, I have no qualms about using words which have become so uncommon that they no longer appear in modern dictionaries. And then there is the interesting distinction between denotation (literal meaning) and connotation (implied meaning). Connotation often has more effect on communication than denotation does. But connotation is inherently more, well, debatable than denotation; and at a certain point the whole question of "correctness" becomes moot. No, I never go around quoting myself in daily life. I only do so in contexts like this interview, where virtually every participant shares a body of knowledge, and where most of the participants like hearing such quotes. In my "real" life, I know very VERY few people who actually read my books. And I know NObody who enjoys such conversational gambits as, "As I wrote in my book XYZ...." (06/10/2004) |
Paul: Do you have an opinion on the publication of twelve (or so) volumes of notes, extracts, original versions etc by Tolkien's son? Can it be justified because of the way Tolkien created a whole mythos that predated LOTR by several decades or is it merely pillaging? I tend towards the former, primarily because The Silmarillion was completed by his son and not bad at all, and some of the lost stories add a lot to the tale.
To put the above a different way, what would you think of the publication of YOUR notes and annotated texts etc after you shuffled off this mortal coil?! Would the lack of a world mythos approach in your work make it a rather pointless addition or would we learn more than we already know via the books? Another related and rather morbid question - if you were to pop your clogs today (a quaint Brit saying) what would you leave behind in terms of the last three books of the Final Chronicles (or do they only exist in your head at present)?
One final request - when you have proofread the new book, will you let us know how many pages it works out at please!
Thanks!
|
Grave-robbing is an ancient and (in some circles) respected tradition. I'm not at all sure how Tolkien would feel about what's been done with his unpublished notes etc. since his death. But there's no stopping the human impulse to plunder the past. In my case, however, there won't be anything to plunder. My notes consist primarily of sentence fragments and (apparently) unmotivated questions, and would be opaque to anyone else. Ditto my annotated texts, such as they are. So nothing exists which could be plundered (or completed) by anyone. The obvious exception is my journeyman-work, my "juvenalia": everything that I wrote before "Lord Foul's Bane". But such things reside among my collected papers at the Kent State University Libraries, and are only available to scholars doing research. KSU would win a juicy lawsuit if anyone took that stuff and published it. And I would die of embarrassment--which would be a problem, of course, since otherwise I'm not going to die. <grin> I'll be happy to let people know the page-count for "Runes" when I've seen the final proofs. But you may have to jog my memory. (06/10/2004) |
Sean Casey: Stephen, I'm currently doing a Creative Writing degree and my lecturer for my Level 2 Prose fiction module is doing PhD research on the novel. In particular, he's looking at the leitmotif in literature. Naturally, I offered to lend him The Real Story. He said that the afterword was 'most interesting' and told me a bit about where his studies had taken him. He's read a lot of Thomas Mann, who apparently was a Wagner fan and wanted to translate his musical ideas into literature. He also mentioned the 'Homeric epithet' and cited examples like 'wine-dark sea' and 'swift-footed Achilles' as early examples of the literary leitmotif.
How much of this is familiar to you and was it an influence on the creation of the style you used in the Gap series?
I read your comments on who might play Gap characters with a wry smile. I've always pictured Angus as a fatter, uglier version of James Hetfield (lead singer of my own musical muse, Metallica) after seeing a photo of him snarling into a mic. What about Tom Cruise for Nick?
|
I studied Thomas Mann in graduate school, and was dimly aware of his interest in Wagner. On the other hand, I know next to nothing about Homer. But I'm told that Homer was essentially an oral poet, and that his use of recurring phrases (and even entire paragraphs) was intended primarily as a mnemonic device (for the audience as well as the poet) rather than as a means of thematic development. But to the extent that I'm conscious of what I'm doing (which may be more than you think--and less than I think), I developed my own version of Wagner's leitmotifs myself. And I started working on it long before I reached the GAP books. So, no, Mann and Homer were not conscious influences. Cruise as Nick? Well, he plays "bad guys" well. And he has the look of a man who is attractive to women precisely because he secretly despises them--which would fit Nick nicely. But he's too "smarmy" for me. How about Ralph Fiennes (sp?)? (06/10/2004) |
Lord Fool: Thank you for answering my last question. Now I'm back with tougher ones :)
My questions consern the limitations of Creators. The rule is simple: once you've finished your creation, you can't affect to it any way without destroying the whole thing. ("Even ultimate power has limitations", and so on.)
So,
1) In the end of "The Chronicles", the Creator of the alternative Earth offered Covenant the possibility of living the rest of his life in the Land as a hero. How could that have been possible, since sending Covenant back to the Land the Creator would had have to make some sort of "way" to the Land, thus interfering with his creation?
2) Although Creators have no power concerning their own creations, they seem to be able to meddle with other Creators' works. The Land's Creator could be there talking, deciding who of all the white gold carriers of our world exactly was going to be summoned by Drool the Cavewight, and in the end giving Covenant's body the energy to keep on living.
You said earlier in this interview that the Land's Creator didn't have to ask permissions for his actions in the "real world" from the "real world's" Creator. Is this because "our" Creator couldn't have stopped other Creators meddling with his own creation anyway? And, if a Creator steps in in someone else's creation, how much power does he have there? Unlimited, perhaps?
3) If a Creator has a *lot* of power in other Creator's creation, couldn't it be possible for one Creator to ask help from other Creators? Like, "you go and fix the errors in my world, and I'll put your world in order".
And a bonus question: After reading my comment, can you ever stand the word "Creator" any more? :)
|
Sorry. I've already OD'ed on "Creator" questions. I tried to explain why earlier. So please accept my regrets--and trust your own judgment. (06/10/2004) |
Anonymous: This is not a question as much as some top of mind thoughts that really don't need to be put on the web.
First, thanks for responding to the questions. What a great service you are providing! I know I really enjoy the interaction and getting some insight on your thought process and all the different series that you have written. While I am saddened that you will have to cut back a bit, I understand the need to complete your various projects and look forward to the one you can't really talk about yet.
My real comment was to give you some honest feedback on Mordant & GAP. (I figure you get enough questions and comment regarding TC. Obviously, TC rates as my favorites all time. I think I have gotten to the point where I have memorized whole passages ). I have read each series atleast twice and have really enjoyed Mordant, was somewhat turned off by GAp but later in the series was able to appreciate it. I eagerly gobbled up your new publications that you have written as they came out over the last 25 years. I can't tell you how many times I checked for your name on the "forthcoming books" list. I was a bit surprised with some of the stats you threw up on sales figures for the different series. While not a real surprise that TC sold well, I was amazed that Mordant sold only 20% of that! And GAP only 15% of Mordant!!! I don't know how you don't get angry with numbers like that. And it sure angers me that Publishers now think you are a has-been. I am interested in why you think that the sales figures fluctuated to that degree.
I truly enjoyed Mordant as a series, in particular Castellen, Eremis, Artegal. I have found with most of your works, that I truly get a kick more out of the side characters than the main ones. Even in TC, I find Covenant and Linden to be less appealing than Mhoram (my personal favorite), Bannor, The Ravers, & Nom. Theresa and Geraden really didn't do it for me. I never could really buy into Theresa's inability to act and especially her ineffectiveness and existence in the real world. Geraden always seemed to be a bit one dimensional, especially in the first book where he is the lovealbe yet incompetent dufus who always is does something wrong. But yet, I really loved the plot, the intrigue,King Joyce, Havelock, and Gart. Great stuff. I have nine kids and the first two have read this series and also have gotten a kick out of it. Though I am waiting for them to be in the age 16-18 range before reading TC and probably older before they can choose to pick up GAP.
GAP was problematic for me. I found "The Real Story" to be absolutely revolting. The violence was so personal and absolute and that the triangle of change that occurred between the 3 main characters was lost upon me and got to the point that I really didn't care much about any of them. Morn, a character that I should have sympathized with, became unbelievable and I never bought into zone inplant. (I find it paradoxical that I can buy into alertnate worlds, gap drives, etc.. but can't believe the motivations that drive the characters). That violence continued into book two and even though I could see a decent plot developing the whole rape, control situation was still way to much for me to even say that I enjoyed reading the first two books. As books 3-5 continued in the series, I did appreciate the intracies and loved Hashi, Holt, Ward, Holt's Mother, Min, Dolph. But honestly, accept for that the GAP series was written by you, I never woould have even picked up "A Dark & Hungry God Arises".
Thanks for allowing me to go on a bit. Best of luck in future endeavors. You writing has been great entertainment, given me pause to think about what I think is important, and thereby shaped me. I truly appreciate your efforts and will remain a loyal fan.
|
Thanks for your loyalty! I've been exceptionally fortunate in my readers. A few comments about the drop-off in sales from "Covenant" to "Mordant's Need" to the GAP books. I suspect that "Mordant's Need" suffered in comparison to "Covenant" because: a) the world is significantly less "magical" than the Land, and readers missed that sense of tangible transcendence; and b) "Mordant's Need" is more gentle--i.e. it has less of the "edge" which enhances suspense by making the reader worry about what might happen next. As for the GAP books, they: a) have too much "edge" for most readers to tolerate; and b) aren't magical at all. (There's a reason why science fiction in general doesn't sell as well as fantasy. I think it may have to do with the systemic anti-intellectualism of our society. Almost by definition, science fiction tends to emphasize mind over emotion, while fantasy tends to do the opposite. On a deeply visceral level, I suspect that most of us would rather "believe in" elves--and Creators--rather than black holes.) (06/10/2004) |
Allen Parmenter: Mr. Donaldson, thankyou for answering my pestering little question about your " religious or anti-religious proclivities". I am a Roman Catholic and a close friend of mine who is also a Christian find great spiritual nourishment in your work even though we guessed you are not - ah - how should I put this? - a subscriber to "official Christianity." Now, on to the questions.
Towards the end of the Gap Warden says to Angus "Don't just kill him Angus, tear his heart out." in reference to Holt Fasner. Considering the disastrous culimination of Nick Succorso's useless life - was Warden's request tragic?
I am fond of calling the Gap "Star Wars Goes to Hell". Nick Succorso's grin always reminds me of that inveterate sexual harrasser Han Solo's. Was this deliberate on your part or would you just be pleased or horrified to think that a reader noticed the co-incidence?
One last question - will there be wookies in the sequel? (nasty grin) Thank you for your consideration.
|
In my view, Warden Dios' desire to "punish" Holt Fasner is certainly part of what makes him a tragic figure. But I don't see Nick as tragic. His wasted life is entirely his own doing, and he cares about nothing except himself. Warden, you might say, cares about everything except himself, and his life is not in any sense wasted. I like the idea of "Star Wars Goes to Hell." And I enjoyed the movies. But I didn't take them seriously enough to be influenced by them. Han Solo is certainly not the only character in film--or in literature--or in life--to use that "shit-eating" grin as a form of sexual predation. Indeed, one of my personal complaints about "Star Wars" is that (visuals aside) it is *entirely* derivative. There is (just an opinion, folks) less to Lucas' work than meets the eye. As for "wookies in the sequel": gosh, is that a *dare*? (06/10/2004) |
Brad: Do you own the King of Thesaurases? I ask only because it has become something of a running joke at the Watch. I began reading the Chronicles at the age of 12. (My father had read them in the navy, and had carelessly left them out for me to find) I spent the next year poring over dictionaries for the words I could not comprehend (there were many), yet there were several I never found the meaning of. Is your vocabulary so extensive that this comes easily to you, or do you find yourself forced to reference you thesaurus on a regular basis. As an writer, I know I often do....
|
I've discussed the fact that I don't use (or even own) a thesaurus earlier in this interview. But if you can't find an unfamiliar word anywhere else, you might try the Oxford English Dictionary (a truly monumental achievement, and a boon to language-lovers everywhere). (06/10/2004) |
horribleboy: First of all, let me just say thanks for everything. Can't begin to describe....ALL the books have meant something important to me.
Question: From a lot of what I've read on these pages, it seems that being an author must be extremely frustrating at times. The message that comes across is that all of your work must be altered or transmuted in some way before it ever reaches the reader - the words, the length, the title, the jacket cover - and so on. Which of your stories has reached us in the closest possible form to that in which you originally intended?
|
Well, I get frustrated: everyone does. And "Runes" has certainly been the most difficult book I've ever tried to write. (Unfortunately, the next installment will be much *more* difficult.) But I've conveyed the wrong impression if I've led you to believe that my stories *as published* somehow misrepresent my intentions, original or otherwise. (Remember, I'm just writing stories. Things like cover art and jacket copy are "not my problem"--even though I naturally have opinions about them.) I BELIEVE IN rewriting. And I know from long and painful experience that I need the services of good editors. I'll just mention two reasons. 1) Like (I believe) any creative artist, I have an intractable tendency when I write to *leave out* the things that are obvious to me; but of course those things are usually *not* obvious to the reader. Well, it's the editor's thankless job to stand up for the reader; to make me aware of what are, in effect, faulty assumptions on my part. 2) Contrary to what you might think--since my books are so long--I'm a very slow writer. Something that you read in an hour may well have taken me a month to write. As a result, because I'm moving so slowly, I have an intr--no, this time let's call it irrefragable--tendency to *emphasize* things which are necessary to me as I write, but which became obvious to the reader pages or chapters (weeks or months) ago. And again it is the editor's thankless job to let me know that I'm going on and on about something I've already beaten half to death. (Plus I haven't even mentioned my proclivity for making mistakes, or my natural human impulse to do things the easy way when the hard way would be much more effective. And let's not even *hint* at the damage insomnia does to my powers of concentration.) For such reasons, among others, the whole concept of "what I originally intended" has very little meaning. Because I'm so fallible, nothing that I write ever achieves "what I originally intended." But that's my doing: it's not the fault of any editor or publisher (with the very rare exception of Lester del Rey's infrequent interference). And I'm certainly stubborn enough to stand by what I've written when I believe it's preferrable to the alternatives. So: out of frustration, I sometimes complain about my editors. But at the end of the day, everything that I've ever published is MINE. If it is less than perfect, I have no one to blame but myself. (06/10/2004) |
Tracie (Furls Fire): Hello again Mr. Donaldson. This is abosulutely wonderful, I am learning so much about you and your writing views reading this interview. This is the first page I come too when I turn on my computer and log onto the net. I love being able to communicate with one of my favorite authors in this way. You've answered so many of my questions when you answer others. It's given me such an insight into the Chronicles, one that I didn't have before, even though I have read them over and over again more times than can be counted. I know everyone, including me, has thanked you repeatedly for doing this, but I want to do it again. Thank you!! (More mush, I'm sorry).
One of the things I love most about The Land is the music/poetry. "Lord Kevin's Lament", "The Legend of Berek Halfhand", "Andelain Forgive!", "To Say Farewell", and the way music seems to enshroud the Land all give the Chronicles such emotional depth for me, my heart lurches everytime I come to a song in the books.
My question is-- and I know you've already answered musical questions so forgive me if I am being redundant-- but, I wondered if you had a running "score", as it were, going through your mind when you wrote the "songs"? Take "Andelain Forgive!" for example (my favorite), I "hear" a symphony behind the words rising in ear-splitting cresendo when Caer-Caveral sings the words.."Oh Andelain forgive! For I am doomed to fail this war..". And when Pitchwife sings the words "for even dust to me is dear, for dust and ashes still recall my love was here.." I hear maybe a soft cello or a single voilin accompany him, or perhaps even that flute he was playing as he sat on the wall at Revelstone.
I guess what I'm asking is, did you "hear" the music as you wrote the songs? Or did you just put them to paper in hopes your readers would do what I did--hear it in their own inner ears and souls?
|
No, I "just put them to paper in hopes [my] readers would do what [you] did." The only music I hear when I write songs, or verses, or poetry, is the music of the language itself. For me, that's music enough. Maybe I've just heard too many bad composers butcher powerful lyrics--and too many good composers make abysmal lyrics sound powerful. Or maybe I have no detectable musical talent. <rueful smile> (06/10/2004) |
Brian H. Galloway: Mr. Donaldson,
Although it was the Covenant books that introduced me to your work 14 years ago, it was Mordant's Need and The Gap series that placed you in my list of favorite authors regardless of genre (along with Orson Scott Card and George RR Martin). I've read The Gap series twice and Mordant's Need five times. I also intend to read the mysteries, but *hate* to read a series out of order so I'm waiting for TOR to finish publishing them all so I can read them back-to-back-to-back.
I do look forward to the Final Chronicles, but I look more forward to what you will do afterwards (and I don't mean retiring).
Thank you.
Brian
|
After "The Last Chronicles"? Oh, you mean the part where I NEVER DIE? Believe me, that *will* be something to look forward to. <grin> (06/10/2004) |
Jerry Erbe (DirectorDios): Dear Mr. Donaldson,
There have been several disparaging remarks regarding the GAP series in this thread. I must admit to being befuddled as I found them stunning and impossible to quit reading.
As much as I love the Chronicles, I personally would have loved to have learned more about Morn and the whole Gap-gang!
Which of the GAP characters was the most fun to write and which of them do you wish you could have developed more? Additionally, if you HAD to equate yourself to one of the characters in the series, which one would it be?
|
Oh, unquestionably Hashi was the most fun to write. And I wish I could have developed Davies better: as I said earlier, I disappointed myself more with him than with any other character in the GAP books. Even if you held a gun to my head, however, I couldn't equate myself with anyone in those books. But when I grow up I *do* want to be Min Donner. <grin> She has integrity on a scale I can only dream about. (06/10/2004) |
Jonathan Meakin: Mr Donaldson,
I only recently discovered this site and was so very pleasantly surprised to learn of the forthcoming Last Chronicles. I am also impressed that you are taking on the task of responding to questions, a remarkable demonstration of generosity on your part.
I have long been an admirer of your work. My copies of the Chronicles (UK Fontana editions, I think they are) are well-read and falling apart, so perhaps Ill invest in the new editions as they look very, ahem, precious. I have also greatly enjoyed your short fiction (Reave the Just strikes me as particularly brilliant) and The Gap series is, in my view, an astounding accomplishment.
I must say, though, that "Mordant's Need" doesnt quite come together for me. (Sorry.) The concept of Imagery was incredibly interesting, but the narratives ending seemed too neatly wrapped up and oddly inevitable. More significant, however, is the issue of power in Mordants Need. In other works you explore so well the *recognition* of personal failings as empowering individual agency, as a source of power. However, in seeing through to the end his contorted and convoluted plot, King Joyse doesnt appear to recognize (in any real sense) what he risked or what he lost. In fact, and oddly enough given your knot of interests in this regard, Joyse appears vindicated for his machinations of power without clearly gaining new self-knowledge. The risk to Queen Madin and his daughters results in, at worst, Mystes scar, and at best, a new political alliance. Whereas the loss of the Tor, the Perdon, and Castellan Lebbick (three wonderfully realized characters, by the way), a loss that would immobilize and paralyze Thomas Covenant, for instance, seems strangely distanced from Joyse. Similarly, Teresa doesnt appear to acquire self-knowledge and, thus, agency, or perhaps her transformation is too subtle to be convincing? Eremis, of course, fails for his sheer arrogance and lust for power at the end, but, ultimately, Joyses and (perhaps) Teresas lack of self-knowledge echo Eremis and (dare I say it) Lord Fouls, although configured differently and without the same consequences. (Also, the Perdon and Lebbick arguably gain self-knowledge, but die for that knowledge in this tale.)
I was wondering, Mr. Donaldson, whether you would like to comment on the power in Mordants Need? Do you see a distinction in the configuration and ramifications of power and individual agency in the two volume tale compared to the Chronicles and the Gap series?
|
I'm sure you don't expect me to comment on your critique of "Mordant's Need." Every reader has the right--even the responsibility--to have his/her own opinion about specific books. Just as I have mine. But about "power" in "Mordant's Need": here's one way to look at it. Imagery and the use of mirrors occupy a sort of middle ground between the manifestations of power in more traditional fantasy ("magic and monsters") and those in science fiction (typically "weaponry"). The kingdom of Mordant is not *in itself* a magical place. In fact, it is a rather "mundane" quasi-medieval reality. Instead it has access to magic through the manipulation of devices; through a kind of technology. (Hence the otherwise rather strange fact that Imagery can tap into worlds which operate according to very different "rules" than Mordant does.) In that sense, "Mordant's Need" may deserve to bear the lugubrious label "science fantasy." The use of "magic" there bears a certain resemblence to our use of "science". Of course, other writers have done this before. But in my experience, none of them have treated both the "magical" and the "mundane" aspects of their creation with equal respect, as I strove to do. (Having said that, however, I suddenly find myself thinking of China Mieville....) Incidentally, "Mordant's Need" also represents my first attempt to deal with the themes and implications of "politics"--in (no doubt unconscious) preparation for the GAP books. (06/11/2004) |
josiah jacob: Thank you very much for answering my previous questions. It truely made my day when i first saw your written reply to my inquiries, and i'm sorry my second set of questions was so large.
you answered 2 of my many questions from my previous post, so i figure that i'll post two more here, and when/if they are answered, i'll post 2 more next month. i hope that makes it easier for you, as apposed to my barrages of 10 or so questions at a time because i get so caught up in typing them :-p
An interesting question about Covenent: is The Land real? I assume it is, I'm sure all the readers assume it is, but, unless I'm mistaken, it was never actually stated that it was real. Thomas may have just excepted it as a place in his own mind, were he was not an angry, old leper, but rather someone who was able to help, and wanted to help (here i'm speaking of the last book of the first Chronicles, were he fought off the summons to save a child, then gave in to letting them call him into the land). Granted, the very begining of the second chronicles kinda dashes that to hell, but i thought i'd like to ask you about that anyways.
Also, will Thomas' ex-wife, or (i hope) son have any role in the upcoming books? And though I know their relationship was... taboo for lack of a better way to put it, I'd have liked to have seen Thomas and Elena stay togeather. Did a part of you regret writing her out, or do you wholey feel her death was nessasry, and her relationship with Thomas was simply a dead end?
i'm sure you already know how your fans feel, but just incase you don't hear it from us enough, i'd like to thank you again for taking the time to talk with us, and answer our questions.
|
Is the Land real? Of course not. I made it up. As I also made up the characters who have to wrestle with the question of the Land's "reality". It's all a parlor trick. Or, to put it more constructively, an exercise of imagination. OK, OK, I know that's a glib (not to mention dismissive) answer to a serious question. But I'm actually trying to get at what I consider a very serious point: what is "reality"? Is something "real" because we can verify its existence in some tangible way? (I know this desk is "real" because I can touch it. I know my illness is "real" because I can feel its effects. I know my friends are "real" because I experience them in various ways.) Or is something "real" because we choose to assign importance or value to it? (You may believe that you have a "soul." I may believe that I do not. But surely the fact--and it is a fact--that I cannot verify the existence of your "soul" has no bearing on the importance of your "soul" to you. Is not your "soul" therefore "real" as far as you are concerned?) Gene Wolfe says that he knows "angels" are "real" while "corporations" are not because he's *seen* "angels" but he's never laid eyes on a "corporation." I personally don't consider "real estate" to be "real": oh, I know that the physical ground exists, but the whole notion that a person could "own" a piece of the planet seems so absurd to me that I simply can't give it any credence. Do you see my point? The Land has no tangible, verifiable "reality," not even to Covenant and Linden. Yet they--and I--and many of my readers--assign importance/value to the Land. Isn't it therefore "real" precisely because we make it so? And isn't that really the position at which Covenant himself arrives at the end of "The Power that Preserves"? As for Covenant's ex-wife and son, if you've read the chapter of "Runes" I've posted on this site, you already know the answer. But your question about Elena and Covenant as a couple is actually your *third*, so it will have to wait until the next time around. <grin> (06/11/2004) |
Clayton: Mr. Donaldson, you have my unending gratitude for so relentlessly pursuing this Gradual Interview. I know of no other author connecting in this way to their readers. (then again, isn't this taking time away from "Runes"? get back to work! <grin>)
My question is: When writing about the Land for the first time, did you sit back and first sketch out a map or are you able to think spatially as you write in such a way that a map is redundant and only created as an afterthought for the reader? From this interview I know you don't write copious notes of 'backstory' ala Tolkien, but I'm curious if the geography was planned or sort of happened.
Thanks!!
|
No, I had to plan the geography and draw the map as part of my preparation to write the story. I can't think spatially at all. Questions like, say, how long would it take Troy's army to march from Revelwood to Doom's Retreat? would have been impossible for me to answer without a map. Just *think* of the narrative logistics involved in having the opposing armies reach Doom's Retreat almost simultaneously, and then having Covenant arrive at Gallows Howe while Mhoram et al are there. (06/11/2004) |
Peter Purcell: I had to smile when I saw your last response to a "Creator" question having sumbitted some of my own. I promise this isn't an additional one!
But I think your wrong on the "problem". It isn't a blurring of reality and fiction. I think there is a general human need for structure and order as it relates to existence. I think that is at the root of the popularity of religion in general - a quest for the meaning of it all - where did we come from and why. While there are a few of us who rebel at the notion of there being any ONE right answer, I believe we are in the minority.
In fiction you "pull" us into the fictional universe (or multiverse - take your pick!) you've created. Writers who do that VERY well (as you do) have us emotionally caring about your "fictional" creation (in your case the "fictional" Land and "fictional" real world.) The liability (if you'd call it that) is that we also care about the "fictional" cosmological structure - we want to feel that it's complete and consistent.
I'd suggest that authors who have sold "background" cosmologies for their series as separate books are appealling to this desire (ala Tolkien Silmarillion.)
Just a thought!!
|
I think I understand your point. But (if I do) you're talking about "internal consistency." I've already discussed that at some length. And I believe that the Creator's role in the "Covenant" books has demonstrable "internal consistency." However, most of the "Creator" questions on this site are actually "reality" questions (discussed above). Hence my unwillingness to continue answering them. (06/11/2004) |
David Wiles: Steve;After reading the last question in your QnA section I agree, it is expensive touring. So please be welcome and true in our home. A good hardy home cooked meal,( my wife cooks organic if necessary) is just the thing a road warrior needs. We are not wacko's, just people who are grateful for the gift of your stories. Two of my children are blackbelts in Karate and were trained at the American Academy of Martial Arts and my youngest is a brown belt. They are 18, 16, and 11 years old. We are located in central California right between San Fransisco and Los Angeles in Fresno. So as you see, it would be on your way and a perfect waymeet for any weary traveler. Thanks again for the countless hours of joy, anguish, pain and love through your words.
Before you write this request off please remember that the receiving of a gift honors the giver.
Yours very truely, David Wiles and Family
|
I appreciate your very kind offer. Frankly, however, I can't imagine taking you up on it. For all practical purposes, you are a total stranger to me. And dealing with total strangers is a huge part of what makes touring so arduous. Only the company of old friends and family actually comforts me when I'm on the road. Failing that, I need privacy, isolation, even sensory deprivation. I hope you understand. (06/11/2004) |
hosabian: Hi monsieur Donaldson I cant tell you how gratefull I am to be able to communicate with one of my favourate authors this way. Most of the questions I am curiuos about have been asked so at the risk of getting the same answers(understanbly) i'll ask you different questions. Firstly I want to tell you how moved i was when covenant resigns himself to find his own caamora in the banefire, because he does so with such dignity, very moving. My question is simple, In 'mordants need' why the game draughts instaed of chess?. Also (i know its cheecky to ask you about other authors) grin!!, but what do you think of david eddings and his series the 'Belgariad'? (I thought I'd avoid asking about tolkien lol).Also Ive heard you talk about camus, and satre before I wanted to ask you if you've read 'nausea' by satre and if so did you like it? thanx for your time big D, I wish you luck with the new series!! x x
|
Briefly-- I chose "hop-board" instead of chess for "Mordant's Need" for reasons explained by Edgar Allen Poe: he argued that to win at chess requires mere concentration, while to win at "draughts" (checkers) requires imagination. A bit over-simple, perhaps, but it suited my purposes at the time. Sorry, I can't comment on David Eddings. Like Robert Jordan (and George R. R. Martin, for those of you who were wondering), he lies outside my ken. Sartre's brand of existentialism isn't to my taste. After all, wasn't it Sartre who asserted that "Man is a futile passion"? A man who writes the kind of fiction I do can hardly be expected to accept that statement. (If you want to know more about my views on the subject, you might look at my essay "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World" posted on this site. And before long my webmaster will post an essay by Benjamin Laskar which treats extensively with "Camus, Sartre, and Donaldson.") (06/11/2004) |
Elisabet Liljeblad: Hello!
It's a great pleasure to read your fantastic novells.
When will The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant be released in Sweden?
Actually, as my heart has a great desire of a figurative making of Covenant, I rather wouldn't want to see an adaption for the screen of the trilogies in the bottom of my heart. I just can't imagine how you will succeed in for example transforming Linden's thoughts and feelings into pictures.
I wasn't fully dissatisfied with Peter Jacksons adaption to the screen of The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien, but with your work it is different. Nothing can compare to your books, they are just to important to be destroyed by us, the commercial word. Anyhow, I will watch the film, if there will be a film, even if my heart will break :). Guess I'm too young to be ready for that.
I very much look forward to the release of The Runes of the Earth.
Thank you!
|
Privately, I believe that if anyone ever makes a "Covenant" movie it will almost certainly be *bad.* The deep internal dimensions of LOTR are precisely what was missing from Jackson's films, and those dimensions are even more central to "Covenant" than they are to Tolkien. Books can take you inside the characters: movies cannot (except by dialogue, imagery, and inference--and, like LOTR, "Covenant" has *way* too much action to leave room for all the talk, the *explanation,* that would be necessary). I'm sorry, I have no idea when--or if--"The Runes of the Earth" will appear in Sweden. Publishers from other countries usually wait until they see how a book sells in the US and the UK before making a decision. (06/11/2004) |
Mike G: Thanks for taking the time to answer questions- it is a great thing to get your insight into these stories...
My question- and I apologize if it has been asked before-
You seem to be very big on anti-heroes. Covenant, certainly is not likeable on the surface, though he has many admirable qualities. And *no one* in the Gap Series has many socially redeeming qualities by the end <grin>. How do you go about writing such dark characters? It can't be easy to get inside these characters for long? One of the testaments to your great skill is that you can make such likeable stories about such unlikeable people- I was constantly angry wtih myself reading "Gap" because I started to care about the characters...
|
There are at least a couple of keys to my approach. One is that I don't think of them as "anti-heroes." Yes, I know they're "dark," and yes, it is often unpleasant (!) to spend so much time with them. But I think of them as important people who *need* to have these stories happen to them. I am, in a manner of speaking, helping them find redemption (or personal integrity, or love, or the ability to care about something other than themselves, or whatever you choose to call it). After all, I'm a natural born "do-gooder" <grin>. Another key is that I know where these unpleasant people are *going*. Remember, I can't write at all unless I know where the story is going, and why. From the start, I can see the resolutions toward which my characters are (unconsciously) striving. That helps me cope with an awful lot of what they do along the way. There's an interesting point of "literary criticism" here which I have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue in any depth. But briefly: a literary critic named, I believe, Kazin has argued that the defining characteristic of US writers (as opposed to writers of other nationalities) is that they feel compelled to create what they are not; to fill in perceived (conscious or otherwise) absences within themselves. Hence Hemingway, who lived a dramatic, even romantic, life wrote spare, unemotional prose which underplayed any drama or romance contained in his stories. And Hawthorne, who lived an exceedingly spare and mundane life, wrote exotic, dramatic, and supernatural fiction. It would not be difficult to find ways in which Kazin's argument applies to me. (06/14/2004) |
Elisabet Liljeblad: How come Thomas Covenant never is called Thomas, and how come Linden Avery always being called the opposite, Linden?
|
It's sexist, I know. But I was programmed that way many decades ago, and breaking free has been, well, difficult. Of course, in my own defense, Covenant hates his first name; so he encourages people to call him Covenant. But that's really just a rationalization. *I* call him Covenant to emphasize the issues which lie beneath his Unbelief. But my Mommy would wash my mouth out with soap if I called "Linden Avery" Avery. <grin> The GAP books, I'm glad to say, don't have the same problem. Nor for that matter does "Mordant's Need." But after six books poor Covenant and Linden are kind of stuck the way they are. (06/14/2004) |
Fist: A no-prize?? How cool!! What was it for?
|
Gosh, if I remembered, I'd tell you. (06/15/2004) |
Russell: I must say thanks again for this great service
you're doing for your fans. Opportunities like this to correspond on a fairly long term basis are pretty unheard of, as it must be a bit time consuming.
On to my question. Have you considered scheduling an appearance at the San Diego Comic-Con? A great promotional opportunity at the best convention of it's kind in the country( if not the world), July 17-21. Much thanks for all the work through the years.
|
I have attended similar conventions in the past, and enjoyed them. And I have friends in the San Diego area. But the timing this year is completely impossible. And in future years--well, who knows? My publishers only send me on the road when I have a new book coming out. (06/15/2004) |
Jim H: I just finished reading the Gap series for the third time. Any chance of a second cycle?
Also, I found the prospect of a species such as the Amnion mortifying. Someone in Hollywood should turn the Gap series into a movie. I think a thriller based on the Gap series, highlighting the Amnion, would rank right up there with Alien. Who would you like to see play Morn, Angus and Nick?
|
I've discussed the (im)possibility of future GAP books earlier in this interview. The debate about casting the leads continues. I haven't yet heard a good suggestion for Morn. Cate Blanchette? (sp?) How about Colin Farrell for Nick? (06/15/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Please tell me that we will get to hear Covenant cry, "Hellfire and bloody damnation!" again?
Thank you Mr. Donaldson for all your wonderful books. I've read and loved them all!
|
Sorry, I can't make any promises. But it will be difficult to pass up. <grin> (06/15/2004) |
Danijel Sah: Dear mr. Donaldson!
I'am a young SF-author from Croatia, Europe. Two months ago I published my first book "The Black Wall" which was accepted excellent among the readers in my country.
I read both trilogies about Covenant for several times. There are no words of mine to discribe their excellence and what they mean to me and how they effected my life.
My question is this: Because You are mine favourite author, I'am asking You: Can I send You one chapter of my book, so You can read it and maybe say something about it? I would be gratefull if You could accept it! I know You are a busy man, and maybe I'am asking to much of You. I'am sorry if that's true.
PS: I'am am also sorry if my English is not so great!
Truly Yours,
Danijel
|
I'm sorry to keep turning people down; but please don't send me anything. I'm a very slow reader. And I have no time. For those reasons, I quit writing blurbs or comments of any kind several years ago. And I'm the wrong person for the job. I'm nothing if not judgmental about writing, other people's as well as my own. If a writer isn't good enough to sweep away my judgments--and few are--I'm a *very* harsh critic. That's why I so seldom express opinions about other writers in this interview. (06/16/2004) |
Chris Hawks: I've noticed that each of your series (1st Chronicles, 2nd Chronicles, Mordant's Need, and the GAP) gets progressively better than the last. As such, I have high hopes for the Last Chronicles. :)
I just finished reading Mordant's Need for the second time, and I have a couple of questions/comments:
1) What are the "seven Cares of Mordant"? There's Armigite, Domne, Fayle, Perdon, Termigan, and Tor. But that's only 6. If pushed, I'd be forced to guess that the 7th is Joyse's province, the Demesne, though it was never specifically mentioned (and, in fact, it seems care was taken to *not* mention it) as one of the Cares.
2) How does Geraden's talent work, anyway? At first, he could change where a mirror went without changing the Image; but then, at the very end when he translates everyone back to the battle at Esmerel, he does change the Image. Is this merely the final maturation of his abilities?
3) Upon first completing the GAP series, I was struck by the similarities between King Joyse and Warden Dios. Each put not only his own reputation on the line, but also the lives and hearts of both those under his protection and who serve him, in order to thwart a greater evil. Was this similiarity intentional? Regardless, it makes for wonderful suspense, with the added result that Warden and Joyse are my favorite characters from their respective series.
4) Not a question, but I read your previous answer regarding the map for Mordant, and I have to admit that I've long wondered about its existence myself. Though part of me thought that perhaps you were toying playfully with the readers, by including numerous (!) references to maps within the story, while not providing them with one. :)
|
Well, I hope I can justify your high expectations. There's nothing like pressure.... <grin> Your questions. 1) Yes, King Joyse's domain--Orison and its immediate environs--is the "missing" Care. Except to the extent that the whole of Mordant is Joyse's Care. 2) And yes, the changes in what Geraden is able to accomplish indicate the maturation of his talent. 3) And yes yet again, I was very aware of the qualities and methods which Joyse and Warden Dios have in common. Although I wasn't conscious of it at the time, Joyse is--in a manner of speaking--a "trial run" for Warden. Much of the content of "Mordant's Need" was my first attempt at techniques, subjects, and themes which I explored much more deeply in the GAP books. Indeed, I could hardly have written the GAP books as I did if I hadn't first written "Mordant's Need." (06/16/2004) |
Kevin Green: Like many I'm on a return trip to The Land preparing for Runes later this year and enjoying your work all over again.
A few things struck me on this journey and I appreciate the opportunity to ask you directly:-
- You mentioned in an earlier question that you disliked writing the What Has Gone Before sections and TBH I felt that they were somehwat superfluous as having just re-read The Illearth War I found that the first couple of chapters rehash some of the previous events in Lord Fouls Bane as if there is no WHGB. Is this duplication intentional?
- For the first time I read Gilden-Fire during The Illearth War & was struck by how much of Illearth is actually not from Covenants' viewpoint or even within his prescence. Strikes me that the reason for the exclusion of Gilden-Fire doesn't honestly hold water. Your thoughts?
|
About WHGB, here's a key fact you may not know: I never wrote them. Not for "The Illearth War," not for any of Covenants 2-6. I refused because I truly do hate doing such writing. So Lester del Rey wrote WHGB for 2-4, and then my next editor, Risa Kessler, wrote 5-6. Sadly, I *have* written the WHGB for Covenant 7, and will probably be forced to continue for the rest of "The Last Chronicles." When you see the WHGB in "Runes," the differences between how I do these things and how Lester and Risa did them will be immediately obvious. Superficially, you're right about point of view in "The Illearth War." But remember that virtually all of the non-Covenant POV is Hile Troy, who seems to have reached the Land from Covenant's "real world," so his viewpoint doesn't violate the principle which excluded "Gilden-Fire." As for the (as I recall) one other instance of non-Covenant viewpoint: I used Mhoram's POV in a (I hoped) subtle attempt to prepare for the significant viewpoint changes which would occur in "The Power that Preserves." (06/19/2004) |
Ash Quadir: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for making yourself so accessible. Its a true honor.
Many, many thanks for being such a thoughtful and EXTREMLEY talented writer! One of the things that make your novels so compelling is that your characters are so REAL in your books. Most great books have this trait. Do you set out to develop well-round characters first or are you more driven by the plot?
Are the titles for the Last Chronicles firm? Pardon me for being blunt, but the titles of the four new books are not as compelling as the ones for the prior books.
Do your family/kids read your books? What do they think? Do you discuss ideas with anybody besides your editor/publisher?
Is writing your full time job because you made enough money off your books to do so?
If so, what year did you become a full time writer?
I shudder to think it but what are the contingency plans if you pass away before all four books are completed Do you have extensive notes so somebody else can finish the series? Are there contingency plans?
Again it has been the GREATEST HONOR and JOY to read your works!
PS: Stop being so hard on yourself or so modest. You should be EXTRMELEY proud of what youve accomplished as a writer!
PPS: Have your read George R.R. Martins A Song of Ice and Fire? If so, what do you think about them?
- Ash Quadir
|
Some of your questions have already been answered in this interview. I know it's a chore to read through everything that's already here; but I simply don't have time to answer the same questions repeatedly. So-- Yes, the titles of "The Last Chronicles" are firm--considering that none of us can foresee the future. I'm sorry you don't like them. I do. And I've had favorable responses from other people. Neither of my kids are extensive "Donaldson" readers. However, my son has finished the GAP books, and my daughter has read "Mordant's Need." But I don't discuss my ideas with ANYone--not even my editor(s). Occasionally I slip up and give my agent a hint (he's a dear friend). And sometimes, when I need a little brainstorming, I consult my personal reader. But that's it. I became a full-time writer in 1972, and began supporting myself and my family in 1977. That's my only job. Sorry, there are no contingency plans to finish "The Last Chronicles" if I expire. Hence my solemn (!) determination to never die (!!). (06/19/2004) |
Ben: I'm really enjoying reading the questions/comments/responses in the Gradual Interview. Like so many others, I've been touched and thrilled by your work for a great many years. Dammit man, yer just one helluva writer (as if you need me to tell you).
I could write an essay on how much discovery - and fun - I've had at your imagination's expense, but I digress. Other folks are doing a fine job with re-collected details and admiring insights, so no lengthy questions/comments here.
But I must point out my love of your short story work - in particular, "The Killing Stroke," which IMO is a masterpiece of short fantasy fiction. After I read it - hell I practically wanted to teach it. Or film it.
Cheers,
Ben
|
I'm so glad you liked "The Killing Stroke"! It's my current favorite of my shorter works. (06/19/2004) |
John McCann: Thank you for answering my previous question. I have a feeling that after rereading both Chronicles and devoring Runes, I will have a need for some new (to me) Donaldson and will finally discover and apreciate the entire Gap cycle.
As a fan of your work I was always disappointed by the Sweet covers for the TC books. I was excited when they were reissued with new covers but immediately dismissed then when I saw, the erroneous art credit. I was suprised and pleased to read such a blunt assessment of the covers from you. Something I had always wished for was Michael Whelan's interpretations of The Land.
How did it come about that Mr Whelan was commisioned to do the cover for the American edition of at least this volume of the Final Chronicles? Did you request his services? Has he been contracted for all four volumes?
Thanks you again for answering my questions. If your current pace is a slow down, I can't wait to see how you handle the questions when you are not distracted.
|
I've long admired Michael Whelan's work myself. (But you should see the original paintings. They are even more impressive than the covers made from them.) And I've been casually acquainted with Michael for many years. Indeed, I requested him for "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales," as well as for "Mordant's Need." But my "glory days," when I had the clout to do things like request cover artists, are long past. No, commissioning Michael was my editor's idea. And I guess that she--or the art director at Putnams--worked long and hard to get him to agree. Like a lot of the people I've known for years, he's apparently looking for ways to cut down on his workload. And he's exceptionally conscientious--for example, he insists on reading the entire book--so he can't just knock out paintings whenever he needs one. Unfortunately, I don't know how many of "The Last Chronicles" he's agreed to work on. "Runes" may be a one-shot; or he may have contracted for all four books. In either case, we should have the cover for Putnams' edition posted on this site sometime in the next couple of weeks. (06/20/2004) |
Ingo Metzler: Dear Mr. Donaldson.
Do you know of the translations of your books in other languages? It was in the early 1980s when I read your books in the german translation.
The german translations of the Covenant books are fantastic. The transator Mr. Pukallus chose a somewhat old-fashioned German language and he paid much attention on translating names and places. When I read today the english books I have to admit: He did a very good job.
On the other hand, the same translator did a bad job on translating the Gap-series. He used the same stile of language as in the Covenant books and this simply does not fit (in my opinion). The english originals (by the time the Gap books were published, I was able to read them in English) were much better.
So my Questions:
* Do you take care of the translations of your books?
* Do you influence the translators in any way?
* Do you know of planned German versions of the third Chronicles?
Best regards,
Ingo Metzler
|
No, I have no control over the translations of my books: publishers in other countries make their own decisions about which English-language books to buy; and they choose their own translators. Occasionally this is disastrous: just to give you one example, the first time "Lord Foul's Bane" was translated into French, "Saltheart Foamfollower" became "Briny the Pirate." At the opposite extreme, the appointed translators do sometimes contact me, asking for advice (many years ago a Swedish translator asked me if I wished him to preserve the "child-like" flavor of my prose, offering instead to inject a note of "dignity and grandeur"). Frankly, I know of no authors who aren't at the mercy of their translators. (Well, unless you're someone like Borges.) Which is why the author of "Lolita" (I've blanked out on his name--temporarily, I hope) did his own translations. Fortunately, I now know that negotiations are underway for a German translation of "The Last Chronicles." But translation is an arduous business, and I can't begin to guess when "Runes" will appear in Germany. (06/20/2004) |
Cornaquious: Thank you for taking the time to answer your fan mail. I understand that some of our questions are a bit tiresome (present company included, as you will soon see). You have been a good sport.
I'll ask a question first, then go on a brief rant. You may ignore the rant if you like, but it's been bothering me for years. For good measure, I'll include a praise!
Question: When I was first exploring the wonders and benefits of the internet, I seem to remember coming across an interview you gave where you mentioned that in a Third, and consequently *Last* Chronicles, it might be fun (or words to that effect), to bring back Covenant as Lord Foul. Without giving away any spoilers, aka plot secrets, do you remember making this comment? Or, was it just wishful thinking on my part?
Rant: I have been *extremely* disappointed with your publishers approach to re-releasing your books. The trade paperback versions of both The 1st Chronicles and Mordant's Need have typesetting and margins that would appear to fit a mass market paperback. By that I mean you could literally cut the wasted space around the typeset and have a MMPB. If they're going release a TPB, at least increase the font size and take advantage of the extra margin created by the larger physical size a TPB has to offer.
The cover art for the recently released TPB version of Mordant's Need, and the soon to be re-released versions of the 1st and 2nd Chronicles are, how do I put this nicely? Ghastly. If I hadn't already read the books, I would have no clue as to what these books are about. At least on the web site, the ring on the covers look positively, *yellow*. Given the location you find the book in the bookstore, it could suggest that marriage is a fantasy or science fiction. I'm sorry. Your work deserves better.
I should also throw in a praise: Hurray for Michael Whelan! I find his art spellbinding. It's probably not a coincidence that my favorite authors, (Stephen King, Tad Williams, as well as yourself) have had his art grace their covers.
Bonus question: Any chance of presenting any of MW's work for your books on these pages? The dust jacket for MoHD, as is, is beautiful, but the original painting, which was cropped for the book cover gives added depth to Terisa's character. More people should have an opportunity to see this.
Again, Thank you for taking time to answer our questions. It goes without saying, that your writings have sparked the imaginations of many readers throughout the world!
Sincerely,
CA
|
I don't think there's any question that my publishers (principally Ballantine Books) have given my "back-list" support which is both weak and infrequent. And I'm as disappointed as you are by the various re-releases. The trade paperbacks of "Mordant's Need" elicit actual pain; and the misleading blandness of the forthcoming covers for the first "Covenant" trilogy and "Daughter of Regals" beggars description ("Hi, folks. Here's an extremely pale imitation of LOTR. Try it if you don't have anything better to do"). Naturally I shouldn't be saying any of this; but one good rant deserves another. <grin> As for "bring back Covenant as Lord Foul." Yes, I remember saying that. And yes, I meant it. But it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means (I'm often deliberately misleading when people ask me about such things), and I have no intention of explaining what I meant. My purposes will become clear in the fullness of time. Presenting Whelan's art on this site would be fun; but he holds all of his copyrights (firmly, I might add), and he has his own methods for making his work known. He probably even has a web site that does more justice to his art than I could. So don't expect to see any Whelan "originals" reproduced here. (06/20/2004) |
Chris Sizemore: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
As noted here by so many other fans, your works have moved me, delighted me, entertained me, and been the focus of many hours of thoughtful musing and pondering. Thank you.
Now on to my question... In the Second Chronicles, you build the tension to an incredible peak, realized with the one word utterance of Covenant, "Nom". How did it feel when you wrote that scene? Did you realize the power it would have on the reader? I have to say that at that moment I had to put the book down, I was so charged, and wait until my excited nervous energy dissipated before I could go back and continue. Well done!
|
Thanks! I'm glad that scene worked the way I wanted it to. I, of course, knew what was going to happen years before I actually wrote it. As soon as I wrote that scene, I started on the next one. And writing often elicits very different emotions than reading. So the way I felt when I wrote it was nothing like the way you felt when you read it. I was, however, proud of myself. Satisfied that I had come so far. And deeply worried about the work still ahead of me. (06/20/2004) |
Jason : First off, I can't wait to get my hands on the first of the "Last Chronicles"! I just came to the site because I was re-reading the first Chronicles and wanted to see what new stuff you had out. I wanted to comment on the news section mentioning Russell Crowe and a "Covenant" film. I had a thought as I was re-reading and wondered what you thought of it, since I was inspired to see that the movie was actually somewhat of a thought of yours. I think that the guy from the Hulk movie, Eric Bana, would be a good fit for Covenant. What do you think?
|
Eric BANA? As COVENANT? I'm sorry, but I can't see it. He's too young, and *way* too fit. And I've never actually seen him *act*. All I've ever seen him do is pronounce his lines and move around the set. (06/21/2004) |
Allen: Vector Shaheed does not have a "point of view"chapter written about him. Was this diliberate? Vector Shaheed also has blue eyes, as well other characters, King Joyce, the spectacular Reave the Just, and the Creator in the Thomas Covenant works. Is my noting of that purely co-incedental or is there something more important going on? I understand that "joy is in the earest that hear" but I must confess I have a hard time believing, at the least, that you did not subconcionable was up to some kind of trick.
your handling of that transcendent power Dolphe Ubikwe is horribly exciting. There is a scene in "This Day All Gods Die" when the divine Dolpe gazes out upon the solar system and he beholds that universe and " he saw a treachorness and he approved." He has passsed through horrors into a place of a terrible whimsy and peace. He also carries on a sickly banter with Vector Shaheed. My question. I have no right to pry into your private life but I am wondering if you are friends with veterans of the Vietname war, or have you any any friends who are police officers. Your portayal of Dolphe shows a huge load of psycholical acuity.
|
Vector Shaheed does not have a point of view chapter because he doesn't need one. Certainly he's an interesting character, and he does important things. But you'll notice that whenever he's doing something important, someone else is doing something even *more* important. As a general rule, POV in the GAP books follows whoever is the most central character in the story AT THAT MOMENT. All those blue eyes are certainly coincidental. I'm not so much color-blind as color-stupid. I often forget to give my characters any eye color at all. As it happens, I'm friends with both Vietnam vets and cops (SWAT and Bomb Squad mostly). One of my friends was a Vietnam vet *and* a cop *and* a psychologist. I've learned a lot from them all. (06/21/2004) |
dlbpharmd: There is currently a big debate on kevinswatch.com about the sale of the ARC for Runes on ebay. Would you mind sharing your thoughts and opinions about this?
|
I think it's "stealing," and I don't condone it. But we live in a society ruled by greed, and I know of no effective way to change "'our' core values." I'm told by those who know more than I do (agents and editors) that the vast majority of ARCs get sold to SOMEbody. Most of the sellers are just more discreet than our friend on eBay. (06/23/2004) |
gmv: In case you haven't remembered yet Lolita was written by Vladimir Nabokov!!
|
Thanks! My memory can use all the help it can get. (06/23/2004) |
josiah jacob: i hope you'll excuse a thrid question from me this month, but this one just popped in my head, and i wanted to get it out before i lose it :)
in the gap series... had you intentionally written Angus to be the most HUMAN charater, or am i simply seeing him thusly?
by the 'most human' i mean... well, forgive me, i do NOT mean to critic your characters,you seem to almost go out of your way to make sure every character, not matter how small a role, has a name, for example, to make him more real. what i mean by "more huma" though, is... dammit, i'm sorry, i can't put it into words. morn, thomas, warden, the masters... all of your characters are plausible, all have their own personalities, their weaknesses and strengths... but as much as i hated Angus (for the first 2 books, then he became one of my favorite characters), despite how much i detested him, i still noticed a subtle difference. was it intentional? I hope you know what i mean...
One last small question: as i'm sure you've noticed in my questions past, i tend to... babble, endlessly. i do it because i feel the need to be as clear and precise as possible, and i've (in the past, on ther sites) written several paragraphs to even a page or so, just to ask, or answer simple questions, even when a simple sentance would have sufficed. to be honest, this drives me (and people who read me) up a wall. as a writter, do you have any advice for me as to how to lose this annoying habbit, or how to write just as clearly, in shorter, easier amounts?
sorry, i know this has nothing to do with your books, but your a professional writer, so i figure it couldn't hurt to bring this question to you. a good example of what i mean: i called that question (above) a SHORT question :-p
|
Please don't worry about "babbling". We all need to express ourselves in our own ways. Indeed, we all DO express ourselves in our own ways, whether we want to or not. <rueful grin> Is Angus "deliberately" the most "human" character in the GAP books? That's a hard question to answer because I don't think in those terms. There was never a time when I stood back from the story and mused to myself (in Olympian tones), "This will never work unless Angus is the most well-rounded, complex, detailed, deep, convincing character in the whole saga." What I actually said to myself was more along these lines: "Oh, **u*! This will never work unless I can find some way to open my heart to the most overtly despicable character I've ever imagined. 'When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you,' and the abyss is going to be doing some LOOKING." Believe me, opening my heart to characters like Morn Hyland and Nick Succorso--or to smaller players like Godsen Frik and Cleatus Fane--was a *e** of a lot easier. Incidentally, what I've just described explains a couple of odd points about "The Real Story." 1) The novella's idiosyncratic structure, what I call the "onion-peeling" approach to story-telling. Surely most of my readers have noticed that I've never done this before or since. Well, for my own sake as well as for the reader's, I needed to approach the truth about Angus gradually, in "layers." If I had simply slapped people in the face with Angus, none of us would have been able to stand it. 2) After I first wrote "The Real Story," I put it away in a drawer for--as I recall--two and a half years. Which I've also never done before or since. It (by which I mean Angus) asked too much of me, and I didn't feel brave enough to go on. For reasons, and by means, too complicated and personal to explain here, I needed to become a stronger person before I continued the story. (06/23/2004) |
Anonymous: A question from an alternate reality....
If you hadn't managed to get a deal for the Last Chronicles, would you still have written the books anyway, or sketched them out just as a means of getting them 'out' of your head? Or could you simply put the stories to one side and move on to the next idea?
Also, a question of the 'you can save only one relative from a burning house, which one would it be' type........if someone with a terminal illness approached you and asked to know what happens in the rest of the Last Chronicles, would you tell them and if so, with what provisos? That is just a hypothetical question, but a taxing one perhaps?!
|
Gee, I hope you didn't have a lot invested in "taxing" me. These are easy questions. Writing is tough for me. I don't write at all unless I believe in the story enough to do the work regardless of its prospects for publication. After all, I wrote the entire first "Chronicles" with no prospect of publication. I can do that again. It would be financially difficult because I have a lot more people counting on me these days. But when I make a commitment to a story, I stick with it. If someone terminally ill approached me as you suggest, I would provide a loose sketch of what lies ahead (the only kind of information I *can* provide); and I would ask that person not to share the information with anyone else. What if the person who approached me was lying? Not my problem. I'm not responsible for the honesty of other people. I'm only responsible for the meaning of my own life; and the meaning I choose to create requires certain varieties of kindness. (06/23/2004) |
Brian McCorry [Kaseryn, intentionally misspelt]: Dear Mr Donaldson. It seems almost redundant now to add to the effusive praise and thanks that have accumulated over the course of this interview, but having had no channel of communication in the past and knowing that you'll soon be a lot busier i find I can't let the chance pass to add my voice to the chorus of approval. I've read and loved most of your work, but the TC Chronicles - my first 'fantasy' read and actually first real read as a young adult - left the most indelible impression on me. Many readers seem to come to them around adolescence and are moved at the time.. i think a lot of the themes strike particularly true at that time when so much of your own world-self perspective is in flux.. I eulogise about the works to anyone i think i might be able to convince to read them and have often given sets away in the hope of making a convert.
As a previous poster said, its not the setting, in this case fantasy, that matters, but what happens within it. I cannot stress it enough.. If anything i think the fantasy tag has let you cram more of what is important about life and being human in a story than might be possible or tolerated if told in other ways. With respect to Tolkien, i've always found the quote on the British editions 'Comparable to Tolkien at his best' rather offensive, and not giving enough of the respect your work deserves in it's own right. I came to LOTR later and for me as great a masterpiece it may be, and the debt owed for the genre.. it's chalk and cheese substantively. I wont go any further than that, and certainly don't mean to make you uncomfortable.. but when something is this good, the comparison becomes meaningless. (And by the way, i always took it to mean comparable to tolkien at HIS [Tolkiens] best) although others may have read it differently..
Going back and rereading the books every year or so is a constant process of self-rediscovery. So rich and searching of the reader are they i find my changes in thought, value and perspective held up every time, it's like a sort of spiritual travelog. I know they are not your most beloved work but for me they are far the more personal, and i would have you know that this person at least, considers them masterpieces awaiting their due recognition. We don't read these books, we live them.. so potent are they. And i LOVE your use of lanuage! I haven't read very widely but i do enjoy artistry in construction and description. A dictionary was always at had for those first reads, but more than expanding the known vocabulary, i found myself admiring your ability to, what was to my mind, draw upon shades of meaning from words that were familiar to us but less so in the senses you used them. To quote myself, in discussions regarding your use of language on The Watch, of which you will not be surprised to know have been many, your writing often borders the poetic, and has therefore earnt the license that implies. Which is not to say, hell if he talks gibberish.. but that it serves your meaning, and conveys it.
Ok, having thoroughly embarassed you may i just thank you again for your time and your work. I'm gutted I won't be able to make Elohimfest but if this much contact has these results perhaps its for the best lol One question, will you be doing any readings and/or book signings in the UK?
Sincere Gratitude
Kas :)
|
Well, thanks! That's a lot. And I agree with you that fantasy allows me to discuss the "big questions" more freely than I could in another genre. (You should see the contortions I go through to write mystery novels. <grin>) For more on that, you might be interested in my essay on "epic fantasy," downloadable from this site. I'm afraid I won't have any choice: I'll have to do some signings (which occasionally include readings) in the UK. Gollancz/Orion will burn me in effigy if I don't. So I should be over there in November. But of course I haven't been vouchsafed any details. Come to think of it, the Brits *never* vouchsafe me any details: they don't tell me what I'm doing until I get there. (06/25/2004) |
Anonymous: First, Id like to say Ive been a huge fan of yours since I read the First Chronicles when I was in junior high school and have anxiously awaited all of your new releases. And thank you so much for answering our questions.
As an aspiring fantasy writer, Im always curious for insight into the processes of other writers. You answered a previous question regarding your process and I agree that all writers need to find what works for them, but I find it helpful to hear as much as I can from others. So, if you are comfortable sharing this with us, how polished is your first draft, and how drastic does the manuscript change on subsequent drafts? Would we be surprised at how different the first is from the final product, or have you developed as a writer to the point where you can sit down and write pretty close to what we will see in the end?
With regards to your body of work, Ive always been impressed by the added what I would call ethical layer of your stories. As I perceive this, in the Thomas Covenant books it was the question, What was Covenants moral responsibility to Lena, the people of The Land and The Land itself if this was all a figment of his imagination? In Mordants need, What right did the people of Mordant have to force Teresa and the Champion to serve them, if in fact they existed outside of Mordant? And in The Gap series, How evil are the Amnion if their need to mutate is simply a part of their nature?
Are you very conscious of these questions when you begin a story, or do they develop as you go? And were you aware of how Mordants Need seemed to mirror Covenant in the question of existence in Mordant, the characters existence was in question, in Covenant, the worlds?
Vinny F
|
I rewrite a LOT. In that sense, readers who saw my first draft might be quite surprised by how much the final version has changed. But I virtually never change what happens--or the order in which it happens. I've been known to change the viewpoint of a scene completely. Or to alter all the dialogue in a scene. But by and large I do what my agent calls "invisible rewrites." He can seldom figure out what I did differently in each succeeding version of the story: he just knows that version by version the story becomes tighter, clearer, more vivid, and more exciting. When I'm done, he sometimes says my prose "reads like the wind"--and he *never* says that about my first drafts. The "ethical layer" in my stories. Of course I'm (very) conscious of that. I'm (very) conscious of it in *life.* But, as I've tried to explain elsewhere, I don't set out to develop an ethical theme. I set out to tell a story; and while I'm doing that, I try to put as much of myself as possible at the service of the story. So naturally every story I tell turns out to emphasize the themes and concerns that I happen to be capable of emphasizing. If I were a different person, I would inevitably emphasize different things. But the POINT--as I keep trying to say--is not to preach ethics. The POINT is to allow each story to elicit from me as much of, well, everything as I'm capable of providing. Incidentally, I was quite conscious of the way in which "Mordant's Need" appears to invert some of the themes of "Covenant." In that respect, "Mordant's Need" pushes the themes of "Covenant" further. When Covenant's "Is the Land real?" becomes Terisa's "Am I real?" I'm trying to take the whole "nature of reality" issue to a deeper level. Because *really* it is not the Land Covenant doubts: it is himself. He doesn't believe in the reality of his own heart. Doubting the Land is just an excuse to avoid facing his true fear (and his true power). These themes are, of course, developed even more fully (and, I hope, more deeply) in the GAP books. Never mind my mystery novels. (06/25/2004) |
Brad: The Killing Stroke is easily my favorite short story ever. I was wondering what philosophy, if any, inspired the concept 'there is no killing stroke', and what disciplines you modeled the clan types after....
Also, thank you for writing the Last Chronicles, I've been hoping you would follow up on them for ten years.
-B
|
Actually, I tried not to "model" my clan types on particular disciplines. Nevertheless there is quite a bit of "bleed-through." You don't have to look very far to see elements of Ninjitsu, or of "hard" (linear) styles like Shotokan and Shorin-Ryu vs "soft" (circular) styles like Tumpai and Wing Chun. I developed the philosophy behind the "there is no killing stroke" concept through my own study of Shotokan; but the concept is not one that I've ever been taught (either as part of Shotokan or as an element in any of the many other styles I've been exposed to). But as my training progressed I gradually came to believe that there is no such thing as a "victim" (except to the extent that many people are self-victimized). There is, of course, such as thing as "prey"; and when a predator comes after you, you are commonly referred to as a "victim." But there's a useful distinction to be made here. In my lexicon, "prey" has no say in the matter: "victim" does (hence the emphasis on self-victimization). To pick a crude example: a woman is attacked by a rapist. She is "prey" (i.e. she has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that she was chosen for attack). And if she fights back with all of her resources (as "prey" always does in nature), she remains "prey." But if she gives up on herself and submits, she becomes a "victim"--and she is self-victimized by her decision to give up on herself. The important point (in "The Killing Stroke" as in life) is: how do you *choose* to respond to the behavior of a predator? And if your attacker is *not* a predator (i.e. you've chosen to engage in combat when you could have avoided the fight, as in running like hell away from the rapist, or staying out of vulnerable situations), then you have--in effect--chosen your own fate. Your attacker becomes merely the instrument of your own will. Therefore "there is no killing stroke": there is only the decision to be killed, or to not be killed. And if you choose not to be killed, you don't get to call yourself a "victim," since your will determined what happened. I'm afraid this isn't very clear. Sorry about that. Maybe I'll try again when somebody flames me for criticizing rape victims (which is definitely NOT what I'm trying to do here). (06/25/2004) |
mike white: Dear Mr Donaldson - just to make you aware of this - surely this is illegal?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=6905025591&rd=1&ssPageName=WD2V#ebayphotohosting
|
Actually, it may *not* be illegal. (Is it illegal for you to auction off your xmas presents?) ARCs are given to reviewers, and they are not intended for resale. But in order to make an issue out of it, the publisher might first have to prove that the ARC was not used for its original purpose--and after all, there's never a guarantee that a reviewer will review a particular book. As a result, it isn't worth a publisher's time and money to worry about what happens to an ARC once it's been sent out. However, I personally consider it rude, crude, and--possibly--immoral to turn a profit on gifts. If I were given an ARC I didn't want, I would donate it to some worthy cause (a library, a poor friend, whatever). (06/26/2004) |
Peter Purcell: You've mentioned your children and their reading habits (Piers Anthony - Xanth series - not bad Fantasy junk food for the brain!)
That got me wondering: what is their favorite from your works? They must be very proud of their dad! Have you ever thought of authoring a Young Adult book ala Stephen King "The Eyes of the Dragon" dedicated to your children? Perhaps one for any / future grandchildren?
Lastly, thanks for being so open and generous with your fans. It is extremely appreciated by all of us. It is rare that literature pulls us in and makes us care (or hate) and FEEL so much about the characters and the stories. It is extraordinary to be able to connect to their author.
Peter
|
My kids are now way too old for YA books. But I've tried to say before in this interview that I don't (consciously) choose what I'm going to write. Ideas come to me to be written. If I don't write the ideas I get, I'll stop being given ideas. So I never ask myself, "What would I like to write?" (Or-shudder--"What would I approve of writing?") I ask myself, "What have I been given to write?" (06/26/2004) |
Paul S: This is an unbelievable opportunity. I've never heard of an author taking and answering questions over the course of months! Thank you for your time, not to mention your excellent books.
I've read your fantasy and sci-fi books, etc. except your mysteries. I've just never really enjoyed mysteries -- all that thinking about "who dunnit" is too much like work! -- however, I'm really into Martial Arts (been involved for about 20 years, on and off) and having read during this interview that you've worked it in to your mysteries, I think I have to start reading them.
My question is (and I've re-skimmed the entire interview to make sure I'm not reiterating a previous question, but please forgive if I am): You've mentioned several authors that you don't read and that you don't read your own work (not surprising)... so who do you read? What, if anything, are you reading now? Do you tend toward fiction or non-fiction for your leisure reading?
|
I read almost exclusively fiction, in part because that's what I love to read, in part because I feel loyal to the kind of work I'm committed to, and in part because I believe you can learn more from a good story than from almost any form of non-fiction. (Certainly I've learned far more about writing from reading fiction writers than from, say, all of the literary criticism I studied--and practiced--in college and graduate school.) Currently I'm reading Sean Russell's "The Isle of Battle." Before that it was China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station," and before that it was Steven Erikson's "Midnight Tides." As a general rule, I read all of the Russell, McKillip, Erikson, and Powers I can get my hands on. Oh, and David Gemmell. I've already read all of the Paul Scott there is: I'm sorry there isn't more. I'm slowly working my way through the complete Sir Walter Scott; and I regularly re-read William Faulkner, Joseph Conrad, Henry James, George Meredith, and Ford Maddox Ford. Sadly, I'm a very *slow* reader, so I can't do everything I would like (e.g. re-read all of Shakespeare). (06/26/2004) |
Rex: Gee, now that you are NEVER GOING TO DIE, you'll be able to see which of us mean it when we say we're *eternally* grateful for your work.
My question is: do you have a minimum amount of time that you set aside for writing, for example "at least 3 hours per day" or "at least 3 pages per day"?
|
Generally speaking, I keep "businessman's hours": I get into my office between 8 and 9am five days a week, and leave between 4 and 5pm. How much *writing* I get done during that time depends on a whole host of factors, like how often my #^$#%$ phone rings, which Herculean labors my publishers want me to undertake *immediately*, how many of my appliances need repair toDAY, and whether or not someone I love is experiencing a crisis. (06/26/2004) |
John Thomas: Has the thomas coventant chronicles come out on audio if not will the 1st and 2nd ever and will the new ones?
John
|
There has never been an audio version of the first and second "Covenant" trilogies, and I doubt that there ever will be. But if "Runes" becomes a monster bestseller, or if any of the "Chronicles" is made into a successful movie, everything could change. Doors would then open which have been firmly shut (not to mention locked) until now. However, an audio version of "Runes" (complete) is in the works: I believe it's projected to appear on 12 CDs. When, I don't know. If it sells well enough, the subsequent volumes of "The Last Chronicles" may also get audio versions; but so far no commitments have been made. (06/27/2004) |
Ross Edwards: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Found a typo in the Runes of the Earth prologue chapter on this site. On page 8, paragraph 10, the text reads "We brought her up her[e], tied..."
Thought you'd like to know, just in case changes can still be made before printing.
|
It's not too late. Thanks for letting me know! (06/29/2004) |
Casey Cady: Hi! I stumbled upon your upcoming new book on the Hill House Website. I own the Hill House limited edition of American Gods, by Neil Gaiman, and have to say, I look forward to their production of the your Thomas Covenant books.
Anyway, to the point: It was your Gap books that first piqued my interest in Wagner, and opera in general. I saw the Seattle Opera production of the Ring Cycle back in 2001, and loved it! I'm lucky enough to live in Seattle, where the Seattle Opera is pretty well known for their Wagner. Did you catch the last Seattle Opera production of the Ring Cycle? And can you tell me what your favorite production you've seen was? Do you plan on going to see it next year?
Thanks for the great books!
Casey
|
Since I don't live anywhere near Seattle, I've never had the pleasure of seeing any of their productions. In fact, I've never seen the "Ring" live (although I did get to see "The Valkyrie" at the Met in NY a number of years ago). But I've seen two productions on PBS, one from Bayreuth roughly 20 years ago (the Chereau/Boulez production) and one from the Met closer to 10 years ago (the Levine production). Of the two, the Bayreuth one is *far* stronger, not because of the staging, but because the cast and conductor are much superior. (06/30/2004) |
Lynne (aliantha): I'd like to chime in with my thanks to you for answering our questions -- it is *so* cool that you are spending so much time on this. A thousand times that thanks for writing the books in the first place; I've read them all, except for one of the mysteries which I haven't been able to find, and have enjoyed them all (okay, maybe I enjoyed the GAP books less than the others -- sorry, I know they're your favorites). And a thousand thousand times that thanks for telling us why you need an editor, because when I write, I need an editor for the same reasons, and here I thought it was just me! :)
I'm re-reading TCTC (again) in preparation for the release of "Runes" in the fall, to refresh my memory (well, that's my cover story; I'm actually looking for all the doors you left open for the Last Chrons). My question regards the name ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol: Who's Ken Austin?
Looking forward to seeing you on your book tour when you come to the DC area. (Yes, I did say "when"; I'm thinking positively!) Sorry, though, you can't stay at my house -- you'd have to sleep in the basement, and trust me, you don't want to do that. :)
Thanks again!
P.S. No, no, no, not Ralph Fiennes for Nick. I *like* Ralph Fiennes. Nick's scum. (That's a purely female reaction, of course.)
|
Ken Austin is actually the younger (although much better looking) brother of the far more famous Tex Austin. Nick may be scum, but he's irresistable-to-women scum. So I repeat: why *not* Ralph Fiennes? <grin> (06/30/2004) |
eggy bread: Hello hose donaldson so good it is to hear of your recent endeavors in the writing of 'runes of the earth'. My question is this, will the 'atlas of the land' by karen wynn fonstad be reprinted in promotion of the new books? (i know this isnt greatly relevant, its probably more of your publishers idea type-thingy) it would be nice to own one (grin) although not essential. thank you ....ciao x x x
|
I consider it HIGHLY unlikely that "The Atlas of the Land" will ever be reprinted. It sold very poorly when it first came out, and the rights have long since been reverted to the author. But, as I've said before, if "Runes" becomes a monster bestseller, or Hollywood makes a successful "Covenant" movie, almost anything will become possible. (06/30/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Being a fellow New Mexican, I have to ask: Red or Green?
|
Red exclusively. I know this is heresy, but I don't like the taste--or much of anything else--about green. (06/30/2004) |
Mike G: Thanks for answering...
LOL. So are you saying with the comment about Kazin, that you have no dark side whatsover and you are trying to create one, or is it that you have no hope of personal redemption? <grin>
What surprises me is what a romantic you are! Who knew? You are starting with flawed characters and unenviable situations, and your stories create an environment that allows them to grow and redeem themselves...I always realized that was a major theme, but not quite in that way...That means I'm going to have to re-read Gap! "Star Wars in Hell" wasn't it?
My question, since I don't want to over impose, is (following up on your previous answer).. Do you then start out with a character and a resolution that that character's 'problem' and then create the story around it, or do you have a storyline that you tailor a character and issues to? Or is there no particular chicken/egg scenario?
Thanks again for your time in this forum. It is fascinating to get these glimpses into what you do and how you do it. Particularly since your books are not the typical tall elf/grumpy dwarf/wise wizard stereotypes that we see out there, even those that are really great stories...
|
Well, if you want to analyze me on the basis of Kazin's theory, you'll have to dig a whole lot deeper than *that*-- <grin> There are some fundamental things that I'm unable (not unwilling) to explain about how I work. All I can tell you is this. Stories start in a variety of different ways for me ("Reave the Just" began with the first sentence, as did "The Kings of Tarshish," but the GAP books began with names, "Mordant's Need" began with a couple of lines of poetry, and all of the "Covenant" books began at their conclusions), but certain elements have to fall into place before I can write: I have to know what the final crisis (as distinct from the resolution of that crisis) of the story is (where I'm going; my reason for telling the story); I have to know what that crisis "feels" like (this is often more a matter of imagery and context than of literal emotion); and I have to have a sense of the general shape of the process which leads to that crisis (general shape involves what I call "story architecture," the units, building blocks, temporary crises, etc. that accumulate to produce the final crisis). Once I have those things, writing is (now) very much a process of feeling my way: into the situations, into the characters, into the specific content of the architecture. (I say "now" because when I was much younger I felt a need to plan out virtually everything; but now I trust the back of my brain to do a lot of the planning for me.) I discover who all these people are, and why they're doing what they're doing, and why it matters, as I go along. This isn't much of an answer, I know. It has been said by Tony Hillerman that the difference between "plot" and "story" is the difference between "brain" and "mind." In other words, "story=plot+content." It's misleading to say that I start with plot and discover story; but there is some truth in the statement. Of all my stories, only the GAP books (and, to a significantly lesser extent, my mystery novels) truly *began* with character. In some sense, we all start with "brain" and develop "mind." (07/04/2004) |
Peter B.: I have always deeply admired your work. Now, each time I read your responses to these questions I am moved and touched anew by the thoughtfulness and intelligence of your answers. Thank you for being such a sincere and wonderful human being.
A couple quick questions and a comment.
Any idea who will be reading Runes on CD? It would be a real treat if it could be you.
Have you ever given any thought to writing a children's story? I'm guessing not since their is a strong visual component usually and the length of such works is usually a lot less than your more epic endeavors.
Not to get ahead of things, but I just love the title of the final Chronicles book-The Last Dark. Wow! For me, it conjures up all kinds of interesting possibilities.
|
I've said before that I don't (consciously) choose my stories: they choose me. For what are, I hope, obvious reasons, a children's story has never chosen me ("Mythological Beast" is the closest I've ever come). But if one ever does choose me, I trust that I will write it. The reader for the audio version of "Runes" is a man named Scott Brick. He's done other audio books, and I think he has a good voice. It's a very good thing that I'm *not* doing the reading. I would do a terrible job; and I don't have the time. (07/04/2004) |
Sean Casey: I'm interested in hearing your views on rewriting.
Personally, rewriting my work fills me with dread and I tend to avoid it. However, I know this isn't good enough. It's easy to go back and take out or add the occasional word or sentence, but writing is such hard work that when I realise a section needs completely redoing I think 'Oh no, not *again*!' Obviously, I don't expect you to solve *my* problems (but if you could, that'd be great :) ), but I was wondering how *you* deal with this sort of thing.
Would you consider posting first, intermediate and final drafts of a passage of your work on the site to illustrate?
Finally, I'm a bit concerned about the use of the word 'repeated' in the first line of the prologue to 'Runes'. '[R]epeated for the third time' means she's said it four times in total - the first time wasn't a repeat of anything - was this what you meant?
Thanks.
|
I've said before that I rewrite a *lot.* Indeed, I believe that a writer who doesn't rewrite can't learn or improve. (Oh, a cagey individual may be able to pick up a few cheap tricks by observing what other writers do; but those techniques will never be integrated into a coherent whole without lots of practice, i.e. rewriting.) Rewriting involves looking at what you've written as if it had been written by someone else (looking at it as a reader innocent of all your knowledge and assumptions), and evaluating whether or not it actually communicates what you meant to say; then admitting--as all good writers do frequently--that, no, your prose does not actually communicate what you meant, you only wish it did; and then figuring out what went wrong and making appropriate changes. I don't usually enjoy rewriting; but I do it religiously because otherwise I'll never become a better writer. But I'm not going to post "before and after" samples of my own process. How rewriting gets done is as distinctive and individual as how writing gets done: every writer is different. I know writers so fluent that they rip out a book, look at it, say, "Well, *that* didn't work," and simply write the whole book again, perhaps from a different starting point, perhaps with different characters, perhaps from a new point of view. Other writers write the book, realize it doesn't work, throw it away, and write a completely different book instead. At the opposite extreme, I know of writers who simply cannot write sentence 2 until they have made sentence 1 feel perfect. And between those extremes exist a multitude of approaches, none of which are relevant to you. You'll never be any good unless you find your own way. With all of that in mind, how can you possibly be "concerned" about my use of the word "repeated" in the first line of "Runes"? Don't you suppose I've thought about this? Don't you suppose I meant exactly what I said? After all, I rewrote that sentence five times. Of *course* I meant that she said it four times. (07/05/2004) |
Scott Wilson: As I read the gradual interview I note that a great many of your fans first came upon your works (specifically the Chronicles of TC) at an early age (12, 13, 14). I, too, read them as a juvenile. I'm now in my mid-30s (not trying to make you feel old <grin>) and have long since understood that these are not books for kids, even older kids. Does it bother you that young readers come to your work looking for another "The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe" or "The Hobbit" or the "Chronicles of Prydain" as so many of them do; and run up against the rape of Lena and other mature topics and themes you most likely did not intend for less mature minds?
|
Actually, it bothers me quite a bit: the "Covenant" books were NOT written for kids. And I'm positively astonished that so many too-young readers enjoyed what they read so much that they became, well, fans for life. But I had a professor in graduate school who liked to say, "The reader's mind is like a stomach: it digests what it can use, and it dumps the rest." Apparently all those 12, 13, 14, 15 year old kids found enough in "Covenant" that they *could* digest to make the meal enjoyable in spite of all the spinach. (07/05/2004) |
Mike Sales: My question is about the old man that pops up in Covenant's 'real' world.
Exactly who is he? Is he the CREATOR? (Sorry, I know you said you wouldn't answer any more CREATOR related questions :0)
If he IS the creator, doesn't coming into Covenant's 'real' world violate his own rule for himself, namely that he must stay outside the ARCH OF TIME?
If he ISN'T the creator, is he an AGENT of the creator? And if he IS, will his role be explained more?
|
I swore off "Creator" questions. But let me try again to be clear about one point. The "Covenant" books deal with two fictional realities, Covenant's "real" world and the Land. It's important not to blur the distinction between these two (just as it's important not to blur the distinction between fictional realities and other, more tangible realities). Because they are separate realities, there is no reason to assume that the same being is the "Creator" of both. Indeed, there is no reason to assume that the "Creator" of one cannot be just another character in the other. Therefore there is no reason to assume that the integrity of either reality is being violated if the "Creator" of the Land appears as a character in Covenant's "real" world. Having rid ourselves of those assumptions, we can then consider the possibility that the Land's "Creator" is Covenant himself (an act of imagination which he later shares with Linden); that--in a manner of speaking--both the "Creator" and the man in the ochre robe are Covenant's dopplegangers, externalized versions of aspects of himself. My views on such subjects are better explained in my essay, "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World" (available on this site). But you might find that they repay consideration. (07/06/2004) |
Anthony: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
So what is the answer to the question posed in the introduction of your wonderful collection Reave the Just:
"...which of the stories in this book responds to a lawsuit impugning my honor, both as a writer and as a father?"
I doubt that it is The Killing Stroke, although that ranks as my very favorite short story of yours by a country mile.
Curiously yours,
Anthony
|
This is a *very* personal question, and I don't usually answer questions this personal. But enough time has passed: perhaps it's safe to answer. The story is "Penance." (07/06/2004) |
Pete Bejmuk: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Congratulations on your extraordinary writing skills. You're a great example to may writers.
I have a question reguarding the Atlas by Karen Fonstad. With the recent revamp in interest in the LotR series, Fonstad (or at least her publisher) has re-released her atlas of Middle Earth, along with some new content. Is there any chance of a new edition of the Atlas of the Land being published, once the new Chronicles are completed?
Do you have any plans on having a comprehensive appendix at the end of the final Chronicles book, in the way that JRRT did? (I must add many thanks for the glossaries in the end of your previous books).
Finally, reguarding short stories such as "The Killing Stroke": my friends have debated if this novel could possibly have set in the Land. Obviously, there is no direct reference (although my arguement was that it could be a semi-futuristic glance at the martial arts of the Haruchai). Now, you don't have to comment on my wild imagination (thank goodness), but have you ever concidered incorporating content from your previous novellas/stories into your larger works? Not just published works, but perhaps a short story that originally had nothing to do with your main series', but would fit in nicely?
Finally, you may find it interesting to note that when asking for a recommendation of a new author similar to you, a number of employees at (various different) bookstores have recommended me to the "Game of Thrones" books by author George RR Martin, along with the words "If you like Donaldson, you'll like Martin". This may be because of the definite dark "antihero" fantasy theme that links both yourself and Martin. I just thought you'd be interested to know what major booksellers are telling people when someone asks "I liked Donaldson's books, who do you recommend that's similar?"
|
I've already discussed the improbability that "The Atlas of the Land" will ever be reissued. But I can say with confidence that I will *never* create a "comprehensive appendix" (or any appendix) to go with the "Covenant" books. Never mind the fact that I hate doing that kind of writing. I don't have the requisite raw materials. My (extremely cryptic and rudimentary) notes get trashed as soon as I use them; so all I'm left with are the maps. Unless somehow this "gradual interview" counts as an appendix. <grin> It is certainly becoming long enough. No, "The Killing Stroke" was not set in the same fictional reality which includes the Land. And I won't fudge that story by trying to squeeze it in where it doesn't belong. But I do have two stories which I secretly hope will someday lead to novels: "The Killing Stroke" and "Penance." But I must hasten to add that at present I have no ideas which would enable me to take those stories further. (07/06/2004) |
Todd: Mr. Donaldson,
This is a general question, with answers that are fairly generic in nature. Feel free to be as general or specific as you want.
When writing, do you:
1. Write the entire story, and then go back and edit.
2. Write the entire story, doing minor editing along the way, saving the major editing for the end.
3. Write and edit as you go, not moving forward into the next logical sequence of events until you're satisfied with what you've already written?
Thanks - and thanks for answering a question I asked last month with more depth than I hoped for.
Good luck with all of the editing you're doing right now!!
Todd
|
I write the entire story (by which I mean book), doing (very) minor editing along the way, and saving the major editing for the end. You might say that my "critical" (rewriting) brain is very different than my "creative" (first draft) brain; and I find I'm unable to do substantive editing until I've gained some distance from the original work. But trying to write entire sagas (in the present case, four volumes) without doing any substantive editing along the way has huge disadvantages: it would be creatively exhausting; it would force me to build on my mistakes instead of correcting them before I get *too* deeply into the story (and then the editing would be brutal beyond description); and it would require me to go too long between paychecks (I *do* have a family to support). (07/06/2004) |
gmv: There's no question here, I just wanted to say that I learned only last night about the upcoming Last Chronicles and I have yet to peel myself off the ceiling!!! Extreme glee!!! "Joy is in the ears that hear" indeed.
I've been living under a rock (e.g. focused on grad school and career), but every once in a while I resurface to check the weather and see if Stephen R. Donaldson has released another book. And now it's happening!!! This is better news than when I heard of the LOTR films.
Thank you so much for revisiting the Land! Don't let that young editor person take too much away --people who love your writing want YOUR writing, which is right up there at the pinnacle of the genre!
The highest compliment I can think to give you is to give you heavy credit for exposing me to so many wonderful words. I was once called a "f*c*ing dictionary" -- you had a hand in that.
You should buy stock in Kleenex. I always end up crying desperately throughout the Covenant books.
Bless you. Stay healthy!
Gina
|
THANK you. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: readers like you do a lot to help make the difficulties of writing books like mine worthwhile. (07/06/2004) |
Danijel Sah: Thank You for your answer. I understand completely.
I have one more question which I forgot to ask You, if You could be so kind to answer it:
I read somewhere that before your first publish of Covenant series You were rejected 47 times. Because I'm author myself and also was very difficult for me to find a publisher, please tell me what were the reasons that your work was rejected so many times and who was the first who recognised and than published your work?
Thank You again. I hope we will meet somewhere someday. I 'am inviting You to visit my beautiful country Croatia! You will enjoy it!
|
As I've said before, "Lord Foul's Bane" was rejected 47 times--every fiction publisher in the US (at that time), including all of my current publishers, plus several agents. Most gave me no explanation whatsoever: form rejections never do. The few that did respond said in various ways that: 1) they couldn't take such a large risk on an "unknown" (at that time, the Waldenbooks chain refused to stock ANY fiction by previously unpublished authors); and 2) LOTR notwithstanding, fantasy doesn't sell (Lin Carter at Ballantine had spent several years proving this to the book industry). The editor who finally gave me my chance was Lester del Rey, who eventually became the fantasy editor at Ballantine after Lin Carter was fired. And even then Lester's gamble might not have worked if he hadn't first published Terry Brooks' "The Sword of Shannara," which defied conventional wisdom by selling an astonishing number of copies. That opened the door for me, in a manner of speaking. But even *that* would not have happened if Ballantine Books hadn't been founded by Ian and Betty Ballantine, who rescued Tolkien from the stupidity of Houghton Mifflin and the subsequent theft of his work by Ace Books, and who never stopped looking for "successors" to LOTR. (07/07/2004) |
Christian Moller: Dear Sir:
I read both Thomas Covenant Chronicles many years ago, and recently re-read them. Since I had an interest in the books, I thought I'd look on the internet and see if anyone else had posted anything about them.
I was surprised to come across your so-called "official" web site, and disheartened to learn that you were masquerading as Mr. Donaldson. I have copies of the books that contain a picture of Mr. Donaldson on the book jacket, and the picture of old fellow on the home page who is supposed to be the author doesn't match. I wish I could paste the picture from the book jacket with this email to show you what Mr. Donaldson really looks like, but unfortunately the constraints of email won't allow me to. Sufficient to say, Mr. Donaldson is a young looking fellow, with long dark hair, very literary looking, wearing glasses. From this picture I gather he seems to be a nice guy, since he's got a Siamese cat sitting on his shoulder. The picture of the man on your website you've posted claiming to be that of the author is a gray-haired and eldery man, and to my mind rather disreputable looking. Not a cat lover at all.
If I were you, I would remove all claims to being the author from your web site. I don't know whether Mr. Donaldson is a litigious sort of person, but if he should find out that an old fellow such as yourself is claiming to be him, he might not take it too well, and a lawsuit might result.
Other than your false claims of celebrity, I found your website interesting, and actually enjoyed some of the insights into the books. Being a fan and making a decent web site should be enough, without claiming to be something you're not. I know that sometimes people get caught up and want to immerse themselves in a beloved topic such as in this case, but as I said, if Mr. Donaldson finds out that you are claiming authorship of his books, and I imagine he will eventually, you may be in for some serious consequences at his hands.
Sincerely,
Christian Moller
|
Well, you caught me. I am in fact *not* "Stephen R. Donaldson." I'm an actor hired by Mr Donaldson to impersonate him because he, well, doesn't think he looks like a writer. So you'll be glad to hear that the real "Stephen R. Donaldson" still looks *exactly* the way he did back in 1876 when the photo you mention was taken. Admittedly, the cat on his shoulder is starting to look a bit ratty--but otherwise, no change at all. I'm sure you'll also be glad to hear that since I was hired for this gig by the real "Stephen R. Donaldson," I'm in no danger whatsoever of being sued for my impersonation. And I should know. At my age, I'm very aware of the difference between being sued and not being sued. If you still doubt that my impersonation is authorized, I suggest that you contact my publishers. They'll set you straight. (07/08/2004) |
Allen: I think it must take much courage to write the Last Chronicles because it means that you are now willing to outlive and outlast your own primary vision. My question regards Reave The Just. You said somewhere that the story began with a sentence. I am wondering if you would reveal to us devotees of Reave what inspirations like behind the character himself. Also, how about a younger Christopher Walken to play Reave?
|
I can say with complete honesty that the entire story of "Reave the Just," including the character himself, grew out of the first sentence. Such is the magic of language for me--especially names. I knew exactly who Reave and Jillet were as soon as I heard their names in my mind, just as I knew all about the setting from the name Forebridge. And I knew what the story was going to be about (thematically, anyway) as soon as I heard the words "strange, unrelenting tales." How this works, I can not explain. I have no idea. All I know is that only one other story started with the first sentence ("The Kings of Tarshish"--unless you're willing to really stretch a point, in which case I might also mention "The Man Who Tried to Get Away," or indeed "By Any Other Name," which actually started with the 4th sentence). Casting Reave? I've never given it any thought. But a much younger Colin Baker would be an interesting possibility. (07/08/2004) |
Paul S.: GAP Casting:
Angus: Liam Neeson - maybe too old, but could pull it off; but I think your suggestion of Vin Diesel is still the best
Nick: Brad Pitt - he's good looking (apparently), cocky, and has played the bad guy (Fight Club); second choice: Jude Law.
Min: 7 of 9, from Star Trek Voyager... can't remember the actresses name.
Morn: Charlize Theron or Nancy McKeon (ok, Nancy's not an A-List actor but she's played the victim who comes back swinging role before very well)
Holt: Al Paccino, he's already played the Devil and the head of crime family...
Warden: Can't think of anyone...
|
Since the GAP movies will never be made (the only "producers" who ever approached me wanted *me* to finance the project), casting them is just a parlor game. But parlor games are fun. At the moment, I like Robert de Niro for Warden, Carrie-Anne Moss for Min, and good ol' whatshername who played 7 of 9 for Sorus Chatelaine. And it's just barely possible that the actress who played Jack Bauer's wife on "24" would make a good Morn Hyland. And how about Sam Sorbo for Koina Hannish? (As I say, parlor games are fun.) Francis McDermott for Lane Harbinger? And my buddy Colin Baker for Hashi Lebwohl? (07/08/2004) |
Anthony: Mr Donaldson,
Thankyou so very much, you introduced the concept of the anti hero to me, and I feel fortunate that the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant were the first novels I had ever read. Since then you were always my favourite author and have reread the chronicles 4 times, taking pride of place on my Bookshelf.
My question however is, why does it seem you have been inactive for so long? Please however, stop answering all these questions, and go write the next book, I cant wait for the first one as it is.
|
If it seems I've been inactive, there are several explanations. 1) You may be unaware of my mystery novels. 2) Over the past decade, I've been trying to "reinvent" myself as a writer, one consequence of which is that for 8 months in '96 (I think it was) I couldn't write at all. 3) My most recent novel, "The Man Who Fought Alone," took me three full years to write, in part because I was--and still am--"reinventing" myself, and in part because in that book I deliberately tackled a challenge which has effectively paralyzed me throughout my writing life. From the beginning, my ability to write has depended on "making things up": I've never written "from life," so none of the characters, settings, or situations have been (consciously) based on my own experience. But in "The Man Who Fought Alone," I chose to write about some things which are demonstrably "real" (in other words, you could go out and check my facts for yourself), specifically martial arts styles and tournaments. Not to put too fine a point on it, this ^#$%#^ near killed me. Sure, verifiable facts occasionally appear in my other books. The information about leprosy in "Lord Foul's Bane" was accurate and up-to-date when I wrote the book. But nothing that I've ever written has depended so heavily on my personal knowledge and experience. (07/08/2004) |
Derrik S: As far as the geography of the Land:
There is an ice field to the north of the Land
There is a desert to the south of the Land
And a sea to the east of the Land and a few things to the west
As far as my question goes:
In The One Tree, i came across that there is a desert to the north(?) of one of the cities (where they picked up some weapons from the palace, i believe), they say that there is a land far north(?) of the desert, i was wondering if that is the Land they were talking about?
(My memory isn't quite as clear as when i read the books a couple years ago)
|
I've never tried to construct a map of the entire planet; but in my mind the land of the Bhrathair and the Sandgorgons is on a different continent than *the* Land. After all, any self-respecting planet has more than one desert. <grin> (07/09/2004) |
Stephen Smith: Dear Steve:
First of all, I am amazed at your dedication to answering the questions submitted in this gradual interview. But I have known for a long time that you treat your readers with a tender devotion. Back in 1992, (in the halcyon days before e-mail) I finished the Covenant books, and you were kind enough to respond to my snail mail letter with one of your own. It has taken me 12 years to say thank you.
Thank you. It was the only such "fan letter" I've written, before or since. It's my pleasure to write you again.
My $64 question: I have recently been able to start writing my own novel full-time at home. I'm finding it difficult to stay on task in this too comfortable environment. I appreciated your candor in a previous answer about treating your writing like a "normal" 40-hour a week job. Do you have any advice for staying focused on the work, and the loneliness that (for me at least) dovetails so smoothly with this solitary craft?
I hope you and yours are well. Thanks for everything,
Steve Smith.
|
If you can afford to write full-time, can you afford an office outside your home? That would be my first piece of advice: get a space that is dedicated exclusivly to writing, ideally a space away from phones, family, friends, or anything else that threatens to make you self-conscious about what you're doing. Then (or instead, if you can't afford a separate space) devise a congenial "cocoon of sound" to isolate you from distractions (it also helps to be sure you don't have a distracting view from any windows): you need a form of sound that helps you relax, that doesn't require you to think about it, and that is loud enough to resist penetration by noises from outside your place of work. Then make "rules" for yourself, something along the lines of, "If you are in your place of work, you are either reading or writing. If you aren't doing either of those things, leave." People like Fred Pohl require a certain number of pages from themselves every day; and everything else is secondary until those pages are done. Roger Zelazny used to require himself to walk into his office and write four sentences; if those sentences didn't start a flow of words, he left; if they did, he stayed as long as the flow lasted; and he required himself to walk into his office at least four times a day. Me, I require myself to put in the hours rather than the words or sentences or pages. But the best advice I can give you is this: trust your excitement. You need self-discipline to get yourself going every day; but after that your only reliable guide is your own excitement. If what you're doing doesn't excite you, there's something wrong somewhere. And if you *are* excited, nothing else matters--except nuturing your excitement. (07/09/2004) |
Mark A. Valco: Dear Stephen R Donaldson:
I just came across your website last week and just read 90% of the "Gradual Interview" yesterday. My brother and his son recommended last Thanksgiving that I read your Covenant Trilogy. I suddenly found myself with an insatiable appetite for Donaldson, so as soon as I finish the GAP series, I will start on the Mordant books. It smacks of synchronicity (for me personally) that you are writing the last trilogy now. I was elated to deliver that exciting news to my brother and his son.
I notice that most of your emails are from guys, yet your novels have such strong female characters, that I think it is sad that women readers have not discovered you yet. (Either that or they are not as compelled to give you feedback). For each strong male character, there seems to be an even stronger female character. By "strong" I mean intelligent, complicated, brave, and forceful. For this reason --among many other reasons-- you may be well ahead of your time. (Especially when you consider that the Covenant trilogies were written in the eighties).
If I may comment about the "living forever" thread in a few of your previous emails, I think you have certainly made yourself immortal with your writing. Let's face it, after two or three genertions, most people are soon forgotten (even in their own families!). My first question is: Does it ever dawn on you that you *have* made "Stephen R. Donaldson" immortal? If so, doesn't that make you feel fulfilled? There is no doubt in my mind that there will be college classes on the Covenant books, and there is no doubt in my mind that over the course of the next fifty years there will be a couple remakes of movies based on your books. They are simply too rich to ignore.
|
Well, thank you! I especially appreciate your comments about my female characters. I was told vehemently (not to mention savagely) many years ago that no man could write convincing female characters; the male mind being inherently crippled by, well, maleness, etc.. After a fair amount of soul-searching, I decided to ignore the people who say such things. You see the results. But about "living forever." Naturally I'm pleased that you think my work will stand the test of time. But I have no illusions about my artistic "immortality." There were plenty of people in Dickens' time who considered Galsworthy a greater novelist; and now we all say, Gal-who? Similarly, many of Shakespeare's contemporaries considered Ben Jonson a greater playwright--and poet. History teaches us over and over again that time (at least 50-100 years) is the only true test of artistic significance. Well, the bad news about the test of time is that I'll never know if I passed. The *good* news is that I'll never know if I failed. Meanwhile the only thing I can do is the only thing any of us can do: give it my best shot, and take my chances. Hence the attraction of *actually* "living forever." <grin> Which I have solemnly sworn to do. (07/09/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Mr Donaldson,
You've mentioned Colin Baker a couple of time in this interview (and dedicated Forbidden KNowledge to him). Are you referring to the same Colin Baker who played the sixth Doctor Who?
If so, do you know him personally, or did you just used to watch a lot of Doctor Who? :)
(Sorry for the personal question. I am an unabashed fan, and do have a lot of questions about your writing, but I'm curious about this, too.)
|
In fact, I have the good fortune to consider Colin Baker (the 6th Doctor) a personal friend. But I'm also a major Dr Who fan. You should *see* my collection of bootleg Dr Who tapes. <grin> And I've never forgiven the BBC for what they did to Colin's Doctor. (07/09/2004) |
Louis Sytsma: Here's a couple of more actors for your consideration to play Thomas Convenant:
Viggo Mortensen
Christian Bale
|
Sorry, Viggo (I call him that because he has no idea who I am) has never shown me the range needed for Covenant. And I don't know who Christian Bale is, although other readers of this site have mentioned him. (07/09/2004) |
Lee Whipple: Thank you, I needed to read this today.
"I'm only responsible for the meaning of my own life; and the meaning I choose to create requires certain varieties of kindness."
This world would be a better place if more people believed the same.
|
I agree. And I know a fair number of people who would do the same. Unfortunately most of them actually consider "convenience" more important than either "responsibility" or "kindness." Well, you get what you pay for. "Responsibility" and "kindness" take effort. When people let "convenience" determine the meaning of their lives--well, the results ain't pretty. (07/09/2004) |
dlbpharmd: What is the time ratio between the "real world" and The Land?
|
It is roughly one day in the "real world" to one year in the Land--give or take a little poetic license. (07/09/2004) |
Ross Edwards: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I can't begin to tell you how excited I am that you've taken up the Chronicles again. The first six books amazed me, but to my mind your writing has gotten even more intense in the past 20 years (the Gap series has now passed TC as my favorite story -- once the action hits Billingsgate, it really takes off, and Chaos and Order just HAS to be read in one sitting).
I just might have to hose myself down when the Last Chronicles are released!
And I was relieved when I found out that you finally had your own official Website. For so many years, your (unofficial) Website community had been sorely lacking in content and news -- I wish Id discovered Kevins Watch earlier Thanks for giving us a glimpse into your world!
Anyway, I could babble on and on, but I wont take up any more of your time. I have two questions for you, and then Ill hang up and listen to your answer (if there is one).
First, the news that Hollywood has an option on TC has made me dust off my unfinished screenplay based on Lord Fouls Bane. If I end up finishing it, where would I send it to (potentially) be read by whomever is in charge of the project?
Second, though I know Runes is already in final proofing stage, would you be interested in some free proofreading for the next books? I can say Im pretty good at it, and would love to help out (did you notice the small formatting issues in the posted Prologue chapter? Reversed quotation marks, for one Hope those didnt make it to the final proof! Or were those only caused by the conversion process?) ;-)
Hey, thanks for listening! And take care.
Sincerely,
Ross Edwards
|
1) As it happens, the producers who purchased the "Covenant" option already have a screenplay in hand. They're using it to try to attract a "bankable" star. But if you want to pursue the matter, the names of the producers are in the Putnams press release on this site. You can track them down at least as easily as I can (I don't do "web searches" well) and offer them your screenplay. 2) Sorry, I don't let anyone else do my proofreading for me. *I'm* responsible for my work. And I make changes right up to the last minute. Or even later: I occasionally make changes between the hardback and paperback editions of a book. (Small stuff, usually; or matters of internal consistency.) (07/09/2004) |
Adrian: Mr. Donaldson, The Covenant Books and Mordant's Need both focus on a person from the "real" world entering into an impossible world and then learning the rules and surviving.
First question: how did you come up with this very intriguing idea of mixing reality and fantasy?
Second Question: I absolutely love the notion of using mirrors in Mordants Need. This was one of the most original ideas I had ever read up to that point. How did you come up with the notion of using mirrors in this way?
Last Question: when you set out to create a world (Mordants Need for example), how much of the rules of the world do you outline before writing, and how much do you make up as you go? In other words, how much of the rules of conjuring did you know before you began to write and how much was made up after you had begun?
Thank you.
|
1) Well, it's been done before: the Lewis Carroll books; the "Narnia" books; shucks, even the "Oz" books. I grew up on that stuff. 2) Again, this isn't original. "Through the Looking Glass" leaps to mind, as does a Kurt Vonnegut novel ("Breakfast of Champions," if my memory does not mislead me). 3) This isn't a subject on which I've ever felt that I could afford to wing it. Sticking with the example of "Mordant's Need": since the "known" rules of Imagery (known by the Congery, at any rate) are violated right at the beginning of the story (by Geraden), I had to start out with a pretty clear picture of what those rules were. Or a completely different example: the GAP books. Virtually all of the essential parameters of that entire saga are laid out in "The Real Story" (many of them obliquely, I admit). (07/09/2004) |
Scott Rush: Mr. Donaldson,
It is with a large smile on my face that I write this short message to you today. I cant tell you how much I am looking forward to the release of Runes of the Earth. It has been about 18 years since I finished WGW the first time and I have been trying to find a fantasy series that can match the excellence of the first two chronicles of TC ever since. I just may have found one such series in George Martins excellent Song of Fire and Ice. It is certainly worth a read if you have the time, and you will need a lot of time because Mr. Martin likes to write even larger books than you :-)
I have so many thoughts about the final series spinning in my head that it is driving me nuts. For example:
1. What sort of new Council of Lords did Sunder and Hollian form?
2. Did the new council (foolishly?) recover Kevins Lore from Revelstone and make use of it, or did they fashion their own lore?
3. Did the beloved Ranyhyn come back to The Land after so many centuries?
4. Did the Giants re-populate Coercri?
5. What about the Haruchai? What part do they play?
6. Just how in the Seven Hells does TC come back from the dead? I know that the Law of Death was broken, but wouldnt have this been fixed by the new Staff of Law?
I realize that you cannot answer any of these questions in this forum, but I hope that they and the many other un-asked questions that I have will be answered in the Last Chronicles. You could have very well left the chronicles complete after WGW. I thank you though from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to write the Last Chronicles.
I am a displaced native of Cleveland just like you and I was wondering, assuming you enjoy professional sports, if you still are a fan of the Browns, Indians, Cavs etc? I havent lived in Cleveland for 20 years, but I cant bring myself to follow any other sports team but my Home Town teams.
Now get busy writing Fatal Revenant!
|
You're right: I can't answer any of those questions without giving things away. But just to tease you, I can say that Kevin's Lore is in what we might politely call a parlous state. <grin> The only professional sport that actually holds my interest these days is the NBA. I was living near Philadelphia when I became interested, so the 76'ers are approximately "my team." But since I virtually never get to watch their games, I do root for other teams on an almost random basis. The only thing that isn't random is that I always root *against* the Lakers, Celtics, and Knicks. And, no, I can't explain that. It just is. (07/10/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Mr. Donaldson,
When I read "The Killing Stroke" a few (um ... six? Yikes!) years ago, it struck me that the world you had created was complex and complete enough that it could have supported a novel-length story. I've read elsewhere that you know almost immediately what form (or how many volumes) a story will take, even when the idea is young.
Is this the case for "The Killing Stroke"? Did it always exist in your mind as a short story? If so,
(and I don't know how to word this question differently, so forgive me if it's unanswerable) how did you know that the world and situations of "The Killing Stroke" were to be the subject of a short story rather than a novel?
Do you ever look back at the world that you've created in a short story, and think "Hmm, that's pretty cool. I'll bet there are other tales to tell in that world"?
|
Well, I've been known to look back at a story and say, "That's pretty cool. I *hope* there are other tales to tell in that world." Having written them, I'm perfectly aware that some of my tales *could* support additional or longer narratives. Nevertheless I simply can't answer your real question. When a story idea appears in my head (and I can't explain how that happens), it always arrives carrying a "length attribute," a tag or label which tells me roughly how long the story will be (and I certainly can't explain how *that* happens). Often I know how long a story will be well before, even years before, I know what the story itself actually is. In "The Killing Stroke," for example, the original idea was nothing more than the possibility of a martial arts story involving unspecified characters caught in a "time-loop" who could only escape by somehow transcending the limitations of their own identities (an idea stolen directly from Doctor Who); but I knew immediately that the story would be a novella. Years later, when I was ready to actually write the story, I could hardly fail to notice that it was full of unexplored potential. Nevertheless I had then, and still have now, NO IDEAS which would enable me to explore that potential. For reasons I can not explain, the longer an idea sits in my head before I write it, the more context (setting, background, etc.) it accretes; but the idea itself doesn't grow to match its (now more elaborate) context. All I know is that the worlds of, say, "The Killing Stroke," "Penance," or "Daughter of Regals" could support other or longer stories; but the stories themselves can't support any more length than they started with. (07/13/2004) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I must say that when I first heard you were going to write the Last Chronicles, I hardly could believe it. There I was, just after I finished reading WGW for the first time, feeling sad because Covenant was gone and the journey to the Land was over, too... and then I found out about all this. Thank you! I was introduced to the Chronicles by a friend of mine from Venezuela, in Germany of all places (I'm Italian) - isn't it strange how life goes? ;) It's a pity your books haven't enjoyed much success over here :(
Anyway, on to my question... I just realized that time and again, all Laws that were broken in the Land that I can think of were broken because the Land itself, directly or not, provided the means to do that. What I mean is, without the EarthBlood, no Law of Death would have been broken; without a Forestal, no Law of Life would have been broken; and so on. Not even Foul with the Illearth Stone could apparently break the Law of Death without the unwitting assistance of Elena.
So, is this another facet of Covenant's belief that to have power (in this case, Earthpower) one (the Land) cannot be wholly innocent (in this case, by placing within the very Earthpower the possibility of "guilt", intended as the destruction of natural Laws)? In other words, that for the Land to be rich in Earthpower, it must also "accept" the fact that it holds within itself the seeds of its fall, whereas to avoid holding those seeds (being "innocent"), the Land couldn't hold Earthpower either (and therefore would be "powerless")? Or am I just rationalizing? ;)
|
That's quite a question! I'm not sure I can do it justice. But here's how I look at it. You're a Creator; and you want to create a world that will be an organic whole, a living, breathing entity, rather than a mere mechanical extrapolation of your own personality and preferences. So how do you accomplish that goal? The obvious answer is: give the inhabitants of your world--or perhaps even the world itself--free will. Allow them to use or misuse as they see fit whatever your world happens to contain. Therefore they must be equally capable of both preserving and destroying your creation. QED. When you look at it that way, the fact that the powers in the Land can be used to break the Laws which preserve the Land is sort of a "Duh." That *has* to be true. Otherwise your world is nothing more than an exercise in ego, a piece of machinery which exists solely to glorify you. Such "Covenant"-esque ideas as "innocence is impotence" and "only the guilty have power" are inferences drawn from the basic precepts of free will. They might be rephrased thus: only a person who has truly experienced the consequences of his/her own destructive actions is qualified to evaluate--is, indeed, capable of evaluating--his/her future actions in order to make meaningful choices between destruction and preservation. Hile Troy is an interesting example. He's "innocent" in a way that Covenant is not: he's never done anything even remotely comparable to the rape of Lena. As a result, he's bloody dangerous. He literally doesn't know what he's doing: he hasn't learned the kind of humility that comes from meeting his own inner Despiser face-to-face. Therefore, in spite of all his good intentions, he makes decisions which bear an ineluctable resemblence to Kevin's. Do you doubt me? Look at Troy's "accomplishments." If Mhoram hadn't saved his bacon at the edge of Garroting Deep, his decisions would have effectively destroyed the Lords' ability to defend the Land. He's just too damn innocent. He hasn't learned the self-doubt, the humility, that makes Covenant hesitate, or that makes Mhoram wise. Does this help? I hope so. (07/13/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Thanks for posting the cover art, very nice, but who/what are the figures seen on it? It looks like three people and a white horse. Now, I know you probably aren't going to tell me who they are, but can you at least confirm that this is a scene in the book? Thanks!
P.S. I have to admit that when I first saw the cover I thought the white animal was a giant poodle! Please confirm that this is not the case!
|
Sorry, I can't explain Whelan's art for "Runes." He does what are considered "symbolic" covers: they don't illustrate a scene from the book; instead they're intended to *evoke* the book in a general sense. But once you've read "Runes," you'll be able to appreciate Whelan's concept. In the meantime, I can assure you that the white animal is NOT a "poodle." <grin> Merciful Heavens, what will you people think of next? (07/13/2004) |
Marc Alan: While reading the Second Chronicles, as a reader I was always hoping that Covenant and Linden would talk more about the real world. Instead, the trilogy seemed to alternate with one or the other character being locked up in his or her own thoughts. They seem to remain strangers for most of the book(s) as they struggle with their own inner demons. Even after they become close, they bounce right back to being alone and miserable. Do you have something against happy endings, or do you just find them boring?
|
Do I have something against happy endings? Not as such. (Doesn't saving the entire world count as a happy ending?) But I desperately want to make my characters as real as possible. And virtually all of the real people I know "remain strangers...as they struggle with their own inner demons." Certainly that has been my lot in life. The true connections that I occasionally succeed at making with other people are so precious because they are so (comparatively) rare. None of us would really cherish the people we love if such connections came easily. Meanwhile struggling with inner demons is pretty much the name of the game for most human beings. (07/13/2004) |
Kristen: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I would like to start this off by saying that my favorite books are the Gap series (although Thomas Covenant was great, too) and I absolutely love your writing.
My question is this: What advice could you give to aspiring writers?
|
Well, they always say that anyone who CAN be discouraged from being a writer SHOULD be discouraged from being a writer. My own take on that basic concept goes something like this: No one is born with an owner's manual. We have no idea what our true abilities, talents, and interests are: we have to *discover* that information about ourselves through an (unfortunately messy) process of trial-and-error. So the important question is not: Do you aspire to being a writer? The important question is: What have you discovered about yourself? Now, as far as I can tell, the only reliable guide to self-discovery is self-observation: watch your own behavior, watch your own emotions, and draw reasonable conclusions from that data. The particular things to look for are: how does your mind work (what comes naturally to you)? and what excites you? (Unfortunately excitement often presents as fear, so making the distinction can be difficult.) Or another, perhaps simpler, way to say the same things: when do you feel most alive? and what are you doing when you feel that way? If the answer is, "When I'm writing," then give it everything you've got. If the answer is *not*, "When I'm writing," then give it up. Incidentally, the same principle applies *within* writing. How do you know what KIND of writing you should be doing? And how do you know HOW you should be writing? The answer, again, is self-observation. Experiment. Watch. And trust what makes you feel more alive; distrust what doesn't. (07/15/2004) |
Anonymous: Mr Donaldson.
As an admirer of your work and literature in general I find myself perplexed by a simple problem.
Taking a world, its characters and placces from notes and maps into a fully realized story. I am able to envision a world, its continents, cultures peoples and heros. I can see its cities, forests, mountains and valleys. I have a clear vision of its history and future. Yet I find all my vision is channeled more into an analysis of my world than stories about it.
I have no problem writing analytical research papers yet creative writing other than poetry eludes and boggles me.
I know each writer is unique in how they write so what you do will not necessarily work for me. However I am still curious. Is there any advice you may have which could change the world I see from a notebook and drawings ( many digital ) from an analytical work to a creative work.
|
Sorry, the best answer I can give you is the answer to the previous question. Instead of trying to become someone else, you need to trust who you are. (07/15/2004) |
Louis Sytsma: Hello again!
My first post was short - this one will make up for it!
Reading the questions and your responses here have been quite illuminating. One of the highlights was where you explained how you shift your POV to aid you in empathizing with each character so that you may better articulate what each is feeling.
That approach is quite successful. I have described your work as harsh and angular yet tinged with compassion and despair. Please take that at it's most complementary! All those aspects work together to create characters that emotionally resonant for me like few writers are capable of.
You do seem to thrive with anti-heroes. Do you enjoy the challenge of presenting us with lead characters that are hard to sympathize with initially? I remember my initial revulsion - with shame - on reading about Covenant's leprosy and his shameful actions upon arriving in the Land. Yet, by the end of saga the character had won me over.
As a writer, such scenarios must present an exciting and difficult challenge. The payoff to end with a sympathetic or at the least - an understood character - must provide you with great satisfaction.
Thanks again for your time.
|
As I think (hope?) I've said before, I don't view my characters as "anti-heroes." Within my creative ethos, the term makes no sense. I think of my characters has troubled and damaged, but profoundly sympathetic, people who need to have intense stories happen to them (otherwise they'll be stuck where they are forever), and who need all the understanding I can give them in order to benefit from those stories. So, Do I enjoy the challenge? Does the payoff give me great satisfaction? Such questions don't have any particular meaning for me. I don't mean to suggest that I feel neither enjoyment nor satisfaction, either while I'm working or after the work is done. But for me those emotions have nothing at all to do with the challenge of dealing with "anti-heroes," or with the payoff of finally making them "sympathetic." For me, they were sympathetic from the beginning. And every human being is the hero of his/her own story. (07/15/2004) |
Paul Culmsee: Hi Steve
I just wanted to say that stumbling across this site and discovering that we will be returning to the land again brought me a great sense of joy.
When I first watched Lord Of The Rings, I immediately thought "Holy shit they *have* to do Covenant" - but Peter Jackson would have to do it :-).
But now I feel the trepidation that Tolkien fans must have felt. "They better not fuck it up", etc. Plus I figured that now producers would be falling over themselves looking for other fantasy series to convert to the big screen - and there probably are a couple).
It would seem likely to me that any commercial studio would want to take out elements like Lena's rape and change Elena's character altogether. How would you personally feel about your work being stripped/dumbed down and rehashed as well as risking being labelled a Lord Of the Rings cash in?
thanks
Paul
|
In my opinion, the "Covenant" books are un-film-able. They are too "adult" for commercial studios--and only commercial studios have the bucks for such a special-effects-intensive project. In addition, there are LOTS of fantasy series around that would be *much* easier to do. "Shannara" leaps to mind; but so does "Elric"--and let's not even mention Ray Feist's books. At opposite ends of the spectrum, both Patricia McKillip and Steven Erikson would be easier to film. So I don't think I'll ever have to face the dumbing-down of my work. But if it happens, well, here's my philosophy: it's not my problem. *I* wrote the *books.* That's what matters to me. Everything else is just a distraction. (07/27/2004) |
James DiBenedetto: You wrote, in response to a question about "Mordant's Need":
"Imagery and the use of mirrors occupy a sort of middle ground between the manifestations of power in more traditional fantasy ("magic and monsters") and those in science fiction (typically "weaponry"). The kingdom of Mordant is not *in itself* a magical place. In fact, it is a rather "mundane" quasi-medieval reality. Instead it has access to magic through the manipulation of devices; through a kind of technology."
I hadn't ever thought of it that way, because , the use of mirrors in Mordant's Need involves one of what (to me, anyway) is one of the big indicators of "magic" in fantasy: that it's only accessible to the select few who have an inborn, mysterious, unteachable ability to access it. The smartest, most dedicated resident of Mordant could try to shape mirrors and perform translations every day of his life and never have the slightest success, if he didn't have the whatever-it-is that makes one an Imager.
Thinking about it more, in the Land, especially in the First Chronicles, it seems that Earthpower, and the many "magical" things that can be done with it, is accessible to anyone, so long as they're willing to work at it. In that sense, you could say that the Land is LESS magical than Mordant, and that the sort of power the Lords of Revelstone wielded is more like science (since anyone, in theory, could study hard enough and long enough to master Kevin's Lore and become a Lord) than the Imagery of Mordant.
I guess my question is, does that make any kind of sense at all, or am I completely off base/missing something obvious?
|
If I may say so, you're proposing a rather "elitist" view of magic. This is certainly a defensible position. The important thing to remember about "magic" in fantasy, however--good fantasy, anyway, fantasy with real emotional depth and resonance--is that it is pretty much always a metaphor of one form or another. The writer isn't saying, "This place really exists, and these things really happen in it." The writer is saying, "If you will imagine this place with me, and imagine as well that these things can happen in it, then I have a good and, I believe, important story that I would like to share with you." Therefore the relevant question is not: What are the inherent attributes of magic? (E.g. Is magic by definition a power accessible only to a few, or is it a more universal resource of life?) The relevant question is: What are the assigned attributes of magic in x, y, or z particular story, and what is the writer trying to communicate by assigning those attributes to magic? In these terms, it is essentially meaningless to say that the world of "Mordant's Need" is inherently more (or less) magical than the world of "Covenant." The stories are different; the focus of the themes is different; the (necessary) parameters of the worlds are different; so of course the manifestations of magic are different. (07/28/2004) |
John McCann: I see you have posted the US cover for Runes. It is beautiful, I am sitting here trying to figure out where it is. My guess is Kevin's Watch. I know it is unlikely, but would be willing to post the text which inspired the image?
Other guesses are the character in the background under the tree is Covenant. I beleive this since he appears to be wearing jeans. There also appears to be a Ranyhyn in the foreground. I don't know who the other 2 characters are since I do not picture Linden in a dress. She appears to be running joyfully towards the character under the tree, so it could be her.
While typing the word Ranyhyn, the similarity to Swift's Houyhnhnm struck me. Is this the inspiration for the name you chose for the noble horses?
|
As I said earlier, Whelan's art is intended symbolically. Its purpose is evocative: it isn't meant to represent a literal scene. Or literal characters. I've studied enough Swift to know that his work may well have influenced me on an unconscious level. However, I drew no conscious inspiration from his horses when I named the Ranyhyn. I was much more aware of "modifying" Tolkien than I was of "modifying" Swift. (07/28/2004) |
Todd S: How many books do you read in a given time
(week, month or year ?)and what kind of books do you read currently ?
|
I'm a slow reader: two books a month, three at most. And I only read one book at a time (otherwise I can't keep them straight). I've just finished Patrick O'Brian's "The Fortune of War" and Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons." Now I'm back to reading fantasy. (07/28/2004) |
Peter Purcell: Thanks for answering my prior questions - I waited until July to submit a new one!
I have a question about pets in the Land. I'm a pet person; I have always had dogs (and cats and other critters). My current dog pack consists of two 5 year old doberman females at 70lbs each and my baby is Rusty, a cuddly and loveable 2 year old 110lbs rottweiler.
My questions: why are there no pets in the Land!? There are horses and Ranyhyn - but no one would call a Ranyhyn a pet (and live after the Ramen heard about it!) There were small animals that the Unfettered One called to save Covenant. But other than that - no animal companions. I would think as close to nature as the first Land was there would be some. [OK, the Sunbane gives you an excuse for the Second Chronicles.] Perhaps the third?
|
Well, the real reason may be that I'm not a pet person myself. But my meticulously-rationalized, yet spur-of-the-moment, explanation is that the whole notion of "domestication" sort of violates the spirit of Land (at least as it existed in the first "Chronicles"). Sure, ordinary survival depends to some extent on having things like herds, transportation (e.g. horses), etc.. And the people who originally ventured into the Land don't have a particularly attractive history. But once Berek got that whole "reverence for life" thing going, people probably stopped thinking of animals as potential pets. Incidentally, since you asked much later in this interview, no, I'm not planning to wait until after my "Runes" tours to start on "Fatal Revenant." The delays imposed by my publishers are already making me crazy. The hardest part of any book--at least for me--is starting it; and the longer I put off starting, the more difficult it becomes. (07/28/2004) |
Avalest: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Why at this site is your beard a link to your "private office"? If someone clicks on your beard in real life do they also get linked to your "Private office"?
Thanks for your time, Avalest.
|
People who click on my beard in real life usually get linked to my "Private Jab-Cross Combination." <grin> You should try it sometime. (07/28/2004) |
Beverly (caamora): Not a question, just a thank you for the wonderful question and answer session you did for us last night at Garduno's. I hope you had as much fun as we did.
|
And thank YOU. I was pleased and flattered by the occasion myself, and I'm glad it went so well. (07/28/2004) |
Pete M.: You've posted the stats on how each of your book series have sold compared to each other, and I'm assuming it's fair to say you were disappointed with how the Gap books sold? If a musician or band puts out a so-so album after a million-selling one they can always say, "Well, our next one will be better". As an author, though, what's it like to be in the middle of a 5-book series that isn't selling well? You can't just say, "Well, the third book will be really great!" Obviously you liked and believed in the Gap books (as did most everyone else on this site), but were there ever any "What's wrong with you people!" moments? How about the publishers - were they giving you any heat about sales? (not that there's much you could have done)
Speaking of publishers, if you hadn't decided on The Last Chronicles and were instead writing a "new" fantasy or sci-fi series, would you have had a problem finding a publisher?
From a loyal (sometimes fiercely) reader since 1983 I just want to say thanks for all of your great work over the years.
Pete
|
My reactions to the sales of the GAP books are difficult to explain. Yes, I was (painfully) disappointed: who wouldn't be? We all want to be read by as many readers as possible. And on some level, we all want the ego-boo of popularity. Naturally I felt rejected by my readers. On the other hand, the sales were about what I was expecting: no matter what my publishers' expectations may have been, I *knew* the books wouldn't sell particularly well. They're too dark--and you have to stick with them too long before you begin to get any of the normal "rewards" of reading (characters you can respect, vindication, resolution, hope, that sort of thing). And on still another hand, I found the whole situation vastly depressing. Publishers never blame the author *directly* for poor sales: they're too polite for that. However, they seldom accept any responsibility themselves: indirectly they *do* blame the author. So what always happens is that they simply decline to publish your next book. Hence my appearance of publisher-hopping: Ballantine dumped me because they were disappointed in the sales of "Mordant's Need," Bantam dumped me because they were disappointed in the sales of the GAP books, and Tor dumped me because they were disappointed in the sales of my mystery novels. And in England HarperCollins dumped me because they were likewise disappointed in the sales of my mystery novels (even though in England all of my other books have been *very* successful, yes, even including the GAP books). So now I'm with Putnams and Orion. God only knows what will happen if they're disappointed in the sales of "The Last Chronicles." As I say, I find all this very depressing. But Lester del Rey would probably respond (perhaps aptly) that I did it to myself. After all, I found out what my readers like--and then I spent 20 years refusing to provide it. Why, he might ask, *shouldn't* they reject my non-"Covenant" books? All I can say in my own defense is that I'm not that kind of reader myself. Once I decide that I like a writer, I'll read anything that he/she writes. I don't care about mere details like genre, setting, or story-type: I care about the particular gifts and integrity that writer brings to his/her work. Would I have had difficulty finding a publisher if I were currently working on more non-"Covenant" books? Depends on what you mean by difficulty. If I accepted a small enough advance (possibly too small to live on), I could probably get published by anybody. (After all, the sales of the GAP books are still better than most of the sf out there. Bantam was only disappointed because their expectatons were so high.) So, no, I wouldn't necessarily have had difficulty, but, yes, I might have had to get a day job. Which at my age would have been "difficulty" on a whole new order of magnitude. (07/29/2004) |
Paul S.: I was just re-reading you first Structured Interview from 1979... and noticed that you mentioned that Holt and Ballantine had both rejected LFB.
Just wondering if there's any connection between "Holt" the publishing company rejecting your work and a character -- coincidentally named "Holt" who was a rather despicable corporate type....
hmmm...
|
No, it's just a coincidence. Holt (known then as Holt Rinehart & Winston) treated me very well--once Judy-Lynn del Rey at Ballantine talked them into publishing my first trilogy. In fact, they did a great deal to launch my career by publishing three long books by an unknown author all on the same day. That attracted an enormous amount of review attention, which in turn helped make the paperbacks successful. I've long since forgiven Holt for first rejecting "Covenant" so many years ago. (07/30/2004) |
Dustin A. Frost : In June's responses you said, "...but I've never seen Goodman produce anything that resembles the squalor of Angus' early malice." I never would have thought of Goodman myself, but that remark (call me contrary) made me think of Barton Fink, starring John Turturro. If you haven't seen it, and if you will forgive me for projecting, I believe you might enjoy it.
Lastly, there is only one other F/SF writer whose praises I sing as loudly as yours, and that is Gene Wolfe. What are your thoughts on his writing? Or, to be a little less vague, perhaps _The Book of the New Sun_ or even his newest, _The Knight_? Any amusing anecdotes from conventions, etc.?
Respectfully,
Syl
|
Yes, I saw Goodman's demonic side in "Barton Fink." Perhaps that would work for Angus. But I'm afraid that too much of his normal geniality would show through. Angus doesn't have a genial bone in his body. I've known Gene Wolfe for years. He's an interesting man; he's often treated me kindly; and his opinions are frequently enlightening. (07/30/2004) |
J C Bronsted: I have read of authors in the past (Tolkien first: I am sure the number of people he inspires to write is staggering; Yourself: also one of the top members of my list in inspiration to create for myself), and their journey to publication described (in every single case, in my experience) as seeking a Publisher. Once found, they speak of an Editor who helps them polish and revise still more. In my reading of this Gradual Interview, I have read many references of your interactions with various Editors (Lester Del Ray, et al), and only (within the last few days, in fact) two references to your Agent. Are Agents a perhaps "forgotten" part of the publishing process: condemned to be never mentioned in the story of publication? I do not doubt the necessity of having an Agent, but is this a recent trend in writing: a rise of middlemen who do work once relegated to the author himself? And is the difficulty of finding an Agent the same for that of finding an Editor and/or the Publishing House he works for/with? Are their concerns only parallel in judging incoming material, or do they seek the same thing? Are these questions perhaps beyond your ken or the purview of this interview? Have I misunderstood the industry?
My most sincere thanks for even reading this question. I cannot imagine how I would endure such a forum, and I hope those who submit continue to respect your generosity.
|
If I haven't mentioned my agent very often, it's because he hasn't been germane to this discussion--and because he doesn't particularly want the attention. But in fact he is both a good friend and an essential "player" in my career. I would be lost without him. For a number of reasons, several of which involve the changes in the publishing industry over the past 20-30 years. Back in the days when Lester del Rey gave me my "break," editors still read unsolicited manuscripts (the "slush pile," manuscripts submitted "over the transom"). But what I call the conglomoratization of modern publishing has put huge pressures on publishers, forcing them to change the way they do business. The vast and faceless corporations which now own virtually all of US publishering don't give a damn about books, or authors, or (God forbid) literature. They care about bucks. And they demand profits from their subsidiaries (only some of which are publishers) on a scale previously unknown in publishing. This has had two primary effects: 1) publishers are under tremendous pressure to produce bestsellers, and only bestsellers; and 2) publishers have been forced to dramatically reduce their costs of doing business. One result is that, as a general rule, the average editor today is doing the work that three editors did ten years ago, and five twenty years ago. (There are other results, but they aren't relevant at the moment.) He/she can't afford to put much time into editing; and he/she certainly can't afford to read unsolicited manuscripts. Therefore much of the work that editors used to do has been transferred to agents. An editor simply won't read a manuscript that doesn't come from an agent; and the agent had damn well better do a fair amount of editing before he ever shows the manuscript to an editor. My agent is vital to me because he has clout with editors (because he represents good books), and because he is a good editor. I'm confident that Putnams would not have agreed to publish "The Runes of the Earth" if my agent hadn't first worked long and hard on the manuscript with me. So yes, you need an agent. And no, no professional writer "forgets" about his/her agent. The role of the agent has become central to the life of the writer. (07/30/2004) |
Jonas Kyratzes: I have only a comment this time, not a question. I just finished reading your essay "Epic Fantasy in the Modern World" and I have to tell you that this is the first time that I have found an explanation of why fantasy is popular and why it is important that really hits the mark.
Thank you.
Jonas
|
Thanks! I guess my degrees in English literature were good for something after all. <grin> (07/30/2004) |
Jonas Kyratzes: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I would like to begin by thanking you deeply for your books. They have had a significant effect on my life and especially on my views as an artist.
You say that your main responsibility as a writer is to your ideas, to expressing them as they come to you, as fully as you can. I realize that your ideas are of course just a part of you, but I fully agree with the concept of the artist as an interpreter of ideas (even though, of course, I do not mean to force anyone into this system - it just works for me). Have you ever wondered what would happen if you came up with a story, an idea, which really seemed to make sense to you and which demanded to be written, but which actually expressed an opinion with which you deeply disagreed? Have you ever been faced with this situation?
[I'm thinking of Clarke's "Childhood's End" here, and of my own personal experience with a story of mine, which I like but disagree with.]
Thank you for your books.
Regards,
Jonas Kyratzes
|
I'm sorry. On some fundamental level, your question doesn't make sense to me. If a story comes to me to be written, it does so for a reason--presumably because it fits me in some way, or I fit it. And if I can't commit myself fully to the writing of that story, giving it (in a manner of speaking) everything I've got, I have no business writing in the first place. So. Then it exists. It has become a thing separate from me, a thing as particular and as self-contained as, say, a human being. How, then, is it *possible* to "disagree" with it? The analogy to a human being may help. You can disagree with a person's opinions; dislike a person's personality; disapprove of a person's actions. But in what sense is it possible to disagree with the person him/herself? That person simply *is*. Even if you are that person's *parent,* that person is still separate from you; that person still simply exists for his/her own reasons, in his/her own way. Therefore saying you disagree with a person sounds to me like the same thing as saying you disagree with a tree, or a force of nature. So no, I've never had, and never will have, the experience of "disagreeing" with a story I've written. (Opinions such as those expressed here are entirely another matter. <grin> I change my mind all the time. Otherwise it gets grubby.) I certainly don't want to *meet*, say, the characters in "The Conqueror Worm." I think that zone implants are probably immoral by definition. But such issues are far removed from actually disagreeing with the substance of a story I've written. (08/01/2004) |
Lonnie Thompson (AKA Amok): Thanks again for sitting down with us last Saturday and answering our questions. I had a great time - your thoughts on the work you have done and the subsequent reaction from your fans were very interesting to me. Unfortunately, during the Q&A I could think of nothing to ask you - but of course since then, I finally came up with a couple and here they are:
1. If the 2nd Chrons had been titled: "We are the Elohim, hear us ROAR - How we would have handled the Sunbane (instead of having to deal with those pesky White Gold Wielders..." I mean, what was their plan? As you can probably tell, those type of people REALLY annoy me - you know the all-powerful, all-knowing 2nd-guessers.
2. I was in college when the One Tree was published, and I seem to remember that it was delayed due to the original manuscript being lost in a plane crash. Is that correct? Or was the sleep deprivation getting to me...
|
1. In what sense did the Elohim *need* a plan? Do you mean, what would the Elohim have done if white gold and its wielder(s) never existed? Nothing, probably--since the Elohim themselves would never have existed, since I would not have written the story. In other words, you have to take white gold wielders as a given when you think about the Elohim. You have to take the whole created (and implied) world in which the Elohim exist as given. So for them, plan A was that Linden has the ring, therefore doesn't need a Staff of Law; she beats the shit out of Lord Foul, and no one else has to worry about it. Plan B was Findail. Who was so reluctant because from the perspective of the Elohim his role should not have been necessary at all. 2. Yes, the manuscript of "The One Tree" was lost, not in a plane crash, but by airline incompetence. (From San Francisco, Braniff sent my luggage to Bogota instead of L.A.) Of course, I had another copy at home. But I had been on the road for over a month, and while I was traveling (another ^#$%^$ book tour), I did a lot of rewriting. So only the rewriting was actually lost. But having to redo all that work *did* delay the publication of "The One Tree" somewhat. (08/01/2004) |
Anonymous: I was interested by the prey/victim paragraph, and I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems in your formulation that the only way to become a victim is to "give up on yourself" and quit trying to resist a "predator." Which is causing me some definitional confusion (if that's a word) when it comes to, say, natural disasters. People are often described as "flood victims," and I feel that ought to be an accurate desctription, though the people involved may never have stopped trying (for example) to sandbag their town. Further, a natural disaster has no will or intent of its own. But I guess my question is, in this philosophy, is there any way to be a "victim" without being "self-victimized"? It's really just a question of semantics and my trying to picture how exactly you're defining the word "victim." The answer I think I've arrived at for myself is "victim" in this is a state of mind rather than an outcome, so there may not be a quantitative difference between two people who have been beaten up, flooded out, whatever, but a qualitative difference between their mental responses.
|
It's true: my (very) personal definitions for words like "victim" cause confusion because they, well, you might say *interfere* with the way people normally use those words. When I came up with my personal definitions, I was thinking pretty much exclusively of human interactions: there are predators (e.g. rapists) and there are prey (e.g. the targets of rapists); and the prey is not in any sense responsible for the actions of the predator; but the only way to be a victim is to, in essence, victimize yourself (i.e. to submit to the actions of the predator as if they had some form of moral or psychological authority: e.g. refusing to fight the rapist on the grounds that you might be hurt worse if you do fight). In this context, being a victim is very much a state of mind: every victim is by definition self-victimized. When I proposed such ideas, I wasn't thinking of things like forces of nature. (Flood victims, for example.) Yet I believe that the concepts I'm trying to explain can be generalized rather broadly. The person who sees the flood coming, screams, runs around in circles, and drowns, is very different than the person who figures out how to use his/her front door as a raft REGARDLESS of whether or not the latter person drowns. To call both of these people "victims" creates just as much confusion as my personal definitions do. Or a completely different kind of example. I know a woman who broke her toe. Her doctor told her, "There's nothing we can do about that. Just tape it to the next toe and stay off it until the pain goes away." So five months later the pain goes away, and five years later the pain comes back because now she has arthritis in her toe. Meanwhile I broke my toe. And I rejected the whole "There's nothing we can do about that" concept. I got adjustments to realign the bones and tensons; I got laser treatments alleged to speed healing; I got (very painful) myofascial (sp?) massage treatments to eliminate internal scarring; I took lot and LOTS of herbs, vitamins, minerals, enzymes to combat imflammation and to heal cartilege and joints. In two months my pain was gone, and five years later I have no arthritis (actually, the arthritis I had before the injury has now gone away). So which one of us is a victim? We both suffered identical injuries: we were both the "victims" of comparable accidents. There was no predator involved, and the only force of nature at work was gravity. Yet I maintain that she is a victim and I am not. This is my complicated way of saying that I agree with you: "victim" is "a state of mind rather than an [event or] outcome." That's why I say that all victims are self-victimized. And that's why a victim is always a victim, regardless of the outcome. (08/01/2004) |
James: Stephen,
I was hoping for a little more clarification on your explanation of there not being a killing stroke. You'd stated that if you choose not to be killed, your attacker becomes the instrument of your own will.
But in the situation as in The Killing Stroke, where the shin-te's attacker was more skilled and *could* have killed him, even if the shin-te had chose to fight on -- how is the attacker the instrument of the shin-te's will? Or, are you saying that in choosing to fight on, he is electing to die?
I like the broad strokes of this philosophy, but am a little shaky on that point :)
Or to pose the question in a way that follows the rape example: if the woman is raped despite her best efforts to fight off the attacker, she has been 'victimized' in that her will to not be raped was overridden by the rapist's will. But would you say she isn't truly a victim because she never gave in? That the key of being a victim is giving in, and the actual occurrence of what happens doesn't determine her status as 'victim' or 'prey' or 'survivor' or whatever word might be suitable there..?
|
As I've just demonstrated, it's hard to be clear about these things, in part because our use of certain words ("victim" in this case) precludes clarity: we use the word to refer to too many different things. I'll try again. The point that the shin-te makes in "The Killing Stroke" is *any* outcome to the fight which leads to his death is the result of his own choices: he might choose to fight on and be killed, or he might choose to stop fighting and be killed; but in either case, he CHOSE. Therefore he is not a "victim" ("there is no killing stroke"). Instead he has created a situation in which his attacker can only impose his *own* will by choosing NOT to kill. (Anyone who has studied the martial arts for a while knows that the attacker is always at a disadvantage. This is one demonstration of that principle. The attacker chose to offer combat [in that sense he is not a predator], he chose to conduct the combat in a life-threatening fashion [in that sense he *is* a predator]; but he can only choose the outcome by withholding a fatal blow.) As for the rape example: this is a very different question morally than the situation in "The Killing Stroke" (except insofar as the shin-te's attacker chose to try to kill his opponent). There both fighters chose to fight. Where rape, and similar crimes, are concerned, no one (well, no one sane) *chooses* to be prey. But everyone *can* choose his/her response to being treated as prey. Therefore the prey always determines the meaning of his/her own life REGARDLESS of the outcome. As for the poor (he said sardonically) predator, he/she can only regain his/her freedom of choice by refusing to continue the attack. Perhaps this is becoming less and less clear as I explain it more and more. I should probably stop.... (08/01/2004) |
Mark A. Morenz: Mr. Donaldson:
Thanks for answering our questions.
Here are two more-- #1-At the request of a co-worker, she and I exchanged our favorite pieces of literature. She gave me C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy. I gave her Book One of The First Chronicles.
The Space Trilogy is pretty good. But I was struck how Lewis (generally considered to be a Christian apologist) explicitly says in a foreword that his work isn't allegorical. It reminded me of how you (rather forcefully) respond to questions of artistic intention by saying that you aren't a polemicist. However, you do say in your essays/interviews that you indended your Covenant works to be both "archetypal" and that you wanted to return Epic Fantasy to its pro-humanist roots (I apologize if that isn't a fair enough paraphrase). Anyway, these seem to be indications of "agenda" beyond just the telling of the story for its own sake. I'm not trying to play 'gotcha', just seeking clarification for the benefit of all the other artists out there.
If I could hazard a guess: is it a case of keeping ones eyes on the prize- that is, concentrating on the medium (crafting/discovering of the story) and letting the message (the trascendant art of the subtexts, bla bla) take care of itself? The sports analogy would be playing games the best way possible, the way they are supposed to be played, and letting the winning take care of itself...??
#2- As a former HS teacher, I found that your recent comments on education were so unerringly accurate that I laughed out loud upon reading them. You, sir, nailed it.
So my question is this-- if one cares enough-- at what point does one seek to reform systems from within and at what point do you attempt to end-run and try to affect them from the "outside"?
This is asked in the context of education, or politics, or especially the publishing industry. Some authors are backing e-publishing in a big way, for example.
(You don't seem shy about critiquing the publishing industry, so I felt safe in asking...)
Many Thanks!
:-{)]
-MM
|
1) It seems to me you're making this all more complicated than it needs to be. Stories come to me to be written. I write them, bringing (I hope) all of my resources to bear on the challenge. Then people ask me questions about them, and I answer. In other words, these answers always postdate the stories: they shed light on who I am and how I think, but they are fundamentally separate and distinct from the stories themselves--or from the writing of those stories. For example, I wrote "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World" to explain what I had done. I did *not* write it first, and then write, say, "The Chronicles" to illustrate the points I made in my essay. Essays of that kind are pretty much by their very nature polemical. I have a very obvious polemical streak in my personality. Here I'm being polemical about stories I've already written; but that does NOT mean that I had any kind of polemical agenda when I actually wrote those stories. Putting the same point more crudely: I write stories, and then (if someone asks) I rationalize them. I do NOT rationalize them before I write them. In fact, they don't need to be rationalized at all. I'm just doing so because, well, you asked. 2. I'm not wise enough to know when a given system (public education, publishing) can be reformed from within, and when it should be torn down and completely rebuilt. But I do know that reform of one kind or another tends to happen when the need becomes great enough. Private schools appear to perform functions which have been abandoned by public education. Small presses (and independent publishing of all sorts, sometimes Internet-based, sometimes not) appear to perform functions which have been abandoned by large corporate publishers. Americans opposed to Bush are registering to vote in numbers previously unknown in modern politics. Somehow human societies find ways to keep themselves alive in spite of their own worst impulses. (08/01/2004) |
James: Also -- I realized while writing the previous question that I see elements of this philosophy (No killing stroke) in the Second Chronicles (Brinn at the One Tree, Covenant 'accepting' Foul, etc.) and in the Gap Series, where victims learn to become rescuers or victimizers.
How conscious was the process of illustrating this concept through your different writings as time went on? Since Gap is so much later than the 2nd Chrons, I assume your realization of the idea was much more firm then than back then. ?
|
Please read my answer to the previous question. Both as a person and as a writer, I learn and grow as I go along. Therefore the resources that I bring to bear on my stories change. But the point of the previous answer remains the same. I don't write stories to illustrate ideas or concepts. I write them because I care about the stories themselves: these particular people, with these particular emotions, experiencing these particular events. Everything else is, well, literary criticism--which as we all know is a very different process, with different purposes and goals. (08/01/2004) |
Mark A. Valco: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Question 1) While reading the Covenant books, I admired the Bloodguard's (and Harachai's) sense of honor and their devotion to duty. At the time you were writing these books, were you contemplating the possibility of one day studying martial arts?
Question 2)I come from an English background in college, where I studied and enjoyed many of the classics. The entire Covenant trilogy was every bit as good as any literature I was forced to read. For reasons I cannot specifically explain, I loved THE ONE TREE the most. For me, it was like taking a swim in a sea rich with language and ideas. I was spellbound during the visit with Elohim and chilled by the lure of the merewives. After reaching the end where the quest for the One Tree yields no Staff of Law to use against Lord Foul, suddenly the plot of the entire book seemed a sad and ironic waste of time. Were you, perhaps, trying to say that sometime life takes us in wrong directions but the lessons we learn are still valuable and worthwhile?
Question 3 for next month)Thomas Covenant's greatest fear seems to be other's dying for his sake, while Linden's greatest fear seems to be the possession of another being's body. It's it fair to say that both of these fears made their perils worse? (It's probably fair for me to say it, but is it a point you were trying to make?)
|
1) I never gave a second's thought to studying the martial arts until about the time I began working on the GAP books. And when I did consider the idea, my reason were entirely personal: they had nothing to do with anything I had written, or anything I intended to write. (Some day, long after I appear to have died--because we all know I'm not *actually* going to die--I'll write an essay about "The Writer as Warrior." But don't wait up. <grin>) 2) Personally, I don't consider anything in "The One Tree" to be "an ironic waste of time"--and I certainly don't see anything "wrong" with the directions my characters took in that book. One reviewer described the ending of "The One Tree" as "a subtle victory disguised as defeat," and I agree. For example, without Findail, without Linden's possession of Covenant in Bhrathairealm, and without Vain's "damage" at the Isle of the One Tree, Covenant's victory over Lord Foul, and Linden's creation of the new Staff of Law, would never have been possible. 3) The fears that you describe for Covenant and Linden are both fears that involve concern for other people. Such fears may very well increase the peril of the characters: they certainly make life a lot more complicated. But Covenant and Linden probably wouldn't be worth reading about if they didn't care about issues larger than their own survival. God knows I would not have considered them worth writing about. (08/01/2004) |
Peter B.: Happy July Fourth, although personally I wish there was more to celebrate nationally speaking.
Regarding the Chronicles and time: (don't worry its not a plot question) Is the time setting for events in the "real" world always our own present day. For instance, is the year roughly 2004 in the Runes Prologue? (Sorry, so far I've avoided temptation and have not read it.) In the earlier Chronicle novels events in the so-called "real" world seemed to be set in the current readers present day. I seem to recall a typewriter or electric typewriter referenced in Lord Foul's Bane. Perhaps this is a minor point, but I am just curious. I know one cannot keep ahead of time but making the attempt to keep pace could add an additional sense of relevance for the reader, at least initially. If this is not the case, and the time setting in the "real" world is say 1997, how does this help or hinder the narrative? Are there advantages to having only general time references?
|
I've tried to avoid too many time-specific references. After all, ten years pass within the story between the first trilogy and the second, and another ten years between the second trilogy and "The Last Chronicles". But in *my* life much less than ten years passed between the first trilogy and the second, and much more than ten have passed since the second. I don't want to clutter up the story with such details, especially since Linden's "ten years" don't match mine (which would create the danger of a wide range of anachronisms). But some things I haven't been able to avoid. E.g. the information on leprosy was current when I wrote the first "Chronicles". And I wasn't able to escape the necessity of giving Linden a pager in "The Last Chronicles." In other ways, however, I've tried to avoid being too specific about *when* in "our" world these stories occur. Partly, as I say, because anachronisms would undermine the story. And partly because such time-specific details aren't particularly important. (Except in the case of the information about leprosy.) (08/01/2004) |
David Wiles: Dear Steve; Do you find it more or less difficult to write story line or dialog as compared to the songs and poetry in your stories.
When Mhoram gives the eulogy for his parents or the Forestalls song in White Gold Wielder, all seem so full of emotion and it seems that so much is said in so few words.
Thanks for being the best damn story teller around.
|
Without question the songs and poetry are the most difficult for me to write. When a particular kind of inspiration strikes, they flow fairly well; but I can't just sit down and "force" them out: I have to wait for the right energy. Which, btw, doesn't come along very often at this stage in my writing life. Where story-line is concerned, I plan (far) ahead, so that aspect of story-telling is probably the least difficult for me. And dialogue often comes very spontaneously while I'm writing. Yet dialogue is the single most rewritten aspect of every story I publish. For some reason, dialogue that makes perfect sense to me when I write it seems to make no sense at all when I reconsider it months (sometimes many months) later. I suspect that this happens because I've gotten to know the characters better as the story goes along; so when I start to rewrite I realize that their earlier dialogue no longer fits my perception of them. (08/02/2004) |
Lono: What are the actual titles of Covenant's books that he has written?
Thanks
|
Sorry. Since I've never read any of them, I don't know what their titles actually are. <grin> But seriously: I just never felt a need to flesh in that particular detail of Covenant's life. (08/02/2004) |
Clayton: Mr. Donaldson-
Thanks for answering my earlier query, and again, I heartily appreciate your accessibility in this forum.
My question is regarding your writing methods from early TC days to now. Back when you started, did you write longhand or use a typewriter? How/when did you transition to word processors? I read here that you conduct your days when writing sort of like an office job - get there at a preset time, work x hours with a few breaks, etc. Do you experience any pains when writing for so long each day (i.e. carpal tunnel, etc.) and how do you deal with them?
Thanks!!
|
I've always composed at a keyboard of some sort. From my original manual typewriter, I progressed to electric typewriters (I wore out several) for the first six "Covenant" books, "The Man Who Killed His Brother," and "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales." For (as I recall) "The Man Who Risked His Partner" and "Mordant's Need," I switched to a dedicated word processor; an IBM behemoth that chewed my files onto 8 1/2" floppies. "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" was the first novel that I wrote on a PC: as it happens, a Toshiba laptop with no hard drive was my first computer. So now, of course, I use computers exclusively. But I will never EVER forgive the world for abandoning DOS in favor of GUI-based applications. DOS made sense to me: it involved words I could understand, like "format" and "chkdsk," and DOS word processors also relied on language. (I used WordStar 2000, and I'm very bitter that I had to give it up because it become obsolete.) "Icons" never make sense to me; so these days I always have to hunt through the menus until I find words I can understand. All these years of "progress," and we're reduced to cave drawings just like our (very) early ancestors. I don't have problems like carpal tunnel syndrome and eye strain when I write because I move around so much: it's rare for me to remain in one position for more than two sentences at a time, and while I'm moving around I use my hands and eyes for so many other things that they seldom get tired. (08/02/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Mr Donaldson,
You've mentioned Colin Baker a couple of time in this interview (and dedicated Forbidden KNowledge to him). Are you referring to the same Colin Baker who played the sixth Doctor Who?
If so, do you know him personally, or did you just used to watch a lot of Doctor Who? :)
(Sorry for the personal question. I am an unabashed fan, and do have a lot of questions about your writing, but I'm curious about this, too.)
|
I think I answered this earlier. Yes, I'm referring to the Colin Baker who played Dr Who, and yes, I'm proud to call him a personal friend. During a certain extremely difficult period of my life, my large collection of bootlegged Dr Who tapes was my emotional security blanket; and no Doctor did more to help me stay sane than Colin Baker's character. Imagine my astonishment when I discovered that he's a "Covenant" fan and wanted to meet me (!). (08/02/2004) |
robby littlefield: i just got through reading books 1-6 for the second time. i read it when i was about 12-13 and now i am 35yrs old. i must say that this time it was even more incredible. i don't really have a question about the book, just curious about your command of vocabulary. i have never read a book that has introduced me to as many new words as ttcc. was that intentional and where did you acquire such a vast vocabulary?
|
I've already discussed vocabulary earlier in this interview. But the short answer is: yes, I used exotic and unfamiliar words deliberately (in an attempt to make the Land feel "real" through sheer language); and I acquired my vocabulary by making word-lists when I read other people's books. (08/02/2004) |
Demian: SRD-
I'm glad I found this site! I've been a devotee of Michael Moorcock's Q+A since 1998 and it is great to see another of my favorite authors doing the same thing.
I wanted to give my own fantasy nominations for Covenant: Billy Bob Thornton. After watching "Bad Santa", I have to say that no one does self-loathing right now better than Billy Bob.
I also wanted to make a comment about "The One Tree". It is by far my favorite book in the entire Chronicles, even though it might be the "slowest" in terms of action. The handling of the at sea scenes (which had a huge potential for being dull), was perfect. And every time the crew makes landfall, things get weirder and weirder. It is like an extended fever dream, and given that Covenant is ill throughout the novel, I'm sure this was an intentional effect on your part (the old "externalization" thing again). I think this book was took some serious stones for you to write- you take Covenant out of the Land, and then you have his quest "fail". Did your editors cringe?
A final comment- I hope the 3rd Chronicles will be even weirder than the 2nd. I'd love to see more of the world beyond the Land (I have a feeling it goes on and on like one of those houses in nightmare where every room seems to lead to more rooms and each one has a secret door or passage), and of course, more Raver fun is always welcome.
Thanks for your time!!!
|
I'm glad you liked "The One Tree." I can't comment on my "stones," "serious" or otherwise <grin>, but I can tell you this: Lester del Rey did more than just cringe. After a long fight about the book, he told me that Ballantine Books was no longer willing to publish me. The sticking point was not leaving the Land, however: it was Linden Avery's role as the protagonist (POV character) of the book. During the course of the fight, he said such things as: "You can't have a Tarzan book with Jane as the main character" and "If I publish this book the way you've written it, it will destroy my publishing program" and "You don't need to understand why I want the book rewritten. You will rewrite it because I'm your editor and I so say." So how come Ballantine Books remained my publisher? you may well ask. Because six or seven hours of this fight took place in the presence of Dick Krinsley (then president of Ballantine) and Marc Jaffe (then editor-in-chief). And when I refused to abandon my position (my artistic integrity), they simply informed Lester that he was no longer my editor. Instead they appointed a new editor for me, and told Lester that he could, in essence, "like it or lump it." Neither Lester nor Judy-Lynn del Rey ever forgave me (although I think Lester came close after reading "Mordant's Need"). If you'll look at any printing of "The One Tree" in paperback that occurred before Lester's death (he out-lived Judy-Lynn by some years), you'll see that his personal "griffin" symbol (his imprimatur, his seal of approval) does not appear on the cover--although it *does* appear on "White Gold Wielder" (probably because the "The One Tree" was a massive bestseller, and he and Judy-Lynn didn't want to make themselves look foolish). A strange situation in a number of ways. Lester and I had several significant fights about the first "Chronicles," as well as about "The Wounded Land"; but in each case he just kept on explaining himself until I finally understood his criticisms--and then he allowed me to find my own solutions to the problems. Why he changed his approach for "The One Tree," I'll never know. The only "explanation" he ever gave me was pure gender stereotyping: he said that women are inherently "internal" while men are inherently "external," and that therefore no woman could ever be an effective POV character for world-building. Go figure *that* out. (08/02/2004) |
Anonymous: Hello. Will Michael Whelan be doing art work for the collectors edition of Runes of the Earth? Thank you.
|
I believe that Hill House will be using the art that Michael has already done. And I believe they're also trying to get more art out of him in order to enhance their edition. But I have no idea whether or not they'll succeed. Michael is in *huge* demand, and he has to pick and choose his commitments with some care. (08/02/2004) |
Peter B.: As a Doctor Who fan, are you excited that the BBC is bringing back Doctor Who to the tele in 2005?
|
Depends on how they handle it. The Fox made-for-tv movie some years ago was atrocious. If the BBC can't remain true to the original spirit of the series, I won't be interested. And since I don't trust corporate mentalities of any sort, I'm inclined to assume that the BBC will botch whatever they try to do. (08/02/2004) |
Mike: In what part of the country are the "real world" parts of the Covenant books set? For some vague reason I always think of Haven Farm as being in New Hampshire.
|
As it happens, Haven Farm is a near-exact replica of the place where I was living when I wrote the first "Chronicles". It was called Anchorage Farm, and it was in south New Jersey. (Incidentally, it no longer exists. It was plowed under to make room for a housing development many years ago.) For the town, however, I was thinking of unspecified places considerably farther south. (08/02/2004) |
Sean Casey: Do you read poetry? And if so, who do you like? Do you write poetry? And if so, where has it been published (if anywhere)?
On a related note, there's something I've always wondered about. Are you aware of the Metallica track 'To Live is to Die'? It's an instrumental, but it has a spoken passage which shares lines with the poem Thomas considers writing at the start of the Chronicles:
When a Man Lies He Murders
Some Part of the World
These Are the Pale Deaths Which
Men Miscall Their Lives
All this I Cannot Bear
to Witness Any Longer
Cannot the Kingdom of Salvation
Take Me Home
|
Sorry, I'm not aware of ANYthing Metallica has done. I don't listen to the radio, and my tastes in music are a bit, well, out-dated. As an English major in both college and graduate school, I naturally read and studied a lot of poetry. Gerard Manley Hopkins, Willian Butler Yeats, and George Meredith (his sonnet sequence, I believe it's called--memory, don't fail me now!--"Modern Love") all speak to me eloquently. But I have a bit of a "thing" for Alfred, Lord Tennyson. His "Idylls of the King" strikes me as one of the sovereign artistic creations in the English language. (Of course, one reason I love it so much is that it is an "epic": story-telling in the grandest of the grand old traditions. In addition, however, as I argued in "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World," "Idylls of the King" is, in essence, an epic about why it's no longer possible to write epics. As such, I find it especially poignant.) My published poetry, such as it is, is listed in the bibliography on this site. (I don't think I missed anything: if I did, it's a bit of verse published in a student magazine--now defunct--sponsored by the English department at the College of Wooster.) I've written a small handful of poems which have never seen print. Hmm. Perhaps I should post them on this site. (08/02/2004) |
Mike White: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Hello once again - and thanks for answering my previous questions. Once again I am astonished, humbled and extremely grateful for this opportunity to communicate with you in such a direct way - how on earth you find the time is quite beyond me!
My question - such as it is - involves the Gap books. I was very disappointed to note from one of your previous responses that this set of books did not sell as well as others. Personally I feel that they are the best novels that you have written, and apart from "Reave the just" certainly your best to date. Re-reading the first Covenant books recently I was astonished to see how much your writing style has developed over the years - the short story restrictions showing this in particular.
Anyway, I ramble - my question: in your foreword to "reave the Just" you refer to losing your way between gap novels - bearing in mind your words on developing characters "backwards", as it were, could you explain what you meant by this?
My thanks in anticipation and I wish you and yours health, happiness and success - and may they always be in that order.
|
As you may have guessed, that comment in the foreword to "Reave the Just and Other Tales" refers in part to the cumulative effects of the fact that the GAP books were not selling. As the disappointments surrounding the sales mounted, I became increasingly discouraged. Writing "The Woman Who Loved Pigs" when I did--a story short enough that I could actually "see the end" (the end of the writing, not of the story itself: as I've said before, I don't write at all unless I can see the end of the story)--helped me regain my belief that I would eventually reach the end of the GAP books. But I was also referring to another issue. The simple fact is that writing science fiction (or indeed any genre that isn't fantasy) doesn't come naturally to me. The GAP books placed a number of demands on me that I've never had to face before (e.g. creating plausible hypothetical technologies, or changing POV characters so often). The strain of trying to meet those challenges undermined my self-confidence in a way that was quite distinct from the stress of disappointing sales. For that reason, returning to fantasy for "The Woman Who Loved Pigs" *refreshed* me so that I could continue with "Chaos and Order". Unfortunately, that novella also caused a fair amount of trouble. Putting the problem crudely, it broke my concentration on the GAP books, causing me to drop some of the balls I was juggling. As a result, "Chaos and Order" was a much more difficult rewrite than, say, "Dark and Hung". I had to find all the balls I'd dropped and somehow get them back in the air without letting the reader see that I'd dropped them. Because of that experience, I've sworn off (eternally, of course) writing short fiction while I'm in the midst of a big project like "The Last Chronicles". (08/04/2004) |
Mike Sales: Like many others here, I stumbled on your writing by way of the Covenant novels. I was in high school at the time. They immedeately became my favorites.
As I get older, though, I feel more affinity for the short stories found in REAVE THE JUST. Both stories that feature REAVE, in particular, move me in some way almost every time I read them.
My questions:
~ What or Who was the inspiration for REAVE?
He is probably one of the most UNIQUE characters I have ever read. He conveys so much, without saying much of anything, and comes across as this wild cross between an old school COWBOY/SAMURAI and ROBIN HOOD. Yet, he employs NO VIOLENCE, which makes him remarkable.
~Why no violence?
~And did you consciously set out to make him a sort of 'empowering' figure, or was that a natural outgrowth of his character.
Last:
~ Any chance of MORE STORIES about Reave?
|
The story "Reave the Just" was inspired by the first sentence. I can't explain this: that sentence just fell into my head one evening (typically these things happen to me while I'm starting to fall asleep, or when I've been hypnotized by driving--which is not necessarily the same thing <grin>). There is a sense in which I knew the whole story as soon as I "heard" that sentence, especially the names Reave the Just and Jillet of Forebridge. I suppose you could call Reave an "empowering" figure. He certainly isn't the protagonist of either of his stories: instead (a bit like the Angel in "Unworthy of the Angel") he is whatever the other characters need him to be. He's a catalyst rather than a "real" character (i.e. he has no story of his own; he simply intrudes on other people's stories). You could say that he encourages other people to grow up by nudging them toward accepting responsibility for their own lives and circumstances. I hope this explains the fact that he himself doesn't use violence. He doesn't exist to solve problems or impose his will on events. Rather he exists to confront people with problems: the actual solutions to those problems depend on the people he confronts. I suppose it's possible that there will be more Reave stories (although I have a horror of repeating myself: hence the fact that Reave's name is never used in his second tale). "By Any Other Name" also grew out of a single sentence that just fell into my head: "But necromancy and the fatal arts were Sher Abener's province, and at last I fled from them." However, the mental context into which that sentence fell was more complicated than it was for "Reave the Just". Some years had passed since I wrote "Reave the Just"; I loved the character; and on some deep level I was actively looking for another opportunity to write about him. For all I know, the same thing may happen again. (08/04/2004) |
jerry mcfarland: Ah...a Dr Who fan! Any remote possibility of submitting a novel? Being a friend of Colin just might make an interesting interpretation to what really happened to cause his regeneration to McCoy.
Anyway...for the GAP mini-series...I think the FARSCAPE guys would do a marvelous job. How about Claudia Black as Morn?
|
I think I've covered this. I don't consciously choose my ideas: they choose me. (However, I do often choose the order in which I tackle the ideas that come to me.) So if an idea for a Dr Who novel ever chooses me, I'll do it. Otherwise there's no chance. Sorry, I can't visualize Claudia Black. I'm not sure I've ever seen her. (08/07/2004) |
Jonathan Meakin: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Thanks again for responding to my questions. As I said before, undertaking this gradual interview is such a generous undertaking on your part and enlightening one for your readers. Someone commented earlier that you had responded to a "fan" letter so promptly; you did so with me, too, and were kind enough to gently turn down my request to act as a "pen-pal" -- "Art is long and life is short," you said. As I pursue my own writing career, that aphorism rings true.
Anyway, the Covenant books will always stand out for me as formative and enriching influences and I look forward to the release of Runes. As for all of the discussion of casting choices for TC and Gap movies ... ultimately I can't help but hope that movies *aren't* made as I think readers of your work will likely be disappointed (as I think you suggested earlier in this interview).
Whoops. There's no question here. Err ... When do you anticipate getting stuck in to writing the next Last Chronicles? (Yeah, that'll do.)
|
I assume you're referring to Book Two of "The Last Chronicles." Believe me, I want to start working on it. But my publishers keep coming up with more and more and MORE promotional chores for me to do, all with stringent (not to mention implausible) deadlines; and it would be *very* unprofessional for me to refuse to help my publishers promote my books. So for the time being I'm stuck. <groan> This is *not* why I became a writer; but it sort of goes with the territory. (08/07/2004) |
Ritu: I have two questions actually:
1] Would your book tours ever include India, so that I may get my books signed?
2] Have you ever heard the Urdu couplet 'Aag ka dariya hai, doob ke jaana hai'?
|
Sorry, there's no chance on God's created earth that I would ever visit India again. Nothing personal (to India, I mean: it's obviously personal to me). I just have too much Western Missionary Imperialism guilt to face it. Since the language I grew up with was Marathi, I have no acquaintance with Urdu at all. (08/07/2004) |
Mike G: Again, thanks for taking the time to answer these questions...this is incredibly interesting...
Q. What happened to Earthpower? The people in the Land were attuned to it in the first trilogy, but weren't because of the Sunbane in the second trilogy(right?). But once they went down into Sarangrave and beyond, shouldn't they have begun to feel it again? And none of the people they met in their travels seemed to have any affinity for it. What causes (or prevents the affinity for Earthpower? And (thinly veiled digging for hints) can it return?
Or, having read your response to a recent question, if it is all a construct of Covenant's imagination, did he subconsciously change his own rules in resonse to his 'reality'? Ack, this could give a guy a headache...
|
I think of the Sunbane as being what you might call an imposed perversion of Earthpower. And I think that the reasons people like Covenant and Sunder didn't become aware of it once they had passed east of Landsdrop are: a) they didn't have enough time for their senses to become reattuned after the assault of the Sunbane; b) Earthpower is effectively weaker east of Landsdrop because of the toxic effects flowing out of Mount Thunder, the consequences of Lord Foul's long residence there (admittedly farther south), and the fact that the human slaughter of the One Forest began in the east (more likely north of the Sarangrave than south). So no, Covenant did not (unconsciously or otherwise) "change his own rules" between the first and second trilogies. (08/09/2004) |
Todd: You said that you were/are under considerable pressure to reduce the original manuscript of "Runes" by 200 pages. I'm surprised by that, given the recent trend of lengthier books, all of which seem to be selling pretty well. You've said that one publisher said you were "washed up", I believe, but I have a hard time imagining that publishers don't realize what they have here. You enthralled millions of readers with Covenant, and for twenty years we've been waiting with zero patience for The Last Chronicles (that's a good thing, because people like me will be standing at the bookstore waiting for the doors to open to buy "Runes"). If Robin Hobb, George Martin, and Robert Jordan can write 600+ page books (and Martin has written one 900+ page books - granted, it was marvelous), why is Putname so stingy with you?
Heck, even Goodkind is writing long books, and selling them, although that certainly defies all common sense. But he's hardly the first writer of any genre to fill the pages of his books with nonsense and make money from it.
I digress.
You write good books. No - you write *exceptional* books, and you proved that Covenant is more than marketable. So - what gives? Perhaps I just don't know anything about the publishing industry, but I'm more than a tad confused. I would have thought your rein would have been rather free.
|
Leaving aside all discussion of other writers and "what sells".... My editor now is the same editor I had for the GAP books; and she was not then, and is not now, "stingy" with me. Her over-riding, number one concern with "Runes" (as I assume it is with every book she edits) has been to publish the best possible book; and she believed that "Runes" would be stronger, more effective, and--ultimately--better art if it were made tighter, leaner, cleaner. Well, once she had explained her reactions and reasoning to me, I agreed with her--about 80%. The roughly 20% that I disagreed with her revolved around the most obvious, fundamental difference between us: she moves MUCH faster than I do. I've said before that I write very slowly. And I read slowly as well. If I were to sit down and read "Runes" as if it had been written by someone else, I would take 4 or 5 times as long at it as my editor would if she were not thinking about editing. Well, this difference in speed has a profound effect on perception. Look at it this way: when you are walking past a tree, you actually see a very different tree than you would if you drove past it at, say, 50 mph. Walking you see many more different leaves, many more different branches, from many more different angles. This does *not* mean that you don't see the tree when you're driving: it simply means that you see it differently. By some standards, you see the tree *more* accurately when you're driving because you see it whole, you get a gestalt perception of it, instead of being bogged down in details. Then--to extend the metaphor--consider that the writer is the person walking and the editor is the person driving. Therefore those of us who are walking pretty much have to revel in the details because we're going to be looking at the same ^#$% tree for quite some time. Broadly speaking, however, readers are driving. Hence my editor's concern for making the book as taut and precise as possible. On the other hand, a lot of readers may not "drive" as fast as she does (I obviously don't). Hence my concern for making sure that the details repay prolonged observation. But (since I'm already making this answer complicated) this does not mean that when my editor asked me to cut 200 pages I actually cut 160. I really cut only 120. Why? Because sometimes the only good way to make scene x tighter (more vivid, more effective) is to make preceding scene w (or r or h) longer. In other words, some scenes can only be made shorter by preparing the way for them at greater length. So that extra 20% difference between what my editor asked for and what I actually did happened, not because I disagreed with her, but because I was--in essence--moving words to an earlier part of the book. You might say I was causing the highway to run a bit closer to the tree. I hope this relieves your concern. When my editor pressured me to cut "Runes," she in no way pressured me to *damage* the book. She simply looked at it from a very different perspective than I do--or can. And she certainly made no attempt to impose her will on me. Lester del Rey did such things: she does not. And finally, I'll say--as I have before--that I simply don't make changes or cuts unless I agree that they are necessary for the good of the book. So relax. "Runes" is *better* because my editor pressured me. (08/09/2004) |
David Lomax: I wonder if you're aware that the full text of both the first and second chronicles of Thomas Covenant are available on-line? They are. Just check out (link removed by webmaster). If you check out the guy's other links, you'll find out that he doesn't want anyone taking away his guns, distrusts psychic hotlines and, apparently, isn't too fond of apostrophes.
All kidding aside, I wondered if I should just notify geocities or Harlan Ellison, but I really thought you ought to know. I feel like a sort of tattle-tale, but gun-nut copyright violators who refuse the apostrophe just knot my shorts up everywhich way.
Your books had an unutterably huge influence on my soul when I was young -- only fifteen when I read _Lord Foul's Bane_ -- and I have been vibrating like a tight-rope ever since I learned you are going back to the Land. I'm not exactly as malleable as I was twenty-three years ago, but I half-wonder if you'll do it to me all over again.
Thanks for the books.
|
Thank you for this information. As it happens, Ballantine Books (current holder of the publication rights, and therefore the "wronged party" in a stricter sense of the term than I am) is aware of this particular case of piracy. No doubt the Ballantine legal department will eventually take some form of action. (08/09/2004) |
Ross: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
In one of your interviews, you mentioned that you were a little disappointed with the accuracy of the science portions of the Gap Cycle. When I read that comment, I was a little amazed, because I had completely bought into the science behind the story it seemed so logical and believable.
Of course, Im no scientist. Im just one of the hundreds of writers who it seems were first inspired to write by your example. So that could pretty easily explain why I was fooled. But how did you another non-scientist even go about creating such a complex, seemingly science-based, universe? Do you have a physics background? Or did you just do a lot of studying to prepare yourself for the writing? Did you first come up with the plot, and search for the scientific knowledge to make the action plausible, or did the knowledge you already had make it easier to create the plot?
Also, I wanted to add my thanks to all the others whose questions you have answered here. Youve said that youre very grateful for your fans, but were the luckier ones, really. And its amazing to me that youd open up this communication channel to us I get probably 200 emails a day, so I can only CRINGE at the number I imagine you must be getting.
|
I'm no scientist or engineer, so I did a fair amount of research to back up the hypothetical science/medicine/technology in the GAP books. (Incidentally, I did my research on a need-to-know basis: if I needed to know something, I went looking for it. I didn't do any research in preparation for the story, except my usual "research" into the structure and implications of my own ideas.) But it was simple old Newtonian physics that tripped me up (thanks to Hawking and a few of his, well, I'll call them fans, I was able to avoid really sophisticated screw-ups). I can't calculate rates of acceleration and deceleration--and I certainly can't calculate them as multiples of g--and I absoLUTEly can't calculate the effects of such stresses on undefended organic tissues. So during the course of the first three GAP books I occasionally made the mistake of suggesting how *long* certain amounts of acceleration and deceleration would take, only to have indignant readers point out to me that so much g would reduce human beings to grease smears on the bulkheads. (In my own defense: I actually had a NASA engineer read those books before they were published; and I gave him explicit instructions to help me avoid such bloopers; but he let me down rather badly.) As a result of what those readers told me, you won't find the same mistake in books 4 & 5: I learned my lesson. (08/09/2004) |
Clint: Do you have any plans for a world tour to promote your new books? We would love to see you in New Zealand (aka Middle Earth).
|
It is conceivable that my UK publisher may someday send me to Australia and New Zealand on tour. They did so back in '83. (That's 1883, for those of you who are keeping track.) But so far there has been no active discussion of the possibility. (08/10/2004) |
Sean Casey: TC might be described as a part time solipsist. What about you - how's your faith in reality? Do you think that kind of introspection is essentially bound up with the urge to create?
|
I know plenty of writers who wouldn't recognize a moment of introspection if it had big teeth and smelled bad. But generally speaking I think that the best writers (and the best artists of all kinds) search deep within themselves for their subject-matter. *That*, I hasten to add, does not make them solipsists. Or me either, for that matter. If we actually want to discuss solipsism (or George W. Bush), however, we need to define our terms--and I don't have my dictionary with me (I'm on the road at the moment). Certainly there is a useful distinction to be made between questioning external reality and doubting one's own existence. Artists (of all kinds), I imagine, are particularly prone to feeling unsure of their own substantial existence. Narcissists, on the other hand, are quite naturally inclined to doubt that anyone *else* is real. If you want to argue that Covenant is a solipsist (part time or otherwise), I might counter that his apparent rejection of external, tangible reality is in fact a defense mechanism designed to protect an extremely fragile sense of self. And as his sense of self grows stronger, his need to challenge the reality of the Land declines. After all, he's no philosopher: such questions aren't abstract intellectual queries for him. In very "real" terms, he's fighting for his survival. (08/10/2004) |
Steve Anderson: Hello Stephen,
Thanks for your answers to my earlier questions. I wonder if you would tell us what makes you laugh. Personally I like Terry Pratchett and Monty Python, as do many others, but what about yourself. As widely appreciated as your works are, I think I would be right in saying that rarely, if ever, has humour been your intent.. Having said that, the confrontation between Nick Succorso and the Amnion where the latter just repeated "I wish to sit".. for some reason I found that very funny indeed.
thanks,
Steve
|
Well, there's a pillow fight in "Mordant's Need." And some unexpected humor in my mystery novels.... But of course you're right. I don't really *do* humor. Which sometimes surprises people who know me: in person I have a very active sense of humor. For reasons I can't explain, however, the humor bone is not connected to the writing bone. Or the reading bone: I very rarely find "funny" things worth reading (although writers as diverse as Mark Twain and Carl Hiessen [sp?], Dave Barry and Terry Pratchett, have taken me pleasantly by surprise). What makes *me* laugh? Monty Python, certainly. Eddie Izzard. Sabotage (a local comedy duo). Danny Kaye. As a general rule, however, tv and movies don't strike me as funny. (08/11/2004) |
Todd: I believe it was in The Real Story you mentioned that one of the most powerful scenes in The Power that Preserves (or maybe the whole set of six books) was inspired by an arisol can in a bathroom at a truck stop.
What scene was that?
|
This question has come up before, and will, I'm sure, come up again. I wish I could explain how the human imagination works--or even how in one case one idea leads to another, but in another case nothing happens. All I know is that I was in that truck stop restroom reading the label of the disinfectant can while I used the facilities, and one particular word--it may be been "putrefaction," although my memory is no longer clear on that point--started a train of thought which rather quickly "gave me" the scene where Lena saves Covenant's life after they're driven out of the Ramen covert. But I was young then, full of energy, and in some sense I was always trying to mine the world around me for ideas. Actively looking for idea-triggers whenever I was awake. Now I'm not "on" all the time. Usually I leave work at work. (08/11/2004) |
Harry Kanth: Hello again, Mr Donaldson
I have started reading 'The Man Who...' series of books. I really like them. In fact I have started to slow down my reading of them because I don't want them to end! How strange is that!
Anyway my question is whether you plan to write any more books in this series? I think it would be a shame if you didn't.
Regards
Harry
|
Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying those books. Especially since comparatively few people have read them. If I live long enough--oops! excuse me, of course I mean *when* I live long enough--I intend to write one more Axbrewder/Fistoulari novel. However, this could conceivably change. The question is: are Brew and Ginny ready for their big showdown with el Senor, or do they need to (for lack of a better term) "grow up" more first? If they *are* ready, then one more book: if they are *not*, I'll need more than one more book. (08/11/2004) |
Paul Mitchell: Thanks again for doing this gradual interview...what else would we be reading while waiting for Runes?!
Simple questions: how, if at all, will the day Runes goes on sale be any different for you from an emotional perspective, and if you had to use a single word to describe the process between finishing writing and publication, what would it be?
|
Actually, these aren't simple questions at all. My reaction when "Runes" goes on sale will probably be intense anxiety. As a general rule, throughout my career the publication of my books has been an occasion for excitement--although the degree of excitement varies a lot according to my expectations (do I expect, or hope, that the book will sell well--the GAP books, for example--or am I aware in advance that the response will be relatively modest--my mystery novels, for example, or my short story collections?). But there are unique factors at work in the present situation. 1) At my age, with several kids in college and lots of other demands on me, I'm more concerned about money than I used to be. I *need* "Runes" to sell well--and before the stock market crash in 2000 I didn't have that problem. 2) My career has been in decline for the past 20 years. As I've mentioned before, finding a publisher for "Runes" wasn't easy because these days a number of publishers believe I'm a has-been. What if they're right? The success of the "Covenant" books 20 years ago was rationally inexplicable: it appeared to be a function of the zeitgeist. But the zeitgeist has obviously changed since then. *Now* what's going to happen? 3) Putnams and Orion are publishing "Runes" much faster than any other book I've done. As a result, all the stages that take place between submitting a manuscript and publishing an actual book have been squeezed into a painfully short period of time. This whole year has been one long mad scramble to try to get extremely complex tasks completed far too quickly. As a result, my nerves are frayed as they've never been before during the preparation of a book. 4) Because Putnams and Orion are publishing "Runes" so quickly, I haven't had a chance to start on the next book--and being immersed in a new book is my best single coping mechanism for dealing with the uncertainties of publication and sales. Storytelling helps me survive--but only when I'm immersed in it. As for "finishing writing" vs "publication": first we have to define our terms. What do you mean by "finishing"? First draft? Second draft? Third draft? Final editorial approval? Copyediting? Proofreading? I always get depressed after the first draft: I'm very tired, and very aware of how far the book has fallen below my aspirations. Finishing a rewrite usually prompts relief. If the rewrite meets with approval, I feel relief and pleasure. But copyeditors hate what I do, so going over copyedited manuscripts fills me with frustration and even fury. Proofreading brings back the depression (I can't proofread well if I allow myself to get caught up in the story; and if you don't get caught up in my stories, they aren't worth reading at all). I'm afraid you'll have to extract your own "single word" answers. <rueful smile> (08/13/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Have you ever considered doing a story or novel with another writer, or ever been offered/asked about doing one?
|
Strangely, I keep trying to answer this question; but whenever I do, my answer disappears, and the question remains. I'll try one more time. I've been invited to collaborate on a few occasions. The offer that tempted me most was to do a "samurai" novel with Midori Snyder: I was tempted because she's such a fine writer, and because we share an interest in the martial arts. But the only offer I ever accepted was from Fred Saberhagen; and that was a special case. He asked several writers to write completely independent "berserker" stories (in mine, "What Makes Us Human," the word "berserker" never appears); and then he cleverly wove those stories into an apparent novel called "Berserker Base." So I had to play by his "killer machine" rules, but everything else was entirely up to me. I suppose you could say that I don't collaborate because I'm too much of a control freak. But it doesn't feel that way. From my perspective, the problem is that I simply can't get excited about other people's ideas. They may sound interesting, but they don't come to life in my imagination. So what it feels like is that I don't collaborate because I can't. (08/15/2004) |
Layne Solheim: Mr. Donaldson:
In preparation for the upcoming release of "TLCoTC", I've been rereading the Covenant series (the 5th time). My question revolves around the chapter structure of "The Illearth War." I'm curious who made the decision to bunch the chapters focusing on Hile Troy and the war and then go back and follow the tale of Covenant and Elena? In "The Power that Preserves" you jump between action at Revelstone and Covenant. I was just curious if that was a decision on your part or an editorial decision. Not being familiar with the publishing world, do they have a right to do something like that...just wondering.
Love your work--the most profound SF&F work ever! I look forward (as I'm sure everyone else here) to the release.
Thanks,
Layne
|
I'm solely responsible for the structure of everything I write. By contract, editors do not have the power to make "substantive" changes without the author's consent--and structure is certainly "substantive." (Of all the editors I've worked with, only Lester del Rey ignored the contractual restrictions on his "authority"--and he only did so in situations which I considered gratuitous and stupid.) In fact, the editor's only real power is to accept or reject the book. But that's huge, so it's hard to ignore. However, as I've explained elsewhere, I've been known to defy my editor when I believe that the quality of the book is at stake. But to give you an example of a non-substantive change which an editor *can* impose: when I planned "The Second Chronicles," I designed it in four books; but Lester believed that a trilogy would sell better, so he made my four books into three. HOWEVER, he did so without altering a single word, or touching any aspect of the story's design. He simply took the 8 "parts" of my story and published them 3-3-2 instead of 2-2-2-2. (A situation, btw, which I've cleverly avoided in "The Last Chronicles" by the simple expedient of not telling my editor anything about what I mean to do. <grin>) (08/15/2004) |
Paul Mitchell: Like many others here I guess, I am re-reading the first six books (the literary equivalent of athletic training perhaps?) and one thing I have noticed is (hmmmm...how to say this in a way that doesn't sound impolite...) that at the beginning of the second and third books, there appear to be a lot of 'memory joggers' (and I am not referring to the 'What Has Gone Before section!). Stuff that helps the reader remember but doesn't actually add anything new. So my questions are:
1. Is that a deliberate writing tool that you choose to use, or does it flow more organically from the story?
2. Is the presence of memory joggers the reason you dislike the WHGB section...as they actually make it unnecessary or at best a rather unsubtle, blunt tool?
3. In the theoretical world where you are never going to die and where all your readers have perfect memories, would you write the opening chapters differently if memory joggers were not required?
Thanks!
|
I use "memory joggers" both deliberately and organically because: a) my own memory is imperfect; b) therefore I assume that my readers' memories are also imperfect; and c) memory jogging is not the only function of a "memory jogger" (among other common possibilities, "memory joggers" can be used to control the pace of the narrative, or to enhance thematic development, or to enrich the emotional context of a given passage). Indeed, I probably couldn't write such long and complex stories if I didn't use "memory joggers." So given that I usually write in a way that makes WHGB sections unnecessary (they certainly don't appear in the GAP books, or "Mordant's Need"), why are they a feature of the "Covenant" books? Beats the by-products out of me. Lester del Rey insisted on them; he (and my subsequent Ballantine editor) wrote them; so there they are. Which occasioned considerable debate about "The Last Chronicles." On the one hand, WHGB sections tend to be superfluous. On the other, they have become an accepted part of the "Covenant" canon, and are therefore a reasonable part of the readers' expectations. In the end, we--my editors, agent, and I--all agreed to go ahead with new WHGB sections because so much time has passed since the previous "Covenant" books were published, and we didn't want readers of "Runes" to feel lost if they didn't re-read--or haven't ever read--the first six "Chronicles." (08/15/2004) |
Derrik S: Thanks for answering my last question
Now I understand about the deserts
Well this is my next question:
Will the map of the Land have anymore cities (and will we be introduced to anymore cities) added to it or anything?
And will the map be in color?
|
I fear you'll be disappointed by the maps in "Runes." They aren't in color; they are deliberately fragmentary (I have some extremely self-serving reasons for doing this); and I don't particularly care for the style (I can't draw usable maps myself, so I'm pretty much forced to rely on "artist's interpretations" of my rough sketches; and time constraints have prevented me from negotiating maps which I might consider ideal). On top of all that, the Land itself isn't exactly prone to cities. But I hope you'll find the story worth reading anyway. (08/15/2004) |
Sean Farrell: Hi Mr. Donaldson. Not a question, just a comment - don't know how else to reach you. I am lucky enough to work in bookselling in the UK (my desire to do so due in no small measure to reading your books twenty years ago)and have thereby come by an ARC of Runes of the Earth. (Actually I have two and have had several others offered to me - my love for your work is very well known...)
For what it's worth - and I've only read about half so far - I humbly offer my praise. So far it's the best in the series: for depth, consideration, pace, prose... I'm no critic, but I've come a long way in my reading habits since Lord Fouls Bane, and the quality of writing in Runes of the Earth ranks alongside the best I've ever read.
For what it's worth - thanks.
|
Thank you! I'm posting your comments in an attempt to reassure readers who may be awaiting "The Last Chronicles" with some trepidation. Sf/f is littered with examples of writers who returned to their earlier successes after long absences--and did so with massively disappointing books. An innocent reader might well be forgiven for wondering if "The Last Chronicles" is just one more (doomed) attempt to recapture lost popularity. For that reason, your opinion of "The Runes of the Earth" may be especially valuable. (08/15/2004) |
Michael Dalton: Mr. Donaldson,
I had heard rumors of the Last Chronicles for several months now and I found your official website by accident today. I immediately choked up with tears. OK, obviously your writing has been a bright light in my life, so I should ask you something, compliments aside:
In the trailer put together for The Runes of the Earth, it mentions that "Despite cannot be killed..." (Forgive me if I paraphrase). Would that beg the question that Hope also cannot be killed? Covenant made his sacrifice for Lena in the "real world", yet what Covenant truly is couldn't really die. Hell, leprosy couldn't kill him. Again, thank you so much. For everything.
Michael
|
I can't honestly say that I understand your question. I think it's probably logical to argue that if "Despite cannot be killed" then Despite's opposite also cannot be killed. (Light and darkness are meaningless without each other, etc.) But is "Hope" the opposite of Despite? Personally, I doubt it. I'm tempted to claim that "love" is Despite's opposite--but then I'm also tempted to claim that the opposite of love is apathy, and apathy is clearly not the same as Despite, so that doesn't help. It's a curious intellectual conundrum. If we say that "Good" is the opposite of "Evil," what exactly do we mean by those terms? "Evil" seems comparatively easy to define: "Good" is not. And simply defining "Good" as "the opposite of Evil" isn't particularly helpful. You see the problem. Incidentally, the fact that leprosy couldn't kill Covenant doesn't really shed any light. Leprosy itself doesn't kill anyone: in itself, it isn't fatal. Lepers are killed by the side-effects of their illness (which, when you think about it, actually does shed a bit of light). It might be more useful to think of Creation as the opposite of Despite. Certainly in the "Covenant" books the Creator is no more likely to be killed than Lord Foul is. But that doesn't make the plight of the story's more mortal characters any easier. (08/16/2004) |
Janey Roberts: Hi Stephen,
Remember me? Sorry - bad joke. I wrote to you twenty years ago, enthusing about the Mordants Need series which I had just read, but moreso about The Chronicles of Thomas, Covenant, both unbeliever and second, the first of which I actually read while still at school.
I am married now, and when my husband and I first met he lived miles away, in London, which necessitated several train journeys, for him. I had begun to read your Gap series, and my husband read these (he is a bigger fan of SciFi), and others, on his return train journeys, being an absolute convert. He read my Covenant books after we married, and loves them just as much as I do.
However, I digress. As a result of multiple sclerosis I suffer from double nystagmus. Because of this I have not read a book since 1996, and Chaos and Order remains unfinished for me as do the rest of the Gap series. It was not like this when I first wrote to you all those years ago and I drew comparisons between myself and Covenant they cant do this to me etc. Ah well; older and wiser. I read the Runes PDF prologue two days ago, or got the text reader to read it to me, and was absolutely blown away. I just cant wait for this, and therein lies my problem. I read computer text by enlarging the font and making it bold, so how the hell am I going to read this book, which is a completion of something which has defined and illustrated my life?
Any thoughts? They would be vastly, vastly appreciated.
Jane Roberts
|
I'm posting this in the hope that someone who sees it can come up with a better suggestion than mine. The only solution *I* can think of is to get "Runes" when it comes out on CD and listen to it instead of reading it. Anyone? (08/16/2004) |
Russ: As much as I love your work, I am surprised by my ambivalence about the upcoming series.
I have considered the idea of delaying purchase of the books until they have all been published just to insure that I will be able to read the entire series. To be honest I am not sure I could hold out.
Have you considered writing a synopsis, executive summary, precis, whatever of the upcoming series and giving it to your lawyer for release in the event of an untimely demise.
A lot can happen in 12 years.
|
Even if completing "The Last Chronicles" only takes me 9 years (which is what I've contracted to do), a lot can still happen. And it probably will. Unfortunately, I'm either unwilling or unable (and on this subject I can't tell the difference) to follow your suggestion. At this stage in the project, I need to keep as many of my options open as possible; and as soon as I start to write down a synopsis/executive summary/precis I limit those options, if in no other way than by hindering the freedom of my subconscious mind. And make no mistake about it: good storytelling is profoundly a function of the subconscious mind. I've tried telling stories which were exclusively (or almost so) a function of my *conscious* mind, and I didn't like the results. (Oh, they're craftsmanly enough, so I'm not ashamed of them; but they lack the kind of resonance I live for.) As it happens, "Fatal Revenant" (as it exists in my imagination) has gone through some significant modulations in recent months. Thanks to my subconscious, it has already become a much stronger book--and I haven't even written it yet. Hence my unwillingness to "dictate terms" to the secret operations of my creative impulse. And what would a synopsis/executive summary/precis be *good* for anyway? If "God (or the Devil) is in the details," then the value of storytelling is in the telling. Do you imagine that someone else would finish my story for me? Would you really want that? Or would a bare synopsis ("Oh, *that's* what happens to so-and-so") satisfy you? I suspect not. The plain fact is that life is what it is, and we all have to take our chances. (08/17/2004) |
Mark O'Leary: Firstly, my thanks for taking us back to The Land.
You've mentioned editors often suggest plot lines to you, but do you encounter much feedback from your readers where they specualte on the future of your characters? If so, did reaction to the first chronicles have any impact on your plotting of the Second, or Second to the Last? How do you feel about the sub-creations of fans?
(You see, I have this recurring picture of Covenant standing in Andelain, with the ring threaded onto the centre of the Staff of Law under his hand, empowering the Law but exerting the paradox that maintains him to wield it...)
|
For some reason, when readers have sent me their speculations (or their appeals) for more, their ideas have always involved going backward in time rather than forward. I've received hundreds of requests for Berek's story, or Loric's, or even poor Kevin's; and I've received dozens of suggestions for those stories. But no one has tried to tell me what to do *after* "White Gold Wielder" (or after "The Power that Preserves"). I can't explain this--but I'm grateful. The last thing I need in life is a Lester del Rey surrogate. <grin> (08/17/2004) |
Guy L: I would be glad to offer some suggestions to Jane Roberts regarding visual aids. You may provide my e-mail address to her.
|
Several considerate readers have already offered to provide suggestions for Jane Roberts. I'm impressed! And I ask you to contact her directly (her e-address is above). Being in the middle gets messy. And there's always the chance that I won't understand your suggestions. (08/17/2004) |
James: A couple of months ago you wrote:
"There has never been an audio version of the first and second 'Covenant' trilogies, and I doubt that there ever will be.
Did you mean that there has never been an audio version of the "entire" trilogies? Or did your comments refer to excerpts as well?
I ask because a few years ago I acquired a copy of the following audio cassette (ISBN: 0898450691):
Stephen R. Donaldson reads from his White Gold Wielder: The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant "Winter in Combat"-Book Three (Part I: Chapter Six).
Side A is 27:48 minutes in length, and Side B is 27:02 minutes.
In came in a little casing, with an illustration on the cover (by Real Musgrave).
The audio cassete itself was put out by Caedmon (1983).
Is this authentic/legitimate?
|
Yes, your Caedmon cassette is authentic--although I myself only have the LP version. I did that reading. But I tend to forget that it ever existed, since it was only a fragment anyway, and had such a short shelf-life (it sold so poorly that Caedmon quickly cancelled their plans for a whole series of "Covenant" recordings). And Real Musgrave is a dear personal friend, so don't blame him if the cover-art seems a little, well, "de trop". (08/17/2004) |
Roger: Hello!
Many thanks for sleepless nights!
(hm, don't get me wrong) :)
I've read the 2 chronicles about TC many times now, but only the translated versions (swedish).
I'm thinking of reading them in english now,
to see how true the swedish version is to the english?
Have you ever heard any complaint about the translation of your books? And can you as an author or your publisher do anything about it?
|
I think I've already answered this question. But briefly: The only responses I've ever received have been to the original French translation of "Lord Foul's Bane"--a translation so egregiously bad that the book's title was dropped entirely in favor of "The Chronicles of Thomas the Incredulous", and "Saltheart Foamfollower" became "Briney the Pirate". Usually when I'm contacted by readers from non-English-speaking countries, those readers have read my books in English anyway. No, the author (and his original publisher) have no power over translations--and no recourse except to refuse to do any more business with foreign publishers who offer lousy translations. So it's perfectly possible that a bad translator can cost an author an entire language-group of readers. (08/17/2004) |
J. Kevin Calkins: Hi Mr. Donaldson, I love your works! I am wondering what you think of the possibility of the "Into the Gap" series being made into a movie? I think it would totally rock, and even, in some respects, would be totally appropriate for the times.
Have you considered doing such a thing?
Cheers and hope the creative juices keep aflowing for this next Chronicles, really looking forward to it.
J. Kevin Calkins
|
Personally, I think that the GAP books could more plausibly be made into good (or at least watchable) movies than any of the Chronicles. SF, I think, lends itself more naturally to an "external" medium like film than fantasy does. But surely you understand that none of this is up to me? Oh, if I happened to have $200 million I could easily spare, I might be able to make a movie happen. But in the real world I have absolutely no say in the matter. Well, that's not completely true. In the case of the GAP books, I do have the power to say No if anyone asks me. (In other words, I hold the movie rights.) But I have no power to make someone ask me. And in the case of the first six "Covenant" books, the movie rights are held by Ballantine Books, so there I don't even have the power to say No. (Not that I would. For the author, movie deals are "found money." All the author has to do is cash the check--and pray that something good happens. Everything else is Somebody Else's Problem.) (08/18/2004) |
Paul S.: I was reading the paper "Variations on The Fantasy Tradition" by W.A. Senior, posted on your web site. In it he mentions Michael Moorcock's "Wizardry and Wild Romance" where he states that:
"Michael Moorcock, who for the most part has little good to say about the Chronicles in Wizardry and Wild Romance, claims that the heroics of epic fantasy are generally children, or are at least childlike creatures such as hob- bits, but concedes that Donaldson's characters are adults trying to deal with adult concerns (82, 91)."
On a lark, I went searching for that book and found Michael Moorcock's website -- and on a further lark did a search on your name...
http://www.multiverse.org/postxf593-0-15.html
Quoting Michael Moorcock: "I, too, think those books" [referring the the Chronicles of TC] "are above average, though I was a bit harder than I should have been on him in Wizardry and Wild Romance, tending to lump him in with Tolkien imitators about whom I had become a bit grumpy at the time."
My question is: did you know of Moorcock's original criticism and if so did you ever give it much thought or consideration? What do you think of Moorcock's work (although having read all of this interview my bet is that you've never read his stuff, right?)?
|
I've had the pleasure of making Michael Moorcock's acquaintance. And I'm familiar with some of his work. He's clearly a highly intelligent writer who has put a great deal of thought (and no small amount of talent) into what he does. At the time that I wrote the first two "Covenant" trilogies--and "Mordant's Need"--I was unaware of Moorcock's literary criticism (although I had read a few of his books); so his views could not have affected my thinking about my own work. Today I don't necessarily agree with all of his views, but I consider him an important literary critic. We definitely need *somebody* who's willing to cast aspersions on a veritable mountain of blatant Tolkien imitation. (08/18/2004) |
John P: There have been so many searching questions posted on this site that I feel mine fall into the realm of the banal, but nonetheless:
1) Why has Foul not simply summoned Joan to the land and convinced her to part with her ring? She does not seem to have the same fortitude of will as TC. I realize that the paradox of wild magic revaled in White Gold Wielder might mean that Joan's ring would not have possessed the power, but I'm not sure. Perhaps answering this treads too close to Runes, but perhaps not.
2) Why does Seadreamer, while still alive, not write down what he wants to say? I remember in Lord Foul's Bane that Llaura couldn't write down what she was forbidden to say because her hands were shaking too uncontrollably, but it doesn't seem as if Seadreamer is similarly afflicted.
Thanks!
JP
|
Very briefly: 1) What makes you think that Joan is in a condition which would *allow* anyone to "convince her" of anything? One of the disadvantages of being Lord Foul: he's already done Joan so much damage that she's almost entirely unreachable; therefore inaccessible to persuasion. 2) Is there anything in the "Covenant" books to suggest that the Giants possess a written language? Surely one of the long-term side-effects of writing things down is that people then talk less; tell stories aloud less. But I see no evidence that the Giants talk less than they once did. So why would they *need* a written language? (08/18/2004) |
Zenslinger: I wonder if youd care to engage a bit of discussion on your essay Epic Fantasy in the Modern World. Although it was written some time ago and, by its modest secondary title (A Few Observations), we arent to expect a monumental thesis, you still refer to it to answer some of these questions you so generously answer. But I cant help but find your definition of fantasy literature to be unsatisfactory.
To say that fantasy is literature in which characters meet their own internal struggles personified as external forces is a definition that fits the Covenant stories very well. The health and ill of the Land are congruent with Covenants view of his own illness (if not the illness itself). His victory over the Despiser at the end of the first Chronicles is directly related to his gaining the moral courage to let go of fear and despite and finally to be able to laugh at illness.
But I cannot see Sauron as an expression of Frodo. What can be seen as an identification between them arises from the fact that they both suffer from the corruption of power, but this would apply to anyone who handled the Ring. They do not have the same kind of close relationship that Covenant and Foul have from the time of TCs first summoning. Frodo and Sams victory is one of perseverance, friendship and loyalty, and doesnt particularly dwell on confronting personal demons, despite their internal struggles.
I see Tolkeins world as one that is like our reality, only a different reality. Ditto most fantasy. Even in Zelaznys Amber, the nature of Shadow is such that Corwin meet expressions of his psyche but I dont see his whole universe this way. It seems that Zelazny created a reality like our own but expanded out. The fact that an Amberite can find themselves in the infinitude of worlds expresses only the breadth of Zelaznys milieu.
Im afraid I dont have a better definition of fantasy to propose Orson Scott Card has said that SF and fantasy place setting above character, a notion that garners some credence but isnt really defining either. Perhaps its simply literature that takes place under in a setting ontologically different from the reality we inhabit?
|
Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in a discussion of the ideas in "Epic Fantasy in the Modern World." You see things differently than I do. Good: you probably should. Not being a polemicist--as I keep saying--my primary interest in "ideas" per se has to do with whether or not they shed any light (for me, since I'm the one typing this response). I don't really want to convince anyone that I'm "right," and I'm certainly not troubled if someone--you, for instance--believes that I'm "wrong" ("inaccurate" might be a better word). Remember, the ideas in this interview--like the ideas in "Epic Fantasy"--are essentially after-the-fact rationalizations. They only exist in response to the questions which elicited them. Without the questions, my "answers" (such as they are) might never have crossed my mind. (For my part, I have no difficulty at all seeing Sauron as "an expression of Frodo"--or, if you prefer, as an expression of the idealized weltanschauung embodied by the Hobbits, and by Frodo as the most idealized Hobbit.) That said, I find I *do* want to respond to Card's silly assertion that "SF and fantasy place setting above character." Sure, junk SF and fantasy make that mistake. But art of all kinds is always about character (about what it means to be human) in one form or another. I prefer to think that SF and fantasy use setting as a means to probe character. And sure, virtually every form of serious fiction does the same to some extent. (Look at Sir Walter Scott's best novels, or Joseph Conrad's, or Henry James', or William Faulkner's, or--well you get the idea.) The distinction, as I see it, is one of degree. (Of course, "Differences in degree become differences in kind.") SF and fantasy exaggerate this technique (using setting to probe character) in an attempt to shed light upon aspects of the human definition which might otherwise remain inaccessible. ("Dune" is an obvious example, as are C. J. Cherryh's best novels.) (08/19/2004) |
Tony Powell: From the very beginning, some 23 years ago when I first began "Lord Foul's Bane," the way you "formalized" the tale jolted me into a literary snobbery so intense that even now I have yet to find anything to compare.
It was your dogged adherence to no contractions from the mouths of the inhabitants of the Land that struck me so. To this day, I pick up a fantasy novel and flip to some dialogue --- any dialogue. And as soon as I see the hero say "can't" or "won't" instead of "cannot" or "will not," the book goes back on the shelf.
You ruined me with this stunningly effective convention. I never read high fantasy with any heart again.
But, what ho? There is now hope? Four more books? I pray you have once again spurned the contractions, because I really would like to get into a good fantasy again.
|
Well, if "no contractions" is your definition of Good Fantasy, then I think we can safely assume that you'll like "The Last Chronicles." <grin> But I suspect that you're having me on. Either that, or your tastes are unnecessarily self-restricting. "Formalization" is only one of many techniques that a writer might use to create valid and interesting fantasy. (Steven Erikson leaps to mind.) And it is equally available to writers whose only aspiration (or ability) is to produce mental junk-food. Here's how I look at it: there are no bad techniques--or bad ideas--there are only bad writers. A good writer so inclined can spin gold out of damn near anything. (08/19/2004) |
steve cook: I've been off-line for a while and i've just caught up by reading the last couple of months Q & A. Now i'm feeling a bit guilty...having read your views on people selling the ARC of 'Runes...' Can i justify myself by saying that i own practically everything you've written, read everything at least 2/3 times, and i only put in a bid for the ARC cos i'm so impatient! My buying this book will not impinge on your sales as i still intend to buy the hardbound book on day of release (can i say, without sounding like a stalker, that ideally i'd love to come to one of your book-signing appearences and have a copy signed). So to the question, should i retract my bid for the ARC?
what's a little negative feedback on ebay against 20 years of literary pleasure???
|
Please do whatever seems good to you. I'm neither wise nor arrogant enough to tell other people how to make their own decisions. (08/20/2004) |
Jeremy Haines: Thanks for answering all of these questions -- it's fascinating to read your responses. I'm a fan of most of your work, but I have to say that "A Dark And Hungry God Arises" is easily my favorite fiction book of all time. I'm surprised to see that the Gap books are so underappreciated around here!
My questions regard "The Man Who Fought Alone". Unlike the earlier Axbrewder books which kept you guessing all the way through, TMWFA seemed to give away the identity of the villain about 1/3 of the way through the book (though Brew didn't pick up on this until much later). Was this accidental or intentional? If it was intentional, what were your motivation and goals for giving it away early? If it was accidental, how do you feel about that in retrospect -- and have you ever considered altering that early scene between Brew and the villain for future editions of the book?
Thanks for your time. I'm looking forward to "The Runes Of The Earth"!
|
I can't honestly say that I "telegraphed" the identity of the bad guy(s) in "The Man Who Fought Alone" deliberately. But I'm not surprised: I happen to think that I telegraphed the identities of the bad guys in all "The Man Who..." books. The sad fact is that I'm not particularly good at constructing puzzles. So instead I've simply tried to "play fair," both by giving the reader all of the information that Brew and Ginny have uncovered, and by telling the truth about what Brew understands when he understands it. You're certainly not the first reader to "guess" (all right, deduce) the identity of the villain in "Fought Alone" early. (I know you aren't because my agent did the same, and he was the book's first reader. <grin>) But other readers have been just as "surprised" in that book as they were in Brew and Ginny's earlier adventures. And still other readers had no difficulty figuring out promptly whodunit in some or all of the previous books. What can I say? Certain pieces of information jump out at certain readers: other readers have a different experience. And I realized long ago that the only way to avoid telegraphing of one form or another is to "cheat" by withholding crucial information, by "hiding" whodunit by, say, never bringing the character on stage (vide the Perry Mason books), or by operating under the (obviously false) assumption that all characters are equally capable of committing all crimes (virtually all Agatha Christie books). So I stopped worrying about it, and concentrated instead on simply trying to write good books. (08/20/2004) |
Brad M: I am currently suffering from a debilitating case of writer's block. (Also known as the Oh Da%$ Syndrome) I have tried nearly everything I can think of. (Writing odd short stories, reading my favorite authors, including you of course, even just visiualizing myself strangling the problem <grin>) Any ideas? I could use some help.
-B
|
At the core of writer's block, of course, lies fear. Usually fear of the challenge, fear of making a mistake, fear of disappointing yourself, fear of proving that you're actually a lousy writer. The form this usually takes, however, is an elevated sense of self-criticism. Stating it baldly, you can't put anything down on paper because you can't convince yourself that what's in your mind is good enough. (If that's *not* your problem, you may not be suffering from true writer's block. You may have some other difficulty, such as what I call "life block"--where your daily life leaves you so drained and frazzled that you simply can't summon the energy and concentration for writing--or a form of emotional blockage, a condition in which other fears completely occlude your creative impulse. What "other fears"? you may ask. Well, just to pick one example from my own experience: fear of loneliness.) Bruno Betelheim's important book on creativity (I can't remember the title) discussed this problem. He argued--and I agree--that any form of self-censorship is death to the imagination. The imagination simply can't function unless it is allowed to function in absolute freedom. For the imagination, there are no bad ideas, bad sentences, bad stories: there is only the process of generating ideas, sentences, stories. The whole point of "brain-storming" is to reject nothing, dismiss nothing, criticize nothing. Good ideas only emerge when all ideas are free to emerge. Saying it another way, you have to start putting words down on paper and just let one thing lead to the next WITHOUT WORRYING about ANYTHING except LETTING one thing lead to the next. Personally, I handle this dilemma in four different ways (which is why I've never suffered from true writer's block). First, I go to work (I mean go into my office where I work) faithfully. No excuses, no delays: if it's a work day, I go to work. Second, every day when I go in to work I give myself permission to write *badly*. It DOES NOT MATTER if it's good: it only matters that I WRITE. Third, I often spend a fair amount of time writing ABOUT the problems that I'm having writing. And I don't mean, "Why can't I write?"--although you might find that useful. I mean, "Why am I having trouble with what I need to write *now*? What are my uncertainties about this particular story? What questions do I need to answer in order to go ahead?" In other words, I write about writing in order to ask myself concrete, specific questions about what I want to write, and then to attempt answering those questions. And fourth, I do virtually no rewriting of any kind (no self-criticism) until after I have the whole story or the whole book on paper. Self-criticism stops the flow of words, and my #1 priority is to keep the flow of words going. Naturally, this approach produces a fair amount of gibberish. THAT'S OK! One of the great blessings of writing is that you can rewrite as much and as often as you want, until you're satisfied with what you've done. Just don't rewrite until after you're done being creative. If, on the other hand, your problem is *not* true writer's block--well, you're still going to have to face your fears somehow. For that fundamental aspect of the human dilemma there is no cure except courage. (08/20/2004) |
JP: I knew there was another question I meant to ask: it's about the need that Covenant's ring be given voluntarily in order to be usable (as Kaseryn explained). I understand this, and it's adhered to fairly consistently (i.e. Foul doesn't simply use his power to wrest the ring from Covenant, but rather tries to "persuade" him to turn it over, even in the First Chronicles; Troy was given it voluntarily, and Linden is able to "possess" him to use it). But then how was dead Elena able to wield it? It certainly wasn't given to her voluntarily...
|
I'm afraid I can't answer your questions without more specific information. When was Covenant's ring given to Troy? (A page reference would be useful.) When did dead Elena wield Covenant's ring? I'm afraid I'm confused. (08/23/2004) |
Fist: We've been debating ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol's origin. Any chance you're willing to help us out? I don't know if it would be a spoiler to do so. Some think the Guardian was not aHKA until Brinn "conceived" of him that way. Some think aHKA was not originally a Haruchai. Some (me :) think aHKA was always Haruchai, and took on the job as the Guardian after Berek met him somewhere or other, and explained how important the job was.
And, again, THANK YOU for meeting with us at our Elohimfest!!!
|
More interesting, I think, is the question of how the Haruchai even know of Kenaustin Ardenol's existence. Nothing in the record (i.e. the first six "Covenant" books) suggests that the Haruchai were aware of the Lords in the Land prior to Kevin's time--and if they had ever had any dealings with, say, Berek, they certainly *would* have been aware of the Lords. So we can probably assume: a) Kenaustin Ardenol him/her/itself was not Haruchai; b) the Haruchai know of the existence of this being (which, by the way, is not the same as knowing of the existence of the Guardian of the One Tree) through some interaction outside the known history of the Land; and c) this interaction gave rise to the supreme Haruchai honorific "ak-Haru". More than that I can't say at the moment. The Earth is a whole lot bigger than the Land, and (like the Land) it's full of stories. I can't possibly tell them all. (08/23/2004) |
Ian: Stephen,
Thank you for the contribution your works have made to me. I'm glad to find myself among such a multitude.
I noticed something some time back - Thomas Covenant belongs to no family. I'm not dismissing Joan and Roger here; their importance to Covenant is clear. Their absence from his life makes them a profound presence in the books. Likewise the friends, associates and acquaintances of Covenant's home town and career are present (if glancingly) in their absence - the 'By Hell!' severance of normal human contact and interaction that underpins Covenant's fury at his fate, and shoves his clay feet into stride.
Yet there is nothing (ever, unless my memory of the story fails me totally) of Covenant's life prior to his marriage. No person, no recollection, no souvenir - not an absence but a non-existence.
This could be just structure and logistics. You've stated clearly that the character of Covenant was born as a man for whom a fantasy world was utterly, almost unbearably desirable - and whose life required that he reject it. And there's no question that Covenant is busier than the one-legged man at the arse-kicking party throughout the narrative. Opportunities for nostalgia are few.
Is this it? Or is there a story behind this?
Footnote: I reread the opening chapters of Lord Foul's Bane before writing, to ensure I wasn't just dribbling shit, and was struck by the coincidence of your friendship with Colin Baker. Since my first reading of the books, the voice of Lord Foul that rings in my head (and I hope this won't offend) has been that of my favourite Doctor - Tom Baker.
|
Broadly speaking, it's amazing how few characters in Donaldson stories--or in fiction generally--seem to have families. Still speaking broadly, families are such messy subjects that when they're introduced they tend to take over stories, regardless of what the original purpose of the story may have been. But in Thomas Covenant's case, the absence of family (or other past connections) is deliberate. It's part of his profound isolation--an isolation which many people feel even when they're *with* their families and friends, but which always has to be *explained* when it's included in a story. I didn't give Covenant parents or siblings (or aunts and uncles, or etc., not to mention friends or colleagues or even an editor) because I didn't want any of us to be distracted from the central themes and development of his plight. (08/30/2004) |
Variol son: I was reading White Gold Wielder again and I started asking a couple of questions about the Waynhim and the ur-Viles.
We know (from Hamako) that there are only two kinds of Demondim spawn; the ur-Viles who loathe what they are and seak the power and knowledge to become what they are not, and the Waynhim who seek to give meaning to what they are by providing service to what they are not.
So I started thinking. Surely not every ur-Vile hates itself? Surely not every Waynhim chooses the path of peace and service? Surely not every ur-Vile serves Lord Foul? This lead me to ask how ur-Viles and Waynhim are created to be so different from each other.
We also know (from Hamako again) that the ur-Viles continue their breeding programmes in the catacombs beneath Mount Thunder, and that some of their creations are ur-Viles, some Waynhim. But why would the ur-Viles create more Waynhim? Especially since the Waynhim aren't considered the pinacle of the Demondim spawn. It just seems like a waste of time. Also, if the difference between ur-Vile and Waynhim is genetic, thenwouldn't breeding programmes produce more strange hybrid creatures? Yet the only other Demondim spawn we see is Vain.
Perhaps, I thought, the ur-Viles simply produce a Demondim spawn, but have no control over which genetic variation they end up with. A kind of luck-of-the-draw thing.
Or perhaps, when each individual Demondim spawn is created, it looks at itself, realises that it "lacks the justification of birth", and then either loathes itself, or sees that despite the fact that it was made and not born it has the potential to give meaning to its existance through service, therefore deciding by its own choice whether it is ur-Vile or Waynhim.
So which one is it? :)
|
In my opinion (just an opinion, as I keep saying), your last explanation comes closest to the truth. If these were SF novels, simple genetics would require more variation than the ur-viles and Waynhim reveal. But they are created by lore (magic), and such rules don't apply. They *all* loathe their own forms, for the simple and sufficient reason that (drumroll, please) they were created out of self-loathing. (It even tends to work that way with human beings.) The difference (the magically significant fact) which causes some creations to be ur-viles and others to be Waynhim lies in their attitude toward what they are not: the ur-viles seek to appease their loathing by destroying what they lack, while the Waynhim seek to redeem their loathing by serving what they lack. And because we're talking about magic (which is at its heart a metaphor), this difference manifests physically as well as behaviorally. From the perspective of the Demondim, therefore, the Waynhim represent "failed" attempts to create ur-viles. But seen from another perspective--that of the Land, for example--the ur-viles represent "failed" attempts to create Waynhim. (08/30/2004) |
David: Mr. Donaldson,
Were you at Kent State during the fatal riot. If so, what are your recollections about that event?
|
I usually try to avoid answering such questions because the memories disturb me. The facts are simple enough. I was attending Kent State during the shootings as a graduate student taking evening classes while I worked in Akron City Hospital as a conscientious objector. I was not on campus during the actual shootings (which took place around noon) because I was at work ten miles away. However, my apartment was a block and a half from the campus, so I lived under martial law for three days after the shootings (virtually the entire study body and faculty--well over 20,000 people--were evacuated within four hours of the shootings, so they were spared that aspect of the experience, while I was spared the experience of being evacuated under threat of lethal force). I have many recollections, all painful, some horrific. I'll only mention four. 1) Living under martial law meant that a helicopter shone its searchlight into the windows of my up-stairs apartment every 90 seconds for three nights in a row. 2) Within half an hour of the shootings, virtually everyone I worked with in the hospital believed that the National Guard had fired on the students because the students were urinating on the Guardsmen (quite a trick from a distance of nearly 50 yards). 3) Within four hours of the shootings, every gun shop in a 75 mile radius was completely sold out; and for the next week I never left my apartment without at least one of my neighbors aiming a firearm at me as long as I was in sight. 4) Three days after the shootings, a Kent citizen was quoted by the local newspaper as saying, "If my son had long hair, I'd want him shot too." I'll spare you the other 20 or 30 things I'll never forget. (08/30/2004) |
Will: Dear Mr Donaldson,
One thing that always intrigued me was the size and demographics of the Land. As far as I can remember (sorry, I don't have the books in front of me right now, so feel to correct me if I am way off), the Land was roughly 500 miles on a side. That's a large area no doubt, but would only constitute the size of an average country in the real world. As for the population, I don't think you ever gave an estimate, but it always seemed fairly sparse to me. In my mind, the Stowndowns and Woodhelvens numbered more in the dozens than the hundreds, and each contained maybe a couple thousand people at most? So what would the total population of the Land be, if you consider all the humanoids -- Stowndowners, Woodhelvinen, Giants, Haruchai/Bloodguard, Wayhnin? By my reckoning, there wouldn't really be more than a couple hundred thousand.
That always bothered me for two reasons. First, and this may sound silly, but I always liked to think the battle against Despite was a battle against world domination at the scale of the world I am most familiar with -- 21st century earth. But with such a small geographic size and a small population, the scale of Foul's threat and evil seem, somehow, trivialised. The other thing that bothers me is more a question of internal consistency. If, in the Illearth War, the Land was able to field an army under Hile Troy large enough to defeat Foul's army of a couple hundred thousand ur-viles and warped creatures (sorry, again cannot reference the exact number from the book), that would basically mean signing up *every single* able-bodied male *and* female in the Land. What are your thoughts on this?
|
Such questions aren't answered in the "Covenant" books because I don't think in those terms. If you don't mind my saying so, they seem more appropriate to SF than to fantasy. But since you raised the issue of internal consistency, I'll make a few points. 1) The distance from Mithil Stonedown to Revelstone is given as 300 leagues (900 miles). For purposes of convenience, we'll call the Upper Land roughly square--although the Lower Land needs to be considered also. So we're talking about 810,000 square miles (not counting the Lower Land): a small country, if you choose to think so, but still substantial. 2) If you want to destroy the planet, you don't necessarily need to launch your attack from a large platform. One really good nuclear missle silo, and you're well on your way. And remember this: Lord Foul's wars against the people of the Land are simply a means to an end. His real goal is to manipulate Covenant into a Time-shattering blast of wild magic. For such a goal, it isn't the *scale* of the body-count that matters, it's the *quality*. 3) The Land appears sparsely populated because I can't afford the narrative space to spend several hundred pages simply "touring the set." Putting the issue as crudely as possible, when you've seen one Stonedown, you've seen them all. Ditto for a Woodhelven. So what would be the point of writing more of them into the story? I have--crudely again--more important things to do. Instead I trust my readers to assume that an Earthpowerful place which has been significantly healed since its most recent devastation both can and will support a healthy (if not particularly crowded) population. 4) Hile Troy's army did *not* defeat Lord Foul's. Indeed, much is made of the fact that he has no actual hope of defeating such forces. Without the intervention of Caerroil Wildwood, Troy's entire army would have been slaughtered. (08/30/2004) |
Dan Brown: I was thrilled to find your website recently after having been an avid reader of the TC series for many years as well as the short story collections and Mordant's need. I even have the Gilden Fire volume (blame my SciFi Book Club addiction at the time!)I was introduced to "The Wounded Land" through my SFBC membership while in college and had to get the first trilogy at the local Waldenbooks after reading just one chapter so I could catch up with what was going on. I read all four over a very intense weekend. I've also thought your short stories are excellent and, to a point you've made before on how you write, I've always been emotionally engaged with them to where my wife makes fun of me when I sniffle during a particularly poignant passage. I just got "Reave the Just" in paperback a few months ago and had to read it one sitting as well. As a short story affectionado(sp?), I also agree with other posters that "The Killing Stroke" and "Penance" rank as among the best short stories I've ever read.
My questions touch on how you recently described stretching yourself as a writer. With many other authors going to the well to keep their series alive, and are commercially successful at it, does that evoke any feelings of jealosy at all? Tery Brooks, Katherine Kurtz, Allan Dean Foster, and Anne McCaffrey come to mind as authors who have developed these worlds that inspire a huge amount of reader loyalty that also started publishing about the same time as you did (who also have series that I read regularly). I believe Brooks, Foster, and McCaffrey were also at Ballantine in the late 70's in looking at my worn paperbacks. I'm partial to Ballantine since I bought a huge amount in college and still enjoy the authors from that time more than current ones. Did they take Lester's admonitions to heart more than you in building their "franchise"? Did Lester ever have all his promising writers together in one room for business sessions or just work with you all individually in getting you published? I can just see a late '70's authors softball game! Given your nature, it appears to me that you would place the consideration of the story above commerce. Do you have any regrets about the road travelled or, like Covenant, prefer to do something that appeals to your artistic sensibilities and money be damned?
Regards,
Dan Brown(not to be confused with the best selling author!)
|
I'll take this opportunity to try to be clear about one specific point. Discussions of other writers' work--where that discussion raises even the remotest possibility that something other than complete admiration might be expressed--are at best pointless and at worst actively hurtful. I've seen how this game is played: before the ink is even dry on my opinion (and its JUST AN OPINION) of writer X, someone has already contacted writer X to report, "Did you know that Donaldson says thus-and-so about you?" in the process usually taking thus-and-so entirely out of context; then writer X, feeling attacked--as who wouldn't?--replies, "Oh, yeah? well, Donaldson is a this-and-that"; writer X's response is immediately relayed to me, again out of context; and the next thing you know, we're back in grade school. As it happens, I've met Terry Brooks, Katherine Kurtz, Alan Dean Foster, and Anne McCaffrey; I think they're all good people; and if I don't happen to read their books regularly, well, so what? They probably don't read mine regularly either. Who has time? That said, I can inform you categorically--and none of them would dream of contradicting me--that Lester del Rey never got us all together for any reason. (He and Judy-Lynn did introduce me to Terry Brooks and, I believe, Alan Dean Foster. Anne and Katherine I think I met on my own.) He worked with each of us individually, and I'm sure he had his own individual methods for working with each of us. (Come to think of it, I'm not sure that Lester ever worked with Anne. She may have been Judy-Lynn's author.) But do I have any regrets about what I've written? None at all. I don't write for money. I write for love: I *sell* what I've written for money. The distinction is important. As a matter of historical fact, readers have not consistently loved what I love. Consequently my career has followed a less successful trajectory than, say, Terry's or Anne's. And, being human, I naturally wish that my career had been more successful. On the other hand, I do NOT wish that Terry or Anne or Alan or Katherine had been any less successful. They work hard, and they deserve what they get. What more needs to be said? (08/30/2004) |
Tom O'Toole: Thank you again for taking the time to answer our questions. I suppose you realise that now you can never, ever, stop :)
In a previous answer you said that you had just finished Patrick O'Brian's "The Fortune of War".
Did you read the previous 5 books in the series, and do you think that you will be continuing with it?
Tom
|
Yes, I started O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series at the beginning, and I'm sure I'll stick with it for the foreseeable future. Those books have given me a great deal of pleasure. (08/30/2004) |
Elisabet Liljeblad: I have a question again.
When I was little, I read a lot of fairy-tales and fantasy-stories. Two that got stuck in my mind was Mio my Mio and The Neverending Story.
Even you have been a little boy and you were certainly affected by your surroundings, and maybe you, as I, read a story that got stuck in your brain.
Now, here's my question: Is there any author or any story that has influenced your life a bit?
I can say that The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant has influenced me much.
Thank you for answering my previous questions!
My thanks to you!
/Lisa
|
I answered your question more fully in my essay, "Books that Made a Difference," which you can download from this site. But the short answer is: at the time that I read them (middle school), C. S. Lewis' "Narnia" books seemed to transform my brain. No book that I read before high school had as profound an effect on me. (At the time, I was also transfixed by Jim Corbett's "Maneaters of Kumoan" series. But those books had nothing like the lasting effect of "Narnia".) (08/30/2004) |
dlbpharmd: Mr. Donaldson:
In a previous answer this month you mentioned the injury to Vain at the One Tree as being crucial to the overall victory achieved in White Gold Wielder. This has sparked something of a debate at Kevinswatch.com. Personally, I have never seen Vain's "damage" as anything other than an accident, and an obvious clue to his purpose. Would you elaborate on this please?
|
I think of the "transformation" of Vain's forearm as the catalyst which makes his later changes possible. After all, how can you possibly have a Staff of Law that doesn't come from the One Tree? Vain carries the true victory of the Quest for the One Tree with him when Covenant, Linden, etc. flee the sinking Isle. (09/06/2004) |
Todd: First, the requisite thanks for this forum. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate it, and how valuable I consider your insight.
I have a rather simple question. You mentioned in your Essay on Modern Fantasy that Lord Foul's Bane had sold 5 million copies. As that was many years ago, I was wondering if you could tell us what the current sales totals are for your works.
Thanks!
|
I don't have anything like reliable figures. I do get US and UK royalty statements; but information from other countries is sketchy at best. However, I think we can safely say that LFB is up around 10 million copies worldwide, with the rest of the "Covenant" books not far behind. Beyond that, who knows? (09/06/2004) |
Sean Farrell: Dear Mr Donaldson,
You have mentioned before that when writing the Second Chronicles, you were already laying plans for the Third, but that you were also aware that the Last Chronicles were going to be extremely complex and very difficult to write, hence the wait of twenty years or so. My question is this - with these ideas in your head for all that time, and especially given their complexity, have you at times sat down to develop the themes and structures of the books in the extended interval, or did you literally not touch Thomas Covenant for twenty years?
By the way, thanks again. Your books are the reason I read at all - always in search of something even better - so far in vain...
|
I literally did not touch "Covenant" for 20 years (or thereabouts). Over-simplifying the truth as egregiously as possible, I did not accept the challenge of returning to "Covenant" until I had completely run out of other ideas for stories. At that point, I decided that my apprenticeship must be over. <rueful grin> (09/06/2004) |
Anonymous: Will Ballantine/Del Rey be repackaging the second Chronicles as well? It wouldn't make much sense to do the first without the second.
|
I have no idea what Ballantine/Del Rey's plans may be. Since most publishers don't indulge in long-term planning, B/DR probably won't think about repackaging "The Second Chronicles" until after they see how the repackaged first trilogy sells. (09/06/2004) |
Dave, Ellington, CT: Mr Donaldson,
First of all, thanks for all your great work. I've been a fan since the early 80's. I'm anxiously looking forward to the 3rd Chronicles.
Now my question. In this forum, you've mentioned a lot of other science fiction and fantasy authors and novels. Other than your own work, and maybe that of Tolkien, can you recommend a few novels (or series) to your fans. Maybe three science fiction and three fantasy from different authors? Doesn't necessarily have to be your top three in each category. I know that's hard to do. Maybe a few that fall in your top ten though. That'll give us something to read while we're all waiting for the 3rd Chronicles, and get an idea of what you like to read.
Thanks,
Dave
|
Buried away in the recesses of the Gradual Interview is a previous answer to this question. Today's answer: (fantasy) Steven Erikson, "The Gardens of the Moon," Patricia A. McKillip, "Ombria in Shadow," Tim Powers, "Last Call"; (SF) Alfred Bester, "The Stars My Destination," Walter Jon Williams, "Hardwired," China Mieville (whose work could, I admit, be considered fantasy; but I think of it as SF), "Perdido Street Station." (09/06/2004) |
Peter Purcell: I was interested in your response to the magic Mordant's Need vs. magic in the Land. As an author, you are focused on the *story* you're relaying and magic-used-as-a-metaphor. As a reader we get absorbed in the story but fall in love with the *universe / world* you've created. I think that's why you get so many questions on the "rules of the WORLD" that are irrelevant to your author's perspective that the *story* should be the only focus. [Although you have said that maintaining internal consistency is important to you so that it does not distract from the *story*.]
Am I on track? Does it matter?! (smile)
Peter
|
I don't consider "rules of the world" questions irrelevant at all. But I get confused (and sometimes exasperated) when the questions don't appear to respect one vital distinction: we're talking about "rules of the world THAT I MADE UP." If the questions don't pertain to, or aren't validated by, material contained within the boundaries of the story, I can't answer them. (And here we have another interesting difference between the "Covenant" books and "Mordant's Need". In "Covenant," the Land clearly exists in a different kind or order of reality than Covenant's "real world". In the Platonic sense, the Land is *more* real than Covenant's "real world." So characters from Covenant's "real world" can expand into the Land, but characters from the Land cannot shrink into Covenant's "real world". But in "Mordant's Need" the differing realities accessible by Imagery are all pretty much equal, or are "real" in the same way: they may run by different rules, but the substance of one can exist and function fully in another.) (09/08/2004) |
Paul: Hi there
This is a question my wife asked me... She like me enjoyed all of your series. But one thing that irritated her was Covenant's cursing. ie "Hellfire - what kind of a swear word is that".
So I am curious, was "Hellfire and bloddy damnation" a common curse in the mid sevenites? Or did you go out of your way to try and avoid 'dating' your books by using dialogue or settings (in the real world) that would show up the story for its age?
Incidentally, with 30 years of hindsight, I think that Covenant would pay his phone bill at the postoffice - he would do it online and frequent chatrooms :-)
|
"Hellfire and bloody damnation" is probably the sort of swearing that only a missionary's kid can truly relate to. I chose it because: a) I'm a missionary's kid; b) it's exotic, unfamiliar, dislocated, an apt expression for a man terminally dissociated from his own life; and c) Covenant pretty much lives in Hell, and his story is about damnation (or the escape from damnation, which comes to the same thing). Need I point out that when I wrote the first "Covenant" books chatrooms didn't exist, and people *did* pay their phone bills at the phone company? (09/08/2004) |
Sean Casey: I suspect that the answer to this is that the question is irrelevant, but it's kind of interesting, I think, so:
What is the composition of Thomas Covenant's ring? Is the gold alloyed with nickel, palladium, silver etc? Is it electroplated with rhodium?
What would happen if someone with white gold of a different composition came to the Land? Would they have the same power, or less or none at all?
|
The white gold I had in mind is an alloy of gold and platinum (with no doubt various trace metals about which I know nothing). Your question about "what would happen if ... white gold of a different composition came to the Land" is a good example of something I talked about in answer to an earlier GI question: a question which comes from completely outside the text, outside the "rules of the world I made up." So I have no idea how to answer you. What is the metallic composition of the Earth in which the Land resides? What kind of metal-working (and refining) skills exist planet-wide? What exactly did the Creator plan for when he/she/it created the Earth? Beats the by-products out of me. None of those issues are germane to the story--and the only "rules" I'm interested in are the ones which *are* germane. (09/09/2004) |
Akaya: This may not be something you want to respond to online, but I thought I'd ask. I recently (on the advice of a fan or yours I met in my local S-F bookstore) bought the entire Thomas Covenant series. I'm in the first part of "Lord Foul's Bane" (which I have been completely enjoying) and have come to the part where Thomas rapes Lena, the young woman who saves his life. He is now about to set off on his journey led by her mother Atiaran (upon whose wisdom and experience I assume he will be dependent). Before I decide what I will do with the remaining 5 books, it would be helpful to me if you would tell me if Thomas recognizes his violent betrayal of Lena beyond his sense that Lena "purchased precious time for him" (in not speaking of her violation). "Clearly the people of this Land were prepared to make sacrifices --". Does he return to her and make restitution?
|
I would like to assure you earnestly that during the course of the first "Covenant" trilogy he has his nose rubbed deeply in the consequences of his crime against Lena, that he learns to understand just how vile his actions have been, and that he does put his feet on the road to redemption. HowEVer-- The author may not be the ideal person to respond to your concerns, feeling (as he does) a fairly natural human desire to justify himself. You might get more useful answers from fellow readers. May I suggest that you post your concerns on kevinswatch.com? The good people there will give you honest reactions from a wide variety of perspectives. (09/11/2004) |
Northcote Coleman: "If literature speaks of bread or wine or stone or tree, it appeals to the whole of these things, to their ideas; yet each hearer will give to them a peculiar personal embodiment in his imagination. Should the story say 'he ate bread' , the dramatic producer or painter can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own. If a story says 'he climbed a hill and saw a river in the valley below', the illustrator may catch, or nearly catch his own vision of such a scene; but every hearer of the words will have his own, and it will be made out of all The Hills, The River, The Valley which were for him the first embodiment of the word."
As I read this passage from The Tolkien Reader. By, J.R.R. Tolkien, I thought of your own Thomas Covenant books and how they have been reflected from this extract of Tolkiens. Even in your choice of titles, The One Tree, The Wounded Land. I would like to know if you agree that the visual medium's inherent inadequacy can only debilitate the readers imagination.
|
First, let me say that I question the implicit assumptions in phrases like "the visual medium's inherent inadequacy." (I have to say this first because I actually agree whole-heartedly with Tolkien. I'm an almost entirely verbal person myself: I like to say that I see with words. Whenever words are replaced by visual images, I feel that my own imaginative and emotional responses are being limited and controlled.) I think it's important to recognize that *every* medium has inherent inadequacies--to go along with its inherent strengths. It happens (just my opinion) that translating books into movies tends to expose either the inadequacies of film as a medium or the inadequacies of the specific book on which the film is based. But this tendency confuses the central issue, which is that every medium has its own particular strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to try to propose an entire philosophy of aesthetics here. But just take one example: consider the simple, immutable, and profound fact that verbal language (*all* oral language, but especially written language) is LINEAR. Words have to be read one at a time in a very specific order or else their meaning either changes or collapses. Therefore verbal (especially written) language is a means of organizing time. One of its strengths is that it has direction: if the words are put together imaginatively and skillfully enough they accumulate over time (as the notes in a piece of music accumulate) until movement in that direction has tremendous force. But this strength is also a weakness: words in sequence cannot go in more than one direction at a time, or make more than one statement at a time (except by implication). Well, OK, film is also a linear medium. But it has this strength which prose cannot match: it constantly conveys information to two senses (sight and hearing) simultaneously. This means that film *can* go in more than one direction at a time, or make more than one statement at a time. Indeed, because our brains appear to be capable of processing greater degrees of aural complexity than visual (mine is, anyway), film can go in more than one direction at a time, or make more than one statement at a time, with *sound* alone (e.g. the music can convey different information than the dialogue, even when both are happening at the same time). I could go on at some length (don't even get me started on painting, or on the visual dimension of film), but I hope I've made my point. For me, movies can be enormously intense experiences; but they can never compete with the way written prose can accumulate richness, complexity, and depth. But that statement is a description of *me*, not a useful critique of the medium of film. (09/11/2004) |
Peter: Hello Stephen, I'm very happy that you are writing the final part of the series, it was a pleasant suprise mainly because the last series ended perfectly to me so thank you.
My question is, I understand that you grew up in India which is a different culture and for a young child you would have been considered a minority and difficult especiallif if there were only a few other caucasians. So do you think that it has affected you, that growing up that way seems to make you think differently? That sometimes you feel like you look at the world like looking into a zoo exhibit and think why do people do that?
Over the years I have strongly liked certain books, music and people and on closer inspection have found that they were normally from a different race raised in a different culture and have amazing insight and appear to see the world differently, like T.Dolby who was raised in egypt, and you who was brought up in India.
I'm just curious on your views on this. If you're wondering about this strange question It's because of being part Jamaican and was raised in NZ.
thanks.
Peter.
|
First, a quick word about my recent silence in this interview. Everyone knows that life sometimes goes through phases of disarray, when it seems that every conceivably mishap occurs at once. Well, this has been one of those times. Now. My actual experience was a strange variation on your question. My family first moved to India when I was four; but after my initial trauma (which occurred while my parents were in language school, and to which I could only react with terror), my life there seemed more "normal" than you might expect. I'll spare you a long riff on the underlying fear that motivates virtually all missionaries: my present point is that the missionaries did everything possible to isolate their children from the cultures and people they purportedly wished to "save." So we lived in walled compounds surrounded exclusively by other missionaries, other caucasians (and their servants). We attended exclusively white missionary schools, again in walled compounds. And those schools taught an exclusively white mssionary curriculum: pure US college preparatory, with a heavy dose of religion. No courses were offered in Indian history, philosophy, language, or culture; and we were discouraged from learning anything on our own. Yes, we were a tiny minority. But we weren't alone: we were surrounded by our own kind, and there were enough of us to make effective insulation. As a result, I didn't start to feel like I'd landed from the planet Koozbane until I returned to the US for my senior year in high school. Nevertheless, as you surmise, that sense of alienness has endured throughout my life--and has shaped much of it. It's hardly a coincidence that *all* of my sf/f novels can be read as "culture shock" stories. (09/17/2004) |
Michael From Santa Fe: I have a question about dukkha Waynhim - specifically, about his name. The concept of "dukkha" in Buddhism relates to suffering and dukkha Waynhim was certainly a creature of great suffering - so I thought it was a cool name. But, did giving one of the creatures of the Land a name that relates to a concept from "Covenant's world" give you pause? I realize it is a rather obscure reference, but if Thomas Covenant had been a Buddhist, or knew something about Buddhism, wouldn't a creature with a name with a reference to his own world cause him to doubt the existence of the Land even more?
Also, just because I'm curious and asking about names - when you created Linden Avery and her name, did the idea come from the Linden tree, which has heart shaped leaves - thus, Thomas Covenant's love interest?
|
No, I can't honestly say that it gave me pause. After all, Herem, Sheol, Jehannum, moksha, turiya, samadhi, several of the Ramen names, and *Kevin* (for God's sake!), not to mention Sunder, are all real words from our world. And then there's the curious fact that Covenant and Linden experience virtually no language barriers anywhere. As you point out, such details can't undermine Covenant's insistence that the Land is not real. If he is effectively "dreaming," what would compose the dream if not the hidden contents of his own mind? Covenant's Unbelief has its own peculiar integrity, and I deliberately gave it as much support as I could. Good call about Linden's name. But I had other intentions as well. "Linden"=tree. Avery=aviary=birds. Both "nature" references. Which I considered appropriate for a woman who would become the Land's great healer at the end of "The Second Chronicles". (09/17/2004) |
Anonymous: Hello again
"Somehow human societies find ways to keep themselves alive in spite of their own worst impulses."
For some reason this line grabbed me, now, this is in no way intended as an antagonistic question but you sparked my easily kindled curiousity. Okay, here's the question. heh.
Do you view humans, as inherently...negative? Or are you simply stating the fact that inherent in every human, given complex cognitive function (vain attempt at intellect...chuckle), will, and desire, are both the dark and light aspects of a personality, and that the "wants" often outweigh the "shoulds" or "shouldnt's" of a given situation? In other words people have both qualites, good and bad, however it's usually easier to do what you want inspite of the fact that it may be incorrect (in the eyes of the majority).
This isn't a question of morality, because I don't think there are universal morals. People, generally speaking are the sum of their experiences, and the decisions they've made when encountering the opportunity to choose.
So in short I'm not asking for a "so do you think it right? or morally correct?" I'm asking, humans; inherently dark, or given the choice, and little opposition, they will go with what they want despite the way it may be viewed by the public at large.
I ask only because, the sentence made me think, and it may be helpful with a character I have yet to work on, with a deadline coming up. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Have a good one
J. Depp
|
There are a number of questions hidden away in there, none of which I'm actually wise enough to answer. I'll just express a few opinions. (Need I add that they're just opinions?) Leaving out a long discussion of heredity and environment: I take it as axiomatic that every human being is a mixture of qualities, each of which (the qualities) can be seen as positive or negative, depending on their circumstances and your perspective. For myself, I find it more useful to think of persons as being very crudely divided into two groups: those that choose to care about people other than themselves, situations other than their own, issues larger than their own well-being; and those that do not. The former group tends to evolve ethical structures (however peculiarly defined)--and then live by them. The latter group tends to be ruled by personal *want* and *need* (in other words, by fear). However, using the word "group" now in a different sense: it is a curious characteristic of groups (especially large groups, both spontaneous--e.g. rallies and mobs--and structured--e.g. bureaucracies) that they tend to reinforce the most self-centered and fearful qualities of their individual members. Only very rarely do human beings in aggregate behave better than they would alone. I can't begin to tell you how often I've experienced small acts of kindness from people whose group behavior is vicious. (Missionaries are a good example.) Like individuals, groups are ultimately guided (if not actively ruled) by an instinct for survival. This accounts for much of their self-centeredness. But it may also explain why they so often seem to pull themselves back from the brink of extinction at the last possible moment. (An interesting case in point: has anyone else read Thomas Cahill's fascinating "How the Irish Saved Civilization"? The fact that modern Western civilization exists *at all* is a perfect demonstration of the point I'm trying to make.) (09/17/2004) |
Perry Bell: Hi Stephen,
I see the original release is calling for Hardcover. Will the new series be released on paperback as well?
"Fist and Faith"
|
Publishers decide whether to do a hardcover "original" or a paperback (or a trade paperback) "original" based on whether they think the potential audience justifies the expense of a hardcover (or trade paperback). However, virtually all (fiction) hardcover "originals" *are* later reissued in paperback, typically a year after the hardcover. The hardcover then effectively goes out of existence, and the paperback remains the only enduring form of the book--if it endures at all. (09/17/2004) |
Amanda Grey: Dear Stephen,
I have two questions;
I am so excited to be rereading the First and Second Chronicles after 15 years (I am now 37). I have an 11-year old son who I managed to get reading at the very late age of 8, thanks to Harry Potter. To what extent has the popularity of HP affected your own and have you read the books / seen the films?
(Incidently my son speaks better French than English, much to my *chagrin* and there doesn't seem to be a translation... I am a translator living in France, Irish born.)
2) I know you are a fan of Gormanghast. Have you seen the British TV serialisation and do you think this format would be suitable for Covenant?
Thank you so much for the many years of reading pleasure and I am so looking forward to *la suite*.
|
Harry Potter hasn't had any affect on me that I'm aware of. (Although the popularity of HP and LOTR on film may have affected the decision to buy an option on "Covenant".) I've read one of the books and seen the three movies. I enjoyed them, but they didn't touch me. Yes, I saw the BBC version of Gormenghast. As with the LOTR films, I thought they did as good a job as we could have hoped for; but much of the particular richness of those books was lost. A 12+ hour mini-series of "Covenant" might be the most effective way to bring those books to film, but I still don't really consider "Covenant" to be film-able. And of course the TV screen loses visual scale--an important aspect of "Covenant". "Mordant's Need" would make much better movies, as would the GAP books, or some of my novellas (e.g. "Penance," "Daughter of Regals," or "The Killing Stroke"). (09/18/2004) |
Scott Byers: Mr. Donaldson, I greatly enjoy reading all your books. I was very glad to hear that we will once again be able to return to the Land. I was wondering if you are planning any book tours to Canada soon?
|
The answers to all book tour questions are posted elsewhere on this site. A Canadian tour is exTREMEly unlikely: the audience isn't large enough to justify the publisher's expense (from the publisher's point of view, anyway). (09/18/2004) |
John McCann: I managed bookstores for years and have always been a bit curious about the publishing process. It's now about 8-9 weeks until the release of Runes. What stage is the book in now? (eg. Has the final draft been completed, with the typesetters, or actually been printed and bound and sitting in warehouuses)
Thanks
|
My experience with "Runes" this year is quite atypical. Typically publication occurs 12-18 months after delivery and acceptance (what we call D&A) of a final manuscript. The process takes so long because there are so many different things that have to be done: cover art commissioned and painted; advertising designed (which usually can't happen until after the cover art and design is complete; but magazines typically require 3 months of lead time to run an ad); promotional campaigns planned and executed; copyediting on the manuscript; proofreading on the manuscript (a very distinct process from copyediting, but both take time, and the author needs to double-check both separately); contracts and schedules with printers negotiated; maps prepared (in my case, anyway). And I'm sure I've left out a number of details. The preparation of "Runes" has been cruel because 12-18 months of work--for everyone involved--has been squeezed into 6. And that was only possible because the book was rushed to D&A (I was required to do a 6 months rewrite in less than 3). So don't judge what normally happens in publishing by "Runes". As it happens, my US publisher has had finished copies of the book arriving in their warehouse from the bindery for nearly 10 days now. And books may very well start to appear in bookstores by early October. My UK publisher is running about a week behind the US schedule. (09/18/2004) |
James DiBenedetto: A couple of questions about the influence that your work has had:
Are you aware of anything from your works popping up as cultural references (like the very specific references to "Dune" that appear in a couple of Yes songs, or your books being answers on "Jeopardy", etc)?
What do you think your influence has been on the field of fantasy or science fiction over the last 30 years?
Are there any specific books or authors that you see your influence in? Any time that you've read something and said "Aha! He/she must have been reading the Gap series when he/she wrote this..."?
|
I'm afraid the answers are no, no, and no. Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm aware that I live a very "private" life, and that much of what is "public" passes me by. But until recently I couldn't honestly say that I'd seen my influence anywhere except in, well, my children. Then, however, I was made aware of Kevinswatch.com. <grin> So that's at least *some* influence. But "cultural influence"? "Influence on the field"? "Influence on specific authors"? If anything like that has happened, I'm unaware of it. (09/22/2004) |
Stephen Wright: Hello.
Ive been reading your books since shortly after the first Chronicles of Thomas Covenant came out. Im very much looking forward to reading the last sequence in my favorite fantasy series. The book tour is an additional bonus from my point of view, as Ive been interested in meeting you almost as long as Ive been reading you.
My question for you is one more of personal nature than one dealing with your works. Simply put, it is this: if your interest, time and schedule allows for it, would you be willing to meet people, perhaps before or after your bookstore appearances, in something like a mini Elohim-fest, at local public forums, such as a lunch or dinner?
I dont have any real understanding of how wearing an authors tour is, but I thought that perhaps a quiet meeting over a meal (or other avenue of your choice) might be a welcome break for you. Given the way our world is, I completely understand your reluctance to accept earlier offers for meetings at homesbut I thought it could not hurt to ask if something more public and secure would possibly be desirable from your point of view. Local folks might be able to point out things of regional interest, give you good recommendations of where to eat (since aliantha and springwine are unlikely to be readily available), etc.
|
Please accept my regrets. I appreciate both the courtesy and the kindness of your offer. But the sort of occasion you describe would simply add to my exhaustion. When I'm out "flogging" books, dealing with travel fatigue, sensory overload, LOTS of work, terminal loneliness, and the strain of comporting myself in an appropriately "public" manner when I'm really a private person, the only thing--and I do mean the *only* thing--that restores me at all is to spend time with people I already know well, like, and am comfortable with. People like family. Or friends that I've known for decades. (09/22/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Mr. Donaldson,
In a previous answer, you described the changing POV you employed in the Gap series. During the first two books, the POV doesn't change that much (as evidenced by the chapters being numbered rather than named), while in later books, the POV changes much more often.
While writing the earlier volumes, did you forsee that the POVs would have to multiply in the later ones, or was this something that you discovered along the way? What determined whose POV should be used in chapters that dealt with multiple major characters?
I loved the Ancillary Documentation. I always appreciated the contrast between the very subjective views we get from the characters, and the objective, fact-based views we get from the Ancil. Docs.
Can you talk a bit about how you decided to include them? Was it mainly to avoid "As you know, John, ..." exposition, or did you have this contrast in mind? Did you always intend to omit them from the concluding volume, or was this a decision you made during revisions?
And are they trustworthy accounts? <g>
Thanks once again for being so gracious in answering all of our questions.
|
I've been putting off this question because I couldn't think of a way to answer it simply. So please keep in mind with what follows that I'm only talking about *one* aspect of several rather complicated subjects. Yes, I knew before I ever started on "Forbidden Knowledge" ("The Real Story" was originally written as a stand-alone novella, but it simply didn't work that way) that I would need a vast array of POV characters. The issue here--as it is in the Ancillary Documentation--is "world-building." What I call in the case of the GAP books "unrolling the canvas." I have a systemic dislike for "As you know, John"-style exposition. In addition, none of the GAP characters is likely to sit around discussing the details of their reality (can you imagine Angus saying, "As you know, Morn, matter cannon work like this"?): they're all too busy struggling for their own survival. In addition, the story simply takes place in too many locations at once for any one character, or any small handful of characters, to be an effective POV. In addition, I've denied myself that wonderful gimmick which is so useful in the "Covenant" books and "Mordant's Need": the "outsider" who demands the kinds of explanations the reader needs. In addition, the canvas itself is more complex and contains a wider variety of details than the Land or Mordant. So many POVs were necessary. As were the Ancillary Documentation: those sections are a kind of shorthand exposition which allowed me to *imply* much more world-building than was actually stated. (And, yes, the AncilDocs were intended to be reliable.) (They also served several other functions, which--as I said--I'm not discussing at the moment.) I discontinued them in "This Day All Gods Die" because--as you may have guessed--after "Chaos and Order" I was done "unrolling the canvas." All of the necessary details and characters were in place. Both "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge," in their separate ways, are simpler in POV than the subsequent books because I needed narrative space in which to establish Angus, Morn, and (to a lesser extent) Nick as fully as possible without--in effect--overwhelming the reader with exposition about the larger canvas. It would have been too much too soon for my intentions. Determining which POV to use at which moment wasn't easy. My guidelines, generally in this order, were: use the character a) who has the most at stake at that moment, b) who has the most important decision to make or action to take at that moment, c) who has the widest perspective on what is going on at that moment (e.g. Koina before the GCES), d) whose subsequent off-stage actions may not be comprehensible without explanation, or e) who may be the only one who knows something that the reader needs to know at that moment. <whew> (09/23/2004) |
Chris Hawks: Having written you twice already -- and having never really said it before: Thank you so much for doing this; it's really quite a treat to pick one of your favorite author's brain. (Heaven knows how I'd pester Orson Scott Card if he ever opened up a Q&A on his site :) It's a really neat and generous thing you're doing, and I thank you heartily for it.
That said, I recently finished up "Reave the Just and Other Tales" after hearing that the concluding novella ("By Any Other Name") was also a Reave story -- and I loved the first one. I can certainly see the potential for future Reave tales, and, though I know the basic Reave formula is fairly straightforward (protagonist is wronged, Reave arrives and confronts the antagonist, antagonist assaults Reave, protagonist defeats antagonist) I also know that any new story you write will have to pass your own high standards. So I'll keep my fingers crossed. :)
Questions:
1) Whose idea is it to publish a major fiction writer's short stories? Does the author say "Hey, I've got a few things we could collect together..." Does the publisher pester you for any other writings you've got lying around?
2) Also, who controls how the collection is put together? For instance, was it your choice to have the Reave stories headline the collection? (It could easily enough have been "The Woman Who Loved Pigs and Other Tales"...)
|
Typically, it's the writer's idea to publisher a collection of short stories. Publishers don't "pester you for any other writings you've got lying around" because short story collections don't make much money. Even comparatively successful collections have small profit margins, and today's multi-national mega-publishers aren't interested in small profit margins. So it follows that the writer is entirely responsible for how the collection is put together. The only detail that an editor has ever argued with me about was the title: for "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales," I wanted "Ser Visal's Tale and Other Stories"; my editor wanted "Ser Visal's Tale and Other Tales"; I thought that sounded stupid; so we compromised on the actual title. (09/23/2004) |
Bob DeFrank: Mr. Donaldson
I don't have as much time as I would like for reading, but my profession often requires long car trips and I've become acquainted with audio books. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any audiocassette productions of your work, other than an abridged version of The Real Story. I also understand The Runes of the Earth will appear in audio format. Are there any plans to produce unabridged audio versions of your past works? I would really like to re-read them.
Most sincerely,
Bob DeFrank
|
As I've said before, there are no plans for audio versions of my previous works, unabridged or otherwise. And there will be no plans unless the 22-CD version of "Runes" is exTREMEly profitable. Even then there will probably be no plans unless something happens to raise my "stock" to a whole new level: e.g. enormously popular "Covenant" movies. As I said about short story collections, the profit margins on audio books are small, so publishers usually don't do them. Indeed, the subsequent volumes of "The Last Chronicles" will not be released in audio versions if "Runes" doesn't sell *very* well. (09/25/2004) |
Bob. DeFrank: Mr. Donaldson
I've heard that self-consciousness is among challenges to an artist, as it often leads to self-doubt. You've achieved some (well-deserved) fame in your career. Does the thought that millions of people will read your writing make the creative process difficult? If so, how do you deal with this problem?
Most sincerely,
Bob DeFrank
|
I have no earthly idea whether or not "millions of people" will read what I write. And I honestly don't think about things like that while I'm writing: there my self-consciousness takes the form of "Am I even capable of writing a book this difficult?" That concern is more than enough to fill me with self-doubt. *Between* books I worry about things like, "Will this book sell?" but that form of self-consciousness doesn't impinge on my actual creative process--except to the extent that a history of *poor* sales ("Mordant's Need," the GAP books, my mystery novels) reinforces my impulse to doubt myself. (09/25/2004) |
Jerry Erbe: You made a statement in answering your last question that got me to thinking...you wrote:
<i>"The Earth is a whole lot bigger than the Land, and (like the Land) it's full of stories. I can't possibly tell them all."</i>
Given the commercial success of sci-fi and fantasy movies and their subsequent book spin-off's, i.e. Star Wars and Star Trek, etc., have their been any offers from other authors to perhaps write other stories relating to The Land, for instance, stories about the Giants journeys or stories of the Haruchai adventures? Would another author HAVE to get your permission to use your ideas and characters as a basis for a completely new storyline relating to The Land and its characters? / Thanks again for this forum. I know I speak for all your fans when I say that it is a special treat being able to personally hear your responses to our questions, however banal and repetitive they may become.
|
No one has ever approached me about writing a "spin-off" from the "Covenant" books--or from any of my books. And yes, anyone who wanted to write a spin-off (for any purpose except their own private amusement) would *require* both my permission (as the holder of the copyright) and my publishers' permission (as holder of the publication rights). And no, I would never give that permission. As for my publishers, they probably wouldn't even answer the letter: even if "Covenant" became a series of enormously popular films, my publishers would want to create their own spin-offs with writers they're already comfortable with. And they would *still* need my permission, which they won't get. (09/25/2004) |
JP: I have a question about the nature of personal choice as it relates to Covenant's ring. Covenant tells Linden that the reason that Foul hasn't simply possessed him with a Raver to obtain the ring is that it has to be given by choice in order for its power to be unlocked. And when Hile Troy is about to use its power, it was given to him willingly by Covenant. Yet:
1) Dead Elena is able to utilize it when it's forcibly swiped from Covenant in Power That Preserves, and
2) Linden is able to "possess" Covenant to use the ring at various times.
Are there explanations that fit these instances into the theory of personal choice?
|
<sigh> All of this would be so-o-o much easier if I hadn't *forgotten* that Covenant gives his ring to Troy in "The Illearth War" and has it taken from him by Elena in "The Power that Preserves." I tell ya, folks, internal consistency's a bitch. The key points to keep in mind are "the necessity of freedom" and Mhoram's assertion to Covenant, "You are the white gold." So, taking the questions that have come up from easiest to most difficult: Troy is able to raise power from the ring because a) Covenant gave it to him, and b) Covenant's will, his volition, supports what Troy wants to do with the ring (save Elena from dead Kevin). Elena, of course, doesn't actually raise power from the ring, but there are a couple of reasons why she might have been able to do so. (In any case, she isn't bluffing when she threatens the Colossus. She *believes* she can exert wild magic. She has, after all, lost her mind.) Volition is a complex thing: there are unconscious as well as conscious choices. And sometimes the unconscious choices subvert the conscious ones. At that point in his struggle, Covenant must have been feeling a certain amount of "death wish" (why else would he even think about tackling Lord Foul when he believes he has no power?), and his unconscious volition might have enabled Elena to use the ring against him. In addition--on a somewhat more conscious level--Covenant has known for a while that external forces can trigger a response from the ring; and he may have been hoping (volition again) that Elena's use of the Staff would trigger a reaction she didn't expect. Linden's actions raise even more complex issues (not the least of which is my still fallible memory) (and let's not even mention my unwillingness to spend an hour or two researching each question in this interview). She has an emotional bond with Covenant that goes far deeper than consciousness. And on those occasions when she "possesses" him, she always seeks to control him in ways with which some part of him agrees. He certainly doesn't *want* to destroy Starfare's Gem, and he isn't exactly eager to walk into the Banefire--just to pick two examples that happen to come to mind. In other words, she taps into his unconscious volition (not always wisely, I might add). It follows, naturally, that a Raver--or Lord Foul himself--could not make use of the ring as Linden does. They don't love him; have no bond with him; share none of his impulses, conscious or otherwise. And so they cannot win the cooperation (if you will), the volition, of any of his complex impulses. All of these points, as I'm sure you can see, depend on the identification between Covenant and the ring. Which raises interesting questions for "The Last Chronicles." Now that Linden has the ring, is *she* the white gold? Does it truly *belong* to her as it once did to Covenant? As Spock might have said (deadpan, of course), "Fascinating." (10/02/2004) |
John McCann: Stephen,
Are you ready for the onslaught of Runes specific questions, once the book is officially published?
How long after publication will you wait to answer such questions? In order to protect the innocent, will you set up a seperate gradual interview for questions about Runes?
Thanks
John
|
Not a simple question. After all, I don't want to create spoilers for readers who are waiting for the paperback--or who are waiting to begin until the whole story is in print. At the moment, I don't have any answer for you. I'll probably make decisions on a case by case basis--and try to provide spoiler warnings. (10/02/2004) |
Allen Parmenter: Mister Donaldson, you've stated a few times that you are trying to re-invent yourself as a writer and had been doing so since the Gap. I was a bit puzzled. One of the great joys of being one of your devotees is that you constantly re-invent yourself. The Second Chronicles were practically an inversion of the First. And I remember being shocked in my mid-teen when I read of fire burning wood to ash in "Mordant's Need" without anyone caring. And then came the mighty Gap Cycle - most dear to my heart but quite a real shock to get accustomed to. May I ask what you precisely mean when you speak of re-inventing yourself as a writer? What greater curve do you wish to turn around? Pull the Bard down from his lofty throne?
|
This is an example of what happens when you (by which I mean, I) use the same words in differing contexts, without clearly explaining how the contexts differ. I see now (good ol' retrospect) that I've used the phrase "re-inventing myself" with more than one meaning. Of course you're right: within the context of *writing stories* I've always striven to invent myself anew for each story. To create for that story not just a new "voice" (style and tone) and setting, but also a new author (one who is capable of doing different things than he has done previously). But I usually use the phrase "re-inventing myself as a writer" in a different context: within the context of "being a person who writes." In *that* context, "re-inventing myself" refers to things like: when and how I write; how important writing is when compared to other facets of my life; the role writing plays in my image of myself, my identity. And *in* that context, I haven't needed to re-invent myself as often; but when I *do* need to do it, the process is excruciating, and requires long (sometimes very long) periods of time. I don't want to get particularly personal about this; but I'll give you a quick gloss. Back when I was young and life was simple (although I didn't consider it simple at the time), writing pretty much consumed my identity. I never said, "I am a person who writes": I said, "I am a writer." But then I had children, and an extraordinarily messy and corrupt divorce; and I decided then that as long as they needed me my children would always come first. So, arduously, I learned to say, "I am a father first and a writer second." But (sparing you all the details) this didn't actually work (because being a father is not an "acitivity": it's something you have to do with your heart), so eventually I learned to say, "I am a person who is primarily devoted to his children, and who also writes." But that also caused problems because I didn't know *how* to write without letting writing take over my (new) identity. So first writing became very difficult: then it became impossible: then it became very difficult again. And now that my children hardly ever need me anymore, the time has come to re-invent myself *again*: now it is appropriate for me to be able to say, "I am a person who writes, and who is also devoted to the people he loves." Which is turn causes a whole new range of problems. There. A long answer to what could have been a fairly straight-forward question. (10/03/2004) |
Michael: Steve,
Forgive me if something along the same lines has been broached previously,and that this is fairly lengthy.
I'm intrigued by the fact that you got into Martial Arts at a relatively mature age, and I was wondering whether martial arts philosophy, such as the Japanese concept of *zanshin*, intrigues you as much as I?
You have said that you are aware of your obvious physical limitations that come with age, but that you make up for this by employing guile and cunning, particularly when sparring. In the past Ive had to do much the same myself (and Im 25 years younger than you), so how do you think you would cope if you had to give up altogether through injury?
My (admittedly limited) experience with Shotokan is that its pretty conservative in implementing changes to some exercises that sports science has proven in recent times to be bad for practitioners. Has this been your view?
Thanks very much
Michael
|
I've expressed my views on most of the issues you raise in my essay, "The Aging Student of the Martial Arts," which you can download from this site; so I won't repeat them here. I'll just say that every style has some stupid teachers. And accidents can happen anywhere. But at its core, Shotokan is *good* for the human body. (Some highly effective martial arts are not.) It uses the muscles and the joints in ways that protect them from injury and prolong their usefulness. So I make a point of supplying for myself the intelligence in training that my teachers sometimes lack; and of course I only train with teachers who allow me the latitude to make my own decisions. (It helps that my current sensei is only half my age, has already suffered several life-altering injuries, and now knows how stupid he's been in his own training.) I listen in horror to martial arts students who describe *with pride* how crippled their senseis are, or how many injuries they themselves have suffered. I just wish they would all get out of the gene pool before they breed. <grin> (10/03/2004) |
Sean Casey: Stephen, for me, the Gap series is far and away the best thing you've done, as well as my favourite series of books - and I usually prefer fantasy to SF. It's the intensity that makes it such a satisfying read - the characterisation, the writing, the plot.
It's plot I want to ask you about. Having recently reread the first Chronicles, I've been thinking about how different the plotting is between that and the Gap. (Quite a *gap*, in fact, ho ho.) Thomas is the lead character exploring a world he doesn't know, and quite often the plot twists take the form of convenient coincidences that neither he nor the reader could know about in advance. Eg, meeting Saltheart, being healed by the Unfettered One, being rescued by the Jheherrin. In the Gap series, being an ensemble piece, the plot threads are much more interwoven, one character's surprise is another's plan or accident. This was one of the most enjoyable things about the Gap.
The question (finally) is this: What are your opinions on these different styles of plot? Do you have a preference? I suppose the latter is much more difficult to create. And would it be fair to assume that the Last Chronicles will continue in the vein of the former?
Thanks.
|
Yes, "The Last Chronicles" will remain consistent with the paradigms of the previous "Covenant" stories. And yes, the narrative structure of the GAP book is much more difficult to create (if you play fair with it, as many writers do not) than that of "Covenant". I'm very proud of what I accomplished in the GAP books. But the narrative approach of the "Covenant" books comes far more naturally to me. And it is inherently more congenial to my long-term story-telling goals. I always aspire to create for the reader the experience of actually being *in* the story; and this is more readily accomplished through immersion in a single POV. (Which is why so much of "Forbidden Knowledge" is from Morn's POV. She is the story's perceptual "anchor." However, it's also true to a significant extent that being *in* the story of the GAP books means sharing the confusion and the struggle to understand of the characters. Hence the narrative methodology of multiple POVs.) After all, in life each of us is restricted to a single POV: I (and you) can only experience the world and other people through my (and your) own unique sensorium. Why should art not imitate life? Especially when I have so many world-building issues to deal with (as discussed earlier in this interview). (10/03/2004) |
Donna Seagrave: First a comment. At the the Bubonicon event you made light of comparisons to you and Tolkien. Just wanted you to know that I read you first, and if it hadn't been for your writings, I never would have read Tolkien.
Question: I know you have written many mysterys under another name and I would like to read them, but don't know that other name. What is it?
|
Everything that I've ever published is listed in the "publications" section of this site. Unless I've forgotten something. <sigh> (10/03/2004) |
Joey: Any chance we can get more of your essays and speeches posted? Kind of to tide us over until Runes? :)
|
This site now has a substantial body of "structured interviews" and download-able essays. And more will be added--especially when I'm allowed to use the *many* essays I've written for use in promoting "The Runes of the Earth". (I hope I don't need to explain that I do *not* write "promotional essays." I write essays on what I hope are "points of general interest," and these essays are then used by other people for promotional purposes.) (10/03/2004) |
John McCann: Thank you for taking the time to answer my previous questions. In reading today's answers. I saw for the second time in this interview the second chronicles was supposed to be 4 books.
The titles of books, particularly those in a series, have always been fascinating to me. Do you happen to remember original titles or working titles of the four books?
Thanks again, John
|
This question keeps coming up. My webmaster and I are working on a way to organize the "gradual interview" so that readers can more easily find out if their questions have already been answered. Until then: sorry, no, I don't remember. I *think* (but I could be wrong) they were all one word titles. One definitely was "Sunbane." Another may have been "Seaquest." Other than that, I'm drawing a blank. (10/03/2004) |
Michelle: Are any of your books currently available in audio format?
If so, could you please let me know how to purchase.
Thank you very much
Michelle
|
"The Runes of the Earth" (on 22 CDs) is currently available for pre-order from Amazon.com. None of my other books exist in an audio form at present. "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" were once available, viciously abridged, on audio cassetts (2 per book), but those disappeared from the market over a decade ago. (10/07/2004) |
Eric: Steve,
Thank you for returning us, your readers, to The Land one more time. I remember reading both series in college for the first time, and reading them every other year since then. To get to my point, I was wondering what your thoughts are in regards to Thomas Covenants leprosy, in the sense that he almost needed that affliction, both in the physical and spiritual sense, to be able to deal with the evil that Lord Foul repesented. Does that leprosy represent a sort of inner corruption within Covenant that he had to accept and overcome to be able to deal with Lord Foul? Thank you sir, Eric
|
This is both simple and complicated. On an external level, Covenant's leprosy is both the mechanism for and the symbol of his alienation from any sustaining form of human community (marriage, children, friends, etc.). This brings his inner Despiser to the fore. In a manner of speaking, it makes him a fertile field for what Lord Foul wants to plant. (What saves him--to extend the metaphor--is that the Land and its people can also plant in that field.) And as such, of course, it *is* something that he has to deal with in order to deal with Lord Foul. But "accept and overcome"? Ah, that's where it gets complicated. Covenant is on a spiritual journey--and it ain't over yet. To say that he "overcomes" his "inner corruption" in order to deal with Lord Foul would be accurate enough for the first trilogy. But at that point he is still a long way from accepting that inner corruption. Naturally he makes progress in the second trilogy. There he discovers the power that can be found in ceasing to try to overcome. (We're getting pretty Zen here, I admit.) But if that were the whole story, I wouldn't need to write "The Last Chronicles." (10/09/2004) |
Peter B.: My apolgies if this question would be better aimed at the WebMaster but is there any chance that "Stephen R Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" by W.A. Senior and "Realms of Fantasy" by Malcolm Edwards/Robert Holdstock could be added to the list of publications on your website? As you are aware, the former is a scholarly exploration of your Covenant books including two author interviews while the latter devotes a section to your Chronicles novels, and also includes an interview with you. The artist renderings in Realms are wonderful.
I would just hate to have admirers of your work miss out on these titles.
|
Unfortunately, there are copyright problems. I've already posted some portions of Senior's book (with his express permission, of course). Permission to make use of material from "Realms of Fantasy" would be more difficult to obtain, since that is a "for profit" book while Senior's work is an academic publication for which profit was never an option. (10/09/2004) |
Kevin: Mr. Donaldson,
I've been a big fan since 1981, when, during my freshman college year, I had to get to the bottom of the "Landwaster" thing I kept getting from people. I might have never discovered your books if you had gone with 'Andrew Landwaster' - for that, but much more as well - thank you.
I cannot help but notice that the Mordant's Need series is a bit more "spicey" than your other works that I have read. Poor Terisa seems to have frequent trouble with torn or missing clothing, her breasts are mentioned in almost every chapter, etc.
Not that I didn't find it enjoyable! But this inquiring mind wants to know: what were the details behind this choice?
|
"Mordant's Need" is more explicitly *about* gender roles and stereotypes than my other stories. Terisa Morgan begins the story with such a frail sense of her own identity that she makes Linden Avery at the beginning of "The Wounded Land" look fully self-actualized. And Mordant itself is gripped by rigid gender stereotypes: the kind of male-dominated quasi-medieval society that we so often find in mediocre fantasy novel. Well, the subsequent story describes how Terisa discovers her own reality as both a person and a woman *while* the culture of Mordant undergoes a profound redefinition of gender roles, predominently as that pertains to the permissable/available roles for women. King Joyse (get it?) sets in motion events which eventually enable his daughters, his wife, and Terisa herself to assume unexpected roles which transform their society. In other words, "Mordant's Need" is about sex. Specifically it's about how the treatment of women as mere sexual objects breaks down in a society which is in danger of breaking down itself under pressures both external and internal; and about how the breaking down of the treatment of women as mere sexual objects actually enables their society to be both transformed and saved. So naturally the evidence that women are being treated as mere sexual objects is fairly overt. In addition, these issues also touch on the "rape" theme which is so prevalent in my writing. But "Mordant's Need" is--as I intended it to be--a *gentler* story than my usual work; and so "the evidence that women are being treated as mere sexual objects," while overt, is seldom violent. Hence your observation that the story is more "spicey" than others I've written (10/10/2004) |
Thomas Griffin: Mr. Donaldson,
I would like to thank you for the outstanding series of books you have written. I may be in the minority here, but I actually enjoyed the Gap series more than the Covenant series. I am shocked to hear that they did not sell well, but looking at what passes for entertainment these days, it isn't that surprising.
In reading "The Killing Stroke" I noticed a similarity (in spirit, at least) to a story by Harlan Ellison called "In Fear of K." Have you read it, and if so, do you agree? I consider you to be the two finest imaginative fiction writers ever.
|
Sorry, I've never read "In Fear of K." (10/10/2004) |
Drew Bittner: Mr. Donaldson,
First off, THANK YOU!
At World Fantasy last November, I asked you if you'd consider writing more Covenant... and now I'm reviewing Runes for a website. This is so darn cool.
You may have answered this already, but: what led you to write mysteries?
I've known several writers to cross from fantasy to sf to horror, but mysteries (like romances) seem like foreign territory in genre terms.
Thanks!
Drew
|
It is said of James Fennimore Cooper that he started writing novels because he was fed up with what he was reading and thought he could do better. Where my mystery novels are concerned, the same could probably be said of me. I read a lot of mystery novels during my "formative years" (because missionaries read a lot of mystery novels, so the books were readily available). But the more I read them, the more dissatisfied I became. It seemed to me that the writers either cheated (e.g. by withholding crucial information from the reader) or lied (e.g. by relying on the absurd assumption that every human being is equally capable of every crime). I wanted something better. Specifically, I wanted mysteries where the real mystery lay in the heart of the "detective": I wanted mysteries where the "detective" was personally at risk in the attempt to "solve" the crime, and was personally changed by the "solution" to the crime. Which is not, apparently, what mystery readers want. Hence the consistently disappointing sales of "The Man Who..." books. (10/10/2004) |
Michael: Mr. Donaldson,
I've read and re-read The Man Who Fought Alone many times recently. It has kindled a keen interest in the martial arts for me. How does one discover which of the martial arts is a good fit? There are so many. You had mentioned soft and hard styles. I have been a drug-free bodybuilder for many years and I am very disciplined; I would like to attempt one of the martial arts. How do I discover if the local sensei knows his stuff?
At any rate, my wife and I are overjoyed with a return to The Land. We'll do our level best and have all of our friends by copies of 'Runes' so your children can make it through college easily <grin>; and since you're going to live forever, you might as well have enough money to enjoy eternity.
Many thanks,
Michael Dalton
P.S. I'd never thought about Angus's last name before--The three-hundred Greeks holding their own against the countless Persians at Thermopyle--Brilliant, sir.
|
This is complicated. You don't just need an instructor who knows his/her stuff. (And in any case that's difficult to know unless you already know the stuff yourself.) You need a style that suits you--and that is taught in a style that suits you. The first thing to keep in mind is that there are no good (or bad) martial arts: there are only good (or bad) martial artists. Then I think the place to start is by visiting schools and observing classes. Do you like what you see in the instructor? Do you like what you see in the comportment of the students? Do you like the level of discipline and formality? And while you're observing, ask yourself if the *method* of teaching appeals to you. Some people learn best by seeing how it's done, some by hearing how it's done (explanation), some by feeling how it's done (hands-on adjustment of the student's body by the teacher). Naturally, different instructors emphasize different methods. Then ask yourself if what is being taught suits your body and personality. Just as an example: some styles are intensely gymnastic, and others involve lots of falling, neither of which my old joints can tolerate; while soft (circular) styles suit my personal needs less than hard (ballistic) styles. Along the way, I think there are some danger signs to watch out for. If the instructor won't *let* you observe, forget it. If the school requires a long-term commitment (3 months or more) up front, forget it: you should be allowed an inexpensive trial period. If the school asserts (in any form) that its style is "best" and all others are inferior, forget it. Does that help? (10/12/2004) |
Pierre Nunns: Firstly Stephen, many thanks for your work over the years. You would be well seated at my "Dinner table of notary people" along with Spielberg, Ghandi, Kennedy et al. My question goes to the discipline and passion of writing. You appear to take great care and craft to choose the exact phrase and wording. This is not work you can necessarily rush. Do you consider yourself a disciplined writer in the sense that you devote dedicated blocks of time to writing, or are you an inspiration-driven writer? If the latter, how do you maintain the momentum to get through such solid bodies of work? Make sure you get out to Melbourne Australia sometime. Can't guarantee you Spielberg, and Ghandi is otherwise occupied, but we are good for a home-cooked dinner! Best of luck enduring the book tour.
|
I believe I've answered this question before--and when my webmaster and I finally get this interview organized, you'll be able to find such things much more easily. For now.... I'm definitely a disciplined, plug-away-at-it-every-day writer. In fact, I'm that kind of person. As far as I'm concerned, steady incremental progress, however small, always beats out the inspirational rush. Indeed, steady incremental progress often summons inspiration: the inspirational rush never summons steady progress. (10/12/2004) |
Nathan: Most of the questions you answer seem to be about the Covenant books, so I'll offer you a little variety.
When Nick Succorso died on the bridge of Gutbuster/Soar I was so disappointed that he never got his revenge on Sorus, his whole life had built up to that moment and he'd lost everything else. My question is: do you think Nick Succorso deserved to die without exacting revenge for the scarring (and the humiliation that went with it) that turned his life into a long, bitter struggle?
I'd probably agree that he deserved to die, but not the way he did.
By the way, thanks for some really great stories, especially The Gap, The Killing Stroke and By any other name.
|
I have a vivid memory of having already answered this exact question. But if I did, I find no record of it. Perhaps I dreamed it.... Your reactions are your own, of course; and inherently valid by definition. Speaking purely for myself, however, I can't share your disappointment. Here's how I look at it. Sorus Chatelaine is a rather scuzzy character who toward the end of "Chaos and Order" discovers in herself the capacity, even the necessity, to care about something larger than herself; and then to take action in support of that larger "something." Nick Succorso, on the other hand, reveals no such capacity, even though he has four books in which to do so (Sorus only gets two). Indeed, he seems oblivious to the concept that ANYthing might be larger than himself. So who would I root for? Sorus, no question. Or you might look at it this way: Nick exacts his revenge on Sorus; therefore she never gets the chance to fight for Trumpet; therefore Trumpet can't escape the asteroids; therefore the whole story goes down in flames. There is, I like to think, a profound--and profoundly necessary--inevitability to Nick's demise. (10/12/2004) |
Brian: Every reader, unless they regularly mind-meld, makes every story "his own." If it is a well-told tale, it becomes an integral part of a person's inner mythology with unspeakable value to that reader alone.
If anyone ever makes a Chronicles movie, I will refuse to see it. It would defile my own visualization of The Land and its peoples. Another's imagination is theirs alone and for that reason, does not suffice for me. The Land has touched me too deeply on a personal level, and to render it in another's vision would be a loss I choose not to bear.
I will cherish forever your gift to me.
|
That's sort of how I feel. But nothing is ever simple. I enjoyed the LOTR movies even though they left out or distorted much of what I treasure in the books. Perhaps it's simply a case of not having unrealistic expectations. Movies being movies, and Hollywood being Hollywood, I expected the LOTR movies to be far worse than they actually were. Maybe that's why I was able to enjoy them. (10/12/2004) |
Paul Beachem: Mr. Donaldson,
First off, thank you for being so engaging with your reading public. I think I speak for everyone when I say that this Q&A is a blessing.
My question is about writing. I enjoy writing in a manner that is reciprocal to real life events. I have always enjoyed an allegorical approach as the key to creating an interesting plotline, a deep and emotionally engaging character, or a compelling tale because it speaks directly to our primal motivations. Allegory is about critical thinking and can be a helpful tool in showing the possibilities inherant within us.
As an example of what I would call a fantastic use of allegory, I offer up my viewpoint on 'Reave the Just' (please forgive me).
Reave is the good in men. He is strait forward and is iconographically filled with hope. He is honest. His decency is empowering and known throughout his land and beyond. Divestulata is the depairing counterpoint to Reave. He is manipulative, without honor, and believes in only the basest of man's possibilities. He supports the worst in society to the very end.
I find that these two characters are not the main characters, but the embodyment of society's possibilities. The focii of the tale are Jillet and Huchette. Jillet is the common and immature man without a real purpose in life. Huchette, though uncommonly beautiful, has no uncommon direction about her... she has resigned herself to fate. Jillet & Huchette have succumed to despair. They do not believe in themselves enough to even TRY and accomplish thier goals. It takes Reave (the embodyment of purpose) to show them what purpose is, but in the end Reave and Divestulata are no more than just men. Neither are endowed with anything more powerful than certainty in one case and doubt in the other.
Allegorically, this could be a tale about the nature of being human. We are Jillet and Huchette. The goods and the bads of the world are in fact Reave and Divestulata. The final outcome of this tale is really about overcoming a societal presure towards mediocrity. I find 'Reave the Just' to be about real men's motivations behind their real life hows & whys. What does a human being do when confronted with something they want or do not want? In what way does society's influences (Reave & Divestulata) affect that person?
So, I suppose my question is about intentions and goals. When the image of a story begins to solidify in your mind, do you bring to bare some sort of morality issue that has relevance to the everyday man... something identifiable metaphorically or allegorically? Is the telling of tales a simple joy? Something that is strictly about entertainment... or should writting have a NEED to incorporate a dose of 'lesson' and 'moral'? Should literature be about 'setting up' the reader for a lesson? Sometimes I believe that this would be too agenda-like and contrary to the creation of a legitamately classic tale. Is a moral agenda (cloked in allegory) a legitimate source for decent story telling or does it suffer from becoming period literature?
I acknowledge that Im looking for pointers and my hope is that you have the time for a little direction.
Thank you for your time and thank you for the new chronicles.
Paul Beachem
|
You can read in any way that suits you. Your approach--being yours--is inherently valid for you. And I certainly wouldn't argue with your interpretation of "Reave the Just." As I like to say, any good story is about "what it means to be human." But in technical literary terms, "allegory" is not "about critical thinking". It is about polemics, and as such it discourages critical thinking. In allegory, x equals y, x *only* equals y, and x has no real value except for the fact that it equals y. Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" is the quintessential exemplar, but Spenser's "Faerie Queene" also fits, as do Lewis' "Narnia" books. At the opposite extreme, in symbolism x equals both y and z, but also a, c, e, and several other letters, depending on a whole host of factors, including the context of the story and the perspective of the reader. And in symbolism, all of those other letters are entirely dependent for their meaning on the concrete, separate, and valuable reality of x. Therefore symbolism encourages critical thinking, while allegory rejects it. Well, as I've said often in this interview, I am NOT a polemicist. I'm a story-teller. And for a story-teller, if the proposition that "x equals x AND ONLY x" isn't good enough, then the story isn't worth telling. Now, as it happens, I believe that the numinous possibilities of symbolism can only by achieved by working from the proposition that "x equals x and only x." But I don't concern myself with y, z, a, c, e, or any other possibilities: I concern myself with x and let everything else take care of itself. Before I wrote "Reave the Just," I didn't give a moment's thought to how the story might be interpreted. Instead I thought about: Are Jillet, Reave, the widow Huchette, and Kelven real to me? Is what's happening to them important to them? Do they need these events to happen to them? And, Do they care about what's happening to them so urgently that they all engage my empathy? You're the reader: interpretation is your job, not mine. Of course--and I hope this goes without saying--every writer is different. What works for one fails miserably for another. But speaking purely for myself, the more allegorical and polemical a story is, the less it interests me. (10/12/2004) |
Mel S. Hutson: Thanks for utilizing this forum. Im a 35 YO attorney in Atlanta. I read almost all of your books in my teens the Covenant series several times but, alas, all but one of my copies of your books were destroyed in May 1995 (my last day of law school) in New Orleans due to a flood. (Cue the mocking laughter of Lord Foul!)
I thought Id outgrown scifi/fantasy but I recently pulled my last copy of Lord Fouls Bane off the shelf and, courtesy of the local library, reread the entire series in two weeks. Terrific stuff! Cant wait for your new book! Guess I haven't "outgrown" the genre after all.
To the point: Do you worry that what happened to the music industry will happen to the book industry? That is, anyone can steal any song off Kazaa for free. Anyone can copy a book and turn it into a PDF file and share it with the rest of the world. Will people in the near future stop buying books and read free digital copies instead? Is that more likely to happen for fantasy books since their readers tend to be computer-savvy?
|
No, I don't worry about it. The extent to which something is made available illegally is a direct reflection of its commercial popularity. Think drugs--no, wait a minute, think popular music. All of those songs wouldn't be stolen if the same songs weren't already generating pots of money for their performers and recording companies. And certainly the only books of mine which have ever been "bootlegged" on the web are the six "Covenant" books--which just happen to be my only books that ever generated pots of money. In my professional guise as a published author, I frown disapprovingly. But as a private person who has to live off the income from his books, I don't worry for a second. I mean, come on! Who would BOTHER to scan and post the entire "Wheel of Time" just for the thrill of making those books even more widely available? (After all, copying and posting a song off a CD is a hell of a lot easier than scanning and prepping a book.) And at the opposite end of the spectrum, I suspect that Patricia A. McKillip's readers respect her too much to steal from her. (10/12/2004) |
Martin Douglas (Revan of KW) : Alathea... You never mention her after the first Reed Novels... What happens to her? does she recover?
|
Personally, I believe that she recovered well. She was loved. And she obviously had considerable courage and strength of character. But I pity the poor fool who got in her way when she became an adult. <grin> (10/12/2004) |
Drew Bittner: Mr D- second question of the month...
Can you describe how you developed the <i>Haruchai</i>? I pictured them as vaguely Polynesian or perhaps Southeast Asian, and wondered if you had any specific image or concept before creating the Bloodguard and their ancestral people.
thanks!!
Drew
PS, I finished reading Runes last night and wrote the review this morning. I give it my highest recommendation.
|
I imagine it's obvious that I had a vaguely Southeast Asian "type" in mind. As I think I explained much earlier in this interview, when I planned the first "Covenant" trilogy I concentrated on "roles" rather than on "characters": I knew what, say, Giants or Bloodguard or Ramen were going to do, but I didn't necessarily know what they were like; I discovered their character(s) as I wrote. (Incidentally, as I've also explained, I no longer work that way.) Well, when all you have is a "role," sometimes you need more to help you discover the "character." And at that time (the early 70's), I had the vague--if false--idea that martial arts existed as a Southeast Asian phenomenon. So I started there. I'm glad you liked "Runes"! (10/12/2004) |
Ash Quadir: Steven,
Why did you make the relationship between Elena more than a father-and-daughter relationship? Elena kissed Covenant on the lips several times (the first time in Glimmermere); this felt icky. I know somebody who was turned off by this and did not finish the book. What kind of reactions did you get from this unorthodox relationship? (And I know Elena explained that she felt Triock was her father, but still)
Another question, have you ever been offered to do a short story for Legends the very successful Fantasy anthology edited by Robert Silverberg? If so, would you do a Thomas Covenant story? (Perhaps a story about Kevin, Berek, Dameleon, etc? Or even a prequel?)
Finally, you wrote that you excised several hundred pages from the Illearth war by removing the chapter about Korik, Shetra, Hyrims mission to Seareach and putting it in Gildenfire and that you pared down your prose. You said that the original version of the Illearth War was over 900 manuscript pages, but the final book in paperback is a little over 500 pages. Thats a lot of cutting. Is a manuscript page equivalent to a book page? Did you remove other chapters or chunks of story besides the Gildenfire chapter and prose paring? Will we ever see a full and complete version of the Illearth War?
Thanks for writing such great books!
- Ash Quadir
|
Briefly: Yes, Elena's incestuous feelings for Covenant were deliberate on my part. I thought when I wrote "The Illearth War", and still believe, that such ill-conceived attraction/hero worship both dramatized her essential imbalance and foreshadowed her tragic misunderstanding of Kevin. Strangely, readers haven't busted my chops about this very often. But Lester del Rey hated it. I had to tone it down quite a bit before he would publish the book. In retrospect, I think he was right: I did overdo it originally. Silverberg approached me for a "Legends" story. I turned him down. "Gilden-Fire" is the only coherent chunk of story that I've ever cut out of a book completely. All of my other cuts have been "pruning" or "re-envisioning" or "rephrasing." And I don't regret any of them, so there's no chance that they will ever be retrieved from my wastebasket. A manuscript page is probably never equivalent to a book page. Publishers use smaller type and put more lines on a page. (10/12/2004) |
Cat Palmer: I wake up in dreams of Orison.
Would you consider letting me make it into a film?
This demon of desire will not let me go.
Cat
|
Sure, you can make a film out of "Mordant's Need." All you need is mountains of money, thousands of contacts, a lot of know-how--and the movie rights. If you want to acquire the rights, the contact information for my agent is posted on this site (10/12/2004) |
Mark Shaw: You once signed one of your books for a pal of mine whilst on tour in England, and made a joke.
' I'm your biggest fan ' he said
' I've seen taller ' you replied....which I found quite funny.
Is this a standard author/booksigning joke you use often, just waiting for the feeder line ? Do you have any others you can share ? I imagine touring a book must be the worst aspect of your work - how do you cope with it ?
|
Boy, I must have been tired that day. I usually try not to tease people who are being very earnest, and who might take a little humor the wrong way. No, I don't have any standard jokes for booksignings. That one was definitely "off the cuff." I'm afraid I don't cope with book tours very well. I usually go into what I call "survival mode": a state of emotional lockdown in which I function like a machine. Which is reasonable, I suppose, since the entire process treats me like a piece of equipment instead of a person. (10/13/2004) |
Patrick:
Thank you so much for bringing Thomas to us, then,and now. If a movie is ever made of the series, I hope Tom Cruise would get the starring role, I think he would be perfect for it,but,thats another topic in itself. At any rate, my question is, will any part of your Book-signing tour be in Pennsylvania ? I looked through the listed dates,and there was nothing listed there,and, how do you feel now that you have "returned to the land" again ?
Thank You again,I can hardly wait for Runes... :)
Patrick
|
How do I feel now that I've returned to the Land? At the moment, beleaguered. The book tours are about to start; I think I've made it pretty obvious that I dread such experiences; and this whole year has been filled with trying to meet other people's demands instead of doing my own writing (which is, after all, the reason those other demands exist). In other ways, writing is always a teeter-totter between anxiety and excitement for me. So far "The Last Chronicles" has been no different. Incidentally, authors don't choose where they go on book tours (although their suggestions are occasionally solicited, and if they get pushy they are occasionally accomodated). Publishers make those decisions based on a number of factors, the largest of which is probably "budget": how many places can we send so-and-so with the amount of money we have available? (Remember that cheap plane fares are rarely available for such hither-and-yon trips.) (10/13/2004) |
Stuart Gandy: First of all, thank you for vastly expanding my vocabulary, and thank you for having such an open dialogue with your readers (Shakespeare hasn't answered ANY of his fan mail...). I have been salivating since I first heard about Runes, ten years is going to be a helluva wait to see how it ends, but I know it'll be worth it.
My question is, how much do you like to leave up to the reader's imagination? I've noticed that the visual descriptions tend to be allegorical rather than describing physical detail.
Cheers for your time, keep up the good work and be good.
|
Well, I wouldn't have used the word "allegorical" (for reasons explained in my answer to a recent question). I would say that my visual descriptions tend to be "emotional" rather than physically specific. Although there are of course plenty of exceptions, especially in regard to terrain. I'm not a particularly visual person to begin with, while I am an intensely emotional person. So I often care more about what a character, place, thing, or scene *feels* like than what it *looks* like. The hard part, naturally, is to offer a description which inspires both a visual and an emotional image for the reader. That takes some doing, and I wish I succeeded at it more often. (10/13/2004) |
KE8: In response to a question about why Seadreamer was unable to write down the information he possessed, you wrote:
"Is there anything in the "Covenant" books to suggest that the Giants possess a written language? Surely one of the long-term side-effects of writing things down is that people then talk less; tell stories aloud less. But I see no evidence that the Giants talk less than they once did. So why would they *need* a written language?"
I would answer that yes there is: maps. I find it difficult to picture an effective map that does not employ some form of written language. Nor can the maps have been written by someone else - since the Giants are said to be explorers, they would have to be cartographers of some kind, which suggests a written language.
And on the subject of Giants, I have a second question, and its one that I have often wondered about: why were the Unhomed unable to find their way home? Putting aside the various mythological allusions inherent in a group of lost wanderers, why should it be so difficult for this sea-faring people to find Home? They had literally thousands of years to locate it before the events in the First Chronicles. They must know the general direction in which it is to be found. Is the Earth so huge that such a problem is possible? Was there some kind of curse put on them, unmentioned in the story? Or does this fall under the category of a question for which there is no answer, or no relevance?
|
We're wandering outside the text here, so this is dangerous ground. But I'm willing to hazard a few observations. First, there is nothing about being a seafaring people that requires either maps or written language. Polynesian sailors a very long time ago found their way east as far as Pitcairn Island and north as far as Hawaii (vast stretches of ocean)--and returned home--and there is no record that they possessed anything like maps. As far as I've been able to learn, they navigated by an extremely close observation of their surroundings, by expanding their reach in small increments--and by telling the story (sharing knowledge orally). As for how the Giants could become lost: well, history doesn't record how many Polynesian sailors--or Vikings, for that matter--were lost on their journeys; but the distances they covered successfully, while vast, were small compared to the overall size of the planet and its oceans. And they didn't have to cope with navigational hazards like the Soulbiter. (Even in our mundane world, the Bermuda Triangle demonstrates that "getting lost" can have a wide variety of meanings.) Sure, I know that in the original "Chronicles" references are made to visits to such place as the lands of the Elohim and Bhrathair: places which the later Giants clearly know how to find in "The Second Chronicles." But you might want to consider how completely disorienting it could be to get caught in the Soulbiter, only to emerge a continent or two and several oceans away from familiar seas. Especially keeping in mind that the Unhomed admit how reckless their explorations were. (And we won't even mention how notoriously fickle even mundane oceans and weather can be.) (10/14/2004) |
Joel: I know the giants did not have need for a written language and as a result Seadreamer could not communicate his vision in that way, however Covenant and Linden did. The giants did have the gift of language, so why didnt Covenant and Linden attempt to teach him how to read and write English (they had a lot of time on the sea)? Or draw pictures on the deck of the boat? Even charades might have worked, sounds like Im going to die. Of course I understand that if he had been able to communicate his visions the outcome of the quest would have been changed and most likely it would not have been for the better. Anyway, just curious.
|
Once again, we're *way* outside the text. If I had written a different story, naturally it would have been, well, different. But remember that Covenant and Linden have a great many other things on their minds. And remember also that they think they already know what the essential content of Seadreamer's visions is. How can they plan a means to discover the answers to questions when they don't know they need to ask those questions? (Reminds me of an ex-wife who used to say, "You should have asked," in situations where I could not possibly have known there was something I needed to ask about.) (10/14/2004) |
John Duff: Will there be a signed limited editon of Runes of the Earth? If so, who will be publishing it and what is their address or web site.
Thanks
John Duff
|
Hill House plans a "collector's" edition of "Runes," but they have no publication date that I'm aware of. As for how to get in touch with them, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps one of the "contacts" posted on this site can help. Or try Google. (10/14/2004) |
Michael Barkowski: Dear Sir,
As you said, the musicality of your character names and how they describe the essence of the characters really makes a difference, esp. Marc Vestabule, Milos Taverner, Warden Dios, Liette with her wind metaphors, and others you mentioned. It makes for a deeper, more abstract, even more suspenseful reading, almost as if parts of my subconscious are summoned by the names to act out the scenes. I was amazed to hear that you used a dream of words, not images, as the basis of a chapter. I didn't even know it was possible to have a dream of words. Must be a writer thing.
Can you offer any recommendation, even non-fiction, for further exploration of musicality of words as opposed to the imagery of them? By the way, what are some of your favourite character or place names from other authors, or even names of real people?
Your powerful works are a great emotional, spiritual and intellectual blessing, laudable in so many facets, particularly the Gap sequence and the Reave The Just compilation. Keep wrestling!
|
I'm sorry, but I have no idea how any of this "works." I certainly didn't *learn* it anywhere (except perhaps--pure speculation--by listening to operas, music that tells stories, and being moved by them). And I have no idea where or how you could learn more about it. If you're particularly interested, however, you might want to take a look at some of the names in M. John Harrison's work. But most writers seem to use names simply as placeholders for particular characters. (Not that there's anything wrong with doing so.) (10/14/2004) |
Robert Watson: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First of all, thank you for sharing your unique gift with us. It is not hyperbole when I say that you are one of the most gifted storytellers of our time.
I have a litany of questions I could ask you about the Covenant books, but I think many of those you have answered in previous questions, and others I could answer myself if I gave it enough thought. I do have one question that has puzzled me for quite a while. I have a copy of White Gold Wielder that sits dog-eared on my nightstand. On the cover of this book is a half-handed man with a white-gold ring clutching a wooden staff in one hand, and his arm around a rather resolute looking woman as they gaze out over a vista. Clearly, this is Thomas Covenant and Linden Avery. Also as clear is the fact that this *never* happens in the book. So my question is this: Does the artist who creates the book cover read the book? Who instructs the artist on what to create? Why is this so misleading? Do you, as the author, have any say in what image appears on your work?
Okay, I know in the grand scheme of life, this is pretty trivial, but it has bothered me on a subconscious level for quite some time, and now I have the ability to get the answer from the highest authority.
|
A general rule of thumb: the author had nothing whatever to with any aspect of the physical design of the book, especially the cover art. 9 times out of 10--or more--the art director for the publisher plans the cover in discussion with the selected artist; and the art director has not read the book. (There's more variety among artists. Some--e.g. Michael Whelan--insist on reading the whole book. Others are happy to simply work with a "concept" provided by the art director. And there have been publishers who do not *allow* the artist to read the book--doubtless because that might raise the cost of the art.) Exceptions occur--although art directors hate them. When I was at the peak of my career after the publication of "White Gold Wielder," my agent was able to get "cover consultation" written into my contracts for "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales" and "Mordant's Need." Nevertheless "Daughter of Regals" was the only book where I actually got to help choose the cover art. For the two "Mordant's Need" books, the art director shamelessly sabotaged the process (I'll spare you the gory details), leaving me with no effective input at all. And since then I haven't had enough clout to get any real "cover consultation" (although Putnams did *ask* me if I would object to a Whelan cover: I have no idea what they would have done if I had actually objected). The cool thing about that "White Gold Wielder" cover is that when all of those "Covenant" books are placed side by side, they form a single painting. (10/14/2004) |
Clyde C Rowland: Will you ever return to Mordant's Need? I have read all the Thomas Covenant novels several times. I'm happy the last Chronicles is finally coming out.
|
The future is full of uncertainty. At present, however, I have no plans to return to "Mordant's Need." I think the story is finished. (10/14/2004) |
James Reeves: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I'm in the process of reading your books (I have almost finished the first chronicles). In reading such a wonderful series, I wondered if you had any tips for my literary exploits? I am and have been working on a fantasy novel. I am no where near publishing time, but wondered if you had any suggestions? Being a first time author, the writing journey is new. . .we will see how it turns out. . .thanks for writing these excellent, inspiring, and imaginitive novels.
JCR
|
I do have a few generic tips, but I can never remember all of them at the same time. Here are a few. 1) "Anyone who *can* be discouraged from being a writer *should* be discouraged." (Not original; but true nonetheless.) 2) "More things are wrought by stubbornness than this world dreams of." (A shameless paraphrase of Alfred, Lord Tennyson.) 3) "There is only one right way to write--or to become a writer--and that is by figuring it out for yourself." (OK, I made that one up.) Nothing that applies to any other writer is necessarily germane to you. 4) "If you don't apply the seat of your pants to the seat of the chair and actually write, you aren't a writer." (Again, not original: I just rephrased it.) (10/14/2004) |
Theodore Martin: Stephen,
Your book tour is under way, and this web site states you will be in Portland, OR on October 20th (less than a week away), but not when and where. Would you please update the site with the time and place of your tour on the 20th? I am a fan of your work, I will be in Portland on the 20th, and I would really like to meet you.
Thanks, Theodore Martin
|
As it happens, the 20th will be a "vacation day," which by then I will badly need. (10/14/2004) |
Darran Handshaw: Dr. Donaldson,
I have been a great fan of yours for several years now, having started off by reading the Gap Sequence. I realize that you are currently working on the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, which I am eagerly awaiting. As much as I liked Mordant's Need and the Covenant series though, I always find myself thinking back to the Gap universe even though I read it about three years ago.
Have you had any ideas in mind for any future novels in the Gap universe? I realize that it would be implausible to create a story of the magnitude of the original series, but have you ever considered doing a followup book or two? Or maybe even a prequel about a character or two? If not, maybe it could be a thought.
I for one would be interested in seeing the entire story between Sorus and Nick followed by how he gained Captain's Fancy. Or maybe what happened to Angus after the last book.. or even Morn Hyland? Just a few thoughts.. thanks.
-Darran
|
As I just said about "Mordant's Need," the future is full of uncertainty. However, I have no plans to write anything more in the GAP "universe." I'm aware that the present books are full of potential material for subsequent books. But I have no ideas; and without ideas I can't write. To that let me just add that I'll never do anything that might be called a "prequel." If you wonder why, just look at Lucas' three prequel films to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The prequels are, inevitably, boring because (among other reasons) we already know how the story is going to turn out. (10/14/2004) |
Alan: Hello Stephen,
I was disappointed in the LOTR filems because they have to miss so much out from the book. If a set of movies is made of TC I fear too that much will be left out. Will you have any direct say in what should or should not be in a movie.
cheers
Alan :-)
|
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. If a "Covenant" film ever appears, I will have had no influence at all on any aspect of the process or the finished product. Nor would I want any. I write books: what do I know about making movies? And life is too short to spend it worrying about anything other than my own life and writing. (10/14/2004) |
Drew Bittner: Mr. Donaldson,
Question: I'm reading Erikson's "Gardens of the Moon" and am wondering if you've read any of the other Malazan titles yet? From an Amazon search, it seems there are at least seven in the series to date, though only the first seems to have been released through a US publisher.
thanks!
Drew
|
I've read all of the Malazan books which have been released in the UK. (One of the advantages of knowing both the author and his editor.) Erikson is an amazing writer. (10/14/2004) |
Debbie: How can I get an autographed copy of the book when it is released? My husband is a HUGE fan and I would love to give it to him as a gift.
|
There are several ways to go about this. 1) Find a bookstore that has autographed books in stock (there will be a *lot* of them out there). 2) Attend one of my (admittedly sparse) book tour signings. 3) Contact me through my agent (on the "contacts" page of this site) with your s-mail address and how you want the autograph done (e.g. what's your husband's name?), and I'll send you a self-sticking autographed bookplate which you can then place in the book of your choice. (10/14/2004) |
Steve: Mr Donaldson
I was very pleasantly surprised to find the 'Gradual Interview'. As has been remarked on elsewhere, it's very unusual to find an author willing to make such an on-going commitment.
At the risk of upsetting a few people, it might be better if anyone wanting to post a question had a quick read through the archives.....
Anyway, the subject of book jacket artwork seems to crop up regularly. I personally loved the more 'abstract' approach taken by Peter Goodfellow on the early UK editions as compared to the more 'literal' or 'figurative' treatments from Sweet and Whelan (although I'm a big fan of the latters work). Any views on this?
On the subject of short stories...'Unworthy of the Angel', doesn't seem to elicit the same level of discussion as some of your other stories - no comment, just loved it and re-read it regularly.
Thanks.
by the way, with the certain knowledge that you have a number of years of hard work ahead of you if we are to reach the end of the 'Chronicles', take care when crossing roads.......
|
I also loved what I would call Goodfellow's "symbolic" cover art for the original UK paperbacks. Whelan--a terrific artist--also does "symbolic" cover art, but his paintings come closer to being "literal" than Goodfellow's did. Entirely as a matter of personal taste, I prefer the symbolic approach--and the more symbolic the better. Thus I'm particularly pleased with the Orion/Gollancz cover for "The Runes of the Earth." And I'm also very happy with what Tor/Forge has done for my mystery novels. At the opposite end of the spectrum, I hated Sweet's Ballantine/DEL REY covers. Indeed, his "The One Tree" nearly reduced me to tears of pain and frustration. (10/14/2004) |
Dennis Hawthorne: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for granting your readers this interview, and even more so for your literary contribution to the sci-fi/fantasy genre.
I fudged up a half-dozen or so mock questions to ask that would give me an excuse for dumping some praise on you (stopping short of whether Covenant was a Levi's or a Wrangler man). But then I remembered I already had a little one that comes up every time I re-read the Second Chronicles:
Is there someone else to whom you can attribute (paraphrasing here) ["How do you hurt a man who has lost everything? Give him back something broken"]? This smacks of a *great* quote - one that you'd imagine someone would've already come up with during a few thousand years of written history and would have had the presence of mind to jot down somewhere. When I Google some permutations of it, however, all I find are "Donaldson", "Covenant", and uncredited uses of it. Is this truly original? If so, please feel free to add "way cool quote-master" to your already-impressive resume!
Sincerely,
Dennis Hawthorne
P.S., you might like this: whenever I read a terrible book, your short stories are among those I sometimes read afterward to get the "bad taste out of my brain" - so thanks doubly for Reave the Just, which I've happily added to my collection of Bad Fiction Balms.
|
Well, if it's such a great quote, then I must have stolen it. <grin> In fact, I actually thought that I made it up (an extension of the very familiar idea that there's no way to hurt someone who has already lost everything). If I *did* (unconsciously) steal it, I hope that the original author will accept both my regrets and my respect. (10/14/2004) |
Mike White: Hi Mr Donaldson,
Just finished reading the "Gap" series of books again. I'm afraid I just don't get it (relating to poor sales, that is ). I feel like camping in Waterstones booksellers and forcing anyone that comes near to buy all five at once!
This series of books is quite simply the best you've ever written. Period. How in the name of God you can "get your head around" such a series of well-rounded characters is simply beyond me - it must have surely nearly driven you completely to despir! (Perhaps the redemption of certain characters helped you out there!)
I'd go as far to say it's the best work of fiction I've ever read. Quite superb.
I appreciate that at thie moment of time you're probably feeeling, shall we say, a little less "sane" than usual - pre major book launch - and the anxiety that must produce - and your keeness to "get on" with the next book - despite everyone else (publishers etc) seeming to get in the way!
So - and here's the question <phew> how in the name of God DO you stay calm??
PS you referred once to ensuring your characters retained their dignity -as you were the only "God" they had. For the same reason I'm not in the slightest concerned about the success of the "The Last Chronicles". In the words of a true Liverpudlian - they are "gonna be mega mate"!
PPS Which, is apparently a VERY good thing!
|
I think I've answered this already; but I no longer trust my memory. So the short answer is: I *don't* stay calm. (Do any of my books look to you like they were written by a man who knows how to stay calm?) Even written interviews and (comparatively) short promotional essays make me climb the walls. But when they actually happen, I cope with things like in-person interviews and book tours by going into what I call "survival mode": I shut down my emotional life and become the moral equivalent of a machine. This has the *huge* short-term benefit of making me *appear* calm in public. But the long-term costs are high. In effect, I have to experience all of the emotional impacts of interviews or tour events after the fact. And the longer I've been in survival mode, the more intense those impacts are. (10/14/2004) |
KE8: Im rather curious about Covenants decision to make a new Staff of Law. While in the abstract it sounds like a good idea (as the destruction of the first staff was the cause of the Sunbane) I dont see how it could ever have been made to work, practically speaking. For one thing, who could wield it? There are no more Lords (Covenant doesnt count) and there is no one left in the land at the time of the Second Chronicles who has the Lore required to actually make use of the Staff, barring Foul himself. Linden would not be able to make use of a Staff akin to the old one simply by health sense alone. Sunder (possibly) might be able to use it, but only after years of study, which they clearly didnt have. It cannot be doubted that it would take a huge amount of knowledge and power to use it - it is said in Lord Fouls Bane that Drool can only wield it because Foul taught him some of its uses. And yet Covenant not only wants to make one, he believes it can be used for things such as sending Linden back to our world, surely a very complex spell.
And second, how was one to be made? The Staff wasnt just some piece of wood hacked off the One Tree, I presume. Almost certainly it had to be fashioned in the proper manner, and the old staff had runes on it that I imagine meant something, of which nobody alive in the SC knew what they were. Again, with the dearth of Lore in the Land at this time, who would have had the skill to create a New Staff? It seems to me that asking some questions along these lines of the Elohim would have been appropriate, since they would be in a position to know, but it doesnt seem to occur to anyone. Its a bit like a nuke - even if you found a glop of uranium somewhere, you arent going to be able to make a bomb out of it, and if all the scientists that could make one are dead, you are pretty much out of luck
|
It appears to me that you're making a number of assumptions that don't sit well with me. Of course, there is no earthly reason why your view of what you read should agree with mine. But just for the sake of discussion.... 1) In the Land, there is always an inherent relationship between the instrument of power and the wielder of that instrument. Mhoram tells Covenant, "You are the white gold." Foamfollower himself powers his boat to Revelstone, even though the boat has a Gildenlode keel. 2) On that point, it is worth observing that there is a difference between "having lore" and "having power." Lore may give access to power, but it isn't power: it's knowledge that tells you what you can do with your power; or how to accomplish your goals. 3) As the creator of the new Staff of Law, Linden definitely has an inherent relationship with it; so she would certainly be able to use it. 4) I see no reason to believe that "health sense alone" wouldn't be an adequate guide to the power of the Staff. After all, Linden (who has no inherent relationship with Covenant's ring) is able to access wild magic by possessing him by means of her health-sense. Sunder could surely discern the *potential* of the new Staff by health-sense alone. And he has become full of Earthpower himself. Why wouldn't health-sense and a little concentration be enough to let him use the Staff? 5) Indeed, the whole notion of "spells" fits awkwardly within the "Chronicles." Sure, some expressions of power require elaborate rituals. But if you look closely, you'll see that virtually all of *those* expressions are violations of Law: they rupture the natural order. When the Lords raise significant power, their methods are comparatively simple: those methods depend primarily on learned lore guiding inherent power rather than on "spells." 6) Drool naturally needs guidance in order to use the original Staff because he wants to use it in ways which violate its essential nature. Putting it crudely, he wants to "break the Law," and the Staff is all *about* Law. 7) How much of the lore of the Old Lords do you suppose that Berek himself possessed when he first set out to fashion a Staff of Law? Your argument seems to be that he must have known everything that Damelon, Loric, and Kevin (not to mention Berek himself) later discoverd or developed. So who taught Berek? I think the truth must be the other way around: creating the Staff enabled Berek to begin the process of discovering and developing the lore of the Old Lords. 8) Are you certain that the Staff's runes were an original and necessary part of its creation? If so, perhaps you would care to tell me where you find that information. I can't find any reason to believe that the runes could not have been added later, as Berek acquired more and more lore. Even the iron heels of the Staff could have been added later. I grant that the wood from the One Tree would have to be fashioned in some way. But Berek (over-simplifying here) has been granted a relationship with/knowledge of Earthpower. That and a little health-sense may have been all he needed. 9) What it is about the Elohim that makes you think they would *answer* the kinds of questions that you consider appropriate? In short, your "glop of uranium" analogy doesn't seem particularly apt to me. (10/15/2004) |
steve cook: Hello stephen, As i'm sure you must hear on a VERY regular basis,i've been a huge fan of your work for longer than i care to remember. I was blown away when i found this site, and when you actually replied to one of my more inane questions...i was happily amazed that my all-time favourite author took the time communicate with me. (And to the point....) So i really wanted to come to the book signing on Nov. 9th and,at the risk of coming across as a gushy starstruck stalker, actually meet you.
Now having heard how much of an ordeal you find the whole process, i'm wondering if you'd prefer it if i stayed away?
Knowing that your answer is going to be " i couldn't possibly decide for you"i'll ask a 2nd question. If i do decide to come can i bring my own copy to be signed(i don't want to wait another 3 weeks before i get it?)
|
Please come to the signing. That's what signings are *for*. If I didn't accept that, I wouldn't agree to do them. And please do bring your own books to be signed. If I'm going to go to all the trouble of doing a signing, I am *not* going to let some bookstore restrict what can or cannot be signed. (10/15/2004) |
Meaghan Carr: Mr. Donaldson,
I am reading the gap series for a school project (it is amazing, Hashi is my favorite character)and am going to have to write a report in the form of a diary. For this i have to write about two events of your childhood and how you felt about them, two events about your teenagerhood and how you felt about them, and two events about your adult hood and how you felt about them. I was wondering if you could please tell me some events in your life that were significant to you. It would be greatly appreciated if you could and completely understood if you cannot. Thank you sir.
|
As a matter of both policy and preference, I try to keep my personal life as private as I can. (Too many "p" words, if you ask me; but I don't have the energy to rephrase.) There is a certain amount of information available on this site--for example, in the essays you can download from my "publications" page. But other than that.... Please accept my regrets. (10/15/2004) |
Anonymous: kevinswatch.com says Runes will not be out until October 21st; however, both Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com say October 14th. Which is correct?
|
Both and neither. There is considerable variety in when books actually arrive in specific stores; and publishers have next to no control over that variety. Most books are actually sent to stores by independent distributers; and those corporate entities make their own decisions in some unfathomably arcane manner. And the schedules of the shipping agencies--e.g. UPS--often play a part. HowEVer: since the official publication date is October 14 (US), books really should be in the stores by October 21. (10/15/2004) |
Mark Sanges: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Please allow me to add my thanks to you for creating this forum in which your readers can interact with you on such a direct level. I know it's been said about a thousand times in this interview, but it bears repeating. What a treat to get to ask our favorite author a quest and actually have the potential to have it answered directly!
I have about a thousand questions and have hesitated to submit any since many of them have already been asked and answered, so my thanks go out to everyone who has submitted some of my questions as well.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet (yes, I've read and re-read this entire interview) is electronic text (eText, eBooks, etc.). May I ask what your feelings are toward this slowing growing publishing medium? I notice none of your works (with the exception of 2 of your The Man Who... novels) are legitimately available as electronic books. What are your personal feelings toward electronic publishing? I am an avid reader though I love the feel of a book in my hands, at the rate I read and with my voracious appetite for fantasy fiction, I find I enjoy eBooks as I can carry several around in my pocket on a PDA, complete with an electronic dictionary to look up words within a text that I may not know (side note here, you are just about the only author who consistently uses words with which I am not readily familiar and must look up). As far as I can find, none of the Covenant or Gap books are available electronically (at least not legitimately). Are there any plans to publish the Last Chronicles in electronic formats as well as paper and audio? Also, I know Runes will be released on CD. Are you familiar with Audible.com? They are the largest distributor of electronic audio books for use with devices such as MP3 players. Will Runes be released in an electronic audio format or only on CD? I know, these are probably questions better asked of your publisher, however, they haven't yet decided to open so direct a forum for questioning their intentions and motives so I ask you in the hopes that they may have communicated some of these plans to you.
Thanks again for answering our questions.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanges
|
Actually, I had no idea that *any* of my books were available in legitimate e-formats. Would you mind telling me where you found those two "The Man Who..." mysteries as electronic books? I like to know about these things. The steady growth of e-publishing seems to me inevitable. And good: how else can anyone hope to break the demeaning stranglehold which greed-driven mega-corporations currently have on book publishing? In our history, there has probably never been a worse time to be a respected author. Those mega-corporations don't want respected authors, they want fungible bestsellers. If a author can't produce bestsellers, he/she is often history. E-publishing offers a low-cost alternative to the ugly reality of the mega-corporations. And yet.... <sigh> I don't think I'll ever be able to make the transition myself. I need physical books: I can't read novels, or even short stories, off a digital screen. No, the trend *I'm* hoping for is "on-demand" publishing. (Doubtless a variation on e-publishing.) Books would be printed because they've been bought by readers, rather than being bought by readers because they've been printed. That would be another way to take the power out of the hands of the mega-corporations. Incidentally, I've never heard of Audible.com before. Certainly I know of no plans to make any of my books available in that format. (10/16/2004) |
Russ: The weather was bad the other day so I was walking the mall. For no apparent reason I started thinking about Foul. I realized that even after having read the Covenant books several times I had never gotten clear on the cause of Foul's predicament. It has been quite a while but I don't remember catching any echoes of Paradise Lost. Am I remembering correctly that Foul's presence in the Land wasn't the result of a casting out?
|
I'm not in a position to check my facts at the moment. But I've always thought of it as "being trapped inadvertently" rather than as "being cast out." After all, what sort of Creator actually *wants* a being like Lord Foul messing up his creation? Of course, the existence of "a being who creates" sort of necessitates the existence of "a being who destroys." Can't have light without darkness: that sort of thing. But the state of the relationship between such beings pre-Creation lies a long way outside the text, and I'm not particularly interested in speculating about it. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that LF has what he considers a legitimate grievance. He didn't trap *himself* in Time; he isn't *supposed* to be trapped in Time; and as far as he can see the destruction of Time is a small price to pay for the freedom that belongs to him. (10/16/2004) |
Ur-Brett: I am sure you have been "told" but, birds' knees don't bend backward, like Nom's. Anatomically it is actually their ankle, with their 'knee' being higher up.
I love the series, and with great anticipation (AND PATIENCE!) await my further trips to The Land. Do you have a projected timeline for each book's release?
|
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know. As I've said before in this interview, my contract for "The Last Chronicles" gives me three years for each book. At one time, I didn't actually expect to need that much time: I just write better when my deadline is self-imposed instead of demanded by a publisher. However, my US and UK publishers have already burned the first 7 months of my 36 month countdown (and naturally they'll never give me that time back); so suddenly 36 months no longer sounds as generous as it once did. These are *very* complex books; they're going to become *more* complex as they go along; and I write *very* slowly. Sorry about that. (10/16/2004) |
Vince Reilly: I just found out about "Runes of the Earth" and I have been reduced to thetic rubble. I remember when my wife and I, newly married and trying to keep spending low, nevertheless went into NYC to buy "The Wounded Land" in full-price hardcover on the first day it was available. Thanks for an absorbing fantasy world, even though occasionally excruciating.
|
"Thetic rubble," huh? You clearly have a gift for a phrase. <grin> Maybe all that occasional excruciation was good for you. <big grin> (10/04/2004) |
Ash Quadir: Steven,
1. When Covenant meets Hile Troy/Caer-Caveral in Andelain in The Wounded Land, he is in the form of Hile Troy but at the end of The Illearth War he was transformed into a tree. How is this change explained?
2. If Covenant wasnt able to get a branch off of the One Tree because of the Worm and sinking of the Isle, how was Berek able to create the Staff of Law? Didnt he journey to the Isle of the One Tree?
3. If Cable Sea Dreamer wasnt able to speak, why wasnt he able to convey his thoughts by writing them down? Dont the Giants have a written language? For that matter, does the Land have a written language?
Thanks in advance!
- Ash
|
1) Well, if you wanted to be a Forestal, don't you suppose that part of your "initiation" would be to spend some time as a tree? If nothing else, Troy was transformed into a tree in "The Illearth War" to imprison him until Wildwood's music had time to work a deeper transformation. 2) Perhaps I never made it clear that over long spans of time the One Tree, well, moves around. Such archetypal creations don't cease to exist: the sinking of the Isle didn't unmake the One Tree, but simply took it out of reach. I've always assumed that when Berek found the One Tree it was somewhere else entirely, and that the challenges of approaching it and obtaining wood from it were (apart from the Guardian, another archetypal creation) entirely different than those faced by Covenant et al. Incidentally, I've also assumed that the "affront" (to the One Tree) of Berek's actions was in part responsible for the, well, "sensitivity" which caused Covenant and Linden to fail. 3) I've discussed this elsewhere in this interview. (09/10/2004) |
Peter Purcell: Do you have creative control over announcements for Runes?
A review on Amazon.com (edited to remove spoilers--SRD) concludes, Filled with splendid inventions (occasionally described to the point of prolixity), this book promises extremely well for the future of the end of the Covenant chronicles. Expect readers to swarm. Roland Green"
Gives away a number of spoilers.
HOW DARE THEY!! Those who've read the ARCs have chosen to. Those who haven't don't want reviewers spoiling plot lines WITHOUT signally such spoilers well in advance so a reader can skip the review!
BTW, I've read an ARC version - wonderful, but stylistically very different from the prior two (have you read any of the Runes threads at the Watch?) I can't wait to ask you "open" questions on Runes!!
|
Sadly, I have no control at all over such things. And reviewers are notorious for spoilers. Gives them a feeling of power, I suppose. I feel constrained to point out, however, that this isn't really Amazon.com's problem. They're just a store: they don't write any reviews. Part of their service, however, is to make reviews available so that buyers can make "informed" decisions. It's a good idea that only turns out badly when the reviewers have no scruples. (10/17/2004) |
Peter B.: Do you think that fantasy is looked at as a more respected genre today as opposed to when you first started writing? It's certainly more popular. Personally, I think it's a shame that genre classification often slights works that are classified as non-literary, whatever that means. Your Chronicle books are certainly literary to me (as well as epic). More importantly, they resonate INSIDE me. Maybe that's an important distinction, with any literary or merit distinctions being imposed on the OUTSIDE. Still, it seems fantasy is often seen stereotypically, with even the truly imaginative books lumped in with the cardboard-cut-outs.
Thanks again for all your wonderful work and insights! Although the Covenant series is dearest to my heart one of the favorite things you did in any of your stories was transport a science-fiction character/hero (Darsint) into a fanatsy/medieval setting (Mordant).
|
My personal experience is that fantasy is no more respected today than it was 20 or 40 years ago. Indeed, I happen to know of a reviewer for the New York Times Book Review who lost her job because she wrote a favorable review of "The Mirror of Her Dreams." And of course genre stereotyping--what I think of as "category publishing"--perpetuates this problem. Just to pick one random example, Patricia A. McKillip (OK, I'm kidding, that's not random at all) will never get the recognition her literary merit deserves as long as she is categorized as "fantasy" or "young adult." And yet, when we apply the "test of time," the only test that seems to reliably separate wheat from chaff, we can all see that the oldest and most enduring form of literature in ALL LANGUAGES on the planet is fantasy. This cannot be an accident. Obviously fantasy (the form of communication which is only made possible through the use of "magic" and "monsters" as metaphors) speaks of something both profound and universal in the human psyche. When we as a culture sneer at our literary roots (by, for instance, thinking of fantasy as "adolescent wish-fulfillment"), we sneer at ourselves. (10/18/2004) |
Anonymous: Hi Stephen, thank you so much for replying to these questions. You are amazing. :)
I wanted to ask what you think of Book burning... I've read reports that books like yours, Rowlings, Tolkiens books have been burnt; because people think you, she Tolkein, are "Pro-war" and "Pro-rape". And Rowling promotes the Black Arts. Very stupid in my opinion. Naturally it seems to be Americans. "Free-Speech" - yeah right.
What do you think of this? Surely it's as silly to you as to me.
|
It isn't just silly: it's dangerous. Book burning is the act of a society dedicated to self-destruction. History is full of examples of societies that fall from civilization into barbarism; and book-burning always seems to be part of the process. I know the US is still the most materialistically wealthy country on the planet; but I think (just my opinion) that the signs of approaching collapse are all around us. Eventually we'll turn ourselves into a third-world country. I just hope that my children are able to live out their lives before it happens. (10/18/2004) |
Bradakas: I was just wondering; I had looked over your touring schedule and noticed a complete lack of midwest destinations. It was my sincere hope that you might be coming to the Iowa/Nebraska area. Is there any hope for we midwesterners?
-B
|
There have been *many* questions generally like this one posted recently. I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating: authors don't plan or organize tours, publishers do. There's virtually nothing *I* can do about it. Of course, I could plan and organize my *own* tour(s)--if I were willing to give up writing as a way of life, and if I were willing to spend the money (no publisher would agree to pay for a tour they didn't control). But why would I do such a thing? I didn't become a writer because I want to tour: I became a writer because I want to write stories. My present tour is only three days old, and I'm already dying to be at home working on "Fatal Revenant." So *please*: if you're dissatisfied by my tour schedule, address your concerns to my publisher, not to me. I'm in enough trouble as it is. (10/18/2004) |
Peter B.: Stephen,
Just a quick note to say that I hope you're surviving the book tour and will soon be back surrounded by family and friends, writing again.
I read in a review on the Web (sorry, don't rememeber where) that your publisher plans to release the Last Chronicles as a trilogy rather than a tetralogy. Any truth to that?
|
Gosh, what a bizarre rumor! No, there's no truth to it at all. As I've explained elsewhere in this interview, "The Second Chronicles" was planned as a tetralogy and published as a trilogy. But that's ancient history. (10/20/2004) |
Mike G: Enthused by this gradual interview, and armed with all of your insights, I reread The Gap Cycle, which I realized I had not read the last book of....I really enjoyed it a lot more this time- TDAGD was as breathless a finale as I have ever read....it all pulled together wonderfully, especially considering all the pov and storylines that had to be finished...
One question though- What happened to poor Victor? With all of his talk about dying, being a savior, not being brave, etc....all of the sudden he was just dead- like we missed a page or two....Did he jump in front of Angus to save him, or did he just get in the way? I (lol) feel bad for him,that his death didn't get more print...
Does it annoy you at all that readers pick apart your work or look for chinks in the logic, or do yoy just take it with a grain of salt, glad that they care? It must give you a chuckle or two wondering if we must have better things to do...
I (and I know this carries a lot of weight!) look for the new books to vindicate you to the naysayers who think fantasy should be mindless questfests...There isn't much thought provoking fantasy out there, it's mostly just escapism (which is certainly ok). But it is the depth of your writing that makes your books waht they are...
Enough ramblings from Another Reader Who Talks To You Like He Knows You.
|
Well, you've read the GAP books more recently than I have. And I don't have them with me. But I could have sworn that I gave Vector's demise/self-sacrifice more narrative space than you found. He was important to me, and I certainly didn't *intend* to scant his fate. However, events were pretty hectic at that point in the story. Maybe I made the familiar mistake (the curse of my writing life) of leaving out things that were obvious to me, although they could not have been obvious to anyone else. I do occasionally get annoyed at the way some readers pick apart my work. (Just look at the way I OD'ed on "Creator" questions.) But from time to time I also profit from the information. And there are times when the sheer generosity of the things my readers share with me leaves me feeling humbled. (10/20/2004) |
Matthew Orgel: Imagine my surprise to learn that you are a comic book geek! I was just wondering if you were at all familiar with the 2 capstones of the genre, "The Watchmen" and "The Sandman". The Watchmen (soon to be a movie by Aronofsky!!!) seems to be a source of anti-heroes to daunt even your own prodigious supply of them.
Also, no fantasy will ever enlighten and delight me to the degree Gaiman's Sandman has. Perhaps if you haven't heard of The Sandman you have heard of some of Niel Gaiman's novels? Neverwhere, American Gods, or Good Omens are admittadly inferior within their genre to the Sandman, but are still good fantasy.
It seems to me you are more of a Marval man... DC really grabbed the torch and thwacked Marval across the head with it in the late 80s. Maybe looking into these titles would rejuvenate your interest in comic books.
|
Yes, I've read both "The Watchmen" and (much more extensively) "The Sandman." In particular, Gaiman's work on "The Sandman" seems extraordinary to me, and I re-read the whole set every few years just for the pleasure of it. But in other ways I no longer feel drawn to comics. I can't say why: it just happened. (10/20/2004) |
Stephanie : Hello Mr. Donaldson.
A few month's ago in this forum my dad posted a question and in it mentioned that years ago his young daughter (yours truly) loved your books and that I was fascinated by Hile Troy. In your reply you mentioned (and have in other replies to other posts) that you felt these particular works were certainly not meant for young girls.
With this introduction I have a comment and a question...
I was around twelve or so when I first picked up Lord Foul's Bane and began reading. I was fascinated with your writing style and almost immediately began reading up on leprosy just so I could better understand your character. At that age the chapter devoted to Lena's rape turned me so much against your main character that I put down the book. A week or so later, out of some sort of morbid fascination, I picked the book up again and, with the exception of some homework that intefered a bit I never it or the other books down until I made it through both trilogies.
I'm twenty now, and I suppose as wise and 'grown-up' as a twenty year old can be who has been raised UMC in the states with limited travel outside our protected borders. I can also understand and perhaps agree with you when you say you feel your books were not intended for twelve-year-old girls.
On behalf of this former twelve year old I would like to offer you a slightly different view. It's true that when I re-read your books my first year in college I certainly experienced them differently than I had during my younger years. But I must add my first pass through those books filled me with wonder, awe and a lust for more. They led me on and on through the years to new books and new stories. To this day whenever rare free time permits I put down my history or biology textbooks to devote at least a little time for escaping into worlds of fiction created by others.
So, on behalf of the twelve year old girl who fell in love with Foamfollower, Mhoram, Elena, Linden and Bannor....and yes Hile Troy...thank you so much.
And now for my question....in either trilogy did you ever take off in one major direction with a character and then back off and dramatically change your approach? Perhaps a change of heart as you grew into or away from a character, or perhaps at the direction of an editor. I'm not even sure why I'm asking the question, but I thought the answer could be interesting.
|
I am primarily posting your question--and an answer--as an antidote to my own fear of what could happen when young (by which I mean unprepared) readers encounter my books. Thank you for your reassurance. It helps. Did I "ever take off in one major direction with a character and then back off and dramatically change [my] approach"? Yes, once. The Germans have a proverb: All beginnings are hard. This is always true for me; but it was especially true with the character of Linden Avery. She went through a number of "false starts" (most of them before I ever started writing "The Wounded Land") before I finally began to get a useful handle on who she was. The Linden Avery who appears in "The Second Chronicles" is indeed *dramatically* different than my first conception of her. In a pure world (which of course doesn't exist) I probably would have written "Mordant's Need" *before* "The Second Chronicles." Putting it crudely, I needed practice with female protagonists. (On the other hand, "Mordant's Need" is definitely *better* because I got my practice writing "The Second Chronicles"--so I suppose I can't have it both ways. <grin>) I don't like to embarrass myself this way; but for your sake I'll just mention that in one of my "false starts" Linden Avery was not a doctor: she was a graduate student studying the novels of Thomas Covenant. <sigh> What can I tell you? I was young. (10/20/2004) |
Tony Powell: Do you realize that with your guidelines for determining point of view (an answer to a previous question), you taught me more than all the "writing" books in my bookcase?
I wonder if I can get a refund....
|
Shucks, that was nothing. Wait until I get around to writing my "Incredibly Wise Things I've Learned about Life" <grin>. Then you'll be able to ask your *parents* for a refund.... (OK, now I'm laughing out loud.) (10/21/2004) |
Tom Bracken: (As have many others, I first thank you for the inspiration of the Chronicles. No other work has inspired me as much in my work as a physician and as a caring human being!)
My question regards your portrayal of evil and of evil deeds. You have generated some horrific images of evil in your works: Pietten enjoying licking the blood of the dead, ,the giants submitting to the Ravers,the "entertainers" in the Gap series that disemboweled themselves. Perhaps the most disturbing images were those of Linden at the deaths of her father and suicide by suicide and "matricide".
Can portraying such degree of evil become evil itself? I have felt revulsion in reading of Steven King's work; he seems to delight in creating more and even more disgusting and revolting images in his work. Does the description of the evil ultimately lead to a better portrayal of good, even if good doesn't always prevail? Are you yourself ever disturbed that you can create such scenes?
And ultimately, could the 1st and 2nd Chronicles have been "succesful" if Lord Foul hadn't been defeated to any degree at all? Such is the way of the world upon occasion -we feel we do what is right to fight evil but our efforts are not always successful.
I realize some of the answer to this question may require careful reading of the upcoming third Chronicles!
|
Your question prompts a number of reactions. But after being on the road so long--with so much more to go--I'm very tired; so I can't promise you a coherent response. However.... Sure, portraying evil can itself be an evil thing to do--if the portrayal is gratuitous. I've read books where it seems clear that the writer simply delights in inflicting pain on the characters--and on the reader; where inflicting pain seems to be the only real purpose of the book. I don't hesitate to call such books obscene. But we need to be very careful here. We need to be sure that what we're talking about is indeed gratuitous. And there are a number of issues to keep in mind (although I won't be able to remember all the ones I know of right now). First, I want to mention the importance of telling the truth. Evil and horror really do exist in the world, as well as in people; and to pretend that they do not is a lie. Second, the whole notion of "good" has very little meaning if it doesn't imply the notion of "evil". What is "light," after all, if there is no "darkness"? Third, I wonder what concepts such as "redemption" can possibly mean if they don't entail walking through "hell" to get to the other side. Fourth, we live in a cynical and nihilistic age, and if our literature does not face that fact squarely it cannot offer us any substantive alternatives. "When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you." How else can we find out if we have anything in us except emptiness? One of the *many* functions of story-telling as I practice it is that it teaches me how to believe in myself. In life, of course, good doesn't always triumph. Maybe it seldom does. Maybe it never does. But literature isn't about life: it's about living; it's about human beings *going through* the necessary struggles of living; it's about human beings defining the meaning of their own lives as they go through the necessary struggles of living. I'm sure the "Covenant" books would have been FAR less successful if they had ended in victory for the Despiser. But I also know that I would not have considered them worth writing that way. I already know everything I'll ever need to know about how the Despiser wins; and I suspect that the same is true for most of my fellow human beings. What my characters and I desperately need to know is some valid means for achieving a different outcome. Well, I did warn you that this would be rather incoherent.... <rueful smile> (10/21/2004) |
Steve Cohen: Stephen,
Discovering this forum has finally caused me to accept an inescapable truth: Im a Donaldson Groupie. Ive certainly read the books enough, but reading through this forum almost makes me feel like Im attending a 12-step program "Hi, my name is Steve and Ive read both Chronicles of Thomas Covenant cover to cover more times than should be legal."
Okay here are my questions. Assuming that it wont spoil "What Will Come After" would you mind shedding some light onto 1) How Dead Saltheart Foamfollower actually acquired Vain from the Ur-viles? 2) How did Covenants Dead (and good ol Mr. Troy) formulate a solution to save the Land? 3) How/why Covenants dead would have answer to the Lands need different than would be conceived by the Elohim. (Beyond the reason that Elohim through Findail didnt want to bear this particular burden and had that shadow business thanks to Foul weighing them down.)
Final question: when Covenant was about to enter the Banefire, Findail says something along the lines that "he will not leave Covenant and doesnt know how hell prove worthy of him." Is Findail just referring to whats happening in White Gold Wielder or is he referring to What Will Come After in the 3rd Chronicles?
Enough with the questions. Im hoping that the song and tale of the Search is wondrously told and retold amongst the Giants of Home. I could write more and ask more, but this email is too long as it is! Thanks
Steve
|
1) Covenant's Dead in Andelain acquired Vain very simply: the ur-viles gave him to them. 2) The Dead--being dead and all--exist on a different plane of knowledge than the living. Just to pick one obvious example: they have a different relationship with Time. Covenant's Dead don't reveal everything they know because, like the Old Lords, they understand the dangers of unearned knowledge. But they clearly have access to some pretty wide bodies of knowledge. 3) Covenant's Dead are just a bit less selfish, and a whole lot less self-absorbed, than the Elohim. Fundamentally different beings think in fundamentally different ways. (And I won't even mention the special relationship between the Elohim and the Worm of the World's End.) 4) Findail's statement refers to events in "The Second Chronicles." After all, he does *know* what he was Appointed to do: he just doesn't like it. (And yet even he is forced to respect Covenant.) (10/21/2004) |
Hilary Reynolds: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Thank you so much for this interview which I have dubbed in my own mind "The Desultory." I find it to be an almost unparalleled insight into the creative mind. And a creative mind may I say, without the least sycophancy, I consider to be one of the best of it's age. I have found the desultory no less compelling than the First and Second Chronicles of TC. I have also read the Gap books which while I admired the work itself, I found too bleak and the characters too irredeemable for me to truly enjoy. I have so many questions to ask which range from the facile to the somewhat less facile. Let me start by asking two.
1) Was Hile Troy from the "Real World"? Covenant's telpehone calls seem to indicate that he did not exist, though given the nature of agency he was phoning, this may have been a cover up.
2) In some of your responses there seems to be a contradiction when talking about your writing processes. In one place in the desultory you were asked about Nom and you replied "I, of course, knew what was going to happen years before I actually wrote it." Elsewhere when asked about the Last Chronicles you say "but I couldn't tell you the story: it still contains vast unspecified areas which I will discover as I tell the story." The first implies a good deal plotting before hand whereas the second connotes less complete plotting. Which of these is true, do you plot a great deal beforehand or sketchily and fill put the details as you write?
|
1) I've always assumed that Hile Troy was indeed from Covenant's "real world." 2) All of my statements about how I plot are true. As a general rule, I now do less detailed *conscious* plotting than I did when I was younger: I trust the unconscious part of my creative impulse more. But there are enormous variations, not only from book to book, but from year to year in my life, and from detail to detail within a story. When I said that "The Last Chronicles" "still contains vast unspecified areas," I did *not* mean to suggest that it doesn't also contain vast *specified* areas. For example, there are specific characters whose complete stories I *could* tell you right now; but I couldn't necessarily tell you how those stories interact with and catalyze *all* of the stories of specific other characters. Whereas when I wrote the first "Covenant" trilogy, and much of the second, and large parts of "Mordant's Need," I did have more of the details planned in advance. (10/21/2004) |
Allen: Mr. Donaldson, I just had the pleasure to read the interview with you in Locus. I would not worry about whether or not you are as good a writer now as you were when you wrote the original trilogies. I still believe the Gap is your greatest work and I have no fear that the Last Chronicles will surpass the Gap. The first chapter of the Prologue you include on your site tells me you are entering onto a transcendent plane at this point in your career.
My question concerns "Mordant's Need". For some time now I have regarded it as the most minor of your larger works. I am wondering how you view "Mordant's Need" now, looking back at it after so many years. wishes, Allen
|
I've very proud of "Mordant's Need." It is deliberately "more gentle" than my other large works. But does that make it "minor"? I certainly hope not. Beyond question I could not have written the GAP books if I had not first written "Mordant's Need." (And I could not have written "Mordant's Need" if I had not first started writing mystery novels; so there you are.) (10/21/2004) |
John Thorpe: With hindsight, do you think "The <blank> Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" is an appropriate title for each series or just a marketing necessity? That is, is the whole work primarily about Thomas Covenant? It seems like he passed the torch in the Second Chronicles and became something that is difficult to develop further as a character, being dead and the Arch of Time and all.
On a more trivial note, what was Anchorage Farm? An actual farm or just the name of the place where you lived? Where in New Jersey was it? Maybe Ill make a pilgrimage. (kidding, of course)
|
Yes, I do consider "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" to be an appropriate title. You'll see why eventually. Anchorage Farm was a real place in south Jersey. But it was plowed under to make room for a housing development 7-8 years ago. The nearest town was Sewell. (10/21/2004) |
Joseph McSheffrey: Mr. Stephen R. Donaldson,
This is quite an arduous read! I think I'm actually overdosing on Donaldson! Perhaps your editor should have a look at this? That aside, I will not only continue to read this Brobdingnagian interview, as the weeks pass, I will heap more on the pile!
I've only waded through half of this interview but the topic of music has only come up once so far and I must say I'm a bit surprised. Rather than inquire how you pronounce Haruchai or debate the reality of the Land in a purely fictional sense, I would like to know what kind of music you listened to in your youth. I understand you are ninety-five percent Classical now, but surely that has not always been the case. What were you getting down to at your prom? Did they have proms then? *duck* As for now you've got Beethoven written all over you, if your work (hence your imagination) is any indication, but everybody and I mean everybody needs a little Albert King now and then.
Sincerely,
Mr. Joseph McSheffrey
|
As I keep mentioning, I grew up in India as the son of medical missionaries. The missionaries sing hymns, (white) gospel tunes--and old Broadway show tunes. So through high school that's all I knew. In college in the 60's, of course, I was exposed to a bit more variety. My personal taste was toward folk music (e.g. Peter, Paul, and Mary; the Limeliters); but I acquired a few other interests as well: Creedence Clearwater Revival, Three Dog Night, and (to a lesser extent) Blood, Sweat, and Tears. So such music now constitutes maybe 1/10th of 1% of my music-listening. But I'm still (surprise, surprise) drawn to Broadway show tunes: "Rent," "Aida," "Les Miserables." (10/22/2004) |
Rick Monroe: Mr. Donaldson,
I am curious about what drives your desire to refuse rights to anyone wishing to use your created worlds for the setting of other stories. Is it a desire to protect the integrity of your creations from a creative viewpoint, or a feeling that others shouldn't profit from your efforts by building on top of your framework? Or, more likely, some combination of these and other personal beliefs regarding the creative process?
I should say, I don't think I'd care to read stories based on your worlds that were crafted by anyone other than yourself. I look forward to the remaining "Chronicles", as well as all the other books you will write in your never ending life. And I wish you'd come to the East Coast on your book tour.
|
I must not be communicating clearly. *I* don't refuse rights to people who want to write spin-off stories: I don't own those rights. However, you understand correctly that I *would* refuse (unless the spin-off was strictly not-for-money, and full credit was given). Would I give someone else permission to be the father of my children? Would I give someone else permission to sweep away the woman I love? So why on earth would I give someone else permission to dilute/change/revise/distort my work? In addition, I believe that using other people's ideas (instead of coming up with your own) is bad for the people who do the using. But that's a secondary issue. (10/22/2004) |
Tom Newton: Firstly, I would like to thank you for sharing
your gift of storytelling with us all. Also,
...it's pretty cool that you respond to all these posts.
My question is, have you ever read "Foucault's
Pendulum" by Umberto Eco. Taxing at times by
preponderance of names and places but brilliant
nonetheless.
Thanks for increasing my perspicacity.
|
Sorry, I've never had that experience. I'm a very slow reader, so I don't get to read all the books I might wish. (10/22/2004) |
Paul S.: A while back you mentioned:
"At the same time, my US and UK publishers want me to undertake a project which I'm not supposed to talk about, but which will be so back-breakingly burdensome and vastly time-consuming that I'll have no choice except to simply cease living until the project is done. (Sorry, I can't tell you more than that.)"
Can you tell us more, yet?
|
Autographed books are already appearing on eBay. And I'm being inundated with questions like, Why aren't you coming to X city on your tour? So I guess the time has come to reveal the secret. This summer Putnam's had me autograph 7500 (!!!) copies of "Runes." The single most brutal thing I've ever been asked to do for a publisher. (Orion/Gollancz had me sign another 1000, but those were for a collector's limited edition.) Apparently those 7500 books are being distributed in parts of the US where I'm *not* touring. So readers who want signed editions don't have to pay eBay prices. There are a LOT of signed books already out there. And of course I've already posted instructions on how to get a signed bookplate from me directly. (10/24/2004) |
Rick Monroe: Mr. Donaldson,
I am eagerly looking forward to the new books. I hope that an oversight in your travel plans will be corrected, as your publishers seem to be neglecting the eastern half of the US. I hope you will be adding dates to come east.
I have a few questions about your writing process. You have written that stories choose you. Do stories come to you with a beginning and ending (points A and Z), and the middle fleshes out as you write? Or do you have a more holistic view of the story from the start?
I recall reading (not sure where) that you once said that you had a plan for the third chronicles, but would not write them if people kept requesting them. To what degree was this an empty threat? Given your description of the process by which a story chooses you, do you think you could have chosen to not write this story?
|
Stories seem to come to me from a wide variety of starting points. With all of the "Covenant" installments, the starting points were for the endings of the stories; and I had to plan them backward in order to find a place where I could begin. But "Mordant's Need" started with a few lines of poetry; the GAP books began with the names Angus Thermopyle, Morn Hyland, and Nick Succorso; and some of my short stories began with the first sentence (or an early sentence). Several things remain constant, however. I can't write at all until I know what the ending (my reason for telling the story) is going to be; so I always know where I'm going. (But figuring out where or how to begin can be intensely difficult.) I need to have a fairly clear sense of the shape or structure or architecture of the story (although sometimes this "sense" might reasonably be called "holistic"). And I absolutely have to have control over setting. (Even the most "realistic" of my stories, "The Man Who Fought Alone," takes place in an invented city.) Why any of these things should be true, I have no idea. That's just the way my mind works. Clearly my threat that I would *not* write "The Last Chronicles" if people kept asking me about it must have been "empty." But I recall that I meant it half seriously at the time. It is very frustrating to have worked so hard to write so many books, and to be treated as if so little of what I've done actually counts. (10/24/2004) |
Martin Bennett: Hi Steve - really can't wait for 'Runes' - I must have been asleep at the wheel to believe that Covenant would stay dead forever!
Speaking as somebody who is writing their own little stab at immortality (as is everybody else who poses a question here it seems!) my question is this - which do you value higher: (a) constructing fantasy i.e. lands, people, magics or (b) the human aspect. I have heard it said many times that fantasy precludes characterisation - I guess you were skiving that day (sorry - not sure if 'skiving' is a UK colloquialism or not).
In my opinion you managed to bond these two like venom and wild magic in the Banefire (i.e. successfully). I find it difficult to bring in the human aspect without using a 'real-world' protagonist - I then get bogged down with details such as the difference in language between primary and secondary worlds. Unbelief answers this question, but you've already used that one!
Looking forward to your UK tour, whenever that may be.
|
Are a) and b) my only choices? What I value most is telling a story that will excite, move, and (ultimately) change me. But years of experience (not to mention simple common sense) have made it clear to me that telling such stories is utterly dependent on "the human aspect," and that "constructing fantasy" only has value to the extent that it both enables and sheds light on "the human aspect." The notion that fantasy (or sf, or mysteries, or westerns, or horror, or historical drama) "precludes characterisation" is plain bullshit. But then we might need to discuss what we mean by "characterisation." In my personal lexicon, "characterisation" is what writers do when they can't actually create characters: "characterisation" is a series of techniques for creating the *illusion* of character. By that definition, nothing on the planet "precludes characterisation." But I would argue that fantasy also does not preclude "character": indeed, I believe that of all forms of fiction fantasy is the most dependent on character for its credibility and content. (10/24/2004) |
Anonymous: Mr. Donaldson,
You mentioned you sometimes write with the ending in mind.. Do you have an ending already in mind for the Final Chronicles, are you likely to change your mind.
Thanks,
Mike
|
I don't "sometimes" write with the ending in mind: I *always* write with the ending in mind. I can't write without that. So naturally (well, at least it seems natural to me) that never changes. The ending I have in mind for "The Last Chronicles" hasn't changed since I first came up with the ideas in the late '70s, it hasn't changed while writing the first volume, and I cannot imagine that it will change between now and when I finish the project. (10/24/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I just read your answer about what "influence" you may have had on culture, the field, or other authors. I thought you may be interested (or perhaps not :-)) to know that you have influenced other people to become writers. A new author I like very much, David B. Coe, states this on his website:
http://www.sff.net/people/DavidBCoe/Authorpage.htm:
"If Tolkien's books made me want to read as much fantasy as I could get my hands on, Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books (both the first and second Chronicles) made me want to write in this genre. The Covenant books are strange and dark and disturbing. They're also brilliant and, in my opinion, among the most original fantasy sets ever written. They taught me that there was no limit to what fantasy tales could explore any facet of the human condition, no matter how strange or difficult, could be plumbed by the creative mind. All one had to do was find the right approach, the right character. Donaldson found both."
So, while you might not be aware of it, I'm sure this is only one example. I believe you have had a great impact and continue to do so.
Michael
|
It's very kind of David Coe to say such things. I haven't yet had a chance to read any of his books (because I am a VERY slow reader); but I'm looking forward to them. (10/24/2004) |
Ross Edwards: Stephe,
You've said before that you naturally tend to write fantasy novels-- that you have an epic mind (paraphrasing, of course). But now that you've written a lot of fantasy, sci-fi, and mystery novels, what's next? You've dabbled in other genres in your short stories, but is there one other type of story you've always wanted to try?
|
I've responded to such questions earlier in the interview. It is my devout hope that our new organizational structure for the Gradual Interview will make it easier for readers to find the information they want. The short answer is this: I don't choose my stories; my stories choose me. And I make no attempt to control that process. I'll go wherever my ideas go. However, I have a one-track mind; so while I'm working on "The Last Chronicles" I won't make any plans beyond it. (10/27/2004) |
Michael From Santa Fe: I just finished the Gap series. I really enjoyed it and I don't understand why they didn't sell as well as your other works. C'est la vie. My question: you stated on some answers to previous questions that you thought Hashi was your favorite character and that Davies needed a better writer. Why? While I liked Hashi he didn't strike me as a "better" or "better written" character than Davies (I thought you took on an incredibly difficult task in that you put Morn's mind into another character and how do you differntiate the two without making them so different that we don't buy that's it's Morn's mind without making them so much the same that we don't buy them as seperate characters - I thought you pulled it off). My favorite character was Angus and I thought the "best" written character was Nick (A better written asshole you may never find). Is this all just personnal preference? Or does the fact that I am not a writer mean that I am missing something?
|
Yes, it's all "just personal preference." I don't think you're "missing something." I hope I never said that I thought Hashi was my best-written character: he's just one of my personal favorites. And I'm very glad that you feel I did well with Davies--although that doesn't change my (entirely personal) sense of having fallen short of his needs. At its best, story-telling is an interactive process between writer and reader; and your participation in the process is inherently valid. If there is a lesson in here anywhere, it is probably that sometimes the impulses which drive a writer to write are so proFOUNDly personal that no one else can actually understand them. But that doesn't matter. As long as you get something of value out of what's written, the writer is essentially irrelevant. (10/27/2004) |
Phillip Dodson: I just finished reading all of the gradual interview questions and answers, and I don't know if there were specific rules for questions. If there were, and this one is out of bounds or intrusive I apologize. I was just curious, could you describe the experience of doing this gradual interview Q and A, and maybe what, if anything, you've gotten out of it for yourself? If that's getting too personal, once again, I apologize.
Your works have deeply affected me, and came at a time when I was pretty young (14-15) and so having this opportunity to communicate with you in any way is actually pretty daunting, and I keep second guessing myself out of questions (this is the billionth I've come up with and the first I've submitted).
|
The most frustrating aspect of this interview, for me, is the way that questions I've already answered keep reappearing. This, of course, is a natural result of how long and unwieldy the interview has become. Perhaps the new organization which my incredibly diligent webmaster has designed will help alleviate this difficulty. In spite of the frustration, however, I keep plugging away at this because I get two very significant benefits. First, your questions often force me to *think*--which is always good for me, even on those occasions when I would really prefer to be indolent. And second, the interest that this interview has generated reminds me constantly that the real importance of story-telling lies in its power to create bonds between people--people who usually could not be aware of each other's existence in any other way. Under normal circumstances, you can't know--and I can't know--that your response to what I've written connects you to literally thousands of other people around the planet (me included). But a forum like this one allows both you and I to discover that those bonds exist, and that they have substance. (10/27/2004) |
Tracie (Furls Fire): Hail Mr. Donaldson!!
I just wanted to say that I think your poetry is awesome. I especailly like "Rock Poem", which reminds me of how a dear friend felt when I first met him. He was so lost to himself.
And "The Unholy" is fantastic. They are all wonderful!
You said: "The fact that I could only scrounge up eleven poems to post here demonstrates that I don't write much poetry. And the unevenness of the work demonstrates that I'm no poet. Still, I like the idea that visitors to my web site may occasionally read these verses. And I'm confident that no one will actually hold them against me."
My response to this: You are full of hooey. Hold them against you?? Good Lord, man!! These and all the ones I've read in your books, are music! Poetry speaks to the soul and heart of a person. And all of your works, whether it be prose, poetry, or essays, have spoken to both my heart and soul.
I'm a simple reader, and I don't hold to the old myth that poetry has to rhyme, or follow some rigid meter. It's the words and the music that make it a poem. It's the emotion and meaning it conjures it up that makes it a poem. And, being the simple reader that I am, I would love to see more of your poetry. "I'm no poet." Bah! I'm here to tell you, that is just not true.
Have a nice day. <big smile>
Peace,
Tracie
|
I'm posting this, although I have no actual answer to it, because: a) it's good for my ego <grin>; and b) I need a chance to say "Thank You!" to Tracie, who has been *very* supportive ever since I started this site. (10/27/2004) |
Art Griffin: Stephen,I always wondered what the effect of Thomas's polar opposite being drawn to the land by Foul would have upon the land. A strong individual young and vibrant who longs to be the hero,expects to be the hero. Any thoughts along this line?
|
I think I've already done this. Hile Troy is as close as I'm ever likely to get to presenting the Land with Covenant's polar opposite. Except for the part about "being drawn to the Land by Foul," he fits your criteria. (10/28/2004) |
Darrin Cole: I noticed the comment about russel crowe turning down the role of Thomas Covenant(not sure if it was serious) and Just wondered whether you or the people who might make the movie have considered asking viggo mortenson for the role, when I saw him as aragorn in Lord of the rings My first thought was they should make a thomas covenant movie with viggo as covenant he could be perfectly made up to resemble the character I and I imagine many others visualised as Thomas Covenant.
|
I'm not posting this information under "News" because, well, it doesn't qualify. But one plus of my current book tour is that I had a chance to meet with the movie people who bought the "Covenant" option. They turned out to be both very serious movie people and very serious "Covenant" fans: people who could easily be doing other things to make money, but who want to make "Covenant" films because they love the books, and because they see a window of opportunity which didn't exist before the success of the LOTR films. We had a rather wide-ranging discussion, during which they said that they feel they need an "A-list" director but not "A-list" actors. In other words, they want to use much the same approach to casting that Peter Jackson used for LOTR: good actors, but not necessarily "bankable" ones (because "stars" are too expensive). Well, thanks to LOTR, Viggo has probably become too expensive. But I can't see him as Covenant anyway: he doesn't seem to have the emotional range--or the emotional extremes--to play Covenant. (10/28/2004) |
drew in nova scotia: Mr. Donaldson. Your use of language in all that I have read is amazing. I was wondering if when translated to other languages, if it loses the original flare? Some of the terms you create, like Revelstone, gravelingas, or Delsec would not mean as much to someone not familier with English. -In French, is it Saltheart, or Cour de'sel?
|
Sorry, I'm not equipped to comment on any translations of my books. I don't speak or read any language except English. (10/28/2004) |
JSmartt: Thank you for your writing. Your work is the best I have read at combining exciting, 'escapist' (in the best sense) fiction with thought-provoking, personally challenging and helpful ideas.
Is it part of your conscious intent to write material that helps your readers to think and grow as people, or is that simply something that comes from the way you personally view the world and from the stories that come to you?
|
This goes back to my oft-repeated assertion that I'm not a polemicist. My conscious intent is to write the best stories I possibly can--the ones that would give me the most excitement, satisfaction, and even joy to read. To give my stories the best possible author. *If* what I write "helps [my] readers to think and grow as people," that is a side-effect of my attempts to serve my stories well. As it happens, however, I believe that pretty much *all* conscientious, imaginative, and honest story-telling creates (admittedly unconscious) bonds of empathy and understanding between people. In that sense, such story-telling by its very nature "helps ... readers to think and grow." Therefore there is simply no *need* for the writer to consciously "challenge" or "help" the reader. The benefits (for both writer and reader) are inherent to the system. (10/28/2004) |
Ross Edwards: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I just finished rereading the 1st and 2nd Chronicles for the 35-40th time (maybe I'm an inattentive reader, but I always find something new, so I don't consider rereading that many times a waste), and I'm completely eager for Runes to get to Chicago! As a writer who reads, are there any books that you've reread an insane number of times? Or do you generally just move from book to book?
Also, a few months ago I offered to do free copyediting for your next books, just so I could get my greedy hands on an advance copy. Now that I've learned from the Video Interview on the site how much you despise copyeditors, thank God you turned me down!
Thanks, and take care!
|
Because I'm such a SLOW reader (being an English major in college and grad school trained that into me, and I can't get rid of it--although I don't actually want to), I've never re-read anything on the scale you describe. My 5 times through LOTR is the most re-reading I've ever done. Except possibly for Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." (10/28/2004) |
Ken Thompson: As with many, I have thoroughly enjoyed the Covenant series. The only negative being, having first read Lord Foul's Bane when I was in High School, I was effectively ruined as far as the fantasy genre goes. Everything else out there seemed so shallow, except maybe Dune. Nothing I've ever picked up since has managed to hold my interest. Your so-called "overwriting" makes for very good story telling. It's hard to hold back when you first read through, but it's worth every minute. I am eagerly anticipating the new books as I may for the first time in many years have book that I can really sink my teeth into.
Questions:
1. I know you've probably call "out of bounds, I haven't gone there...," but I must ask. What on earth gave the inspiration for the Ur-viles and Waynhim? It was fascinatingly open ended...Demondim...Viles, who were those guys. You'll probably never ever write about that era again. The story of the Ur-viles and Waynhim and their Wrd provokes some thinking. They are by nature perverse, in a very loose sense they remind me of good and bad laywers. They typically aren't held in high regard, and neither are the demondim spawn!
2. You've often spoken of your childhood in India with much discomfort, but is there anything that you've taken from there that you would characterize as positive?
|
Thank you! 1) I wouldn't really call your question "out of bounds." But it does make me squirm. In part because it may or may not imply spoilers. And in part because there are certain kinds of subjects about which I prefer not to get too specific: the Creator, creation myths, the Worm of the World's End, and so on. In purely practical terms, however, I simply don't remember where the original inspiration came from. All I remember is that the ideas started with the Waynhim and expanded from there to include ur-viles, Demondim, and Viles. 2) Well, my childhood in India played an ENORMOUS role in making me who I am today. Is that positive? I hope so. Certainly I had an exotic and exciting childhood. And very often life-threatening: so often that as a parent I shudder to remember it. (10/29/2004) |
TOM C: Mr. Donaldson, thank you for answering my first question regarding your thoughts on the matter of fan fiction. Since receiving your response I wrote a short piece, that I shared with Kevinswatch, to illustrate my opinion on the subject of Lord Fouls tenure on the Council of Lords. (Per your advice I made certain to include the proper disclaimers.) Though I certainly enjoyed writing the story as a fan, I felt far more satisfaction in making my point in the discussion. The concept of the Lands most hated enemy having infiltrated the Council and befriending Kevin himself is fascinating to me and I would like to ask you about the nature of Fouls participation. I have proposed that LF may have at times deliberately created scenarios for which he would be given the opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty and bravery to Kevin and the Council while at the same time furthering his clandestine and far reaching plans. In the scenario I created, Foul (whom I name Lord Jeroth for the sake of a less obvious label) hatches a fairly complex plot in order to do away with a certain young Lord who has drawn his ire. I liken it to using a sledgehammer to crush a cockroach. However the argument has been made that Foul may not have risked meddling or influencing events so that his deception would remain iron clad until he felt the time was ripe to spring his trap. I personally dont believe LF could resist stirring the stew while he waited for it to cook. I realize this debate concerns subject matter that you have only hinted at in the course of telling your story and my question likely asks for a great deal of speculation on your part but I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on the subject.
Thanks,
Tom Cummins
|
As I've just said, one problem here is that the subject may or may not contain spoilers. In some cases, I don't want to discuss certain things because I have specific plans. In others, I avoid discussion because I simply want to keep my options open. But remember that Lord Foul has a long history of working through misdirection, subordinates, and proxies. And remember that, in spite of his obvious delight in petty malice, there is no evidence that he has ever risked his larger plans for the sake of some smaller goal. No, even when he appears to be at his most overt and petty, his intent is to manipulate a response which will serve his larger purposes. (10/29/2004) |
Bryan J. Flynn: Thanks for taking us back to the Land. Thanks also for this gradual interview; I find it enlightening while re-reading the series in prep for "Runes of the Earth."
I have one question:
Have you ever considered a point of view from Lord Foul and if so what would he say to the reader? I found Holt Fasner's POV well worth the wait in the Gap Series, and was curious if Lord Foul had anything to say beyond what we know.
|
I'm reluctant to rule anything out; but I consider it unlikely that I'll ever write anything from Lord Foul's POV. As a character, he exists on a different order of magnitude than his opponents in the Land--or than Holt Fasner, who for all of his narcissism was as mortal as anyone else. I suspect that I couldn't write from Lord Foul's POV without diminishing him in some way. (10/29/2004) |
David: Mr. Donaldson - Would you discuss the business aspects of being a writer? I assume each writer negotiates specific terms for each book(s) that gets published. What role does an agent play in the process? Generally, how are you compensated for writing (i.e., a royalty per book sold? does the publisher bear the cost of publishing/promoting the book, and then subtract the costs from the royalties?, etc.) My second question. In addition to the scheduled book tour for "Runes", do you expect any additional magazine and/or television coverage? I still have a copy of the "People" magazine article that came out in the early 80's/late 70s about the Covenant series.
I look forward to meeting you at the Tattered Cover in Denver. Thank you!
|
Strangely, this question didn't come up at the "Tattered Cover".... The world has changed since I got my publishing break by sending in an unsolicited manuscript. Nowaday editors never read unsolicited material; so an agent is a necessity. And in the real world, the most practical way to get an agent is to first establish a track-record of some kind, for example by getting some short stories published (no agent can help you with short stories anyway). Also referrals are good: you want an agent whom you know to have a good reputation. For novels, there are two main forms of publishing: "work for hire" (where the publisher pays the author a flat fee, and--usually--owns all the rights forever) and royalty. In both, the publisher bears all of the costs of producing, distributing, and promoting the book. In royalty publishing, the author is paid a (negotiable) percentage of the cover price of each book sold. However, a (negotiable) amount is paid up front as an "advance on royalties"; then the author receives no more money until the publisher has paid itself back for the advance out of the author's royalties. The publisher's costs are *never* subtracted from the author's royalties. Unless you're dealing with what we call a "vanity press": a publisher that uses *your* money to produce books. This is almost always a disaster for the author because such publishers actually have no means of distributing or promoting the book: they make their profit directly off the author. (10/30/2004) |
Phillip Dodson: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I used to read a lot of fantasy, but after a while (I think in part to a lack of exposure to fantasy that appealed to my intellectual side) I lost interest, and started in on some fiction. Specifically, Conrad and Faulkner, and also JD Salinger. However, the Covenant series always remained a part of my read and re-read selection, and I kept finding myself buying cheap second hand book copies of the first and second chronicles, whenever I am in one of those establishments.
At any rate, can you think of any ways, either broad or specific, that Faulkner's style dealing with characterization, mood or setting that you carried with you into your writing?
|
If you look closely, I think you'll see significant echoes of Faulkner in the way Covenant talks when he gets worked up enough to make a speech about something. And of course the echoes of Conrad in the prose sytle of the "Covenant" books are hard to miss. (10/30/2004) |
James Kiernan: First of all, thank you. Your Covenant Chronicles are definitely a gift to me. I live in New York state. Are you coming east for any book tours? Now a Covenant question. It seems as if The Worm of the World's end is real. Does this negate the creation story told by Mhoram? I don't think so, for all cultures have different creation myths. I also do not understand how Berek got the limb from the one tree? How did he not wake the worm?
|
As I've discussed before, I see no conflict at all between the various "creation cosmologies" which are presented in the "Covenant" books. Nor do I have any difficulty with the idea that they are all "real": since they don't conflict with each other, they can all be true simultaneously. But that does not imply that the world, or anything in it, is static. I've suggested elsewhere that just because Covenant and Linden found the One Tree in an island doesn't necessarily mean that Berek also found it there. And the fact that the Worm was "restive" when Covenant--and his white gold ring--approached doesn't necessarily mean that Berek faced similar difficulties. Indeed, it may well be that Berek's actions *caused* the restiveness that troubled Covenant and Linden. (10/30/2004) |
Alan: why a third series?
all the way through the 1st series people died to give covenant a chance against foul and I can understand why foul came back. In the 2nd chronicles however TC is raised to the stature of pure wild magic between foul and the arch. Linden then creates a new staff of law. this staff is created by the pinicle of the urvile law (vain whose purpose is greatly to be desired) and the elohim, beings of pure earth power. I fail to see how foul can come back. could you please explain.
puzzled of UK
|
I'm tempted to say, Read the book and find out. But that might miss the point of your question. How is it possible for Lord Foul to recover his vitality? My attitude is, How is it possible for him *not* to recover his vitality? Of course, there are some practical points covered in "The Runes of the Earth" that I don't want to mention here. But the story of the "Covenant" books so far describes a couple of (I believe) temporary solutions to what we might call "the problem of evil." And as long as those solutions ("power" in the first trilogy, "surrender" in the second) are temporary, Lord Foul *must* return. In "The Last Chronicles" my characters will be looking for a more enduring solution. (I, of course, already know what that solution is.) (10/30/2004) |
Jerry : Not really a question but a comment. Just bought Runes and slowly read the prolog. WOW! Thank you again. Though long, the wait has been worth it if only for the beginning.
|
Thanks! That's good to hear. (10/30/2004) |
David: Dear Sir; Do you ever plan on anything good happening to Mick. He is a good guy by nature but it seems that he's always just P.O'd somebody off. He is just doing his job and wants the good guys to win but always ends up the sacrificial lamb. Give him a break for crying out loud.
|
I guess I disagree with some of your underlying assumptions. It appears to me that good things happen to (and for) Brew in every book. Of course, some--perhaps many--of those things are painful; even terribly painful. But life is like that. Certainly mine is; and I suspect I'm not alone. If the journeys we all go through weren't painful, they wouldn't give us the opportunities to learn and grow that we all urgently need. In any case, I cling to the central principle on which my stories are based: the stories happen to those people who most desperately need them. Through his pain, Brew has come a very long way since the beginning of "Brother." I don't feel sorry for him, I'm proud of him. (10/30/2004) |
Peter J Purcell: I deeply appreciate your dedication to answering our questions. It is especially impressive as you are burdened with your book tour [and we all know how much you like touring! ;-)] Thank you.
Now my question; do you angst and rewrite and proof your answer to our questions anywhere near as much as you angst and rewrite when you're writing your fiction? If so you deserve several orders of magnitude MORE appreciation than we have given you to-date!!
|
Well, *angst* might be too strong a word. But I'm a compulsive self-editor, rewriting and revising constantly. Which is why these questions get answered so slowly (well, that, and the fact that I have so little time)--and why I carry on virtually no "ordinary" correspondence. (10/30/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I've never been to an author's book tour event. What will happen if I go to yours? Do I have to purchase the book there, or can I bring a copy I've purchased before and have you sign it? Will you sign copies of your other books? Do you plan to speak, or will you be sitting and signing? Thanks for any info.
|
I'm sorry this hasn't been made clear. No, you don't need to buy a book. Yes, you can bring your own books to be signed. Yes, I usually talk for a while before I sign. But no matter how long it takes, I don't turn anyone away. (10/30/2004) |
Hazel: Do you anticipate difficulties in translating the complexity of thes Covenant novels into film format? Are you likely to write the screenplay yourself?
|
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) |
Will: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
As you have stated several times in this interview, you have grown and evolved much as a writer in the 20+ years since you finished the Second Chronicles. Are there any particular things that you will do/have done differently in writing the Last Chronicles? Are there any stylistic or technical aspects of the first two Chronicles that in hindsight you would choose not to repeat?
thanks!
|
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) |
Matthew Orgel: Well, I would first like to say that in the past months I have pulled a Donaldson marathon, rereading Mordant's Need, and reading the entire chronicles for the first time. I finished White Gold Wielder last night and I am still shell shocked. (I got The Real Story sitting on my nightstand right now)
The emotional impact these books have had on me is profound, and I seem to be drawing absolute reams of personal meaning from what I have read.
The only time I cried in the whole chrons? Lindon and Covenant's realization and consummation of love. I just wanted to know, is this all my own personal interpretation? Or was this the core of your purpose?
One other thing, this mad passion of yours for killing principles was beginning to wear me down at the end of WGW. Was this consciously vindicated by Cear Caverol's breaking of the law of life? Perhaps the only thing in the whole series that affected me as much as the redemption of Covenant and Lindon was Sunder's breakdown after you killed Hollian. (I somehow grew extremely attached to Sunder, I felt he was an important anchor for Covenant and Lindon)
|
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) |
Martin Bennett: Are the Creator of the Land and Covenant one and the same? I seem to remember Linden feeling that the two resembled one another. Foul also resembles Covenant, according to the man himself. What then is the nature of this Creator/Covenant/Despiser relationship? Or perhaps the Creator is the opposite of the Despiser within Covenant? Is the Despiser battling his 'Enemy' for ultimate possession of Covenant's soul?
|
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) |
Usivius: I am a casual user of internet at best, but imagine my joy at having stumbled upon your OFFICIAL website! AND you answer questions! (a bit of fan awe..)you are my favourite author. Your style of writing inspired me to write, mainly because of the visual images and emotional impact your words create in me. I have many many questions, but I will limit myself to one every week or so...
I am primarily a visual person. I draw and I paint. But writing has the ability to create things that the visual mind cannot adequately put on a surface. I am especially astounded at your ability to create fantastic characters in such confined spaces. I have felt the most impact of your writing in such 'confined' spaces as book 1 of "Mordant's Need", where almost the entire action takes place in a castle; and in the Gap series, where in many books, the best stuff is written in the confines of a spaceship, or the buildings of leaders.
My (rather roundabout) questions is, do you approach writing differently when describing scenes/action/plot that takes place in such confined spaces? I just find it so much more intense and viseral (and visual).
|
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) |
Bill Foley: Thanks so much for being so accessible and forthright in considering our questions; much appreciated. Let me also echo the senitments of others by sharing my beliefe that you're "way up there" on the list of the great top authors in my book. Thanks for your talent.
I'm re-reading the 1st and 2nd Chronicles in anticipation of the arrival of a complex and exciting Final Chronicles soon. A question occurs...
Please describe your thoughts on the relationship between the Land's Creator and the Creator of the "real" world. Same?
Congratulations in advance for what I am certain will be a resounding success with the Last Chronicles and best wishes to you for continued prosperity and happiness.
|
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) |
Kevin: Mr. Donaldson: If we were ever to meet, I'm afraid it would be as adversaries of sorts.
You've described often enough how you feel about book tours. However, if I ever get a chance to, I will nevertheless insist on joining a drooling, line-looped hoard in order to push a mass-produced example of your work into your personal space in order to induce compulsory handwriting. Or something like that. It's bizarre, I suppose, that that would be meaningful to me, but, then again, it's not really how I dream it would be either.
So: is there any gesture, expression, or consideration that a fan might offer to you at a tour event that could make things nicer for you, or that you would appreciate?
|
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) |
Ranyhyn: Hi Steve, my question is probably pretty obvious considering my name. My mother named me after the Ranyhyn in your Thomas Covenant series because she loved the name. I haven't read the books yet myself but I have looked at the glossary of names in the back of the books and I 've always wanted to know, did you make up the names in your books (including mine) or were they taken from somewhere? and how is Ranyhyn supposed to be pronounced? My parents pronounced it Ranyin but I'm just curious to know whether that's the way it's supposed to be said.
Ranyhyn
|
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) |
mike white: Hi Mr Donaldson,
Any news on how sales of "runes" are going?
|
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) |
Garry Maynard: Hi Mr Donaldson i was wondering if you might have considered doing a movie version of Lord Foul's Bane?
I have always been a great admirer of fantasy literature. In 1985 my stepfather gave me Lord Foul's Bane as birthday gift(13 years old). In reading this novel i became aware of the anti hero element in mythical based literature. Is there more impact in the telling of disbelief in self worth as a basis of story in comparison to conviction of the hero who always believes that they will win?
Thankyou for giving me an opportunity to communicate with you as i have always liked your writing yours truly Garry maynard
|
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) |
Joseph McSheffrey: What's the R. stand for?
|
Reeder. My mother's maiden name. (11/04/2004) |
John Gauker: I want you to know that you have greatly underrated yourself as Science Fiction writer. It is my opinion that the GAP books are the best I have read in the genre and I have been reading SF and Fantasy books for over 30 years. You are among the authors that I read without even thinking about any promotional material, Terry Pratchett is the other. I have Runes on order and have some guesses as to the content that I do not expect you to confirm or deny. One of which is that Covenant was transported to the Land in the fire similarly to Hile Troy and is somehow still aging as if he were still in the "regular" world and will be a major character in this series of books. After all that, my question is a simple one. How far have you progressed in the writing of the next book? I know you have stated that it will take you 10 years to complete this part of the story but I am very impatient.
|
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) |
Christian Van Raam from Minnesota: Mr. Donaldson,
Have you considered writing a prequel to the thomas Covenant books? A kind of history of the land similar to J.R.R. tolkeins "Simmarillion". With the stories of Berek, Loric, Damaleon and Kevin. Maybe with the story of the one forest. just an idea, I have always thought that the history of the land was fascinating and much deeper than what other authors put into their books.
Also we would be honored if you would visit the "frozen chosen" in Minnesota during your book tour.
|
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) |
David B McClendon: Just got my confimation from amazon.com that my copy of "Runes" is on the way. I ordered it a couple of months ago. I'm 46 years old and remember sharing the second C's among my coworkers back in the early or mid eighties.
Back in the late 90's I was a sofware product manager and was involved in an intense development effect. To make a long story short, I sent out a email after a intense period to my guys (guy means both males and females) that they were the "white gold." I was accussed of be be "under the influence" (guilty).
One of my favorite characters was Amok. He was wise, very poweful, yet, eventuanly, submitted to his fate, only at the end complainling about his "short" life.
Do you have any further thoghts about Anmok you wonld like to share?
Thanks
|
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) |
John Rea: Hi Steve:
My jaw literally dropped wide open when my amazon home page broke the very unexpected and welcome news about the Last Chronicles. I couldn't believe it, and I am now happily staying awake into the night reading.
I can't figure out how to phrase this request in the form of a question: please find another literary description to replace "retreat into autism".
At two places in the Gap, you refer to a highly stressed-out character as "retreating into autism." When you and I were in school, a long long time ago, it was thought that autism (then called childhood schizophrenia) was an emotional disorder brought on by refrigerator mothers and treatable by Freudian therapy (as everything was in those days).
Well, everything we thought we knew about autism has been proven wrong over the past 20-30 years. We now know it is not an emotional condition. We know it is not like catatonia or living in a dream world. We do know it is probably genetic in origin, triggered during pregnancy or early years of life by infection or antibiotics or even childhood vaccinations. Organically, it is a form of brain damage: different areas of the brain don't develop properly during the first few years of life, resulting in a large number of not-fully-formed neurons. We also now see an "epidemic" of autism - - at least, a large increase in diagnosis of the disorder is being seen. The increase is "real": after taking into account over-diagnoses of the condition, and the welfare-state-magnet effects, there is still a sharp increase.
As you might guess, I have a child with autism, and the Thomas Covenant books helped me cope with the initial shock of the diagnosis. I'd sometimes wonder how the Covenant story would have read if Covenant had been autistic instead of a leper.
|
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) |
Mark: Greetings Mr. Donaldson,
This may seem like a silly question, but I'm curious: Is there any significance to the fact that High Lord Kevin is the only character (that I can recall) that you gave a fairly mundane name to? Every other non-"real world" character I can think of has at least a somewhat unusual or fantasy-type name (Berek, Damelon, Linden, even TC goes by Covenant rather than Thomas), except Kevin. Was that intentional?
Thank you for all your work,
Mark
|
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) |
Kyle: Mr. Donaldson,
Let me start by saying brevity is not one of my strong suits, that being said I ran across this site while trying to find some information on the release of Runes, and was surprised to see that an author in the midst of writing, promoting, and doing book tours, was willing to take the time to interact with his fans in this way, thanks.
I read some of the questions that were posted at the beginning of this Interview and the last couple months worth. Unfortunately I dont have the time to read them all, so if I bring up something you have already touched on Im sorry. I did read enough of them to notice that some of your fans remind me of those kids I knew in High School known as Trekkies. Im not saying this as a put down, they just remind me that group because they are on the edge of the whole what is real what is not precipice.
I have also noticed another group of fans that write asking questions that seem to over analyze the intent and/or the meaning and/or the symbolism of the story. I have always felt that if you over analyze something or dissect it too far, it tends to loose its magical quality and sense of awe.
I bring all of this up as a preface to my question.
Do these types of questions or attitudes bother you?
Oh, and by the way, the Thomas Covenant series and Patrick McManus writings are the only books Ive read more than once, thanks for the wonderful contribution to the literary world, Kyle
|
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) |
Eric Eaton: Why did you allow for so much time to go by between the time of the Land and the real world? Why have there be thousands of years in the ten year absence of TC?
Also, when is the movie coming out?
|
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) |
Martin Bennett: I haven't yet completed reading Runes, so my answer may come within the pages of the book, but just in case:
Anele | elenA
Is this something to do with the corruption of Time? Both possessed Staffs (staves?), and both lost them. Both were involved in breakages of Law, although not with equal culpability.
What I am trying to say is - is the naming of Anele as the reverse of Elena a coincidence?
Martin Bennett
|
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) |
Starla Stone: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I find it amazing that you are kind enough to answer all of our questions. Thankyou.
Does answering all our questions ever keep you from working on your novels?
|
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) |
Kyle: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks for answering my somewhat "controversial question, It has given me some possible insights to some of the perceptions I have had of other fans (both yours and others).
So let me ask you another question, In the First Chronicles the books moved Thomas back and forth between the real world and The Land 3 or 4 times (depending on how you look at it), however the Second Chronicles took place entirely in The Land. What I was wondering (Unless it will spoil any plot issues) was if The Last Chronicles will move back and forth between The Real world and the Land or will we be in the Land throughout the series?
Thanks again Kyle
|
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) |
Jay: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Here's yet another 'I love your work' post, and I'm ecstatic that we can return to the land for a final time.
You inspired me to become a writer when I read the Chronicles during their initial release. You're comments about writing productivity -- 'slow and steady' vs. 'rush of inspiration -- intrigue me. I struggle with my own productivity on a day to day basis (kidnapping my internal editor and throwing him in a dark closet has helped somewhat).
You mentioned in a previous post that you write slowly. On average how many words per day do you write when tackling a large project such as The Runes of the Earth? (I'm guessing that first draft vs. second draft word counts per day also vary widely).
Some writers, such as Stephen King, claim to write up to 2000-3000 words per day, every day (given King's knack for circumlocution, I'm wondering how many of those words end up in a final draft). Other writers write only a few hundred words a day, but make every attempt to make each and every word count.
Do you write each and every day during the writing of a novel? How many words per day do you usually write? And finally, could you give us more insight into what mental roadblocks are thrown up that cause a writer to 'write slowly?'
Thanks for your time!
|
My productivity varies widely from day to day. When I was (much) younger, I used to consider 2000-2300 words a good days 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 dont 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 Im hoping to improve my weekly (if not my daily) average. Roadblocks? I just mentioned children (although they enrich my life so much that I cant 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 Ive 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? Hes coasting. <grin> I know writers who can do 7000 words a day without strain. (11/09/2004) |
Pete Chegwin: Steve,
NOM was, and I hope is still , a fantastic character in the new books . Did you base this the character on anything in particular?
I have read the cronicals on three occasions, and still pick up on things that I missed before.
Looking forward to the new books.
Many thank's for giving me the reason to read.
Regards,
Pete Chegwin
|
No, Nom wasnt 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, Im not going to comment on whether or not Nom has a future in The Last Chronicles. Maybe yes, maybe no. (11/09/2004) |
Scott: Steve,
Firstly, I just finished reading "The Runes of the Earth". I wanted to compliment you on a great beginning to the saga. Your writing immediately brought me back to the world you created and had me turning page after page. The greatest compliment I can give you is that the one flaw in the book happens on page 513. Obviously due to some typographical error, the text for the next book was not added. I mean, the book actually ends.
While realistically I expected this, my emotions are not as logical as I would like them to be and I have to admit I uttered some bad words concerning yourself and various things that should occur for not having finished all four books and publishing them together. Now, after therapy and medication, I can say I am feeling much better and take back most of what I said about you.
My question (spoiler-free) is as follows:
While its been awhile since I've reread the previous books, it seems to me that as I read Runes, I found myself thinking of scenes from the 2nd Chronicles, foreshadowing of events in this last series. Most partuclar, my memory keeps going back to the time among the Elohim. Are there elements in the 2nd Chronicles that may have seemed out of place at the time, are now more fully ingrained becuase of the last chronicles? I gues I am wondering to what extent did you place the seeds in the 2nd Chronicles purposefully.
Thanks again for not only an outstanding piece of writing, but for the time you have taken to answer questions.
Scott
|
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) |
Henry Galio: Mr Donaldson,
First of all thank you for the outstanding stories over the years. I read Lord Fouls Bane, as a junior high school student in the 70's. Every year I'd wait for the next book to be released.
Today, I took a trip to 4 Barnes and Noble stores and one Border store to finally find and purchase "Runes". Turning the first page, melted away 30 years, and I feel like I'm plunging once again into a magnificant story.
My question is this. Did you always want to be a writer, and when did the story or concept of Covenant and the land first come to into your thoughts.
Once again,
Sincerely thank you for sharing all your wonderful stories.
Kindest Regards,
Henry
|
I didnt 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 Ive discussed the details elsewhere). The concept for Covenant and the Land (again I think Ive 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) |
Sean Farrell: Hello Mr Donaldson
First of all, hope the tour flies by - I think we'd ALL rather you were writing Fatal Revenant than breaking your wrist signing book after book after bo... When you come to Britain, I hope we treat you well. Certainly Orion are doing a good job so far - selling it well into shops and producing a FINE volume. They really are taking this seriously, you know.
Anyway, I was just wandering through the discussion board when I wondered if you are going to do the same now that there are so many postulations about 'what might happen next?' I suppose my worry is that some of the (sometimes interesting, mostly incredible) might influence you somehow...how can you possibly NOT be affected by other peoples opinions of a work in progress? I imagine that would be very hard indeed. Discipline simply doesn't cover it!
|
Youre right about the dangers. I cant afford to be influenced by the way other peoples 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 Ive said elsewhere, I try not to get *too* caught up in ego issues. <rueful smile> (11/09/2004) |
thinbudha: Greetings, and thank you for some of my favorite books.
I have a question about Lysol- I think that I remember reading once about how an unfortunate encounter you once had with a can of Lysol led to inspiration for one of your books- or a passage- or something(?)
Am I crazy- I can't find this anywhere. Perhaps I had my own unfortunate incident with Lysol, and am imagining the whole thing? Can you enlighten me?
|
I think youll be able to find your answer now that were adding a word-search tool to the Gradual Interview. (I leave it to my readers to answer my webmasters question: is the GI upper or lower?) But briefly: the scene in The Power that Preserves where Lena and a Ranyhyn save Covenant from Piettens betrayal came to me while I was reading a Lysol disinfectant can in a truck-stop mens room. (11/09/2004) |
Hastypete: I finally got my hands on Runes of the Earth! A couple weeks back, I started reading Lord Foul's Bane. My question is do you thing that it is necessary to read (or re-read in my case) the prior chronicles to fully enjoy this book? I'm trying to get my wife to read, but she hasn't yet read any of your other work.
Forgive me if this has been asked before, I am very slowly working my way though this interview. I'm only up to June!
Thank you for telling the stories that give my ears so much joy. See you in San Francisco!
|
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.
Pam Chinery: Mr. Donaldson,
After waiting for what felt like three and a half millenia for Linden to return to the Land, I have to thank you. I waited an entire day to wrestle "Runes" out of my husband's hands, then I locked the door and lost myself for the better part of an afternoon and an evening. It was worth the wait.
Having read most of your books (except the mysteries), the common theme of your characters being pushed beyond their limitations so they can surpass themselves shows through clearly, as well as the idea of not judging good and evil in simplistic terms. Without giving too much away, can you say if races, such as the Haruchai or the Elohim, will be given that opportunity in the "Final Chronicles"?
|
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) |
Usivius: I wrote you a question today already, and although I said I was going to limit myself to one a week ... well, I lied.
I wanted to aks you about 'words and images'. As I mentioned in a previous question, I am firstly a visual person. I see and create things on a visual level first. It's natural for me. But I also get a great satisfaction in putting these creative ideas into a written format instead of a visual one, such as drawing or painting, because they are more complex. As a result, I write short stories and have written a couple of novels, all in a fantasy genre (please keep in mind, these are for my own personal pleasure and I have no intention to seek publishing).
My questions (eventually): is there a point in writing or re-reading your text when you say, "man, I really nailed that one", or is everything you put down, exactly as you thought of/imagined in the first place. I only ask because in my writing, I don't yet seem to have the skill to accurately put down in words the images or scenes of a story in my head. But sometimes (rarely really <shagrin>), I will re-read something months later, and be surprised that such pleasantly crafted things were put on paper from my pen, which came from my head.
Is it a problem of a lack of vocabulary that can be improved upon through study and/or more reading? Or is there an inherent talent in these things (such as friends of mine who try and try but cannot draw to save thier lives, but I can seemingly do effortlessly ... mostly...)
|
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) |
Mark Morgon-Shaw: Do you ever ponder the subtle ways that you works will influence the minds, viewpoints and decisions of some of your readers ?
Since reading through this site and re-igniting my interest in the Covenant books I realised that although I'd read them many years before meeting my wife, I'd insisted on a white gold wedding ring...not because I conciously thought about your books, but I just ' knew ' I wanted one. Reading this site reminded me the seed was sown all those years ago.
I also refer to myself as an Unbeliever when conversation turns to religion, though this is far from subconcious. It's great to have a word that describes how I feel - Cheers for that.
|
I prefer not to think about such things because a) it's unknowable, and b) it's a bit scarey. <grin> (11/11/2004) |
Erik: Two quick questions: 1) I was fortunate enough to be able to purchase a signed "Runes of the Earth" (though I haven't been able to read it yet). This was a pleasant surprise since the scheduled book tour seems to be avoiding the east coast. How many copies of the book did you sign?
2) Clarification on when to expect book 2, in October 2006 or October 2007?
|
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) |
Sean Casey: Stephen, what are the opinions of people in the industry (your agent, editor and publisher, other writers etc) to the Gradual Interview?
Thanks.
|
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) |
Stephen Allange: Wow...what can I say? Amazing. I have just completed the first and second chronicles for the fourth time (as a warm up to the Last Chronicles), and am anxiously waiting to get home from work today to see if my copy of 'Runes' has yet arrived. There is one unanswered question that always comes to mind when I read the second chronicles, however. It is concerning Vain. Maybe I have missed it in the text, but why did the ur-viles create Vain? What was theirs to gain by his creation? What lore did they posess to be able to make his purpose mirror that of Findail's? Without Findail or Vain, there is no new staff. Were the Elohim and the ur-viles knowingly involved with one another to bring about the transformation? His purpose is plain, but why did the ur-viles create him, and how did Foamfollower wind up with him?
A sincerely devoted reader,
Steve Allange
|
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.
Robert Hight: There is no better way to thank you for your books then buying them. So instead Ill thank you for this interview. Its fantastic.
My question: Have you ever read Greg Garrets books? I thought I saw you wandering around Baylors campus and could think of no other reason why you would come down here. (I realize this is prying, but Im curious). Come to think of it, there are a million more likely reasons. But you knowing Garret would be so *cool*.
|
Sorry, I've never been to Baylor, and I don't know Greg Garret's books. My loss, I'm sure. (11/12/2004) |
Andrew Stiles: Mr. Donaldson,
First, the obligatory praise for all of your work. Don't ever stop writing! *grin*
Second, you've mentioned a few times in the interview that you spend a considerable amount of time researching your own books in order to keep yourself consistent. Have you ever considered asking the Watch members about what you've written? I guarantee that between all of us fanatics who study your books as if they were religious texts (my, isn't hyperbole fun?) we'd be able to give you any answer very quickly. *grin*
|
How can you be sure that I don't already do this? <you're grinning, so I am as well> (11/12/2004) |
Matthew Orgel (The Dreaming): Mr. Donaldson, if you *never* die, how will you ever recieve the post-mortem appreciation that all *true* artists recieve? Perhaps you are thinking of faking your own death? Or maybe cryogenic freezing? We, your fans, need to be in the loop on this.
|
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) |
Brendan Moody: I've found that you are among my three favorite current practitioners of what is often called "epic fantasy." I think that this enjoyment emerges from two primary factors: depth of the characters and depth of the world. While the ways in which some writers cheat at character development are all too well-known, I think that what makes poor world-building is harder to identify. It's certainly possible for writers to invent a *lot* of detail about their worlds and still have them ring hollow; I suspect that true depth emerges not from the amount of detail but from the complexity and emotion that it contains. But now I'm just rambling. :D
The bottom line here is: I think you're very good at what you do. Now I just have to fill up the next three years of my life. *joking*
Anyway, now that those ramblings are out of the way, an actual question:
1) In the course of this interview you've mentioned that "Runes" has been the most difficult book you've ever tried to write. Can you discuss, specifically or generally, why that was the case, or would that reveal too much, either from a personal or a narrative perspective?
|
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) |
Mike G: Steve-
I had the opportunity to come to the signing at the Poisoned Pen in Phoenix last week. It was enjoyable to listen to you speak to the group, as well as getting Runes signed and meeting you in person. Had I not known your feelings on these events, I would have thought you liked them- it was warm and personable, and the crowd really enjoyed it.
So, my thanks for the book signing, it was an interesting event with all of the authors there. My question- Did you know any of the other authors there, and are you familiar with their work? I have read books by Hamby and Gabaldon, but not the others.. Do you find meeting other authors interesting?
Thanks again for the tour. Im halfway through Runes and I am enjoying it a lot, and it seems like a natural progression in the story- it makes sense on what has happened and why.
|
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.
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I find it nearly impossible that through the vast scope of questions you have answered, no one has yet made reference to, or questioned you about, your religious affiliation and/or beliefs. Therefore I must assume that you have, up until this point, culled those questions from your pool of e-mails. Now I would not dream of attempting to pin you down personally on any specifics regarding this matter, however it is obvious that being the son of missionary parents, you most likely received some pretty intensive religious and moral training in your formative years. Did the experiences you had as a youth in India create the need you feel to, explain what it is to be human through your writings, or was it perhaps something that came later in life? Also, do you feel that your religious background influenced your writings significantly and is therefore responsible for you being termed a moralist?
|
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) |
Tim Arehart: Thanks for giving us this forum to interview you. Ive been enjoying your novels since long before I should have had access to them--I read Lord Fouls Bane at age nine, if you can credit that--and Ive always had questions to ask of you.
Your novels use elements from older stories: Middle Earth, the Ring of the Niblung (sp?) and so on. How would you feel about other writers using elements borrowed from your fiction? What do you think would be the dividing line between works influenced by or inspired by your writing and literary theft? Can you think of any authors you are certain were influenced by, were inspired by or were stealing from your writing?
|
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) |
Jonathan: I thought I'd ask a (double) question bringing together two frequent threads of discussion in this interview: 1) the film-ability of various of your works, and 2) a theme of opera detectable in the background of the GAP books, your musical preferences, and the recurring description of the prose of the TC books as "operatic."
In your opinion, which of your works would best make the transition to being performed as an opera (besides the GAP series, which might be too obvious a choice)?
Given an opera based on any of your work, who would you choose to compose the music (anyone, anywhere, anywhen)? Likewise perform? Other speculation encouraged, of course (which characters are tenors, mezzos, etc.?)...
many thanks for everything you've given us,
Jonathan
(who is no expert on opera, but is functionally literate in classical music, and curious)
|
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) |
Peter J. Purcell: 'But there's an old line from somewhere (I can't remember it exactly) about "fate" or "truth" being "graven in the heart of the rock.'
I think I found it! [What did we do before google?]
From a site about the "spiritual traditions of the Christian and Missionary Alliance". [We all know your background here!] is a passage "We must give ourselves to Him .... and have it GRAVEN IN THE HEART, as if it were WRITTEN ON THE ROCKS ...."
Does this seem like the logical source?
|
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) |
Patrick Morris: Dear Stephen,
I first read the TC series nearly twenty years ago, and read them again just this last spring. Reading them for a second time was a more enjoyable experience than the first. Perhaps it's because I took the time to read each sentence carefully, rather than rip through certain sections in anticipation of what was coming next. I was concerned that reading them as an adult might be a somewhat less enjoyable experience than reading them as a juvenile, but quite the opposite was true.
My question is quite simple, and it is about the published format of your new series. Will the new TC series be published in ebook format in the near future?
I ask because I have really grown to love reading on my PDA rather than reading paper. It is possible to read in the dark laying comfortably in bed, as opposed to supporting my aging neck in an uncomfortable position for hours on end. After all, I feel that it is your fault that I have walked around for the last twenty years with my neck severely cricked over to one side. If your books had been less enjoyable, I may not have read for eight hours at a time. :)
Either way, I really look forward to reading the new series, and thank you again for the great books and the many years of fond memories.
Sincerely,
Patrick
|
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) |
Tony: Steve,
Thanks so much for the awesome stories.. I've read both series numerous times since the 70's. I found Covenant's view of Glimmermere very touching in the Power that Preserves, as was Coerci in the Wounded Land..
Do you happen to have a favorite chapter or touching scene from the Covenant books.
|
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) |
Cameron Macdonald: Hi Stephen Donaldson,
Your books are truly amazing, The Gap series is by far my favorite but all your novels are magnificent pieces of writing.
Also much respect for the gradual interview.. I have been following it for months and it relieves much boredom whilst at work and gives me a big insight in to my favorite author.
My Question: What do you think off the testimonials all over your books that say such things as "Comparable to Tokien at his best" etc.
I know tolkien was a big influence to you and I know it also helps to sell fantasy books... But to me whenever I see that on a book I feel it is a cop out, especially to the writer... All the work you have put in, all the years and ups and downs of writing to have a big "This is the next tolkien" plastered all over it... How many next Tolkies are there anyway?
Anyway I guess what I'm trying to say is does this upset you? Do you feel it cheapens what you have created? Do you have a say in such things (my guess is no), or do you see (or accept) it
as just a marketing initiative to sell more books.
Thanks for taking the time...
Good luck with the rest of the series and anything you do in the future, and although you are quite humble and modest bear in mind you have touched the lives many people by doing what you love to do best. How many people can say that eh?
Cam
Melbourne, Australia
|
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) |
Robert Young: I do not have a question. Just a statement to Stephen. THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! The reason for the obvious emotion is this; it is because of your books that I am the man I am today. Now, I think I can correctly assume that you are thinking, this guy is over the top. But, just hear me out.
Let me give you a little background about myself, I will be as brief as possible.
Im an army LtC. brat, but we did not move a lot, just Denver and south Alabama. I did not do very well in school, until High School, due to the fact that I have 12 diagnosed learning disabilities. This became a much larger problem as I progressed in school. In Jr. High it got to the point that I was using it as an excuse not to read anything that I did not have to. You see reading is one of the main LDs that I have.
Fortunately I had a teacher that keep pushing, she got to the point that see said I dont care what you read you just have to read something. A friend turned me on to Lord Fouls Bane. At first I could not get into the book (hell, the first couple of times actually), but something just keep me coming back to it. Eventually I finished it (3 -4 months) it would take me days to finish a chapter. I was enthralled by Thomas and everyone in your book, I could see what you were writing in my imagination.
I havent looked back since. I read all the time now , Im 37, and I have three kids that have taking my example. I truly think that if I had not found my love of reading, that I would not be as smart or as well rounded as I think I am. And for that I truly thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Sincerely,
Robert Young
|
And *I* thank *you*. Readers like yourself help make the (immense) difficulties of writing such books worthwhile. (11/14/2004) |
Victor DiGiovanni: I apologize if anyone has asked this question before, but have you ever gotten any response about the books by someone who actually had or has leprosy? And if so, what was that response.
And a sort of related question that just popped into my mind, did you consult with any lepers in the writing process?
Thanks.
|
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) |
David Forbes: Hi, Mr. Donaldson,
I'm really looking forward to reading "Runes" upon it's release and I've immensely enjoyed this gradual interview.
My question is for an elaboration to your response about cover art. You said the art director for the Mordant novels "sabotaged" your input but that you would spare us the gory details. Well, I would really love to hear those gory details! (Feel free to change names to protect the innocent -- or guilty, as the case may be.) I'm fortunate enough to have just signed a three-novel deal with Harper Collins and I'm really interested in information about the process of publishing.
Thank you!
David Forbes
|
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) |
James M.: Stephen, thank you for taking the time to read my question. I've been a fan of your work for over 10 years now.
I fancy myself something of a writer as well, though not professionally. I mainly write for the love of it. One thing that helps me focus, oddly enough, is music. I tend to listen to bands like King Crimson, Yes, and Dream Theater (depending on what I'm writing). My question is, do you listen to music or have anything that helps you "get in the mood" to be creative? Thanks again for your time, now I'll be getting back to "Runes"...
|
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) |
Andrew Rodwell: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I am re-reading your Chronicles and was struck once again by your use of arcane vocabulary. Vladimir Nabokov once stated, in writing or in an interview-I don't remember, that evoking the strange and unfamiliar in writing one should use strange and unfamiliar words. Your Thomas Covenant books certainly benefit from this.
Did you choose this evocation technique consciously?
|
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) |
Ariel Segal: Hello Mr. Donaldson. I would like to thank you
for your magnificent Thomas Covenant books, and I am eagerly looking forward to _Runes of the Earth_.
I have two questions and one brief comment.
1) I first visualized Vain as half-ur-vile, half human, but then I reread the Second Chronicles and found that he had "human" features
(eyes etc.), not the nostrils, pointed ears, and slit mouth of an ur-vile. Is one supposed to
conceive of him looking fully like an idealized human (all in black)or are there some ur-vile characteristics to his physical appearance?
2) Was there any way that Seadreamer could have lived at the One Tree and still allowed for the transformation of Vain which was so critical? If Honninscrave had held him back, wouldn't Linden have still been able to warn Covenant about the Worm when he touched the Tree and started the "stars" to acting which transformed Vain?
Was Seadreamer's death, therefore, absolutely _neccessary_ for the redemption of the Land?
------
Finally, I must say that as a Modern Orthodox Jew, I find your books deeply spiritual and inspiring (I ordered them when I was in yeshiva
in Israel). So many adherents of religion
nowadays seem to conceive of things in absolute black and white terms, without seeing the nuances and contradictions which, to my mind, inform true faith. Some great rabbis have noted that not all contradictions were meant to be resolved in this life. The tension between the Land and Unbelief has helped me see this.
One might say my motto is "Damn you, Foul! It's not that simple!"
Again, my deepest thanks for writing these books. Be true.
Sincerely, Ariel Segal
|
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) |
Dave P.: Stephen,
It's been said many times, but thanks again for your work and for taking the time to do this interview. I've gotten my hands on Runes, and am anxious to read it as soon as I finish the latest trilogy I'm working my way through. I have a couple question for you, and I apologize if they've been asked already.
First - when you were writing Lord Foul's Bane, did you have the entire First Chronicles plotted out (roughly, anyway)? Or did you write Lord Foul's Bane as a stand-alone novel, and then decide to follow up with The Ilearth War and Power That Preserves only after you saw how the first came out?
Second - You've mentioned that a lot of your time now involves research, trying to find what you've already written elsewhere. Do you at least have electronic copies of The First and Second Chronicles that you can search through? I'm hoping you don't have to flip through pages!!
Thanks again,
Dave P.
|
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) |
John Gauker: It is my humble opinion that the names you have chosen for your characters as among the best in literary history. Saltheart Foamfollower, Mhoram, Thomas Covenant, Angus Thermopile are just the ones immediately that come to mind. They are also the best characters I have ever enjoyed reading about. Where do you get your inspiration for the names of your charaters?
|
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) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Question for you.. Is Earthpower found in the whole world, or only in the Land.. Also, was there any significance in how far away the One Tree was from the Land.. It just seems that the One Tree would be closer to the center of Earth Power or Earth Blood.
Thanks again for the marevelous stories.
|
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) |
Eric: Mr. Donaldson,
Forgive me if this turns out to be a stupid question, but have either of the first two Chronicles of Thomas Covenant been published into one hardcover edition? If not, are there any plans to do so? I would love to trade in my old paperbacks and buy a nice leatherbound copy of each trilogy, like the one I have of Lord of the Rings.
In any case, I'm looking forward to reading "The Runes of the Earth." You're one of the last few writers of good fantasy alive.
Sincerely,
Eric
|
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) |
Jason Wittman: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First off, let me say that you were one of my inspirations, along with Tolkien, LeGuin, and J. Michael Straczynski, to become an SF writer. It is because (in part) of people like you that I am now published in SCIFI.COM. Thank you. :-)
Here's my first question: In *Mordant's Need* you place much emphasis on the game of Checkers--I'm sorry--Hop-Board. You even go so far as to name the epilogue "Crowning the Pieces". I was wondering, are you a checkers enthusiast, or was this simply a convenient way to illustrate a certain martial arts philosophy?
My second question: what sort of games do you picture the people of the Land playing (if at all)? Being a games enthusiast, it interests me when SF writers include games in their works, such as Jetan in Edgar Rice Burroughs' *The Chessmen of Mars* (which ERB thoughtfully gives the rules to), or Shent in Tad Williams' *Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn* (which TW infuriatingly does not), so I was wondering if you had any ideas along those lines.
Of course, if you don't, that's perfectly all right. :-)
Regards,
Jason
|
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) |
Roger: Please Mr. Donaldson!
STOP! Stop at what you're doing right now!
Don't start any book-tours, no vacation, no movies,
no "I'm just going to check my e-mail"-excuses.
Nothing.
Just write, write as you have never done before. :)
Because when i'm done with "The Runes..." I wan't to start directly with the next book, and next, and next...
Ok, you can answer this question, but then you must start writing.
Is there a timeline for the rest of the books?
My best regards,
Roger
|
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.
Anonymous: I've read in the course of this interview that you intended Elena's incestuous feelings towards Covenant to be demonstrative of her mental imbalance - an imbalance that only Covenant seemed to be aware of. Was I wrong in detecting a not-so-fatherly aspect to Covenants feelings for Elena?
I also assumed from their exchange at Glimmermere when he rushes to her in a rage only to turn away in shame when she faces him undaunted that he was prepared once again to find a violent outlet for his desire ... indicating that his regret over what he had done to Lena was not as genuine as one might wish .... I get the impression from things you have written here that this may not be how this passage was intended.......?
P.S. Thanks for the books - hope the tour is going well!
|
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) |
Emelie - London, UK: Mr Donaldson,
Thank you for making this forum available, and thousands of thanks for your fantastic works they have meant a lot to me throughout the years.
Now.
Having read through this gradual interview your relationship with Lester del Rey strikes me as intriguing it appears to have been (perhaps still is) something of a tempestuous love/hate relationship. Ive noticed conflicting elements of admiration, gratefulness, annoyance, anger, fights, fall-outs etc. etc.
Is this something you would care to elaborate on?
Regards,
Emelie
|
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) |
Chris D: Just now finished Runes...nicely done. You've (to this reader) seamlesly picked up where you left off. I have one question and one comment. Q: Lord Foul, why did you limit his essence and his vehemence to the Land how is it that the rest of the "world" was spared? From a literary stand point it makes sense (well that's where all the action is! *smack*)Just always wondered why there werent more far reaching acts of "despite".
C: Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions including the inane ones (see my Q above)Now please to be getting back to the salt mines I'm dying to read the next installment!
CD
|
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.
Michael from Santa Fe: There's been a lot of speculation about a "Covenant" movie(s). While I would love to see this, I have my doubts it will ever happen, but the success of the LOTR makes it slightly more likely. People in this interview and yourself have been tossing out names about who could play what character and that's all very interesting. But the main problem to me about filming the Covenenat books would be: where do you film them? The Land, to me, is almost the main character of the books. I thought using New Zealand for LOTR worked well, but would it work for The Land? I have my doubts and would make it look too much like the LOTR. Sure, they can do a lot with computer graphics (and they would have too...not too many Revelstones lying abandoned waiting to be filmed :-)) but this increases the budget of the film and takes away from the "realness". Anyway, do you have any thoughts on this? My own preference would be they use New Mexico as much as possible, we have some great landscapes!
|
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) |
Cameron Macdonald: Hi again,
I already asked a question about a week ago so I will keep this short.
Basicialy I'm in a few bands and we are just about to go into the studio and we are all trying very hard to think of a name for our cd. A few phrases from your books have come up such as "Machina Infernalis" or "Righteous Indignation" or even the big long amnion on "Conformity of purpose shall be achieved through the mutual satisfaction of requirements" (Only a metal band would have such long titles)
So I was wondering your thoughts on this... Firstly, would we be infringing on some sort of copyright? If not, would this generally bother you, perhaps on a personal level as they are of course your phrases and your books...
Anyway just wanted to know, of course I will respect your wishes on this.
Cam
Melbourne, Australia
|
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.
Zodia King: Greetings:
I was sorry to have missed you at Bubonicon!!
I just finished reading The Runes of the Earth and once again you have come through with another master piece! I was wondering if by chance we'd see Saltheart Foamfollower in either of the next two novels you plan to write? And are these truly the last chronicles? You could use that for another twenty books and no one would complain! I would hate to see only three more Covenant books.
I now work at the East Mountain Library in Tijeras (I previously worked with Scott and Gayle at Wyoming) and I recommend your books to our fantasy lovers on a daily basis. Best wishes!
Zodia King
|
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) |
Chricinda: Greetings! What a lovely idea to respond directly to fans this way!
I picked up Lord Foul's Bane when I was 12 (because I liked the cover and it was one of the few--at that time--books in the SF/Fantasy area of the bookstore). Yours and Tolkien's are old friends that I enjoy re-reading often.
I thought your response to the person discussing the types of people who are fans was interesting--many of us obviously operate perfectly well in both our real and fantasy worlds! :) So my question would be have you attended or been a guest at one of the (literary-oriented) SF conventions? I'm thinking you would be fun to nominate in the future as a guest at one of the Michigan cons.
|
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) |
Mark Rowen, RN: Dear Mr. Donaldson;
Rumor has it there will 4 books in the "Last Chronicles". Have you picked the titles of the remaining books? If so, could you share them with me? I loved "The Runes of the Earth". By the way, fear not and be of good faith. You can do this.
|
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) |
Adam King: I wonder, speaking of SRD, whether the self-professed slow reader has read much of the other SRD? As much difference as there is between Donaldson and Delany, they are two emotionally honest and self-revealing authors who use similar genres in utterly individual ways to reveal themselves.
Thank you, Mr. Donaldson. Your work is valuable.
|
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) |
drew: Once i saw an interview with David Copperfield (...The Magician) and he said his fans fall into two groups-the one's who sit back and are amazed, and just want to enjoy the show, and those who are constantly looking through the smoke and mirrors, trying to catch the slight of hand, and pick apart the show. I find a lot of the latter in this interview, and I am both supprized and impressed that you take the time to answer those kind of questions. This is not one of those questions...though it may seem that way.
-When reading the First Chrons, I always assumed that the One Tree was in the Land...there was nothing to support this, but nothing against it either. I realize that if the tree had of been somewhere just Northeast of Revelstone the the second Chrons would have been much shorter....but all I am wondering, is that when you were thinking up and Creating the history of the Land before You wrote the First Chrons, did you have a place in mind for the One Tree? Or did you feel that it's location would never come up, since you weren't planning on doing a second Chronicle?
Again, I'm not looking for possible plot holes and getting you to explain yourself...I'm more or less wondering how deep your history of the Land went when you started writting Lord Fouls Bane.
Thank you.
|
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.
Matthew McNeil: Are there any banes still left in the land in the last series and will there be anything close to the killing of Giants with the Ill-earth stone from book two of the first series? How powerful will Foul be in this last series?
|
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) |
Joey: First off, thanks for coming out to Torrance last night. Wish the crowd was bigger but still nice to meet you in person. How big does it get most nights?
Wanted to know (and didnt have a chance to ask) about "The Conqueror Worm." The centipede shows off whenever the husband yells at his wife, and eventually drives her off. I'm wondering if you could comment a bit on the story, and maybe about what it means, heh.
|
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) |
Lord Fool: I recently read the "Second Chronicles", and a question popped into my mind.
I always assumed that the accident by which Hile Troy was transported to the Land did eventually kill him. I can understand his body could've survived for the relatively short time he spend in the land as the Warmark. However, Troy didn't die in the Land until the "White Gold Wielder", after ten years' time in the "real world". I understood that when one dies in the "real world", he also dies in the Land (as happened to Thomas Covenant). Even though Troy as Caer-Cavernal wasn't entirely human, he wasn't Dead (as Covenant in the end). So, how was it possible for Troy's body to keep living for such a long period of time without his mind present?
Oh, by the way: thank you. The "Second Chronicles" were the most satisfying read; the Thomas Covenant saga has really rooted itself in my heart. I'm eagerly looking forward to the Last Chronicles - meanwhile, I've the time to check out your other works as well.
|
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) |
Bill Foley: Just finished re-reading the 1st Chronicles as an appetizer to Runes and my head is abuzz...
I'm hoping that you might be willing to bring into sharper focus the revelation that High Lord Mhoram has leading into the Power that Preserves that enables him to unlock his additional power (knowledge of the Ritual of Desecration, blue flicker in the Krill, etc.).
I understand that his "secret" deals with overcoming the limits imposed by the Oath of Peace but I seem to want to understand it a little bit more literally. Is it that power requires a willingness to harm, hate or do violence? Something like that? (Again, looking for a "tune-up" here...)
I'm also interested to know how the inspiration for his understanding was found in Elena's Marrowmeld sculpture of Covenant/Bannor. In what way didthis trigger his understanding?
Thanks!
|
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) |
Frank A. Krull, MD: WHY NOW??.....................
After all of these years, & a catalog of 6 volumes; why more Covenant?
I obviously love it or I would've never bothered to write. I'm a physician & you may not believe it but you helped me through my struggles. Did you give me the answers to the stars??? No. But you did take me away from my present problems only to make me face them through your fantasy.
Next to Tolkien, your adventures via Covenant are outstanding. I hate Covenant at times. I do not like the idea of of a reluctant hero. I like a real hero. I've got a lot of complaints regarding your Covenant series; however, you are much too good of a writer for me to completely dismiss your writings. They got me through Med School & my residency. I found myself pulling for Covenant even though I really didn't want to. Was that your purpose? I'll never know.
Regardless, as soon as I found out this series was continued, I traversed out & made made my purchase. I sincerely hope it is up to your Covenant mind set.
I am a true fan because I can criticise something I think is special. Could I have made your series better? I doubt it.
If you deem to answer me, I will consider it an honor.
I look forward to your LAST CHRONICLES OF THOMAS COVENANT. As long as your Covenant writing proceeds as I've seen fit from your previous adventures into this realm, then you will have a fan to the end. Please don't give in to trash. Write your own story.
FA Krull, MD
|
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) |
Mark Sanges: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you SO much for answering my rather mundane questions about ePublishing and electronic audio publishing.
You asked if I could point out where the 2 "The Man Who..." books that are legitimately available in an electronic format are sold. They are sold by Palm's eReader.com division (incidentally one of the largest sellers of eBooks so far). You can see them in the ereader.com catalog at the following URL:
http://www.ereader.com/product/book/series/970
Alas, those are the only 2 I can find by you that are available as eBooks legitimately that I have found so far (trust me, I am constantly hunting for new sources of legitimate eBooks). As was pointed out in another question in this interview, the entire first and second chronicles are available as eText VERY illegally through certain web sites (I don't have the links, but you mentioned you and your publishers were aware of them).
As a follow-up to this ePublishing train of thought, how do you feel about people, like myself, who purchase your books (I can't even count the number of copies of the first 6 books I've bought, lent, never got back and bought again) and then are tempted to scan them for their own personal electronic reading? It's an idea of been toying with for Runes. I bought both the hard cover and the CD set (hey, I'm trying to do my best to boost those sales into the NYTimes top 10 bestsellers list!) and have already read Runes once and am 3/4 done with listening to the Audio version (incidentally, Scott Brick is probably the *best* audiobook narrator currently working, so your publisher made a VERY fine choice there). Once that's done, I'm considering scanning the book so I can carry it on my PDA for the next time I'd like to read it (just more convenient than carrying around a big hardcover book). Do things like that bother you or raise your ire? I would certainly NEVER provide a copy of my scaned version to anyone, but I do think that readers who purchase books should have a choice over what format they read the book in. What are your thoughts or feelings about this?
Thanks again for taking all this time to answer us and for writing your stories for us to read.
Sincerley,
Mark Sanges
|
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) |
Drew: A question about music...You've stated earlier that your day consists of listening to lots of classical music. I've recently made that switch myself (I'm drive a truck, and was tierd of listening to Classic Rock all day, so I switched to calssical station one day, and never switched back.) The question: When picturing scenes in you head before (or after) you write them, do you feel any peices fit them? Not in-a-soundtrack-to-a-movie kind of way, but do you imagine any of your favorite peices in any of your favortie scenes, or vice-versa, when you hear a certain peice, does it make you remeber any scenes you've written?
I recently heard Vivaldi's Gloria, it made me think of the last scene in The power that Preserves when the people sing the ode to Covenenat. Certain JS Bach peices remind me of what the music of the Forestals would sound like.
Also Bethovens 8th symphony made me think about the battle in Graven Threndor in Lord Foul's Bane
|
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) |
Bryan J. Flynn: Stephen, thanks for your insight on Lord Foul. Im curious about your perception of Foul. It stems from the maxim on the banality of evil, and how Foul doesnt fit that bill. He strikes me as a very complex antagonist and I appreciate that in your work. As a genre fantasy often handles the antagonist in a banal way: evil for evils sake.
Reading the work again recalls the idea of the necessity of freedom that underlies so much of your work. Yet to me, more than any other personality in the books, Foul lacks the necessity of freedom. Hes imprisoned and limited in many ways far more than the other characters
Does Fouls nature preclude him from the kinds of freedom that Linden and Covenant enjoy in the Land? Does he lack the ability (not the desire) to end his ongoing conflict with the Creator?
I know this is skirting awful close to your not wanting to speak to ideas like the Creator, Worm at Worlds End, etc., something I appreciate as a reader. Ive been thinking about it for a few days, but Ill go no further as the water grows deep as I wade in. :)
|
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) |
Steven Wozniak: Mr. Donaldson, I've just finished "Runes" today. It was an immense pleasure. I think that your confidence as a writer shines throughout the book. I look forward to seeing 'what happens next.'
My question, though, has to do with the apparent isolation of the Land from the rest of the planet. Seven thousand years have passed since the first book. We learn in "The One Tree" that there are other, seemingly commercially advanced peoples across the sea. In the most recent book, the Ramen vaguely refer to peoples to the south of the Southron Mountains. Why have none of these people ever ventured to and colonized the Land? The giants were lost, so there by accident, but the Search seems to have found the way across the ocean. And the southern peoples could just migrate north, like the Ramen went south. It is hard to imagine that it is because the Land is so remote or of minimal significance politically or socially.
Thanks
|
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) |
Ross Edwards: Stephen,
Since reading Runes of the Earth, I have been on a huge SRD high, so I decided to re-read your "The Man Who..." series. I have to say that I've come to appreciate them more and more lately. When I first read The Man Who Killed His Brother some years ago, I loved the style and atmosphere, but felt that the mystery was too simple.
My mistake for reading it the wrong way.
I should have been concentrating on the characters instead of the situations. Doing that, I have really come to enjoy them and care about Ginny and Brew. You even talked about that idea somewhat in The Man Who Tried to Get Away -- that good mystery novels depend so much more on character than on situation.
My question, though, is about the future of the series. You have said several times that you tend to know before you write them how long your stories will be -- that the First Chronicles would be three books and that the Gap would be five, etc. Did you have any kind of feeling on that for your mystery novels? I'm sure the series isn't finished, but can you tell me how many more books it will take? Or is this the rare instance where you don't know the answer...?
Thanks!
|
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) |
Usivius: Once again, thank you very much, Mr. Donaldson for taking the time to answer all these questions. I am still in awe of this.
I have another question which dawned upon me as I was re-reading the Covenant series in preparation for 'Runes'. I am wondering how much you are aware of the use of descriptive terms related to the real world. I know that much of this issue does not apply where you have characters that come from our world. But it struck me as an interesting problem if the fantasy story has no characters based in our world. I came across the descriptive passage in 'The One Tree': "The Haruchai were dervish-wild"...
How aware are you of this when you write stories? You strike me as a very careful writer, but is it an issue to you, using 'real world' references in stories that have no such connection?
|
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) |
SM: Hi,
I can't help but notice that damage is a huge element in your work. Not just people, but places, castles, ships, armor, weapons... It seems that everything is damaged, or becomes damaged in the story--and much of the damage is tragic. Some of the damage you repair, and some is left as permanent. Why? Is damage a consequence of despite? The cause? Or do things just get damaged as a course of life?
|
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) |
Kurt Alberty: Dr. Donaldson,
Thanks for coming to Torrance, CA on 10/22 and signing all my books. Thanks, too, to the Princess of your heart for signing the dedication page (A classy move on your part to ask her).
Thanks for over twenty years of great books. Your books are always something I eagerly look forward to and I hope you keep this website going so that I know what's cooking.
This gradual interview is fantastic and so much has already been covered. I have a new one for you:
As a writer of science fiction, you must have a decent amount of interest in space. Will you be buying a ticket on Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic? Or is that type of research a little too much for you?
Thanks,
Kurt
|
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) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You have stated before that you got the idea for "Mordant's Need" from a poem in John Myers Myers "Silverlock" where it talks about a "mirror of her dreams" and "a man rides through". I have seen other authors, specifically Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, discuss that "Silverlock" contains a wealth of hidden references to other literary works and characters. In fact, they make a game out of trying to see who can find the most references. What lead you to read "Silverlock" and have you ever played the reference game or noticed such references in the book? I just found a paperback copy at a used book store and will be reading it shortly, so I can't comment for myself but it looks like an interesting book.
|
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) |
Jerry: Regarding graven quote: EAP from "Narrative of Gordon Pym"
"I have graven it within the hills, and my vengeance upon the dust within the rock."
Maybe?
|
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) |
John Baker: You successfully repaired what was broken with fantasy(too many pauper/princes pulling too many swords from too many stones) with Covenant. You successfully repaired what was broken with sci-fi(worm in an asteroid? what does it eat?) in the Gap Cycle. Are you going to apply any sorely needed repairs to other genres?
|
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) |
Anonymous: You are over-writer and a ruthless editor (self professed).
Any intention of ever releasing an un-edited version of the Covenant series.
Or do you think that's vanity.
|
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) |
David "Dutch" K.: Anyway, two silly questions:
1) Myself and a friend at work found one distinct similarity between your writings and Orson Scott Card's, and that is the emotionally exhausting levels of experiences the characters go through. Apart from the Gap and Covenant books, the most emotionally-charged books I've read were the Ender books by Mr. Card. Have you read them and if so, what are your particular thoughts on the writings?
2) (Silly question) You mentioned you weren't too keen on fanart, but what about comics, online or otherwise that at least speak about or lightly parody the Covenant/Gap books? Would you read them? :D
-David
|
Two quick answers: 1) I don't read Card because I don't approve of his stand on censorship (he's all in favor--as long as the Mormons get to do the censoring). 2) I have no objection of any kind to fanart, or to comics (online or otherwise), regardless of how they treat my books. I'm just not particularly interested. And yet I do seem to have my own peculiar taste in parody. For example, I really enjoy "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour". <grin> (12/01/2004) |
Pam Chinery: Mr. Donaldson,
Although I have dearly loved all your books that I've managed to read, the "Covenant" series is something I regard as a work of genius.
So, needless to say, I've read them many times. And maybe I'm reaching here, but do you find you draw somewhat from current events as you write? For example, in the First Chronicles, the loss of Lena's innocence and the fallout to the Land from her rape echoing the death of the optimism of the 60's and Watergate, etc., the cult mentality of the "Second Chronicles" echoing the televangelism of the 80's, and the post-911 security conciousness in "Runes"? (If the "Runes" part of the question raises too much of a spoiler issue, please don't reply to that part.)
I heard somewhere once that you don't write allegory, but as most writers do use personal experience to some extent, isn't it almost impossible to avoid?
|
On an unconscious level, of course, drawing on personal experience (in all of its guises) is impossible to avoid. Nor should it be avoided: without personal experience, the writer can't grow. But on a conscious level, as I've said a number of times, I do *not* draw on "real life" (and certainly not on current events). The exceptions are (very) few: the information on and examples of leprosy in "Lord Foul's Bane," the description of Haven Farm, the game of hop-board (checkers) in "Mordant's Need," the karate tournament and martial arts information in "The Man Who Fought Alone." As a general rule, if I don't feel like I'm inventing EVerything, I can't write at all. (12/01/2004) |
James Hastings: I apologize because I told you I wouldn't write you after my last long message, but this was rich. On my Amazon.com recomendations page I was recommended "The Passion of Christ." Confused, I wondered why they would possibly think I wanted that. When I clicked on the link that explains such things, it told me that since I told it I owned "White Gold Wielder" and "The One Tree" it intuited that I wanted The Passion. Thought you'd like to know in case you wanted to join your book tour up with Mel Gibson at some point...
|
Bizarre--and yet strangely inappropriate (despite the obvious parallels). Just another demonstration that there's nothing as literal minded as a computer. On the other hand, if Mel would agree to fly me around in his private jet.... <grin> (12/01/2004) |
Andrew K: Do you find that technology has affected the way you write, in terms of your relationship to your audience? Specifically, does this have an affect on your narrative style--at least consciously?
I just cannot help but think that the audience of 1977 is different than the audience of 2004. The internet has grown and the way we read has as well. I am not sure we read less, but I do think we read "shorter." I imagine that this has made readers less patient. (I know I am less patient than 15 years ago when I discovered TC). I tend to think video games have had the same effect, and in fact they have changed the way many see entertainment, with its emphasis on visuals and action.
The gravamen of my question is whether these changes have affected your writing.
Thank you very much for taking the time read my question and for doing this gradual interview.
|
The technological changes since 1977 are as obvious to me as they are to you. And in one specific way, I have been consciously affected in the way I write. I rewrite more now because--thanks to computers and word processing software--rewriting is just plain *easier* than it once was. All that retyping I used to do! Looking back, I'm amazed I got as much done as I did. But in terms of my relationship with my audience: well, for example, the fact that my readers can so readily make their concerns known to me (via this interview) does make me--almost involuntarily--more sensitive to what they want or expect. This, as you can imagine, has its advantages and disadvantages. But the undeniable fact that we've all been trained to pay attention "shorter"? That has no *conscious* affect on me (except to the extent that my editor thinks I take far too long to do and say everything). And yet it *must* have an affect on some level: I'm a product of my culture, just like everyone else. I certainly don't live in a cave, cut off from mainstream society. <grin> And I'm very aware of things like: I seldom enjoy old movies, even ones I once loved, because they seem so ^#$%# *slow*. So it follows that there has to be a change in my writing. I just don't notice it myself. The changes *I* notice revolve around my shifting priorities as a storyteller, not around my writing itself. (12/08/2004) |
Steve Malpass: Stephen,
First off, a sincere thankyou for bringing the Land back to life after all this time.
I went to your book-signing in Manchester (UK)last night, and asked you a question - "What do you think makes the difference between a 'great' fiction writer and a 'good' one?"
Part of your response - that the writer must use "their own voice...(by definition unique)" prompted me to ask you to write "Remember : a unique voice" when you signed my copy of Runes of the Earth. This was to serve as an inspirational reminder as I continue writing my first novel, but I didn't want you to think I'd missed the point.
I have a further question - when you are reviewing your own work, how do you decide that it is 'great' and move on as opposed to 'good' and set about rewriting it?
Many thanks and good luck with the Final Chronicles. I sense that you will have a lighter load to carry when you've told us all the whole story.
Steve Malpass
|
Merciful Heavens! I *never*--by which I mean NEVER--decide that anything I've done is 'great'! I lack the arrogance, the ego, or the simple stupidity for that. I desperately *hope* that what I write is 'great': I try very hard to *make* it 'great'. But I'm painfully aware of my human limitations--and of my very human talent for screwing up. So I don't confuse myself with questions about 'greatness'. When I write, I give myself permission to write badly (because movement is more important than quality at that stage). And when I rewrite, I chew over every sentence, character, scene, or description until I can't think of a way to make it better. Then I shrug and move on. And when I rewrite *again,* I repeat the process. And when I rewrite AGAIN, I repeat the process. And when I reach the point where I'm in danger of merely shuffling words without making an obvious improvement, I declare the job done. Not because it's 'great,' but because it's the best I can do with what I have and who I am. (12/08/2004) |
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.
Stephen Allange: Stephen...thanks so much for answering my previous question. This question is pertaining to the naming of Lord Foul. The name in itself is something that doesn't quite fit with my imagination of the various names associated with the Land. His other names given to him by the various races seem to be better fit for origin in a society like that I imagine that would populate the Land. (The Gray Slayer, Corruption, Fangthane, A-Jeroth of the Seven Hells, the Despiser). It just makes me wonder why such a being would be named as Lord Foul. Did he give himself this name? I cannot imagine that was his name when he gained Kevin's trust and infiltrated the Council of the Lords. Was there another name that Kevin knew Lord Foul by? And why such a mundane name for such a powerful and malignant being?
Thanks again for the time that you put into this forum...it allows insight to that which has been written by an author in a way that I have never been a part of (or have encountered) before.
Steve
|
I'm sorry to say that the best answer I can give you is: I was young. From my present perspective, "Lord Foul the Despiser" seems like a crude and overly-obvious choice. But at the time, way back in the early 1970's when I was first planning the story and characters (more than half my life ago), I particularly wanted to emphasize the archetypal nature of the character. I didn't want to go the Tolkien route: pick a name like "Sauron" and *pretend* he isn't Evil Personified. Because of the themes around which the first trilogy in particular revolves, I felt I had something to gain by--in a manner of speaking--putting my cards face-up on the table. After all, Milton wrote about Satan explicitly. Why shouldn't I be equally daring, since my ambitions were certainly comparable to Milton's? Nowadays, of course, I'm used to the name, so it doesn't bother me. But if I were starting the first "Chronicles" today, I would take a more subtle approach. (12/09/2004) |
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.
Darran Handshaw: Hey again Dr. Donaldson,
I recently reread a few of your short stories and many of the same feelings that arose in me the first time were dredged up again. During one of the short stories especially, 'The Djinn Who Watches Over the Accursed', I was able to imagine the scenery and storyline in my mind with such fluidity that it almost felt like watching a movie. Have you tried having any of your short stories put into film ever? Some of them would make excellent films I think. And the short stories would not be so long and demanding like a Covenant or Gap Series film series. Oh and thanks for answering posts so quickly on this gradual interview!
-Darran
|
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Writers don't choose to have their stories made into movies. Unless the writer happens to be someone like Stephen King or Tom Clancy, with all the clout in the known universe. <grin> Movie people make those decisions, for reasons entirely their own--but usually involving money. Writers can hope or not hope, as they see fit. But the only real power the writer has is to say yes or no IF he/she is approached by movie people. (12/09/2004) |
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.
James M.: Stephen, thanks so much for answering my first question. Here's another one:
In preparation for "Runes" I've re-read the first two Chrons, and I ran across quite a few similarities between characters in your books, and characters in Robert Jordan's "Wheel Of Time" saga. Similarities that were entirely too alike to be simply coincidence. The ones that were the most similar were the ur-viles and Jordan's "Myrddraal" characters. Also there are some striking similarities between Saltheart Foamfollower and Jordan's "Loial" character.
Since you recently made some remarks about borrowing vs. stealing from other authors in the G.I., my question is A) Have you read the Wheel Of Time books and B) Have you noticed any similarities?. I'm wondering if you're aware of this. If so, what are your thoughts? Thanks again for your time.
James M.
|
As I've said before, I don't read Jordan. And since his books were published after the first six "Covenant" books, I think we can safely say that I haven't been influenced by him. <grin> Naturally I would have no idea what influences may have affected him. (12/15/2004) |
Paul: I wonder if it takes a particular type of person to read your Covenant books. I have recommended the Chronicles to various friends and colleagues and I have noticed a bizarre co-incidence.
That is, the people who like it tend also to have a taste in 'dark' music. I don't neccesarily mean metal music, but the subject matter/music is 'darker' in a similar way that the Covenent books are 'darker' than LOTR.
The last colleague I gave the book to got to page 30 of Lord Foul's Bane, had a bad dream that night about 'that horrible leper' that night and returned the book to me. She also happened to listen to the likes of Coline Dion so go figure!
|
I doesn't seem bizarre to me. My own taste in music tends toward the "dark": tragedy instead of comedy; articulation of pain rather than expression of pleasure. I discussed this somewhere earlier in the GI; but briefly-- As an extremely broad generalization, I think there are two types of readers: those who are repelled by expressions of pain; and those who feel a sense of recognition. Everybody is familiar with pain. But some people manage their own pain by denial, or by some other form of self-absorption (narcissism; a sense of victimization; etc.), and so they--in effect--have no patience for alternative approaches to pain. However, other people manage their own pain by every technique imaginable *except* denial and self-absorption, and so they feel recognition and even empathy when they encounter open expressions of pain from sources outside themselves. Well, with occasional exceptions, Donaldson stories are pretty much all about pain. So it seems natural that people who respond to pain in other art forms would also respond to Donaldson stories. (12/17/2004) |
steve cook: from what i've been able to discover it looks like 'Runes' is going to be a huge critical, and maybe more importantly, commercial success. i can't say for certain it's deserved because despite (no pun intended) having two copies on order from my bookclub i'm still not in receipt of it. as if a 20 year wait isn't enough!
Question 1: lots of authors appear on tv/radio plugging their books, anything i should listen out for whilst your in england?
question 2: (topical) bush or kerry? I'd guess your a democrat. don't know about your politics but having bush as the most powerful man on the planet scares me
|
1) My own experience of radio and tv suggests that they aren't worth listening to on those very rare occasions when they do occur. It was not always thus. Back in the early '80s, I encountered a couple of extraordinary radio interviewers who got more out of me than I would have believed possible. But nothing like that has happened since. 2) I consider my political convictions--like my religious convictions--irrelevant to the purposes of this interview. Only the stories themselves matter. However, a number of valid inferences can be drawn from the established fact that I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war. (12/17/2004) |
Michael from Santa Fe: In your employment info it lists:
1973-1975: Associate Instructor
Ghost Ranch Writers Workshops
Ghost Ranch, N.M.
I like the Ghost Ranch, interesting place. How was the experience in teaching Writing Workshops? This was early in your career, even before "Lord Foul's Bane" was published, did this experience help you in anyway with writing your own novels? Or was the opposite true, and it took time away from writing?
|
<sigh> Sometimes it's the simple questions that really get you. The effect of working at the Ghost Ranch Writers Workshops is difficult to explain. I got the job without a credential to my name (except my MA in English lit) by attending one of those workshops, learning a vast amount of crucial information (mostly of a practical kind which eventually played a vital role in helping me get published), and impressing the hell out of the man who ran the workshops (Roland Tapp, a former editor turned freelance editor/agent). Roland and I became friends (in part because we actually lived quite near each other); and he saw in me someone who could fill a useful role at his workshops: a teacher of writing mechanics and theory (a job which didn't particularly interest him), and a reader who could and would tell his students that their writing was *bad* (by nature Roland preferred to encourage *everyone*, whether they had ability or not, but he recognized that doing so was a disservice to the bad writers in his workshops). So there I was, a rather young man with passion, education, and intelligence, but no particular credibility, facing students who were without exception significantly older than I was and trying to explain to them why their writing was demonstrably bad. This, as you may perhaps be able to imagine, was not easy. It certainly "put grit in my soul," as the missionaries used to say. On the plus side, it forced me to clarify and codify my beliefs about writing in a way that has served me well ever since. On the minus side, it made me into a bit of a pedant (and sometimes a brutal one); a judgmental True Believer in the cause of skillful, honest, non-manipulative, empathetic writing. Naturally, all of the untalented (or unserious) students hated me. After every workshop, someone tried to get me fired. And eventually I learned another lesson: I'm really not wise enough to tell other people what they're doing wrong--even when what they're doing wrong is screamingly obvious (I vividly recall one student who could not be bothered to remember the *genders* of his own characters). Which is why I no longer teach writing to anyone, or read anyone else's manuscripts. Now I *have* credibility--which only makes the True Believer in me more dangerous. Sure, teaching those workshops took time away from writing. But what I learned was well worth it. (12/17/2004) |
Drew Bittner: Mr Donaldson-
An earlier question about the distinction between "lore" and "power" had me thinking-- apart from the health sense, which seems common to all, is the ability to use Earthpower relatively uncommon among the people of the Land? Is it akin to having artistic talent or natural athletic ability?
thanks!
Drew
|
To the extent that "talent" can be defined as "a desire to do x, y, or z, where the desire is strong enough to overcome natural inertia and/or indolence," it's probably true that "the ability to use Earthpower [is] relatively uncommon." (G. K. Chesterton once wrote, "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly." But even *that* isn't permission enough for most people. Under pressure, most people seem to consider very few things "worth doing.") But *could* they use Earthpower if they wanted to hard enough, or in the right way? I like to think they could: in my view, the Land was created to be the kind of place where health, beauty, and effectiveness are accessible to everyone. Therefore--by extension--it is also a place where it's OK for anyone to *not* use Earthpower if that decision suits his/her natural inclination. (12/17/2004) |
Anne Tally: First a comment -- the Gap Series was the most fantastic, imaginative, series of books that I have ever read. When will it continue? I long to read more about Angus, Morn, Davies and especially the Amnion.
|
I've said it before: I'll say it again. I can't tell the future. But I don't foresee any future stories in the Angus-Morn-Amnion "universe" because I simply don't have any ideas which would enable me to write such stories. (12/17/2004) |
Sean the Anonymous: Sir
Easy question: what is your impression fo Cyberpunk novels and have thought about writing one.
Give my regards to Angus if you ever hear from him again, :)
|
Easy answer: I don't know what a "Cyberpunk novel" *is*. And I don't choose my stories: they choose me. (12/17/2004) |
Phillip Dodson: Hello again Mr. Donaldson!
It is a pleasure and an honor to ask you a third question, and hope ardently for a response. It's so interesting, being able to ask a question to someone who has had such an impact on me.
I have two questions... I know that your responses to movie questions are generally similar (sure, I might make a movie, if I had a million or two dollars and the spare time, and interest) but in light of the most recent movie announcements, I was wondering if you had any further comments? Specifically, I was curious as to whether or not the possible movie adaption to the Chronicles will actually include villains from Saturn, as has been rumored on certain websites? That was most disturbing.
One more comment, and actually the reason I wanted to submit this question (the movie question was an afterthought), I just wanted to thank you for writing your books, because they bring people together. Very recently I found Kevin's Watch, and I've made a host of new friends there. The conversations I have are incredibly stimulating, and it is a source of support and enjoyment that I would have never had if you had not decided to become a writer.
-JemCheeta
|
I'm taking this question as an opportunity to say that the only *accurate* source of information about possible movies is the "news" page on this site. But I'll go further here: the people who are seriously interested in making a "Covenant" movie have assured me in no uncertain terms that there will be no "evils from Saturn". That uniquely bizarre bit of misinformation was fabricated out of pure stupidity. On a much more positive note, I'm glad you've found so much to enjoy in the Kevin's Watch e-community. (12/20/2004) |
Peter Hunt: Mr Donaldson,
thank you for 20 years of wonderful and immersive storytelling. I was lucky enough to meet you during your visit to San Francisco last month, but was too awe-struck to be coherant when you signed my copy of Runes. So please accept my thanks retrospectively <g>.
Can you help me understand the relationship between Law, Earthpower and the Staff of Law? Am I right in thinking that the destruction of the Staff weakened the structure of Law? Did that destruction make existing Laws easier to break, and Earthpower easier to corrupt?
Did the creation of the new Staff at the end of the Second Chronicles restore the broken Laws (of death, Life, etc)?
|
These matters are all so intuitively, well, obvious to me that I find it difficult to actually explain them. <sigh> Let's start with Law (structure, rules, governing principles) and Earthpower (energy, vital substance). Think of our solar system. If the planets weren't in furious motion (energy), they would fall into the sun and burn up: if the planets weren't tethered by gravity (structure), they would simply sail away. Without that balance between energy and constraint, nothing could exist. (Of course, to a physicist, it's all energy in one form of another. But still the energy of gravity has to balance the energy of motion, or else nothing could exist.) Now. The Staff of Law was created as a means to wield the energy of Earthpower safely--i.e. without violating the various constraints of Law. But because this is magic rather than technology (because it deals in symbolic unities rather than in discrete mechanisms), the Staff cannot be inherently separate from the forces and rules which it exerts. It's not a light switch, essentially distinct from the flow of electricity which it enables. In a certain sense, the Staff *is* both Law and Earthpower, just as white gold *is* wild magic. In fantasy, in magic, the tool cannot be distinguished from what the tool does. So. Even though the Staff was never essential to the original existence of either Law or Earthpower, the simple fact of its creation means that it participates in both, and can therefore: a) strengthen both, or b) weaken both (by being destroyed). So yes, the destruction of the original Staff weakened the structure of Law. But. This is does *not* imply that Linden's creation of a new Staff *automatically* restores the structure of Law to its original form. A tool has to be used to be effective; and the person using the tool has to know what he/she is doing. Linden, and then Sunder and Hollian, clearly have the spirit and the heart to use the Staff effectively; but they don't necessarily have the lore, the knowledge, to accomplish everything that the Staff is capable of doing. (The absence of runes on the new Staff is not an accident.) Also the new Staff is profoundly different than Berek's original creation. It was formed, not from the wood of the One Tree, but from one sentient (Findail) and one quasi-sentient (Vain) being, each of whose nature affects the inherent qualities of both the new Staff and what the new Staff can do. (And then there's the interesting question of whether Sunder and Hollian would actually *want* to heal the broken Law of Life, since by doing so they might undo themselves.) And in addition: when the new Staff was created, it became an inherent participant in both Law and Earthpower, just as Berek's did; BUT the *condition* of Law and Earthpower when Linden created her Staff was different than it was when Berek created his; and therefore the *condition* of the new Staff is also different. So. The creation of the new Staff did not *in itself* restore the broken Laws of Death and Life. Presumably it *could*. If the right wielder used it in the right way. But that hasn't happened yet. <whew> (12/20/2004) |
Hilda: Hello Mr. Donaldson
First, thank you.
I had the distinct pleasure of attending your book signing in San Diego in October. You were generous, kind, gracious and yes, charming - publisher obligations not withstanding. I felt as if I had met someone who had known my good friend Thomas Covenant. I hadn't realized how much I had grown attached to him!
As well, somehow listening to your voice has now added a new dimension to my reading of Runes - I hear you as the story-teller - hmm. I have attended my share of book signings but that has never happened before.
To my question: Covenant and now Linden have been the main protagonists thus far and I am especially enjoying Linden now (you have brought her back faithfully as I mentioned during the Q&A session)however, I have always felt a longing to know and experience more of The Land. I think that The Land is what initially captured my curiosity and my heart when I first picked up the first book. Can we look forward to being in the land a bit more? It is as much character/friend as Covenant has been.
Another thank-you for taking time - a precious thing I know - to indulge your reading public. You are generous and kind.
Hilda
|
And thank you! I don't think you realize how much readers like you give back to me. For me, at least, writing is a necessarily isolated occupation. One reason I've put so much time and effort into this interview is that contact like this with readers like you helps me feel less alone. To your question. I don't want to give anything away. And my thinking about some aspects of this story, especially in the middle volumes, is still in flux. But with those warnings in mind: I don't foresee leaving the Land at any point during "The Last Chronicles." I think you can count on seeing a fair amount of it. <grin> (12/20/2004) |
Bryan: It seems daunting at times to create a story of such magnitude as the chronicles. I have been working on a story and would like to know if you develop your character stories and history before you write your story? Thanks
|
My methods vary from situation to situation, according to whatever aspect of the story in front of me is giving me the most trouble. I've been known to write essays about particular characters entirely for my own benefit, so that I'll know where they come from and where they're going as characters. But in general it's fair to say that I design my stories first, and then discover my characters while I'm writing what I've designed. It's also fair to say--as I've said before--that there is no *right* way to plan and carry out stories. Every good storyteller is different. The only *right* way is the way that works for the particular individual who is creating the story. (12/20/2004) |
Laura: Mr. Donaldson:
Your books were passed around my college campus (never *mind* how many years ago that was!). They astonished me - they still do. As soon as I heard that The Runes of the Earth was out, I purchased it and immediately called in sick for the next day, knowing I would be up all night reading. (For the record, I made it until 2:30 AM, and sheepishly went in to work anyway. Love that protestant work ethic and all...) I find myself stopping every once in a while to laugh in delight and chagrin. Thank you.
I had a kidney transplant a few years ago. After having been desperately ill for so long (and feeling my mental faculties slip away as my blood became a toxic soup), I re-read Mordant's Need, overjoyed that what had been beyond me for three years was finally back within my grasp. Thank you for that, as well - it kept me sane.
My question is this - where and how, oh please!, tell me how?, did you acquire your incredible vocabulary?
My second question is a bit more complex. How did you learn despair? And how did you find your way to hold it at bay?
Laura
|
I've already discussed vocabulary in this interview. The short answer: I compile word lists when I read; then I look those words up and try to become familiar with them. Recently Tennyson's "Idylls of the King" has been a rich source. How did I learn despair? And how do I hold it at bay? Gosh, we could spend days on such topics without necessarily shedding any light. I'll be cryptically brief. "When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you." Well, I'm too bright, and I've experienced too much abuse, to be able to avoid looking into the abyss. Regularly. But when the abyss looks into me, it sees a fighter. The fact that this is *not* what most people see when they look at me is irrelevant. Or approaching the question from a different direction: I think there are basically two kinds of people in the world, those who are diminished by their pains, problems, and losses, and those who learn and grow because of what they suffer. Long ago I chose to be one of the latter. Not because I possess any particular wisdom, courage, or strength, but because I found the sense of helplessness that I felt when I looked into the abyss intolerable--and I disliked my only obvious alternative (suicide). So I decided to believe that there are no conditions under which it is impossible to give battle. This is not a statement about "conditions" (many of which might legitimately be described as hopeless): it's a statement about *me*. If a situation appears hopeless to me, that simply means I need to learn how to perceive it differently: as an opportunity rather than as a blank wall. This ain't easy, and I don't do it gracefully. Nevertheless my theme song is Simon and Garfunkle's "The Boxer," the last verse of which (if memory serves) goes like this: "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade; and he carries the reminder of every glove that put him down or cut him 'til he cried out in his anger and his shame, 'I am leaving, I am leaving!' But the fighter still remains." And *that*, my friends, is more personal revelation than I usually allow myself. (12/21/2004) |
chris deveau: I just finished re-reading "PENANCE" from REAVE THE JUST AND OTHER TALES. It was very refreshing to read a tale about a vampire that sought redemption and tried to make a difference in the lives of others. My favorite part of the story is Scriven's pleading with the priest to be baptized, when he utters that great line: "If the grace of Heaven is without end or limit, surely it holds a place for such as me?" Talk about lobbing the ball into the other guy's court, if you follow my meaning.
Anyway, I've read many vampire stories in my lifetime(films also), and they all seem to have stock characters and situations. The same bloodthirsty creatures of the night stalk their helpless prey, then they are pursued and eventually killed by a Van-Helsing-type character and the world is safe again.
My question is this: Have you also noticed this trend? "PENANCE" is the only story I know of that dares the reader to explore the possibility that a vampire can also be a victim and can be worthy of our trust and friendship. If I had to guess, I would say that you deliberately discarded the hackneyed plot devices found in that genre to tell Scriven's tale.
|
Well, "Penance" doesn't seem all that unique to me. Writers like Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Fred Saberhagen have written about sympathetic vampires for years. And vampires have become stock erotic figures in certain kinds of "romance" novels. But I do find that stereotypes paralyze creativity; and I never seem to get story ideas that don't in some form involve discarding preconceptions, prior expectations, and stereotypes. In other words, discarding stereotypes isn't so much a conscious choice as a creative necessity. (12/21/2004) |
Dave P.: First, a rhetorical question, one a lot of us on this site can relate to. Is it harder to read each book of "The Last Chronicles" when it is published, and then wait (im)patiently for the next to be published? Or is it harder to wait for the entire series to be published before you start reading any of it? I didn't start the "First Chronicles" until the entire series was in paperback. That was easy, just read one book after another. I read each book of the "Second Chronicles" as it was published, and the wait for the next in the series was awful. When the "Gap" series came out, I waited until the entire series was available before starting. That wasn't so easy either, but I was able to go from one book to the next. Right now, I have "Runes" sitting on my bookshelf, and can't decide whether to read it and wait, or let it gather dust until all four books are done. HELP!!
Then, just a simple question for you (I hope) - how do you like to be addressed? Should we be calling you Stephen? Steve? Mr. Donaldson? Something else entirely? What do you like best?
|
If reading these books is a pleasure, then I say, Why wait? A pleasure deferred is a pleasure missed. I follow this method myself: Steven Erikson's "Malazan" books are a case in point. After all, what's the worst that can happen? Increased impatience--which can be salved by re-reading the previous book before the next one comes out (more pleasure, presumably). How do I like to be addressed? What's that old joke? You can call me anything you want as long as you don't call me late for dinner. I'm not keeping score here. (12/21/2004) |
Sean Casey: How would you feel about being known as the guy who wrote the Thomas Covenant books? (As opposed to any other books, that is. I almost put 'remembered as', but, of course, that no longer applies :) )
Or to put the same question a little more subtly, if you met someone who hadn't read you but wanted to and who had moderate interest in all genres, which story, book or series would you recommend they read? Why?
Thanks.
|
To be known *only* as "the guy who wrote the Thomas Covenant books" would sadden me. I'm proud of all my books, and would like, in a manner of speaking, to "get credit" for all of them. But when people ask me where to start reading Donaldson, I always suggest one of my short story collections. As I like to say, "That way you can find out if you like what I do without making it your life's work." (12/21/2004) |
phillip andrew bennett low: You've always been somewhat reclusive in your personal life -- for years, the only knowledge I had of your background was the tantalizingly scant information in the backs of your books, that you'd been a conscientious objector in Vietnam. I have to confess, that tidbit always rises to my mind when I read the opening of "The Wounded Land," where Covenant purchases a gun to defend Joan but finds himself unable to use it.
This sense that power is both dangerous and paralyzing arises frequently in your work; and if you're comfortable speaking about it, where do you stand politically, and how do you feel that that influences your work (if at all)?
|
In various forms, I've already discussed how my beliefs, experiences, and personality influence my work. And I keep repeating that my political views, like my religious convictions, are essentially irrelevant to the purposes of this interview. But since the question of politics keeps coming up.... In general, I think that anyone who wants to hold political power should be automatically disqualified from public office. Only people who distrust power profoundly, and who have no desire to wield it, should be entrusted with running the country. Doubtless this is completely unworkable. But as a step in the right direction, I think we should all try to give up our enthusiasm for electing people who we know *in advance* will betray the ideals of this country, and who feel no qualms at all about lying through their teeth. Just my opinion. (12/22/2004) |
Mark Morgon-Shaw: I have read that research has been done into storytelling from different cultures and across every form of fiction which has stated that there are only seven basics plots on which all stories are based. It is said that whilst many stories may not seem similar on the surface that, at a deeper level, they all seemed to unfold round the same general pattern.
I'm no story teller, I write songs ( based around the same 12 notes ! ) so as a one of the best story tellers around have you heard of this theory and what do you make of it ?
|
Sadly, I can't comment on this. I've heard the "there are only seven basic plots" idea put forward in various contexts; but I've never seen or heard a discussion of what those "seven basic plots" are. Which is probably a good thing. In my view, the essence of storytelling is particularity: very specific people with very specific emotions in very specific situations. If I knew that everything I want to write is "just another example of x, y, or z basic plot," the information might have a negative effect on my concentration. In addition, there's the very real possibility that the whole idea is bogus. Just because musicians in the West only have 12 basic notes to work with doesn't mean that all compositions are basically the same--or even basically comparable. Theoreticians love to "deconstruct" acts of communication into various components, and then generalize about those components. Which is, I suppose, a valid use of intellect, and (at least potentially) a useful aid to the comprehension of particular stories, of storytelling in general, and of the functions of the human mind. But I suspect (fear?) that such an approach leads people to lose sight of what makes particular stories worth reading in the first place. (12/22/2004) |
Kevin: Hello Steve,
Long time reader, 1st time question writer.
Is there any chance of seeing a book of artwork of the any of your series? While I own 2 copies of the atlas of the Land, they were not that strong from an artwork perspective.
It would be a welcome sight to see a talented Fantasy artist's interpretation of all things Covenant.
Thanks,
Kevin
|
As matters stand, I'm not popular or successful enough for any publisher to contemplate such a project. "The Atlas of the Land" sold dismally, and quickly went out of print; and nothing has happened since then to convince anyone that I'm "worth the risk" (art books, after all, are very expensive to produce). Putnams has already gone out on a limb by releasing an audio version of "Runes". They aren't likely to go farther. A "Covenant" movie could change the situation, of course. But that's in the Department of Don't Believe It Until You See It With Your Own Eyes. (12/22/2004) |
Graeme Sandford: As a purchaser of the 22 CD audio set, my 2 questions are: did you consider recording, or were you asked to record, the volume for audio release yourself? Did you have a say on whom was chosen to record the CD of the book?
Personally, I think that the reading of the book should be the reader's starting point and, ultimately, the end point for where the story is obtained (apart, perhaps, from your priceless authorial insights). Film versions, adaptions and abridgements have, unfailingly, in my opinion, served to corrupt the vision of the reader that is created by the words on the pages.
The book is my starting point, the CD set is there to re-inforce the book.
Thank you for the reading experiences and visions that you have provided for many, many people. Graeme
|
I was never asked to do the reading for the audio version of "Runes"--and I had no say in Scott Brick's selection for the job. But if I *had* been asked, I would have refused. Never mind the fact that I lack the time. I lack the skill. Much as I might question some of the cadences of Brick's reading, I can assure you absolutely that his work is more clear, comprehensible, consistent, and generally professional than anything I could have done. (12/22/2004) |
Anonymous: Hi. I'm going to write my own set of books; or am certainly thinking of it. And I was wondering if you had any tips. Where do you start? I have a lot of ideas; but I've never done anything like this before, got any tips? How did/do you write your stories? I mean it must take even a genius like you some time to figure it out, do you write down points, how do you build?
thanks a lot for answering these questions for us fans. It is amazing, I've never heard of any other author doing it before. God bless.
|
There are a fair number of tips scattered throughout this interview; but the most important of them is this: you have to figure it out for yourself. (God knows *I* did.) There are as many different approaches as there are writers, and all of them are only as good as their "fit" for the specific writer using them. I know it's hard; but you'll never get where you want to go if you don't figure out how to get there for yourself. (12/22/2004) |
Jonathan Atkinson: Hello Stephen,
Just finished reading Runes, absolutely excellent, and am not sure I can wait the 2 or so years to get hold of Fatal Revenant......
My question - in the Gap series, is Maxim Igensard's surname similarity to Isengard (the city in Lord of the Rings) a large coincidence, or intentional?
Good luck with the writing of Fatal Revenant (quickly).
Jon.
|
Well, it isn't exactly a coincidence; but I wouldn't be in a hurry to ascribe meaning to it. I liked the way "Maxim Isengard" sounded; but I knew I couldn't use "Isengard"; so instead of throwing the sounds away I juggled them until I came up with a combination that pleased me. The result was definitely *not* an intentional reference to LOTR. (12/22/2004) |
Grant: Hi,
Many thanks for the recent book signings in london..You commented to em on the day that you feel 'alive' when writing Covenant books and I am sure all of us fans of your books would agree we certainly feel alive when reading them !
2 questions if I may.
(1) Sometimes on book covers you are named Stephen R Donaldson and other times Stephen Donaldson - do you have a preference and what is the reason for the inconsistencies ?
(2) Were you skeptical at the time of releasing the mystery novels under a pseudonym and would you do it differently in hindsight ?
Many thanks, Grant
|
1) There are no inconsistencies. In the US, I'm always "Stephen R. Donaldson": in the UK, I'm always "Stephen Donaldson". But since *I* always use the "R," the question is: why did the Brits drop it? Apparently that's their standard usage. (William R. Shakespeare? Joseph R. Conrad? Charles R. Dickens?) Unless the author uses *only* initials (J. R. R. Tolkien; G. K. Chesterton; C. S. Lewis), the Brits never use the middle initial. 2) The pseudonym for my mystery novels was forced on me--the original publisher, Ballantine, refused to publish the books without it--and I always hated using it. If the decision had been left to me (or if I had believed that I had the power to make the decision), I never would have invented "Reed Stephens." And I'll always be grateful to Tom Doherty and Tor Books (not to mention Malcolm Edwards and Orion) for giving me the chance to "come out of the closet." (12/22/2004) |
Haxson: While searching the web I stumbled over this site:
http://www.geocities.com/jmur9999/books.htm
As far as I can see the site has the complete chronicles (six books) available as text.
Unless the books have been released to the public it looks like a serious case of copyright infringement.
If it isn't, please disregard this message.
|
Youre right, this is significant copyright infringement, otherwise known as *stealing*. But Ballantine Books, the holder of the copyright, has known about this for a long time, and has apparently chosen not to take any action. And a number of people have expressed an interest in e-versions of the Covenant books. So until Ballantine does get around to taking appropriate action, I say, What the hell. If you want any of the Covenant books in a poorly-scanned .rtf file, help yourself. And if you feel guilty about doing this (as I would), the solution is simple: buy an (extra?) copy of the physical book(s) to balance out the moral equation. (01/01/2005) |
Mark Sanges: Dear Steve,
You have ruined me sir! I must protest the absolute wonderfulness that is The Runes of the Earth. I picked up my copy the day it was released and finished it in a matter of 4 or 5 days and now I am ruined! As an avid reader (especially of fantasy fiction), I typically read 3-4 books a month and since completing Runes I have been entirely unable to immerse myself in any other novel so far. Every single book I pick up pales by comparison. The characters, settings, plots and counterplots, and everything else that goes into your works simply put the rest of the field of writers in this genre to shame. Even old favorites seem pale and dry when I try to re-read them now.
That said, I do have a couple of quick questions. (1) How is your book tour going? I know you find such tours grueling, so I hope you are bearing the burden well and will soon be able to return to a more normal life. (2) When will Book 2 of the last chronicles be ready?! The ending of Runes left me breathless for more. And to end it *THERE* simply had to be an exercise in planned torture by you for all of your fans. You had to know we would all be saying, "I can't believe it ended THERE!"
All I can say is well done. But you should probably express some form of apology to all the other fantasy writers out there whose works I can no longer become absorbed in. As I said, you've ruined me! Thank you so much for ALL of your books (btw, the Gap series is my favorite of your works, with Covenant taking a very close second) and for participating in such an open forum with your readers and fans. All my best to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanges
|
I know youre mostly kidding around when you say that Ive ruined you for other fantasy books. But in the same vein: I dont think I owe all the other fantasy writers an apology; I think *they* owe *you* one. 1) The fact that Im answering this question suggests that I survived the book tours. I suspect that my publishers would say the tours went well but not great. For myself, I simply concentrate on trying to get through the experience intact--and then on forgetting the whole thing as soon as possible. 2) Eventually this interview will include some form of FAQ for such questions. Until then, Ill keep repeating: hope to see Fatal Revenant in two years; expect to see it in three. (01/01/2005) |
Jim: Mr Donaldson,
I just have a couple of questions.
1) How much does your environment impact your ability to write. It would be unjustified to call myself a writer...yet...but I do a bit of writing, and I am currently trying to write a story, but I have found that my environment affects my ability to write. I am currently having a hard time, because I like peaceful quiet places where I have a nice pastoral view. My room is dreary and dark and I find it hard to "tap into" my creativity. So I was wondering if and how your environment impacts your writing.
2) I seem to have noticed a stylistic shift in your writing over the years and would like your comment if you don't mind. The First and Second Covenant books were very descriptive. I have actually heard people complain that this is an aspect of the books they didn't like, although I absolutely loved it. It gave me a vivid picture of the people and places and made the beauty of the Land really concrete for me. But I noticed, or I think I noticed, with the Gap series that there was less detailed descriptiveness. In the Gap books, I attributed this to the environment. I mean, they were in space for the most part. How descriptive can you be? But I think I am noticing this in the Runes of the Earth as well. The style seems similar to the Gap books with less in the way of descriptive detail. Now I can see a justification for this in the story itself with the introduction of Kevin D. (don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't read it yet), which would make a lack of descriptive detail integral to the story itself. Is this a conscious device on your part, is it the result of stylistic evolution, am I off my rocker, or is there some other explanation? The third is quite a distinct possibility, so don't hesitate to say so if that is the answer. :)
Thank you in advance for answering, and... I don't want to be too obsequious here but... I absolutely drool whenever I hear another book of yours is coming out. You have spoiled all other fantasy for me. Everything else seems trite and predictable after Covenant. But maybe that's just me. :)
Jim
PS Sorry if you've answered either of these, but it is a long gradual interview, even with the filter. So I ask your forgiveness in advance. And PS, I love the covenant books, but I like the Man Who books too. Enough to pay unforgivable amounts of money for some of them used when they were out of print. If I'd known you were going to write a fourth... :)
|
1) I like to think that my environment doesnt affect my *ability* to write. But theres no doubt that my environment has a profound effect on my ability to *keep on* writing. In other words, I can write almost anywhere, if I have to--for short periods of time. But the less congenial the environment is, the more effort I have to expend in order to concentrate effectively; and therefore the more quickly I become too tired to keep going. So in practice the right environment (I mean right for me: everyone is different) is critical. 2) Im only aware in comparatively subtle ways of a stylistic shift between the first six Covenant books and the most recent one. In particular, I know that there are a few technical methodologies which I developed for the GAP books which Im reluctant to abandon now, for the simple reason that I like what can be accomplished with them. At the same time, Ive worked very hard at continuing the essential stylistic spirit, the feel, of the original Covenant prose. And Im not conscious of being less descriptive than I was years ago. (Certainly my current editor usually feels that Im *too* descriptive.) No, what Im aware of is a shift in my narrative priorities. Putting the matter as crudely as possible, my characters now spend a lot more time talking to each other, and a lot less time moving around (and gazing at) the landscape. This is to some extent a conscious choice (Ive written at length about my growing emphasis on the dignity of my characters) and to some extent an evolutionary change (after all, you can hardly expect me to be the same person I was 25 years ago; so naturally I think in different ways, and want different things, than I did back then). (01/01/2005) |
Peter B.: Stephen,
I just finished reading Runes of the Earth. How wonderful it was to return to the Land! Thank you!! I'm hanging on with anticipation for Fatal Revenant.I'm sure you can hardly wait to begin actually writing it.
My question: At the end of The Power That Preserves Lord Mhoram states, "...we will not devote ourseles to to any Lore which precludes Peace. We will gain lore of our own--we will strive and quest and learn until we have found a lore in which the Oath of Peace and the preservation of the Land live together. We will serve Earthfriendship in a new way."
During the "Soothtell" in The Wounded Land Covenant learns a bit more about what happened after his victory over the Despiser. [Mhoram} commenced a search for new ways to use and serve Earthpower. Guided by his decision, Councils for generations after him had used and served,performing wonders."
I won't ask what new Lore Mhoram and others found.
But did their decision to find another way, one not subject to Corruption, result at ALL in the coming of the Clave and the forthcoming Masters ineffective guardianship?
|
Ill have to refer to you back to earlier discussions of the Oath of Peace because I dont want to re-explain the insight which allowed Mhoram to become more effective than his immediate predecessors, even though he lacked the Staff of Law. The point is this: for a long time, the people of the Land saw the Oath of Peace as a proscription against certain emotions, while Mhoram learned to see it as a prescription for certain behaviors. In so doing, he opened the door for his own actions, and for the actions of others, to be galvanized, energized, empowered by previously-rejected emotions. Now, speaking as a student of the martial arts, I believe this to be A Good Thing--as long as no one re-creates the conditions which led to the formulation of the Oath of Peace in the first place. And those conditions were: action *determined* by emotion (Kevin and the Ritual of Desecration, Trell and the devastation of The Close) rather than action determined by conscience and then *energized* by emotion (Lord Mhorams Victory). Well, the unfortunate fact is that emotions are messy, wisdom is rare, and conscience can be misled. In a very real sense, therefore, I think that when Mhoram removed the proscription against certain emotions and replaced it with the prescription for certain behaviors he did indeed open the door for the (eventual) emergence of the Clave. (Theres a *reason* why religions tell you how to feel--and it isnt just because religions are about control [although they certainly are]. Theyre also trying to avoid the dangers inherent in letting emotion determine action. Just to pick one example: history has shown us over and over again that punishing people for murder is a less effective deterrent than teaching them that rage, jealousy, and greed are evil.) An inevitable effect of unleashing emotion--even in the best of all possible causes--is that for some people emotion will then begin to overwhelm wisdom/conscience/morality. So I think that Mhorams insight made the Clave possible. Does this mean he made a mistake? Far from it. Consider the alternative: Mhoram stays trapped within the confines of the old Oath of Peace; the Lords are defeated; Revelstone is over-run; and Covenants victory over Lord Foul does nothing to prevent a kind of cultural Dark Age (one which, in fact, closely resembles the state of affairs in The Runes of the Earth). In practice, however, it was not Mhorams insight which led to the ineffective guardianship of the Masters: it was the vacuum of culture and lore left by the Claves defeat which inspired the Masters to take on a challenge that became too big for them. (01/01/2005) |
Bryan Tannehill: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Congratulations on the success of Runes. You'd probably be surprised to know I found "Runes" at a Navy exchange overseas two days after it's release.
Something occurred to me about your writing style and its potency while I was reading "The Illearth War" again. You say you are not a visual writer but an emotional one, butI wondered how the places you describe so sparingly can seem so detailed in my mind's eye. It later occurred to me that by evoking an emotion in a reader, you make them "fill in the blanks" with a place or setting that matches the emotion. Describing Earthenroot made me think of being with my father when he got me a sneak preview (legally) tour of Karchner caverns. The emotions you sought to evoke about Andelaine immediately made me mentally conjure up the Baldy Trail in Arizona, one of the most ecologically and geologically diverse places I've found. Even Succorso's ship immediately drew up in my mind's eye the ineriors of a run-down 30 year old ship I'd served on whose captain was a screaming, raving tyrant. Is this something you thought about conciously, to give give a short emotive description and rely on the reader's similar emotional attachments to places to fill in the blanks? For me, this has been the case, and because of it your tightly worded descriptions yield a much richer and detailed mental picture than other less effecient authors. I've referred an aspiring writer who works for me to this interview, it's a remarkable insight into so many facets of being a writer and an author. Thank you again for fielding these questions.
Very Respectfully,
Bryan Tannehill
|
The short answer is: yes, this is both a conscious choice and a natural inclination. Im not a particularly visual person myself, so of course I want the reader to do as much of the work as possible. <grin> After all, communication through prose is always an interactive process, even though the interactors--the writer and the reader--are not physically present to each other, and are also separated in time. And Ive noticed that the writers who are most successful at making *me* see--and feel--are those who provide emotive and poetic descriptions rather than visually literal ones. (01/01/2005) |
Neil Parr: Perhaps a minor point but I was just wondering why the Last Chronicles aren't a trilogy? Saying that I'm not complaining as each of Stephens books are a joy.
|
Im truly surprised that this question keeps coming up. Whats so special about a trilogy? Why does anyone think its odd that I would choose some other format? Well, repeating things Ive said earlier: Ive only actually written one trilogy in my life, the original Chronicles. The Second Chronicles was planned in four volumes: it only became a trilogy when Lester del Rey waved his editorial wand and made it so. Mordants Need is in four parts. The GAP books are, in effect, an extended drumroll followed by four books. I cant explain why; but my creative impulse seems to work more naturally in four-part structures than in three (in symphonies, one might say, instead of in concertoes). The structure of The Last Chronicles *suits* me in some fundamental, and entirely inarticulate, way. (01/01/2005) |
Michael Rowlands: Mr. Donaldson,
In response to what was written last month in the gradual interview I would like to state that I find your books thought-provoking and intelligent. I am about to start a PhD in Psychology, and have found that many of your themes in the Chronicles and the Gap 'resonate' with what I have studied. Particularly, the concepts of the inner-despiser and redemption.
Anyway, my question regards redemption and the amnion mind. Given that some people go so far to seek redemption and the amount of energy of trying to seek it, what would be the effect of being converted to Amnion? Would the guilt become subsumed by the mindset of the amnion? I am curious to know considering what an interesting character Marc Vestabule was; complex because of his past fears and the amnion mind.
|
From my perspective, what made Marc Vestabule interesting was the way in which he was trapped between identities: no longer fully human, but certainly not fully Amnion; imperfectly able to function in both realities. The Amnion themselves dont strike me as particularly interesting. Theyre too single-minded: for them, the whole concept of conflict between individuals, or between groups of individuals, is inherently meaningless. Im far more fascinated by the way in which humankinds multifarious weaknesses can suddenly become strengths in the face of something as truly alien as single-mindedness. (01/01/2005) |
Thor Hammersen aka Briny the Pirate (reverse-oblique-inverted-hero): Greetings and salutations Mr. Donaldson,
first off, Thank you.
now that the important part of my message is out of the way and most of the questions I could ever have possibly thought to ask you have been answered here, I'm left with this one: do you have a written copy of the speech by your father that helped to inspire TCoTCtU, and is there any possibility that it could be posted on this site?
Again, Thank you
Best wishes T.H.
|
My father never wrote out any of his talks. And I was only half listening anyway, since I was in that creative zone where other things inspire thoughts which quickly leave their origins far behind. So I couldnt reproduce that original talk even if I wanted to. Which, actually, I dont. I do still have what you might call a research paper that my father wrote on the subject of leprosy for my edification; and its really nothing more than an emotionless recitation of facts. I wouldnt inflict it on anyone. (01/01/2005) |
Stephen Collings: Dear Stephen,
Thanks as always for your fantastic writings!
A wee request: Please, when you start "Fatal Revenant", do post the happy news on your news board, so we can all celebrate and wish you good health! :-)
As always, I wish you an exciting time writing it!
Best wishes, Stephen.
|
I avoid doing this sort of thing for various reasons, one of which is that I dislike the sensation that people are looking over my shoulder, and another of which is that I dont want to turn this into a tease. But since you asked so nicely <grin>, Ill say just this once that I have in fact broken ground on Book Two, and that--changing metaphors as violently as possible--Im juggling an enormous number of balls as fast as I can. (01/01/2005) |
Pam Chinery: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks for answering my previous question. Here is one last one from me. I did run it through your filter, and evidently it hasn't been asked yet.
When my husband gave me "Lord Foul's Bane" to read thirteen years ago, I started a little game with him. From the beginning, I hoped your books would eventually be made into movies. So independently, we made up our own "dream team" of actors to cast the characters. Not necessarily superstars (in fact, we tended away from them), but to see who embodied our own mental pictures of the characters.
So here's the question. Who, if you could have anyone, and money was no object, would you cast for Thomas Covenant and Linden Avery? (Because, of course, all the books would be made into movies -grin-). My husband says Christopher Walken and Holly Hunter.
|
It's strange. I used to (mildly) enjoy playing Cast The Movie. But now that serious movie people are making a serious attempt to acquire financing for a "Covenant" film, I'm no longer interested. Doubtless this is self-protective: I'm trying hard to avoid expectations and disappointments. In an entirely personal, and rather peculiar, way, this has ceased to be a safe topic for me. <sigh> At this point, I really can't afford to worry about whether Justin Timberlake gets cast as Linden Avery. (01/01/2005) |
Ryan H: Mr Donaldson,
I have noticed a recurring theme in the TC books that I find the most appealing. Many of the sequences of your stories and sub-stories culiminate to a climax chapter. I speak not of action, but of fortitude and pressure-driven dialog by either Covenant or Linden. I call these chapters the "zinger" chapters whereby so much inadequency or damaging innocence or blind conviction of the Land characters forces Covenant or Linden to blow characters apart with shock treatment. The most entertaining aspect of that is that you have a realistic protaganist doing that in a fantasy setting. This makes my suspension of disbelief while reading very plausible! Does the extremes of a fantasy setting make these zingers easier to accomplish? Do you put yourself in Linden or Covenant's place as if you were there listening to Haruchai spout off about the impossibilities (and caveats) of perfect service or the Lords thinking that all the world's answers come in the form of a stick and some humming stones? Or how about the time, Covenant told Foamfollower just where he could stick his habitual laughter? ect....
Thank you so much for your time!
|
I'm not sure I know quite what your question is. Certainly the way I organize my stories (including, but not limited to, how I break them down into chapters) is deliberate. But does writing fantasy make this easier to do? Not that I know of. It's clear that all of my fiction deals in "extremes" of one kind or another. That seems inherent to the way I think. It isn't affected by the setting (fantasy, sf, mystery). (01/07/2005) |
Matthew Orgel (The Dreaming): What I was asking [in my previous question] was did you plan from the start to bring Hollian back to life? It was a very strange relief I felt when Cear Caveral brought her back.
All I was really asking though was if you meant her resurrection to feel like a complete vindication for the pain you put us through upon her death. (I am trying to word it as best I can and I am having trouble) Or did you want that feeling of strange, reluctant relief? I was frankly a little confused. It felt a little strange, and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to feel. On one hand it felt like a cop-out. You get the emotional Impact of killing a principle without the impact that it would have on the story.
Your completely shot in the dark response though reveals that I was correct in my other feeling. That somehow Cear-Caveral breaking the law of life was more important than Just brining back a dead character.
I somehow got this image of you in front of a computer (I know you used a typewriter, but I don't think in terms of them. I am a very young man) gleefully killing her off, and then saying "oh $#@$, I need her in the story again" and finding a way to bring her back. I am glad I was wrong, bit it was an amusing thought nonetheless.
|
As a matter of storytelling principle, I don't believe in jerking my readers around. So if something in what I've written makes you feel jerked around, you can be pretty sure that there's Something Else Going On. (And keep in mind that I know my stories before I write them--especially true in the case of the first six "Covenant" books--so the scenario you've imagined isn't likely to happen.) In "The Second Chronicles," it was absolutely essential that somebody who knew what was going on, and who wanted to help Covenant save the Land, broke the Law of Life. But since that somebody was clearly going to be one of the Good Guys, he/she/it had to have a pretty damn good reason for taking action. The fact that Hollian's resurrection is also essential to "The Last Chronicles" is simply not a good enough excuse for, well, "toying with the reader's affections." By my standards, if what I'm doing isn't fully justified by the story I'm actually telling, then it isn't justified at all. (01/07/2005) |
Lono: In the Chronicles, it has been established that things that have to do with the Land have seeped through into Covenant and Linden's world, and that time moves at a completely different pace.
I presumed that, at least to me, that the snake bite and venom in the First Chronicles had some ties to the Second. I know this is a stretch, but, since in the WHGB section and Lord Foul's Bane there was mention that Covenant's disease came completely out of left field, is there any correlation between this and Kevin's desecration in the legend of the Land?
|
Well, I can't argue with you. But I don't think of it that way myself. From my perspective, any "seepage" from the Land into the "real world" didn't start until fundamental Laws essential to the Land's existence had begun to break down. Certainly I consider the snake bite in the first trilogy and the venom in the second to be "seepage" in the opposite direction. So, in terms of Covenant's psychology (his need in the first trilogy to believe that the Land is a dream), obviously you could argue that Kevin's Ritual of Desecration also represents "seepage" from the "real world" into the Land. But I don't see any evidence to indicate that anything "seeped" from the Land to the "real world" until after the first trilogy. (01/07/2005) |
Bryan J. Flynn: Stephen, bravo on the release of "Runes of the Earth." I just finished it for the second time - the first being a sprint, the second a walk - and its a remarkable start. Open sites like this can diminish a fans praiseworthy reaction, but Runes is masterful art. Reading it has been a treat on many levels: thank you. I wish you all the best (luck, happiness, speed?) in your work on the chronicles.
My question is: why the heck didnt Ballantine publish the Last Chronicles? Nothing against Putnams publishing (the book is excellent) but I find it hard to believe Ballantine was not willing to support these books. The Covenant series is popular and widely read, and Im certain there will be a wide interest in the Last Chronicles.
My own impression is the release of Runes is under the radar for a lot of your audience thanks to little advance work. I vividly recall seeing a large ad in *Rolling Stone* for the GAP series back in the early 90s; why so little for Runes? I found out about its release as a lark when in July I found this site! Can you shed some light on Ballantines decision?
Yours,
Bryan
|
Ballantine Books, like several other publishers, expressed very little interest in "The Last Chronicles" because they considered--and perhaps still consider--me a has-been. (In their defense: I do write more and more slowly as I get older; and nothing that I've published in past 20 years has sold even 10% as well as "Covenant"--which naturally makes publishers think that the success of "Covenant" was an aberration, perhaps nothing more than a symptom of the zeitgeist of the late 70's and early 80's.) Jennifer Hershey at Putnams bought "The Last Chronicles" because she was my editor for the GAP books and she believes in me. In fact, she believes that I deserve to be published whether my books make money or not. It's true that "The Runes of the Earth" has not been as well promoted (at least in the US) as the first "Covenant" books were. But we all lived in a different world back then. Publishers could afford to take more chances in how they marketted books. And Judy-Lynn del Rey was the publisher of DEL REY/Ballantine. She was a marketting genius. In addition, she received unprecedented support from her bosses. That combination of circumstances won't recur. It can't: the mega-corporations which own all of modern publishing won't allow it because they can't understand it. And keep in mind as well: Bantam's attempts to promote the GAP books failed dismally. What good is an ad in "Rolling Stone" if it doesn't sell books? (01/07/2005) |
Tony Powell: Of all the generous glimpses you've given us into your writing process, the most intriguing to me is the notion of knowing how it all ends before you begin.
How literally should we take this? Do you know who, when, where and how everyone and everything will turn out specifically before you even begin? Surely not because elsewhere you speak of sometimes getting on the wrong track and having to "go back and figure out where things began to go wrong."
I would've imagined that many, many characters (Nom, e.g.) presented themselves long after your writing had begun, the story and its people appearing around each bend, so to speak. Not all could be conceived so completely from the first. Could they?
|
You should take it very literally. As I keep saying, I can't write at all unless I know "how it all ends." However, what this means in practice has changed over the years. As I've explained elsewhere, the first six "Covenant" books were meticulously planned *in toto* before I began writing. Nom certainly came as no surprise to me: I had planned on that creature from the beginning. (Of course, there *were* surprises for me throughout the writing of those books. But those surprises revolved around "personality" rather than "function." Saltheart Foamfollower's personality was my biggest surprise in the whole of the first six books, followed closely by Pitchwife's personality, and by Lord Hyrim's.) But since those days, I've become considerably more flexible. I still know exactly "how it all ends," but I no longer feel a need to pre-plan every single action and character along my way toward that end. Just one example: in the GAP books everything about Sorus Chatelaine came as a (wonderful) surprise to me. So your conception of how I work is much more accurate now than it once was. (01/07/2005) |
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.
Daljit Singh Kainth: Thank you for your visit to London, i really enjoyed your talk and look forward to the last chronicles. heres the question i was to nervous to ask during the book signings, did you and in particular your publisher think it a risk to have your main character suffer from leprosy and
commit rape so early on in the book and thereby loose any sympathy that the reader may have had to what is the "hero". Is immortality tough.
|
It is to Lester del Rey's eternal credit that he never blinked at Covenant's leprosy, or at the rape of Lena. He understood perfectly that such things were essential a) to the story itself, and b) to distinguish what I was doing from everyone else's work. Of course he knew that he was taking a risk (although it wasn't as big a risk as you might think, considering how little he paid me). But he was always ready and able to trust his own judgment. "Is immortality tough." Is that a question? If it is, I'll let you know when I get there. The only thing I can tell you at the moment is that I find mortality plenty difficult enough. (01/07/2005) |
Dean Ambroz: Firstly, thank you for your transports to the Land and to Amnion space.
I am surprised and delighted that his foulness is up to his old tricks and can't wait to begin 'RUNES'.
I note that in response to an earlier question, you believe the GAP series is complete, yet the "Last Chronicles" has been there for 20+yrs waiting to be written! As an avid GAP fan, I want to know more about the Amnion, about Angus before he met Morn, about the Hylands clan, about Nick as a youth and his ruin, about the early GAP years, about Hashi (my personal favourite) and I can't believe that Angus could leave Morn forever. Surely there's another few books there somewhere.
Also, will GAP ever be made into a movie?
Kind Regards
Dean
|
Alas, I can only repeat that there is nothing "waiting to be written" in the GAP sequence. I have no ideas at all. And I have no control at all over whether or not any of my books is ever made into a movie. A couple of wannabees once approached me about filming the GAP books. But they wanted *me* to finance the project--and I don't happen to have 300-400 million dollars I can spare. (01/07/2005) |
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.
Darran Handshaw: Dr. Donaldson,
I just finished Runes and it was wonderful.. I especially enjoyed the ending and the implications it has on the next books.
My question though, has nothing to do with Runes.. it was actually inspired by a few of the questions you answered about character names...
Have you ever decided to change a character name after you had written a portion of the whole of your story? If so.. what characters? Why? And what were their names beforehand? Also, has anyone ever suggested you change a name? Whether it be someone that reads your work before it is released or a publishing firm itself?
|
I don't like revealing my mistakes. They're embarrassing; and they undermine my (already tenuous) confidence. In addition, I believe passionately in the rewriting process; and I don't want to be judged by ANYthing that hasn't been through several stages of re-evaluation and reconsideration. But Yes, I have occasionally (rarely) become dissatisfied with a character's name while I was working; and when I become dissatisfied I do change that name. In "Runes," Mahrtiir once labored under a less satisfying name (but no, I'm not going to tell you what that name was). And Yes, people (e.g. my agent, an editor) do occasionally (rarely) suggest that I change a name. When I understand their reasoning, I comply. In "Daughter of Regals," the rebel, Kodar, once suffered from a name that elicited reasonable objections. In both cases, I think it would be fair to say that the original name had less, well, dignity than the name I eventually chose. (01/09/2005) |
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.
Anonymous: Mr. Donaldson,
Earlier in the interview I read that you lamented the death of DOS and the subsequent loss of a command line interface (its still there with Windows, just hard to find<grin>) and Wordstar. What OS do you use currently? Windows? Perhaps MacOS?
Have you had the opportunity to work with any of the free/open source operating systems such as Linux, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD? The reason I ask is that there are a number of Wordstar clones still active in the open source world.
I am pretty sure I know the answer the last question: your time is limited, so you do not have the freedom to experiment. Even with enormous usability improvements over the past few years, the free software operating systems and applications remain esoteric to users who just want things to work.
In what format do your publishers accept you submissions?
Also, when I discovered your Web page while looking for information on Runes I was immediately amazed by your picture. Your features (or those of your hired impersonator) are close to how I imagined TC in the second chronicles.
Thank you for taking the time to relate with your readers and more importantly writing the works we enjoy so much.
|
You're right: I don't have time to learn a completely new operating system (I'm stuck in the Windows world, and I hope I *never* have to leave Windows 2000), never mind new word processing software. And Word has sort of become the industry standard in publishing. My publishers would probably accept a small number of other formats (e.g. WordPerfect), but then they might well convert my files to Word anyway (introducing textual corruption as they do so). I'll stay where I am as long as I can. (01/09/2005) |
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.
Michaelson: Hello Mr. Donaldson. Do you find that this kind of continuous explication of your creative works on the internet diminishes your authors aura or the mystique of your works? For me it does to some extant.
|
Then I suggest you stop reading this interview. Personally, I have no interest in my "aura," or in the "mystique" of my works, and so I don't mind diminishing them (if that indeed is what this interview does). (01/09/2005) |
Teresa Dealey: Simple(or not so simple)question. If you could have any Christmas wish granted, what would it be?
Soulquest1970 (aka Mama T, Monstermom, and occasionally "hey, you with the face")
|
You mean I don't get to pick Peace On Earth? <grin> In that case, your question is *way* too personal for a public forum like this. (01/09/2005) |
Paul Huntington: Dear Mr Donaldson
Like a number of other correspondents (inquisitors) of the gradual interview, I have recently come out from under my rock, blinked while looking about, and discovered that a new Donaldson novel was released as I slept. Fantastic. Im just sorry to have missed the UK book tour (?) and to have only just discovered this site.
I have often wondered if Linden would be seen again, in many respects I thought she had just begun to be true, much as Covenant had after the Power that Preserves. Ive always loved your character-based approach to storytelling and the strong under current of redemption, which is almost always present.
Anyway Im supposed to be asking a question so here it is. Are King Joyce and Warden Dios by any chance related? What I mean by that is did you develop on the ideas and character of King Joyce to produce Warden Dios or was he stolen (as you understand the word) from Wotan? (by the way; Gap was fantastic!)
Good luck with the rest of the new story.
|
"Related"? Well, they certainly have a number of characteristics in common. In retrospect, it's easy to see King Joyse as "practicing," "getting ready," for Warden Dios. But of course I don't write books in retrospect. And at the time when I wrote "Mordant's Need," I had no vision at all of ever writing the GAP books. In fact, I had no idea of any kind about what I was going to do after "Mordant's Need." And when I wrote the GAP books, I was thinking about Wotan rather than about King Joyse. Still, it's probably fair to say that Warden Dios is in some sense built on the experience I gained in exploring King Joyse. (01/16/2005) |
Curtis Huska: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I had the pleasure of meeting you in Calgary, Alberta back in 1991. Since I found your descriptions of battle scenes in the First Chronicles to be some of the best I have ever read I was wondering where the inspiration came from? Did you do research on military tactics or particular historical battles?
Since finishing the Second Chronicles twenty years ago, I have not read any fantasy that has come close to the emotional impact that those 6 books had on me. Having read 'Runes'I believe the Last Chronicles may change that. My sincerest thanks for writing these books.
|
To the extent that I know where the inpiration came from, it came from the necessities of the story I was trying to tell. I certainly didn't do any research into "real" battles or "real" ideas about strategy and tactics. On the other hand, I always pay close attention when I'm reading novels (e.g. LOTR), looking for what "works" for me as a reader, and for what doesn't. Then I try to profit from those experiences, both positive and negative. (01/16/2005) |
Paul Hawke: I have 2 questions. Firstly, I am trying to track down the exact dialogue / quote from the Second Chronicles - a conversation that said if you truly want to hurt a man, you give him back the thing he most loves in a broken state. Do you recall where it is, or perhaps could you search your electronic manuscripts for it?
Secondly, what're your views of fanfiction set in the Thomas Covenant universe? I know that some authors encourage it (JK Rowling) while others strongly discorage it (e.g. Raymond E. Feist, Anne McCaffrey). What are your feelings?
|
The actual quote is, "There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken." Look in "The Wounded Land," chapter 2 of the prologue. I've already discussed my views on the fan fiction you describe. In brief: as far as I'm concerned, as long as there's no copyright infringement involved, and appropriate credit is given, then go ahead. Creativity is a good thing. Just understand that building on someone else's ideas is, well, second-hand creativity; therefore less beneficial for the creator. Creating your own work from scratch will do you more good. (01/16/2005) |
Todd Knight: Mr Donaldson,
First, please accept my thanks for the joys and growth I've experienced reading (and re-reading) the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Their influence on my worldview has been deep, even to the point of using the lessons I've learned "in the Land" in the ongioing education of my (beautiful, intelligent) daughter.
Also, I must express the joy I have felt while reading ROTE. Returning to The World after all this time is like finding my old combat boots from college - and discovering that they still fit.
For both of these things, my thanks.
Now for the question: You have said that your characters occasionally suprise you as you write. Can you give some favorite examples of this (preferably from the Covenant Series)?
(Worded carefully to avoid "spoilers"): The question of your characters doing what even the author "doesn't expect" came to me while reading ROTE. If I'm not being too cryptic, can you also comment on this?
|
I've already discussed "surprises" at several points in this interview. I'm not going to repeat myself. But I can tell you that I only encountered one such surprise in "The Runes of the Earth." However, it would be a spoiler to explain what that surprise was, or who supplied it. (01/16/2005) |
Paul: First - thanks for Runes...fantastic and a real pleasure after such a long wait.
Three short questions:
1. There is more 'realistic' swearing in Runes than the first six books - was this a decision that came easily and why change now (not that I was bothered....a bit of Anglo-Saxon never hurt anyone!)
2. You said recently that "First, I consider myself an "efficient" writer, by which I mean (in part) that I only create what I need". Previously you mentioned that internal consistency was a female dog because you had to remember what information had been revealed about places and people (can't find the exact quote, so I am paraphrasing there). To me, the latter implies that you do have an extended history etc in your mind, at least some of which is never going to see the light of day, and that you have to differentiate between the total information, and what has been printed (so you might have enough for a prequel or two...as you are clearly a big fan of that idea...NOT!) Am I completely mixed up in my assumption?
3. Now that Runes is read, I sadly have to fill my time reading other authors, so I took a sideways step and decided to reread Primo Levi's books (a great author). Given that the focus of much of his work is what it is to be human (and inhuman) I am wondering if you have read any of his books, and if they have influenced you at all?
Thanks again - looking forward to the next book!
Paul
|
First, a bit of trivia for regular contributers to the Gradual Interview: I'm now 193 questions behind. The good news? I'm so far behind because I'm working hard on "Fatal Revenant." Now: 1) This wasn't a conscious choice. Rather I think it reflects the evolution of how I perceive character. (Or it may just be an aftereffect of writing the GAP books and four mystery novels. <grin>) 2) You appear to be looking at my comments about "efficiency" and "internal consistency" backward. When I wrote the first three "Covenant" books, I absolutely did not foresee that I would ever continue the story; so I only invented as much "world background" as I needed. Then when I wrote "The Second Chronicles" I was able to foresee (and prepare for) a certain number of the issues which would arise in "The Last Chronicles" (since I knew the story I would eventually write); but there I failed to foresee just how complex the challenge of unifying *all* of the "Covenant" books would be. So once again I only invented as much "world background" as I needed for "The Second Chronicles." Which has now placed me in the terribly INefficient position of having to rediscover and (in some cases) reinvent the world as it has been previously presented. None of this would have happened if I had first created the kind of "extended history" you describe. Like MS-DOS, I'm trying frantically to invent "backward compatibility." 3) Sorry, I've never read any Primo Levi. But I'll look for him. (01/19/2005) |
John: Hi,
Firstly let me say what a pleasure it was to see you in Manchester. It was good that you took the time to answer as many questions. It was both informative and interesting. My son left the signing swearing that he is going to be a writer.
Now to the question, you have told us previously that you read slowly and are very selective in your choice of book. I was wondering if you read slowly or if you avoided reading/particular genres whilst in the writing process. And the second part of the same question, do you think that reading could affect your story telling?
|
I read slowly in part because I study what I read: I want to be able to see how the author "did it". So yes, what I read does definitely affect my storytelling (style, structure, presentation of character and dialogue, etc.). But I don't choose what I'm reading on the basis of what I'm writing. I once did: back in my unpublished days, I stayed away from reading fantasy while I wrote the first three "Chronicles". For two reasons: 1) if what I read was good, it would intimidate me (I can't compete with *this*); and 2) if what I read was bad, it would depress me (how come *this* bozo can get published and I can't?). However, such reactions have long since ceased to trouble me. I now know perfectly well how bad books get published; and I no longer make the mistake of comparing myself to writers I admire. (01/19/2005) |
thinbuddha: One thing that I don't remember comming up in the 1st chronicles (or 2nd, for that matter, but it seems more relevant to the 1st chrionicles)-
Covenant was spending so much energy trying to prove that the Land was a dream, yet he never brought up the fact that everybody seems to be speaking perfect English. The obvious question is: wouldn't a separate land develop a different communication system? I'm not sure how someone like Morham would respond to such a question. I know you have a rule about answering questions that are outside the text, but it seems like you must have thought of this one, and perhaps even written a passage about it that ended up getting cut. Do you care to comment on how Morham might address this "hole" in the reality of the Land?
Oh, and remember: "Lysol is the power that preserves" <wink>
|
Well, I suppose you could say that I didn't bring up the "language" issue (e.g. between Covenant and Mhoram) because I didn't think of it. <grin> Or you could say that the fact that our characters in our dreams speak our language is so axiomatic that *Covenant* didn't think of it. But the fact is that I considered the whole how-come-you-and-I-and-everyone-in-the-whole-world-can-understand-each-other issue to be an appalling can of worms, and I did *not* want to open it. I foresaw the possibility that I might undermine the entire narrative foundation of the story. In sf, a writer is compelled by the exigencies of the format to confront problems like language barriers. But the underlying assumptions of fantasy are not so rational: they are, in a sense, a-rational (rather than non-rational or irrational), arising as they do from that aspect of the human mind which creates dreams. I was--and am--acutely reluctant to impose the wrong kind of rationality on the story I'm trying to tell in the "Chronicles." (01/19/2005) |
Stephen Collings: I was very entertained by the "One Tree", as there was lots of exciting newness in it. :)
I have a highly-emotional yet mixed response to the Second Chronicles, because whilst they are fantastically AWESOME and HYPER-BRILLIANT in many many places, and over and over again, the schema upon which the RESOLUTION of the Second Chronicles depends upon has always struck me as VERY SHAKY, and because I like the books so much, it has unhappily bothered me much more than is sensible!!
Perhaps you would care to shed some light on this, and perhaps help me understand (if this is possible!) [ONE of the reasons I am excited about the Last Chronicles, is that I am keen to understand more about what went on in the second!]
So here are specific questions that might help:
What happened to Vain at the One Tree? Did he need to gain something from being touched by the aura of the Worm? Or was it just COINCIDENCE - as he had been pre-programmed by his makers to be able and ready to turn into a staff of wood, and the hyper primal power of the aura of the worm just accidentally set that inbuilt power uncontrollably off for a brief burst of transformation?
I have to think that the Forestal had a hand in the making of a being who was to turn into a PIECE OF WOOD!! (Caer-Caveral has some experience in this area I think!)
Surely Lord Lord Foul wasn't planning to have Linden in the Land?
Why did Lord Foul EVER expect Thomas Covenant to just hand him the ring (or did he not, as was that just a machination of his, to make the things he wanted happen?)
Did Thomas Covenant fear Lord Foul would possess/merge with Linden, if he had given her the ring - so that Thomas Covenant would have effectively given the Despiser his ring, by having given in to Linden?
And for what its worth, I will NEVER buy that the Dead could not just have told Covenant what's what!
He had already shown his resistance to posession by Despite, so he would have been a safe carrier of this information!
I will NEVER buy the notion that the truth is dangerous! Ignorance is dangerous!
Having been deceived, misled, and bewildered by outrageously reckless insanity from early childhood - I shall treat apologies for mystification and obfuscation about anyone not telling-people-what's-what when they need it, with the OUTRAGE that is deserves!!
Thanks very much for your writings! I wish you very well in your exploits, and wish you the best "unexpected characters" and happenings.
Thanks again!
Feel free to pick a question!
"we shall pass utterly"
|
As you obviously realize, you've asked quite a number of very complex questions: too many, and too complex, for me to try to answer them all at once. I've already discussed elsewhere what happened to Vain at the One Tree. And I suspect that you could deduce the answers to some of your other questions. So for now I'm only going to address this: "I will NEVER buy the notion that the truth is dangerous! Ignorance is dangerous!" Now, I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion of the difference between "truth" and "knowledge." But I would argue that what the Dead withhold from Covenant in Andelain is not truth, but rather knowledge. And I have had long and intimate experience with how dangerous premature knowledge can be. (Again, in order to avoid being side-tracked, I won't mention *parenting*; but any parent can tell you that it's easy to hurt children by teaching them things they aren't ready to learn.) I'll stick to one example: the study of the martial arts. At their core, the martials arts (as knowledge) are all about killing and maiming. Yet every responsible teacher of the martial arts knows that it would be destructive and even immoral to teach "killing and maiming" without *first* teaching the control AND the maturity to make ethical choices about when and how to *use* "killing and maiming." EsPEcially since many students of the martial arts are children who aren't developmentally qualified to make ethical choices. Therefore every responsible teacher of the martial arts begins by teaching a stylized and restricted version of the real arts. Will we teach you how to kick your attacker effectively in the stomach? Yes, we will: an effective kick to the stomach can save your life, and is *very* unlikely to kill or maim your attacker. But will we teach you how to kick in a way that will shatter your attacker's kneecap? No, we will not: not until the student has demonstrated the control necessary to practice the technique safely AND the maturity necessary to use the technique appropriately. My point is that knowledge is dangerous unless it has been *earned.* Which is exactly why Kevin went to all the trouble of concealing his lore in caches which were intended to be discovered in a specific sequence. Learning x prepares you to learn y safely. Learning y prepares you to learn z safely. In responsible martial arts schools, the earning of a black belt is considered a prerequisite to learning the *actual* martial art. A student without a black belt simply isn't *trusted* enough to be taught "killing and maiming." So think about it. What do you suppose the consequences would be if Covenant's Dead had simply *explained* everything to him? Well, let's see. Who in his right mind would visit the Elohim under those conditions? Who in his right mind would risk rousing the Worm? And why would the Elohim *ever* decide to Appoint Findail if Covenant and Linden already knew all of the answers? ("Pardon me. We don't actually need anything from you. We just want to trick you into Appointing Findail so we can go risk destroying the world for the sole purpose of bringing Vain into contact with the right kind of power.") It seems to me that the "schema" of "The One Tree" is considerably more solid than you think it is. (Keeping in mind that this is Just My Opinion, and you have every right to your own opinion.) (01/26/2005) |
Robert: One of the many things I love about your books is that you have no fear in killing main characters, be it hero or villain (and I suspect that who the hero's and villain's are depend solely on the reader) seemingly without remorse. Unlike most popular fiction, you are never quite sure who will prevail. You may have already dealt with this elsewhere but my question is this, have you ever regretted killing off a character and thought later you could have explored their situation more and do you feel "sad" for them?
|
I do feel "sad," to varying degrees, for characters whose lives end at my hands. (See my comments on the Tor long ago in the GI.) And I have occasionally regretted that I haven't succeeded at exploring their situations/psychologies/stories more. (See my coments about Davies Hyland, also long ago.) But none of that means I regret "killing" those characters. I don't "kill off" characters because I'm tired of them, or because I just don't know what to do with them, or because I want to mess with my reader's emotions: I kill them off because their deaths are necessary, and perhaps even inevitable, in the story I'm trying to tell. Their deaths *fit*. Remember, I know my stories pretty well before I ever start telling them. I know what needs to happen. From that perspective, I couldn't regret "killing off a character" without regretting the whole story; and that would violate my fundamental relationship with my work, including my reasons for telling specific stories in the first place. (01/30/2005) |
Allen: I just read "The Runes Of The Earth" and I feel properly devastated, horrified, and apphrensive. In the Gap Saga you began to explore moral ambiguities with a vengeance but with the Last Chronicles the vengeance comes home to roost. Do you feel that the Last Chronicles is the work of your life - ? Your magnum opus?
Are you trying to destroy (or at least confuse) the moral universe or is this kind of incandescent havoc as easy for you as spitting at the dirt?
I have no fear that the next three volumes will make us all squirm. You're the best.
|
I'm uncomfortable with the whole "magnum opus" concept. And I certainly don't feel qualified to comment on it. I only hope that when I'm done with "The Last Chronicles" I'll feel as proud of it as I do of the GAP books. I'm not "trying to destroy the moral universe." Nor am I "spitting at the dirt." (Surely those aren't my only choices? <grin>) Here's how I look at it. What you're seeing is the natural evolution of a (no longer young) writer who has spent his whole life studying the mystery of his own heart, trying hard to understand the stringent and often cruel dilemmas of the people around him, learning how to "be true" to his own values and commitments, and striving for excellence. Of COURSE everything I do becomes more complex, ambiguous, and fraught. Under the circumstances, what else would you expect? (01/30/2005) |
Luke (Variol son): Having just started reading Runes of the Earth for the second time, I am noticing that the entire book takes place within a time period measuring a little under a fortnight. This is a sharp contrast to previous Covenant novels, which take place over a much longer time span, months in some cases. Runes also had very little down time, the gap between the start of the Horserite and Liden's return to the Verge of Wondering being the only one I can remember.
Now, I have no doubt that this was purposeful on your part, but what were your reasons for so drastically reducing the number of days in which all that action takes place? Would The Second Chronicles be similar if they had been published as a quadrilogy as opposed to a trilogy?
|
Every story has its own unique needs and demands. "The Last Chronicles" is structured differently than the earlier "Covenant" stories because the story itself is fundamentally different. The truth may not yet be apparent; but "The Last Chronicles" is a far more *urgent* story than its predecessors. (However, squeezing a lot of events into relatively short periods of time does happen often in Donaldson stories. Just look at my mystery novels and the last three GAP books.) *How* "The Second Chronicles" was published (as a trilogy instead of a tetralogy) had nothing to do with the content or fundamental structure of the story itself. The only reason I allowed Lester del Rey to make a trilogy out of a tetralogy is that his action had no effect at all on the actual story. (01/30/2005) |
Morgan: Dr. Donaldson,
I have just begun "Runes of the Earth" and I am enjoying it a great deal thus far. However, in reading your "What Has Gone Before" introduction, a few questions came to mind regarding High Lord Elena. It mentions that Covenant comes to realize that Elena is not entirely sane, and that eventually, this imbalance, in conjunction with his essential betrayal, lead to her downfall.
My two questions are as follows:
1.) In many ways, Elena is an example of an Aristotlean tragic character -- larger than life and noble, but with a fundamental flaw that leads to her demise. We even have elements of an Elektra complex in her portrayal. What caused this flaw? Was her insanity the result of her upbringing, or rather the result of a more "epic" weakness resulting from the inherent violence/sin of her creation? Epic nature versus fundamental nurture?
2.) How is it that the other Lords, including Mhoram who was seer and oracle, had no indication of her insanity? Why did even mind melds between the counsel fail to indicate her flaw? A mutual decision was made that she possessed the qualities necessary to face the challenges of the upcoming war; how could they have been so wrong?
Thank you for your books and your time. Your work is thought-provoking and very entertaining.
|
1) In a fantasy novel of this kind (explicitly epic in both theme and character), the answer would almost have to be: "epic nature." Elena was created to be who she became by the violence of her father and the disturbance of her mother (*not,* in this case, her mother's disturbed behavior, but rather her mother's disturbed personality). This fits the themes of the story. But it also fits the model of Covenant's Unbelief. If the Land is being invented by some aspect of his mind, then Elena's character could *only* have been formed by the consequences of his actions: nurture doesn't enter the picture. 2) The Lords who selected Elena to lead them were not "so wrong." This is a novel about paradox, remember. Elena was the perfect choice in the same sense that Covenant was the perfect choice. So she was discernibly unbalanced. So what? So was he. The other Lords--especially Mhoram--knew that she would (to borrow a phrase) "save or damn" the Land; and they chose to believe that she would save it, just as they chose to believe that Covenant would. None of them existed on the knife-edge of possibility in the same way that Elena--and Covenant--did. And they could so easily have been validated by the outcome, if she had simply made a different decision at the moment when she tasted the EarthBlood. Only characters with epic flaws are capable of epic victories. So I would argue that the issue isn't that the other Lords "had no indication of her insanity": they simply didn't think in those terms. They didn't ask, "Is she sane?" but rather, "Is she capable?" And in those terms, they made the best possible choice. (02/05/2005) |
IVB: Mr. Donaldson,
I am curious about the nature of the Arch of Time you envisioned in your Covenant Chronicles. Throughout the first two chronicles you stress the necessity of choice, especially in relation to Power. This, to me, implies that the Law of Time must support free will. Does the Arch of Time encompass all time with all instances existing within the arch? If so then it would seem that free will does not exist within the Arch given that everything that will/has happen/happened is mapped out, unless paradoxically the Arch can encompass all time and provide the capacity for free will.
In Runes, Esmer says that he respects the Wurd of the Elohim and will not alter the past and risk breaking the Law of Time. Does this mean that you treat time linearly (without branching muiltiverses) with the past set and any change to what has gone before will break the Arch? If so then Lindens retrieval of the Staff of Law did not change history, she was predestined to make the trip and her free will in this case is an illusion.
Thanks in advance.
I.V.
|
Well, it's true that I do think of time as being linear. That fits my own experience of life. It fits the way I think. It fits the form of communication through which my stories and their ideas are conveyed. And I'm writing fantasy here, not science fiction: I don't need to include quantum mechanics in my portrayal of time. But none of that means that I actually understand your question. How did you get from "time is linear" to "therefore there is no free will"? Perhaps the problem lies in how we're conceptualizing the Arch. I grant you that the word "Arch" suggests a created beginning and a (perhaps simultaneously) created end connected by a (once again, perhaps simultaneously) created sequence of events. If that's the source of the confusion, then it's my fault for not thinking of a better term than "Arch." My own conceptualization of the Arch of Time does not contain *anything* that is predetermined. Rather, as I tried to explain throughout "Runes," I see the Arch as the (admittedly linear) system of rules--e.g. cause and effect, sequence, linearity itself--which makes it possible for life (as I understand it) to exist; which makes it possible for human beings to think, feel, choose, and experience consequences. In *my* conceptualization, when the Creator created the Arch, he/she/it did not create a closed system in which everything has already been determined, but rather an open-ended *process* both enabled and constrained by a variety of *rules*, a process in which anything can happen as long as it doesn't break the rules (because breaking the rules destroys the process); and even breaking the rules can happen--as long as the being breaking the rules doesn't mind destroying the process. Hence free will. Hence the importance of making choices. Hence the significance of, say, Covenant's and Linden's efforts to determine the meaning of their own lives. Or here's another way to look at it. Think of the Arch as being "under construction" according to the rules of its original design; rules which guide *how* the Arch is constructed, but which do not determine the *shape* taken by the Arch as it is constructed. If the rules are broken, the Arch will collapse; but as long as the rules remain intact, the specific structure being built is determined by the on-going choices and actions of those individuals whose existence is made possible by the rules. Does that help? (02/05/2005) |
Sergio D. Caplan: Mr. Donaldson,
In rereading the first trilogy here I am catching phrases which I either missed all the other times, or am missing something now.
In The Illearth War there are many indications of "burning wood":
page 214 (near bottom)
page 217 (near top):
"coals of the fire"
"troy threw an armful of kindling on the fire"
"troy piled wood on the fire so that he could see better"
page 235: "The fire had died down to coals..."
Just doesn't make sense to me.
Sergio
|
I guess we need to make a distinction between (to pick two convenient terms) "mundane" and "magical" activities. People in the Land who have learned the appropriate wood-lore (lillianrill) are able to elicit fire from wood without consuming the wood itself: their fire is an expression of Earthpower. People who haven't learned--or can't access--the appropriate lore make fire the old-fashioned way: by expending the life of the wood rather than by drawing Earthpower through the wood. And there are a number of indications in the story that part of the lillianrill lore involves *preparing* the wood: even a Hirebrand can't draw fire from just any old stick without consuming it. So even when the Lords were at their most effective there were still (inevitably) plenty of fires that actually consumed wood. (02/05/2005) |
Steve Allange: I could not help but notice on another page of this website that your literary agent's name is Howard Morhaim. Now, maybe this is just me...but the similarity between his name and that of Mhoram are just too close to be conincidental.
Is this just chance, or was there thought in the naming of Mhoram to be so close to that of Howard Morhaim?
Thanks,
Stephen Allange
|
I first created the character of Lord Mhoram at least a decade before I even heard of, much less met, Howard Morhaim. And, while I know that the subconscious works in mysterious ways, I don't think that the fact that I'd already created Lord Mhoram influenced my decision to pick Howard Morhaim as my agent. <grin> (02/05/2005) |
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.
Croft Petersmeyer: Greetings, Mr. Donaldson:
Short and sweet seems to be the order of the day, so I'll submit as best I can.
I live in the same city as Steven Erikson. I once sat one table across from him at a popular restaurant (he acknowledges it in books four and five of "Malazan") where he was busy tapping away on his laptop.
I was both awestuck and preoccupied - quite unlike me - so my companion asked me what was wrong. After excitedly explaining who Steven was, and getting a perplexed brand of apathy in return, we both got busy on our own communications work.
A Short time later, we started debating the merits of putting a comma before "and" in a series.
Example: red, white, and blue
or: red, white and blue.
I'm allowed to use this example because I'm Canadian; I'm not overly worried about offending anyone's sense of linguistic patriotism.
During this somewhat heated exchange, I noticed Steven seemed to be leaning a bit toward us, paying mild attention to our varying justifications. Perhaps this was largely because I adamantly oppose his preferred method of omitting the comma.
Question: please explain why you choose (at least mostly and certainly rightly) to place a comma before "and" in a series.
If I ever screw up the courage to confront Steven directly one of these days, I'd love to be able to say to my second-favourite author that he's way off base on this point.
And I'd love to be able to say I know this because my favourite author (you) says so, dammit.
It'd be a great icebreaker, don't you think?
Croft
P.S. About an hour ago, I stumbled across a signed copy of "Runes." I didn't even know you were finally returning to Covenant! I'm officially giddy. Once, long ago, thanks to a former English professor we both know, I was given a signed, personalized copy of "The Real Story." For that, and for much more besides over the years, my sincere thanks.
To steal something you once wrote about Steven: your work - yours, sir, more than any other - "afflicts me with awe."
|
Tut, tut. This sounds like an (admitted light-hearted) attempt to create a "feud" between me and Steven Erikson--a writer whom I both admire and like. Nonetheless the simple fact is that Erikson and I are both "right" (in so far as anything that pertains to something as ambiguous as language can ever be "right"). My use of serial commas (red, white, and blue) conforms to Standard American. And as a fairly standard American myself, the guidelines of Standard American make sense to me. "Red, white and blue" seems to me to blur the distinction between white and blue. BUT. Erikson's use of serial commas conforms to Standard British. (He spent a number of years in England, after all.) Indeed, the Brits seem to be trying to rid themselves of the comma altogether. For example, my British copyeditor would have removed the comma from the previous sentence. And I had to fight to preserve any serial commas at all in the British edition of "Runes." So. Erikson's choices are validated by Standard British usage; mine by Standard American usage. But I must have some British blood in me somewhere (perhaps growing up in India did it). When I write, for example, "Involuntarily she raised her head," I'm following Standard British, not Standard American. My US copyeditor desperately wanted to put a comma after "Involuntarily". (02/06/2005) |
Chris Allan: Stephen, thanks for writing the last Chronicles.You will be pleased to know that it appears to me to be getting prominence in the better book stores here in Australia..More so than the re release of the first 2 chronicles.
After such a long wait ( nearly 20 years, although I have kept an eye on things via this website), I decided that the first 2 Chronicles deserved another reading before taking on series 3.
My question. I was apalled to read that Book 2 may still be 3 years away. Does that mean Book 4 is 9 years away. This was not the case with either of the first 2 Chronicles, nor with the Mordant and Gap series. It seems very unfair to us readers. Is this a marketing decision, as you seem to suggest you have always had the structure in place for this series ?
.... and dont let those producers make the Film as a 'Lord of the Rings' Clone' . The temptation must be there for them. As the Old Beggar says, ' Be True'......
Will you be doing a Book tour in Australia some time?
|
These questions keep coming up. Until I get a FAQ in place, I guess I'll keep answering them. My contract for "The Last Chronicles" requires me to deliver a book every 36 months. I accepted 36 because I couldn't get 48. Deadlines are destructive to my creative impulse. And I need every scrap of that time. TLC <grin> is by far the most difficult challenge I've ever tackled; each new installment will be more difficult to write than the one before it; and I'm not young anymore, so even when I'm writing something simple I can't write as quickly as I once did. I'm sorry you consider this unfair. It isn't the fault of my publishers. They would love it if I could produce books more quickly. At present, a "Covenant" film remains entirely hypothetical. If one is ever made, I will have absolutely no control over it whatsoever. I post all of my tours and appearances on this site. If you don't see an Australian tour listed there, it isn't happening. (02/06/2005) |
Ken Zufall: I have to say, I was quite delighted when I received a copy of "Runes of the Earth" as a Sweetest Day present from my wife and discovered that it was another Covenant book--I'd known for several weeks (and had been anticipating it) that you had another book coming, but had no idea that it entailed a return to the Land. It put some pressure on me to re-read the first two Chronicles as I'm not normally a chronic re-reader, but 20 years is a long time and there was no way I was going to head into the Final Chronicles without a refresher! It was two weeks well spent--I first read the TC books late in high school and I found that I enjoyed them even more this time around. I'm just glad I didn't have to spend that 20 years living with the knowledge that there was a Final Chronicles planned...the anticipation would have been too much.
A couple of questions that occurred to me as I read through the GI (blessed are slow holiday nights at work *grin*):
1) Are there any questions or posts that have made you uncomfortable? I don't mean the ones like the Creator questions or ones seeking your interpretation of your works, but ones that make you wonder if it's safe to be out in public?
2) Have you ever used your status as a best selling author to meet other authors whose works you enjoy?
3) If you had the opportunity to sit down with an author you don't already know for a Q&A or just a bull**** session, who would it be?
|
1) I suppose the questions I dislike the most are the ones that ask for my opinions about other specific contemporary writers. Every such question is a minefield. 2) Fortunately I don't have to. In my field (sf/f), every one who has the desire to meet writers (generally or specifically) can do so whenever they choose to make the effort. There's an sf/f "con" somewhere in the US virtually every weekend of every year; and attendance by all and sundry is pretty much always welcome. I have gladly met dozens of my fellow writers simply by going to "cons," and I could easily meet dozens more if I took the time away from writing "Fatal Revenant." Outside sf/f, things are more difficult. Being "a best selling author" gives me ZERO "status" outside sf/f, and would be useless to me in attempting to meet non-sf/f writers. 3) Anyone at all? George Meredith, the Victorian novelist and poet. He was perhaps not the greatest novelist and/or poet of his time; but he deployed his (arguably) modest talents with such fierce intelligence that he must have been a fascinating man. And many decades ahead of his time. Look up his sonnet sequence "Modern Love": it's accessible on the web. (02/06/2005) |
Mike G: I'm breaking my rule of not asking a new question until you have answered my previous one, but the recent questions about LF have made me consider him...
With the exceptions of the pwer he uses to draw TC and others from 'our' world, and the occasional possession, I am realizing he really doesn't use any direct power at all. He has his surrogates- Drool, Ravers, etc...using power for him, but what power does he have access to?
He must have some power, or why would all the evil entities follow his lead? I know he can't attack TC directly, any more than the Creator can aid him directly, but what is he capable of, or is he basically just the embodiment of evil in that world?
|
I wonder why I really don't want to answer this question. Would you believe Lord Foul's "power" is "force of personality"? Would you believe his "power" is his ability to make people feel things that they don't want to feel--or that they secretly *do* want to feel? Maybe I just don't want to shackle myself by pinning this down. Still, it's interesting to observe just how charismatic cynicism and nihilism can be. Just look at American politics. It could be that Foul's surrogates follow his lead simply because they like what they hear. (02/06/2005) |
Chris Hawks: I've been reading this interview for, what? 10 months now? and have even submitted a number of questions myself...and only NOW does it occur to me ask the first question I ever had reading your books. I don't know why it took me so long to remember this, but here goes:
If someone summons a visitor to the Land, and the summoner dies, then the visitor leaves the Land. Right? That's why Covenant went back to his world between each book in the First Chronicles: Drool dies at the end of Book 1, and then Elena dies at the end of Book 2.
So what about Hile Troy, then? His summoner (Lena's mother, if I recall) died, but good ol' Troy still stuck around. The only explanation that I could come up with was that since she died in mid-summon, Troy managed to stick around on a technicality. (By the time he had fully appeared in the Land, his summoner was already dead.) Or something. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!
Looking forward to finding "Runes" under the ol' Christmas tree this year. :)
|
I think the question is: who dies first, the summoner in the Land, or the person who is summoned from the real world? In Troy's case, he dies in the real world before Atiaran does in the Land; so he stays. But Covenant is still alive in the real world is when, say, Drool dies; so he goes. (02/06/2005) |
C Jordan: Steve, I think this gradual interview is a great idea. I'm curious about your comment in one of your answers to another question stating that the "rape theme ... is so prevalent in my writing". I must admit I almost didn't continue the first TC book because of that (though it's now my second favorite fantasy series), and the subject is touched on a couple of different ways in Mordant's Need (absolute favorite!), though more "gently" as you've phrased it. Frankly I never read the GAP series, much as I wanted to, because the rape in the first book was more than I could stomach. Why is this theme so prevalent in your writing?
And as a follow up, there is a fair amount of physical torture as well, which really was evident to me throughout "Reave the Just", but which I then noticed even in re-reading other books. Are the rape and torture scenes somehow part of the same theme you are exploring (for lack of a better word)?
Thanks, CJ
|
<sigh> What is a nice--and profoundly gentle--guy like me doing in a conversation like this? Why do writers write what they write? I suppose I could fall back on the Stephen King answer ("What makes you think I have a choice?"), or the Ross Macdonald answer ("This is what makes writing possible for me"--a paraphrase, but I think a fair one). But here's how I look at it. It's all about physical metaphors. Physical metaphors for emotional states. Physical metaphors for themes and ideas. Physical metaphors for moral questions. I've argued elsewhere that all "good" (i.e. deeply moving and engaging, rather than merely escapist) fantasy is essentially psychodrama: internal journeys dramatized as if they were, for example, external quests. For a writer like me, such things must be communicated through specific actions and particular events: I'm not writing Chekhov-style character studies, I'm writing stories. So what else do you expect me to do? The "violence" of the action reflects the importance of what that action represents. (02/06/2005) |
Matthew Orgel (The Dreaming): Well, I know you hate questions about the creator, but I think this is a pretty painless one. I was reading up on ancient Zoroastrianism recently, and in a moment of inspiration I imagined a parallel between the world described by Zoroastoer and the theology of the land. In particular, it was the relationship that The Wise Lord (Ahura Mazda, The Creator) had with his Deava Ahriman. (Ultimate evil, the Lie, etc.)
According to Zoroastrianism, The moment Ahura created the world; Ahriman sprang from him in a moment of doubt. Then, when Ahriman corrupted the creation of Ahura, he was cast down into the world of light, where he seems to rise and fall in 3000 year cycles. (I am paraphrasing my research grotesquely, but you begin to see the point I am driving towards)
The reason that Ahriman was created was so that man would have choice. This is a basic tenet of the religion. This got me thinking about Covenant and the fundamental question of ethics. I thought about how the Creator couldn't interfere directly with Covenants actions in the land.
Also, I discovered that the vast majority of modern Zoroastrians live in India, your place of birth. That and a bit about Ahura living in "infinite time" really got me thinking.
So Mr. Donaldson, is this just a completely blind coincidence? Or were you thinking of this Old theology when you wrote the first chronicles? Were you even just aware of its existence at the time you wrote it?
|
Actually, everything I know about Zoroastrianism I learned from reading your message. The missionaries made a point of preventing their children from learning anything about the countries and peoples they wanted to "redeem": doubtless they wanted to prevent their children from being "misled" or "confused." So what can I tell you? <shrug> Some ideas are simply too important or necessary to vanish from the collective human psyche. Those ideas find ways to perpetuate themselves somehow. Genetically? Who knows? (02/06/2005) |
Michael Martin: Dear Mr Donaldson:
First, and most importantly, thanks for all the wonderful stories you've shared. I've been reading your works since the early 80s, and am constantly amazed at how well your stories stand up to repeated readings.
"Mordant's Need", in my own opinion, is a much-overlooked fantasy work. In some respects, I think your writing there surpasses even the two complete Convenant trilogies, and I was especially impressed with your use of completely human villains (breaking away from the Dark Lord mode of most fantasies). I've read somewhere, though, that you disliked how you ended the books - is that true? I loved it, because while not everyone lived, it seemed to be a very emotionally-satisfying ending to a powerful tale.
A recurrent theme in the Covenant books (and one echoed by King Joyse's own peculiar mix of power and powerlessness in "Mordant's Need") is how God (the Creator) is good but limited. "Daughter of Regals" contains two stories that are overtly "religious" (or at least deal with religious matters and ideas). Can you share a bit on how your own beliefs impact the thematic elements of your stories?
Finally, near the end of "White Gold Wielder," you wrote that Linden Avery spoke a word across the distances to Sunder and Hollian. What did she say?
Again, thanks for the incredible stories and writing. I look forward to "Fatal Revenant"!
MM
|
I'm quite proud of "Mordant's Need." I very much wanted to get away from the "Dark Lord mode" of my earlier work (and, as you say, most of modern fantasy), not because I was tired of it, but because I wanted to stretch myself in new ways. (In retrospect, "Mordant's Need" does look like preparation for the GAP books; but I wasn't aware of that at the time.) And I'm not at all unhappy with the way I ended the story. The fairy-tale-ish elements of the story (explicitly stated in the "bookends") were essential to my original conception; and I probably wouldn't have written the story at all if I hadn't been pleased by my original conception. As I've said repeatedly, I don't consider my personal "religious" belief to be relevant to this discussion. My beliefs about *writing,* on the other hand.... Instead of thinking of characters like the Creator, King Joyse, and Warden Dios as "God" figures, you might try thinking of them as "author" figures: not because they "speak" for the author (they do not), but because their dilemmas--and their solutions to those dilemmas--closely resemble the problems that I face as a storyteller, and the solutions I devise to those problems. How can I create something that I not only believe in but also consider beautiful *without* violating the independent and organic integrity of the thing I'm trying to create? I intended Linden's last message to Sunder and Hollian to be obvious in context. Apparently I failed. But if you want to read the sentence literally, the word was probably "Goodby." If you're willing to read the sentence more figuratively, her message was probably a combination of "farewell" and "I love you" and "I'm sending you the Staff of Law". (02/11/2005) |
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.
Tony Powell: In explaining your approach to The Gap series, you briefly talk about needing two ideas to proceed. Obviously this is what gives your work a depth that most fiction (no matter the genre) lacks these days.
I have an old, out-of-print book that is a compilation of essays, letters, etc., on creativity, written by the heavyweights --- Mozart, Einstein, et al.
One of these (and I'd tell you which if I weren't at work and the book at home) talks of visualizing ideas as a room full of balls that are constantly bouncing around. On each ball is a hook. And on the walls are empty eyelets.
The writer goes on to say that now and then he looks in on this room to find that his subconscious has hooked balls in several eyelets. And these are ideas (connections) he could never have made without first setting the balls into motion, then closing the door in order to let them "hook where they may."
My question is: is your "idea" process that esoteric? And do you see a benefit to such an approach? I ask because you often say that your stories find you rather than the other way around.
|
Well, my idea process certainly doesnt seem esoteric to *me*. <grin> And it is nowhere near as visual as the process you describe. Ive talked--and written--about the story shelf where my ideas sit waiting for something to happen to them. But that is a rhetorical convenience: I dont actually see the shelf, or the ideas. In my case, the process by which ideas (eventually) make connections with each other is far more verbal. For example, if a story idea seems static or inert to me (if it lacks the imaginative connections that would bring it to life), that simply means that I need to change the words with which I describe the idea to myself. Putting it into different words creates different possibilities. I probably would have never found the connections that made the GAP books possible if I hadnt changed one of my descriptive words for the original idea from fantasy to science fiction. Sometimes being creative is just that simple. (02/12/2005) |
Steve Brown: First off thank you so much for continuing what I think is the best series ever! I've read (and re-read) runes almost non stop since it came out. One thing has me puzzled and may be a RAFO?
When did it become possible, or was it always possible for a Raver or Foul to enter someones mind on the 'real' earth? We don't see it in the first series, so I would assume it happened then?
|
First we need to define enter. I see possession (entering) as operating along a continuum which ranges from merely whispering nearly-inaudible suggestions to complete control. And on that continuum, the degree to which Lord Foul can enter a mind in the real world is severely limited to the low end. He couldnt do it all until the structures of Law which sustain the Land began to break down. And he still cant assume control: he can only whisper persuasively. (The Ravers cant do this at all to a mind in the real world: only LF is that powerful. When Linden feels turiya in Joans mind, Joan is already dead; already in the Land.) But Im puzzled myself: what does RAFO mean? (02/12/2005) |
Jim Carter: I just finished 'The Runes of the Earth'. I can tell you that I wish you had written this chapter of The Land 15 years ago but the Gap books were great. I have three questions: (1) Any movies planned for either series (Sci-fi channel would love these - these would excede the JR Tokken movies by far) (2) Are any of the premises concerning the laws of The Land (Arch of time) based on your personal beliefs/faith? We, as a race, are inheritantly asking why and reconciling our own perceptions and laws - String theory/Quantum Physics/Theory of Relativity with religion. I personally beleive how and what created us is constantly striving for a balance between order and choas and prevents and preserves us from many challenges that we shouldn't know exist. (3) I would love to get copies of all the Covenant's hardback books and have you sign them. I live in Alaska. How can I find these books and get you to come to Alaska for a visit? You like to fish? I equally would love to show you Alaska - as it is an beautiful as Andelain. Sincerely, Jim
|
1) I have no control over any of this. And if I had any news, I would post it on this site (as news). So if it isnt in news, it isnt happening. 2) As I keep saying, I dont think my personal beliefs are relevant to this discussion. I have never, EVER set out to write a story that expressed or embodied my views on any subject. Instead I place myself at the service of the stories that come to me to be written; and I try to give them whatever they need for their own unique organic vitality and integrity. Which may or may not bear some resemblence to my personal view of life. 3) The only source of Covenant hardcovers I know about (apart from Runes) is the Science Fiction Book Club, which currently has omnibus editions of each trilogy. Ive put a methodology in place that enables readers to obtain autographs: the procedure is described elsewhere on this site. But since you ask: God, I hate fishing! <grin> (02/12/2005) |
Clifton Wolfe: A couple of things. FIRST. Lord Foul's Bane came out when I was in High School. I loved it. Then I waited for the next, then the next etc etc...It seems I have been waiting my whole adult life for the "Next" book. Not trying to rush you or anything but DAMN. I hope I live long enough to read the end. IF it ever ends. Tales of the Land could go on forever. It is rich in life and tales to be told. Which leads me to my question....
When I read LFB I was certain that either Loric or KEVIN were from our earth. I felt that way not just because of the name but also because Kevin knew of the existance of White Gold, which does not exist in the Land, but it does of cource exist here. But since you never mentioned it I assume I was wrong. Then why the totally normal and "Un-fantasy" like name of Kevin?
|
Im occasionally shocked and sometimes horrified by the number of people who feel that the name Kevin doesnt fit in fantasy--or at least doesnt fit in *my* fantasy. Clearly many readers have the same reaction--and then go to great lengths to think of an explanation for the apparent discrepancy. But the simple truth is: I dont feel the discrepancy myself. Your reaction, like those of many other readers on this subject, comes as a complete surprise to me. To my ear, there is no difference in kind, no difference in tone, no difference in substance, between a name like Mhoram and a name like Kevin--except for the one obvious fact that most of us have actually known someone named Kevin while very few of us have actually known someone named Mhoram. On this specific subject, I think that the same imaginative talent, the same suspension of disbelief, which allows me to hear Mhoram as a real name belonging to a real person prevents me from hearing Kevin as a name that is, in a sense, too real. I regret the confusion. If I had ever once imagined that my readers would feel that Kevins name doesnt fit, and then would try to assign meaning to the discrepancy, I would have chosen a different name in a heartbeat. (02/12/2005) |
Todd Burger: This is my second question in almost as many days, and given your time constraints and my selfish desire for you to get as much done on Fatal Revenant as possible, I feel a tad guilty.
I just read your statement in the GI, I didn't want to go the Tolkien route: pick a name like "Sauron" and *pretend* he isn't Evil Personified.
My question should be obvious by now. Why dont you think that Sauron was evil personified? What did he lack?
|
I edited out most of your question because it seems to be based on a misunderstanding. I *do* think that Sauron was evil personified. My point, which I must have phrased rather badly, was simply that Tolkien doesnt *announce* Sauron as evil personified (at least not in The Hobbit and LOTR, which is really all I know on the subject). To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien just told his story--and then stubbornly resisted all attempts to interpret it or assign meaning to it. Well, the story still is what it is; and Sauron qualifies as evil personified. But I got into this mess by trying to explain why I gave *my* evil personified a name as obvious as Lord Foul the Despiser. At the time that I wrote the first Covenant trilogy, I felt a young mans desire to be VERY CLEAR that my story was not an imitation of Tolkiens. (02/12/2005) |
Christian: OK, I know by now you must be tired of answering questions about how to pronounce words from the Covenant Series, like "Banas Nimoram", And "Melenkurion abatha" (one word, or two?), "duroc", "minas", "mill" and "kabal". Sure I would like to know the "correct" pronounciation of these and other words, but asking for them one at a time would take until the Arch itself falls, especially since you are coming up with new ones now!
So my question is; why not _include_ the pronounciation in the glossary at the back of the book(s)?
|
I want to say, Because I didnt think of it, but the real reason is, Because I dont care. I mean, I dont care how any of my readers pronounce any of these words or names. And I certainly dont want to foster the notion that *my* way is correct and everyone elses way is wrong. I believe that anyone who bothers to read a book should be allowed to deal with the experience in any way that suits him/her. If your eye sees Ranyhyn and your brain says Rrrrrrrrrrrrrr or huh? or whinny or poppycock, thats fine with me. Just read and Im content. But theres a deeper issue as well. As far as Im concerned, how language functions *at all* is a profound mystery. I make arbitrary black shapes on a piece of paper; and years later people whom Ive never met send me arbitrary black shapes on a computer screen which SOMEhow my brain interprets to mean, Tell us what sounds we should hear in our minds when we see these arbitrary black shapes? Apparently communication is taking place--but HOW? How is it even possible? The fact that individual human beings (each cruelly isolated inside his/her own skull) somehow contrive to send and receive information with an appreciable degree of accuracy *to people who arent even present* amazes me. And I do *not* want to mess with that mystery by trying to impose something as trivial as correct pronunciation on it. Frankly, I fear that the more literal I am in my relationship with that mystery, the less that mystery will function effectively on my behalf. So I have no interest in correctness here. And I seldom tell people how I happen to pronounce certain words. But since you didnt ask--<grin>--its mel-en-COOR-ion ah-BAH-tha. Two words. (02/12/2005) |
Matt:
I really have enjoyed everything you've written...
I just have one small question, and I apologize ahead of time if you've covered this before. I recently re-read the first 6 Covenant books in anticipation of Runes...and I noticed something I never noticed before.
When Covenant returns to the land in The Wounded Land, he is not healed as before. Thus, he remains impotent. And yet, at the end of The One Tree, Covenant and Linden...well, you know...Am I missing something?
Thanks!
Matt
|
The explanation is pretty simple. Covenant's impotence was psychological, not physiological. Leprosy doesn't necessarily cause impotence. The degree of psychological health that he regained during the course of the first "Chronicles" enabled him to return to writing; and with creative potency came, well, procreative (I mean sexual) potency. (02/12/2005) |
Brian Dantes: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for your fine work over the years.
I just recently discovered your Man Who novels. Are there plans for a Tor/Forge paperback reissue of "The Man Who Tried To Get Away?" I see the new paperback editions of the other three at Amazon, but Get Away appears to have just been reissued in hardback.
Thanks,
Brian Dantes
|
Yes, "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" is currently only available in hardcover. But in October or November Tor plans to issue a paperback edition. At that point, all of "The Man Who" books will be in print in paperback (and, I devoutly hope, on ereader.com). Long may this state of affairs last! "The Man Who" books have never succeeded at staying in print for long. On the other hand, Tor has a good reputation for keeping books available. (02/12/2005) |
Usivius: Hello, Mr. Donaldson. Once again, thank you for being so readily available to answer questions from your readers.
As with many, upon hearing 'Runes' was being released, I went back and read all the TC books again. There is always something that bothered me about certain books, and the 2nd series was an example of this: circumstance and planning. Often in certain books, the bad-guy or good guy, plan a series of events so meticulously that its complexity is staggering when it is completed and/or revealed. I felt this when reading the 2nd series. The series of events that both Foul and Thomas' Dead planned to ensure their victories, seemed to involve a mind-boggling series of events they hoped would occur.
To summarize my rambling: is there a simpler way of describing what each party (good and evil) had planned, or was it really, as it seems, a series of thin hopes that each group hoped TC would follow to victory or doom? Was this all planned this way by The Dead?
|
Interestingly, the same observation/complaint/criticism can be levelled at Mordants Need and the GAP books: its all insanely meticulous; no hero or bad guy regardless of intelligence could possibly predict, much less plan, the actions of other people that far ahead (chaos theory alone forbids it). But my own view of the situation is rather different. As far as Im concerned, theres really only one question that matters: does the author violate the integrity, the dignity, the independent reality, of his characters in order to contrive his elaborate plots? If he does, well, then the sorts of questions you raise really dont apply, since were talking about *contrivance* rather than *character* and therefore predicting and planning are dead easy. Or at any rate as dead easy as playing chess. But if the author does *not* violate the integrity/dignity/independence of his characters, and the plots *still* seem insanely, impossibly meticulous--ah, then the problem must lie elsewhere. Not in the apparent meticulousness of the plots, but in how those plots are visualized by the reader. It seems to me that some of the difficulty for the reader arises from the fact that the reader is looking back on the action, while everyone within the story is looking forward. (After all, these plots dont seem insanely meticulous until you think about them afterward: the perspective of retrospect seems to change their nature.) One example--and only one, because I dont want to spend hours writing about this. In the case of the Quest for the One Tree, Covenants Dead dont actually need to predict and plan for the encounter with the Giants, the willingness of the Giants to redefine their own quest, the voyage to the Elohim, the actions of the Elohim, Vains ability to escape the Elohim, the Appointment of Findail, *and* Brinn and Cails surrender to the merewives (because without that event Brinn might not have been able to deal with the Guardian). What Covenants Dead *do* need is an understanding of character: the character of the ur-viles (Vains purpose), the character of the Elohim (why the Elohim might fear both Covenants power and Vains purpose), the character of Covenant (his instinct for extravagent solutions), and the character of Linden (her need to come to terms with her own capacity for evil). Given such resources, only a little imagination is required to see a variety of possible roads which could all conceivably lead to the same end. One such road: it is Linden rather than the Elohim who unlocks the location of the One Tree from Covenants mind (because she must encounter her power to take possession of Covenant in time to learn how wrong such an action is); she and Covenant travel south along the coast of the Land until they encounter a sea-faring race; Covenant wins an approach to the One Tree with wild magic (thus triggering the forces which catalyze Vain); meanwhile the Elohim *have* to take action (its really a convenience for them that Covenant and Linden visit them, since Vains creation and Covenants purpose automatically impose the necessity of a response: the Elohim are obviously going to Appoint one of them regardless of whether or not Covenant and Linden stop by for a sacrificial visit), so the Appointed is in play regardless of how Covenant and Linden approach the One Tree. My point? From the perspective of Covenants Dead looking forward in the story, there are a variety of conceivable scenarios. Hope doesnt lie in predicting and planning exactly what Covenant and Linden are going to do: it lies in understanding who Covenant and Linden are. Another way to say the same thing: Covenants Dead supply the raw materials for a solution to the Lands plight--and then step back, trusting Covenant and Linden to figure *something* out. Lord Fouls position is similar. Hes more of a control-freak, and more directly manipulative; but he still needs to do what Covenants Dead must do: understand who hes dealing with, grasp what must happen *within* those characters to make them do what he wants, and then supply the raw materials (venom, etc.) which will make his desired outcome both possible and likely. The more scenarios he can imagine, the more apt his raw materials can be; but he really doesnt have to plan or predict everything thats going to happen, he simply needs to use his imagination and supply as many catalysts as he can. In other words, Im arguing that Lord Foul, like Covenants Dead, like King Joyse, like Warden Dios, does not engage in insanely meticulous plotting: rather he engages in a highly creative kind of open-ended thinking; thinking that revolves around the manipulation of characters rather than the manipulation of events. I hope this helps. (02/14/2005) |
Andrew: What are the odds of myself succesfully using my status as a soldier deployed in Baquba, Iraq to mooch an autograph off of you for Christmas? I would like to add that I've been waiting for the Final Chronicles since I was 14. Thank you for your consideration.
|
I'm sorry it took me so long to get to your question. The procedures for obtaining autographs are described elsewhere on this site. And they work, I assure you. (02/14/2005) |
Rick: Ur-viles!
I wonder if you enjoy the same sense of delight writing about the ur-viles as I do when reading about them?
I am fascinated by their bravery and dignity, their darkness and mystery. Even now after all they have done, I am still uncertain of them - yet I rejoice at their every move.
It's great to see them back, they are real heroes. I for one am rooting for them all the way!
I would like to also take this opportunity to say thank you for all of your works. I am not really an "analyser", I simply immerse myself in your tales and enjoy the ride of a lifetime!
Thank you.
//Rick /Telford /England
|
I don't really know that it would be possible for me to feel the *same* sense of delight that you do. For me, anyway, writing is so-o-o not the same as reading. For one thing, it's so experiential. For another, it's *much* slower. But I feel pride and pleasure on several different levels simultaneously: I'm proud of myself for creating them, and for what I'm doing with them; and I'm proud of *them* in a way that's quite separate from myself. Somehow I think they and I bring out the best in each other. (02/23/2005) |
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.
Turiya Foul: Dear Mr. Donaldson, as you write, do the scenes go along in your mind like a movie? Being a writer myself, I find that this is fun. Of course, me being slightly crazy.... Eh, anyway. I've been in love with your books for nearly four years now. (Read TWL when I was ten.) I was wondering, how do you feel about "fanfiction"? (Y'know, where someone goes, takes the world, plot, etc... and writes missing moments, parodies, extra little adventures, the like?) Fanfic was the first thing that I wrote, but then I got a partial definition of plagerism, and burned most of my work. Eeuch.
Anyway, I love your writing, and I hope you keep it up.
Love in charred bits of fanfiction,
Riya
|
I've discussed these subjects earlier. But briefly: I'm not a visual person. I'm quintessentially verbal. So I don't see movies playing in my mind. For me, it's more like hearing movies--or the stories of those movies--described as eloquently as possible. I have no inherent problem with "fanfiction." In my view, "Imitation is the sincerest form of learning." I did a lot of it during what I think of as my journeyman years; my apprenticeship. It's only plagiarism if you try to pass it off as being more, well, original than it really is. (02/23/2005) |
Doug Davey: Hi Stephen
I Have never written to someone I do not know. But your books on Thomas Covenant inspired me to write my own book and thus ask your opinion. I have an eleven year old boy whom I read my two hundred page book to. Of course he says it is better than Star Wars and my book should be a movie. Of course the writing is poor the grammer suspect at best but the charaters are quite appealing. I would like to have someone edit and give me their opinion. It will most likely be a family momento only. But to have it made up in proper book form would be quite satisfying. Can you recommend anyone to edit the fantasy/fiction book I have wrote. Thank you for your response, I am looking forward to reading the last chronicles. DD
|
There are people who provide editorial services of various kinds. (Naturally they expect to get paid for their work.) I don't happen to know any of them personally--although many years ago I worked for a company (now defunct) that provided such services. Look in the yellow pages. Or a book callled "The Literary Marketplace." Or various other publications intended for aspiring writers. Or just ask an honest and reasonably intelligent friend/relative to help you out. (02/23/2005) |
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.
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.
Michael From Santa Fe: I know this is a silly question, but I'll ask anyway (I'm like that :-)): If given the chance, and if it actually existed, would you leave this world to live in the Land?
I know for myself that when life is hard, fantasy provides me with an escape (which is why I love it so), but would I choose to leave this world for another? I've thought about it and my answer would be "no". I prefer to visit the Land only through your books. For that, I thank you.
|
My answer would also be: No. The life I'm leading right now is the only life I'm actually qualified for. <grin> (02/23/2005) |
Balon: Mr Donaldson,
My question is simple, and probobly simply answered, but it still rankles my mind. The name "Plains of Ra", it seemed a bit out of place as an apparent reference to Egyptian culture. Is it a vague reference, or am i completly missing the point?
|
Sorry for the confusion. I did *not* intend any kind of reference to Egyptian culture or cosmology. My near total ignorance of the subject precludes that. And in fact I suspect that an Egyptian reference in this context would be thematic gibberish. (Although synchronicity occasionally accomplishes miracles.) No, I was simply--and I don't mean to make this sound frivolous--playing around with sounds: Ranyhyn, Ramen, Plains of Ra. (02/23/2005) |
Denis Delworth: After years of shouting about the number of books you have sold in europe, how can you justify the paucity of personal appearances over here?
It's wonderful for us over here to sit and read about these Fests where you and your fans turn out for a celebration for what you have done.
When are we in Europe going to get some proportionate response to the books we buy?
Or are you going to submit to the steriotypical belief that nobody outside the Dollar dictatorship matters?
Still a fan, but so disappointed.
D Delworth.
|
*Who* has been "shouting about the number of books [I] have sold in Europe"? Not I. Who makes decisions about where and why authors do public appearances? Not I. Who believes that the policies and parochialism of US publishing companies (the "Dollar dictatorship") sheds any light at all on the personal beliefs and desires of individual authors? Not I. I can't say that I understand your disappointment. If William Shakespeare were doing a signing across the street from me right now, I probably wouldn't go. Wouldn't want to stand in line. And it's the work that interests me, not the person. But still: don't you think it might be a bit churlish to blame *me* for your disappointment? (03/06/2005) |
Anonymous: Hi Stephen,
I wrote a post recently in which I gave my name and address and subsequently discovered that postings are posted,so just to request that it not be posted please?.Having read some of the postings I will submit a question to you soon.Thank you from Frank
|
If you don't want any of your personal information revealed in the postings on this site, please say so when you submit a question. I mean well, honest I do; but I can't pretend that I'll remember your specific request later on. (03/06/2005) |
smith: i've read answers to your previous questions regarding audiobooks of your previous works, and i had found a recording (online) of lord foul's bane read by teri hays sayles (sp) that sounds quite professional. Was this recorded without your permission?
|
Please send details! I was totally unaware of this recording. My actual "permission" is irrelevant: the rights are held by Ballantine Books, not by me. This could be a significant (and very labor-intensive) case of copyright infringement. Or it could be fully authorized by Ballantine, who just didn't bother to let me know. (03/06/2005) |
Mark Morgon-Shaw: Not so much a question......I read that you enjoy parody so last night started work on Chapter 1 of ' The Adventures of Briny the Pirate '. In the the first chapter Briny forgets where his boat is moored after a night of competetive drinking with Thomas the Incredulous, who cannot believe he too has lost something,his mobile phone memory has been erased. Their quest to rediscover the One Ring-tone takes them on many adventures, past the world's oldest French speaking mountain tree 'The L'arch of Time' , through a Swiss shopping centre where they purchase 'Kevin's Swatch', and finally visiting Europe's worst public toilet - 'Lord Fouls Salles du Bain'
I feel the story will be about nine chapters long and ask that you finish them for me as I have no actual writing talent at all. ;)
|
But you've already demonstrated more talent for parody than *I* have, so you're on your own. <grin? (03/06/2005) |
thinbuddha: Why the book tour? I was at an event in a major US city- there were only about 30 people there. Surely that can't generate enough sales to make the tour worthwile for your publisher(or you)?
Were there other (non-public) industry events tied to the tour such as interviews, meetings with other authors..... whatever...?
I loved getting a chance to meet you- and so much the beter that there wasn't a lot of people demanding your time (made it easier for me to get a couple of words in to one of my favorite authors) but the whole thing just strikes me as a bit odd.
Were your publishers disappointed that more people didn't show up? Where were all your fans?!? Were your tours always so quiet? Somehow, I really expected to fight with a hoard of fantasy/sci-fi fans for good seats.... But they just didn't show.
-tb
|
That's been my experience with US book tours generally. I've never understood why my publishers want to spend the money on them. Almost without exception, they're poorly promoted and mechanical; and there is no media interest whatsoever. (The one consistent exception is Mysterious Galaxy in San Diego.) Things were very different back when I did my first US tour, for "The Wounded Land" in 1980. But compared to the other US tours I've done in the past 20+ years, the "Runes" tour was a huge success. When I was on the road for "The Man Who Fought Alone," I often found myself speaking to audiences of 2 or 3 people, and sometimes signed as many as 8 books. (03/06/2005) |
Mark: Sir,
May I add my small voice to the great choir singing your praises, giving thanks for your gifts?
*I don't know if this will qualify as a spoiler*
As I was filling in a crossword puzzle yesterday, one of the answers in the grid was the word "anele". (I didn't actually know the word, in the context, but was able to fill it out by completing all of the perpendicular words.) I then looked in my dictionary, and could not find "anele". It was that kind of a crossword puzzle. After some searching, found that "anele" is an archaic word for anointing, administering oil, giving a blessing or the "Last Rites."
Did you intend to name your character with this in mind?
I know that you have said previously that you collect words from your own reading, so I was intrigued by this possible connection.
If you did intend the name to echo the action, I must now ponder the ramifications of this discovery.
Peace.
|
Yes, I chose the name "Anele" consciously because of the word's meaning. And yes, the conclusions that might be drawn about Anele from the literal meaning of his name are also intentional. People are "anointed" (chosen) for many reasons, few of them kindly. (03/06/2005) |
Doug Davey: Hi Stephen
This is the first time I have ever sent in a question to someone like yourself. Your Thomas Covenant books inspired me to write my own fantasy book that I would like to have edited and printed.(mainly for friends and family) The characters are great but my writing style is to action oriented and to the point, like most movies nowadays. I was wondering if you could recommend a company or person I could contact to have this done. The story is only about two hundred pages. I am looking forward to picking up the latest series. Thanks for your time. DD
|
Sorry. I know essentially nothing about self-publishing--except that it seldom accomplishes anything except, perhaps, ego gratification. The biggest obstacles to "success" (as we usually understand the word) are money and distribution. But there are exceptions. Books like "The Literary Marketplace" and magazines intended for writers should offer more information. (03/06/2005) |
Todd Burger: Hi,
Thanks again for this forum. Please bear with a bit of explanation before I get to my questions.
You've referenced an idea shelf - that may be a rough paraphrase. I have one myself. At the top of it is my adult fantasy, which I've been tinkering with for years, but haven't written (aside from volumes of character sketches, scene constructions, morality questions, "thesis papers" on themes, back-history narratives, a solid construction of the ending [of course], etc.) because at this point in my life, neither my mind nor my writing is ripe enough to do a good job with it. If I can't do a good job with it, I won't write it.
On the shelf below it, is a young adult fantasy series. I wrote half of the first book, am happy with the writing, but when reality sunk in regarding the publishing industry, I dusted off an idea for a single book (mature children's fantasy/horror), and am writing that. With this single book, I intend to go the way Mark Jeffrey did with his young adult series: self-publish, and then market the daylights out of it and hope to catch the eye of a publishing house. I didnt want to self-publish one book with three or four to follow. So my first question is, what are your feelings on self-publishing? Mark and I have had a few conversations about this, but I was wondering what your thoughts were.
My second question goes back to your idea shelf. I believe I remember seeing in the gradual interview that you did not have anything on your shelf but Covenant, so rather than asking if you have ideas on your shelf (maybe you do, but you wont tell us?) Im wondering if you could *conceive* of writing another fantasy series? (Obviously, one that is neither The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant or Mordants Need.)
Thanks as always for your time.
Todd
|
I've just written an answer that contains everything I know about self-publishing; so I'll confine myself to your second question. Almost anything is "conceivable." And I certainly don't have a crystal ball. Nor do I intend to give up writing--or living--after I complete "The Last Chronicles." I simply have no idea what the future holds. HowEVer, my working hypothesis has been that no new concrete ideas have appeared on my "story shelf" for a number of years now *because* "The Last Chronicles" got tired of waiting for me to get around to it; so it blocked off the shelf to force me to pay attention. If this hypothesis is accurate, then writing "The Last Chronicles" should free up the shelf to hold new ideas. (03/06/2005) |
Travis Foss: Mr. Donaldson,
I just finished Runes of the Earth and wanted to let you know I thought it was amazing. Easialy as good as the first series. I look forward to reading the next three books.
When can we expect to see the next book come out?
Thanks.
|
Until my webmaster and I get around to creating a FAQ, I guess I'll keep answering this question. My contract allows me 36 months per book for "The Last Chronicles." I *hope* I won't need that much time; but I can promise nothing. "News," when there is any, appears promptly elsewhere on this site. (03/06/2005) |
Michael From Santa Fe: You have stated in the answers to several questions that writing the "Last Chronicles" was going to be difficult, for a number of reasons. My question is: what book or books, if any, have been the easiest, or least difficult, for you to write and why?
|
I think I can say with some confidence that the first "Covenant" trilogy was the least difficult for me to write. Why? Well, partly because I didn't know any better. <grin> Partly because there were absolutely no expectations (no publisher, no editor, no readers--and no reason to believe that such things would ever exist in my life). And partly because I had never written fantasy before, so I didn't know what my true talents were; and the sense of self-discovery as I got deeper and deeper into the story was enormously exciting. (03/06/2005) |
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.
Michael Rowlands: Mr. Donaldson,
It seems everytime I read TC's confrontation with Lord Foul in Foul's Creche I am reminded of Dr Who's (Tom Baker) confrontation with Sutekh in Pyramids of Mars (I'm not suggesting that you borrowed from it at all). I was wondering, and excuse me if this is a silly question, if you could (and were able to) cast (for a film) a voice for the Despiser would you cast Gabriel Wolfe?
|
Can I assume that Gabriel Wolfe played Sutekh? I remember the episode well (although I first saw it a number of years after writing "The Second Chronicles"), but I don't remember the voice; and I never knew who played any characters other than the Doctor and his companions. Oh, and the Master, of course. (03/06/2005) |
Sergio D. Caplan: First off, "thank you". Couldn't be avoided. I must say thanks, because I always re-read these stories when things are goign especially tough for me. I always found Covenant to be someone to look up to when despair has me in it's grips. It's always at these times when I say to myself, like Covenant, ride out the bad dream.
Anyway here is my question. In the second trilogy, did the Haruchi re-enact their vow? Did they sleep? I don't recall if I ever got that answer in the second trilogy. And I just have to know!
Now I must quickly re-read the first two trilogies, so I can start the third...21 years from White Gold Wielder to Runes of the Earth, that's not a long wait, is it?
Sergio
|
No, the Haruchai did not re-enact their Vow. Nor have they done anything similar in "The Last Chronicles." They're just so ^#$%# stoical that they do all their sleeping off-stage. <grin> (03/06/2005) |
Jason Avant: First, a simple thanks for "The Runes of The Earth".
A comment, and then a question. What draws me to the Covenant novels are the characters, particularly Covenant and Linden. I'd enjoy reading about them and knowing them even if their adventures consisted of visiting an aluminum siding sales convention; they're perhaps the only characters I've read in the genre that come across as real people. It seems to me that the vast majority of fantasy writers place their emphasis on the realms they create, rather than the folks who inhabit (or gate-crash from our world) those realms. I'm curious - did the Land come first for you, or did Covenant, and later on, Linden?
Thanks, and looking forward to reading more of your work!
|
Covenant definitely came first. In fact, as I think I've explained elsewhere, discovering the character of Covenant *enabled* me to discover the Land. In my storytelling, anyway, the "world" is pretty much always an extension of the characters. Linden was a far more difficult discovery, since both Covenant and the Land already existed. But eventually Covenant and the Land gave her to me. (03/06/2005) |
Drew B: Mr Donaldson,
Over the years, has writing the various Chronicles led you to particular insights about yourself?
Or have personal insights led to breakthroughs as a writer?
thanks!
Drew
|
For a writer like myself, there is a constant synergy between what I write and what I know about myself. Unfortunately--or fortunately, depending on your point of view--this isn't necessarily a conscious process. And those aspects of the process that *are* conscious are probably too personal to discuss in a public forum (and in any case they would take *hours* to explain). But I'll say this much. Sometimes my imagination--and my characters--seem to run pretty far ahead of me. I've spent a significant portion of my life playing catch-up. <rueful smile> As a result, much of what I know about life (especially as it pertains to personal integrity) I learned from writing these specific stories about these particular characters. On the other hand, I'm not exactly a "breakthrough" kind of guy. I do pretty much everything in life the same way I write: very slowly, in small increments, with lots and lots of revision. The difference is that I frequently experience epiphanies, sudden flashes of insight, in writing, but seldom in life. In life I generally grind it out the hard way. (03/09/2005) |
Jay Shapiro: I can't thank you enough for your books and for this interview. I have read and reread everything you have written, and enjoyed them all very much. After finishing RUNES, I bought and am listening to the audio version, and I am truly enjoying it as well. I hope enough people are interested in the audio version to make this possible for the rest of the series.
After reading the entire gradual interview, I have not seen the answer to this question, so I guess I will pose it...
When Sorus (and others) have to take the antidote to the mutagen every hour to stay human, when do they sleep? The chapter from Pup's POV described his being very meticulous about the timing of the dosage. Granted, he only had a limited supply of the antidote, but Sorus seems to have been taking it for quite some time. Is it necessary for them to take it every hour, 24 hours a day?
Thanks again,
Jay
|
Gosh, you know, I wrote those books a long time ago; and I no longer remember exactly what I had in mind. But the world of the GAP books is so advanced medically that I assume some kind of automated delivery system would be possible (the futuristic equivalent of the patch <grin>). Sorry I can't be more helpful. (03/09/2005) |
Bert Torsey, aka Briney the Pirate at KW: Not a question, really, as mush as an observation.
Having just re-read the First Chronicles, I found Golden Boy, as a chapter and a concept, delightfully ironic and somewhat prophetic of what has befallen you since the publication of the First and Second Chronicles.
How about you?
|
Well, I would like to believe that--like Covenant--I no longer have "feet of clay." But I certainly see the parallels. Certainly my *career* has revealed its unreliable foundations with a vengeance. <grin> (03/09/2005) |
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.
Dave, Ellington, CT: Mr. Donaldson,
Have you ever considered writing a work or non-fiction, or indeed, have you ever done so? Something larger than a magazine article anyway?
I imagine that writing fiction requires a large amount of research, as does non-fiction. But I would think the process would be a lot different.
Have you ever had the desire?
Thanks,
Dave P.
|
I burned out on writing non-fiction in college and graduate school. Fiction is what I love: non-fiction is pure chore. (So, for example, I virtually never *read* any non-fiction.) When circumstances require non-fiction from me, I almost have to hold a gun to my head to make myself do it. I do believe that a certain mastery of writing non-fiction is an essential prerequisite to writing fiction. But (by my own standards, at any rate) I passed that point three decades ago, and I have no inclination to return to it. One consequence is that I'll never write an autobiography (despite the steadily diminishing number of requests <grin>). I chose the title while I was still in my teens--"Important People I Might Have Known If I Had Been Paying Attention"--but I'll never write the actual book. (03/09/2005) |
John Fitzpatrick: So, I've read all your books and I have to say that the GAP series, though difficult at first, is by far your best work. You took the motif (for lack of a better term) that you establish in the first chapter of the first book (this is what you see, but the real story is...) and carried throughout the series with an ever larger scope. Absolutely fantastic. I had to prod my wife to get her through the first book but she is as big a fan as I am. A truly magnificent work. When are you going to do something that complex again? I've read the Thomas Covenant books and I have to say that they aren't nearly as deep. I appreciate your writing and would like to thank you for all that you've given but at the same time I'd like to ask you to take the time and really apply the immense talent that you have to write fiction with intricate depth like so few people can.
Best of luck with your future endeavours,
John
|
Strangely, many people tell me that they think the Covenant "Chronicles" have more depth.... I think the technical complexity and the--I don't know what else to call it--the sheer nakedness of the character portrayals in the GAP books prevent many readers from looking beneath the surface. But, as I've said throughout this interview, I don't choose my stories: my stories choose me. So I have absolutely no idea when, if ever, I'm "going to do something that complex again." On the other hand, what I'm attempting in "The Last Chronicles" seems plenty ^#$%# complex to *me*. <grin> Certainly I feel that I'm pushing my "talent," whatever it may be, to its outermost limit. (03/09/2005) |
Doug Alford: It's been awhile since I read the last lines of White Gold Wielder, and my memory is something less than vast. So forgive me if I am asking a question that would be made obvious by a close reading of the Second Chronicles. That said...
I am unclear on the difference between the Law of Life and the Law of Death. What are the strictures of each, and the implications of their breaking?
(And thanks for the novels. They were one of the few healthy compulsions I indulged through my college years.)
|
Well, putting it crudely: the Law of Death prevents the dead from intruding on or affecting the living (manifesting as ghosts, visible spirits, etc.); the Law of Life prevents the dead from *becoming* the living (re-entering, re-animating, and re-ensouling their dead bodies so that they can literally pick up their lives where they left off). Together the two Laws preserve the necessary boundary between life and death; but they function sequentially. Still crudely: when you die, first your spirit leaves your body, then it leaves knowable reality. So in reverse, damaging the Law of Death allows your spirit to re-enter knowable reality, and then damaging the Law of Life allows your spirit to resume life in your natural body. Does that help? (03/09/2005) |
James Hastings: "After all, Milton wrote about Satan explicitly. Why shouldn't I be equally daring, since my ambitions were certainly comparable to Milton's?"
Ha ha. Your ambitions similar to Milton's. And Ambition was the flaw that made Satan go bad. Clever.
|
Ergo Milton = Satan. Which explains why Satan is by far the most interesting character in "Paradise Lost." I *like* it. But the flaw in that reasoning (mine, not yours) is that Satan was ambitious for himself, whereas Milton was ambitious for his creation ("Paradise Lost"). I like to think that's an important distinction. (03/09/2005) |
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I've noted from the "BOOK TOUR" section of your website that you will be attending the "The International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts" conference in March of 2005 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Their website however does not seem to reference your appearance...since the information IS in the "Book Tour" section, can we safely assume that you will be signing books and meeting the public at this conference? Would you be so kind as to clarify the nature of your appearance at this gathering or is it a "for members only" type of conference?
|
The International Conference for the Fantastic in the Arts is an academic conference (a totally different animal than an sf/f convention) where graduate students and professors from around the world deliver and hear academic papers on *many* subjects relating to, well, "the fantastic in the arts." A number of writers find this atmosphere congenial; and for those writers the conference schedules both readings and autographings. I'll be doing both. You didn't find me on the website because you didn't look under the conference schedule: my reading is listed there. The down side of the occasion, of course, is that you can't attend without a membership. (Which, as at an sf/f con, you can purchase when you get there.) The upside is that it is extremely relaxed, which means that opportunities for schmoozing are easy to come by. btw, I'm sorry it took me so long to supply this information. I'm over 240 questions behind on the GI. (03/13/2005) |
brian donovan: I know that you conceived the character of thomas covenant after hearing one of your father's speeches which, I take it it was about his work as a surgeon dealing with leprosy.
I've been deeply curious to know more about the origin of this amazing character for 27 years. I have read all six books at least a dozen times over that period and the lastest ("Runes of the Earth")once ... so far. I have found inspiration and hope in these books that words cannot convey.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing thomas covenant into my life.
Gratefully,
Brian Donovan
|
I've written at some length much earlier in this interview about my father's (indirect) role in creating the character of Thomas Covenant. My father described the emotional dilemmas of suffering from leprosy with uncharacteristic eloquence; and he followed that by writing what was, in essence, a research paper that gave me all the practical information I needed. The entire "Covenant" saga would not exist without him. (03/13/2005) |
Fionn: In your short story "Lady in White", I understand that you deliberately left Festil's answer/solution to the Lady's challenges unexplained -- the ambiguity makes for a better story.
My questions are: While writing the story -- or even afterwards -- did you conceive an idea of what Festil did? If you hadn't, then what is the process by which you avoid thinking about it while addressing his brother Mardik's solutions? Surely the creative process requires coming up with various possibilities before selecting the ones most appropriate for the characters and story, no?
Thanks!
-Jim O'Connell ("Fionn")
Saratoga, CA
alchemists@earthlink.net
|
I'm sorry. It is with some embarrassment that I'm forced to admit that I don't remember. I wrote that story nearly 30 years ago (it was in fact my very first published short story), and since then so many other stories have intervened that "The Lady in White" has become a blur. Even if I re-read it now, I'm not sure I could recall the process of its creation. (03/13/2005) |
Mike Lerch: ..I see you make reference to " the zeitergeist" of the times in an answer. I have a distinct feeling that the " Runes" is addressing another sort of "zeitergeist". The "synthetic realities" of today and the conflict of how human beings are to be defined, thus the reality of the next generation,..seem to be close to the surface . Am I just getting older or did you with intent mean to have the " theme" easier accessed? Perhaps I am out of the ballpark, and I've always enjoyed what I considered your social / political perpsective reflected in your art. It just seems to me its almost right at the surface in Runes. The struggle for the next generation's soul
you have taken to heart. Yes?......Thanks ...MEL
|
When I write, I am *never* conscious of trying to comment on ANYthing except the story itself. I don't write to expound my views on any subject: I write to tell stories; to see as deeply as I can into the hearts and actions of my characters, and to share what I see as effectively as I can. As a person, of course, I live in what we loosely call the "real world," and I naturally have opinions and concerns about that world. In addition, I'm a highly intuitive individual, and I pick up "feelings" about all kinds of things. And of course who I am as a person inevitably bleeds through into what I write. But I never never *never* have a message I want to convey. Instead I work very hard at discovering and communicating whatever seems to be inherent in the particular story I'm writing. If you see a clear connection between what I've written and, say, "the spirit of the times," or any other aspect of the "real world," that is an example of the mysterious synergy which enlivens the relationship between writing and reading (and even between writer and reader). Of course, I do *talk* about the themes in my stories. But that always happens in retrospect: I do it looking back on what I've written. Such thinking plays no role during my creative process. (03/13/2005) |
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.
John McCann: Stephen,
You stated in previous answers that when you start a project you immediately know how many books it is going to take to complete the project.
Does this prescience extend to the individual books in a series once you start them? That is do you know how the book will be strcutured (sections IEW entire second chronichles, or singlet LFB, TPTP) of the number of chapters it will take to complete the novel?
Now that you have started Fatal Revenant, do you know and would you be willing to share any of the above infomation about it?
One last question while I am on a roll. You've stated your contract requires you to deliver one book every 36 months. While a student, I never handed in a term paper early. Is there any chance you will turn in Fatal Revenant or any of the other volumes of the Final Chronicles early?
Thanks for humoring me
John
|
The reason I know how many books (how much narrative space) a big idea will require is that I can "see" the general shape or structure of the story (e.g. what crucial events/turning points will be necessary to bring about the eventual climax). This "prescience," as you called it, usually (but not always) extends to the main structure within individual books (for example, I knew from the beginning that "The Second Chronicles" would fall into 8 sections or movements). But it never extends to the, well, micro-level of individual chapters. At that level, I feel my way along as I write. With one proviso: once I've established a pattern within a story (e.g. 12 chapters in Part I of "The Last Chronicles") I do try to preserve that pattern--for the sake of symmetry, if for no other reason. So: 12 chapters in Part I, 12 in Part II. Therefore it's quite likely that there will be 12 chapters in each section of "Fatal Revenant"--which, like "The Runes of the Earth," will be divided into two "parts." (The Prologue in "Runes" doesn't count because it is an introduction to the entire story: it does not pertain exclusively to "Runes".) I urgently hope--but cannot promise--that I'll be able to deliver "Fatal Revenant" (and each subsequent volume) early. But even if I do, the books may not be published early. "Runes" was prepared and published in an obscene hurry; and that will not happen again. So the time between submission of the manuscript and D&A (delivery and acceptance) of the final manuscript will be much longer than it was with "Runes," as will the time between D&A and publication. If "Fatal Revenant" is to have any chance at all of being published 36 months after "Runes," I need to actually write it in 18 months--and publisher demands burned up the first 6 of those months before I could even look at starting "Fatal Revenant." Then consider that from starting to first submission, "Runes" required 25 months. It's not a pretty picture. (03/13/2005) |
Jonathan Meakin: Mr Donaldson,
Has there been any word on the release date of the "Runes" paperback in Canada and the UK?
Several times during this gradual interview, you have expressed intent to make revisions to the "Runes" text for the paperback edition. I wonder how you will balance such revisions with the writing of "Fatal Revenant"? Hard work & inspiration, I guess!
All the very best to you and yours,
Jonathan Meakin
|
I haven't yet been given publication dates for any of the paperback versions of "Runes." If I had any actual news, I would post it promptly in the "news" section of this site. But it's fair to expect that paperbacks will begin to appear 11-12 months after hardcover publication. (03/13/2005) |
Robert J Frias: Mr Donaldson, this is more of an observational type question than an actual one, but I imagine an answer or opinion can be culled from you.
This pertains to the current "movie" trends and thinking [If that can be used at all in respect to H-Wood].
As a young man I read comics. Then I became a dealer profiteering from their collectibility. The trends in H-Wood are come to them as the ground was largely untapped and rich. Now with the success of the LOTR movies and CGI your books seem a clear choice. Moreover they are [when hindsight will be available], a "No-Brainer".
My observation is simple. We need Fantasy! Escapism in all its forms is a major pasttime is this [and a few] other countries. Video games, DVD,s and the froliferation of other distractions [READ: cell phones] only confirms our need for outside stimuli.
The current crop of comic movies and the wealth they have generated makes it all to clear the Covenant series will get done whether for good or ill. But there is hope. I have seen the material treated with a certain respect and downright fealty so my optimism remains. I have been to sites that suggest cast and directors and have agreed or disagreed [not that it matters an iota].
These few observations are just that and are meant to pry some kind of other answer from you beside your standard.
I also thank you for picking your outlet for your voice. You have made me smile, laugh out loud and get totally aggravated. Bravo for evoking in me these feelings over the last 25 years.
|
I don't know what you consider a "standard" response, but you're wrong about one thing. There is not only no guarantee that "Covenant" will be filmed; there is very little likelihood. Think of the odds against. And I don't mean the technical odds, which hardly exist anymore: I mean the odds of theme and character. Why try to compete with the success of LOTR by producing a dark fantasy about a leper/rapist when there are *mountains* of easy fantasy out there begging to be filmed? We'll see writers like Feist, Brooks, Goodkind, and Jordan filmed long before any studio seriously considers Donaldson--or even Moorcock. (03/13/2005) |
Teresa Dealey: Hello, Mr. Donaldson
I wanted to address something you mentioned about not being religious. There are many spiritual themes... in fact the entire story is a very deep spiritual theme in and of itself. As a Catholic in the loosest almost Pagan sense of the word and former "very" Catholic girl I found your TC books to be helpful spiritually. Do you think you examine your own spirutal beleifs and/or conflicts through the telling of your story? If so, I think you are honestly more spiritual than many people.
Teresa (aka Monstermom, MamaT, SoulQuest1970)
|
S.P. Somtow once said (I hope I'm quoting him accurately), "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry." I wouldn't go quite that far myself. Certainly I think that "Fiction is the only valid form of spiritual inquiry." And I believe that fantasy, as a form of fiction, is particularly apt for the discussion of spiritual questions. The fact that fantasy writers pretty much by definition take "magic and monsters" seriously means that questing, introspective fantasy writers take the "numinous" seriously, the "more than mundane." For this latter sub-group of fantasy writers, quests (and all other forms of searching) actually *mean* something: they reflect, if you will, a hunger for integrity, purpose, and significance which cannot be satisfied by the mere mechanical details of living. So: when I say I'm not a religious person, I mean I don't adhere to--or even listen to--anyone or anything who thinks that he/she/it can tell me THE TRUTH ABOUT LIFE. On the other hand, I'm *very* interested in the efforts of my characters to discover and name their particular versions of THE TRUTH ABOUT LIFE. And I'm so interested, of course, because I'm trying to do the same thing they are. In my view, therefore, I'm a spiritual rather than a religious person; and I write stories about spiritual questions rather than about religious answers. To the extent that I "examine my own spiritual beliefs and/or conflicts through the telling" of my stories, I use my characters as, well, role-models for my own questing. I hope that doesn't make *too* much sense. <grin> I really don't want to be specific about this. (03/16/2005) |
Petar Belic: Mr Donaldson,
I know you hear this a thousand times, but I'm sure every little bit helps: thanks for the effort you've put in to enriching our lives.
I have a simple question: where comes this fascination for physical blindness - or a lack of eyesight - you have in your story-telling? Nom. Waynhim. Hile Troy. There are probably more references, of which I am too lazy to research. However, there does seem to be a pattern here...
I know you are busy. Thanks for taking the time to read.
|
I find it somewhat embarrassing to admit that until Anele came along I didn't actually realize that eyelessness or blindness formed such a recurring (one might almost say incessant) theme in the "Covenant" books. And yet the pattern continues, as you'll discover (if you haven't already) in "The Last Chronicles." Well, I like to think that my sub-conscious has a very good reason for insisting on this particular metaphor. Certainly one of the main subjects of the "Covenant" books is how perception creates reality. For one example, the Land becomes effectively real for Covenant when he "sees" that it is important to him. And for another, the ur-viles and Waynhim stand outside the governing forms of Law in part because they literally *don't* "see". Conversely, Hile Troy doesn't "see" the danger implicit in his attitude toward power: his inability/failure to perceive accurately threatens the survival of the Land. And so on. (03/16/2005) |
Michael From Santa Fe: OK, I used the search engine at the top of the interview (great tool by the way - thank the web master for me) to search and see if this has ever been asked and could not find any reference to it, so I'm asking...if it has been asked, I apologize, I did try and practice due dilligence: have you ever felt sad by the death of one of your characters (you kill off quite a few so I thought there was fertile ground for that to have happened at some point)? Have you ever killed off a character that you did not originally intend to die? Or, the other way around, have you ever WANTED to kill a character that you originally envisioned to live through the story?
|
Actually, I believe I have--and I say this without practicing "due diligence" myself <grin>--discussed grieving over the death of a particular character earlier in this interview. (I refer specifically to the Tor in "A Man Rides Through.") As a general rule, my stories are so thoroughly planned in advance that I'm seldom surprised by "who lives and who dies". (But when I say that I'm not surprised, I don't mean to imply that I'm not moved. Actually writing the stories is a very experiential process for me, and I have strong emotional reactions, even when I've known what's coming for--sometimes--years.) Exceptions do occur, however. For example, the death of Norna Fasner was not part of my original intent--although it came to seem inevitable long before I actually wrote it. But I never kill off characters simply because I *want* to. For one thing, I never *want* to: I invest too much of myself in my characters to actively desire their demise (although simple pity inspired some relief when Norna was killed). And for another, I don't believe in doing, well, ANYthing gratuitously. If I'm not confident that what I'm doing is necessary to the design and logic of the story, I don't do it. (OK, OK, I often *do* do it--in the first draft. But then I undo it, or alter it in some other way, during my many stages of reconsideration.) Both as a person and as a writer, I need to be able to look back on what I've written and believe that it could not have been done effectively, meaningfully, correctly, in any other way. (03/16/2005) |
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.
Michael Blatt: Mr. Donaldson,
I have just begun Runes and 2 things come to mind immediately:
Linden is now working in the role of a psychiatrist -- I wonder if this is some sort of response on your part to the characters you have developed? Your characters seem to me to have all sorts of mental illnesses yet they remain scarily as examples of what we all could be.
Jerimiah - His muteness/numbness but building skill is a recurring theme in your works (IMO). These characters evoke a certain uncomfortableness in the reader - Is this your goal?
In any case I am a fan so please read my questions in that light.
|
Speaking very broadly, my main characters almost always have--or revolve around--an illness of some kind. Physical illness (leprosy, gap sickness) or mental/emotional illness (sociopathy, terminal narcissism, alcoholism). Obviously I find such things to be an extremely useful source of metaphors for various aspects of the human condition. But why do such things speak to me (I mean, to me specifically) as clearly as they do? I assume that the answer lies in some combination of: a) my father was a doctor of a kind that was highly valued where he worked (I often saw people kiss his feet in the street: very powerful stuff for a kid to witness); b) we lived in a community of doctors where a workaholic approach to healing was the norm; c) I was constantly exposed to the most appalling forms of human misery and degradation; and d) I've had MANY years of therapy, focusing primarily on PTSD, but ranging very widely. No, I'm not trying to evoke discomfort when I present a character like Jeremiah. I'm after empathy. However, I've often found that empathy is difficult to reach without first passing through discomfort. No one is comfortable with Covenant--at first. AbsoLUTEly no one is comfortable with Angus Thermopyle--at first (and many people never get beyond that stage). Morn Hyland elicits a lot of discomfort; Terisa Morgan, less. So I'm hoping my readers will be able to go straight to empathy with Jeremiah, but I don't necessarily *expect* that to happen. (03/17/2005) |
Dave Larson: Mr. Donaldson,
Is there any chance that your books will be available as audiobooks? I so enjoyed the Thomas Covenant Chronicles as they were released but never got to finish The Second Chronicles. I am half blind and reading is difficult but these audiobooks are so well done that they are wonderful to listen to.
Thank You,
Dave
|
I wish I could tell you that all of the "Chronicles" will eventually be released as audiobooks. But that is highly unlikely: they aren't popular enough. The release of "The Runes of the Earth" on CD was an experiment, and the early indications are that the experiment has failed (i.e. it lost money). So unless something changes dramatically (a successful "Covenant" film would suffice), even the rest of "The Last Chronicles" will probably not appear as audiobooks. Sorry about that. (03/17/2005) |
JimH: I bought myself a Christmas present (the new book). Turns out it is a signed copy. How many signed copies are out there?
Thanks
|
I can't tell you how many books I signed--including store stock--during my tour(s) because I have no idea. (One store had 150 copies in stock; but 20 was a more common number.) However, for Putnams I signed nearly 7500 copies in advance; so there are (or were) quite a few autographed books out there. (03/17/2005) |
Todd: Mr. Not-late-for-dinner Donaldson, <smile>
Needless to say, "Thank you" for all you have written and thank you for returning to the Land.
But damn you for the ending to Runes... two years to wait now? Well I'll get by..
Seriously, thanks so much for what I consider to be the best collection of any one author that I own.
Just a few questions. One I think is fairly original, one beating a dead horse of a different color.
1) While writing either the Second Chronicles or Runes did the idea of having Linden become pregnant by Covenant ever pop into your mind, if only for a second? I wonder what set of dynamics could have been created by having someone conceived in the Land, born in "our" world, then returning to the Land.
2) Have you ever read E. R. Eddison? Tolkien once said of Eddison "I . . . think of him as the greatest and most convincing
writer of 'invented worlds' that I have read."
I have tried twice now to get through his Zimiamvia trilogy but have been daunted by the archaic type of prose he uses. I've made myself a pledge to get through that someday (yeah and Moby Dick, too).
Thank you also for this progressive interview format. I've found it a fascinating discussion of the books I love so much as well as the publishing industry.
|
1) Yes, the Linden-gets-pregnant-by-Covenant idea *did* pop into my head. Many years ago. But I dismissed it almost reflexively because it violates so many of the basic "rules" I've set up for "The Chronicles." 2) Yes, I've read four Eddison books, the "trilogy" you mention (Eddison left it unfinished) and a stand-alone called (memory, don't fail me now) "The Worm Ourobouros." The style didn't bother me at all: after all, I live on writers like Conrad, Meredith, Faulkner, and Scott. But I didn't like the stories: they seemed empty to me; empty of warmth, meaning, or even purpose. Now "Gormenghast," on the other hand.... I have reveled in those more than once (except for the third book, which in my opinion simply doesn't work). (03/17/2005) |
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.
Michael From Santa Fe: OK, extremely personnal question, would not be surprised if you decide not to answer: dog or cat person?
I believe I once saw an old picture of you with a cat perched on your shoulder (or your desk) - correct? So I assume you must have some affinity for cats, but as a cat owner myself it wouldn't surprise me if the cat just jumped in the picture at the last moment. Anyway, do you have any pets currently?
|
I'm not a "pet" person. I'm more comfortable with cats than with dogs, but I prefer not to be involved with animals at all. I know, I know: it's a terrible flaw in my character. But people can't change when they don't want to change; so I'm stuck where I am. (03/17/2005) |
Nathan Eddy: Mr. Donaldson,
You have insisted repeatedly that you are not a polemicist; instead, you write a story for its own sake, because it moves or excites you in some way. But this strikes me as misleading, because what excites you is necessarily entangled with deeper issues like French existentialism (as youve mentioned above). So Im guessing that what passes for exciting to Mr. Donaldson goes a lot deeper than what most people would describe as an exciting story. And from reading others like me in this forum, I assume lots of us are reading your work for this very reason, for that underlying depth which gives your characters their meaning, their relevance, and their emotional power. What makes your characters real is that their journeys touch upon "what it means to be humananother description youve given for your writing.
But isnt this exactly what existentialism is? An account of our being-in-the-world? A description of the human condition? Life, death, freewill, our roles as our own lawgiver/enforcer/judge (as Nietzsche might say). If what it means to be human is that deeper level upon which your stories are grounded, then perhaps you would consider existential metaphor, if not allegory as a description of what you do? Or "existential fantasy?"
Im not really trying to find a label for you. I just feel that in an effort to resist that particular label (polemicist), you misleadingly diminish the part of your work that so many of us find unique and epiphanic.
So I suppose my question is: do you REALLY think that your creative impulses can be explained in terms of pursuing an exciting story, or is this just a simplified version you offer to stave off more confusion and misplaced assumptions?
If (as youve said here) there are conscious and subconscious parts to our freewill, then this deeper level of significance, which leaks into your stories, is just as much your choice as your stated reasons for writing them. Your passion is obviously under your control. Im confused why you distance yourself from what it inadvertently produces in your writing.
|
<sigh> This is all so much more complicated than I ever wanted it to be. You make a number of perfectly valid points. And yet there are some insidiously misleading assumptions at work, many of which I've inadvertently fostered. In this interview and elsewhere, I've made a number of statements about my work which (apparently) justify your observations. But there are a couple of critical points here which tend to get lost in the discussion (I mean lost by me as well as by other people). 1) Every statement I've ever made that bears on the "content" of my work was made in retrospect; looking back on the work after it was done. In other words, it was made from my perspective as a reader, not from my perspective as the writer. 2) Every statement I've ever made that bears on the "content" of my work was made in response to a question. In other words, it was elicited from a perspective external to my own. Oh, and there may be a third critical point here as well: most of the statements I've made that bear on the "content" of my work were/are intended to apply to art/literature/fantasy in general rather than to my work in particular. In this context, yes, I really do think that my creative impulses can be explained in terms of pursuing an exciting story. And yes, OF COURSE, who I am as a person profoundly affects what I find exciting. And in addition, my training as a student of literature affects both what I find exciting and how I talk about that excitement. Nevertheless I must insist: I DO NOT HAVE A MESSAGE. Certainly not in the sense that "allegory" implies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, teach you anything, demonstrate anything, or advocate for anything. My *message,* if I have one, is simply that good stories are worth reading. Why? Because, in my experience, they expand us. How? By engaging us in extremely specific individuals experiencing extremely specific dilemmas which we would not have encountered otherwise, but which (precisely because they are not us) can increase the range of what we're able to understand and (perhaps) empathize with. Polemics, by definition, is about generalization. Story-telling, by definition, is entirely consumed in specifics. So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism." But that is not at all the same thing as saying that my stories are *about* existential humanism. My stories are not *about* anything except my characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas. The observations that we can make about a particular story, or about stories in general, after we have experienced them have the potential to be very educational: they can continue the process of expansion. But they also have the potential to be very misleading because they can confuse the observation with the experience. Apparently I've made that mistake more often than I realized. (03/18/2005) |
Nick: Stephen,
I'm almost done with Runes of Earth - it's simply (although there isn't anything simple about it) excellent. I particularly like Esmer, and reading about the urviles, once again. I look forward to seeing more of them too.
One thing I've often thought about when reading the Covenant series is the potential metaphors for the "white gold ring." On the one hand (pardon the pun) I see it as a metaphor for addiction -- for wild magic, like a drug, can be a catalyst for both creativity and chaos. Also, I've often wondered if the duality of the white gold ring represents any particular feelings you may have about the institution of marriage... <wry grin> Do you have any thoughts you'd like to share about the symbolism of the white gold ring?
Another topic: Your Gap Cycle series was excellent, but the evil in it was too gruesome for me to bear. Emotionally speaking, among your numerous works, was that series the hardest for you to write? In those books you described the faces of evil very well... did you pay a considerable psychological toll to do so?
Finally, would you care to share the names of your favorite authors? You've indicated previously that you read very selectively. I was suprised (but respect why) you don't read Card, as I believe he is similar to you, in that he uses the fantasy genre to tell bigger stories, beyond the traditional sword and sorcery theme. I'm curious if you've ever read George RR Martin -- especially given the fact he's your neighbor..
I'd appreciate your comment on the items noted above, but of course will understand if you can not do so, given your very hectic schedule.
Thank you for your wonderful stories.
Nick
|
I've discussed my favorite authors too often here to go into that again. But as to your other questions.... Your perspective on white gold is inherently valid, being yours. My own perspective, on the other hand, did not involve metaphors of addiction. I was interested in the white gold ring first and foremost as a symbol of marriage: i.e. of those commitments to each other which people make of their own free will (as opposed to, say, commitments which are imposed on us by our culture--e.g. patriotism--or by our nature--e.g. our commitments to our children). Second, I was interested in white gold because--like marriage--it is an alloy, a union of inherently disparate materials, therefore symbolic of the essential paradox which both challenges and vitalizes our voluntary commitments to each other. (It is, after all, a commonplace to observe that the very thing which makes a marriage worth having is the same thing which is most likely to make that marriage fail: it unites two *different* people.) Third, I was interested in white gold because--again, like marriage--as an alloy it is unnatural (and I hasten to insert that I don't mean this in a negative or critical way), therefore apt as an instrument for the destruction (or the preservation) of what *is* natural. To get a sense of my point, consider the number of lives that are immeasurably enriched by marriage--and the number of lives that are utterly destroyed by marriage. As to the Gap Cycle. All of my novels come arduously, so I often have trouble distinguishing between the specific difficulties of particular novels. In addition, the incessant shifting of POV in the Gap books was *so* difficult for me that it tends to blot out other difficulties. But the accuracy of your question is revealed in this: after writing the Gap Cycle, I needed *far* more "recovery time" than after any other of my big projects. I was so drained that I quickly sank into a profound depression (there were other causes at work as well) out of which I was unable to climb for over a year. Of course, abysmal sales contributed to that depression: I knew the Gap books were the best work I had ever done, but comparatively few readers cared. But the sheer emotional exhaustion of dealing with so much naked pain for so long was a major factor. (03/18/2005) |
Mark Sanges: Dear Mr. Donaldson, (do you prefer Dr. Donaldson?)
Again, thanks for responding to my previous questions. I noticed this weekend that Runes of the Earth is now available in eBook format at ereader.com. Hooray! I've already purchased and downlaoded my copy (that's 3 sales of Runes just for me, the hardback, the CDs and now the eBook!) I can now add it to my ever-growing library of ebooks. Did you have something to do with it appearing there after my previous posts about some of your detective novels (The Man Who... series) being available there? You also mentioned that it might be possible to get your other works on that site as well? Is this something you or your agents/editors are actively persuing?
Also, in your last response you mentioned that it's okay with you if someone like myself who prefers ebooks wants to destroy a book in order to produce a scanned copy for their own personal use that you didn't have a problem with that. I'd just like to assure you that I rarely scan books. If they aren't available as eBooks I bite the bullet a read them printed on dead trees like most other folks. But I *NEVER* destroy books in order to scan them. In the case of hard backs, I may damage the binding some by forcing them to stretch open enough to get the page flat on the scanner bed, but I've never ripped a book apart just for the sake of scanning it. And to be honest, yours are just about the only books I would take the trouble to scan simply because they are the only books that I re-read with relatively predictable frequency. However, now I am holding out hope that good, legal, valid eBook forms of the previous two Covenant series, the Gap series and perhaps even your short story collections may become available for purchase as eBooks and thus save me all that scanning, proofreading, and editing time to get good electronic copies!
As always, thanks for all of your works and for providing this forum in which your fans can communicate with you so directly! All my best to you and your family from myself and my family for a happy, wonderful Holiday season and a Happy New Year! Now get to work on Fatal Revenant<sheepish grin>!
Sincerely,
Mark Sanges
|
Unfortunately, I don't have the "clout" to have any effect on whether or not any of my books appear in e-formats. And, frankly, the sales of e-books are so miniscule that publishers generally don't care. But there *are* a few publishers who are thinking about the future of the industry (Tom Doherty at Tor Books is one, which is why so many Tor books are available from ereader.com), and those people want to position their books as favorably as possible for the changes that lie ahead. Well, my (now former) editor at Putnams was one of those people. Hence the e-version of "Runes." But the editors at DEL REY/Ballantine and Bantam are *not* among those people, so there is little chance that the first six "Covenant" books, "Mordant's Need," the Gap Cycle, or my short story collections will appear as e-books in the foreseeable future. (03/18/2005) |
Khaliban: Not so much a question as an explanation of the previous question. NEUROMANCER is the definative Cyberpunk novel, a dystopian future over saturated with technology. BLADERUNNER is the definative Cyberpunk movie. Your story "Animal Lover" could also be classified as Cyberpunk. Elements of Angus Thermopyle's reconstruction are Cyberpunk in style which may explain the origin of the question.
|
Thanks for the explanation! (03/18/2005) |
Paul Mitchell: Just wondering if you had ever read any of Primo Levi's books - although completely different genres, it seems to me that there is a lot of similarities in the themes of your work and his -evil, what it is to be human (and inhuman). He was a great writer, and not just his work on Auschwitz. Anyway, I would think he is essential reading as much today as ever - a sane voice in a time of madness.
|
Interesting that a number of readers of the GI have mentioned Primo Levi. I wish I weren't such a slow reader; but I'll get there eventually. At the moment, I'm feeling guilty about the dearth of John Crowley and James Morrow in my experience. (03/18/2005) |
mags: Mr Donaldson
I'm halfway through The One Tree,and the question I have concerns Covenant.
When I first started Lord Foul's Bane Thomas Covenant was very annoying he whinned all the way through,I was hoping and praying you would kill him off,by the time I finished the second book I felt sorry for him and then a grudging respect,since starting the second chronicles I have discovered that he has crept into my heart even although he is essentially the same person as he was when first coming to the Land.Was this deliberate or was it something that came about by accident.
|
In one sense, it was very deliberate. I did *not* want my readers to sympathize with, or even feel sorry for, Covenant at first. Why? Because it's important to the story that Covenant might plausibly end up siding with the Despiser. I wanted him to *earn* the reader's respect--and his own. But in another sense, it was less deliberate. I always knew where the story was going; and so I always knew what Covenant would eventually achieve. For that reason, *I* always sympathized with him. And I hoped that my readers would see his potential for redemption even when he was at his worst. (03/19/2005) |
JP: There's a question that's been raging on the "Watch", one that your recent post to the GI further fueled, and it has to do with the Elohim's opposition to Vain's purpose. It seems clear why Findail would have been opposed to Vain's purpose (because Findail thought he would "die" in that scenario), but it's less clear as to why Vain's purpose was undesirable to the rest of the Elohim. Yet in the "What Has Gone Before" for Runes, you make it pretty clear that Covenant is silenced not really to protect the Earth from his power, but rather to make Vain's purpose inaccessible.
Why would the Elohim be opposed to creating a new Staff of Law? Perhaps they preferred having Covenant's ring themselves, but was the alternative an "undesirable" result? If so, why appoint Findail and make Vain's purpose possible?
|
This is another example of what I've been calling "open-ended plotting" on the part of the Elohim. Their true desire is that Linden should have and use Covenant's ring. They believe that because of her nature, her health-sense, and her commitment to healing, she could stop Lord Foul (and the Sunbane) without risking the Arch--and without bothering them. So they try to manipulate her into the position of, well, taking over for Covenant. But *just in case* that doesn't happen, they know they need to be prepared for other eventualities as well. For example, they're certainly aware that they might fail at imprisoning Vain. And if they *do* fail, an essential component of their manipulation collapses. So, very much like Lord Foul, they try to prepare for as many different scenarios as they can. If worst comes to worst, and Covenant retains his ring (and his purpose), Lord Foul and the Sunbane still have to be stopped. From their perspective, what actually happens in the story is the least desirable positive outcome. (03/19/2005) |
Lorraine: I am trying to find one of your books entitled
;Chaos and order; for my daughter. Is it still available for purchase? If so where can I get it. She has all the other Gap series, Forbiden Knowledge, real story, and a Dark and Hungry God.
|
I'm told that "Chaos and Order" and "This Day All Gods Die" are still in print. You should be able to get them from Amazon.com. If you can't, I'm in trouble. (03/19/2005) |
Robert A. DeFrank: Mr. Donaldson
I remember reading in one interview that you once considered the first Chronicles complete and entire and had no plans for a sequel, yet I can't help recalling the destruction of the Staff of Law, which makes the events of the second Chronicles possible.
What was your motive in destroying the Staff of Law, then leaving that issue unresolved, if there was no sequel planned? Did you, at that point, consider that an embodiment and instrument of Law was no longer relevant to the Land?
|
Well, the Land survived for a very long time before Berek created the first Staff of Law. In the days before "The Second Chronicles" came to me to be written, I saw no reason why Mhoram and his descendants couldn't make do without a Staff of Law. And if they eventually recovered all of Kevin's Lore, they might conceivably undertake to create a new Staff of their own. In the first trilogy, clearly, the Staff had to be destroyed because it had fallen into evil hands. And its destruction opens the way for Mhoram and his descendants to continue defining a new way to serve the Land, a way that isn't hampered by the misapplication of the Oath of Peace (a point I've discussed at length earlier in this interview). (03/19/2005) |
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.
Garry Shuck: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First let me add to the chorus by saying thanks so much for your stories. For more than 20 years now I have been carrying them around in my head, like old friends I get to visit from time to time.
And now a question, if I may, in regards to the Staff of Law. We saw in the 2nd Chronicles that Fouls rejuvenation came via Earthpower, allowed by the destruction of the Staff, and in turn its absence allowed Foul to corrupt the Law and create the Sunbane. It was stated more or less (as I recall) that the Staff inherently supported the Law and allowed its expression. The Staff was first crafted by Berek, but how was the Law able to maintain its integrity prior to the existence of the Staff? Perhaps Foul just didnt bother with trying to corrupt the Law prior to that? Although that begs the question of why Foul would mess with the Lords in any case, as they had no real power to release him from the Land, unless he was just taking his frustrations out on the Lands inhabitants, and biding his time until he could get access to white gold? Its a tribute to the complexity of your writing that it allows such musings
Thanks also for this forum. A unique and welcome insight into the methods of a master storyteller!
Best Regards,
Garry Shuck, Irvine, CA
|
First we need to distinguish between Lord Foul himself and what he's able to do. You can't get rid of evil: that's a fact of life. Lord Foul is always going to be able to rejuvenate himself, Staff or no Staff. In his own way, he partakes of the same energy that enables all existence. But actions like turning the Council into the Clave and creating the Sunbane would not have been possible if the substance of Law had not been damaged by breaking the Law of Death as well as by destroying the Staff. So how did Law remain intact before Berek created the first Staff? By being what it is. It is the nature of Law (the defined processes which make life possible) to remain intact. I don't know how to explain this well. But I suspect that in all good fantasy there is an organic relationship between the instruments of power and the power that those instruments wield (for example, Sauron could not be killed as long as his ring existed). Law did not need the Staff in order to exist and preserve itself (just as Sauron existed long before he created the rings of power); but when Berek created the Staff as an instrument of Law he could only do so by making it an organic expression of Law. And when he did that, he brought about a situation which had not existed previously, a situation in which the Staff could not be "removed" without damaging Law (because of the organic relationship: you can graft branches onto certain kinds of plants, but once those grafts have taken hold you can't cut out the new branches without wounding the whole plant, even though the plant was fine before you did your grafting). As for Foul's reasons for messing with the Lords: why do you assume that they had no real power to release him from his prison? The very fact that Berek created the Staff (an organic instrument vulnerable to destruction) shows that the Lords were (inadvertently) helping to create the conditions necessary to Foul's release: they were (unintentionally) devising ways by which Law would be made vulnerable to damage. In addition, I see no reason to assume that Foul *knew* the Arch of Time would survive the Ritual of Desecration: he may very well have been hoping that such a draconian violation of Law would be enough to spring him free. Remember, he, too, is learning as he goes. Does that help? (03/19/2005) |
drew: Mr. Donaldson. Thank you for answering my questions so far. I just have a light hearted one, that since I'll never meet you, I'd like to ask you here.
Do you have any funny little stories that happened to you in your writting carreer? Things like your cat knocking over your final edition of The Illearth War before you sent it to your editor, or accidentally deleting a whole days writting...things like that?
If you have time to share one or two, that would be great!-thanks.
|
You consider things like cats destroying entire manuscripts and computers deleting significant amounts of work "funny"? Oh, dear. I consider such tragedies the stuff of madness and suicide. Which is why I keep at least half a dozen back-ups in almost that many different locations. <sigh> But I spent over a month on an author tour for "The Wounded Land" back in 1980; and during that time I was working hard on revising "The One Tree"--paper and pencil, of course. So naturally on a flight from San Francisco to L.A. Braniff lost my suitcase. Sent it to Bogota, along with my manuscript and all my revisions. (Not, I hasten to say, the only copy of the manuscript. But it was the only copy of my revisions.) Six weeks later, the suitcase found its way home. Intact: only my electric razor was missing. But by then I had already redone all of the missing work. After all these years, I still don't call that "funny." But it wasn't as cruel has having to write again from memory a chapter deleted by a computer crash. As for writing an entire book over again from scratch: I don't think I could do it. The loss would probably kill me. (03/19/2005) |
Marc Dalesandro: Mr. Donaldson,
First off I'd like to say that you are my all-time favorite author. A friend introduced me to Lord Foul's Bane when I was all of 13 years old (this was 1986). This Christmas, my wife bought me The Runes Of The Earth, and I had it read in two days of non-stop bliss.
I recently discovered this web page and your Gradual Interview - unbelievable that a major author would interact with his readers to such an extent. Bravo!
Now, my questions.
1) Lord Foul created the banes and powers that he slipped into the Earth (like the Illearth Stone), correct? He presumably knows where they are all located. Just wondering why he never chose to unearth another one - has he simply abandoned the strategies he used in the first trilogy? Or is the Illearth Stone so much greater than the others, that he desires it above all else?
2) I know you have said you have no interest in "histories of The Land" and such, but with the tantalizingly-close events of The Runes Of The Earth, will we ever get to see the story mention or take place in the lands of the ruined empire Doriendor Corishev?
Again, thanks for doing this, and health and happiness to you in the New Year.
P.S. The Covenant books are my favorite, but the Gap series is indeed a phenomenal achievement. Literarily-speaking, perhaps your best. And "Reave The Just" is the finest short story I have ever read. But now I'm gushing.
|
I'm sorry to have to say this (sorry because, first, I don't like fobbing people off, and second, I'm so far behind in the GI that you've already been waiting long enough), but both of your questions fall into the RAFO category. I'm simply not willing to "tip my hand." (03/20/2005) |
Fred: I just saw that you don't really expect to have Fatal Revenant out for 3 more years. Any chance you could bump it up just a little bit, like to March of this year? I think I'm being reasonable in requesting this. Also, please make sure you eat and drink responsibly in the near future, so we can count on you surviving to complete the saga. I would suggest low-carb food, and periodic cardiac stress tests. A colonoscopy might be warranted, too, at your age.
Question -- you have the final saga somewhat fleshed out in your head, but are several years away from completion. On your previous Covenant trilogies, how much did the story change between start and finish? Surely your mind picks out major plot changes/improvements over the course of the effort.
|
I've actually discussed this in some detail earlier (perhaps *much* earlier) in the GI. The short answer: the first two "Covennat" trilogies were meticulously plotted before I started writing them, and their respective stories did not change at all between start and finish. But since then my methods have, well, evolved (I prefer to believe that they have not devolved <grin>). My stories still do not change from start to finish; but now they do a fair amount of modulation *between* start and finish. So they remain, well, fixed on a "macro" level; but on a "micro" level I do more discovery and adjustment than I did 20+ years ago. (03/20/2005) |
spock42: your writing is Unique, but I would like to congratulate you in two aspects that are very unique
1) your vocabulary is phenomenal, I have been reading sense middle school and, rarely read a word that I do not know. you are the exception.
2) your story's have what I call a "moral depth" which means that there is more then is written. And that there are no Luke Skywalker type heros.
I have two questions
1) what is the difference between a seer and a oracle and why could only berik be both?
2) Hile Troy seamed to me to be a version of covenant who was innocent, was this your goal to show us that guilt is power and the necessity of guilt
Lastly I would like to say that at the end of runes I both hated and loved you, I loved you because you had written such a wonderfully deep book. But I hated you because I could not just go out go out and buy the rest of them. Though I would rather have one book like yours every decade then have a hundred lesser books a day. It makes me wish I had a time machine, or for that mater wild magic.
|
Thank you. I wish I could supply a useful answer to your first question. (I'm reminded of a famous story about Robert Browning. Keeping it short: he was asked what something in one of his poems meant, and he replied, "When I wrote that, only God and I knew what it meant. Now only God knows.") The story has moved so far from those particular issues (seer/oracle) that I haven't thought about them clearly in a long time. So take what I'm about to say with a certain amount of salt. A "seer" is someone who can see/feel/intuit some aspects of the future--or of the possible futures. (I'm sometimes asked questions like: why didn't Mhoram know Covenant was coming to Revelstone? Well, a seer doesn't see "the future" that literally. A seer is more likely to feel that important events are gathering and something pivotal is about to happen; or, we're in a situation that's more dangerous than it appears to be, and we need to be extra careful.) An "oracle," on the other hand, is not concerned with "the future" per se. Rather an oracle sees/feels/intuits things like fate, doom, or destiny (of an individual; of a people; of a world). In some sense this naturally involves "the future," but the oracle's focus is on the inherent nature of the individual/people/world, and on the likely consequences of that nature. So in general--and putting it very crudely--seers tend to be vague, while oracles tend to be cryptic. <rueful smile> Helpful, no? I don't think there's anything in the text that says only Berek *could* be both a seer and an oracle. Rather it says only Berek *was* both. As to your second question: your interpretation of Hile Troy is certainly plausible and defensible. I was thinking in somewhat different terms myself, but that doesn't weaken your position. I saw Hile Troy as, well, the hero the reader wants Covenant to be: full of commitment, free of doubt, automatically willing to take any risk and use any power for the sake of the Land (indeed, a veritable Conan in that regard). Hile Troy is (among several other things) one of my attempts to explain why only someone like Covenant has the capacity to actually save the world. (03/21/2005) |
steve hetey: Mr.Donaldson, First I wanted to say what a great admirer I am of your work. I love the way you challenge my thinking in your books.
My question is about "The Wounded Land". Why didn't Gibbon Raver destroy the ancient relics of the Lords? Why put them behind a secret door in Revelstone just waiting to be found? Also I was curious about the Christian references you made in your books. Were those experiences and feelings you have had in your own life? Thanks again.
A fan forever
Steve H
|
The Clave's preservation of "the ancient relics" is another example of what I've been calling "open-ended plotting" by Lord Foul. Sure, by destroying the relics Foul could effectively prevent several possible futures. But some of those possible futures lead to his release from Time. The obvious example is the iron heels of Berek's Staff. If those heels no longer exist, a whole cascade of implications follows, most of which do *not* lead Covenant and Linden to the One Tree, and which therefore do not include the possibility that Covenant and Linden might rouse the Worm. That possibility is precious to Lord Foul. And there's no gain without risk. In order to gain what he desires, he always has to risk failure. Just like the rest of us. I've had several occasions to mention that I was raised by fundamentalist Christian missionaries. That stuff is so deeply engrained in me that I can hardly get out of bed in the morning without a Christian reference of some kind. <grin> (03/21/2005) |
Sue Given: Dear Mr Donaldson!!
I am so excited to be able to write to you! Thank you for realising my dreams by publishing the RUNES and the promise of more yet to come!
I love the vibrant brilliance and creative prowess of awesome works. I love the essence of humanity evident in so many aspects of the Chronicles: in particular;the creation of a socially stigmatised subject as reluctant hero! I love the fact that the hero is not unlike any of us, he is weak, vulnerable, susceptible to corruption, flawed and yet possessing the same potential for greatness we all posses. And yet Thomas Covenant is more, he is more like those few among us, who our society discriminate against.
Was this a conscious object of yours?
One issue however, that has always stumped me in my reading of the Chronicles are the Words of Power. Clearly there are only six mentioned and as Kevins Lore is now extinguished, will we ever learn more of Kevins Lore and the Words of Power? Will the seventh word of power that has alluded us, be revealed?
Will the new lore have any connection with the Lore of Kevin? Sure Kevins Lore was flawed (and I am the last person to argue otherwise) <nerdy grin> but is there any redeeming feature that may be salvaged and utilised to enlighten the Land in this new generation of time?
Cheers,
Sky!
aka Skyweir <btw a fabulous name that I have claimed for myself .. many, many thanks>
|
I probably don't thank the readers of this interview often enough for their graciousness and praise. But I *do* appreciate it greatly. Yes, I deliberately made Covenant both an Everyman and an Outcast. These are very familiar paradigms: they recur throughout literature (Western literature, in any case). But they recur so often because they're so apt and useful. And they certainly fit the explicitly archetypal elements of "The Chronicles." As I've said before, I'm simply not willing to comment on what may or may not happen in the next three books of "The Last Chronicles." I deliberately left out one of the Seven Words (and several of the Seven Wards) from the first trilogy. In that way, as in many others, I'm trying to suggest just how much has been lost through the interaction between human despair/carelessness/poor judgment and Lord Foul's destructive desires. Indeed, the entire known history of the Land as it's presented throughout the "Chronicles" is an on-going process of loss. This seems to me inevitable as long as there is no "final solution" to the dilemma of evil. (03/21/2005) |
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I recently listened to a radio report on NPR about a playwright whose characters were of a rather despicable nature. The playwright himself was bemused by the fact that people often times thought they knew him or knew of if him, based upon the characters that he writes. This got me to thinking about you....do YOU find that people often "mistake" you for TC or take a certain familiarity with you because they think they "know you" based upon the characters in your book? (It kind of reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live episode with William Shatner where he had to explain to die-hard Trekkies that he wasn't "really" Captain Kirk) Since you have recently been out on your book tour and meeting with the general public, have you found this to be the case? If so, just how frustrating was it and how do you handle this type of notoriety?
ps. You're answering fewer questions recently, I hope this means that the powers that be have finally let you put ink-to-paper on Fatal Revenant. Hope all is well. Thanks again for this gradual interview.
|
Actually, I've experienced the reverse more often. When I'm "in public" (e.g. on a book tour) people seldom give me the impression that they've mistaken me for my characters. Instead I find that people who know me, in a sense, "privately" are often unable to take my work seriously. The so-called "real" Steve doesn't seem to mesh well with what they find in my books; so they dismiss my books. Or, knowing me, they are unwilling to read my work at all. Sad but true. (And you wondered why I keep my private life so private.... <grin>) Incidentally, you can measure my progress on "Fatal Revenant" with considerable accuracy by charting the inverse proportion of my progress on the Gradual Interview. Assign me an unspecified number of words per week (x), subtract the number of words I've contributed to the GI (y), and the result is z: the number of words I've contributed to "Fatal Revenant." If you like trying to solve single equations containing two unknowns <grin>. (03/23/2005) |
KE8: First, I would like to thank you Mr. Donaldson for taking the time to answer my two questions, and more importantly for writing such wonderful novels.
Anyway, my latest question: why were the Gates for Revelstone never repaired between the First and Second Chronicles? As I recall, the rubble wasnt even removed. Just a symbol of the essential impotence of the Council after the defeat of Lord Foul? I should think Lord Mhoram (who appears to be fairly orderly in temperament) at least would have sent out a clean-up crew for the debris.
Oh, and can we look forward to more "cameos" by the Dead in the Last Chronicles? I rather enjoyed seeing my old friends from the First Series appear in the Second, however briefly. I would love to read one last jest from Pitchwife.
Thanks again.
|
<sigh> I'm tempted to say--in the nicest possible way, of course--Get a life! But that isn't what I really mean. What I really mean is, Oops! But here's the explanation I would have provided, if I had remembered to do so: in "The Power that Preserves," the gates were broken inward; the rubble therefore obstructed the passage under the watchtower; so of course Mhoram at al would have had little choice except to clear it away. As for "cameos" by the Dead, all I can say is (you guessed it) RAFO. (03/23/2005) |
chris cox: Steve, I first read your books around my 12th birthday (I am now 30) and was totally captured by them, I have read and re-read them more times than I care to count. When I saw The Runes of Earth in the bookshop I was extremely happy and didnt bother to buy the book that I had originally come in for. My question is this, did you have an age group in mind for your readers when you began this and do you still? I have read all your other books and find them just as captivating, your writing style is second to none! Thankyou very much!
|
As I've had occasion to mention before, I write for readers who are, in essence, Just Like Me. That is to say, readers who share my love of language, my passionate nature, my ready empathy, my willingness to suspend disbelief, and my tolerance for paradox (to an unsympathetic reader, "paradox" is just another name for "self-contradiction"). For that reason, among several others, I certainly do not write to be read by middle school children. Indeed, the very idea frightens me. And yet I'm confronted over and over again by the (very) humbling fact that many of my most devoted readers first discovered my work as teenagers--and often as early teenagers. Go figure *that* out. My only explanation is that I actually do know how to tell a good story; and that children are often especially willing to suspend disbelief. (03/23/2005) |
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.
Khaliban: What is your opinion of the traditional "hero of epic stature" and its illegitimate daughter, the "Mary Sue"? I know such characters can be viable in certain types of fiction but are overused in contemporary fantasy. Where do you think such characters fit within fiction in general and how should they be manifested?
|
This is an impossible question. Such stereotypical characters don't "fit within fiction in general" at all: they only fit within specific stories told by specific writers for specific reasons. I like to say that there are no bad ideas: there are only bad writers. (It follows, of course, there are also no *good* ideas: there are only good writers.) As far as I'm concerned, there's no inherent reason why a writer who knows what he/she is doing can't get valuable "mileage" out of stereotypical characters. Or stereotypical settings, situations, whatever. The important question--again, as far as I'm concerned--is, Does the specific writer really know what he/she is doing? (03/23/2005) |
Robert A. DeFrank: Mr. Donaldson
I've just finished Runes of the Earth, and it was a pleasure to re-acquaint myself with Linden and once again experience a journey through the Land. I'd like to thank you for waiting to produce the final chronicles.
I'd also like to thank you for mentioning Patricia McKillip. I'd never heard of her work until visiting your site.
As for my questions, they all relate to the effect of reader feedback on the creative process.
1) Do you read your fan reviews on Amazon.com and similar sites? If so, do you find any criticism useful in future works?
2) Does the Q and A with readers on this site ever influence the direction of a story? I would think that would be hard to avoid, especially when writing a multi-volume story such as the Last Chronicles. While I doubt this is the case with the grand scope of the story, do you ever find yourself including some particular choice of words or minor plot-twist and thinking "won't so-and-so just love (or hate) this"?
3) While answering questions about your books, have you ever realized some theme or dimension that you weren't aware of while writing the book?
|
1) I read reviews as little as humanly possible. They aren't good for me. And they aren't intended to be: reviews exist for the benefit of potential readers, not for the edification of published writers. A review that was written for the writer's benefit would be useless to a potential reader. 2) There is no question that I *have* been influenced by the GI--but not in the way(s) you describe. As a narrative artist, I face an incessant dilemma which (I believe) plagues all artists in one form or another: I suffer from a natural and understandable (and perhaps inevitable) impulse to *leave out* anything that seems perfectly obvious to me. At the same time, I expound endlessly on anything that I find obscure or difficult. But guess what? The things that are obvious to me are seldom obvious to the reader. At the same time, readers are quicker on the up-take than I am (because they read so much more quickly than I write). So: the GI has been particularly good at helping me catch those passages where I have left out the "obvious." To a lesser extent, the GI helps me recognize instances of excessive explanation. When it is complete, "The Last Chronicles" will be a, well, more stable edifice because of the GI. Of course, editors are supposed to do this job. But these days what editor has the time? 3) Very seldom. But it does happen. I just can't think of an example at the moment (apart from the fact that Anele is Elena spelled backward <grin>). (03/23/2005) |
Brian Matthews: Hi, Mr. Donaldson,
Amy Tan once noted that during all of the Q & A that writers go through, she never gets a question about the most important aspect of writing: the language. Could you please take some time to comment on your views of language and a) how it may have motivated you as a writer; and b) how you feel your command of language has impacted the vividness of your novels?
P.S. I *never* thought I would get to read new Covenent material until a saw your book at a Border's here in Michigan. I am so very pleased that I have eight to ten years of new material to look forward to. Thanks again ;)
|
I've spent some time earlier--perhaps much earlier--in the GI discussing language. As I tell everyone, I "see" with language. For me, at least, words--and combinations of words--are the primary source of thought, imagination, and emotion. One quick example: I sat dry-eyed through "Schindler's List" while my friends wept copiously--until I reached the place where Schindler was finally free to *talk* about what he felt, at which point the whole film came into focus for me, and I fell apart. The earlier visuals, horrific as they were, simply were not *articulate* enough to reach me deeply without the support of language. So a) I probably wouldn't write at all if language and its uses didn't seem as necessary as breathing to me. In some sense, I *live* through language. And b) in my case I can not distinguish between the story I'm trying to tell and the language through which I'm trying to tell it. Covenant and Linden, Terisa and Geraden, Angus and Morn and Nick: none of them exist apart from the language with which I articulate them. And I find that the same is true in most (if not absolutely all) of the books and writers I most admire. For example, Patricia McKillip's language is inherent to her stories: those stories could not be told in any other words. Donna Tartt's "The Secret History" would be completely empty without its specific language. And even with apparently more "functional," certainly less "poetic," writers like Steven Erikson and Tim Powers, I can't make a useful distinction between what they have to say and how they choose to say it. (03/30/2005) |
James Hastings: Re: The Seven Plots that make up all literature.
These aren't really pigeonholing things, but are really just basic descriptions of the types of conflicts in plots (A story without conflict being considered plotless).
The seven are (and this won't limit your ability to write):
1 - [wo]man vs. nature
2 - [wo]man vs. man
3 - [wo]man vs. the environment
4 - [wo]man vs. machines/technology
5 - [wo]man vs. the supernatural
6 - [wo]man vs. self
7 - [wo]man vs. god/religion
Seems to me 1 and 3 could even be lumped together.
I have also heard other theories of 20 basic plots or 34, etc. But those seem to be theories by specific people and have much more specific plots assigned to them. I don't know who came up with the 7. I remember being taught it in 10th grade.
I would say that many of your books fall under Man v. Self, but it seems like most stories have elements of more than one of these going at any given time. Certainly in the gap series you had some characters were engaged in a man v. self thing, while others were in the good old fashioned man v. man or man v. genetically advanced alien species vein. The point there, I think, is that any given story can have more than one plot going at any given point.
So people shouldn't get hung up on the "only" in the statement "there are only 7 basic plots in the world."
|
Thanks for this information! Lester del Rey used to say that there were only three basic plots, person vs environment, person vs person, and person vs self; and that the best stories contained all three simultaneously. To me, this seems more useful than the notorious List Of Seven. I could argue, for example, that 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 above are all the same. Or I could argue that 5 and 7 are variations on 6. The point, I imagine, is that good stories tackle as much as they can contain--or possibly a little more, since "A man's reach should exceed his grasp." (03/30/2005) |
Perry Bell: Hi Stephen,
While I have enjoyed the Covenant series and keeping them safe in my collection, I have a question about the short stories you have done in the past. Im refering to "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales" Have you ever thought of doing a story about Mardik the Blacksmith and his brother Festil? I found that story to be the best short read I ever had!
I cant wait for Fatal Revenant. I love the TC series!
Thanks!
Perry Bell
|
Actually, I thought I *did* do a story about Mardik and Festil. <grin> But of course you meant a further story. Sorry, the answer is no. I lack even the merest ghost of an idea that would do more with Mardik and Festil. (03/30/2005) |
Dan Trueblood: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
The question: Do you find that you are more inclined to make (or entertain the idea of) greater changes in your writing at the end of the day as you review what you have written due the word processor? What I mean is, would you look at the first Chronicles (as you created them on a typewriter) and think, Gee, I would have liked to put another Bloodguard in here kicking some cavewights jaw loose, but quite frankly, if I have to retype a page one more time I am going to puke? As opposed to now knowing that in a few clicks of the mouse you can make a sunny day rain or insert a character that popped into your head at lunch into an earlier chapter.
Ancillary question: You crack me up constantly on this web site. Is your deep, biting wit something that you have to think about before you type, or does it flow out naturally?
|
There is no question that the friendly technology of word processing encourages me to do more rewriting than ever before. But the primary result is that my first drafts now have more superficial polish than they once did. I've never, well, thought in the way you describe. I mean that I've never actually been afraid of "work". If a particular scene needed another Bloodguard, then I put in another Bloodguard. More retyping? So what? (Proofreading is a different kind of problem: I *do* get fed up with it.) In addition, working at the typewriter suited who I was at the time. And there are advantages to all that retyping. Among other benefits, it helps preserve internal consistency (because you keep going over and over the same material letter by letter). Still, I wouldn't go back. The time I save by using a word processor is too precious. My "deep, biting wit," which I prefer to think of as a highly developed sense of irony, comes naturally to me. But it's based on many years of training and experience. I've spent most of my life learning how to conceal myself in various subtle ways; and irony is a particularly useful method. Of course, I *do* actually have a sense of humor as well. <grin> (03/30/2005) |
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.
Curtis: Mr. Donaldson,
I just wanted to thank-you for your amazing work and to ask two questions (If I may):
1) Few authors' works have had the emotional impact on me than your books have. One of those is Guy Gavriel Kay. Have you read any of his books or are you familiar with his works?
d) I have yet to come across a book or series in the past 20 years that was as enjoyable as the two Covenant trilogies. I see you are a fan of Steven Erikson. I have read his first two books and while enjoyable, just didn't "do it" for me. Is there a particular reason you have found his works so appealing?
Thank-you.
|
I'm afraid such questions are unanswerable because: 1) I haven't read Kay; and d) it is a profound truth that "there's no accounting for taste". We all like what we like, and don't like what we don't like; and there's precious little anyone can do about it. For me, the interlocking complexities of Erikson's story(s), the extreme sympathy of some of his characters and situations, and the fact that his work is not just another truckload of recycled elves and dwarves, give his work a unique power. But clearly what we might call his "appeal to the reader" is less, well, *personal* than mine. He doesn't ask you to open your heart the way I do. (04/09/2005) |
Gerhardt Goeken: Toward the end of "The One Tree," we see an attempt to send Linden Avery back to the "real" world. It is close, but she can't come all the way back. She see what's going on.
At the end of "White Gold Wielder" Linden does come back, but we never see her approach Thomas Covenant's corpse and take the ring off his hand, yet she walks away with it.
How did this happen? Is this a lose end to be explained in "The Runes of the Earth?" I always figured another story was waiting. Twenty years may be too long to have waited for an answer.
|
I never intended this to be a big mystery; so I'm always a little nonplussed when people see the possibilities for a larger issue. From my perspective, the fact that Linden ends up with Covenant's ring *even though we never see her take possession of it in the real world* is just another example of the ways in which events in the real world and events in the Land tend to mirror each other. Think of it as "sympathetic magic," if you're comfortable with that concept. In the Land, Linden makes a very deliberate choice to go pick up Covenant's ring; so of course (by the logic of sympathetic magic--or simply by the logic of organic unity within the story) that same choice would be mirrored in the real world, even though in the real world Linden is at best only semi-conscious (perhaps in one of those stupefied states where afterward people can't remember what they did). I know this doesn't sound very satisfying. But it *is* what I had in mind when I wrote the story. (04/10/2005) |
Krishnansu S. Tewari, MD: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I was in high school when I read the first trilogy and then at U.C. Berkeley when the 2nd Chronicles was being published. What wonderful work you've created. Just finished Runes and I have to agree with one of the earlier commentators on this site that it's very difficult to read anything else, at least right away - nearly everthing pales in emotional depth and history.
In any event, I have a few questions:
1. When I think of your work, I compare it to other authors I love that have created such a unique group of characters with such fascinating historical depth and concepts (hey, I'm a cancer surgeon, not a writer, so forgive my awkward terminology). I was wondering what your thoughts were on the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Moorcock & Herbert - all four of whom I hold in as high regard as yourself in terms of literary creativity. If you've answered this question previously, I apologize.
2. I know you've said previously that you would not consider going back and writing the story of the pre-Covenant land, but I was wondering if you're re-considered doing so. Clearly you have so much on your plate with the Last Chronicles, but I think it would be great to get another Tetraology involving Loric, Berek, Kevin & Damelon, just to make your several-millenia '4-part' tale of the Land "complete".
3. Finally, I find it somewhat curious that being denied knowledge of Earthpower that after several millenia have passed in the Land we get to Runes and it seems as if the people of the Land have not progressed in terms of science and technology. Since the dawn of civilization in this world, it has only taken a few millenia for us to have the internet, palm pilots, Justin Timberlake (I'm quoting you from an earlier thread), and men on the moon - why is the world of the Land so static, or are there no explanations, it's just the way it is?
4. I have a fourth question, but I have to figure out how to phrase it better - maybe another time.
With warmest personal regards, Krish Tewari, MD
|
1. With specific exceptions, I avoid discussing other writers who are alive--or who, in the inimitable words of Robert Bloch, "were recently alive." (OK, that's an in-joke: Bloch was, among many other things, a master humorist, and those words were the punch-line of a joke far too complex to tell here.) I've already gone on at length about Tolkien. "Dune" I consider one of the great classics of the genre; and many of Herbert's other books were fascinating. Moorcock, with his many contributions to modern letters, certainly does not deserve to be compared to Lovecraft, who was--in both the best and the worst senses of the term--"sui generis." 2. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Commu--oops, I mean a prequelist. Sorry: the books you desire just ain't gonna happen. 3. Well, think of the Middle Ages, often rightly called the Dark Ages, when a totalitarian religious organization contrived to stamp out progress almost entirely for nearly 1000 years. Compare that to the isolating effect of what the Masters have done to the Land. And think about India (if you can stand it): on that sub-continent, a civilization evolved which explicitly precluded the whole *concept* of progress (and all its implications) for well over 3000 years. In 3000 years that extremely complex civilization never got as far as interior plumbing: hell, it barely got as far as drains. In addition, I consider it quite plausible that a few thousand years of magic would make people almost genetically inclined to think in non-mechanistic terms--which would in turn diminish the likelihood of technological advancement. In short, I think the Land's history makes sense as it stands. (04/10/2005) |
Gene Marsh: Two obvious and lingering questions... but my curiosity is killing me:
- Can the Power of Command be used again? Does it "require" an embodied emmisary/guide (a "single use power, so to speak)?
- Will any of the previously undiscovered Wards of Kevin's lore be found?
|
I'm completely unwilling to commit myself in regard to your second question. But as to your first: I've always assumed that this was a "single use per person" sort of power: it's always *there,* so in theory it can always be used; but it's *so* powerful that no un-god-like being could survive tapping into it more than once. And even that "once" leaves room for doubt: we don't know what the effects on Elena would have been if she hadn't gotten herself killed almost immediately by other means. (04/10/2005) |
Ports: Hi Steve,
You have mentioned in this GI how hard you found it to write "What Has Gone Before" for Runes and that you were quite resistant to doing it.
I would just like to say that your hard work paid off. Quite how you managed to compress so much into 9 pages is amazing. I have tried to outline what the books are about to "Unbelievers" over the years, but the precis you have created is quite astounding. While the previous WHGB authors have done a good job of summerising the text, you managed to express both the facts AND the feeling. Having re-read the first two Chronicles in anticipation of Runes, I almost skipped WHGB, but I'm so glad I didn't.
So to the question, do you find it as heartbreaking as your readers to leave behind such great characters as Saltheart, Bannor and Elena?
Cheers and Happy Holidays
Ports
|
In a word, No. Now don't get me wrong: I grieve when a character like Saltheart meets his end. But I also feel a strong sense of satisfaction. Not because I killed him, of course, but because he found the outcome that he most needed for his personal story. I feel that I "played fair" with him--as I did with Elena and Bannor--that I gave him "dignity" (discussed earlier in this interview), and that therefore he has no cause to reproach his creator. Thus I'm vindicated to myself. In addition, keep in mind that I know the story before I tell it. I know what's going to happen, and why it needs to happen. That changes my emotional relationship with events considerably. (04/13/2005) |
Stephen V. Allange: Thanks so much for your answering my previous 2 questions. This one is pertaining to the website Kevin's Watch. If you have been there recently, I imagine that you may have browsed through some of the posts on Runes and all of the messages concerning the twists and turns of the plots. What do you think about all of the posts from members trying to guess what will happen in the upcoming books? I thoroughly enjoy going through all of the threads and the possibilities listed. What is your feeling when (if) you read some of the ideas posted? I imagine that you feel a sense of mirth and amusement at some of the ideas. Or maybe even pride in your readers if they get close to your master plan? As you noticed, we pay great attention to detail.
I hope that you and yours have a very happy holiday seanson.
Steve
|
I never browse Kevin's Watch. In fact, I seldom visit; and when I do, it's always for a very specific reason. By nature, I'm not a web browser. And I avoid browsing Kevin's Watch in particular because I don't want my own thinking to be, well, tainted by my reactions (positive or negative) to what I might read there. Various possible reactions: 1) "Ha! pitiful mortal. You cannot begin to conceive my cleverness." 2) "Now that's just plain insulting." 3) "How did you guess?" Well, none of that could possibly be good for me. Positively or negatively, my ego would be affected--and I've tried to explain that I consider ego antithetical to creativity. For the same reason, I don't read reviews (unless they're forcibly thrust at me). I never check what people are saying about my books on Amazon. Doing what I do is already hard enough: I don't need to make it worse by getting myself entangled with glee, umbrage, or chagrin. (04/13/2005) |
Doug H.: A Great Hello!
I'm a long time fan and first time writer. I can't exactly explain why I haven't taken the time to thank you for your work before now, but Thank You.
At the age of 14 (when I discovered your Thomas Covenant series) it was a special and strange thing to be allowed to digest such adult themes. I don't think you were aiming these ideas at young adults, and that is perhaps why so many have been drawn to them. Adults have IDEAS about what they think children can or should digest. The reality is that somewhere between the ages of 12 and 20 children begin to comprehend much more than is expected and/or preferred.
If I may submit a couple questions:
1. How much (if any)damage done to "The Land" in the Second Chronicles came from your initial reluctance to do any more Thomas Covenant work? I guess I'm asking if your publisher turned you into your own "landwaster".
2. Was there ever a point when you reconsidered the level of destruction, or stepped back from it?
Best wishes,
|
I'm bemused by such questions because they have so little congruence to the way I actually work (and think). I don't write books because someone else wants them written: writing is too hard for that. And I'm not in third grade, breaking toys because someone pissed me off. I write because--and only because--I believe in the absolute (if entirely personal) necessity of what I'm writing. I write particular stories, and I write them in particular ways, because doing so gives my life meaning. From my perspective, nothing about this process is gratuitous, excessive, or unnecessary. So: 1) NOTHING in "The Second Chronicles" was a reaction to pressure from my publisher, or to my own initial reluctance. 2) There was NEVER a point at which I reconsidered or diluted "the level of destruction." Rather the Sunbane seemed to me inevitable: it was Lord Foul's next logical gambit. Without it (and a whole host of other things), I had no story. (04/13/2005) |
Mack: First off,Thank you for the many hours of Intense and Thought Provoking reading!
My question is about the healing of Vain's arm by Findial after Vain's battle with the Sunbane damaged ur-viles.I just wonder *why* Findial does this but still seems very determined to destroy Vain.
|
Findail is--you should pardon the expression--caught between a rock and a hard place. He does NOT want to driven to the extreme necessity of becoming part of a new Staff of Law. (Who would?) But if worst comes to worst, he doesn't want his sacrifice to be flawed--or possibly even wasted--by becoming part of a *damaged* Staff of Law. (Again, who would?) So, from his perspective, Vain's extermination would be fine ("Woo hoo, I'm free!"), but Vain's injury is not ("Oh, fu*k, I'm ruined, and it's all for nothing"). (04/13/2005) |
James Hastings: Just started rereading the Gap sequence and I'm towards the end of Forbidden Knowledge. Well written, but not a light read. However, it is nice to see you take up the old cliche of "Rape Victim gets pregnant, has baby flash grown into spitting image of rapist, has a copy of rape victim's mind implanted into spitting image of rapist" and breathe new life into it.
|
Well, you caught me fair and square. <grin> Apart from English, Cliche is the only language I speak--and there seems to be some debate about my English. So naturally I milk Cliche for all it's worth. (04/16/2005) |
Alain Villeneuve, JD, PE: Bonjour Mr. Donaldson,
As a French Canadian, I learned english via your Chronicles. After reading the Rings, my brother explained "If you want vocabulary and proper grammar while remaining in the Gendre, this will delight you." His words still resound deep. What I really like is your intelligence that transpires in your story telling.
After a decade as a Nuclear Engineer in Europe, I came back to the US, and earned my Juris Doctor in 2003. I now practice law in this country. I purchased and read very slowly the Last Chronicles vol. 1. I could go on for pages on my appreciation of your work but it would be a waste of your time, and there is really no way for me to express such deep respect. Just understand it.
I am seriously thinking about, such as Champollion's Egyptian Hieroglyph grammar, to having a copy of your work printed on Coton Paper to increase its shelf life. Would you agree if I produce 2 copies, one for yourself? Would your publisher provide me with the digital file? Would you sign both?
Thanking you in advance.
Alain Villeneuve
|
I'm very flattered by your comments. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal right to give--or withhold--permission for you to produce even two more durable copies of any of my books. Those rights belong to my various publishers. And if you contacted them for permission, I suspect that you would receive no answer: they routinely ignore such personal requests. In addition, I'm confident that they would *not* supply you with digital files. The solution, of course, is to buy your own digital files for any books that are available on, say, ereader.com. Then you can (I assume: I've never tried it) do what you want with them. In any case, autographed bookplates are available through the "contact" page on this site. (04/16/2005) |
Bonnie Clark: How did you make such a perfect connection with women to be able to write the Mordant's Need books? Every one of your books touches something within our souls. Mordant's Need is stunning. Thank you.
|
Ultimately, this is unanswerable. I can no more account for how my imagination works than I can explain what makes communication possible. There are a few obvious--and not so obvious--facts. 1) I have four sisters. 2) I was raised by a woman who emphasized the feminine side of men--and the masculine side of women. 3) Simultaneously I was raised to believe that women are far more *admirable*, more worthy of attention, than men. 4) Ironically for a proto-feminist like myself, I was subjected to a few viciously anti-male attacks by radical feminists in my early 20's. 5) In order to write "Mordant's need," I was forced to come up with my own answer to Freud's famous (and, in my personal opinion, famously stupid) question, "What do women want?" For my own sake, as well as for Terisa Morgan's, I decided to believe that "what women want" is indistinguishable from "what men want," or from "what human beings want": dignity, respect, validation, acceptance, inter-connection, and--for lack of a better term--usefulness (in my lexicon, a complex concept which includes both "meaningful work" and "self-discovery"). All of which accounts for a certain empathy (not to mention vulnerability) on my part, but does nothing to explain how my imagination works. I'm afraid that's the best answer I can give you. (04/22/2005) |
Stephen: I bought and read Runes as soon as it came out, and found that my Donaldson fix wasn't satisfied. So I just finished reading the GAP books for the fifth time, and plan to revisit Reave the Just shortly.
My question: I've written some, and make my living doing it after a fashion. But I haven't yet conquered my fear that I'm simply *not good enough* to be able to come to the blank page and write something that anyone besides family would like to read.
If you ever had that fear, or still have it, how have you dealt with it?
Thank you--I deeply love your stories. I feel like they're a part of me.
|
I've always suffered from the I'm-not-good-enough syndrome. (Which--and this is important--must be distinguished from the I'm-a-phoney syndrome. IAP occurs when there is some deep-seated unsuitability between the individual and a particular activity, regardless of whether or not the individual is *good* at that activity. You'll never find the answers you seek unless you can tell the difference between IAP and INGE.) In my case, the solution--which I'm forced to re-learn at regular intervals--is the inevitable corollary: neither is anyone else. Now, I hasten to add that I don't mean that to be as glib as it sounds. My actual point is that creativity is not a competition. I don't have to be as *good* as, or even comparable to, someone else, ANYone else. In fact, the opposite is true: my only real value lies in *not* being comparable to anyone else; in striving for excellence as defined entirely and solely by my own desires and abilities. Sure, I'll never be a good Tolkien--or a good Erikson--or a good McKillip. But none of them will ever be a good Donaldson. That's a job only *I* can do. Socrates (I believe) said, "To thine own self be true." G. K. Chesterton said, "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly." For me, the cure to the INGE syndrome goes like this: be honest with myself; give it my best shot; and refuse to be distracted by worrying about anything else. (Easier said than done, by the way.) Whether or not any of this is relevant to you, I can't say. In the end, we all have to look into the abyss for ourselves, and survive the experience on our own terms. (04/22/2005) |
Chris Minchin: Stephen,
I have a small question about an insight which I have had about the name of the home of Foul which may have been asked b4 but here goes
Ridjek Thome - Was this a deliberate play on reject home or was this just a coincidence?
|
Gosh, I wish I were that clever. <grin> But no, it's just a coincidence. Rather like the spelling of Anele/Elena. I simply didn't notice the similarity in sound. (04/22/2005) |
Jerry Burgess: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Now in possession of my copy of "The Ruins of The Earth", I was surprised that there was no mention of your "Mordant's Need" books either on the dust cover or in the about the author section at the end of the book. Is this peculiar to the British hardbacked version (Gollancz) and/or, is there any particular reason why those volumes have not been acknowledged? Of all of your works - although I confess that I have yet to finish reading the Reed Stephens novels -, I especially enjoyed "The Mirror of Her Dreams" and "A Man Rides Through". I see them as the jewel in your writing crown and so am baffled by this omission.
I also take this opportunity to add my sincere thanks and appreciation, which I hope you will accept together with seasonal best wishes.
|
I appreciate your good opinion of "Mordant's Need." Those books are often neglected, perhaps because they have been *very* poorly supported by both my US (DEL REY/Ballatine) and UK (Voyager/HarperCollins) publishers. It's painfully easy for almost everyone to forget that I wrote them. (04/22/2005) |
Alan Aubrey: Mr. Donaldson,
I am not certain that my question for you is suited for your Gradual Interview, but I don't know of any other means to contact you directly.
I am an independent musician/recording artist that only discovered your Thomas Covenant books a few years back. As many have said before, as a reader I fell in love with the complex character of Covenant and look forward to reading the final chronicles as they are written.
I was so inspired by the character in fact, that one song my band has written was based on the emotions of your character Thomas Covenant throughout the first six novels.
The reason I write to you is because it was our desire to include this song on our upcoming independent CD release.
I am not well versed in copyrights and the legal issues all of this could entail, so I thought it would be best if I brought up this situation with you before we moved on.
Below I'll attach the full lyrics from the song "Outcast, Unclean" for your perusal. Aside from the name of the song, and the reference to the singer being "The Unbeliever", I hope you'll find it general enough to be talking about almost anyone. Of course, those that have read your books could assume who the song speaks of almost immediately.
Thank you for taking the time to read my message. Best of luck in everything.
-Alan Aubrey
Direbaen@AOL.com
|
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get to your question. I'm now 240+ questions behind on the GI, and losing ground steadily. But I always feel flattered and gratified when people find inspiration for their own creativity in my work. I believe that even the most vicious of lawyers could not find fault with your "use" of my work. And I encourage you (belatedly, I know) to go ahead with your CD. I hope that my response in a public forum (this web site) instead of by private e-mail will suffice to reassure any qualms. However, I deleted your lyrics to protect your ownership of *your* work. (04/22/2005) |
John Bristor: First Timer Question:
Who is currently in charge of your archives at Kent State University? Some things were getting a little dated and I noticed a Craig Simpson has recently updated some things. Also, are the archives open to members of the public to peruse, lend-loan, or make contributions?
One more question if I may. Which cover was the original cover intended for the first printing of "Lord Foul's Bane"? I heard the 1st printing have some difficulty and the book club version has an artist rendition of Kevin's watch, another cover is 'dark' and seems to have a rendition of Lord Foul.
Thnaks and hope you had a great holiday season!
|
The Kent State University Libraries don't have the budget to put a specific person "in charge" of their Donaldson collection. Craig Simpson did some much-needed organizational work recently. Perhaps someday someone else will do more. Access to the collection is restricted in various ways. Certainly no one except yrs trly can "make contributions." And the materials aren't available to be removed from the library (e.g. through inter-library loan). But I believe that anyone who goes to the KSU Library in person and jumps through the usual hoops (forfeiture of off-spring, that sort of thing <grin>) can look at my actual manuscripts etc.. For whatever that's worth. The true first edition of "Lord Foul's Bane," my very first book, was published by the Science Fiction Book Club several months before the Holt, Rinehart & Winston hardcover of the same title. The "dark" cover purportedly features Thomas Covenant and Drool Rockworm--or Lord Foul, who can tell?--in a cave full of bats and bones. I think of it as my hydrocephalic child: desperately ugly, but I adore it anyway. However, when Holt came out with their edition (the rather crude "Kevin's Watch" cover), the SFBC changed their dustjacket to match. (04/27/2005) |
Allen: I have a long and deep love for Wagner's music which is one of a thousand reasons why I responded so intensely to the Gap Cycle. Wagner is a great sound track to the Gap. I am wondering, however, how you handle the charge that Wagner was nothing more than a proto-Nazi. Do you ever feel the need to justify Wagner?
|
I feel no more need to "justify" Wagner for being anti-Semitic (as he plainly was) than I do to justify Brahms for being fat (as he very plainly was). Their lives/convictions/actions don't concern me: their art does. In some sense, all creation comes from the soul of the creator. But great artists somehow always manage to transcend their own pettiness, their own ordinary-ness, even their own ugliness. When they create, they draw on their potential greatness of spirit rather than on their manifest littleness of word and deed. Considering your question from an opposite example: Sir Walter Scott was one of the most honorable men who ever walked the earth; but that has nothing to do with his art. If his books weren't worth reading for their own sake, they wouldn't be worth reading at all. People who reject Wagner's music because of his personal anti-Semitism, or who praise Scott's novels because of his personal integrity, are caught in a profound fallacy. Sadly, it's a very *human* fallacy. I do it myself. When I know from personal experience that one of my contemporaries is a perfect s*it, I shy away from his/her work because I hate being forced to acknowledge that even perfect s*its are capable of artistic integrity and greatness. Similarly I'm grieved when some truly fine human beings turn out to be lousy writers. But when the artist in question has the good sense to be dead <grin>, such concerns fall away. At least they do for me. Then I can love or loathe the work on its own terms. (04/27/2005) |
Bryan J. Flynn: Steve thanks for the responses to my previous questions.
My question concerns a comment you made earlier in the GI. In your answer to Will on 11/1/04 you said "I'm not always satisfied with how I presented my characters in those earlier books, especially in 'White Gold Wielder.'" Could you enlarge on that? I always felt there was something different about that book from the others.
Thanks again!
Bryan
|
Gosh, I do *so* love finding fault with my own work in public. <sigh> In the case you mention, I was referring to how I handled Linden Avery in the second half of the book. Certain sections of that material fall a bit flat because I simply didn't understand her well enough to describe or dramatize her as effectively as the story requires. From my perspective, her struggle to come to terms with Covenant's eventual intentions is not well delineated. A slight but persistent disfocus weakens the narrative whenever that struggle assumes center stage (for example--he said, wincing--during her encounter with Kevin's specter in Andelain). If I had it to do over again, I would tell that aspect of her personal story more clearly--or bust a gut trying. What else can I tell you? I can't afford to slit my wrists today: I don't have time. <rueful smile> (04/27/2005) |
Joel J. Christian: In the text "the one tree" I came across a word that I was not able to find a definition for in any other reference. The word is "catenulation" and is found on page 396. Any help that you could provide would be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Joel
|
"Catenulation" (a real word) refers to the creation of something by uniting its parts end to end like the links of a chain. This sentence is an example of catenulation--although of course you can't reverse it as you could a chain <grin>. (04/27/2005) |
Michael Waltrip: (alt email michaeljwaltrip@hotmail.com
Hello Gentle Screener... I have not (yet) gone through the "Gradual Interview", indeed, it is only the statement above where "I get it", i.e. what the intention is... Great idea (btw).
I think you (Steven's screener) can answer what I right now. If (when, confidence) you do, I'll then come back here and ask something of deeper meaning. OK? Gratze.
Is there single volumes that exist for each first two dhronicles? (illustrated? dying to see what Revelstone might look like). This not my real "1st" question.
This is: Is there any idea of when the the volumes for the future volumes for (have to call it something, how about "LCTC") Last Chronicles? Is there a notification list? (I will go ask Borders also...)
I worry I might miss a release. I sometimes spend long periods of time working, integrating, developing, etc, with customers.
Thanks,
Michael Waltrip
San Diego, CA
p.s. I was stunned are "freaked" out when first read "The Wounded Land". That one is my "fav"...
Ciao!
|
Your questions have already been answered here. But your message gives me a chance to address a couple of other topics. 1) I don't have a "screener." My webmaster does wonderful work, but I'm solely responsible for everything that is--and isn't--in the GI. This explains in part why I'm now 250+ questions behind. <sigh> 2) And speaking of what isn't in the GI, some readers will have noticed that I do sometimes edit messages and questions before I answer them. Sometimes I'm just trying to save space. And sometimes the content of the messages/questions simply seems too, well, personal for a public forum like this one. Now, as to your actual questions.... The Science Fiction Book Club currently has single-volume editions of both "Covenant" trilogies. And information about the publication of the next books in "The Last Chronicles" will be posted in the "news" section of this site--when there *is* any information. At present, all I can tell you is that the first draft of "Fatal Revenant" is growing steadily. (04/28/2005) |
Phillip Dodson: Hello again, Mr. Donaldson, your generosity in this Gradual Interview is a wonderful thing!
I just finished reading The Man Who Fought Alone. It was my very first mystery novel-ever!
I was delighted by it, and can't wait to read more. I'd always heard of the guys who watched 'action' movies and then tried to imitate the actions the main characters did... I'd never understood it before!
I was wondering if you could describe how being involved with the Martial Arts has changed your outlook on life, or your outlook on yourself. I ask because it seems you've gone through confidence issues of your own, and may have some information worth relating. Also, are martial arts an enjoyable pasttime if you have no inclination to violence or competition?
Thank you for your time,
-JemCheeta
|
I personally find the study of the martial arts enjoyable (sometimes highly so, especially when I'm sparring--or teaching), and *I* "have no inclination to violence or competition." But if all you're interested in is a physical hobby, I suggest that you consider one of "sport" forms of Tae Kwan Do. No true "martial art" is a "sport": they are all forms of self-defense intended to save your ass if you--or someone you care about--is attacked in real life. (Putting it crudely: sports have rules; martial arts don't.) And therein lies their profound value. EsPEcially for those of us who "have no inclination to violence or competition." Unless you're one of those people who JUST LOVE the idea of picking fights in bars, studying the martial arts is about facing your fears. And I doubt that there's a human being alive who couldn't profit by facing his/her fears. The logic is simple: the more of your fears you're able to face, the more freedom of choice you have. QED. And there's a valuable corollary: the more of your fears you're able to face, the more respect you'll have for yourself. I speak from experience. For more on the subject, you might want to download my essay "The Aging Student of the Martial Arts," which is available from this site. (04/28/2005) |
Dave Greer: Mr Steve
As seems to be the custom, firstly I'd like to congratulate and thank you on the fantastic works you've written over the years. I went through all six Chronicles books in my early teens (1983/4), and have re-read the series several times since.
One question: I really like the use of first person POV in many of your short stories, it makes them seem very immediate, involving and life-like. How do you decide on a POV for your stories? Or when the story "chooses you", does it just so happen to be in a particular POV?
Thanks again, and best wishes.
|
I cut out most of your extremely flattering observations, not because I don't like praise--of course I do--but because (as I wrote a short time ago) I'm trying to save space. Certainly I'm proud of all the stories you mentioned. And "The Killing Stroke" is a personal fave. How do I decide on a POV? It varies. Sometimes POV is dictated by the nature of the story: the GAP books would be impossible as a first-person narrative. Sometimes POV is dictated by the nature of the relationship that I want the reader to have with the central character. (For example, in "The Chronicles" I want to maintain a certain distance between the reader and Covenant. Without that distance, one of two things would happen: a) the idea that Covenant might "turn to the dark side" would become entirely unconvincing; or b) Covenant's potential for darkness would make the story so unattractive that no one would read it. In contrast, in "Penance" I very much want my readers to identify as strongly as possible with Scriven.) And sometimes POV is inherent in the original idea. (For example, "Reave the Just," "The Kings of Tarshish," and "By Any Other Name" have one secret detail in common: they each grew from a single complete sentence which simply appeared in my head. In two of those cases, the original--in the sense of origin--sentence contained the word "I": the third clearly implied a third-person narrative.) You may have noticed, however, that I *never* use "third person omniscient": that's where the writer takes the reader inside the head of every character in every scene. As a technique, I find it jarring and disruptive at best, utterly implausible at worst. And for very different reasons I've never done a "present tense" narrative. Only a supreme master could make a technique with so many inherent disadvantages convincing. (04/28/2005) |
j sheesley: When you are writing the series does it leave you depressed about life or hopeful? ...
|
Writing stories gives my life purpose; meaning; a sense of direction. This process is seldom (perhaps never) *fun*: it's simply essential. I do sometimes get "depressed" (sad, anxious, lonely, existentially troubled) when I'm writing. But I only experience true clinical depression when I *can't* write for some reason. For much of my life, writing has been what keeps me going. I've often said that I can survive pretty much anything as long as I have a story that demands telling. (04/28/2005) |
Jon Alex Giguere: It has been my dream to talk to you. I dont want to bother you so I just want to tell you one thing. I am twelve and I just started reading the Thomas Covenant Series. I have one question. What is your favorite book of the the first two chronicles? Well i hope you get back to me.
One of your biggest fans,
Jon Alex Giguere
|
As I've said before, I have different favorites at different times, and for different reasons. But "The One Tree" will always be special to me. For one thing, I think it's very well written. (Just my opinion, folks.) And for another, I showed myself with that book that I'm capable of true artistic integrity. My editor at the time, Lester del Rey, HATED "The One Tree" so intensely that he "fired" me as a writer. But even in the face of losing my publisher (and, I believed, my career), I remained faithful to my story and my characters. I'm proud of that. (04/28/2005) |
Ossie: Firstly I would love to thank you for the true pleasure that your books have brought me. Im sure this is just one of thousands of compliments, but quite simply your imagination, & the stories you offer, are one of my favourite ways to spend my time. My question is actually more of an inquiry: I must admit that, as my favourite author and (I thought) pretty well known, I just naturally assumed that you have enjoyed well-deserved success and are now sitting at home in blissful semi-retirement. However during this gradual interview there have been several comments along the lines of more people are relying on me now, when I was at the peak of my career, I need to release the books as I write rather than waiting 9 years for sales etc etc even paying off the mortgage. I guess my question is, and I truly hope that you see this not as invasive or embarrassing, but a genuine wish to see my favourite author enjoying all the success that I believe he deserves: is writing inherently less lucrative I guess, for want of a less mercenary term than other creative or entertainment careers that the uninformed might lump together, say music or acting? I guess Im just looking for some reassurance that my favourite writer enjoys some level of prosperity for all the pleasure he has brought me throughout the years!! (entirely deserved as far as Im concerned)
Regardless, I am extremely grateful for this opportunity, and despite the fact it will *kill* me to wait this long for the end of the series, I trust that you know what youre doing so its only because that is the way it has to be to produce the quality weve come to know, expect and love. Youve already said youre planning to never die, but its whether *we* are all still around to see it that I think were worried about!! Be well.
|
I'm sure you'll understand that much of what I might say on this subject is *way* too personal to discuss even with my close friends. But in the name of writers everywhere I feel constrained to state that in general writing is FAR less lucrative than, say, acting--or playing in a rock band. For every Stephen King, Tom Clancy, or John Grisham, there are 10,000 published writers who do not make enough money to quit their day jobs. Commonly quoted figures go like this: among published writers, only 10% are able to support themselves (and their families) by writing; of that 10%, only 10% live in actual comfort; and of *that* 10%, only 10% can be reasonably described as wealthy. With occasional wild exceptions (J. K. Rowling), the only road that leads to that last 1/10th of 1% goes through Hollywood: even enormously successful writers like King, Clancy, and Grisham would not be truly wealthy without a steady influx of movie money. Why? Consider this single fact: when a movie is an absolute commercial disaster, disappearing from the theaters the day after it opens, it is seen by more people than buy the biggest of the big bestsellers. (And that doesn't count rentals, tv broadcasts, and international audiences.) As a result, if a merely break-even movie inspires just 5% of its viewers to go out and buy the book, the author's income can easily be increased by one (or more) orders of magnitude. The hard truth is that we do not live in a culture that reads. Books are expensive to produce and difficult to sell; profit margins are small; the author's share is downright tiny. (05/04/2005) |
Stephen Elmore: I noticed that the names of the three Ravers, moksha, turiya, and samadhi, are all words found in Hindu esoteric terminology, and that all of them designate transcendent states of consciousness. Why did you decide to use they terms in such a context?
|
Not to repeat too much of what I've already said: I named the Ravers after "states of enlightenment" because I suspect that evil commonly thinks of itself as good--indeed, as being *more* good than ordinary good. Iagos (characters that revel in what they perceive as evil) demonstrably exist in both fiction and life. But I imagine that most true "despisers" simply see themselves as being more important, more necessary, and even more *good* than everyone else. The Ravers--and Lord Foul--certainly think that way. (05/04/2005) |
Jim Melvin: I am a writer/editor with a bachelor's degree in English. I have a relatively large vocabulary and am well-read, especially in fantasy literature. I don't say this to brag but only to put my comments and question into context. This is not meant as a complaint -- because I'm a big fan of your work -- but I find about a word per page of your novels that I have to look up. Have you received any negative reaction from your readers about the sophisticated structure of your style and language?
|
Yes, I'm frequently lambasted by readers--and especially by reviewers--for the operatic (not to mention arcane) diction of the "Covenant" books. Such readers dismiss out of hand the notion that I may have consciously chosen my style--and that my reasons for doing so may be intelligible. Instead they assume that I'm an elitist who strives for obscurity in order to make my readers feel stupid (i.e. in order to make myself feel smart). I disagree, of course. But that's just my opinion. (05/04/2005) |
Sean Casey: Your comment 'In particular, I know that there are a few technical methodologies which I developed for the GAP books which Im reluctant to abandon now, for the simple reason that I like what can be accomplished with them' piqued my interest. Can you say what these methods are and what you've accompished with them?
Thanks.
|
Of course, the whole "lietmotif" technique that became so prominent in the GAP books has been continued in "The Last Chronicles." I've been trashed for this: "All Donaldson ever does is repeat his own sentences." But I think of it as a form of weaving: picking up thematic, emotional, and psychological threads (as well as the occasional simple reminder) from the past of the story and bringing them into the present. A blatant attempt on my part to enrich the narrative tapestry. But another example is less prominent because, well, to put it crudely, the *punctuation* in the first six "Covenant" books is not what I wanted. For the first four books, Lester del Rey changed my punctuation to suit himself: for the following two, I accepted his template for the sake of consistency. As a result, the changes in the style of punctuation between the first "Covenant" books and the GAP sequence is not as obvious as it might otherwise have been; and therefore those elements of the GAP style which have been carried forward into "The Last Chronicles" are also not as obvious. Specifically I'm talking about my use of colons and semicolons; about the way that usage allows me to have more control over the *timing* of my sentences (the rhythm with which the reader apprehends the words) by enabling me to blend sentence fragments into complete sentences. When it's done right, this makes it possible for me combine short, staccato utterances within long-breathed (for lack of a better term) melodies. In other words, GAP-style punctuation enables me to give the operatic rhetoric of the "Covenant" books more *punch*. Occasionally, anyway. (05/10/2005) |
Michael E Lerch: Hello Mr Donaldson. In the chatroom discussions i am hearing a disbelief in the length of time before the next 2nd book of the Last Chronicles and a gasp on the total time for the complete 4 book series to be complete. After reading and re-reading Runes I have come to understand. As much as there is mystery in the tale you tell, there is mystery and hidden things going on with the words you use to tell the tale. "Puissance", a word you use often is an example. I also note the high usage of the " Oh My God," and "Oh God" in an ironic way..Could be just me, but, are you sweating over each word as I think you are? Has the Flaubert muse got hold of you? Its like, how the words are being used, reinforces the story's plot and theme as well.( more than just in what the story is)Is this focus
the reason for giving such long expected completion dates on the forthcoming books?. MEL
|
Well, I do suffer from my own version of the Flaubert curse (his quest for "le mot juste"). Of course, my prose is not "tight" or "spare" in the way that Flaubert's was. But it is "dense" in the sense that I try to cram as much meaning into the sentences as I possibly can. You've pointed out a couple of my techniques for doing so. Phrases like "Oh God" are both direct expressions of emotion and ironic references to the (apparent) fact that the Land has been abandoned by its Creator. I intend a kind of alchemy. As I do with my (over)use of words like "puissance." Literally, of course, "puissance" denotes "great strength or force" (power) and connotes "mystical or magical strength or force". But the very strangeness of the word calls attention to its use (which explains the perception of overuse, even though the word is used *much* less often than, say, "power"); and that in turn enables me to emphasize the commensurate strangeness of the power itself--the way in which the power defies mundane expectations and rationality. Yes, the fact that I'm "sweating over each word" does in part explain why I write so slowly--and rewrite so often and so extensively. But the complexity of my intentions on a micro level (words, sentences, timing) mirrors the complexity of what I'm trying to do on a macro level (plot, theme, character). And macro issues slow me down at least as much as micro issues do. (And we won't even mention *age*, which definitely affects the rate at which my synapses fire. <grin>) (05/10/2005) |
Steve M: Prefatorily I want to tell you that in many ways your Covenant books have been transformational for me. Most of my childhood and teen years were saturated with feelings of being an outcast; like someone that did not fit in. I thought that I was the only one who felt like this until I met Thomas Covenant who taught me to always be true . My father and I read your books at the same time and we would constantly fight over them as the stories in the first and second chronicles unfolded. My father has been gone for over ten years and your books bring me closer to him. Thank you for bringing the stories to me and to my father. A few questions: The fourth, fifth and sixth of Kevins Wards remain hidden. Will they ever be found? I find somewhat of an inconsistency between the tale of the Creator of the Earth in the first Chronicles and the story of the Wurm of the Worlds End in the Second. Is there a relationship between the Wurm and the Creator? Are these tales reconcilable? In other words, is the Earth something that was created by a beneficent being or is it a sleeping bag for a great mythological creature? Finally, will you ever tell us the story of Bahgoon the Unbearable and Thelma Twofist?
|
The problem of reconciling divergent "creation myths" has been discussed at some length earlier in this interview. I won't repeat myself, except to say that I don't actually see any conflict between the various stories we've been told (I mean in the "Covenant" books <grin>). As for your other questions: sorry, these are RAFO issues. I'm not prepared to say anything about my intentions for the forthcoming books. Innocent curiosity for you can be a cruel spoiler for someone else. (05/10/2005) |
Jared Koenig: Mr. Donaldson,
I know it is trite but I will say it anyway, I love your books and I cant get enough of them. Since that is out of the way I can get on to the question.
I am an aspiring writer myself (although I have my doubts about becoming published) and I would like to know how you keep you short stories short? You see, I am still in high school and because I go to a small school we have no advanced classes available. But my English teacher has given me the opportunity to participate in a program where students write what ever they want and send it in to published authors so they can evaluate it. The authors that she mentioned I had never heard of, but she mentioned one of them being from Wyoming (like yours truly). I was planning on writing a short story for it but I have trouble keeping my writing short. So I was hoping you could give me a few pointers on writing short stories.
Thanks for your time.
|
I'm sorry to keep saying this; but there's only one good way to learn how to write stories, and that is to figure it out for yourself. So my only pointers are: write what comes naturally; find honest readers who will tell you what they do and do not like about what you wrote; learn from what you hear; and avoid readers who try to tell you "how to improve" what you've written (figure that part out for yourself). (05/10/2005) |
Riccardo Mussi: Dear Mr.Donaldson,
i'm an Italian fan of yours, and I've read a lot of times both the First and the Second Chronicles (I've read their Italian translation).
When I first heard that the Last Chronicles have been published I immediately bought "The Runes of the Earth" in english. But I'm not so able in reading English language to appreciate entirely your work. I understand the story, of course, but I think that with a good translation I would take the deep meaning of your words.
So I wanna ask you... do you know if an Italian translation for the Last Chronicles has been planned? And if so, do you know the publication times?
Thanx for the time you will grant to me.
I do really love your works.
Thanx again,
Riccado Mussi
|
Whenever I receive "news" about my books (e.g. translation into Italian), I post the information promptly in the "news" section of this site. So if what you want to know isn't listed as "news," I don't have any answer for you. (05/10/2005) |
Matthew S Brucato: SRD,
First of all, like everyone else, I would like to say thankyou for the covenant series. Every time i find myself with more than I think i can handle, I remember what was told to Covenant: "This is the grace that has been given to you - to bear what must be borne". Anyway to my questions.
First, I am excited about the news and interest about the possible covenant movie. I was wondering who you think would be good playing Thomas Covenant, Lord Mhoram, Bannor, and Saltheart Foamfollower? I know you probably wont answer this question but I figured it was worth a try.
Second, I remember when i first saw your picture on the "Runes of the Earth". My father and I both thought you looked exactly what we pictured Covenant to look like. Was that planned or was it just an amazing coincidence?
Thankyou for your time,
Matthew S Brucato
|
You astonish me. I see absolutely no resemblence between myself and Thomas Covenant. For one thing, he exists only in words, whereas I appear to exist only in mirrors. <grin> (05/10/2005) |
Sean Casey: In the afterword to The Real Story you talk about a sense of shame you felt after you finished the ms, but before it was published. You were worried that people would identify Angus with yourself. How have your feelings on this issue changed since publication?
In as much as Angus (and each of your characters) is a product of your subconscious, has it been a) useful to the integrity and vitality of your work to use this source of inspiration, and b) useful to you as a person to explore this material in a public way (ie, by publishing it)?
Thanks.
|
My sense of shame only lasted until I realized that the story wasn't done; that I still had four more books to write. That insight or inspiration transmogrified my feelings completely. Writing solely about my own potential "dark side" seemed (and seems) like a rather narcissistic thing to do. In contrast, using my own potential "dark side" as a, well, launchpad for something much larger, more universal, and (I hope) more important seemed (and seems) like a perfectly valid approach to storytelling. I hope I've made it clear in this interview that (for me, anyway) storytelling demands a certain impersonality. I need to *believe* that I'm writing about my characters rather than about myself (even though we all know that my characters--like my stories--come out of me and are therefore an expression of me): otherwise I can't work. Extending Angus, Nick, and Morn beyond the bounds of "The Real Story" gave me that necessary impersonality. I hope I have successfully avoided answering most of your questions. <grin> I mean, your questions being *personal* and all. (05/10/2005) |
Allen Stroud: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Congratulations on The Runes of Earth. After purchasing it about it I read it so fast I am still unsure what I liked or didn't like particularly because I am such a fan of your work on Thomas Covenant. Although I also loved the Mordant's Need books and regularly use the duel between Artagel and Gart as a example text for my creative writing lectures.
Looking at both sets of chronicles and the new book, I am struck by how destructive the stories are to the originally introduced realm that existed in Lord Foul's Bane and the Illearth War. As a reader I guess I share many reader's wishes to see The Land as it was, a motivation that you reflect in Covenant and Linden at different points in the text. My question is, does this level of adversity also affect your own perceptions of your idea?
I am sure I'd love to ask more questions, so may pester again later as I am writing my master's thesis on fantasy world construction. But in relation to that I'd also like to ask do you have a sort of world bible, from which you record the relationships of your ideas? If not, what techniques do you use to create such a rich fantasy?
Thank you for your time,
|
Well, life is all about destruction (death)--and about new things arising to replace the old. But as a rule, people tend to be more afraid of dying than they are of being born <grin>, so I think it's probably normal that fiction in general--and fantasy fiction in particular--revolves around destruction. (Tolkien wasn't exactly kind to Middle Earth, as you'll recall.) On a crudely practical level, if nothing is being lost, there's nothing to fight for. Most people are completely ruled by their fears (a fact which defines most fantasy realms). And if the consequences of destructiveness (for example, Lord Foul's) aren't severe, they aren't truly serious--or worthy of serious attention. OK, I admit I'm not being very coherent right now. But I'm not sure it would be good for any of us to "see the Land as it was"; to see any world--or any life--the way it was; to have the kind of childhood we all should have had and didn't. If we want to live, we all have to grow up; and growing up is all about loss. (Of course, it's also "all about" a bunch of other things too, like--just to pick one example--how is it that loss doesn't prevent life from being worth living?) Enough babbling. Bad author. No bisquit. (05/10/2005) |
Greg: Greetings Steve. Just writing to ask you a couple of questions. Me and a few of my friends are readers of your books, mainly the first two series. This group of friends I speak of are also avid computer users and programmers, and we have been formulating for a few years since reading the books of making a MUD, or Multi User Dungeon based on your books. It's basically a text-only game where people come on and play the role of a character that they choose and create, set in whatever setting the mud has. Perhaps you've played one, I don't know... We havn't gotten anything major up, as we've been planning it, but I figured I'd ask the question just to know. Is there any kind of permission neccessary for such a thing? It seems to be fair use to me, but alas, I have no real knowledge of specifics. OF COURSE, we plan to cite you as the original creator of these ideas and the books, and will most likely link to your website, your publishers, etc at every opportunity possible.
We'd like very much to do this, as it would be a very interesting environment for gaming.
All of this requires -no work-, that's right Steve, no work or creative energy at all on your part. We'd just like your blessing :). As I said, the books are great, and theres a lot more about this I could tell you if you should be interested in it at all. Any thoughts, input, and answers you have would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your time Stephen, have yourself a good day.
Regards,
Greg G.
|
This gives me another opportunity to say that I'm always flattered and gratified when my work becomes an occasion for creativity for other people! That's high praise. Let me say, first, that you certainly have my blessing; second, that giving appropriate credit early and often is always a good idea; and third, that legal questions like "rights" and "permissions" only arise where there is *money*. If you and your friends are designing your MUD for your mutual enjoyment, and are making the game available to other players free of charge, you have nothing to worry about. Sadly, everything becomes much stickier once money changes hands, even if it only does so to cover the cost of maintaining your MUD on a server. So: keep it free and have fun. If you accept money, no blessing of mine will protect you if my publisher (the actual holder of the rights) decides to take action. (05/11/2005) |
john bnstor: In the past you have mentioned that the 1st and 2nd Covenant series were all thought out regardin details. I believe I read in this 'Gradual Interview' that the 3rd/Last series is not thought out to the extent of the others.
You've mentioned, you are getting up there in years and the schedule is for that last book of the series to be released in 2013.. What happens if you croak before you finish the last series? (I hope that doesn't happen as I am the same age as you).. Do your contracts with the publisher cover that? I would think they would.
I patiently wait years between your books, but as you get older, do you have outlines or a family member in charge or someone you have selected that incase of your demise, that the story can be finished?
Hopefully, you'll live to be 110, and I will also. I look forward to other writings you may do into the middle of this century. But I am just curious.. how does it work. If you 'kicked the bucket' tomorrow, I doubt the series would survive.. But what if it happens during book three or four.
My apoligies, as I don't want to be morbid, but curious as to how contracts work with an author that has a long running series, and as an avid fan of all works, I have an interest in my own personal investment for almost 30 years.
|
Apparently people are starting to doubt my word when I say that I'm going to live forever! We live in a sadly cynical age, and all trust is forgotten. <grin> But seriously: you raise a practical point that hasn't been covered earlier. And the answer is no, my contract does *not* require the completion of "The Last Chronicles" even if I make the mistake of being dead. I believe that no book contract includes that provision, presumably because it could not possibly be binding on whoever got the job of making sense out of my obscure and chaotic notes. (UNLESS *I* had previously contracted with some other writer to finish my story if I died. Then, if "some other writer" was acceptable to my publisher, my publisher would have contracted with both of us simultaneously, with the stipulation that "some other writer" would take over for me in the event of my tragic toothbrush accident.) The whole situation would be too messy for words, and no book contract addresses it. No, here's what would happen if I behaved rationally: in my will, I would name a "literary executor"; after my death, my LE would examine any materials that I may have left behind, and would consult both my privately (in person) and publicly (in my will) expressed wishes; then, if no insurmountable obstacle existed (such as my will forbidding anyone to continue my work), my LE would approach my publisher, and together they would decide a) if my story was worth completing under the circumstances, and b) who could be asked to do the work. So how likely is it that I'll behave rationally? Well, I *do* have a will, and it *does* name an LE. So far, so good. But I haven't yet gotten around to announcing that I DO NOT want my work completed by anyone else. Why? Because it's *my* work, that's why. If *I* didn't write it, it's just a pastiche, and I dislike pastiches. Of course, I may change my mind. Imagine me with a long lingering illness which allowed me plenty of time to consult with my anointed "successor." Who knows how I would feel under those conditions? For the present, however, I'm going to stick to my guns and just damn live forever. (05/11/2005) |
Jules: Stephen,
firstly: what a great idea to have this rolling interview on-line - so involving and generous. I loved your response to a recent question regarding such a format reducing your authorial mystique. Did this guy even read your books? I loved that you confirmed that the creator of Thomas Covenant would find such lofty and power-broking techniques of some authors irritating and frankly very silly.
secondly: after devouring runes of the earth I reread the first chronicles for the first time in a decade. I cannot believe how much more I understand and am moved by these profound writings. A test of a great artwork is that it grows in meaning for readers as as time passes for them.
Lastly, I even have a question! Rereading the first chronicles I picked up on something I certainly didn't when I was younger. Did you intend for there to be a comic element in the chronicles (the first anyway)? Critical reviewers have churlishly noted the lack of this, but I found myself laughing out loud sometimes and I often sported a wry grin - amidst the tension, fear, wonder and sadness of course. Tragicomic at least. After all Covenant does view himself as ridiculous at many points. Then there is "Lord Foul". This has got to be a comic choice. I haven't read much commentary about it and I wonder if I just have a misplaced black sense of humour?
|
Other readers (well, one, anyway) have commented on a comic element in the first "Covenant" trilogy. On a conscious level, all of the humor in those books was of the wry, ironic variety (heavily tinged with sarcasm in Covenant's case). Unconsciously, who knows? In a very real sense, "what you see is what you get." If you find humor, then it's there. Sadly, I did *not* intend "Lord Foul" to be a comic name--although I can easily see why it strikes you that way. I was young; and with the arrogance, ambition, naivete, or ignorance of the young, I chose to announce my archetypal vision loudly. "If you've got it, bump it with a trumpet." If I were starting "Lord Foul's Bane" today, I would approach my underlying subject-matter with less noise. Still, it would not be fair to say that I regret the name. It has become so deeply embedded in what I'm doing that it feels right and even normal to me now. (05/11/2005) |
Hilary: I sense a great deal of similarity between Runes and "The Real Story" beyond them both being the beginning of a tale. You talk of needing to develop your skills further before tacking the Last Chronicles. To what extent was The Real Story a preparation for Runes? And would you care to comment on any correlations between the two?
|
In a sense, "the past is [always] prologue." Who we were enables who we are. Doubtless I would not be writing "The Last Chronicles" *exactly* as I am if I had not first written the GAP books. And of course there is another sense as well in which both "The Real Story" and "The Runes of the Earth" are "prologues." More and more, I seem to need a big wind-up before I throw my first real pitch (although I prefer to think of it as "building a solid foundation"). For that matter, "Forbidden Knowledge" is also a bit of a "prologue": one could argue that I don't throw my first real pitch in the GAP books until the last page of "Forbidden Knowledge". But I'll ask you to keep in mind that I can only move forward in time, not backward--and I don't have a crystal ball. I wrote "The Real Story" and the rest of the GAP books for their own sake, not in preparation for anything. I've talked about needing to become a better writer before I tackled "The Last Chronicles," but this was not a "planned" or "explicit" process: I simply pushed myself to accept every challenge that my imagination offered. In retrospect, it's easy to see patterns; development; preparation. But I don't live retrospectively, and I certainly don't write that way. So you could say that "The Last Chronicles" have a great deal to do with the GAP books, but that the GAP books have nothing whatever to do with "The Last Chronicles." Anyone who steps back from my work and looks at all of it in sequence can probably see that it contains a growing element of "machination," manipulation, plotting, concealed intentions. After writing the first "Covenant" trilogy, I wrote my first mystery novel--and Lord Foul's "designs" became far more subtle and multivalent in "The Second Chronicles". After "The Second Chronicles," I wrote my second mystery novel--and "Mordant's Need" is all about political intrigue. After my third mystery novel, I wrote the GAP books--and then my fourth mystery. In some sense, *all* of this was preparation for "The Last Chronicles." All of everything that we've ever done is preparation for what we do now. But that doesn't mean we saw it coming. (05/11/2005) |
Gene Marsh: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for returning us all to the Land! I have two questions:
- How can you be so heartless as to end The Runes of Earth in the manner you did, knowing we would all have to wait 2 or more years to assess the implications. You are a cruel, insidious (and WONDERFUL) writer. ;)
- Perhaps you could shed some light on the trend toward "easier" use and control of white magic by Linden as we progress. You spent quite a bit of energy descibing the fear (perhaps exaggerated?) that many beings have/had of the use of white magic. With that level of fear expressed, I would have expected either more explicit potential danger during its use, or subtle changes noted because of its use. Is this, perhaps, an evolutionary trend with the use of power by anyone? Is this an expression of the underlying strength and understanding Linden is accruing?
|
I'm afraid I can't answer your first question--unless you'll simply accept the notion that I have a disturbed personality. As to your second: Experience (training; dedicated, deliberate attention) makes virutally every human endeavor "easier" than it once was. It seems natural to me that the more Linden uses the internal pathways which lead to wild magic, the more readily she'll be able to find her way. And this seems especially true with wild magic, where un-self-conflicted passion and will are crucial. Linden, as you must have noticed, does not doubt herself on the scale that Covenant did in the first trilogy; and her personal commitments and choices (I mean in "Runes") are far more clear to her than his were to him (at least in the first trilogy). However, this whole situation is not as simple as I'm making it sound. There may (or may not) be an absolute limit to the amount of use that Linden can get out of Covenant's ring. Such issues will be explored more explicitly later in the story. (05/12/2005) |
Joseph McSheffrey: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have read a little over four hundred pages of "The Runes of the Earth" and am enjoying it. Not being a big fan of Sci-Fi, short stories or Mystery I have read little else of your work in between White Gold Wielder and Runes. I thought the "Mordant's Need" material was exceptional as well. I noticed after a dozen chapters or so of Runes that your writing style has changed. It didn't surprise me given the amount of time that has passed, it's just something I never thought of, I guess. I suppose it could be my imagination, but there seems to be much more dialogue in Runes than in any other Covenant book along with several cosmetic changes.
The one thing I find perplexing is why are certain words like Haruchai, merewives and caesures *always* italicized? A boring question for sure, but it is harrying me! =P
Joseph
|
You're right, of course: there *is* more dialogue in "Runes" than in the previous "Covenant" books. And there have been "cosmetic" changes in the style on every level. The rationale for the way certain words are consistently italicized is that they are "foreign" words (foreign, that is, to the "native tongue" of the narrative, the Land's inhabitants, etc.). This is common usage (consult any familiar "style manual" of English grammer, punctuation, and so on)--although it hardly *appears* common because the inherent xenophobia of US culture prevents most writers from drawing on foreign languages. I can get away with it in a fantasy novel because fantasy readers *expect*--and even desire--the existence of other cultures. (05/12/2005) |
Michael Waltrip: Hello Steve,
My "discovery" of this site the other day, and sebsequent re-scan (and soon re-read) of "Runes", perhaps entire Chronicles I/II, I was wondering if there was Red, Blue and Yellow Lego Brick Revelstone sitting around your workplace? And if a picture be posted?
Indeed the two maps in "Runes", one affording a distant view was very enticing. Are there any existing artwork, maps, or anything?
The Lego I don't have, but my nephews do!
Thank you,
Michael Waltrip
San Diego
|
Sorry, I don't own any Legos myself--and wouldn't have the patience to work with them if I did <grin>. Apart from "The Atlas of the Land" (long out of print), I have no "existing artwork, maps, or anything" that haven't already been published in the various "Covenant" books--although I intend to prepare a new map for "Fatal Revenant." (05/12/2005) |
Greg Cotterell: Thank you for the opportunity to return to the Land through Runes. I look forward to your future work. As a physician and an attorney and a son of a physician with whom I would make house calls back in the 50's, (I think more to get me out of my mom's hair), I have always been profoundly moved by your characteizations and their struggles with redemption, truth, morality, altruism and their individual struggles with who they are at a very basic level. Your consummate writing skills bring all of this to the reader and, fortunately, pervade all of your work.
My question goes more to your work ethic. If you are spending time with "us" on-line through this gradual interview, are you then not writing those stories for which all of "us" keep hammering away at you for? Or are we truly in the best of "both worlds," reading your responses to our queries here in almost real time and, yet, you and we are still moving inexorably toward the next book, and the next, etc.?
Thanks, Greg
|
It's true: every minute that I spend working on the GI is a minute that I do *not* spend working on "The Last Chronicles." And of course I think we can all agree that "The Last Chronicles" should take precedence. So it does. I only answer questions here at times when I could not have worked on (in this case) "Fatal Revenant" anyway. For example, in motel rooms when I'm traveling. Or, at this precise moment, when I'm taking care of a sick friend who happens to be asleep for an hour or two. This in large part explains why I'm consistently at least 200+ questions behind in the GI. (05/12/2005) |
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.
Will Smith (not "the" Will Smith): Stephen,
How do you come up with the names for your characters? Whenever I try to write, I always think "wow, that name is really bad" -- maybe it's just me being self-conscious, but I always imagine there must be a better way oof doing it . . .
thanks
|
I've discusssed how I "come up with" names at some length earlier in this interview. However, one point bears constant repetition: the only good way to learn how to do it is to figure it out for yourself. And that includes figuring out how to cope with your self-consciousness. The awkward truth is that there are some subjects on which the wise teacher tells the student *nothing*. Fortunately I had one of those teachers at a crucial point in my creative (not physical) adolescence. Da*n near made me crazy, he did--but he saved me as a writer in the process. (05/12/2005) |
Anonymous: On page 297 of The Illearth War, you describe how the Giants "grew whole forests of the special redwood and teak trees from which they crafted their huge ships." All of the Giant's ships in The Second Chronicles are stone. Did the Unhomed lose the ability to make stone ships, or do Giants make both wood and stone ships?
Thank you for continuing the best fantasy series ever.
|
Forgive me if this sounds glib, but: 4500+ years pass between the time when the Unhomed get stranded in Seareach and the time when Starfare's Gem reaches Coercri. Is it possible that the Giants, who always loved stone anyway, simply developed a new way to build ships? They certainly had enough time. (05/12/2005) |
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.
Richard Schwartz: Mr. D,
Great site. Thanks for letting me read the prologue at RotE_Prologue_Chapter1.pdf. It's everything I expected, and I can't wait to get my hands on the hardcopy.
I found a typo, though, on page 9:
"We brought her up her, tied her wrists."
should have read:
"We brought her up here, tied her wrists."
Richard the Proofreader
|
That typo survived through several proof-reading stages in both the US and the UK--but it *was* corrected before publication. It's amazing how the human eye can see what it *expects* to see rather than what *is*. Both modern physics and modern psychology have much to say about this. (05/12/2005) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell : Why does Linden swear so much?!
It somehow seems incondign in the Land!!
|
<sigh> Why do *people* swear so much? We live in profane times. I'm more than a tad profane myself. What other answer could I possibly give you? Oh, here's one: it's a reaction against her excessively religious (not to mention excessively destructive) up-bringing. But I'm afraid I just made that up on the spur of the moment. (05/12/2005) |
Jillian: Mr. Donaldson,
I am a mere sophomore in High School of 15, But I've read all your works, and have fallen in love with each one of them- especially the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the series has left a lasting impression on me, and I am so excited for the final ones! You have inspired me, and now my sole desire is to become an author. I'm writing to you about just that- do you have any advice for me? Such as, what classes are best to take for the remaining 2 years of high school, a good college to attend, etc...? And how would I go about, when I'm educated enough to try, conceiving a story to write? Once I have one, how do I start writing? How do I find a good editor/publisher? Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you so much!
Always a fan ~ Jillian
|
I don't mean to put you off; but all of the advice that I could possibly give you is already in this interview. Well hidden, probably. <sigh> But start with the "creative process" and "writing and publishing process" categories. (05/13/2005) |
Ricardo Castano Jr: I enjoyed the first and second chronicles of covenant and I am looking forward to listening to the last chronicles.
However, since diabetes has taken my sight, I can no longer reread my old covenant novels.
I have been unsuccessful in finding any audiobooks of the first two chronicles. Can anyone help point me in the right direction?
|
I haven't been able to locate audio versions of any of my books except "The Runes of the Earth." I had heard a rumor that the first "Covenant" books were available from Books On Tape, but that appears not to be true. Can any readers of this interview offer Mr Castano suggestions? The only idea I've heard is to get a e-version of the books (the first six "Covenant" books still seem to be available free on the web somewhere, but I've lost the URL) and print it out or display it in a 26 or 30 point font: in other words, make it large enough so that you can still see it. But that may not work here. Help? Anyone? If you have suggestions, please address them to Mr Castano at the e-address above. (05/21/2005) |
Jonathan Gibson: hi I would have lots of questions, but I will limit myself. I'm nineteen and I have had a story in my head thats grown and grown over the last 10 years, though when I write, I always find myself writing the outline and background of the story. I would come to beleive that all to the recent of covenent's book's had much background written before the story.
My question is how have you known when to stop the background and start the story? If you feel your perspective could be broader to create a story, do you wait and learn or start against fears?
|
I've addressed this answering other questions. I never--and I do mean never--start with background. I start with story, then I work on story, then I work on story some more. (I'm using the word "story" to refer to the intersection of "plot" and "character/emotion".) And somewhere during that process I start to ask myself what sort of background the story needs in order to function. Within the normal limits of human variability, I only create as much background as I need. (Of course, one of the keys of successful world-building is to create the illusion that the entire world already exists. You can do this by, in effect, envisioning the entire world. But I prefer to do much of it by enlisting the aid of the reader's imagination. Wherever possible, I don't create actual background: I plant seeds which grow into background in the reader's mind.) So: I *never* "stop the background and start the story." Far more often, I start the story, then realize that I need more background than I have; so I stop long enough to create a little bit of that background (and to think about the implications of that background), after which I get back to the story. Where background is concerned, my methods are almost the exact opposite of Tolkien's. (05/22/2005) |
Darrin: Thanks for the Books,They are a great gift in my life and my families, If possible can you tell me(us) What are the seven words, I have read much speculation about a word being a phrase rather than a single word and wouldn't mind a definative answer and listing of the words with meanings if it is at all possible.
Thanks again and if this tale improves with every telling as it has so far it will be a tale of Giantish proportions by the end Of The Last Chronicles.
|
Everyone seems to want to know about the missing Word. And a fair number of people want to know about the missing Wards of Kevin's Lore. I have several answers, but I'll limit myself to two: 1) I'm keeping my options open. I only create as much background as I need, which leaves me free to explore new ideas as I need them. So you'll only know what my plans are--if indeed I have any plans--by reading what I write. 2) Referring to missing information is one of the "tricks" of world-building. I've called it "planting seeds," "enlisting the aid of the reader's imagination." It's a technique for creating the illusion that the world is bigger than the story--or the actual text--can contain. To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, even Tolkien--a dedicated background creator if ever there was one--used this "trick" from time to time. Worlds simply don't seem real if they don't contain unanswered questions. (05/22/2005) |
Charles Adams: Thank you for many hours of joy reading and re-reading your works.
I have had thoughts that Foul's ability to manipulate the people and situations extends beyond simple manipulation. For example, manipulation itself doesn't explain how Foul was able to "encourage" rape which lead to pregnancy which lead to Elena which lead to breaking the law of death, all as a known outcome.
I have a theory/understanding that I would appreciate you confirming or rejecting, if it leads to no spoilers.
I envision that Lord Foul (being a creature from outside of the arch of time) has a vision of events that span time (perhaps even his existance spans time). His vision allows him to manipulate minor events into vast/major events that he can use to his advantage. His vision, however, is bound by the necesity of freedom from other outside participants (Linden, Covenant). The effect is that he cannot see past their choices that impact him directly. Thus, he doesn't see his defeats, because those defeats are a result of choices made by free individuals. As far as Foul is concerned, the "blankness" of his vision could easily be the result of his victory (the breaking of the arch of time).
Does this closely reflect your conception of Foul and his abilities?
|
I want to emphasize that you can think about what you read in any way that works for you. The way that *I* think about what I've written is "right" only in the sense that it works for me. So you shouldn't pay too much attention to the fact that I disagree with you. Two points. 1) From my perspective, being trapped within the Arch of Time means, well, being trapped within the Arch of Time. Whatever perceptions of infinity Lord Foul may once have possessed (since he was originally a being whose existence transcended time), they were severely truncated when he was forced to live in "real" space/time. And as a being forced to live in "real" space/time, he has no supernatural "vision of events"--and no particular blank spots in his vision (except those that are inherent to the way he thinks). He is defeated, not because he can't see past "choices that impact him directly," but because he believes that people like Covenant and Linden will not make those choices. Which brings me to-- 2) I certainly never intended to suggest that Lord Foul "planned" the rape of Lena, Lena's pregnancy, Trell and Atiaran's effective abandonment of Elena, or Elena's resulting mental instability. Of course, Lord Foul does what he can to manipulate events. Sending armies to attack the Lords probably counts as an attempt to manipulate events. But (and this is especially true in the first trilogy) he doesn't do so on the "micro" level. He doesn't--indeed, he can't--"make" Covenant rape Lena. On that level, his plans depend on Covenant's character rather than on the micro-manipulation of events. He chose Covenant because he believes that Covenant--by his very nature--will become a Despiser himself. And just in case there's a chance that Covenant might fall on the other side of the fence, Lord Foul exerts as much pressure as he can (macro-manipulation of events: armies, the genocide of the Unhomed, the maiming of the Bloodguard, changing the weather, etc.) to break down Covenant's resistence; to punish and (ideally) destroy the part of Covenant's nature that might not actually *want* to be a Despiser. My point here is that Lord Foul's plans depend, not on his (in)ability to control such details as the rape of Lena, but rather on his perception of Covenant's true nature. As I see it, therefore, Lord Foul had no idea that Covenant's first significant action in the Land would lead to the breaking of the Law of Death. He simply worked very hard to encourage something like that--and to take advantage of any signs of weakness in Covenant (of which there are many). In "The Second Chronicles," of course, Lord Foul's plotting becomes far more detailed (e.g. Marid's venom, and everything Lord Foul does to exacerbate that problem for Covenant). He's learned from his previous mistakes. But my central point remains: Lord Foul's plotting still revolves around his perception of character (Linden's as well as Covenant's in this case), not around his ability to foresee and manipulate events on a micro level. (05/23/2005) |
Howard L. Miller: I thought you might have a comment on my pretentious review of your last opus. It was written in an experimental style that will become obvious if you should read it. Here is the link:
http://www.epinions.com/content_179715739268
|
I never comment on reviews. And I seldom so much as glance at them. I believe I've explained why earlier in the GI. But briefly: Reviews are written for the benefit of potential readers, not for the benefit of the author. For the author, therefore, they are inherently misleading--and even potentially damaging. Such "misappropriation of communication" cannot end well, and I avoid it as diligently as I can. (05/25/2005) |
Steve Anderson: Hi Stephen,
In your books you have created extremities of personalities ranging from the depraved to the brave and great. If it were possible to rank individuals on their heroism or decadence, where would you place your characters? I think these would have to be human to make a comparison meaningful; I dont think one could say Samadhi is a nastier piece of work than say Angus because ravers are incapable of good, Angus has a choice. Who would you say were the three greatest and the most loathful of your creations?
If youre interested mine would probably be Atiaran, Pitchwife and Reeve in the good corner (could be ousted by late arrival Liand) and in the bad corner Nick, Kasreyn and Eremis.
I would place TC not too low down the list. Any rapist is contemptible, but he believed he was in a dream. I think everyone would admit to doing things in dreams that their morality would forbid them from actually doing. Am I just making excuses for TC, or was your intent to create an amoral anti-hero by including his rape of Lena?
A rhetorical question: should the worlds leaders swear an Oath of Peace?
Steve Anderson
|
I'm sorry, I can't answer your primary question. I simply don't think of my characters in those terms. I wouldn't be able to create them at all if I viewed them so judgmentally. My intent in creating Thomas Covenant was to explore a character who--in every sense that matters--literally "could go either way." A character balanced (by necessity) on the knife-edge of love and Despite. I don't consider him either "amoral" or an "anti-hero": I consider him *conflicted*. His rape of Lena--like his later repentance--and his eventual acceptance of responsbility--is an expression of that conflict. (05/25/2005) |
Fred: Mr. Donaldson, I'm not writing to tell you the the Chronicles has changed my life, or affected my choices, nor am I writing to dig into the intricacies of you have written, to see if the premise for your world is 100% plausible. I am simply writing to say that I enjoy reading books. I read for enjoyment. Your Covenant books have given me more enjoyment than any other books I've ever read. I'm as astounded now as I was 23 years ago, that your books have such depth of character, and such imaginative storytelling. I anxiously await the last three installments. I only wish you could finish them sooner. Keep up the good work, your Covenent decology will eventually (if it's not there already) get its recognition as a true classic.
When Revenant is released, will you be publishing your book signing dates and places? I am the type of person who has NEVER given importance to collecting autographs or memorabilia, yet for the Covenant books I've gone back to Amazon.com and bought used hardbacks for your first six. A first for me. I would be honored to travel (within reason) to tell you "thanks" in person, and get your signature. Or if you want to stop by my house and save me the trip, that'd be fine, too. I live in Indiana.
|
There is an (admittedly sparse) "appearances" page on this site. When "Fatal Revenant" is published--and *if* my publisher(s) decide(s) to send me out on tour(s)--the information will be posted there as soon as it becomes available to me. (I say again, as I've said before, that authors don't make these decisions: publishers do.) In the (admittedly lengthy) meantime, the "news" page on this site will supply the earliest possible information about the publication of "Fatal Revenant." (05/25/2005) |
Angela Davis: Dear Mr Donaldson,
I should like to add my own thanks to you for providing your readers with this opportunity to contact you, and I am so glad that you also derive some benefit from it. Thank you also for your truly wonderful, awe inspiring stories and for sharing your amazing talent with us. Your stories never fail to astonish and delight (even on the 10th re-read!), and the scope and breadth of your imagination makes me feel humbled! Runes is magnificent. It exceeded all my expectations, and I hope it is also a commercial success for you.
My question is this: even though you know the outcome of your stories from the start of the writing process, do you nevertheless become emotionally engaged with your characters as their stories unfold (as the reader does), or do you work fairly dispassionately?
One of the joys of re-reading your work is that one can savour your prose instead of rushing ahead after the plot! It is therefore dismaying to learn of pressures upon you towards a briefer style. Thank you for not giving in and maintaining your literary integrity! I have read your comments in this GI about prose style being appropriate to story, but I wonder if you might also feel that authors have a wider responsibility to preserve and promote the best use of language in literature. I will continue to count on you to do so, anyway! <Big Smile>
With best wishes
Angela Davis
|
As I think Ive said before in various ways, Im a very experential writer: in other words, I try to experience the story, both sequentially and emotionally, as if I were indeed inside the head(s) of my protagonist(s) or POV character(s). In addition, I place a high value on studying my characters empathetically and non-judgmentally as well as (as is inevitable) analytically. So I can hardly help becoming emotionally engaged with them. Nevertheless my emotional experience of my stories pretty much *has* to be significantly different than the experience of my readers. For one thing, I *do* know whats going to happen--and I also know *why* its going to happen. That has an unavoidable effect on the form my emotional engagement takes. And for another: the rate at which events and emotions are experienced affects the nature of their impact. As a reader, you move far faster than I do as a writer. (Im a very slow reader, and even *I* move far faster than I do as a writer.) And speed profoundly affects perception. As Im fond of pointing out: when you stroll casually past a tree, you see a very different tree than you would if you drove past it at 75 mph, even though the tree itself hasnt changed at all. Well, my writing is the effective equivalent of a stroll (although theres nothing casual about it), while for most people reading is the equivalent of 75 mph. This alters the trees distinctive reality in many ways. The experience isnt better or worse, its just fundamentally different. Which brings me to your comments about style. Editors nowadays are pretty much compelled to read at hyper-speed (knocking off a book like Runes over the course of an otherwise-full weekend would be considered fairly normal); and at hyper-speed it is simply impossible to care--or to understand why anyone else would care--that the 47th twig from the left on the back side of the 18th eastward branch is bent downward instead of upward. And in fact many writers--knowing that both editors and readers are moving fast--only concern themselves with those aspects of the tree which can be perceived at high speed. Hence the inevitable, well, friction between such editors/readers and a writer such as I am, who believes that every single leaf of his tree deserves his best attention; and that readers who bother to slow down while theyre passing the tree should be rewarded for doing so. Well, I cannot be otherwise than I am. But I do also believe that readers who *dont* slow down deserve attention and respect as well; so I accommodate the requests of my editors whenever and wherever I can do so without violating the integrity of my story--and of my storys necessary style. Do I believe that authors have a wider responsibility to preserve and promote the best use of language in literature? Please. How could I possibly be wise enough to know what constitutes the best use of language in literature? And, indeed, how can there possibly *be* a best use of language in literature? Surely the best use is the use which most perfectly suits the particular story under discussion. Talk about a different story, and the whole concept of best use must change. (05/29/2005) |
Jim Clark: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I finally have a question for you! My lasp message to you was just thanking you for so many enjoyable hours of reading and discussion...etc.
Here is something that is really interesting to me. If the breaking of the Law of Life was required, (as Covenant tell Linden) for him to act instead of merely being a spectator...How then was Elena and High Lord Kevin able to act without the breaking of the Law of Life. "All" Elena did was break the Law of Death, which allowed the Dead to come back...but not to act. This does presuppose the fact that Covenant was right when he told Linden what allowed him to act. Any clues on that one? Or is this something that you had planned all along to explore more fully?
|
Im sorry, I dont understand your question. Clearly Kevin *does* act when the Law of Death has been broken. But perhaps the confusion is one of direction (which I tried to explain earlier in the GI); of moving from death toward life instead from life toward death. It might help if you think of Covenants final place within the Arch of Time as a form of remaining alive: after all, (in an admittedly specialized sense) nothing is more alive than Time, since without Time there is no life. The breaking of the Law of Life permits Covenant to act like a living being even though hes just been killed. Or not. I have the impression that all of my answers on this subject cause more confusion than they relieve. (05/29/2005) |
Edward Young: I have enjoyed and been inspired by your novels for many years. I read many of the previous questions concerning the understandable changes in your style in the intervening years between the TC works, but two changes stand out to me.
Suddenly characters from the "real" world are using profanity. Your response to a few previous questions stated that you are now focused more on characters interacting and talking than on their observations; is this part of that shift in focus? Characters like Sheriff Lytton(sic?)had their moments to speak in the past, but neither he nor anyone else used profanity heavier than "Damn!" I'm no moral prude, but the change seems blatant; maybe it's to give the real world characters contrasting realism to the Land's denizens. The other shift is the realism of the Land itself. In the first two sets, Linden and Covenant regularly discussed the dream-vs-reality conflict, but Linden now seems to see the Land as obvious reality. This might just be a mistaken impression on my part however, and I should give some consideration to this questions length and close.
|
a) The issue of profanity keeps coming up, sometimes with considerably more vehemence. Let me say three things. 1) Im probably the wrong person to discuss this with, not because Im the author, but because I dont believe that such a thing as a bad word exists. Certainly I understand the difference between sacred and profane. And in a general way I grasp that a distinction can be made between obscenity and, well, not-obscenity. But to me theyre all just words, all equally valuable--or valueless--depending on whether or not they express what they are intended to express. 2) It is possible that Ive been affected more than I realize by writing mystery novels. In those novels, profanity and obscenity play a prominent (and realistic) role in the dialogue of many of the characters. Perhaps Ive become more accustomed to writing such dialogue? 3) It really isnt germane to compare whatever dialogue Barton Lytton has in the first and second trilogies with his dialogue in The Runes of the Earth. He isnt a real character in the first six books: hes a stock figure dragged on stage to perform a specific function and then summarily abandoned. (The same can be said of Megan Roman.) But, in keeping with my growing commitment to what I call the dignity of my characters, I wanted Lytton to be more real in Runes, and so I had to pay more attention to who he is, how he thinks, what he cares about, why he does what he does--and how he expresses himself. His dialogue in Runes seems to me to be a natural manifestation of his nature. And I would say the same about Roger Covenant. b) The Is-the-Land-real? issue is a vanishing theme for every character who experiences it. Between the first three books and the second, Covenant ceases to care about the question: he has already made his personal commitment to the Land, and is no longer concerned about whether or not the Land can be *proven* to exist anywhere outside his own head. And the same thing happens to Linden between the second three books and the last four: the issue no longer matters to her. The things that are at stake for her far transcend such questions. And Im confident that any parent who wants to save a threatened child would feel the same way. (05/29/2005) |
Phil Murphy: Steve - I was completely taken off guard by seeing the Covenant Series brought back to life. I was overjoyed, and was not disappointed when I finished the last page.
My question is regarding the Illearth Stone. I worked for a company dealing with Hazardous Waste back in the eighties when I was reading the Illearth Stone. It really intensified the work I did as I felt like the areas I was in was similar - vis a vis "the land was desecrated" and lain to waste. Did you consider the Illearth a Metephor for any one polluted area of our earth?
|
There is absolutely nothing wrong with your interpretation. It simply wasnt what I had in mind when I wrote the first Covenant trilogy. On the other hand, hazardous waste and toxic dumping were very much what I had in mind when I visualized the Sunbane for the second trilogy. (05/29/2005) |
Hod: Steve
Many thanks for a superb book.
One question...Given the number of laws that have now been broken, and the failure of the creator to "turn up" at the start of the latest journey...Is the creator walking in the land?
I look forward to the next installment.
J
|
It wont surprise you to hear that this falls under the heading of RAFO. <grin> But we all have to ask ourselves: how many broken Laws does it take to make the entire system collapse? (05/29/2005) |
Charles Adams: I have read throughout your responses here that Vain's deformation at the one tree was absolutely necessary to the completion of his purpose.
I have read the series of books repeatedly (THANK YOU so much for the many hours of enjoyment you have provided), but I have never grasped or understood WHY the deformation at the one tree was essential.
Can you elaborate on this point? Thanks!
|
Well, putting it as crudely as possible: the Staff has to be made out of wood, and Vain isnt. Neither is Findail. They have to get wood from SOMEwhere. Think of it as a kind of seed crystal (I hope Im using this term correctly). You have a vial of liquid that obviously isnt doing anything; you toss in a seed crystal; and instantly the liquid is transformed into something else. Vains deformation at the One Tree is a necessary catalyst without which the eventual transformation simply could not occur. (05/29/2005) |
Stephen Elmore: Having spent a great deal of time reading, and yes re-reading the Covenant books, I am acutely aware of the way that you draw your words from a wide spectrum of sources; I have always been particularly interested in the sanskrit names of the three Ravers; moksha, turiya, and samadhi. In Hindu culture these represent elevated, or transcendent states of consciousness, so I was interested in knowing if you chose these names with that sub-text in mind. If so, what does this say about the Ravers?
|
Ive answered this before; but I shouldnt complain. Im the worlds worst when it comes to using filters, text searches, etc.. And the GI is now *very* long. Naturally the process has become increasing cyclical. My point was that the Ravers name themselves for states of enlightenment because evil typically thinks of itself as better, purer, higher, more important, or more necessary than the more ordinary beings around it. For every Iago in literature (or in life), who revels in evil for its own sake, there are thousands of Richard M. Nixons: men and women who believe that neither law nor morality applies to them because they transcend the strictures which should (indeed, must) control lesser mortals. For profound narcissists like RMN and GWB, as for Herem, Sheol, and Jehannum, the highest possible moral good is defined as What I Want. (05/29/2005) |
Drew: Mr Donaldson,
In past questions here in the GI, you've stressed a work ethic that means writing every day. My question is, does your productivity fluctuate much day to day (or week to week), assuming you have no time-consuming obligations, or is it relatively steady?
thanks!
Drew
|
Like every other human being Ive ever met, I experience variations of all kinds. For convenience lets call them bio-rhythms. Some days Im just plain *smarter* than other days. Some days Im more facile (which isnt the same thing is being smarter). Naturally my productivity and my effectiveness both vary. Speaking very broadly, however, I do tend to speed up as I get deeper and deeper into a particular book. If I were keeping score (which I do not), I could probably demonstrate that the second half of each book gets written in less time than the first half. (05/29/2005) |
Jeff Hamilton: I just started Runes of the Earth and it feels like visiting a long lost friend. Thank you!
My question is this: You hear alot about symbolism, irony, etc. from literary scholars. Personally I don't believe that most of it was planned in the story. It just develops with the art of good storytelling. There appeared to me to be a number of both subtle and not so subtle Biblical references regarding sin and redemption. Many closely paralleling the Christian plan of salvation. How much of this was actually planned? And does any of this refelect your own beliefs?
|
Nothing in my stories reflects my personal beliefs--except for my belief in the integrity of storytelling, and the importance I assign to my best understanding of my characters. However, I put an enormous amount of thought into my stories. And I *was* trained as a literary scholar. Very little in the way of "symbolism" and "irony" in my stories occurs by accident. And with my intensive fundamentalist Christian upbringing, Biblical references of all kinds can hardly be avoided. But don't be misled: if the stories can't stand on their own, entirely independent of my--to pick a random example--personal religious beliefs, then they can't stand at all; and I've failed at what I believe in most. (06/01/2005) |
Stephen Hurwitz: Congratulations on the Runes of the Earth! I look forward to the next volume. My question is one I almost hesitate to ask, but I would like to know the answer. Is there any chance, however slim, that poor book sales would cause you to not finish all four volumes of the Last Chronicles, or do you have a contract with your publisher, that they will be published, no matter what? I think if fantasy writers wanted to get rich, most of them would need a second job. They have to love it.
|
You're right, most of us really have to love it. And I do. There is no chance, none at all, that "poor sales"--or anything non-lethal--would prevent me from finishing "The Last Chronicles." I have a profound (not to mention obsessive) need to finish stories once I start them. There is a remote--but real--possibility that poor sales might cause my US publisher to dump me. (This issue doesn't arise in the UK, where sales have been excellent.) On the one hand, my US editors are loyal and supportive. On the other, Putnams is well known for dumping authors when sales are unsatisfactory--or even when sales threaten to be unsatisfactory. However, even in the unlikely event that Putnams dumps me, all would not be lost. Books would still be available from the UK. And another US publisher might be willing to pick up the project. In any case, there's no immediate danger. Hardcover sales for "Runes" were good (not great; but definitely good). (06/01/2005) |
Drew: Just for starters, you, Stephen R. Donaldson, are one of the best writers of all time. Your works have influenced me in more ways than I can express. One of the ways is actually what my questions are about. In the second book of the Gap Cycle on page 61, your "ancillary documentation" started with the conflict of Chaos and Order. I was curious where you learned of this or if it is something specific to you. If it isn't just yours then could you state where you took it from or modified it from because I want to know more, and if it is yours, I would be facinated at how you came across such a profoundly universal human trait. Thanks in advanced. From one of your most avid readers, Drew.
|
The "chaos vs order" theme which pervades the GAP sequence is certainly not original with me. (Only the specific details of how that theme is deployed are mine.) Indeed, the theme is so deeply embedded in Western thought that it might be impossible to determine who first put it into words. But speaking solely of my own intellectual development, I like to credit William Blake, who wrote, "Reason is the circumference of energy." This struck me when I first read it, and still strikes me today, as an ideal expression of the paradox which makes art, beauty, and even humanity possible. If energy (chaos) is not controlled by reason (order), it remains formless and destructive. If reason is not constantly challenged and stretched by energy, it remains rigid and destructive. (06/01/2005) |
Paul Hanrahan: Hello sir
I am currently working on my dissertation for my English degree and am looking at The Covenant Chronicles. I am Covering The Political And Social in Contemporary Fantasy Novels. It is clear that a lot of the issues covered in the chronicles have something to say on individual responsibility and the importance of community. Could you tell me do you believe that there is a political element to the Chronicles particularly the second chronicles. For example enviromental issues. Looking forward to finishing my degree so an sit and read your new book for pleasure.
Best regards
Paul Hanrahan
|
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that my novels "have something to say." For one thing, as I keep repeating, I'm a storyteller, not a polemicist. I don't write to communicate messages: I write to share characters and emotions, situations and questions. And for another, the--for lack of a better term--"content" (political or otherwise) of any story is a synergistic creation: writer and reader bring it into being together. And since, like the writer, every reader is a unique individual, each reading experience--each synergistic creation--has its own unique "content". For example, "The Second Chronicles". For you, and possibly for me, it may be an object lesson about toxic dumping. But for another reader, it may be pure escapism. For yet another, it may be a welcome relief from the rather claustrophobic confines of the Land. For still another, it may be a troubling exercise in implausibly elaborate machination--a "conspiracy theory" book, in a manner of speaking. And for still another, it may be a patently dishonest assertion that any human being can ever transcend the abyss. On a conscious level, I'm a totally apolitical storyteller (although I admit that I have trouble turning off my environmental instincts). But that doesn't mean my stories lack political "content". In fact, my stories lack ALL "content"--until the reader makes his/her contribution to the creation. (06/04/2005) |
Robert J. Pitkanen: My question is simple, where my reasons are not. My question is this, how many books will make up the "Last Chronicles"? I've read most of your books twice, and love the depth of internal conflict. How do you develope such realistic characters? (BTW I've started reading "The Ruines of the Earth" and its great.
|
There will be four books in "The Last Chronicles." The titles are hidden away in this interview somewhere. If I could explain how I do what I do (how, for example, the human imagination works; or how my particular ethos intersects with and shapes--or is shaped by--my imagination), I would become far more famous for that insight than I ever will be for my books. <rueful smile> All I can tell you is this: 1) my tastes in literature were shaped by greatness (from Shakespeare and Donne to James and Conrad); 2) the--I don't have a better word for it--"content" of my imagination was shaped by my childhood in India; and 3) and I've spent most of my life (certainly my adult life) making an intensive study of personal integrity. (06/05/2005) |
Mary Matthews: Having thoroughly enjoyed The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant I am now getting stuck into the second triligy - all I want to do is read! Can you please tell me if there are plans to publish the final four in The Last Chronicles of
Thomas Covenant as a one-volume edition? Also please do you have any release dates for the paperback version of the last four books?
From here in the UK - my best wishes to everyone, particularly to Mr Donaldson. I also write, but I fear I will never be as good an author. I can only aspire to be ALMOST as good!
Many thanks. Mary
|
No publisher that I know of plans that far in advance. Decisions about things like omnibus editions are made after--sometimes long after--all of the original books are published. And since what I call Covenant 8, 9, and 10 haven't even been written yet (although I'm making good progress on 8), no sane publisher would announce "release dates" for the paperbacks; or for any versions. Good luck with your own writing! I hope you fare well. (06/11/2005) |
Michael Weinhardt: Hi Stephen,
I'm just wondering if you *will* ever appear as an expert on Fantasy Bedtime Hour?
I *definitely* love your work, but I also love the show and, somehow, the show won't seem complete until you are on it! Plus, I'm sure Julie, Heatherly and Cameraman Jenn would love to see you there...
Cheers
|
Having had the pleasure of meeting Julie and Cameraman Jenn (Heatherly was apparently "asleep") during a book tour last fall, I find that I've now been invited to appear as the "final expert" on Fantasy Bedtime Hour. I can't honestly say that I feel equal to the challenge <grin>, but I don't see how I can refuse. And for those readers of the GI who are *still* wondering who should play Thomas Covenant in the hypothetical film version of "Lord Foul's Bane": can anyone compare with Gamecat on FBH? (06/11/2005) |
Stephen: IVB at Kev's Watch is sharing with us "As the World Burns - A Kevin's Watch SOAP".
It is ECSTATICALLY FUNNY!
If you want to burst your sides laughing check it out! (Runes Forum, Sticky)
But be warned! Your characters are HILARIOUSLY ABUSED! (And the action starts at the end of Runes too... )
And Thanks for the news about book 2!!! We had a celebration!
Best.
Stephen.
|
I'm passing this along for people who might enjoy it. I haven't had time to check it out myself--although typically I enjoy such things (witness my fondness for Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour). (06/15/2005) |
Doc: Mr. Donaldson,
In LFB Foamfollower stated that a Giantship was always at sea seaching for a route home. What happened to the ship that was at sea during The Illearth War?
|
This is a more complex question than it probably ought to be. But consider the fact that in LFB the Lords promised Foamfollower Gildenlode keels and rudders (if memory serves) for the Giantships. From this one might well infer that when the current "searching" Giantship returned to The Grieve it stayed there--and no new ships were sent out--because the Giants were hard at work retrofitting all of their ships. Plus, of course, the sea is a perilous place. Any number of Giantships might simply have never returned. A more probing question, I think, is: why did Lord Hyrim et al find no Giantships at all when they reached The Grieve in TIW? "The Last Chronicles" may conceivably suggest an answer. Or not. Authors have been known to be very clever. They've also been known to be badly confused. (06/15/2005) |
Mike: Mr. Donaldson,
I have been enjoying the Thomas Covenant series since it began, and am enjoying _The Runes of the Earth_ right now! For what it's worth, I was going to KSU when you donated your original manuscripts, etc., to the library, and was actually at the reception they had for you -- though I was only a lowly undergrad at the time!
Anyhow, I've been looking around to try and find a statement I *think* you made long ago, about the potential for exploring various concepts of redemption through the various Thomas Covenant series. If I remember correctly, the themes were: redemption through victory,
redemption through self-sacrifice,
redemption though the sacrifice of others.
I'm curious if a) I'm rememberig correctly and you recall saying something like that and b) if so, if you are following that theme through the 3rd Chronicles series, since the first two series seem to fit within that mold.
Thanks for your time!
|
This makes me squirm because, well, you *almost* got it right (which means that your memory is considerably better than mine); but I don't know how to correct any misapprehension without committing a spoiler. So let me try it this way: "victory" works; "self-sacrifice" is close enough (I usually refer to "surrender," but lo those many years ago I could easily have said "self-sacrifice"); but "sacrifice of others" is way off. Admittedly, Covenant is a pretty expensive guy to be around through much of the first trilogy. But by the end of the second he has become adamant about trying not to sacrifice others. And whatever inclination Linden may have had to let other people take the fall was--in a manner of speaking--cleaned out of her during the second trilogy. It's difficult to imagine either of these people considering "redemption through the sacrifice of others" to be anything except an oxymoron. I am (very) consistently following through on my original model for the whole "Covenant" saga. But in some respects your memory has played you false. (06/15/2005) |
Paul Haynes: Does Berek's victory on Mount Thunder have any relation to the scene in the leprosarium in Lord Fouls Bane where Covenant vomits at the sight,stench,repulsion of the old leper and decides he wants to live?Also do you ever read any message boards concerning your writings?
|
Meaning is where you find it. Speaking purely for myself, I did not intend anything more than a thematic connection between Berek's victory on Mount Thunder and Covenant's reaction to his first encounter with another leper. But if you see more--well, enjoy it. I stay away from message boards concerning my writing. As I've said before, I'm not the intended audience, and for that reason (among others) the experience isn't good for me. (06/15/2005) |
Michael Waltrip: Hello Steve,
Good news, I think. I used the search (keys: "Fatal" & "Reverent"), and what I wanted to ask came right up.
One question, "Runes" has seems quite a different "ending" style. The build up, i.e. cliff-hanger, took me by surprise. I wanted to immediately go on to the next book. I realize the "Quest for the Staff", is one common thread for the 3 chronicles. Any comment on the intention for the "Runes" ending, is what I'm wondering about.
I've read several places that "four" books is known already, for the 3rd Chronicles. Is that in stone?
Last, will I "we" get an email, if/when our question appears here (in this forum)?
"Runes" was vivid and rich to read. I was stunned, first time I read "Wounded Land", but this [has] a whole different feel. You could almost hear the ocean waves, when ever Esmer approached.
Didn't Mistweave (Giant of the Search) go with Cail Haruchi, when Cail left Revelstone to seek the Meerwives? The intent, if I recall, was to journey together, but Mistweave was going to the Giantship in Coerci.
Thank you!
Michael
|
You've asked a number of questions, here and elsewhere. I'm sorry I'm so slow getting to them. I didn't consciously set out to create cliff-hanger endings for "The Runes of the Earth," or for any of subsequent installments. Rather the story itself seemed to dictate that structural device. (I refer you to "Mordant's Need," which is also organized in four parts, three cliff-hangers and a resolution.) Frankly, the only way that I could have extended "Runes" past the point where I ended it would have been by including all of "Fatal Revenant"--which would then have required me to include all of "Shall Pass Utterly"--which would then have demanded the inclusion of all of "The Last Dark." And that was not a practical possibility on many levels. And yes, four volumes is definitely "in stone." The way my imagination works doesn't allow for variations which would change either the shape or the structural units of the story. I'm sorry: neither my webmaster nor I can afford the time to send out e-mail "notifications" when questions are answered in this interview. Considering the lag (!) between question and answer, I can certainly understand *why* you would like to be notified. But then my answers would be delayed even further. Yes, Mistweave left Revelstone with Cail. But Mistweave had a necessary purpose for going to Seareach; and in any case Cail would almost certainly have refused company on his quest for the merewives. (06/15/2005) |
John Clem: TCs lack of understanding of the rings power made his desperate and sincere attempt to save Elena against Kevins assault futile. TCs earlier decision to remain an observer and to not get involved prevented any motivation to determine the trigger mechanism of the ring so when he finally wanted to use it to save her nothing happened. The loss of Elena rendered him with such extreme despair and guilt he was initially unable to recognize his return to own world (i.e. mistaken his lawyers voice for Elena). Was it your intention to give readers the impression TC's rescue of the little girl who was bitten by a snake, to be a psychological rescue of Elena ? In his mind, did he initially think it was a little Elena who was crying for help ?
I have greatly enjoyed reading your remarkable work and look forward to your future books.
John
|
I'm sure you could argue that subconsciously Covenant was still trying to "rescue" Elena--or to expiate for his failure to save his daughter. But on a conscious level he was responding to an immediate--and very real--crisis. Indeed, *I* could argue that consciously he had learned from Elena's example and was refusing to repeat her mistake. Putting it another way: he was now humble enough to understand that he was neither wise enough nor grandiose enough to "save the world." Trying to save an endangered child who happened to be standing right in front of him, on the other hand: that *did* lie within his abilities. (Incidentally, I consider it self-evident that Lord Mhoram would have made exactly the same decision in Covenant's position.) (06/15/2005) |
David Wiles: Steve; I hope this finds all is well. I was wondering if you are still training in martial arts.
In your line of work it probably helps having an outlet for stess and pressures associated with keeping the story moving as well as remaining creative. It does'nt hurt on the physical health either. Thanks David Wiles
|
Yes, I'm still a dedicated student of the martial arts. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, there is wisdom hidden deep within the martial arts that I find invaluable. And I know that such exercise is a good pressure-valve; but I'm less conscious of that benefit than I am of other, more (for lack of a better term) spiritual benefits. (06/15/2005) |
Steven Koper: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I have enjoyed the Chronicals Of Thomas Covenant a great deal over the last 20 years. (I was 14 when I read the chronicals the first time, I am now 35). I was very excited to see the Last Chronicals Of Thomas Covenant and I loved The Runes of the Earth. That said, I would like to ask if you have any more ideas about Penance and Scriven? I read in an earlier question that you thought there might be more story to tell.
I was also wondering about the convention in Madison, Wisconsin. Your website has you listed as appearing but I can't find you listed as the guest of honor (as it should be) on the website of the convention. I am located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and was looking forward to meeting you and a possible book signing opportunity. I know (hope?) you are busy on the next book and would like to thank you for your time.
Yours Truly,
Steven Koper
|
I will not be the Guest of Honor at the World Fantasy Convention in Madison for the simple and sufficient reason that the organizers didn't ask me. No, wait a minute, that's not it. Or it *is*, but it's not *why* they didn't ask me. The real reason is that I've already had my turn. I was the WFC GoH way back in Tucson 20 years ago. More about Scriven and the "Penance" world? I'm sorry, you'll have to ask me that question after I finish "The Last Chronicles." I have a one-track mind, and I don't want to risk derailment by even pretending to think about other stories. (06/15/2005) |
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.
Sergio D. Caplan: Mr. Donaldson,
Am curious, are there questions asked of you that you would have to say, "I can't say I thought of that at the time, so I'm not sure there is an answer"?
Am just saying it because, let's face it, these are stories (wonderfully written and emotionally capturing stories mind you) and being just stories...Mistakes can be made, things you didn't think of LFB might have become an issue in WGW, and you just had to say, "to heck with it, will just ahve to write around it!" Things of that nature.
But this leads me to a big "writing" question, how do you do it? How do you keep track of all that you have written (names, characteristics, bio, past history and interaction, etc.)?
I mean surely at some point while writing one episode where char A speaks with char B you must have to sit there and go, now wait, are they aware of each others histories already? Did I cover that? Is one taller, did I write that already? etc. etc. etc.
whew....thanks
|
Yes, it's true: I'm human. Ergo there are always things that I've missed, ranging from thematic implications (apt or otherwise) to details of internal consistency. And this forum has brought a number of them to my attention (which I find embarrassing, but almost always valuable). So yes, there are occasionally "mistakes" that I simply have to "write around"--or to bury in bullshit as cleverly as I can <grin>. In some happy cases, however, having my mistakes pointed out to me (or discovering them myself) opens doors for the material that remains to be written. As to how I achieve as much internal consistency as I do: I've already discussed that at some length in this interview. I'll just reiterate here that I do a great deal of research on an almost daily basis, primarily into the "past" of the "Chronicles," but also into the "future" of what I haven't written yet. (06/16/2005) |
Richard Medlin: When I was half way through "Runes of the Earth" I wrote you concerning the Haruchai. Specifically how they have befuddled me since the first Chroncles. They live by extremes, seeing things as black and white, right and wrong with no middle ground. Now it seems the "Masters" have become the new "Clave." Only instead of robbing the people of the Land of their lives, they rob them of their reason for living. Didn't Berek make a deal with the earth when the fire lions were called that the people of the land would serve the earth and wasn't "earthpower" the gift of the land to the people to empower them to keep that promise?
I did learn one thing about the Haruchai from "Runes" that i hadn't realized before. For some reason the statement from Foamfollower came to mind when he said "does it surprise you then that I have been thinking about hope?" I guess what gives a person the ability to hope also gives them the ability to dispair. One cannot exist without the other since they spring from the same source; our passions. The Haruchai have been trying to subdue their passions so that they will not fall prey to dispair but at the same time they cut themselves off from hope. They have manipulated the land so that the people cannot perform great acts of dispair and thus harm the land but also the people of the land have no way to act on their hopes to save the land from its peril. To me this makes the Haruchai like some kind of disfunctional Taoist. They have denied their inner "yang" and in so doing, cut themselves off from their inner "yin."
In the Taoist philosophy, the yin and yang comprise the meaning of life, the coexistence of good/light and evil/darkness and that in all good, there is some evil and in all evil there is some good. Is this the way you intended the Haruchai to be in the story or is there some deeper meaning or agenda attached to them that I'm just not getting?
PS: If Haruchai owned pickup trucks, their bumper stickers would read "You can have my pride when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."
Thank you,
Richard Medlin
Pataskala Ohio
|
Your interpretation seems apt to me. I didn't have anything specifically "Taoist" in mind when I first created the Haruchai/Bloodguard. Nor have I thought in those terms since then. Rather I've been thinking about the inherent destructiveness of moral absolutes; and in particular about the dangers of "extremism" in the face of dilemmas which appear to demand extreme solutions. (E.g. exactly what *does* a person who abhors killing do when someone or something dearly loved is about to be killed?) But such themes consort well with the ideas you've expressed. One practical point, however: Berek swore his particular service to the Earth and Earthpower long before the Haruchai came along; the Haruchai never swore *his* vow, they swore their own; and they have good reason to distrust the ramifications of Berek's oath as it was handed down through the old Council of Lords. (06/16/2005) |
LaGinna Vincent: When will the second book of the Last Chronicles, "Fatal Revenant" be available to the public?
|
Such questions are posted often in the GI, and have been answered several times. In the absence of a FAQ, I'll simply say that news about "Fatal Revenant" will be posted as soon as it becomes available in the "news" section of the site. However, I'm unwilling to provide vague "status reports." That seems too much like teasing. So I'll only post news when I have something concrete to report. (06/16/2005) |
wrathex: Mr Donaldson, thank you for the Covenant series,
it is indeed a literary treasure. I would like to
know why Covenant had to rape ? His character as
a leper already puts all the hardcore emotions
needed at his disposal. The rape scene has
desturbed me continually on a very personal level.
I don't want to feel sorry for a rapist, I do not
want to forgive a rapist and I do not want him
to be loved. Apart from murder, I think rape is the most selfish and destructive act against another human. No amount of 'alanthia'or
'hurtloam' can ever heal one who has been raped.
Nevertheless, your insight into human emotions are
clearly visible in your writing, and I suspect that your experiences in India touched you deeply.
When I turn the last page of Thomas Covenant one
day, I will mourn, for the beauty and possibilities of love therein has impressed me
and I hope that I will find the strength to
forgive those who defile. *I doubt it though.
|
<sigh> This keeps coming up. And God knows I can understand why. But I always want to ask: how have I failed to demonstrate a) the thematic revelance (even the thematic necessity) of Covenant's crime? and b) the enduring consequences of such violence? You say, "His character as a leper already puts all the hardcore emotions needed at his disposal." I disagree. In my view, "his character as a leper" casts him in the role of "victim"--and that is decidedly *not* where I want him. I want the reader to see that he is in truth a potential Despiser; or that he has already assumed the role of the Despiser. Otherwise there's no story. A bit of narrative theory. (All such theories have severe limitations, but they also offer useful insights.) There are really only three roles that a character can play in a story: Victim, Victimizer, and Rescuer. And what makes the difference between what I think of as Real Stories and mere plot spinning is this: in a Real Story, characters change roles because of what happens to them. So Covenant starts out as a pure Victim. But I happen to think that being a Victim (or even thinking of oneself as a Victim) naturally inclines a person to become a Victimizer. Being cast in the role of Victim is morally damaging; and that damage tends to breed a desire to impose Victim-hood on someone else. Hence the rape of Lena. To my way of thinking, however, the really interesting question is not how a Victim becomes a Victimizer, but rather how either a Victim or a Victimizer becomes a Rescuer. How does a human being find the resources to step away from that kind of damage (Victim or Victimizer) in order to become the opponent of damage? This theme manifests itself in one form or another in virtually everything I write. (Sidebar: of course, there are plenty of Real Stories out there that deal with how Rescuers become Victims or Victimizers. But that doesn't seem to be my natural theme.) Another way to look at this whole question is to think of "rape" as a metaphor for all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical. And in those terms, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of "rape." Speaking purely for myself, I've been on the receiving end of metaphorical "rapes" many times. Sometimes I've engaged in such actions myself, with or without provocation. Sometimes I've responded to the "rape" by holding myself to a higher standard of conduct--but I've done so entirely without forgiving the "rapist." And sometimes, just sometimes, I've both held myself to a higher standard of conduct *and* learned how to forgive my "rapist." (Which is, of course, the only road that leads to the place where I might be able to forgive myself.) Considering my own actions, I can only hope that the people I've "raped" (deliberately or inadvertently) will find it in their hearts to forgive *me*. (06/16/2005) |
David Sweet: Mr. Donaldson,
I am so happy to see you return to Thomas Covenant. I have enjoyed your works over the years. I had the pleasure of meeting you during the "Gap" books which were outstanding! Like you Mr. Donaldson, I am like dirt, and I was wondering if this old bit of dirt could ask you for a signed bookplate for my newest collection of your work. I am not able to attend any of the upcoming signings you have planned. I understand if you are not able to grant this reguest, as I am sure you must be asked this a lot. Keep up the great work. I can't wait for book two!!
Sincerely,
David Sweet
|
Procedures for obtaining autographs are explained elsewhere on this site. (06/16/2005) |
Steve Brown: Not really a question, just an answer to your question RAFO means read and find out <grin>. But since I'm here...Your answer to my question concerning how Foul/Ravers were able to posses someone across the gulf's between worlds?
So Foul had access to Joan, and Roger?
|
In some form, yes--if only symbolically or metaphorically; or perhaps by "sympathetic magic". After all, the people of the Land can summon individuals out of the "real world"? So why couldn't a power like Lord Foul affect the thinking of obviously vulnerable individuals like Joan and Roger? (06/16/2005) |
a watcher: The sincerest form of flattery is... Folks at the watch are debating where something like this book (which appears to be extensively derivitive of TCTC) falls in terms of intellectual property rights.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1586607251/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0923583-7251146?
http://www.michaelwarden.com/Books/GideonsDawn.aspx
|
I don't want to comment on Michael Warden's work. But the subject of "intellectual property rights" holds some interest. As I see it, it's impossible to write without drawing on "sources"--things read, studied, seen, experienced, felt, etc. And how those sources are used ranges along a continuum from, for lack of a better term, "creative transformation" (Tolkien is a good example: anyone who wishes to make the effort can identify any number of his sources; but he has "re-created" those sources, "made them his own," so uniquely and well that no one can fault his artistic integrity) to literal plagiarism, direct quotation from someone else's work as if it were one's own (otherwise known as stealing). Everything else falls somewhere between those two extremes. And how a given "source" (presumably a living, copyrighted author) responds to being used to one degree or another is as much a matter of personality as of ethics. Speaking purely for myself: if a case of literal plagiarism came to my attention, I would certainly take offense; and I might well take legal action. But anything short of literal plagiarism seems to me, well, a tempest in a teapot. The person who, let's call it, "leans heavily" on my work will be damaged more than I ever will (as soon as anyone notices what's happened); and I see no need to respond with anything more than a snort of derision. But other writers feel otherwise. I've seen "intellectual property" lawsuits filed--and won--on the most improbable grounds. IMNSHO, writers who do that are taking their own egos way too seriously. Sidebar: it was T. S. Eliot, I believe, who wrote, "Bad writers borrow. Good writers steal." Clearly he was referring to theft in a different sense than I did above. He meant that a good writer takes his/her sources and transforms them into something entirely his/her own. A bad writer, on the other hand, commits something short of literal plagiarism. He/she simply and obviously fails to transform--or even digest--his/her sources. Then, mercifully, that writer lapses into oblivion. (06/22/2005) |
Pet Peeve: Earlier in this amazing gradual interview, you said that you consider the old lore to now be irrelevant.
The lore was discovered by Berek after he made the staff, and expanded on by the old lords through Kevin as the wards were codified. But is the lore all aspects of the constraints put on the earth by the Staff of Law? If that was the case, wouldn't the new lords have had no power the moment the original staff was broken? They wouldn't have had any lore knowledge to pervert into the practices of the clave.
If it's NOT an aspect of the staff, then the lore is still valid. Maybe the Mahdoubt is the seventh ward with a sex change.
|
Ah, where to start. The lore of the Old Lords was not contained in, nor did it require, the Staff. Berek's *ability* to make the Staff was one expression of that lore. But the Staff itself was/is merely an instrument for wielding Earthpower in the service of Law. Both Law and Earthpower existed long before Berek became aware of them. The Old Lords simply studied what they could, taught what they knew, and did their best to understand. Think of their lore as a body of knowledge (but only *a* body of knowledge, not all possible knowledge) about how the world works, and about how to benefit from how the world works. As the story demonstrates, the Staff is not necessary to the validity of the lore, and the lore is not necessary to the existence or power of the Staff. Sure, the lore of the Old Lords is still valid (taking into account that some crucial Laws have been broken). But who's going to rediscover it? And how? It isn't a book you can suddenly find misfiled in the library and, ah ha! there it all is. It has to be built; learned in stages. And it requires a starting point, which Berek had, but which no one else since the corruption of the Council has had. (06/22/2005) |
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.
Daniel Bateson: Hello Mr Donaldson,
I have recently started on "the Runes of the Earth" and at approximately half way though I'm beginning to see how dissapointed I'll be at having to wait a few years for part 2 to arrive. However, I have expienced this "dilemma" with your books for years now so I guess I'll manage :)
Having read the first and second Thomas Covenant series and then finishing The Gap series (All quite a few years ago now) This third series of Thomas Covenant has hilighted a large difference between the writing styles of Covenant and The Gap, and even Mirror of Her Dreams, I hadn't paid much attention to up until now.
While Thomas Covenant largely dealt with the main character's point of view and their obsevations and interactions within the story, The Gap series primarily dealt with each characters point of view seperately as we shared each of their lives, pains and trials as the story was built. Given the main plot of each series this difference appears necessary and is, to me, a fundamental ingredient in the stories themselves.
What are your views on this observation, and the importance, if any, it appears to have on each of the stories individually?
How do you find that this difference in perspective affected the way you wrote or constructed each of the series?
Thank-you and Kind Regards.
|
I discussed this at some length (much) earlier in the GI. But briefly: My use of POV is always dictated--nay, positively required--but the nature of the story I'm trying to tell. The stories you mention--and all of my short stories--and all of my mystery novels--simply could not have been told in any other way (at least by me). The perspective is inherent to the nature, the content, and the structure of the story. How does this affect me? Well, I suffer from an a-rational dislike of first person narration; so I have to master certain aspects of myself in order to write stories which require such narration. (And don't even get me *started* on present tense narration. <grin> Or on third person omniscient narration.) And I find the use of multiple POV characters (most obviously in the GAP books) extremely arduous. From my perspective as the storyteller, multiple POVs require me to completely re-invent the world every time I change "heads". For me (I can't speak for other writers), this is exhausting in the extreme--which explains in part why I got so little writing done in the first few years after I finished the GAP books. (06/26/2005) |
Jimmy Suzuki: Mr Donaldson.
Thank you and your agency for the quick submission of the bookplates. They rock!
Probably you didn't have the time to answer two question that puzzled you from the GI, so these are the answers. Hope it helps.
1)Mr. Poe writes about the difference between chess and checkers in the introductory paragraphs of The Murders in the Rue Morgue, a story that according to my Literature class from last semester was the first sleuth mystery.
2)RAFO, according to the UrbanDictionary.com is an acronym for read and find out.
And I've got a question of my own :). I love Penance, and I even butchered it to present it in Forensics tournamentsfitting novellas into a 10-minute time-frame ain't easy matter. I was wondering about the main character's name. Why you don't reveal its actual name? Is it irrelevant? Does it follow a theme or underlying principle in the story? Do you actually know it? If so, can you reveal it to us? And what about Aposter? did you choose it just because of the music? or did you consciously think of Apostle and/or Apostate? or is there something else I didn't think of?
Thank you in advance. I hope to see Fatal Revenant in my hot little hands soon. Take care, Steve.
|
Thank you! Other readers have given me the meaning of RAFO, but the Poe citation on checkers and chess eluded me until you came along. Ah, "Penance." I didn't reveal Scriven's original or "actual" name because the story doesn't require that information: the story only requires that the character has a substantial past--which I can adequately convey through hints rather than with elaborate and digressive exposition. (As I keep saying, I'm an "efficient" writer: I only create what the story I'm writing absolutely requires. So no, I don't actually know Scriven's previous name(s).) All of the names I chose primarily because their music spoke to me. But I also chose "Scriven" because it resembles "shriven" and implies something written down (a story told). As you suggest, I chose Aposter because it might refer to both Apostle and Apostate. (With my religious background, such references are unavoidable.) And I chose Straylish because it includes "stray" (suggesting that Straylish has taken Mother Church far from its more benevolent roots). (06/26/2005) |
Anonymous: Maybe you have answered this somewhere before, but I haven't seen it. I've wondered for a long time if your father was acquainted with Dr. Paul Brand. They were both orthopedic surgeons and missionaries working with lepers in India. Dr. Brand and Philip Yancey wrote several books together about Brand's experiences (including at the leprosarium [sp?] in Louisiana) and drawing analogies from the human body for faith and so forth.
Thanks for your books. I just finished Runes and thought it was excellent. I really liked Mahrtiir's line to the Cords about giving our lives new meaning. The beauty of that really touched me.
|
If my father knew Dr Brand, he never mentioned it to me. But he obviously knew Dr Brand's work. He cited Dr Brand when he wrote a paper for me on the subject of leprosy and its emotional consequences. (06/26/2005) |
Gene Marsh: Mr. Donaldson,
I know in past responses you have stated you have given up on playing "cast the movie". However, I was absolutely STRICKEN this evening with the image of Gary Oldman playing Thomas Covenant. I'm not sure I'll ever get this face-to-character match out of my head.
Gene Marsh
|
Well, he could do it--because he can do just about anything. So can Johnny Depp. But Oldman fits better because he's, well, older. (06/26/2005) |
Ken: Thank you for doing this gradual interview. It is nothing short of amazing that you take time to let us look behind the curtain. Finding out that you were returning to the Land was like hearing I was going to be with old friends I hadn't seen in a long time. I finished Runes in a matter of days, and look forward to Fatal Revenant. I dont mind the wait, considering the quality of the product.
My question relates to a comment you made (11/27/04) about Lord Foul and his ability to choose. You said Foul is free to choose how he responds to being trapped in the world. In LFB, Lord Tamarantha tells the story of creation and describes Despite and Creation as Necessary Opposites, and Lord Foul as the avatar of Despite. How is it, then, that Lord Foul has a choice? Are despite and evil not the same thing, or at least is not despite a mechanism of evil? I took the story to mean evil/despite is what Foul IS.
I suggest Foul exists on a different level than the denizens of the Land because he is an Absolute. He doesnt contain the Necessary Opposites, despite and creation, within himself as the created beings do. He cant choose between the two. The same obviously goes for the Creator. The reason the Creator and Foul can act at all, in my opinion, is because they act through the medium of the Land, overlapping spheres of influence as it were, reestablishing the co-existence of the Necessary Opposites. Well, that is just my two cents. I do not mean to presume to instruct the creator on his own creation, it is just the thing about Foul having a choice doesnt seem to fit. I would prefer that you had a better answer than evil for its own sake, but given the Necessary Opposites I dont see how.
Thank you again for stories that opened my eyes to a lot of different things, while expanding my vocabulary at the same time. In Thomas Covenant I found a character possessing more of what it is to be human than I usually encounter in the genre, or anywhere else for that matter. Tolkien may have showed me The Road, but Donaldson placed me firmly on it.
|
Thank you for your long and thoughtful message. I've pruned it significantly, not because I don't value your views (I do), but because there's little I can say in response. (I certainly can't comment on your analysis of Senior's book. <grin>) Your view of Lord Foul is certainly defensible. Indeed, it is "authorized" (in a manner of speaking) by the explicitly archetypal intentions to which I've made reference throughout this interview. Further, it is consistent with the ideas I wrote about in "Epic Fantasy in the Modern World": if fantasy is a form of psychodrama in which a mind is turned inside out so that its aspects and conflicts can be dramatized as external characters and events, that implies a certain, well, let's call it single-minded-ness among many of the players. The Bloodguard. The Ramen and Ranyhyn. The Cavewights and ur-viles. The jheherrin. And, obviously, Lord Foul. So it follows that if he is a pure characteristic (evil, for example) rather than a true character (with a back-story, complex desires, and the power to make choices), he might well be considered a "Necessary Opposite"; essentially static. In a case like that, the whole "necessity of freedom" concept simply doesn't apply. And yet-- Everything that I've just said only fits comfortably around the original "Chronicles." It seems obvious (at least to me) that my own perception of Lord Foul (like my priorities as a writer) is undergoing a sea-change. In "The Second Chronicles," for example, Lord Foul plainly demonstrates an ability to change and adapt. His tactics have changed radically--and his stated agenda has shifted subtlely (less emphasis on "eradicate hope from the Land," more emphasis on breaking the Arch of Time). (Curiously, a cursory glance suggests that the word "arch" isn't even capitalized until "The Second Chronicles.") And he adjusts "on the fly," as it were, to Linden's presence (even though the attitude of the Elohim seems to imply that her presence has been foreseen). Doesn't that entail an ability to make meaningful choices? One could argue legitimately, of course, that no prisoner is free. By definition. But one could also argue with equal legitimacy that even a prisoner is free to choose his/her attitude toward imprisonment. Indeed, one could argue that self-mastery (the ability to choose one's own thoughts and emotions) is the only truly human form of power. So where does that leave us? Beats the by-products out of me. All I can tell you for sure is that the comparative moral simplicities of the first trilogy have been left behind. And that this change affects the characters--all of them--as well as the story on every level. In my (current) view, Lord Foul is like Nick Succorso: the fact that Lord Foul chooses only ruin doesn't mean he hasn't made a choice; it simply means that--consciously or otherwise--he has rejected the alternatives. Shucks, even in "Paradise Lost"--a far more didactic work than anything I've ever written--God's highest Angels themselves have the power to choose. In short, if you want "Necessary Opposites," you may have to look at Elric instead of Covenant. (06/29/2005) |
Khat: Stephen;
I hope - needing a break while writing FR - you choose to answer my post:
After devouring (so to speak) Runes after Christmas, I needed to reread the first two Chronicles (and Gilden Fire) to help me remember more about "The Land", the characters, and to help me with the trivia games on the Watch <grin hee hee>. I am really curious about the Mahdoubt lady we meet at the end of Runes. She truly reminds me of the healer who saved Covenant after he ate amanibhavam and died in his place - (I never did find her name) - in PTP. At one time she seems to look like someone else - like the Elohim - Any chance you can "spoil" me here with more on this character?
Thank you again for bringing us (your readers) back to the Land - what a great ride!
|
Sorry, no. The Mahdoubt is a subject on which I can't offer "spoilers" of any kind. This is firmly in the category of RAFO. (From which you may safely deduce that the story isn't done with her. <grin>) (06/29/2005) |
Marc-Antoine Parent: <heart-baring salute>
My respects, Mr. Donaldson. I hope the last chronicles lead you where you want to go as a writer; the first two chronicles certainly got me where I wanted to go as a reader, and precious few books did that.
I read the gradual interview with much fascination, wondering which question I would ask, being granted this wonderful opportunity. Here is:
One thing that has always been very uncomfortable to me as I read the chronicles (and half of Mordant so far) is the amount of planning that main characters engage in... King Joyce is actually making a mocking display of it through the importance he gives to hopscotch; (A parenthesis on hopscotch: In French, it is jeu de dames, i.e. game of ladies. Amusing allusion to much that happens in the book, to this reader. The dame actually refers to the stacked piece that can move backwards, being feminine and powerful much like the chess queen.)
But in many cases I just cannot believe in the intricacy and fragility of people's plans. Let me give you a concrete example: Pietten's key role in the Ranyhyn's betrayal would have be brought to nought had Foamfollower given the hurtloam to him instead of the Cavewight. Did Foul know that Foamfollower would do this? I am quite convinced that is not the case in general, or he would not bother to beset a snare with another snare. In other words, Foul must have had a plan B... Or look at the whole complexity of the quest: How much of its details were foreseen by Mhoram and Foamfollower's ghosts? Another example is Foul threatening that a raver will ravish Linden unless Covenant relinquishes the ring. When Foul initially summons Covenant to the Land, I am quite convinced that Linden was not part of his plan. So how did he expect to convince Covenant of giving him his ring of his own free will, which he states quite soon after the summoning if memory serves me well? In this case, we know he had a plan A, which was despair through venom, but that plan itself was fraught with uncertainty. What if Covenant had failed to obtain Sunder's help and had been exposed to the sunbane? Or what if he had simply forgotten to put on his shoes that first morning?
This sparks a minor sub-question: What happens to white gold and wild magic if Foul miscalculates and gets Covenant killed somewhere? This is surely not equivalent to Covenant choosing to give him the ring. But that is not the question that matters.
My main question to you, the writer, is: Are you usually aware of the character's plan B? (or plan A as the case may be.) I assume that the plans do not rest fully on prophecy, as you repeatedly emphasize free will; so I assume that, like at hopscotch, the players (the characters) think through many alternatives. Did you often go through these alternatives mentally yourself, or only map out the one that happens in the story?
Another subquestion, if you do know, and I will stop: I am actually curious about the Elohim's plan A... Findail obviously knows what awaits him, and did not relish it; and he goes along because it is a balance of risk between him and the Quest. What else could he have done against the Sunbane if the Quest had failed? There is the notion that being made into a staff is the price of failure for him. How could success have come about?
Thank you again.
Your stories are a great gift, which we are all too eager to honour.
|
<sigh> This question keeps coming up in various forms. And I keep making the same points. The apparently intricate and even implausible planning (in the GAP books and "Mordant's Need" as well as in "Covenant") doesn't require prescience; or the ability to control as well as foresee distant events; or any other impossible combination of qualities or developments. I call it "open-ended plotting," and all it requires is imagination, some insight into character, and a willingness to rely on many gambits (and possibilities) instead of just one. But first we should distinguish between the first Covenant trilogy and the other stories. There events revolve primarily around brute force, and are in consequence comparatively simple. Lord Foul doesn't *need* Pietten to grow up and betray the Ranyhyn, Covenant, etc. The poor guy is really just an exercise in gratuitous malice. All Lord Foul *needs* is enough muscle to exterminate the Lords--and enough understanding of Covenant to grasp (and exascerbate) his vulnerability to the destructive effects of despair. Matters are of course much more complex in "The Second Chronicles." There Lord Foul has, in essence, given up any form of direct action: now he's all about manipulation. But his plans are nowhere near as fragile as you suppose. Really, the only way he can possibly fail is by misjudging Covenant's character--or Linden's. Just a couple of examples. 1) So what if Covenant gets exposed to the Sunbane? So much the better. What's going to restrain a monstrous and completely insane white gold wielder from smashing the Arch? 2) So what if Covenant gets killed during the Quest? Linden just takes the ring, and the beat goes on. And if they both get killed, someone else takes the ring. (We all know from reading LOTR that such powers always end up in *someone's* hands.) Admittedly that would make Lord Foul's position a bit messier. But he'll just go to work on whoever ends up with the ring--and the Sunbane will continue--and he's no worse off than he was before. Of *course* I'm aware of all the possibilities that Lord Foul (and others like him) are juggling. I work very hard to make sure that the only way he can possibly lose is by committing errors in his evaluation of character. In other words, Lord Foul only loses because people like Covenant and Linden rise above the weaknesses that he sees in them. As for Findail and the Elohim Plan A: they haven't shown much sign that they even care about the Sunbane; so why should they bother to have a plan? (And if they ever decided that they did care about the Sunbane, they would simply Appoint one among them to stop the Clave and the Banefire: as simple and perilous a task as preserving the dying sentience of the One Forest.) No, Findail and the Elohim Plan A are all about white gold. Their Plan A is that Linden has the ring. In that case, they see nothing to concern them. They only have a problem because *Covenant* has the ring. And he's full of venom, which makes him--among other dangers--a good candidate to rouse the Worm. My point--which I hope I can stop making--is that all of these plans (Lord Foul's, King Joyse's, Master Eremis', Holt Fasner's, and Warden Dios', not to mention those of Covenant's Dead) aren't fragile at all. They're practically inevitable--IF the characters of the primary players have been accurately judged. (07/01/2005) |
Marc: Dear, Stephen,
This is a statement rather than question. I was only just born when you first published the Covenant Chronicles, so i have frantically reading them since i discovered them a couple of years ago. I was delighted when i got a proof copy of 'The Runes of the Earth' from the bookshop where i work part-time. I just wanted to thank you for an amazing book; it was sensational and has left me in total anticipation for the next book.
OK, I'll have a go at a couple of questions too; how do you begin to conceive of a world like you portray in your covenant works?
Secondly, if you are ever in the UK how would you feel about coming to the University of Warwick to give a talk (or lead a discussion) about the social ideas behind the books (sorry as a sociologist, Im constantly noticing the wonderful depiction of social life and interactions you express in works?
Once again your works truly are inspirational, and pose questions that are intensely important about a social or human conditional.
Lastly (i promise i will stop after this point), i loved the GAP series: what a stroke of genius.
Regards,
Marc
|
Well, if I could explain how the human imagination works, I would be a *whole* lot wiser than I am right now. <grin> As for the practical details behind the conception of the "Covenant" world, they've already been described at some length earlier in this interview (and elsewhere). On those occasions when I'm "out in public" (e.g. in the UK), I'm happy to talk about my work. But I don't see it in sociological terms, so I might have to do a fair amount of squirming. As I keep saying, I'm not a polemicist (in other words, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything), I'm a storyteller. And much--if not all--of the content of any story is in the eye of the beholder. I simply try to put all of my resources at the disposal of the story I happen to be telling. After that it's up to the reader. (07/01/2005) |
Lou Sytsma: Hello Stephen.
After reading ROTE and your most recent interview in Locus, I eagerly await the next instalment. In the Locus interview, you emphasized the power of the relationship that exists between a parent and their child. Given how the first book ends, probably the best cliffhanger since The Empire Strikes Back by the way, you have laid very fertile ground as to how Linden will react when she begins to interact with these two people.
The drama of handling dual responses should be rich indeed. This is probably spoiler territory and I am hoping the wording of my question will allow you to answer in a circular manner.
The dynamics of hurting someone who has lost everything by giving them back something broken has been explored in the previous Chronicles. Does the variation of giving something back fixed, that was originally broken, hold any interest for you?
Continued thanks for your writings past, present, and future.
|
If I may ask this respectfully: what would be the *point* of "giving something back fixed"? I mean the storytelling point: what would be left for the writer to write about? I realize that many major religions are predicated on the idea that God (or some other external force) is going to fix things for us. All we have to do is have faith. But I can't see how that makes sense. If we aren't responsible for the content of our own lives, why do we bother to live at all? On the other hand, *believing* that someone else is going to fix things for us can give rise to any number of storytelling possibilities. (07/01/2005) |
Daniel Bjrkman: Dear Mr Donaldson...
Well, first off (and somewhat unoriginally, I admit) thank you for your books. I especially love the "Mordant's Need" ones - I can identify only all too well with Terisa's sense of not existing, and reading about her overcoming her limitations has been very encouraging for me.
As for the questions you have, most graciously, offered to answer...
1) I very much enjoyed your short story "What Makes Us Human", but I'm confused about something. At one point, the characters ask themselves the question in the title - what it is that they have that machines don't have, that they might be able to use against them. Eventually, they formulate a plan that proves successful - but I don't see how it has anything to do with the philosophical question. As far as I can tell, they win because they know more about their own technology and resources than the machines do.
Judging from the amount of things that have been made clear to me by reading this interview, I'm guessing that there's something brilliant here that I'm just too thick to see. (*looks sheepish*) Please clue me in?
2) Is Mordant about the same size as Alend/Cadwal? I've always kind of pictured it as a kind of spot on the map surrounded by these two giant empires, (*smiles*) but Mordant does seem to be able to maintain an army of more or less the same size as Alend's (and as Cadwal's "native" army, without the mercenaries).
Sincerely,
Daniel Bjrkman
|
(Note to general readers of the GI: No, I'm not dead. <grin> Life has just been very complicated recently.) 1) Perhaps I should have been more clear in "What Makes Us Human". (We always leave out the things that are obvious to us.) I was referring to imagination and love: the imagination which enables Temple and Gracias to use their technology in ways which the machines could not have anticipated; and the love (for their own kind as well as for each other) which empowers them to take really extreme risks. I doubt that any kind of machine logic would have arrived at Temple's and Gracias' decisions and actions. 2) For the purposes of the story, Alend and Cadwal are both effectively bigger than Mordant. By which I mean two things. a) My own very rudimentary map of the region gave Alend no northern border and Cadwal no southern one because the story didn't need those details. So there's no theoretical reason why those nations couldn't be comparatively vast. b) I wanted Mordant to be physically vulnerable and strategically critical. It is the buffer which prevents far worse wars from breaking out; the keystone of peace--assuming that King Joyse can preserve it intact. Personally, I don't think of Mordant as *small*, but I do consider it smaller than its neighbors. (07/16/2005) |
Richard Medlin: Mr. Donaldson
I'm reading Runes Of The Earth now but have read the first two trilogies 3 times. I have two questions actually. First, I read a previous question regarding references to the "burning of wood" in "The Illearth War" such as "coals of the fire" and "putting kindling on the fire." I also read your response indicating that there were some fires that consumed wood because not everyone had the lore to call up the earthpower in the wood and that it had to be prepared first. However, the "prepared wood" could be reused over and over and each Woodhelven village had a Hirebrand to prepare that wood. Also Stondowns used graveling for fire and light which was prepared by the Gravelingas and used by everyone in the Stonedown. It was also reusable. More importantly, In "The Wounded Land" pages 73 and 74, Covenant cursed "Hellfire" when he smelled smoke and saw wood being consumed in a fire in the home of Nassic, father of Sunder. At the top of page 74 you wrote "The people he had known here would never have voluntarily consumed wood for any purpose." There were many Hirebrands and Gravelingas who accompanied the army of Hile Troy and they were well prepared when they began thier march. So, I guess what I'm saying is that your previous explaination does not suffice and would you care to comment further? However, I love the story and consider it a minor inconsistancy.
Sincerely,
Richard Medlin
Pataskala, Ohio
|
What can I say? I'm human, and sometimes things just don't work out as well as I wanted them to. Taken by itself, the text of "The Illearth War" seems defensible: the Lords' army is comparatively large, and will need a *lot* of fires for cooking, etc.; but the number of Hirebrands is comparatively small--and in any case how would an army in a forced march transport the amount of "prepared wood" that would be required? Sadly, this logic is rather vehemently undermined by Covenant's attitude in "The Wounded Land." <sigh> Still, I ask you to give me credit for this one point: Covenant was not present for the forced march in "The Illearth War." (07/19/2005) |
Ethan: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I just finished reading the Second Chronicles tonight. I have not even looked at Runes of the Earth at this moment, and I'm not aware of anything in that book. I'm going to wait a bit to start it, so I can rest in psychological completion for a while.
The reason I am writing is that I can really only see one possible future for Lord Foul. In the second Chronicles, he was not bested by superior power, he was defeated by his own greed and incomplete understanding of the wild magic. Now, he is barred from reaching beyond the Arch of Time by Covenant's vigilance, trapped by his own exertion of power. I don't think that even if he returns to mastery of the Land, he will be able to break the seal he made on himself.
His expenditure at the end of White Gold Wielder forced the realization on him that his motives worked against him - he got what he was striving for and his own ends unmade him. I think now that the only resolution available to him is for him to examine and rethink those motives, namely his despite of the Creator and his prison. Or else his despite will continue to work against his self-interest.
Lord Foul seems not to be a force of pure evil, but rather a tragic figure when Covenent dispels his veil in Foul's Creche. What was Lord Foul before he was imprisoned? Is there any possibility that he might outlast his despite?
_________
Oh, I read the most recent of the Gradual Interview questions. What do you think _would_ have been the right choice for Elena when she stood on her knife edge at the source of Earthpower? What force native to the Land could have bested Lord Foul? The Fire-Lions? I thought reading that passage that she was caught at that point in her anger and lust beyond the possibility of a 'correct' choice.
|
I'm sorry to say such things because they sound so much like a cop-out <sigh>. But. Your analysis of Lord Foul's nature, position, and future options is something that I can only address when I've finished "The Last Chronicles." Until then, such matters fall ineluctably into the category of RAFO. Where Elena is concerned, however: I'm inclined to agree with you. By the time she reaches the EarthBlood, she has become (in part because of Covenant's underlying selfishness in his dealings with her) a person for whom no "correct" choice is possible. It's like that old joke: "You can't get there from here. You have to go somewhere else and start." (btw, it seems to me that much of life is like that.) But if she could have started somewhere else (i.e. if she had been a different person), she might have considered her problem in terms of "protection" rather than "attack". Perhaps the only valid use of Earthpower in her position would have been to strengthen beauty and Law against Despite rather than to weaken Law as an attack on Despite. Certainly I don't think that any "force native to the Land could have bested Lord Foul." (By the same logic, I don't believe that Lord Foul--unaided--is capable of breaking free of Time.) That's one reason why beauty and truth are so precious: they're fragile; and on a day-to-day basis unscrupulous despisers always have the advantage. Just try arguing with a nihilist, and you'll see what I mean. <grin> (07/19/2005) |
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.
Russ Byrd: Thanks for continuing the story about The Land !
In Runes, when Linden is considering whether to try to use her ring to heal a Ramen girl, she remembers that she did so once with a giant on the Starfare's Gem. Even though it says the giant was a he, I thought it was a female giant.
Am I mistaken? Or, if it is a blooper do I win a free vacation to the land with all the aliantha I can eat?:>)
I was moved by the part in the book where Linden fixes herself some tea and spends time with her friends from the land.(Thinking about them) This struck close to home for me, as I have often done the same. OK, OK..in my case it was hot tea and sunflower seeds..but it was the 80's when I first read your books <G> I have read many books over the years, but few characters stay with me as much as the giants from your books have.
Anyway, thanks again!
Russ
|
OK, I'm not researching this. If you want to, please feel free. But as I recall, Linden was involved in healing more than one Giant aboard Starfare's Gem, one of each gender. But guess what? Even if you *are* mistaken, you *still* win a free vacation to the Land (gratuities not included). You can pick up your prize whenever you want it. Just close your eyes. <grin> (07/19/2005) |
Michael Weinhardt: Hi Stephen,
My question is really a question for advice, so if it's been answered by you elsewhere, or here (I couldn't find anything), I'd be glad to follow a URL.
I've been writing technical articles for magazines for a few years now, and am currently working with another author on a techy book.
I love writing, I love creating a story and filling in the pieces and I can't not do it. Now, I'm considering turning my attention to creative writing, either fantasy or sci-fi (or whatever it turns out to be).
My question is, what are some useful [ways] to get started. By that, I mean, how do I gain the extra knowledge I need to construct a creative work eg approaches, considerations, character development etc etc. Do I simply just write and see what happens?
I'm quite happy to do the last, but feel like some additional learning would by beneficial.
Peter F. Hamilton (sci-fi author guy) suggests the cutting of ones teeth on short stories, which doesn't seem like a bad idea.
Anyway, thanks for any thoughts you might have.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Dedicated readers of the GI--if any of them are left alive <grin>--can assure you that it contains lots of advice for writers. I'm not going to repeat myself, except to say: 1) Trust your own excitement. It's the only guide you have. 2) Never assume that what you wrote says what you meant. Your reader's mind is different than yours, and that difference must be taken into account. 3) You can learn more by studying what you love to read and what you hate to read than from all the writing classes that have ever been taught and all the how-to books that have ever been written--put together. P.S. Search the GI categories "Creative Process" and "Writing & Publishing Process." (07/19/2005) |
Mark G. Hewitt: When I first began reading your initial Covenant series, I was fascinated with Theology and Gestalt Psychology. As I completed the trilogy, I became convinced that you also are interested in these topics and ingeniously wove them together within your story.
Am I on to something here or simply isogeting?
For which agencies did your parents perform medical mission work?
Your work inspires me. Thank you.
|
My knee-jerk reaction to most theology is that there's less to it than meets the eye. Doubtless I feel this way because I was badly over-exposed to self-righteous religiosity when I was young. Nevertheless the rather driven theology of my parents is imprinted on my neurons, and there's no chance that I'll ever stop writing about it. In contrast, I suffer from a life-long fascination with psychology; and I like to believe that over the course of my writing life my portrayal of character has been thereby enriched. (And yes, I'm aware that at a certain point psychology becomes indistinguishable from theology--as well as from philosophy. But we all have to start somewhere. I choose to start with what happens to my characters--and why they care.) My parents were Presbyterian. Specifically United Presbyterian. (07/22/2005) |
Anthony Wilkinson: Dear Mr Donaldson,
As an aspiring writer and student (I have just recently finished a dissertation exploring the validity of critical and scholarly opinion of fantasy literature in which your work featured heavily) I have one comment and one question.
Firstly, I extend my rueful gratitude to you for inspiring me to become a writer. I'm grateful that your work, particlarly the Gap series, fanned the sparks, but If I'd have known what an all-consuming blaze it can be, I may have turned to law perhaps, or medicine. (something easier! LOL)
Secondly a question. How important to your conception of Covenant is it that he is American? I ask because it seems to me that in the Sceond Chronicles he loses his national specifity, becoming more an individual, untrammelled by clasdss or nationality. Is this in preparation for the universal support he becomes at the end of the second chronicles?
Regards,
Anthony
|
Actually, I've never been conscious of Covenant as an "American," and his specific nationality has never played a role in my thinking. On some unconscious level, I suppose I've always assumed that he was a US citizen (so is Mick Axbrewder). But I'm certainly not aware of giving him--or any of my characters--national characteristics. Perhaps this is because I don't feel fully identified with any particular country myself. Instead everywhere I go is just another occasion for culture-shock. <sigh> Going to India when I was four and returning when I was sixteen pretty much destroyed any personal sense of "homeland" that I might otherwise have felt. Which may, in some baroque fashion, explain why absolutely everything I write is fantasy (even my mystery novels)--in the sense that I can hardly write at all unless I create physical reality almost from scratch. (The exceptions are few, far between, and comparatively brief. Haven Farm is closely based on the place where I lived when I wrote the first Covenant trilogy. And the karate tournament in "The Man Who Fought Alone" matches actual tournaments that I've attended.) In that specific sense, even the GAP novels are fantasy. And all of my mystery novels take place in imaginary cities. (07/22/2005) |
Drew B: Thanks for the answer! I really enjoy reading the responses in the Gradual Interview-- it's a lot of fun to get "behind the scenes" with a writer whose work I've enjoyed for so long.
As a side note, Jack Chalker passed away recently. I make note of it because he was a "contemporary" of yours at DelRey, his Well World books having been launched around the same time as Lord Foul's Bane. It seems like there was a small group of truly remarkable writers who were launched by Judy-Lynn and Lester delRey at that time-- and it's sad that (so far as I know) at least one member of that group is no longer with us (apart from the delReys themselves, that is).
|
Both Lester and Judy-Lynn del Rey were good at recognizing talent. Among a number of notable writers, they discovered Tim Powers--and rescued Patricia A. McKillip from obscurity. (07/22/2005) |
Dan From Brooklyn: Huzzah! An opportunity to butt in.
While I have had a lot of difficulty coming up with the right way of introducing myself and asking a question, I can do something better and provide an answer.
The audio recording of Lord Foul's Bane read by Terry Hayes Sales was created by the National Library Service for the Blind, part of the Library of Congress. It was recorded for the sole distrubution to libraries; not for sale and falls within some provision of copyright law.
I'm guessing that the person who found it online found the work of someone who converted the tapes to MP3 files for distribution.
My visually handicapped neighbor took a lot of advantage of this program, "reading" some 8 or 9 books a week. From what I heard, they are very simple recordings: a reading of the text without sound effects or music. But what was lost in audio production was more than well made up for in the lack of abridgement.
The Stephen R. Donaldson collection contains Mordant's Need and the first six books of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. They can be found in the link below to the "prolific authors" section of science fiction and fantasy writers.
http://www.loc.gov/nls/bibliographies/published/scifi/prolific.txt
There you go, the Library of Congress not only thinks your prolific but has *classified* you as such. Add that to your jacket bio without guilt.
With much respect, I remain your servant
Dan
|
I'm posting this because the information seems valuable (many readers have asked about audio versions of my books), and because I was completely unaware of it myself until now. Thanks for letting me know! I hope your research will benefit readers who want--or need--to "listen" to books. (07/22/2005) |
Peter B.: Stephen,
Thanks again for all your work. I've had the opportunity to share your Thomas Covenant series with several people recently and it's quite a joy to see them really getting into it.
My question...You mentioned in the G.I. that your editor for Runes will not be working on the next Covenant novels. What are your thoughts about this? It would seem ideal to have the same editor through the whole series for consistency's sake.
|
Yes, it would have been ideal to have the same editor (Jennifer Hershey) for all of "The Last Chronicles." In addition to the consistency issue, there's the fact that we already knew each other well: we worked together on the whole of the GAP cycle. But my new editor, Susan Allison, has an excellent reputation. *And* she is the paperback editor for "Runes," so she has already dealt with that book in detail. I see no reason to worry about the editorial future of the saga. (07/23/2005) |
Eric A Marks: I was a reader from the very beginning, really, and needed no help in picking up a book, rather than perusing the television. I loved the written word well before my 'peers'. I never fell in love with a charachter until I real "Lord Foul's Bane".Your first trilogy gave me a reason to delve deep into the work. Do you get this kind of reaction often? I really feel like you opened up a whole literary world to me. I can't thank you enough, Stephen. In the 20+ ensuing years, I have read thousands of books that I understood how to appreciate, and I cannot believe that would be true without the Unbeliever....
|
Thank you! I don't say that enough. If nothing else, the sheer scale of this gradual interview testifies to the fact that you are not alone: a fact which always humbles, sometimes intimidates, and occasionally out-right terrifies me. <grin> I really have no idea how I got so lucky. (07/24/2005) |
Hazel: Hello,
I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your books, having only recently been introduced to them in the last few years. I also really appreciate the time you take to maintain the Gradual Interview... I hope this quation hasn't been asked before.... Why are words like Haruchai and Elohim in Italics? Why the extra emphasis on these words when others aren't? Thanks for your time.
|
This, as I think I've observed before, is common English usage: words in "foreign" languages are printed in italics. The implication in the "Chronicles" is that words like Haruchai, Elohim, croyel, and even Grim (as in the na-Mhoram's Grim) are drawn from languages "foreign" to the Land. And yes, I'm aware that the whole question of "foreign languages" can get us into some pretty turbulent waters, especially from a "world-building" perspective. All I can say in my own defense is that I chose not to spend (waste?) narrative space dealing with the vast problems caused by a need for translations. So for practical purposes, let's just say that "foreign" words tend to derive from "lost" languages; languages which were once used many millennia in the Land's--and the Earth's--past. (07/24/2005) |
Larry: How did you like Tom Baker in the BBC production of The Chronicles of Narnia (actually an adaptation of only three of the books if I recall correctly) as Puddle Glum? This series had a strangely "hippie" look to it that I liked. The Runes of the Earth was marvelous. Keep up the good work.
|
Tom Baker was a good Doctor and an excellent Puddleglum. In "Dr Who," however, I actually preferred the earnestness of Jon Pertwee and Peter Davidson, and the crackpot flamboyance of Colin Baker. Just my opinion. (07/24/2005) |
Willow Ravenswood: Do your characters enter your dream life as well as your imagination? What meaning if any do you make of the 'mediumistic' quality of your creative process? Do you believe these characters will die with you or maybe they have some autonomous reality in an imaginative realm you resonate to? Perhaps this sort of questioning is irrelevant to you and you are just happy to serve the process? Thank you for the time you take to respond to your readers queries.
|
I don't know what you mean by "the 'mediumistic' quality of [my] creative process." I've certainly never dreamed about any of my characters. In fact, the only (conscious) role that dreaming has ever played in my writing has been on those extremely rare occasions when I've dreamed the language I need to describe a particular event or scene. Will my characters die with me? Of course not. They will only die when the last reader who remembers them dies. (And even then one could argue that their influence lives on.) Examples abound. Shakespeare's Falstaff is certainly still alive. (07/24/2005) |
Maxim Vorst: Hy Stephen i'm from Holland. I am a great fan of you and all of your books not only the covenant series. All of them are masterpieces. I always read the untranslated versions, because the Dutch versions have not been translated very well.
What pleases me most in your books is that every time i read them , I discover new things. I've read The first Chronicles of Thomas Covenant only about ten times so i probably can find some new things the next time.
I think that the covenant series are the best fantasy books ever written. Because they have more depth in the characters and the plot than any of the others, they are simply brilliant.
And now my question.
Yesterday I received the first book of The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. For the first time i saw your picture , which wasn't in any of the other books . The strangest thing was that you look much as I have imagined that Thomas Covenant looks like. Is it my imagination or do you resemble Thomas in more then one way.
|
I'm afraid it's just your imagination. I certainly never intended any physical resemblence between Covenant and myself--or consciously intended any other resemblence. Please keep in mind that the picture in "The Runes of the Earth" was taken more than 20 years *after* I started work on "Lord Foul's Bane." Back in those days I looked like I was still in high school. <grin> (07/24/2005) |
Skeletal Grace: Dear Mr. Donaldson...
I'm another one of those people who have followed your writing career and I have thoroughly enjoyed most everything you have put out so far, the Gap-ology being my absolute favorite. I could write a book on how I love the way you develop characters and make them come alive before our very eyes.
If being your "biggest fan" gives me the temporary credentials I need to ask a somewhat blunt question, I will happily label me thus...
I have noticed a gradual, yet drastical, change in your written language from your first books to your last. Naturally, a change is to be expected as a writer matures and evolves with his writing over the years, but to me it almost seems like you are "showing off" in 'Runes', waving words in our faces I quite frankly have never encountered before (and I do consider my self fairly well versed in the English language).
I know of course that this is not an intentional "mockery" on your part, don't get me wrong, I am just curious to know whether you have considered how that "uber-eloquence" might potentially scare off the average reader who does not possess the high-end vocabulary required to sometimes get the overall context of a whole "Runes" paragraph? I can see how taking breaks to run to dictionary.com for every other page turned might make the actual reading a task more than a pleasure.
I guess what I'm saying is; the use of elegant words can be a thing of beauty, but it can also disrupt the flow of a story to the point where you feel you are unfortunately skipping more than you're actually enjoying.
I regret to say that I found "Runes" to suffer quite a bit from the Fancy English Syndrome. The Gap-series, for instance, was a very technical piece, yet I don't remember flinching at words like I just did ever so often while finishing the new part of the last chronicles.
I hope it is not because you feel that Fantasy writers don't get the "credit" they deserve from the "serious press" and you therefore feel the need to grow a mad scientist hair do, throw your hands to the sky while cackling: "Idiots, I'm going to show them all - BWAHAHAHA".
We all know you can write, that's why we love your books so immensely, I just think it would be a shame if you concentrated so much on your love for the higher art of writing skillful sentences that it is done at the expense of the flow of your beautiful and engaging stories.
Maybe it is not a conscious thing on your part at all and I'm just talking out of my ass (it has been known to happen I am told) so if I in any way have offended you, I beg your pardon... it was not my intention. I was just making an observational inquiry.
Thank you for your time and thank you for the worlds you have created,
SG
|
Well, I'm completely flummoxed. a) While I was writing "Runes," I was consciously trying to tone down my (over)use of what I'll call Fancy Words. b) (and this is totally subjective) Apart from the word "scend," I can't think of a single Fancy Word in "Runes" which doesn't appear in at least one of the previous six "Covenant" books. c) My editors objected with polite urgency to the presence of *any* Fancy Words, so I pruned out a fair number during the revision process. d) In my own re-reading, I notice Fancy Words in "The Second Chronicles" far more than anywhere else, including "Runes". As a result, you've left me with my mouth hanging open. Elsewhere in this interview, I've written at length about the specific rhetoric of the "Covenant" books. I'm not going to repeat all of my previous comments. But I feel a need to emphasize a few points. 1) Words are the tools of thought--at least for a person as verbal as I am. The more words I know--and use--the more things I can think about--and write about. 2) Words are an essential tool of world-building, and their flavor, their connotation as well as denotation, even their familiarity determine the nature of the reality (and even the characters) that can be constructed with them. For example, writing about "the arrogance of the Elohim" is NOT the same as writing about "the surquedry of the Elohim," and that difference is crucial to what I'm trying to accomplish. 3) If you're at all inclined to believe that my use of Fancy Words is "mockery," "showing off," or any other manifestation of ego--and thank you for saying that you're not so inclined--then you should have stopped reading me a long time ago, because I'm clearly not worthy of your attention. Does my use of Fancy Words have the potential to scare off readers? He*l, EVERYTHING I DO in fiction has the potential to scare off readers. Every story I tell, everything I do with character and event, is rife with possible alienation. The "Gap-ology" mentioned above positively bristles with material that can either frighten or outrage readers. It's what I do. My use of Fancy Words is only one necessary element of the "Covenant" books. (07/24/2005) |
Patrick St-Denis: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I just finished reading THE RUNES OF THE EARTH, and I absolutely loved it! It feels great to return to the Land!
I'm a book reviewer for my own website (www.fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com), for an independent magazine (Gryphonwood Press), as well as for another website (www.worldsoffantasy.net).
I've just added your novel's review on my website, and I thought that perhaps you'd like to read it.
Again, congratulations for another fantastic book, and may all the others be as captivating.
All the best,
Patrick St-Denis
|
As I've explained before, I don't comment on reviews. I'm posting this so that other readers of the GI can check out what you have to say if they're so inclined. (07/25/2005) |
Gene Marsh: Mr. Donaldson,
As an former English major (BA) fascinated by your work and your style, I have read most of your works and pursued other material in an attempt to "get into your mind". Since I live near Kent State, I have had the opportunity to visit the library there and examine some of your documents there. My questions:
- I believe you have a "breakthrough style", a distinctive one never used before. Were you aware of this when you were writing (especially the TC books), and do you see the distinction now?
- Are there documents at Kent State (or elsewhere) that might help me understand how you came to this style - then moved forward with it?
|
I'm certainly not conscious of creating--or having--a "breakthrough style." The influence of Joseph Conrad, Henry James, William Faulkner, George Meredith, Sir Walter Scott, and others (not to mention the King James Bible <grin>) is everywhere apparent to me. To steal an apt phrase (which I would credit if I could remember who coined it), I'm always "standing on the shoulders of giants." If you have way too much time on your hands, and are genuinely obsessive/compulsive (and I hasten to say that this is *not* an implied criticism: I'm pretty ob/com myself), you might learn a lot about the evolution of my style from the Donaldson collection at the Kent State University Libraries. At least one copy of every version, every rewrite, of every story I've ever published resides there. With enough patience, you could, for example, pick up the very first draft of what later became "Lord Foul's Bane" and watch how it modulates toward its final form. Although I can't imagine why anyone would bother.... (07/25/2005) |
Gilbert: Mr. Donaldson,
I loved your books when I read them in high school -- but re-reading both chronicles last December in preparation for "Runes" allowed me to appreciate them much more. I remember when I first read them, I kept wanting Covenant to use the ring -- use it! Blast them! But now that I'm older and more mature and aware of the violence in the world, I have a much better understanding of his overwhelming reluctance and inability to use the ring.
Anyway, I've read through some of the gradual interview and saw a question early on about your intended title for the first book: Foul's Ritual. Was that the only title that was imposed? Were the others chosen by you?
Also, I know how you have said multiple times that the stories choose you -- is it the same way with the titles for the Last Chronicles? Is there any chance the inspiration for the titles may change, or the path of the story may differently than you think right now?
Thanks very much. -- Gilbert
|
It's been a long time since I covered this is the GI. I'll try to be brief. Titles changed at the insistence of my editor: "Lord Foul's Bane" (formerly "Foul's Ritual") "The Man Who Killed His Brother" (formerly "City of Day/City of Night") "Strange Dreams" (formerly "Unforgettable Stories") Titles changed because my editor insisted on publishing "The Second Chronicles" as a trilogy instead of a tetralogy: all of them (but the only one I can now remember is "Sunbane," which originally formed the first two thirds of "The Wounded Land"). In any case, as I recall, no titles were actually imposed on me (except for "Lord Foul's Bane," as I've said before). My editors simply rejected my titles until I came up with ones they liked. Since "The Second Chronicles" (and not counting "Strange Dreams"), I've chosen all of my titles without objection from my editors; I came up with the titles long before I wrote the books; and only once have I changed a title after it was "set" in my mind (and still this happened well before I wrote the book). Curiously, the original title for "Forbidden Knowledge" was--drumroll, please--"Strange Dreams." But I couldn't think of a good alternative to "Unforgettable Stories" until I realized that "Strange Dreams" was actually a lousy title for the second GAP book. So I transferred that title to the anthology; and almost immediately "Forbidden Knowledge" suggested itself. I don't foresee any problems with the titles in "The Last Chronicles." And I'm certainly not going to change the general shape or purpose of the story at this late date. Many details, however, are still being negotiated by my conscious and unconscious minds. (07/25/2005) |
Ian J: Hi Steve
Some say they can't stand the long wait for the next book in the Covenant series. On the contrary, I say that the thought of having another book to look forward to is infinately more preferable than the enormous void that will be created when you have finished your magnum opus.
I have a brief question: You mentioned in the GI that there was a 22-CD audio book available on Runes. I have just picked up from my local library a 6-CD abridged version of Runes which I am halfway through. The narrrator is Anton Lesser. I was looking through the GI for some reviews of this CD but can find no mention of it. Were you aware that this was available in the UK and, if you have heard it, do you have any comments on his delivery which I have to say I find rather stilted?
|
Yes, I'm aware of Orion's abridged audio version of "Runes" (on both CD and cassette). And no, I haven't listened to any of it. The whole idea of such abridgement gives me hives. If you want the complete text on CD, it should still be available in the US (perhaps from Amazon.com). It was released by Penguin Audio and read by Scott Brick: decent work as far as I can tell, although he occasionally gives the sentences a different cadence than I would in his place. (07/26/2005) |
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.
Jason D. Wittman: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for answering my previous questions. The question I have now is a bit less frivolous: in your introduction to _Reave the Just and Other Tales_, you said that writing "By Any Other Name" helped you through the worst case of writer's block you had ever experienced. I was wondering if you could elaborate more on what happened there. I'm an SF writer myself, and I've been having, if not actual writer's block, a creative funk for several months now. I was hoping you could shed a little more light on the subject.
Regards,
Jason
|
Hmm. I know the answer, I just don't know how to explain it without getting bogged down in personal details that won't have anything to do with your situation (and that I don't want to discuss in any case). So look at it this way: "By Any Other Name" deals with a character who is victimized through no real fault of his own, who (in essence) diminishes himself by running away from the problem, and who is eventually drawn back to confront the problem by his own better nature. Well, I started work on that story, froze up because I found writing it to be extraordinarily painful, couldn't write for six months, and finally returned to work when I realized that I was doing exactly what my protagonist started out to do: I was diminishing myself by allowing my pain/fear/victimization to define and control me. The story helped me understand myself better, and understanding myself better enabled me to finish the story. In my personal experience--and this may have nothing whatever to do with you--a "creative funk" is almost always caused by running away from something (sometimes from an emotional problem, sometimes from a writing challenge, sometimes from a few of the more debilitating vagaries of life). (07/26/2005) |
Kathleen: Stephen; I truly enjoyed Runes and felt the need to reread the two Chronicles again. This brought up a few questions which were answered in this interview. I have only one question that was not answered (that I could see) when I searched in the GI:
In The Wounded Land, when the three children place their right hands in the fire, the third child is indicated as a girl: "And the third waif followed in turn, surrendering her flesh to harm like lifeless tissue animated solely for immolation."
Jeremiah, the third and youngest, is a boy. I was wondering if you thought about putting in something about Jeremiah's appearance resembling a little girl (skinny, long hair, sweet face) and Linden at first mistaking him as a "her"?
|
You're not the first to point this out; and it's a certified solid-gold Authorial Fu*kup. In fact, of all the unarguable mistakes that I made in "Runes," I found this to be the most mortifying--because (he admitted, cringing) I actually checked my facts before I introduced Jeremiah, and I *still* got them wrong. This is one of several internal consistency problems that should disappear when "Runes" comes out in paperback (or trade paperback). I sent the corrections that I wanted to both my US and UK publishers months and months ago. (07/27/2005) |
Peter B.: Stephen,
As a librian for a small academic library in Minnesota one of many joys and privileges is ordering materials for our collection. Although non-fiction takes up much of our focus occassionally I can purchase fiction as well. Your books are on the top of my 'to get' list! Recently, Reave the Just and Other Tales came in. What a great feeling it is to share your work with others in our community! You've been an inspiration to me since I first read The Chronicles as a high school student in the early 80's. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the worlds you've brought us, the characters I'll never forget, and the integrity you display in this gradual interview!
Okay, I'm done gushing now. On to my question. In Runes of the Earth I observed that the scope of the geography was somewhat limited. Will this expand in future installments of The Last Chronicles (and perhaps into other dimensions as well [grin])?
|
I used only "detail" maps for "Runes" because I was badly pressed for time and a full map of the Land wasn't strictly necessary for the story. If nothing goes wrong, however, I intend to supply a full map with "Fatal Revenant." Not of the whole Earth, I hasten to add: just of the Land. (07/27/2005) |
BCS: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First let me say that I have just started reading your Gap series and I find it very stimulating. I found the 1st and 2nd chronicles of Thomas Covenant very emotional and thought provoking. Bravo for raising the bar again on story telling.
My one question is what made you decide to go back to school to receive a doctorate in Literature? As for me, the power of your writing soothes my day and is worth infinitely more than gold. I have met many a pretentious hack hiding behind a Ph.D. in Literature and none measure up to you.
Thank you for effort in writing such wonderful fiction that honest-to-God makes me think about it long after I read the material.
|
Thanks for your good opinion. I know a certain number of Ph.D.s who are "pretentious hacks." But I also know many who are valuable thinkers and teachers. I wouldn't be where I am today without them. But I didn't "go back to school" for my Litt.D.. It's an honorary degree. A recognition of achievement outside the academic halls. To some people, this means that it doesn't really count because I didn't "earn" it in the usual way (school). Fortunately others see the honor in a very different light. (07/27/2005) |
T Chamberlain: Mr. Donaldson,
I've finally convinced my sister that you are a "writers, writer" in the fact that you make no attempt to "dumb down" your stories or write them for the masses. I admit I keep a dictionary handy when I read your works; I'm a vocabulary buff and you certainly keep my appetite whetted! I've (after years of trying) convinced her to begin with the first Thomas Covenant series and then she'll be on her own... I "discovered" your "The Man Who..." series quite by accident, but feel that these express your talent and wry humor as well as anything you've done. I was more than surprised to learn of your interest in the martial arts; I was promoted to Shechidan years ago, but no one "outside" is aware of this. Keep it up!!! One question: I've heard you described as either "gruff" and unappreciative, or just very shy and hard to get to know. Any comment? btw, not MY observation!!!
|
No one who knows me would describe me as "gruff" or "unappreciative." But I'm definitely "shy" and "hard to get to know." And sometimes those qualities give me an air of aloofness which can easily seem both gruff and unappreciative. This is especially true on author tours, where my emotional exhaustion--and the strain on my general shyness--exacerbates the problem. (07/27/2005) |
Todd Burger: Mr. Donaldson,
I just read that if you lost an entire manuscript, as opposed to edits of a manuscript, that you would likely kill yourself. I'm quite certain that I'm paraphrasing a bit, and that you were exaggerating (I hope!). You might be interested to know that Sharon Kay Penman, a wonderful writer of medieval historical fiction, had her first and only manuscript stolen from the front seat of her car while was parked in front of a shopping mall. Personally, if that happened to me, I would likely have succumbed to despair and depression from which I may never have recovered. SOMEHOW, she recovered, and rewrote the book from start to finish, for which I'm very grateful, as I'm a huge fan of her work.
Todd
|
History also supplies examples of writers who lost entire books--and survived the experience. Frankly, I don't know how anyone does it. The day my computer died, destroying half of one chapter of "The Man Who Tried to Get Away," was one of the worst days of my life. Still, as they say, "Life is just one #^#$% opportunity for growth after another." I like to believe that I wouldn't actually kill myself. After a period of (no doubt considerable) disarray, I hope I would get back to work. (07/27/2005) |
Melissa Goldfinch: Hi steve i was just wondering if you are a christian?
i am myself and noticed that in the second chronicles of Thomas Covenant you have the Elohim beings. i recently found out that the word Elohim in greek means God. How did you come to use that word?
Keep writing the chronicles. I can't wait till i read the rest.
|
I used the name "Elohim" precisely *because* it means "God". In Donaldson books, however, such references usually have an ironic component. My "Elohim" do have some rather elevated opinions about themselves. (07/27/2005) |
Dave: I've always enjoyed the map of the Land as it appeared in what I am going to call the originally released paperbacks (the books with Darrel K. Sweet art). I noticed that the paperback versions of the Chronicles that are in stores now - the ones with the cover art that joins to make one big picture - has a map by a different artist. Do you have any say as to the maps that appear in the various TC books? I imagine you'll tell me that the publisher controls such decisions based on answers to other questions in the GI, but just wanted to confirm. Moving into the future, do you have more control, now that you are working with a different publisher, over what will appear in the remaining installments of the Last Chronicles? Will we see different maps than those in "Runes"?
And since we are on the subject of maps, can you discuss your invlovement with Karen Lynn Fonstad's "The Atlas of the Land"? I've enjoyed her Atlas for some time and often wonder how much input you had.
As is customary, I've greatly enjoyed reading your books, look forward to any forthcoming works of yours, appreciate the GI, and would like to meet you if you ever make it to Columbus, OH.
|
I've just posted a comment or two about maps, so I won't repeat myself. Quite some time ago, actually, the orginal maps for the first "Covenant" trilogy were re-drawn, in part to increase legibility, and in part to facilitate making the changes necessary for "The Second Chronicles." I was a willing participant in this process. To my eye, however, the increase in legibility entailed a loss of precision (e.g. where, exactly, is Gallows Howe?). And my publishers, especially in the UK, were extremely sloppy about applying the changes (the death of all the forests west of Landsdrop) to "The Second Chronicles." I don't like the maps in "Runes" stylistically; and they're also inaccurate (we were extremely pressed for time, and the artist refused to heed my corrections). I hope my publishers and I can do better for "Fatal Revenant." I spent quite a bit of time with Karen Fonstad when she was preparing her "Atlas". The results are as close to literal accuracy as possible, considering that I'm not a visual person. (07/27/2005) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Here is something I have wondered about since the First Chronicles. A person who is sent to the Land, always begins to assume the physical state they entered the Land when they are about to be returned to the "real" world. So in Lord Foul's Bane, for example, Covenant bumps his head before being sent to the Land, and he bumps his head "on the way out". What would happen if a woman entered the Land who was pregnant? Obviously they would need to be pregnant again when they left, but would they show their pregnancy while in the Land? Could they have the baby in the Land, only to be impregnated again before returning? Or is this all just speculation since none of the books transports a pregnant woman to the Land and so dealing with that situation is not necessary? Just curious how you would handle it though.
|
This is obviously WAY outside the text, so anything I say about it must be taken as purely speculative. But--just guessing here--I might arrange a miscarriage in the Land, matched by a miscarriage in the "real world" caused by the trauma of events enabling translation to the Land. (07/27/2005) |
David Kirkham: Dear Mr.Donaldson
<Reflection>
I finished ROTE yesterday- I've worked it out- it is *you* in fact who is Lord Foul- you keep us all waiting for 20 years, then out comes ROTE and you keep us waiting for 'twenty-eight score' pages until the final sentence.
Now I know how Liand feels- what freedom of choice will I have whilst waiting for FR?
<Question>
Now I regard myself as a fairly intelligent, cultured, well-read person, with a BA in English and lets face it I'm a Brit- so I understand irony, rhetoric and parody, though I don't drive a Rover [any more]. BUT- my question is this:
Will Covenant *really* return and become the main protagonist- I dearly hope so, as- though I enjoy all of your characters- it is he who represents the 'root note' to your symphony- surely?
Thank you and best wishes with your work- and I hope you continue to enjoy our 'writing' as we continue to enjoy your 'reading'...
David, UK
|
I'm sorry. I can readily appreciate your reasons for asking it; but answering your question would be a MEGA-spoiler, and I really don't want to give anything away. (07/27/2005) |
Dave A: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
The other day was discussing the Covenant books with a friend, and we made a curious observation: Lord Foul never tells an actual lie when speaking to the protagonists. He misdirects, he omits, and he manipulates, but at no time does he out and out lie. So I wondered if this is deliberate - Foul considering it below him - or if it was just fortuitous?
Keep up the good work!
|
Putting it as broadly as possible: Lord Foul simply has too much contempt for people to bother lying to them. In order to lie to them, he would first have to believe that they can actually defeat him. (Misdirection, omission, and manipulation are much more fun than lies: they reinforce his feelings of superiority.) Of course, he *has* been defeated in the past. But he's also learned from his mistakes, which allows him to continue believing that *this time* he can't fail. (Like virtually every human being I know, he's better at solving yesterday's problems than he is at foreseeing--or handling--today's problems.) Of course, deeper issues underlie his manifest egocentricity. But he isn't likely to admit that to anyone. (07/27/2005) |
Bill Kovka: The Covenant Chronicles are my favorite books. Years ago I had the whole series and I lent it to someone and never got it back.
I've since replaced them except for the the atlas of the land. I can't find it anywhere.
Is this still in print?
Thank You
Bill Kovka
|
Today seems to be my day for maps.... As it happens, "The Atlas of the Land" went out of print a very long time ago (for the obvious reason: poor sales). And I don't think we'll ever see its like again. I'm just not that popular. Which is pretty easy to understand, considering the demands that my books make of their readers. (07/27/2005) |
Lynne (aliantha): This isn't so much a question as a story that I happened to think of this past weekend and wanted to share with you.
In the early '80s, when the 2nd Chronicles were being published, I was working in a radio station newsroom where most of us (we had 5 on our staff) were big Covenant fans.
At about this time, the radio station joined RKO Radio Networks. One of the perks of the deal was that RKO would give us a computer, primarily to download information about network commercials, but also for such practical purposes as playing "Hunt the Wumpus" and so forth. To illustrate how long ago this was: In order to connect with the network's computer, we had a rectangular box, the top of which sported two holes outfitted with rubber gaskets. One would insert the handset of the phone into the two holes, dial the access number, and connect at a screaming 300 baud.
Anyway, we received the computer. Our news director set it up, plugged it in, and lovingly christened it Yoda. We had nothing but problems with the thing. I don't remember the specific issues, but suffice it to say they were frustrating enough that eventually, we convinced RKO to send us another computer.
When the new machine arrived, the news director set it up, plugged it in, and dubbed it Lord Foul the Despiser.
Damn thing ran like a top.
So you see, there is power in names.
|
Between this and "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour," my immortality is assured. <grin> (07/27/2005) |
Daniel L. Gillard: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have always wondered who the 'old man' was that Thomas & Linda encountered in the real world. Was he The Land?
I have often wondered this, and reading your new novel brought back this question.
It's great to see another chronicle for Thomas C. and to return to the Land once more with it healthy again.
I, like so many other people, enjoy you work.
Cheers!
Dan
|
Actually, I intended the old beggar to be an avatar or manifestation of the Creator (I mean the Creator of the Land, not necessarily of Covenant's "real world"--and certainly not of *our* "real world"). (07/27/2005) |
Scott: Most importantly - I want to thank you for the wonderful fiction you have given us, and for the generosity of doing this interview.
I love and enjoy the Covenant series in some part because of two qualities that are essentially absent from the majority of fantasy but wealthy in the Chronicles. I see both strong emotional content (something which you have discussed in GI a lot) and a certain relevance to human life. My question is do you have a tip, or suggestion for writers in trying to keep something as exotic and seemingly irrelevant as epic fanstay relevant?
My easy and whimsical question - have you given any thought to what might be in the part of Kevin's Lore that was never recovered? It always crushes me when the Lords are forced to jump straight to Earthblood.
Of course being crushed is par for the course in your books :)
Thanks,
Scott
|
I'm tempted to contest the notion that epic fantasy is either "exotic" or "seemingly irrelevant": that would be easier (being more abstract) than answering your actual question. The truth is that I don't really know how I do--whatever it is that I do. As far as I can tell, I just do what comes naturally. I follow the advice of virtually every high school writing teacher on the planet: I write what I know--which turns out to be my own mind (my thoughts, emotions, reactions, dreams) and the minds of those people around me who have given me glimpses into themselves. Of course, that's a terrible over-simplification. It leaves out alot. For example: my literary tastes and standards were formed by the study of giants, from Shakespeare and Dostoevsky to Jane Austen and Henry James. And I've made an exhaustive (and occasionally unflinching) analysis of myself. And I believe in the absolute necessity of empathy; of getting outside myself, putting myself in other people's shoes. Such things greatly complicate the issue of how I do what I do. And then there's the small matter of imagination, which I can neither explicate nor quantify. <sigh> The short answer? Your guess is as good as mine. As for the content of Kevin's lost Lore: as I keep saying, I'm an efficient writer in the sense that I only invent what I need. If I ever need to know what's in the missing Wards, I'll think of something. <rueful smile> (07/27/2005) |
sue: Did you get the idea of despite or malice from dealing with someone who suffered from depression? My best friend recently died of a drug overdose and I feel like Linden Avery who suffered great losses from losing Covenant and her son. I have just finished "Runes of the Earth"; I enjoyed it greatly. When will the next book be published?
|
I can't honestly say that I drew on a conscious source. The idea of "despite" just seemed to fit my notion of evil. But looking back over my life, I can see that I grew up immersed in depression, my own as well as that of the people around me. In addition, both of my parents died while I was still in my 20's. And I can say with some confidence that I was affected by the state of American politics in the late 60's and early 70's (and no, it's not any better now). (07/27/2005) |
Darran Handshaw: Hey again Stephen,
I just got finished with the third book in The Man Who.. series and it was literally jaw-dropping for me. You took an old and outdated concept, brought established characters into it and you also succesfully created a group in which each character could be suspected and rooted for at the same time. Bravo!
In reading some of your previous posts for The Man Who.. series, I heard that you changed alot of the character names in the re-release for the first two books. Not having access to those names, I was wondering which ones were changed and what they were before you changed them. I feel that a character's name has alot to do with the reader's perception of him/her, especially in the world of text. Thank you.
-Darran
|
First, I'm glad you've been enjoying "The Man Who" books. This is a rare experience for me. Unfortunately, your question is one that I find uniquely embarrassing. I didn't change "alot of the character names," but those that I did change--and off the top of my head I can only remember two--I changed because they made me cringe. And as you probably know, it's no fun cringing at your own work. In addition, it's no fun dropping your literary pants in public. And you're absolutely right: "a character's name has alot to do with the reader's perception of him/her, especially in the world of text." All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I'm not going to answer you. I hope you'll forgive me. (07/27/2005) |
Sean Casey: You've said that part of the motivation for writing the Last Chronicles now was financial. If things get especially tight, I was wondering if you'd consider corporate sponsorship. For instance:
Thomas Covenant, Unilever
Windows Avery
Terry's White Gold
Lord Foul the Budweiser
You should have your agent look into it. Just a thought, anyway. :)
|
Well, I didn't mean that I'm writing "The Last Chronicles" for money. (If I suspected myself of that, I'd go into some other line of work.) I meant that I'm *selling* it--and specifically selling it one book at a time instead of holding them back until the whole project is complete--because I need the money. Still, I like the idea of corporate sponsorship. <grin> Although I personally prefer "Lord Foul the Un-Cola" (being a non-drinker and all), the rest of your suggestions are excellent. I'll get right on them. (07/27/2005) |
Gary: Hello Stephen,
Have you ever seriously considered doing screenplays based on any of your work, or have received offers to collaborate on a screenplay? Over a decade ago, I read the Mordant's Need duology and fell in love with it. I thought that it would make a phenomenal movie, once graphic technology progessed enough. And now that we've seen the highly impressive and successful results from the Lord of the Rings triology of movies, I think that the technology has finally arrived that could certainly do your work justice (with the right actors of course!).
Forgive me if this question has come up before--I didn't seem to find anything searching the database. If it had been addressed before and nothing came of it, perhaps it's time again to reconsider? I still feel that the two stories have such fabulous imagery and could turn into a truly magnificent and successful movie.
Best regards,
~Gary
|
I'll never write a screenplay for any of my stories. 1) I don't know how. 2) I don't have time. 3) Any screenplay would necessarily involve abridgement, and I'm allergic to abridgement. 4) Movies are made by committees. Therefore they require compromise--and I'm also allergic to compromise. 5) The people who hold the option on "Lord Foul's Bane" already have a good screenwriter in mind, John Orloff. (07/27/2005) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: You recently stated:
Well, I'm completely flummoxed. a) While I was writing "Runes," I was consciously trying to tone down my (over)use of what I'll call Fancy Words. b) (and this is totally subjective) Apart from the word "scend," I can't think of a single Fancy Word in "Runes" which doesn't appear in at least one of the previous six "Covenant" books.
Come on! How about "formication"?! You know, after I wiped the grin of my face and told myself you couldn't mean THAT <grins again> I looked it up. I don't think it was in any of the others!!
Just a polite correction (unless I'm mistaken!) from one of your fans!! <chuckles>
|
You win: I also can't find "formication" in any of the previous "Covenant" books. I probably got confused because I've known the word, like, forever, while "scend" was a fairly recent aquisition. (07/28/2005) |
Mark: I have a question regarding the nature of evil. What is your opinion on inherent evil? Original sin. Many of your books deal with corruption as an active evil. This presupposes an undefiled state that cannot defend itself, as you say. But this leaves untouched the "bad seed" so to speak. Natural evil, if you will. Is The Land wholly good (in which case it's very different from the Earth we know with its vacillating compounds of good and evil. Do you agree with this?). To put it another way is there any uncorrupted thing from The Land that in itself is corrupt. Thank you.
|
You appear to be asking about two entirely different, fundamentally distinct things, evil in our consensual reality and evil in the Land. Evil in our reality (and I emphasize that this is just my opinion). In my view, every personality is composed of a host of conflicting impulses, some tending toward destruction (perhaps in ways which we might be able to agree are evil), some tending toward healing, some rational, some emotional, some petty, some noble, some egocentric, some unselfish, some that defy description. Every human being is a mixture of all of these impulses; and it is the specific proportions of the mixture which make each individual unique. Well, when the mixture is dominated by the darker or more destructive impulses, we get--just to pick one example--sociopathy. And when the mixture is so completely dominated by the darker or more destructive impulses that every other kind of impulse is, in effect, cowering in a corner somewhere, we get people whom most of us would not hesitate to describe as evil. (And just to make the subject more complicated: every individual mixture is created by a combination of "nature" and "nurture" so unquantifiable that it's impossible to tell where one leaves off and the other kicks in.) That's as close as I can come to believing in "bad seed" or "natural evil." I'm simply convinced that everybody contains everything. Obviously, however, in some cases certain impulses are so dominant that their opposites (and anything associated with those opposites) become invisible. Of course, I can't actually *demonstrate* any of this. If those opposites have become invisible, we can't possibly know that they still exist. Nonetheless I choose to believe it. I doubt that I could be a storyteller if I didn't believe that everybody contains everything. Evil in the Land is entirely another matter. And I don't want to discuss it--for the simple reason that I've already discussed it at length elsewhere. But if you take the ideas described above, and combine them with the argument in my essay on "Epic Fantasy" (downloadable from this site), you should get a pretty clear picture of my views on evil in the Land. (07/28/2005) |
Brad: Hi Stephen
I only came across your site fairly recently and have read your answers to the graduated interview with interest - must admit what brought me here was trying to track down a release date for Fatal Revenant (no, its not that again, bear with me).
You have explained that any speculation about a Covenant movie is exactly that, speculation, moreover about something that will most likely never come to fruition. It was your answer regarding the LOTR trilogy that interested me, when you mentioned that most of the things that you treasure about the books was missing from the movies - this intrigued me. Could you please briefly explain what these elements were?
Oh, one last thing - when is Fatal Revenant going to be released? Im joking of course.
regards
Brad
16/Mar/05
London, UK
|
Briefly, huh? Now I *know* you're joking. But I'll try.... Putting it crudely: the LOTR books are drenched in sorrow and nostalgia, and the movies are not. Despite their heroic trappings, the books aren't really about "good vs evil": they're about "simplicity vs evil". (In other words, they're about the Hobbits, not Aragorn and the Riders of Rohan and Gandalf and Elves.) And in the process of defeating evil, simplicity (in the person of Frodo) is crippled. It's a very sad story. Well, movies being movies, the heroic trappings dominate, and so the unique emotional depth of the books is lost. If you doubt me, consider this: the movies leave out virtually all of the harm that is done to the Shire *after* Sauron is defeated. *That* (the whole last third of "The Return of the King") is what ties the books together and completes their thematic development--and in the movies it's just not there. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the movies. I like a good "heroic" fantasy as well as anyone. But I don't think that those movies will ever linger in the heart the way the books do. (07/28/2005) |
David Carter: Dear Mr Donaldson,
As a classically trained musician, I have been intrigued by your frequent reference to music in this interview both to create your Cocoon of Sound when your write and the references to Wagners Ring and opera generally. I have also been interested to read your antagonism? antipathy? towards any possible movies of the Covenant Stories.
How would you feel about someone composing an opera or indeed cycle of operas based on the Thomas Covenant stories? I have not so far seen you mention any modern composers. Personally I would have thought an excellent Modern possibility would be Sir Harrison Birtwhistle whose treatment of the Orpheus legends in The Mask of Orpheus and the Arthurian and Green man legends in Gawain would suit the Covenant stories. If you couldnt face a Modern opera which composer would you most liked to have written a Covenant Opera and would you be/have been interested in writing the Libretto?
David Carter
|
Wherever possible, I try not to hamper anyone else's creativity. If someone felt moved to compose one or more operas based on "Covenant," I wouldn't stand in the way (just as I wouldn't stand in the way of a movie). But I think it would be a deranged endeavor, even more truly "doomed from the start" than a movie. By their very nature, operas have to be even more truncated/condensed/abridged than movies, if for no other reason than because singing takes so much longer than speaking (which in turn takes so much longer than showing). I don't doubt that individual scenes could be set to music effectively. But the larger story would be irretrievably crippled. Under the circumstances, discussing specific composers seems pointless. (07/28/2005) |
Brian from Michigan: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you so much for letting me revisit my favorite fantasy world. You have mentioned that, as book tours go, the Runes of the Earth tour went well. AND, while I was recently at a Border's in southeast Michigan, there were several sf/f fantasy fans that I tried to talk into buying a copy; however, they were waiting for the paperback edition. So, to the question: how have the sales for Runes of the Earth been so far? Have you and/or your publisher been satisfied?
Again, thank you for the many, many years of your work. I have truly enjoyed every novel/story.
|
Thank you. Here's the best report I can give you on sales for "Runes" so far. My US publisher is happy: my UK publisher is very happy: neither is ecstatic. Publishers don't get ecstatic without both prominence and longevity on their respective "Times" bestseller lists. Am I satisfied? Not entirely. But I try not to care too much. As long as my publishers don't dump me--and do keep my books in print--I'm pretty much content. (07/29/2005) |
James DiBenedetto: Two questions:
Do you have any creative outlets/hobbies other than writing? Painting, drawing, music, etc.?
You have often talked about how ideas take up residence in your mind and demand to be written, and they dictate their format (short story, single novel, trilogy, etc). Do ideas ever come to you that demand to be expressed as, say, song lyrics, or as a play, or in another medium entirely?
|
Creative outlets? No. Hobbies? Yes. These days I study karate pretty diligently. Long ago, I played the guitar (12-string, no less); but then I lost interest. Ditto with playing tennis (although I suspect that my racquet had less than 12 strings <grin>). More recently, I played competitive bridge; but again I lost interest (this time, however, in competition rather than in bridge). Back in my college days, I got ideas for plays; but they dried up after I had the humbling experience of seeing one of my plays performed. And I do still (rarely) get ideas for poems. (07/29/2005) |
John Schwarting: I'll take my time getting to the question, because I feel some background and praise is needed. I think I have a bit of giant in me. I discovered The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant six years ago, when my aunt gave me a copy of Lord Fouls Bane. It was a catalyst in my life because after I was done with both the series I started devouring books of all types day after day. I still have never read a series that I am more fond of. When I read in my aunts beat up and cover torn copy of Lord Fouls Bane that you lived in New Mexico I was thrilled, I asked her and she said you frequently go to signing and conventions that come to Albuquerque.I started a search then in used bookstores everywhere to find a good condition hardcover copy of Lord Fouls Bane. Well from 1999 till now I have been looking and the internet finally yielded an end to that search. So now the question, at the upcoming BUBONICON 37 on august 26 will you be signing any books so my long search can come to an end?
|
I'm always happy to sign books when I'm "out in public" (e.g. at conventions, conferences, and book tours). And I'll definitely be signing at Bubonicon later this month (August 2005). (08/08/2005) |
Michael Hudson: Dear Mr.Donaldson,
Your books are credited for drawing me into read for the shear joy of reading (As opposed to being forced to read school books). 20 something years ago as a teen I dared to follow Tomas Covenant across the land(from the safety of my bedroom). But as creative as I think my mind is, I have never been able to picture your characters in my mind's eye. I really want to know what your creatures from your mind really look like as you have envisioned them. I've always wanted to see from your eyes what these people and some of the places look like. Even in your descriptions I still don't know how revelstone,mount thunder,or revelwood look like. Is there anyway you could get together with someone who might draw these things for your website or a book just of characters and places of the chronicles? Thats what I am really asking for. Except, well its kind of silly, but the printers never seem to have given a leigable map of the land in any of the printings I have of your books. Alot of names of places are unreadable and its not always clear where the place is. For example I see mithil stonedown written on a map and no dot as on a regular map indicating its position. Will you have someone do these things someday soon?
Sincerely,
Michael Hudson
|
Setting aside the issue of maps for a moment.... There are a couple of issues involved in my visual descriptions. First, as I keep saying, I'm not a visual person. I "see" with words. In other words, I don't have a visual in my mind which I then translate into words. Rather I think of words which then evoke visuals. I see scenes and characters because I have described them rather than the other way around. So what you get in the text is pretty much all there is. If I were to sit down with an extremely gifted and intuitive artist and suffer over it for hours, I still wouldn't be able to show you what's in my head. What's in my head is words. But within that context, I do emphasize certain kinds of descriptive words and de-emphasize others because I'm not interested in literal "accuracy" (which doesn't exist anyway because I don't have visuals in my head): I'm interested in the power of words to evoke emotional and imaginative reactions. I figure if I can engage the reader's emotions and imagination, the reader will create his/her own visuals (which will be far more effective than any literal description). In short, you're never going to see the kind of visual representations you're looking for. Sorry about that. (But if you're just *dying* for something literal, look at the Holt cover art for "The Power that Preserves" on this site: there you'll see a mundane, unevocative, but fairly accurate image of Revelstone.) Maps are a different problem. (And there's nothing anyone can do about the difficulties caused by spreading the maps over two pages: detail will always be lost in the crease. Squeezing the map down onto one page would make it virtually unreadable.) The original "Covenant" maps were exactly what I wanted--and I didn't try to be precise about things like exACTly where Mithil Stonedown is because I didn't care: all I wanted to convey was a general idea of where things are in relation to each other. Unfortunately, the maps in "The Runes of the Earth" are *not* what I wanted. They were produced in an atrocious hurry; I don't like the style; and the artist and I had no effective way of communicating with each other. Perhaps the situation will improve with "Fatal Revenant." I hope that I'll be able to work with a professional who will take the original "Covenant" map and elaborate on it according to my specifications. But I don't have the clout (i.e. my books don't sell well enough) to make any promises. (08/08/2005) |
Will: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Barring the few "authorial screwups" that you have admitted in the GI, I think that you have done an excellent job of maintaining internal consistency within incredibly complex stories (particularly the GAP series and the Covenant books). So much in these stories builds on what took place earlier that being internally consistent must be very important. And I imagine that this must be particularly the case with the Last Chronicles, where caesures are bringing bits of the past story literally into the present.
My question is how do you do this? How do you keep track of exactly who did and said what with whom and where and when? Do you use some sort of story mapping tool?
|
I've already discussed this at some length. But it's been a long time; so briefly.... I don't know what a "story mapping tool" is, but I certainly don't have one. I have mountains of notes, which I deliberately keep disorganized (so that when I want something specific I have to refresh my memory of all my notes). I re-read (and rewrite) a LOT. I work from heavily annotated copies of the first six books. I write out Q&As for myself. When all else fails, I'm fairly clever about finding creative uses for apparent inconsistencies. And I have diligent readers who help me watch for authorial screwups before my books get published. (Editors and copy-editors used to do this sort of thing; but now they simply don't have the time. However, they contribute generously by allowing me to make corrections *after* books are published--which they are *not* required to do.) (08/08/2005) |
James Hastings: I just posted a joke on here, but then remembered a real question I wanted to ask. I won't post again for a while:
Do you still get money when we buy newly published copies of the first Covenant books?
Also, from Forbidden Knowlege: "...and the term 'an Estevez' referred to "a major blunder with beneficial results." Did you know that the same year FK was published, the simpsons officially defined "Pulling a Homer" as "to succeed despite idiocy," due to a situation at the power plant that is similar in theme to Estevez's invention of the gap drive? Dig the synergy.
|
Unless a book is "work for hire" (not relevant in this discussion), the author gets a royalty for every copy of every book that's ever sold (legally, anyway: pirates don't pay royalties). However. Publishers acquire the right to publish a book by paying the author up-front money: an advance (literally "an advance on royalties"). From that moment forward, every penny of the author's royalties goes to the publisher to pay back the advance. The author receives no more money until the advance has been paid back (this is called "earning out"): after that, the publisher passes the royalties on to the author. So it follows that small advances earn out with relative ease, while large advances may never earn out. In practice, it all comes down to how much risk a publisher is willing to assume. For unknown writers, publishers tend to pay small advances because the presumed risk of publication is large. For well-established writers, publishers tend to pay large advances because the presumed risk is small. But nothing is ever that simple. Publishers have no objective way to measure risk. And there's a difference between the up-front risk (the advance) and the publication risk (sales). So publishers tend to make small efforts to promote books for which they have paid small advances: they tend to make large efforts to promote books for which they have paid large advances. This introduces an element of "self-fulfilling prophecy" which complicates EVerything. btw, thanks for pointing out the synchronicity between "an Estevez" and "pulling a Homer." I was unaware of it. (08/08/2005) |
Robert: Stephen
Firstly let me thank you for giving us so much over a long period of time, you're books are a joy (the Gap Cycle far and away my favourites). I had a friend tell me that the best fantasy series ever written was King's "Dark Tower" so we agreed to swap "Dark Tower" and the first TC chronicles. She came back several weeks later and apologised for her ignorance and pleaded with me to borrower the second chronicles to which I refused and told her to buy her own.
Now to my question. I may be drawing a long bow but in reading "Runes" I keep drawing the parallels between Linden often speaking of the daunting task ahead of her and that she is unprepared for what she has to face, with several comments that you have made about your own task ahead in writing the Last Chronicles. Am I off the track or are you projecting your concerns through Linden. If so you shouldn't be, your public has every confidence in you.
PS please stop answering stupid questions on the GI, including this one and get on with Fatal Revenant.
|
Writers often channel their own emotions through their characters, usually (if not always, at least in the case of good writers) without being aware of it. What else can a writer draw on, if not on his/her own experiences, emotions, and capacity for empathy? So I can't argue with your observation: it seems eminently plausible. All I can say is: 1) I'm not conscious of "venting" through Linden; and 2) Linden's emotions are justified (or not) by her circumstances, not by mine. In any case, if you have to understand the author in order to understand the book--or the characters--then the author has failed pretty dramatically. (08/08/2005) |
Perry Bell: Hi Stephen,
I was wondering about "Lord Fouls Bane". When Mhoram took his fathers staff, Covenant was offered Tamarantha's staff. Covenant said "burn it". What happened to Mhorams original staff? I know thats odd for a question, but I noticed nothing said of the one he carried from Revelstone.
Thanks for a great series!
|
Well, I think we can safely say that no one burned a staff. <grin> But other than that, all I can say is: d'oh! Sure looks to me like the author lost track. (08/08/2005) |
Michael Den Tandt: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
I'm a journalist, screenwriter and black belt (shodan, goju-ryu) from Ottawa, Canada. I was weaned on Thomas Covenant, loved the Gap series, just discovered The Man Who Fought Alone.
My question: Why no mention of Goju-Ryu in Fought Alone? Developed in Naha, Okinawa, based on Crane-style Gung Fu, it bridges hard and soft, striking and grappling. I've dabbled in Judo, Jiu-Jutsu, Aikido, Muay Thai, and incorporated techniques from all of them into my Goju. My teachers tell me all these techniques are buried in the Goju katas - that it's a complete fighting system.
Just curious - did Goju-Ryu ever come up in your research?
Enjoy your books,
Best,
Michael Den Tandt
|
Well <rueful sigh>, there are mumblety-mumble times ten martial arts styles that aren't mentioned in "The Man Who Fought Alone." Goju-Ryu just happens to be one of them. In fact, I've taken a couple of Goju-Ryu seminars. And I've had the good fortune to study (very occasionally) with two Goju black belts. But when I wrote "Alone" I already had more material than I could use, so I left a lot out. Just as a casual observation: to my eye, Goju-Ryu looks like a more obviously "complete" system than Shotokan. (So is Hapkido.) But that, I think, is because so much of Shotokan is "hidden": the style is designed to conceal many of its uses from the casual observer. In recent years I've had the regular opportunity to watch both Wing Chun and Chinese Kempo closely, and I still haven't seen anything that isn't hidden away in Shotokan somewhere. My point--to the extent that I have one--is something I like to say at every opportunity. There are no good martial arts--or bad ones, either. There are only good martial artists and bad martial artists. (08/08/2005) |
Dennis Grant: Mr. Donaldson,
Allow me to add my thanks for what you are doing here with the Gradual Interview. The opportunity to see into a favourite author's mind comes rarely if ever, and the opportunity to have the process be *interactive* is beyond price.
I'm enough of a hard-headed realist to know that [earning a living as a writer is] Just Not That Easy. I do *not* have visions of Stephen King or JK Rowling dancing in my head. Writing is not a "get rich quick" deal, nor is it necessarily a "get rich EVER" deal.
I also realize that there's a certain element of luck involved; that even if we make the (completely unwarranted) assumption that I am the greatest writing talent since Billy Shakespere, that doesn't necessarily mean that success is inevitable. I confess to being very suprised that the Gap series did not sell well.
So "success" as a writer, as I am currently imagining it, means being able to pull in enough income as to match a reasonable professional salary (say on the order of $50k-$80k annually) soley on the proceeds of one's writing.
And that's where I'm having trouble conceptualizing how that's even possible.
A quick look at the outlets for short fiction shows that the going rate for newbies runs between $0.06 and $0.20 per word. (Fortune, it seems, favours the verbose) That makes my story, at roughly 4000 words, worth between $240 and $800. In order to gross $50k to $80k, I'd need to sell somewhere between 70 and 350 stories *PER YEAR* to pull that off.
That seems excessive.
OK, so maybe novels is the answer. At one per year (which would be, as I understand it, superhuman levels of output) that means I need to sell each book for $50k to $80k each. One every two years seems far more reasonable, which means that each book needs to sell for $100k to $150k each. Etc.
Plus there's an agent involved, who gets a percentage....
I absolutely cannot see how this is possible. There must be some aspect of the economics of writing of which I am utterly ignorant.
Could you fill in the blanks for me? How is it economically possible for you to subsist off your writing? How does a pro writer pay the bills?
Any information you'd be willing to share would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
DG
|
(I pruned your message heavily to save space. I hope you don't mind.) First, let me refer you to a very recent answer in which I discussed sales, advances, and royalties. With that information as context, I can respond more directly. It's true: no one earns a living writing short fiction. Even if you're one of those one-in-a-bazillion people who gets a short story made into a movie, all you get is a single intoxicating rush of cash: after that, you're back to 5-20 cents a word. And even if you write enough stories to publish a collection which sells very well, you'll still only make about 20% of what a novel of average sales makes. Add that to the fact that first novels usually get pretty small advances (for the first three "Covenant" books *combined* I received $10,000), and the picture looks pretty grim. So the standard advice for new writers goes like this: DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOB until you've been selling short stories and perhaps a novel or two *steadily* for at least five years. What you're hoping to do is establish the kind of track record that a good agent can leverage into an advance (for a novel) in the $50-100k range. And even then, DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOB unless you believe that writing full-time will enable you to produce a novel a year. Of course, there are a number of writers out there who succeeded while ignoring this advice. (I'm one: the first three "Covenant" books earned out so quickly that I was able to live on royalties). But there are also a number of writers who followed this advice and still failed. And then there are the people who succeeded for a while and then failed; the people who failed for a while and then succeeded; and--well, you get the idea. But one truth holds NO MATTER WHAT: you cannot earn a living as a writer unless you are able to be steadily productive day after day, rain or shine, sick or healthy, married or unmarried, with children or without. This stricture becomes a bit more flexible when you've established a long and healthy track record; but it never goes away (unless you happen to be Stephen King or J. K. Rowling or Tom Clancey, and those people are about 1% of 1% of 1% of regularly published writers). <sigh> As I say, it's not a pretty picture. For the sake of completeness, I should mention that there *are* other roads. "Work for hire" is one. I'm no authority on such subjects. But as I understand it, in "work for hire" a writer produces a novel according to the specifications of a particular publisher; the publisher pays a flat fee for ownership of the novel; and after that the publisher gets everything and the author gets nothing (usually not even the right to put his/her name on the book). Writing "Harlequin Romances" would be one example of "work for hire." I'm told this can be fairly lucrative--*if* you happen to be good a producing work which exactly meets the publisher's specifications. (And there *is* a middle ground. Writing "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" novels, for example, closely resembles "work for hire"; but the writer does get royalties--and does get to put his/her name on the book.) Another road--about which I know even less--involves writing books on behalf of some famous person (writer or celebrity) who may or may not have an actual idea, but who either can't or won't do the work of writing that idea. I'm told that in some cases this is pure "work for hire," while in others the famous person shares income (and possibly credit) with the writer. All of which serves to demonstrate another standard piece of advice: "Anybody who *can* be discouraged from being a writer, *should* be discouraged from being a writer." Are you having fun yet? (08/10/2005) |
Lonoman: I've heard a few authors say this, but since you're a writer, when you read, fiction or non, do you find yourself wondering what hell the writer he/she put themself through to complete the work? Does it bring reading to a halt or add to the magic of imagination? Thanks.
|
Strangely, I never think about that. But I think a lot about what I believe the writer was trying to accomplish (often in very specific terms); about whether or not he/she succeeded; and about what I might or might not have done differently. (08/10/2005) |
T. PIper: SRD,
I may be in the minority, but Covenant won't translate well to any screen (though Willem Dafoe 10 years ago had the right face). The Gap Cycle, however . . . Book 4 in the asteroid field was 200 pages of riveting SF that deserves to be shared with the non-reading public.
I consider the Gap Cycle an excellent SF effort, never mind hard SF nitpicking. The key is always the characters. Nick, Morn and Angus . . . well, you know.
I wanted to ask this question back in '96. No matter how much I enjoyed the series, the ending did leave ME wondering; Angus on the loose, the Amnion threat. Did you ever, including notions and inklings, consider a continuation or spin-off?
I understand how busy you will be for . . . ever, but I hope there's an opening in your future.
|
As I've said often before, I have no plans to continue the GAP saga--or "Mordant's Need" or any of my short stories. That doesn't mean I *won't*: I can't predict what ideas will come to me. But I don't write unless I have an idea I believe in; and at present I have no ideas for continuations of anything except the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels. (08/10/2005) |
D.R.: I've been a spell bound reader for a long time and I was wondering if there is any chance of a grand prequel, going back to the old lords, Many of Their deeds are mentioned and I think it would be very intersting to be able to read all about them, right up to Kevins rise to lordship and fall to dispair....I hope it dosen't sound like a dumb question, but I love the series and I'm just curious.
|
As I've had occasion to say before, I have no intention of ever writing prequels. Their fatal flaw, as I see it, is that their essential outcome is already known. Over-stating the case a bit: a professor where I went to college was fond of saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "We really don't need the story of Moby Dick as a suckling whale." In practice--and I mean no disrespect in saying this--I find the prospect of a prequel simply too boring to contemplate. (08/11/2005) |
Jerry Erbe: Not a question, just a comment -
The line, "Well, it's the jacket" from the fantasy bedtime hour, had me on the floor! :)
If it was scripted, it was great, if it was improvised, it was BRILLIANT!
|
Just as a point of information: nothing that the "experts" do or say on "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour" is scripted--or even planned. Heatherly and Julie give the experts absolutely no clue of what to expect: the experts don't even know which scene(s) they'll be discussing until the tape is rolling. (08/11/2005) |
Stephanie: Mr. Donaldson:
In reading some of the questions posted over the past months I find it heartening I was not the only 13 year old who fell in love with your works. I can still recall sitting up late at night crying over what happened to Hile Troy when I was supposed to be studying for a middle school history test.
Fortunately I made it through those horrific teen years and now I'm sitting in my college apartment reading Runes for the second time. I should probably be working on a paper, so if I end up with a "C" on it I blame you. :>
My question ......
I love the way you convey life, spirit and courage in your female characters. I read a great deal, and in my opinion no other male author in the fantasy/SF field comes close to your ability to do so.
Now that I've passed along my compliment, here comes the question. Do you have a friend/editor/wife/girlfriend/mistress who assists you by making specific suggestions as to how to bring your female characters to life? I write the question perhaps partially in jest, but I'm curious just the same. If you have someone special who does offer suggestions from time to time, keep that person!
And, if I may follow with a second question, which female character gave you the most difficulty. Did you struggle with any one of them in particular?
Oh well. Back to my P.R. paper.
|
Thank you! I'm actually quite proud of my female characters. (Pure ego, of course.) When I was much younger, I was assured--vehemently--that males are psychologically incapable of creating female characters. I made a conscious decision not to believe that (in part because of Doris Lessing's dictum--I'm paraphrasing--"It is the responsibility of the imagination to accept no limitations"), and I'm glad you like the results. No, there has never been a woman in my life who guided me with my female characters. But I was raised in a family full of sisters; and my mother was much more "real" and "present" than my father. In addition, one of the underlying postulates of the missionary world in which I grew up was that women are inherently morally superior to men. (This concept now strikes me as demeaning to both genders. Still it's "bred in the bone," in a manner of speaking, and it shows up in my work in unexpected ways, especially in "Mordant's Need" and the GAP books.) The female character who caused me the most trouble was Linden Avery in "The Second Chronicles." (I was much younger then, and still floundering in some of my attempts to understand my characters.) However, the argument could be made that Davies Hyland (a woman's mind in a man's body) was actually my greatest challenge--and elicited the least satisfying results. (08/12/2005) |
Michael from Santa Fe: So, now that you've been on Fantasy Bedtime Hour Higgins, I think the question we all have is: are Heatherly and Julie REALLY naked underneath that sheet?
|
It is with sorrow that I'm forced to report: it's all done with smoke and mirrors. <grin> (08/13/2005) |
Ethan: Hello again Stephen,
while visiting Kevins' watch I noticed in the "cover art" section a record titled, "The White Gold Wielder". Any idea what this silly looking thing might be about? Perhaps a childrens' version of the last book in the second chronicles? (can you imagine?) The reason I say this is because the artwork is extremely hokey.
|
Please. The artist in question (Real Musgrave) is a dear personal friend, and he tackled that cover at my request. This is clearly an example of "casting against type," since Real's natural bent is toward the gentle and whimsical (for which I admire him); so if you don't like the results, you should blame me, not him. The "record" itself (an LP from Caedmon) is a (as I recall) condensed scene from "White Gold Wielder" read by yrs trly. Caedmon originally intended to do a whole series of these recordings; but the sales were so poor that they scrapped the project. (08/13/2005) |
Peter Purcell: Hi!
I'm glad you're making such progress on Fatal Revenant.
A request if possible. I've seen postings mentioning your reading the first chapter of the new book.
Could you perhaps post it on your site? Or maybe an audio of the reading? It would somewhat satisfy the appetites of your loyal fans as we wait the years til publications !! (making you feel guilty? ;) )
Regardless, thanks for bringing joy to so many. Foamfollower got it almost right ... joy is also in the eyes that read!!
Peter
|
My publishers would be justifiably outraged if I posted anything from "Fatal Revenant" on this site without first letting them see it--and give their approval (since they've paid good money for the "first publication" rights). And since I have no intention of letting my publishers see anything until I have the whole book on paper--simply to avoid duplication of effort--I'm afraid you'll have to wait a while longer. Or come to one of my readings and get *really* confused. <grin> (08/13/2005) |
Connie Martin: I do hope you can help me. I have been trying to find an Agent to handle my manuscripts. Publishers want to go thru Agents and all I am finding are the Self-Publish people.
Could you point me in the right direction to find the 'old fashioned' Agent? I have run out of ideas on places to look.
Thank you for your time!
Connie
|
Any good guide to modern publishing (e.g. "The Literary Marketplace" or "Writer's Digest") as well as any "writers' advocacy" organization (e.g. Poets & Writers) should be able to supply you with lists of "old fashioned" agents. Whatever you do, stay away from agents that require you to pay a fee before they'll consider representing you. That's a scam. (08/13/2005) |
Mark: Thanks for this wonderful resource, excellent work!
My question: can you give any more insight as to why the people of the land lost their ability to 'see' between the first and second chronicles? In reference to this, the only specific reference I can find is in TWL, during the Clave's soothtell, where it merely states that "Through the centuries, they had grown blind, and had lost the means to know that the man who had been named the na-Mhoram ... was a Raver." It seems as though they lost the ability to 'see' before the coming of the Sunbane, so was it Foul's early corruption of Law and Earthpower that cost them this health-sense?
Having said this, I now wonder did the Haruchai also lose this ability? I can't recall whether its mentioned or not, and my re-reading has only brought me 2/3 of the way through TWL so far.
Thanks again!
|
The short answer is that, yes, it's an effect of the Sunbane, which is after all a corruption of Earthpower (the "energy" that enables health-sense) rather than of the actual sun, and which must in the beginning have been developed by small increments, changes that took generations to affect the people of the Land. Were the Haruchai affected? That question, I suspect, takes us outside the text. If so, we've entered the realm of speculation; and in that realm your guess is no doubt as good as mine. (I'm not trying to be glib. I just don't remember caring whether or not the Haruchai could "see" when I wrote "The Second Chronicles.") (08/17/2005) |
J C Bronsted: I was considering what you have said about thinking (at least so far as writing goes) in words, and not visually. In my own experience, while writing, I usually watch the movie in my head and try to describe what I see, but at times I think of a phrase or sentence that then triggers a visualization. This is not apparently how your version of this works, as youve said it is all about language. You have also said that when a story suggests itself to you, it is from the ending forward.
I was curious how these stories come to you, whether in language, or (if not visually) in some other way. You did say (I believe) that Names began the process for the GAP books, and these names themselves suggested to you the characters that (I assume) suggested the story. In your consideration of the story, building it backward, or discovering it, do you do this through language? Do you write to work it out? Or is it merely something that plays in your head, teasing you with sentences like mantras until you are forced to go to a keyboard and bang it out? This may be something difficult to characterize, along the lines of Where do you get your ideas? I try to ask myself the same question and the short answer is that I see it (although I do not always know my endings and almost never know how I will get there); my curiosity may arise from how differently (from mine) your mind works at your writing.
I suppose this suggests another question I hadnt intended: If you do write your ideas out in exploration, did you do any of that preliminary work on the Last Chronicles 20 years ago when it first came to you?
As an aside, in hindsight: I suppose I may come closer to understanding the process you go through in composition in my own revising and editing: it is there that the words, phrase structure, meter and prosody, and other purely language-based formulations come to the fore.
Thank you for this interview: it is invaluable to us.
|
I'm perfectly serious when I say it's all about language for me. Still, your comments suggest that I've inadvertently created some confusion. Stories seem to come to me from a wide variety of directions, sometimes from names (the GAP books), sometimes from someone else's sentences ("Mordant's Need"), sometimes from sentences which simply unscroll in my head (stories like "Reave the Just" and "By Any Other Name"), sometimes from simple statements of purpose ("The Second Chronicles," "The Last Chronicles"). However, no matter where an original idea comes from, I can't write it until I know how it ends (in other words, until I know why it's worth telling). Part of my creative method is that no matter where an idea comes from, or when it arrives, I write nothing down (except in those cases where an idea is a specific sentence) until I'm actually ready to commit myself to the story. Writing things down has the advantage of preserving them--and the disadvantage of limiting them. (It also has the disadvantage of giving poor ideas more permanence than they deserve.) So I let sentences, or fragments of sentences, or mere rhetorical possibilities, simply flit through my head, sometimes for decades, until I'm ready to get serious (in a manner of speaking); until the back of my brain lets me know that the time has come for my conscious mind to start work. After that, I write things down like mad (often as cryptically as possible in an attempt to avoid premature limitation or permanence). In addition, the process of planning a story (which is usually an on-going process in my case) often involves doing a fair amount of writing *about* the story. I write out questions that I'll have to answer, or lists of problems that I'll have to solve, or themes that I'll have to develop, in order to write the story itself. Writing inspires writing. ("Service enables service.") As a critic named Newman said of Beethoven, "Great composers do not compose because they are inspired. They become inspired because they are composing." However, none of that happens until I'm ready to do concrete work on a story. While I'm actually writing, I sometimes tap into a vein of sentences that seem to pour forth of their own accord. In those cases, I scramble frantically to try to get it all down before I lose the vein. (Unless it's "quitting time" for the day: then I scrawl out fragments that I hope will help me access the vein later.) But whatever happens, I never "watch the movie in my head and try to describe what I see." The closest I ever come is hearing the sentences in my head and trying to transcribe them before I lose them. And I don't even do *that* unless those sentences apply to the work immediately in front of me. (In other words, I never write "ahead," not even in small fragments of scenes.) My general philosophy is that any idea or sentence that deserves to live will provide for its own survival. OK, I'm rambling. I'll stop now--and hope that I haven't sown more confusion than I can afford to reap. <grin> (08/17/2005) |
Dianne Sherratt: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
How generous of you to be so interactive with your readers! I have read much here, but I am surprised that all seem to miss the metaphor that I find to be so obvious. I would love to hear your opinion and find out if it is me who has missed the point.
Your Chronicles of Thomas Covenant seem to be an examination of trauma and dissociation. I see evidence of this on a macro and micro level, as well as dissociation on both a personal and social level.
Lord Foul and the Land seem to be the embodiment of the internal workings of dissociative process, and the Land itself goes through trauma as do all the major charactors. Healing involves bringing together the good with the bad as it is the rupture of the self which causes pain.
Can it be coincidence that Lord Foul is named the Despiser when despair is the most difficult part of trauma to overcome? Can it be coincidence that white gold is so powerful against despite because it is an alloy?
I have read that both Tolkien and Lewis used their writing as a metaphor for exploration of the role of religion. Am I wrong in thinking of your works as an exploration of trauma and it's effects?
I find yours to be a beautiful work despite all of the pain described, because it describes so accurately the arduous journey to oneness and health after picking up the dissociated aftereffects of trauma. Anyone with such a thorough knowledge of the dissociative process must have been witness to great pain.
But, of course I could be wrong. I would love to hear your thoughts on his.
|
As I've tried to say at several points during this interview, I don't believe that you could possibly "be wrong." Reading is as private as writing; and we all see through the lenses of our own minds. What you see is inherently valid *because* you've seen it. (Of course, paying attention to what's actually on the page does count--especially if you want your views to be understood by other readers. But in your case there's clearly no lack of attention to the actual text.) That said, my reaction is that you say "trauma" and "dissociation" while I tend to say "illness" and "alienation," but we're really talking about the same things. Of course, you use words that have special meaning to you. I do the same. In my case, "culture shock" was the first profound trauma of which I became conscious in myself (although it was far from my first profound trauma), so words like "alienation" have a particular weight in my thinking. (So do words like "sin," "guilt," "healing," "salvation," "integrity".) But it's easy to see that "culture shock" entails both "trauma" and "dissociation." In short, I agree with you. I just use different words. As do many of the readers who post questions and comments on this site. (08/17/2005) |
Rob Murnick: Dear Sir,
I fear that if the short answer to this question isn't "no", then I have little hope for a long answer, as it may entail you spoiling the story. But here goes: Do you have plans to expand further on Foul as a character? I've been used to thinking of Foul as an epitome of evil, and, at the same time, a manifestation of Covenant's dark side. (I'm afraid I haven't yet thought of him as a manifestation of Linden's dark side - Is that coming? A female version of Foul? Foulette? :) ) But thinking of Foul as a dark reflection of Covenant implies that his development depends upon Covenant's development. Your response to a question in November (11/27/2004) stating that Foul is as free to make choices as the other characters are seems counter to him being the "anti-Covenant". Please forgive me if I'm being too rigid, I love your novels more than words can express.
The truth is I would be thrilled to read the "dirt" on Lord Foul. What is his "secret origin"? Has he always been the epitome of evil (and nothing else)? If he hasn't, then I may have to chuck the "Foul is Covenant's dark reflection" POV out the window, to be replaced by "Foul is a fallen, tragic figure". Then again I doubt you'll make it that cut and dried.
Thank you so much for the new series!
Rob Murnick
|
Not intending to waffle timidly, but: why can't all of your theories (and all of mine, for that matter) be correct simultaneously? Surely the affirmation of inherent contradictions is the very life-blood of the "Covenant" books? Speaking purely for myself, I see no difficulty in stating that LF is "Covenant's dark reflection" AND "a fallen, tragic figure" AND Evil Incarnate AND a being as capable of choice as any other. Some might argue that by definition Evil Incarnate can't be "capable of choice" (since it is what it is, and is only what it is). But I don't see it that way. Even a character as simple and black as Sauron still makes choices in how he pursues his aims. The fact that he *does* make choices proves that he *can* make choices. And if he *can* make choices, who's to say what those choices can *be*? (Well, Tolkien, in this case. <grin> The possibility that Sauron *might* make a choice that wasn't evil didn't fit the story Tolkien wanted to tell. But that doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make.) Your desire for "the 'dirt' on Lord Foul" (his "secret origin," etc.) would require me to truncate my intentions; to restrict the rich (and admittedly contradictory) variety of things that I want to say about "evil" in general, and about Lord Foul in particular. I'm not willing to do that. Even if it means that I have to spend the rest of my natural life answering questions in this interview. <broad grin> (08/17/2005) |
Stephen Elmore: I was wondering if Mr. Donaldson had ever considered fleshing out the other books that Covenant wrote, after his first journey to the Land? In the Wounded Land they reference a novel called "Or I Will Sell My Soul For Guilt". I think that it would be fascinating to deal with some passages of this book, either within the context of the Last Chronicles, or with SRD writing it as Thomas Covenant.
|
I appreciate your interest, but what you're asking doesn't seem likely. I've never had the faintest hint of a glimmer of a suggestion of an idea for a novel that might have been written by Thomas Covenant. And I hope I've made it clear that without an idea I have no reason to write. (08/24/2005) |
Brian Gannon: Hi,
I have just one quick question for you. Have you ever thought of writing a short story on the giant story of 'Baghoun The Unbearable and Thelma Two-Fist who tamed him'? (forgive my poor spelling from memory). I've always wanted to hear that story.
Thanks
Bri
|
Frankly, I've always wanted to hear that story myself. <grin> But for now, I'm afraid this falls into the category of RAFO. (08/24/2005) |
Paul: As you might have noticed, a few of us are waiting for the next book (mild understatement - I bet you can almost hear the gnawing of fingernails and drumming of fingers on the desk). You have said you are a slow reader, but are there any new books that YOU are anxiously waiting for?
|
At the moment, the only one I can think of is the next installment in Steven Erikson's "Malazan Book of the Fallen" series. At one time, I was pretty impatient for Stephen King's "Dark Tower" saga; but the final installments became available just when I discovered that I enjoyed them more if I spaced them out. So far, I've read the first five, and I'm just about ready for book six. (08/24/2005) |
Ethan Firl: Stephen,
greetings and congratulations on another fine novel. Is there any chance of seeing you on BookTV?
Ethan
|
Since I've never even *heard* of BookTV, the odds don't look good. <grin> Surely if they had ever invited me to appear, I would at least know that they existed. (08/24/2005) |
Karl (Vector): Not realizing the length of your backlog, I feel I wasted my earlier first question with a not so important question.
I own your older original paperback novels of the "The Man Who.." series. Somehow, I never read them and having just reread everything else of yours, I decided that I am now going to pick up that series. Is it worth that I should pick up the new editions of these novels since you have indicated that you add revisions to correct internal consistency, are the changes worth purchasing the latest novels ?
As a side note to the above question, I am now looking forward to the paperback edition of ROTE since your revisions will add some additional meaning to my next reread of that novel.
Another question, you have indicated that you turned to writing mysteries since you felt that you could fix something that you perceived as broken. Another author, perhaps my second favorite modern author (at least in his older works - he, like you, evolves himself over time, however I find myself having trouble adjusting to his latest style - a problem I do not have with your work), Peter Straub moved from his version of supernatural fiction to attempt his hand at Mysteries. I very much liked his "Koko", "The Throat", and "Mystery" novels (though I like even more his "Shadowland", "Ghost Story", and "Floating Dragon" stories). I was wondering if you had any opinion on these works especially since I like him for some of the same reasons that I like yours - fidelity to his vision, for example.
Also, I think Arturo Perez-Reverte with his genre of historical/literary mysteries such as "The Club Dumas" and "The Flander's Panel" (especially after noting your reading of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" - I tend to think of Arturo Perez-Reverte as writing a more intelligent version of this type of fiction, though less action packed).
|
No, it isn't worth purchasing new editions of "The Man Who..." books if you already own the original *Reed Stephens* versions. The changes are very slight, and they have nothing to do with internal consistency (except in the case of Axbrewder's handgun). Most of the changes were for readability; a few simply polished dialogue (again for readability); and in a very few cases I adjusted the names of characters to make them less "clunky". I've always been a Peter Straub fan. He's one of the important writers of our time. "Koko" is brilliant. After that, "Shadowland" is my favorite of his books so far. Sorry, I'm not familiar with Arturo Perez-Reverte. (08/26/2005) |
Jim Melvin: Have you ever been told approximately how many of your books have been sold in the U.S. and around the world? Or is that something that is too difficult to estimate? And if a writer's books have sold in the tens of millions, is that a guarantee that the writer will have made tens of millions of dollars?
|
My royalty statements tell me exactly how many books were sold in the US. But with the first six "Covenant" books, I sold all of the rights to Del Rey/Ballantine. So DR/Bal acted as agent for all overseas publications, including England. As a result, foreign publishers report sales to DR/Bal, but DR/Bal does not then report those numbers to me: I'm simply told what my share of the "take" is. Since I don't know what the royalty rates were, I can't even try to estimate how many books were sold overseas. And no, millions of books sold does not mean that the author made millions. Two facts, one general, one personal. 1) Books published in languages other than English pay VERY low royalties because the cost of publication is so high: the publisher has to pay for translation. So when a book is sold in, say, France, DR/Bal probably gets a nickel--which means I get 2 1/2 cents. 2) My royalty rate for the first three "Covenant" books is around 2 1/2%. Taking an arbitrary average cover price of $5 (they were first published at $2.50, which was when the majority of the sales occurred; now, of course, the price is close to $8), that gives me 12 1/2 cents per book. Then spread the total out over 27 years. When you do the math that way, it gets downright depressing. <grin> (08/26/2005) |
Mark Morgon-Shaw: How fast are you at typing ? I've seen voice typing software demonstrated on which a trained operator far exceeded the speed of even the best typists, I'll buy you a copy if it gets the final chronicles here quicker !
|
I'm a very slow--AND inaccurate--typist. I've always had poor small motor skills. But that's OK because I also think slowly. <grin> However, if I had to write books longhand, I'd go into some other line of work. (08/26/2005) |
caeriel: I have three questions:
1. I know many of your characters' names come first; their details arrive later. But what happens when you have a character you already know about but who hasn't yet found a name? Do you wait for the name to appear? Do you brainstorm possible names? Or?
2. How do you discipline yourself to write on the hard days? Do you reward yourself for pushing through your own resistance? How? If you let yourself take "time off", how long before you absolutely make yourself sit down and get back to work?
3. How do you balance dignity with reality? You've frequently mentioned that you are committed to imbuing your characters with dignity, and we are all grateful--it's awful when a story (especially an epic story) is robbed of that dignity by careless writing or an embarrassingly undignified character (Jarjar Binks comes to mind). But in real life I find that many people lack dignity; they're messy and petty and careless and banal. Is it just that the people who find their way into your tales are exceptional? Or do you see this kind of dignity in everyone?
Thank you for your work. It's been an inspiration to me for more than half my life.
|
1) I pause briefly in case a name chooses to appear: then I start brainstorming (and as a corollary of brainstorming, I allow myself to change my mind later if I come up with a better idea). I can't write about a character if I don't have a name for him/her. 2) Well, of course, I'm addicted to the sensation that my life has (admittedly self-imposed) purpose. That helps to motivate me. But one of my secrets is that every day I give myself permission to write badly--not because I'm prepared to accept a bad final result (I'm not: I edit and revise heavily), but because I know that during my creative phase preserving forward momentum is much more important than initial quality. And then I follow a consistent, even rigid, daily routine that helps to "get me in the mood" even when I don't feel like it. 3) I contest your assumption. Just because in "real life" people can be "messy and petty and careless and banal," not to mention demeaning or abusive, doesn't mean that they lack dignity. Of course, I know that I'm using the word "dignity" in a specialized sense. What I mean is that every person--even the slobs/tyrants/butchers/whatever--has an internal story which explains and (in his/her own terms) justifies or motivates his/her behavior; and that if we could know that story, and that if we were sufficiently open-hearted, we could give it our empathy. In my lexicon, "giving my characters dignity" means understanding and empathizing with them: it doesn't mean "causing them to behave in a dignified fashion". Jarjar Binks is an embarrassment, not because he behaves like such a geek, but because he has no story. Lucas didn't give him the dignity of a story. (08/27/2005) |
Yvan Le Terrible: Hello to you Mr SRD,
firstly, many thanks for the pleasure of reading such a great SF story as the Gap Cycle
I must say that, as a french fan, i Had to earn it the hard way as only 3 books were translated, so I had to switch to original version to have the full story !
Ok that was source of good improvement for my English level, specially in the field of spaceships Alien technology and robotics (fields which are not so commonly used but it was VERY worth it).
Your writing was so "visual" that i Still see the images of that Zero-G fight in the deck of the ship-with the drops of blood spills...(many years after)
I still do not understand the way some music you are listening while reading gets forever connected with complete visions of the books.
I believe there are special momments the reader gets so deeply lost in the his new world and swith to a better perceptive level to get this "print"
maybe our mind is like some E-PROM waiting for the right Flashing light.
Af course, this story would make a very good movie as Mr Orson Wells said to an interview :
Q : What does it takes to make a good movie ?
A : You need 3 things : A good story,... A good story, .. and a good story
Ther Mr Donaldon, There is in the Gap cycle evrything to get a perfect movie !
In the hope to read you
A French Fan
Yvan Le Terrible
|
As I think I've said before, I believe that both the GAP books and "Mordant's Need" (not to mention some of my novellas) could more easily be made into good movies than anything "Covenant". But the people who own the option on "Lord Foul's Bane" aren't giving up, so who knows what the future will bring? (08/27/2005) |
Tom Simon: Not a question, but a point of information for Richard Castano, Jr. (Unfortunately, Mr. Castano's address did not actually make it into your answer to his question in the GI.)
The pirated e-texts have been taken offline, along with the pirate's entire website. However, scanned ASCII files of the books may be available from becquet.com. Send a request to this email address:
Books@becquet.com
If that fails, I downloaded all six of the pirated files before they were taken offline. I don't read them or distribute them, of course, but sometimes use the search function of my word processor to locate specific passages; in effect, I use the files as an electronic index. It can be quite handy. (I have all six books in hardcover, and planned to scan them into text files for just this purpose. So the pirate saved me some work that I could have done legally myself.)
If you are willing, I can forward copies of the text files to Mr. Castano. If he is totally blind, or almost totally, so that he can't read even large-print books, he probably has a computer with a Braille display. Since the files are plain ASCII text with no special formatting, they would be ideal for reading in Braille.
Please forgive my presumption if this is not helpful.
|
I, too, don't know how to contact Richard Castano. So I'm posting this in the hope that the information reaches him somehow. (08/27/2005) |
Michael from Santa Fe: OK, this is nitpicking and totally pointless (but what are fans for!) In the dust cover inside text of "Runes" it states that "the inhabitants named him The Unbeliever". Now, I'm almost positive that Covenent gave himself that title when he met Lena's parents at the beginning of Lord Foul's Bane, when he was still in complete denial. The inhabitants certainly accepted that title, but I believe "Unbeliever" is the only title he gave himself. So you can imagine my shock when I read the quote mentioned above! So my question is, who wrote the text for the dust jacket, and will they be sacked in short order?
|
Dust jacket copy is pretty much never written by the author. Sometimes the editor writes it; sometimes a publicity person writes it; sometimes an assistant of some kind gets the job. Sometimes the copy is then sent to the author for his/her approval. And SOMEtimes even the author doesn't catch obvious mistakes (since the author is occasionally hard at work on something else and doesn't really want to be interrupted <grin>). But no, no one would ever be fired for a mistake this trivial--as I'm sure you've already assumed. (08/27/2005) |
Michael Carolan: Hello.. I wont take up too much of your time..
I read the first two chronicles maybe as much as three times each... I loved them. They were for me such a breath of fresh air in a genre that was very very repetitious... When I saw that the Runes Of The Earth was coming out I was a little apprehensive... but after reading it I can now say it is great.. a credit to you.
Questions.
1, My concern is over finding a way to make the arrival of Thomas Covenant on horseback plausible.... He's dead.. Therefore has no physical form.. Have you found a way to make it plausible? I would greatly struggle to read on if I cant be made to believe.
2, Is there any chance of me getting a signed bookmark?? I can send one if you would be willing. I cant imagine a more fitting way of enjoying the rest of the series than having such a token to keep my place in the story....
Thanks for your time.. now stop reading this and get back to work!!
Michael.
|
1) RAFO. But don't you think I've earned a little trust here? 2) You can get an autographed bookplate by following the procedure described elsewhere on this site. If you absolutely have to have a signed bookmark, contact my agent at the e-address on this site, ask for an s-mail address, and mail the bookmark to him. He'll pass it along to me, and I'll sign it and return it to you--probably months later <sigh>. (08/27/2005) |
Tim H.: Mr. Donaldson,
As I recall, somewhere in the first two chronicles, there were mentions of gold and other precious metals being used in the land.
This always made me wonder...if all the metals used to create the alloy of white gold are available in the land, what prevents a competent smith from creating white gold? Is one of elemental metals(nickel or palladium) missing completely from the land or would physics in the land not allow the metals to mix as they would in the real world?
Geekishly yours,
-Tim
|
In a non-fantasy novel, such issues would naturally arise. And they would have to be dealt with. But in fantasy novels (LOTR is a prime example) people simply don't think in mechanistic, mundane terms: they think in magical terms. For example. the Elves live forever--and they've had plenty of time to think. So why don't *they* have any technology; or metallurgical skills; or any apparent interest in the compostion and possibilities of the physical world? It isn't because they're stupid. And it isn't because Tolkien didn't think it through. It's because LOTR simply isn't that kind of story. It's about the spiritual essences of things, not about their physical properties. Well, the same general principle applies to the "Covenant" books. I admit that I opened a conceptual door when I used the word "alloy": it suggests possibilities which the story does not address. But I used the word because it also suggests *other* possibilities which the story *does* address. Other than that, the only real "point" of white gold is that it doesn't occur naturally in the Land (whereas "pure," non-composite metals such as gold probably do exist, if not in the Land then elsewhere in the Earth); it has to come from outside the Land's (and the Earth's) known magical reality. Many years ago, when I was still mulling over "The Last Chronicles," I considered introducing various forms of technology (metallurgy and steam engines); but I soon realized that such developments would violate the fundamental nature of the story I'm trying to tell. (08/28/2005) |
Phil V: As others have, I'd like to first thank you for this wonderful body of fantasy work. I was given the original Chronicles in high school and was startled at how drastically it differed from the other cliche-riddled bologne on the market. I hear the comparisons to LOTR, and quite frankly, I just don't see them (they both have a ring...COPYCAT!!).
My question(s)...
How does your interest in the martial arts correlate to your interest in the deeply internal fantasy that you write? Also, are the Haruchai in any way a literary manifestation of your interest in martial arts?
While I have you... I have purchased Lord Foul's Bane for quite a few friends because I felt so strongly that they could not know fantasy as a genre without having experienced them. Many had difficulty with the early chapters. My antidote was always to describe the Bloodguard to them as a spoiler. Worked every time. By far one of the coolest concepts you've ever devised. Thanks again.
Regards,
Phil
|
You couldn't know this, of course; but you're getting the cart before the horse. I started work on "Covenant" in 1972. I started studying the martial arts in 1988--and I didn't truly become interested in them until 1989. Well, my imagination has always run a considerable distance ahead of my conscious mind (not to mention my life <grin>). It could easily be argued that I became interested in studying the martial arts *because* I write deeply internal fantasy--and had already created the Haruchai. (08/28/2005) |
Steve Elmore: I am re-reading the second chronicles and was wondering about something. It seems that through out these books we learn things about the Earth and about Creation that we did not know. For instance we knew that the Creator forged the Arch of Time, but there was no mention of the Worm's role in this. I was wondering of the Clave story of a-Jeroth and the Seven Hells might be proven to be more relevant than merely being the twisting of the Earth' history? I have a tendency to look at the Sunbane as the projection of Foul's internal reality, his essence in at least one form, onto the Land, so I though that maybe there might be some metaphysical truth to this legend.
|
I tried to suggest--*much* earlier in this interview--that I think there is significant truth (metaphysical and otherwise) in *every* legend or myth presented anywhere in the "Covenant" books. What we *know* (in concrete, undeniable terms) is that the Worm of the World's End exists. But as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't mean for second that stories like "the broken Rainbow" or "a-Jeroth and the Seven Hells" are in any way untrue. We all see the world through perceptual filters. We emphasize some things and leave others out. The various myths and legends of the Land reveal some truth about the Land itself (the creation of the Earth, etc.); but they also reveal some truth about the people telling the story. Those myths and legends diverge because the people telling them are different from each other. (08/28/2005) |
Kristen Steffenhagen: Hey there, Steve!
I think you're a magnificent story-teller. You create worlds beyond imagination, your plots are wonderfully constructed, and your characters are beautiful. I really enjoyed the GAP (I'm rereading it for the second time now). I've enjoyed all your books so far, and I can't wait to get my hands on "Runes".
Now, I'm curious... when did you start writing? Was it something you always did? Perhaps you had a flair for writing? What inspired you?
Sincerely,
Kris
|
I think I've answered this in some detail--but I can't remember where or when. <sigh> So briefly: I started writing fiction early in my Freshman year in college. Until then, I hated writing--although in some sense I've been a storyteller since I was five. When I discovered writing, I definitely had "flair". But I had no skill at all. So learning skill became my driving motivation through college and graduate school. And, in my view, I didn't become skillful enough to write effective stories until my 3rd year in grad school. What inspired me? The short form is: college itself. After just one year in a public high school in the US, the intellectual stimulation of college was an ecstatic experience for me. Without that catalyst, I doubt that I would ever have given writing stories a try. (08/28/2005) |
BigMick: Hi there!
I've been a big fan of yours for many years since discovering "Lord Foul's Bane" in my school library in the 1980's. I particularly like your short stories, though I love all your work.
Considering that novels and short stories can be considered two different disciplines, which do you prefer to write? Do short stories give you an opportunity to examine themes and ideas that novels fail to meet?
--
BigMick
PS Runes of the Earth - Fantastic!
|
Well, it's certainly true that "Differences in degree become differences in kind." (Karl Marx) In that sense, short stories and novels *are* different disciplines. But I don't think in those terms. As far as I'm concerned, they're all just stories. The only difference that matters is that some stories have more inherent content (e.g. multiplicity of characters, or thematic complexity) than others. But. It has become obvious to me that one of my strongest talents is my ability to organize a large narrative canvas. In addition, I get comparatively few ideas for stories; so when I *do* get one I have to milk it for all it's worth. <grin> So the vast majority of my writing life has been spent on novels. In fact, I didn't become *capable* of writing an effective short story until after I had completed the first "Covenant" trilogy. At that point, I realized that a short story is *not* different than a novel: it's just shorter. So my first published short story, "The Lady in White," was written *after* three "Covenant" novels. These days, the special attraction of short stories is that I can actually imagine finishing them. <grin> After the prolonged strain of a huge project, that's a great relief. (08/28/2005) |
Robert: OK OK. I admit it. You are my favourite author....*grins*...Thanks for the great works of literature you have given us all. As an aspiring author, I'd be happy if I could achieve a small measure of your success.
When I read your works....and other books too..I sometimes find myself falling in love with a certain character...*laffs*....the Platonic kind......and trying to put a face to them. Do you ever "put a face" to a character while writing about them?
I've read the little bits about a possible Covenant movie. It's exciting, but I have often thought that Covenant would be extremely hard to bring to the big screen. Too much of what makes the Covenant series great is how you convey his thoughts, etc.....which is hard to do without using large amounts of narrative,,,or relying on the idea that the audience knows what the hell is going on because they have read the books. In this reguard I believe Mordant's Need would be much more adaptable to the big screen.It's a shorter work, got more of a romance to it, has many many strong believable characters...Any thoughts on this?
Sorry for such a long winded question...
|
I think it would be fair to say that I never "put a face" to a character in the way you do. It's not just that I don't base my characters on anyone I've ever known--or even seen. It's also, as I keep saying, that I "see" with language. I don't even remember what my characters look like while I'm writing about them (although I often get brief intense glimpses when I'm writing their descriptions): I remember what I *said* they look like--which isn't at all the same thing. (So it probably goes without saying that my visual memory is pretty weak at the best of times, while my verbal memory is usually reliable.) I've already spent more than enough space in this interview on the entirely-hypothetical "Covenant" movie. I'll just repeat myself to the extent of saying that, yes, I think "Mordant's Need" could more easily be translated into a good movie. However, wherever possible film producers think "franchise" (e.g. James Bond), and "Covenant" clearly has more potential in that regard than "Mordant's Need"--or even the GAP books. (08/31/2005) |
John Butcher: Dear Mr Donaldson,
First of all, let me add myself to the many others who have thanked you for the enjoyment your works have brought us.
You have said that the First Chronicles were self-contained and intended to have no sequel. In that case, the references therein to Elohim, Bhrathair - and now also Demondim - were not intended to lead to ever encountering these beings. Did you know when you wrote the First Chronicles what they were, or did the names come first and the creatures later? Elohim is of course a very resonant word.
|
The names came first: I developed the characters/creatures later, when I needed them. As I keep saying, I'm an efficient writer in the sense that I only create what I need. In the first "Chronicles," what I needed was world-building; and one time-honored technique for world-building is to refer to races and countries etc. which never appear in the story (thus creating the sensation that the world is "bigger", and hence more real, than the particular story). Of course, I was very aware of the resonance of the word "Elohim" when I used it; but I didn't go beyond that in the first "Chronicles" (at least not consciously). (08/31/2005) |
Jim Melvin: It is important for fantasy epics to contain some degree of historical accuracy or believability (in terms of settings, weapons, dialogue, etc.) But do you think that some of today's successful fantasy novelists (I won't name names) carry this too far? I have found several of your fellow best-selling authors to be amazingly well-educated in the historical sense, but not so clever in the this-is-a-great-story sense. Which is more important? What the story is about? Or how it is told?
|
I'm inclined to contest your opening postulate. Of course fantasy epics require believability: every story does, in one form or another. But do they therefore require historical accuracy? That sounds like an oxymoron to me, since fantasy is by its very nature, well, fantastic (i.e. it does not conform to any known consensus about external reality). In any case, weak writers use "accuracy" (however defined) as a substitute for imagination: strong writers use it (when they use it all) as a springboard for imagination. Using "Covenant" as an example (if I may do so without arrogance): the whole point of the information about leprosy is *not* that it is accurate (although it was when I wrote those books), but rather that it enables what follows. And the same can be said of "historical accuracy...in terms of settings, weapons, dialogue, etc.." A case in point is Dan Brown, who regularly wins the I-know-more-than-you-do sweepstakes hands down, but who couldn't tell a good story if his life depended on it. At its core, storytelling is about character; and (as someone observed in an entirely different context) Dan Brown "writes about human beings as if he's never actually met one." (08/31/2005) |
Kristen Steffenhagen: Mr. Donaldson,
I have two questions for you today.
1) In the GAP series, you used such terms as "swashbuckling" and "buccaneer." Angus and Nick were pirates. These words -- what seem like pirate terminology -- made it seem to me that Angus and Nick were pirates out at sea. I was just wondering whether is was some strange coincidence that these two were ore-pirates and you were using such words when describing them?
2) My second question has to do with the death of Nick. How did you feel about killing him off the way you did? To me it felt like the worst death he could have had, trying to get revenge on Sorus Chatelaine and she ends up killing him.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kris
|
1) It has recently come to my attention that words like "swashbuckling" and "buccaneer" once had very specific and concrete meanings which could not possibly be applied to the GAP books--or to any form of space opera. In my view, however (a view confirmed by at least one modern dictionary), the meanings of those terms have lost their specificity over the centuries, and they can now be used in a whole host of contexts only loosely related to literal piracy and crime. For example, 200+ years ago the word "buccaneer" could only be used metaphorically unless it referred to "piracy," which in turn only took place "at sea." Now even "piracy" no longer requires a nautical denotation. Better writers than I am have been tossing around "swashbuckling" and "buccaneer" pretty freely for decades. 2) From Nick's perspective, he got exactly "the worst death he could have had." From my perspective, he got exactly the death he brought on himself. Considering the relentless pettiness of his desire for revenge, any less futile death would have violated the terms on which he lived. (08/31/2005) |
Nathan Graber: I was just recently introduced to your work and have just finished the first Covenant trilogy, and I am very intrigued by the philosophy of the books, especially the end of the third. I noticed both Christian and eastern religious symbolism, and I am wondering what your personal philosophy of life is.
|
As regular readers of this interview know, I'm not interested in discussing my "personal philosophy of life." For one thing, I consider it irrelevant: only the books themselves matter. And for another, well, this is a public forum, and my personal philosophies are private. Please accept my regrets. (08/31/2005) |
Michael from Santa Fe: One of my favorite parts of "The One Tree" (besides the romance developing between Linden and Covenant) was that it took place at sea, on a Giant ship. You really made the ship come alive to me and I believed I was sailing along with them. So, my question: do you have much real life experience with sailing and ships or did you just do some basic research to get the ship terms straight and go from there?
|
I've spent significant periods of time at sea, literally as well as metaphorically <grin>. But I have very little experience with actual sailing: mostly I've been on cruise ships, freighters, and oceanliners. My (very limited) knowledge of sailing comes from reading stories about sailing (Hayden's "Voyage," Dana's "Two Years Before the Mast," a whole bunch of Melville and Conrad, Russell and O'Brian) rather than from more mundane forms of research. (08/31/2005) |
David Flood: Hi Stephen,
I have read in your previous replies that all of Kevin's Lore is now 'lost'. Is that an irreversible situation - have the Masters destroyed the Wards and other items in Revelstone?
Does Anele have the skills and knowledge (as what amounts to being an Unfettered One) to resurrect a new line of Lords, or are they gone forever?
Again, thank you so much for your writing. Thank you.
David, Ireland
|
I'm afraid all of this falls under the heading of RAFO. But I think it's very unlikely that the Masters would *destroy* a Ward if they ever found (or had) one. That doesn't sound like them to me: whatever else they may believe, they have too much respect for the Lords. (08/31/2005) |
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
As always, thank you so much for this GI and of course for your wonderful stories. I am particularly drawn to The Gap Cycle and can't seem to stop reading and re-reading it (I really MUST broaden my horizons eventually) but to the point. Regardless of the numerous times I have read The Gap series of books, I have not yet been able to make heads-or-tails of two particular incidents that take place and how they came to be and the characters motivations behind them. I've searched for an answer to the question on Kevins Watch but Ive had no luck. Perhaps you can shed some light on my incomprehension.
- WHY does Holt send a kaze to try and kill Captain Vertigus? I really dont understand what he could have hoped to gain by this act? He had no real notion of what Warden was up to at the time and not much else had really happened that I can see that would have justified this act.
- The second question is similar, WHY would Holt send a kaze to kill Gosden? He was grooming Gosden to become President of the GCES. Was it simply a loyalty test? Either get on a shuttle to visit Holt in person, thereby saving his life or choose loyalty to Warden and die? Is it really that simple or am I missing something obvious? Holt seemed to have nothing to gain by this attack on his own subordinate.
- And for both these questions it would seem that Holt would have to be prescient in order to have foreseen his need or desire for these kazes far enough in advance to make the necessary preparations eventually uncovered by Hashis investigation.
Please help me to understand. On my next reading of the series Id like to be able to think, ah-hah! instead of, huh?
Thanks! Looking forward to Fatal Revenant
|
Well, keeping in mind that you've probably read the story far more recently than I have.... Captain Vertigus opposes virtually all of Holt Fasner's political/personal agendas--and the good captain has a *lot* of credibility within the GCES. Prior to the events precipitated by Warden Dios' "betrayal," Holt is (as I recall) trying through such tactics as the Preempt Act to reverse the roles of the UMC and the GCES: to make the governance of Earth an extension of that in space instead of the other way around. Consolidating his power-base. But Vertigus is a serious threat to Holt's efforts. He's dedicated, passionate, and persuasive. And an attack on him (intended to be successful) would have the added benefit of making the GCES fearful for its own safety, therefore more willing to accept the hegemony of the (already powerful and effective) UMCP. The attack on Godsen could be called a loyalty test. Such tests are useful when the loyalty of a subordinate is open to question. At this point in the story, Holt has plenty of reason to suspect that "something's up": he just doesn't know what, exactly. Sending an attack on Godsen that Godsen could avoid by blindly following Holt's orders offers Holt a chance to glean or precipitate valuable information. And it has the added benefit of serving as a warning to Warden: "You aren't safe from me, so toe the line." Holt isn't prescient: he's simply the kind of man who always keeps a few kazes handy, just in case. (In other word: no, this is not yet another example of excessively elaborate and implausible plotting. <grin>) (09/07/2005) |
Pitchwife: Hi Stephen,
I was planning to finish reading all the archives from the gradual interview before writing to you, but I have been making my way slowly through them and realized that I may as well start sooner since I have so many thoughts and questions I want to share with you over time.
What is the origin of Kasreyne of the Gyre ? In all the covenant books, he reminds me most of the Master Imagers from Geraden's world, both in character and in capabilities - his use of mirrors for translation within the sandhold, plus the use of his oculum (? not sure if I am remembering the name of this correctly) which seems optical in nature.
Another related similarity between these two worlds are the appearance of the acidic green creatures (Skeche?) that attack Covenants party in the swamps, and that Eremis translates to attack the village in Geraden's world. Were these similarities on purpose (after all, Eremis does translate them from another world...)
|
Gosh, I *wish* I had the kind of global mind that could weave together novels as disparate as "The Second Chronicles" and "Mordant's Need" with such subtlety and foresight. Alas, I don't. Any parallel details (glass; acidic creatures) that exist are--in effect--coincidences. I didn't do them on purpose. At least not with my conscious mind (the actions of my subconscious are another matter entirely). As for Kasreyn's origin: as far as I know, he sprang full-grown from my imagination. In other words, I have no earthly idea where he came from. If I could explain how the human imagination works, I would be the most important thinker since, well, ever. <grin> Still, it's interesting to stand back and observe how the mind recycles its own materials. I suspect that a really obsessive-compulsive study of my stories would unearth all manner of unrecognized links (quite apart from the more obvious reiterations of theme and subject matter). And some of those links (he said almost seriously) would be syntactical. (09/07/2005) |
Clement Singarajah, M.D: Not a question, but just a big thank you. Of all the great authors out there, you have come the closest to JRR Tolkein and in some ways have exceeded him (almost sacrilege to say so!) and I am pleased you are returning to the Land. By the way, you are one of the few authors who manages to tax my vocabulary with curious words like cerements, frangible, percipient, lambent, inchoate etc. Perhaps you could put floccinaucinihiliplification to good us as you have an undoubted mastery of English writing that very few others can match, perhaps only JRRT. Best regards to a superb author and thank you again for the alas too short hours of pleasure you have given my imagination.
|
OK, this is a quiz for regular readers of the GI. Do any of you own a dictionary that contains the word "floccinaucinihiliplification"? If you do, please post a definition--and 4-6 months later I'll post my heartiest congratulations. <grin> P.S. No points will be awarded if it turns out that no one except Clement Singarajah, M.D., can provide a definition. (Now I'm *really* grinning.) (09/07/2005) |
Chris O'Connell: Mr. Donaldson,
I"m a big fan and I appreciate your taking the time to answer our questions. My question is: what is your interest in a potential 'Lord Fouls Bane'? I don't mean monetarily, but I mean as the original author.
I'm not judging by any means, but I'm curious about your motivation (if any). Since you have said you would not write a screenplay and you aren't interested in having input into the process, in a lot of ways, the movie will having nothing to do with you.
As fans, we are interested because we can't get enough. As I have read through the GI, you don't seem to be that interested in any life your stories may have outside the books. Is it curiousity? Maybe just a chance to learn 'how Hollywood works'? Or just plain ol' pride?
This is pretty open-ended, so any thoughts you'd care to share would be great.
Thanks,
Chris
|
Since I would have no control whatsoever over the outcome, I work hard at not investing any mental or emotional energy in a "Lord Foul's Bane" film. (And in any case I have too much other work to do.) But of course I'm curious: who wouldn't be? And of course I have as much ego as anyone else, so naturally I want my books to get more recognition than is actually possible <grin>. In addition, however, I believe strongly in not stifling other people's creativity. By legal and honest means, certain individuals have obtained the right to attempt a LFB film. Who am I to stand in their way? And how can I assume that the result of their efforts will be failure (a bad movie; an unsuccessful movie; no movie at all)? I'm not that prescient--and I'm certainly not that wise. (09/07/2005) |
Anonymous: Have you read Stephen King's Dark Tower series? I wonder if it is coincidence that the protagonist of that story is maimed in a suspiciously famialiar way-he loses two fingers on one hand.
You have recommended Stephen Erikson several times as an author you enjoy. Which of his books specifically would you recommend to start with? Its difficult to find good fantasy these days, and I've got to read something until the next Covenant book comes out.
You have said earlier that you currently do not have any ideas as far as what you will write when the Third Chronicles is finished. Do you expect to retire at that point, or by that time will there probably be another project in mind?
Thanks for the stories.
|
1) As far as I'm concerned, it's just a coincidence. I didn't encounter Stephen King's Dark Tower series until long after I had written the first "Covenant" trilogy. 2) If you want to read Steven Erikson, you have to start at the beginning: "The Gardens of the Moon". But be warned: it's the most baffling book in the series because so many new concepts have to be introduced simultaneously. 3) I have no intention of ever retiring. The fact that I don't know *now* what I'll write when "The Last Chronicles" is done doesn't mean that I won't continue writing. (09/07/2005) |
Greg Larson: Mr. Donaldson,
I first heard of Chronicles of Thomas Covenant from my 7th grade reading teacher, Mrs. Fritsch. (later to become Mrs. Wheeler) She had a Lord Foul's Bane poster and I was sold!
I have read both trilogies and am very excited to see 'Last Chronicles' come out!
I am in the process of rereading the first of the series again and once again find myself falling in love with the Bloodgaurd! How did you come up with the idea for the Bloodguard?
Thank you so much for sharing your imagination with the rest of of! It is truly inspiring!
|
As I keep saying, I can't explain how my imagination works. Details aside, however, I had three guiding concepts in my creation of the Land and its peoples. 1) The Land is the opposite of leprosy. 2) My story in the first "Covenant" trilogy is the opposite of Tennyson's in "The Idylls of the King." Tennyson took one heroic, romantic, mythic character, Arthur, and surrounded him with ordinary, fallible, self-conflicted, and (to coin a word) debase-able human beings--with the result that the grand dream of Camelot failed. I took one ordinary, fallible, self-conflicted, debase-able human being and surrounded him with heroic, romantic, mythic characters--with the result that the human being eventually discovered a capacity for grandeur in himself. 3) My story is one of extremes: it's about people who push their own beliefs and personalities beyond all rational limits. So, in the case of the Bloodguard, mere fidelity isn't enough: it has to be deathless, sleepless, super-human fidelity or nothing. For Kevin, it was victory or nothing. For the Giants, it was pure untarnished love of life or nothing. And for Lord Foul, it's (for lack of a better term) absolute transcendance or nothing. Only a few characters--Lord Mhoram, Saltheart Foamfollower, Covenant himself--find salvation between the extremes. (09/07/2005) |
dr.gonzo: hey dude! first of all thanks! the covenant books are among the the best i've ever read. kudos for the mordants need duet too! i'm currently re-reading the first trilogy, lord fouls bane. one thing that always gets me is the savageness of covenants actions towards lena, and i find myself making excusses for his brutality. i;ve always wondered if it was truly his actions,(most likly as he belives he is dreaming and therfore not harming a real person)or is has he been taken by a raver? being new to the land he would be an easy target, white gold weilder or not. plus several times in the text he questions what foul will do next, rape children/harm children. were you trying to get across the supressed thoughts and emotions of covenant or some obscure similarity with foul or was it to show the paradoxical nature of the bearer of white gold? being equaly capable of evil and good.
i hope you can shead some light on this quiery of mine.
p.s. cant wait for the fatal revenant! the cliffhanger to the runes of the earth is unbearable.
|
I've already taken up a fair amount of space discussing the rape of Lena. The short answer: that was Covenant's action--and Covenant's responsibility. He was not under the influence of a Raver (although he *was* under the influence of his own inner Despiser). So there's no excuse for what he did. Which is the whole point. Covenant is demonstrably a man who "could go either way." And when the story begins, he is far more likely to go in Lord Foul's direction than in the Creator's. The real subject of the story is how and why that balance tips. (09/07/2005) |
Bill Rich: Mr. Donaldson,
I have read several months worth of your answers to the "Gradual Interview" questions, however I did not see the question asked as follows, "when will the next book in "The Last Chronicles" be released? I have read many questions and critical points of view seeking answers to questions about how you wrote the stories, possible paradox issues and so on, I am not qualified to critique your books nor the detail of the stories. What I am qualified to do is read and thuroughly enjoy them, I am disabled and home bound, your stories give my mind a chance to soar to places my body isn't able to go, for that I a simple reader, thank you.
|
Since "Fatal Revenant" does not yet exist as a complete manuscript, its release date is impossible to guess. However, work on the first draft is proceeding more quickly than--just to pick a random comparison--the first draft of "The Runes of the Earth" did. On the other hand, "Revenant" threatens to be longer than "Runes". So there you have it: a non-answer if ever there was one. <sigh> (09/10/2005) |
Chris Reade: I wrote a paper about 10-12 years ago in college about Mordant's Need. It was an upper level Lit Criticism class so the choice of subject matter was up to us and I had just finished the series so it seemed appropriate.
What I wrote about is that I saw a the series as an interpretation of the King Lear story. Mordant is filled with the same characters - the king who has lost control of his kingdon, his three daughters, the king's personal lunatic, etc. Even down to the one daughter who stays loyal to him even though he doesn't deserve it.
Now, Lear, of course, is as feeble as he appears and Joyce is canny and proves himself in the end. But the similarity was striking to me and I was wondering if it was an on-base comparison or if I'm looking through the wrong mirror?
|
Since I was an English major in college, and later earned an M.A. in English lit, you can be confident that I spent a *lot* of time studying Shakespeare. (And I still re-read some of the plays regularly, although I was never a big "King Lear" fan.) If I were to claim that "Lear" had no influence on "Mordant's Need," no sensible reader would believe me. However, I can say with a clear conscience that "Lear" had no *conscious* influence on "Mordant's Need." My attention was fully engaged elsewhere (on the story and characters), and I didn't become aware of the "Lear" parallels until later. But then, my un(or sub)conscious mind has always been a lot smarter than my conscious mind. <grin> Perhaps the cleverest thing I've ever done as a writer was learn to let my un/subconscious express itself without interference. (09/10/2005) |
Katten: Mr Donaldson,
From reading the First Chronicles, I somewhat got the impression that the Haruchai, while being quite extreme as a race (who else could come up with the Vow?), were mostly made the outwardly cold and unexpressive beings they were because of their millenia of service as Bloodguard. This was reinforced for me when the Bloodguard in The Illearth War, whose name I forget, returns to tell of the trip through the swamp and has a panicked outburst while telling his tale, which is explained through him being recently made a Bloodguard.
The Haruchai in the later books, while being very slightly more expressive than the Bloodguard, are still extremely stony-faced and it is hard to imagine any of them having an outburst like that. Is this one of those small discrepancies that happen over series, or did I miss the point, and was that Bloodguard just an unusally sensitive Haruchai?
Thanks.
|
No, I think my point was that the Bloodguard of the unseemly outburst was unusually *young*. In my thinking, it has always been true of the Haruchai (not just the Bloodguard) that they cultivate a stoney stoicism as a defense against, or as a way of managing, their extreme passions. And since they lead long lives (when they aren't killed in battle), they have lots of time to practice their impassivity. But even Haruchai start out as children; and it seems likely that at least a few of them became Bloodguard pretty early in life. (09/10/2005) |
Brian Gannon: Hi,
Let's assume that our collective dream comes true. That is, that the Thomas Covenant movies are made and are a great success. (I admit that you are probably right about their success, and in fact, i think that Mordants Need would make a more accessable movie for most people). With success comes imitation, and therefore I would expect that a number of authors would want to start writing stories that take place in the land (Gregory Benford comes to mind. :^) ) Would you allow other authors to work on your turf - so to speak?
Thank You
Bri
|
One curious demonstration of the general proposition that Hollywood Rules the World: if a LFB film were to be made, and if that film became successful, the producers who purchased the original option would--in a manner of speaking--*own* the turf. They wouldn't have any control over my own work in the Covenant/Land world, or over the sale and publication of my own books; but they would control everything else Covenant/Land-related. If they wanted to license Playboy to produce a "Girls of the Land" wall calendar, they wouldn't need my permission. And if they wanted to pay--just picking unlikely names at random--Piers Anthony or John Cheever to write Covenant/Land novelizations or spin-offs ("The Legendary Journeys of the Giants," by Kevin Sorbo), they wouldn't need my permission. I would have no legal say in the matter. But if the question ever came up, and I *did* have a say: no, I would not "allow" anyone else to milk my ideas for money. (Doing so for private enjoyment, or for the amusement of one's friends--as in fan fiction--is a different question altogether. There I have no objection.) If other writers want characters and/or worlds, let them get their own. (09/14/2005) |
Sean Farrell: Hey you,
I know you're super-clever and all that (what with your very British, if I may say, sense of humour) but I've got a rather un-deep question! Have you seen the new Doctor Who, and do you like it? It's not exactly traditional, but we Brits are lapping it up!
Now for something a bit (not much!) deeper. I consider you a writer of rare talent. Now, I read a wide variety of genres (as a bookstore manager, I need to) and I know that your skill compares extremely favourably with 'mainstream' or 'general' fiction writers. Yet you're NEVER going to receive the breadth of acclaim that lesser writers acheive simply because your chosen field is fantasy. Does this irk you? I know it irks me!!
Hope you are well and getting on with Vol II. Simply can't wait!! You're still the best.
Sean
|
People keep asking; but no, I haven't yet had a chance to see the new Doctor Who. Would that it were otherwise. And speaking of things that I would were otherwise: I wish that genre labels did not automatically doom books to the critical dustbin. One of many reasons why we live in such an anti-intellectual society is that those who consider themselves intellectuals are such ^#$%^ snobs. (A woman of my acquaintance once wrote a long and highly favorable review of "The Mirror of Her Dreams" for the NY Times Book Review. The editors ran the review--because they were under deadline--and then fired the reviewer for wasting readers' time on such crap.) Of course, I'm not suggesting that "cookie-cutter" books, books which value formula over imagination, insight, and skill (Harlequin Romances leap to mind), should be taken seriously. But why, I ask myself, are writers like Elmore Leonard and Patricia McKillip denied substantive acclaim? The only explanation I can think of is that they've been cursed by genre labels. (And McKillip is double-cursed by the "fantasy" and "young adult" labels.) For reasons which surpass my comprehension, publishers believe that labeling is the only way they can sell books. (In the US, at least, the packaging of "The Runes of the Earth" positively shouts GENRE LABEL.) I can only hope that the passage of time will allow "dreck" like "Last Call" and "The Book of Atrix Wolfe" to arise from the dustbin and finally receive the validation they deserve. (09/14/2005) |
Anonymous: Mr. Donaldson,
First of all, an obligatory "thank you" for your wonderful work. I absolutely loved the first two Covenant series which I devoured for the first time (of several times) back in the 80s. It's quite a gift to be able to revisit the Land one last time.
While I was thrilled to read Runes, I was left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction in one respect: the lack of any sign of advancement, technological or otherwise. I know that you've briefly addressed this question a time or two, citing (for example) the stifling effects of totalitarian regimes. I can buy this as an explanation for the repressed Land, but I'm having difficulty buying it for the entire Earth. The Chronicles have collectively covered, what, 7,000 years of recorded history? Given the irrepressible nature of humanity, and the residents of this Earth don't seem to have an inherently less creative drive, it would seem to me not only possible but probable that technology would develop _somewhere_ in the world. I realize that we haven't seen many other residents of the Earth, so it's certainly possible that there is some explanation (Lord Foul's reach being broader than we were led to believe, some behavior by the Elohim, etc.). But the residents we _have_ seen were not only seafaring, they were clearly part of an extensive trade network. Knowledge normally advances quickly against this backdrop, but as far as we know, not much has changed for over 7,000 years! As far back as the time of the old Lords, the Giants (at the very least) had reached a level of technology equivalent to what we had reached only several hundred years ago. One would think that over that vast a period of time, repression or not, individuals would emerge sporadically to push technology forward. And that they would find their way to the Land...
Thoughts? I suppose that you might believe that this falls into the "not necessary to tell the story" category, but it seems to me that that's not the case. At least that's not the case for me.
Again, perhaps a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but something that stood out to me as a reader.
Thanks again for your work and your willingness to participate in this forum.
Matt
|
<sigh> I shy away from tackling questions like, Why hasn't there been any technological advancement? and their corollaries, like, Why haven't metalsmiths learned how to forge white gold? Beneath the surface, such questions ask me to define the essential nature and purposes of fantasy; but any postulate I might advance will have so many exceptions that it may well cause more confusion than it relieves. So I'm going to confine myself to a few (possibly) cryptic remarks, and then I'm going to bravely run away <grin>, deleting valid counter-arguments as I go. Unlike every other form of storytelling (with the possible exception of romances, "bodice-rippers"), fantasy is not *about* material reality, or even material plausibility. It does not describe or comment upon rational or tangible observations of the external world; the world of science and technology. Nor does it describe or comment upon verifiable observations of the human condition, in general or in particular, through research into the past or extrapolation into the future. Fantasy is *about* metaphysical reality, the intersection of the spiritual with the psychological. It describes and comments upon non-rational and (ideally) universal observations of the internal world; the world of the unverifiable; the world of imagination and nightmare, of hope and despair and faith; the world of magic. Therefore the essential substance of fantasy worlds is composed of "that which transcends definition" rather than of, for example, electrons and J particles. And *therefore* the inhabitants of fantasy worlds think and act in magical rather than in technological or scientific terms. (Just one example. I hope you don't imagine that the Giants formed Starfare's Gem by digging up chunks of granite, devising tools to cut the granite into slabs, and then glueing, pegging, or trussing the slabs together. That's *way* too much trouble when you already have access to wood. And then there's Revelstone. My point is that the ability of the Giants to work with stone doesn't derive from tools: it derives from magic; from the essence of who they are.) It follows, then, that "advancement" in a fantasy world isn't measured by, say, constructing a device to replace a horse. Rather "advancement" is measured by movement toward internal integration, wholeness; toward an effective affirmation of life and consciousness in all of their many avatars. And by that standard, the people of the Land--and, by extension, all of the peoples of the Earth--are *not* advancing. Bit by bit, evil (both mortal and otherwise) is breaking the world down. If that were not true (I hope I'll be forgiven for saying this), there would be no point in telling the story. LOTR is a perfect example--although as far as I know Tolkien never analysed his own work in these terms. Putting the matter crudely, you're asking an external question about an internal story. Still crudely: my nightmares don't care whether ravaging monsters with four heads and venomous fangs have ever existed, or whether such creatures can be killed with gauss rifles; my nightmares only care that those monsters are after *me*. (09/14/2005) |
Allen: In my eyes Covenant is the absolute paragon of heroism. His passion for truth is so severe he is willing to destroy a cosmos rather than lie. I remember when I was a youth marching about town with my friends discussing life the universe and everything else. I asserted, one day, that Thomas Covenant was more emblematic of the heroic than was Aragorn. That statement initiated a war of almost cosmic proportions. Though, in my old age, I've come to see the point of the Aragorns of the world, Thomas Covenant remains the my heroic icon.
My questions: 1. Were there or are there any antecedents for Covenant in literature, for you? 2.Do you have any thoughts on the nature of the heroic in general? 3. When do I get my autographed copy of "Or I Will Sell My Soul For Guilt"?
Gracias, Allen
|
1) I didn't consciously base Covenant on any specific antecedants. But the argument could be made that Covenant--like many of my characters--is loosely based on the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky, the work of Joseph Conrad, and the life of Sir Walter Scott. a) Dostoevsky. First, he wrote about moral and emotional cripples. And second, he wrote about them with relentless artistic integrity. Although he yearned to write explicitly "Christian" novels, he refused to compromise his actual stories; to distort his characters so that they would suit his beliefs. b) Conrad. He demonstrated that the resources of melodrama (high adventure, exotic locales, etc.) could be used to serve the most serious artistic purposes. c) Scott. Sparing myself the effort of going into detail, he was a shining example of personal responsibility and integrity. Few human beings have ever gone as far or given as much for the best of reasons: to keep his word. 2) I suspect you can deduce my "thoughts on the nature of the heroic" from what I've just said. Doing what's hard, and doing it for the right reasons. In my personal experience, the third hardest thing is to have artistic integrity. The second hardest thing is to love without stinting. And the hardest thing is to have personal integrity. (What is personal integrity? Here's one definition: to always tell yourself the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about yourself; and then to act on that truth without flinching.) 3) That novel is available in bookstores everywhere just two dimensions away from ours. And every single copy has been autographed by the--you guessed it--author. (09/14/2005) |
michael sasen: will there be giants.
|
RAFO. (09/14/2005) |
Jessica: Hey SRD. Being an avid reader I have read many good books during my 16 years but yours stand superior to the rest. Good books may be forgotten, and even, in time great books. But your writing is astoundingly unforgettable. Thank you for the enjoyment of such works.
Couple of questions:
1) Do you base your characters off of a particular race when you create them? I just like to get a mental picture of what everyone looks like and you described the Haruchai with brown skin. Would they almost be Hispanic looking or African-American or...what? Just wondered...
2) Could anything develope between Linden and Stave or is that just wishful thinking? :) I'm probably just jumping to conclusions, but it would be so sweet in a way...a Haruchai romance. *grins*
Thank you for your time. I will continue to anxiously await your next books in this series.
|
1) Two things to keep in mind about how I work. One, I'm not a visual personal. And two, my imagination doesn't respond well when I try to base what I'm doing on verifiable reality. So no, I didn't have any particular races in mind for any of the "Covenant" characters. However, it is a little known fact that many of the Ramen names and words are based on or extrapolated from Marathi (which is derived from Hindi, which in turn is derived from Sanskrit). 2) "Could anything develop between Linden and Stave...?" Now there's an idea that literally never crossed my mind. <grin> Several problems. a) I suspect that no ordinary human woman is strong or fierce enough to appeal to Haruchai males. b) Parents whose children are in danger really don't think about much of anything else. If they *appear* to think about something else, that's only because they're scrambling to find SOME way to help their children. c) It's neither an accident nor a marketing ploy that this story is called "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant." (09/17/2005) |
Mark Harris: I've been trying for nearly a year to buy the Gap Series, why are such popular books not in print?
|
Indeed, the GAP books were quite popular in the UK. Nevertheless my (now former) publisher, HarperCollins (once Fontana, then Collins, and so on), has abandoned support for all things Donaldson. "Mordant's Need" is also a casualty; and I suspect that the first two "Covenant" trilogies will disappear in England soon. My agents are working to rectify this problem. And my new publisher, Orion/Gollancz, has expressed some interest in bringing my "lost" books back into print. But movement has been slow. In the meantime, I can only suggest Amazon.co.uk, which seems to offer books from the US. (09/18/2005) |
Alan: Hi Stephen.
Obviously, I love your work.
But... I gotta say. I WILL NOT be buying your books new if the intended deadlines of 2007, 2010 and 2013 are correct. That is just too long to wait and I will by the books 2nd hand or thru Ebay.
I must ask, Why would you(or your publishers) do this. The time limit is much too long. No story is worth waiting that long for!
For me, I've passed up books for the very same reason, too long to be published, I don't care for the endings if the wait is that long. I can wait a year or two, perhaps three. But 8 years is beyond a joke!
Why would you do this?
Secondly; was there any need to use swear words, as in sh*t, f*ck, bullsh*t? what was the point in using modern expletives?
Thanks for your time(if indeed you give it, as I suspect you wont)
Alan.
|
<sigh> I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that books like mine might be difficult to write? Or that a man my age might have health problems? Or that I'm a human being who has to deal with all of the many complications that beset human beings? Or that I might by trying hard to beat the announced deadline(s)? No, of course not. I hope to make my characters as real as possible. You show me one human being who doesn't use obscene or sacrilegious (?) expletives--not even in the privacy of his/her own mind--and I'll show you twenty who do. (09/18/2005) |
Steven S : I discovered Lord Foul's Bane around 1978, on the scheme of things not long after the first three in the Covenant trilogy were published. I have read them and re-read them, as I have your other novels and short collections. I am excited at Runes, I have read that as well. I cannot express how your craft has touched my life, and keep me company through the many years since I first picked up from the school library a copy of Lord Fouls Bane. My question is this. Why even attempt to bring this to the big screen in movie form? I realize it is your art, your vision but it has touched millions including me beyond words. To run the risk of damaging our own mental view of the Land and the struggles withing, are a risk I think is too great to take. Literature, great literature should stay that way and not be allowed to be subjected to massacre by a director and editor that turns it into an action spectacle, fodder for the normal cheap hollywood formula for success. Please reconsider and allow the Land to live as it is meant to, in the imagine of your loyal readers. Thank You.
|
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I have absolutely no control over whether or not anyone ever makes a "Covenant" film. My contracts for the first six books with Ballantine/Del Rey give that company the movie rights. (I was young, inexperienced, had no agent, and was just glad to get published.) So Ballantine doesn't need my consent to sell anything to anyone. I understand your feelings, but this issue is entirely out of my hands. (09/18/2005) |
John Dunn: Mr. Donaldson,
I would like to express my gratitude for the books you have written. I especially found the Mordant's Need series extremely enjoyable-not to say that I do not consider your other works (Chronicles, Gap, Man Who) to be about the best written works published in the last 3 decades, because they are! As I have aged, I find it more and more difficult to *force* myself to read most of the trash published today that I sadly enjoyed as a younger man. Learning that you had returned to the Covenant series I was delighted; reading the Ruins of the Earth was perhaps the best literary pleasure I have had in many years.
If you have answered this question before, pardon my asking again. In the Illearth War Hile Troy is given Covenant's ring, but is prevented from using it by Caerroil Wildwood, who states "I cannot permit this. It is breaking of Law." Maybe I am too dense to have understood, or I missed it, but what Law is Wildwood referring to?
Thank you so much for you time, and I wish you and yours the very best.
|
What I want to say is, "If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer." But that's a joke. What I really mean is that your question makes me squirm. The answer is intuitively obvious to me--and I'm particularly bad at explaining things which are intuitively obvious to me. (Now I want to say--quoting, or perhaps misquoting, Robert Browning--"When I wrote that, only God and I knew what it meant. Now only God knows.") But let me try this. 1) The Law of identity. As Mhoram says, Covenant *is* white gold. The use of his power by someone else violates his relationship with that power. In "The Power that Preserves," Elena destroys herself--and the Staff of Law--by violating Covenant's relationship with white gold. 2) The Law of promises. Troy has offered to pay Wildwood's price; to trade himself for the survival of his army. If he becomes a white gold wielder and goes off to confront Elena/Kevin, he'll be breaking his word--and once Troy does that, Wildwood won't have the power to force him back. 3) The Law of, well, let's call it consequences. Elena has broken the Law of Death. She's locked in a battle with Kevin's ghost/spirit/whatever. Troy wants to intrude on that battle, determine the outcome. But wild magic is the wrong tool for the job. It's better suited to breaking Laws than to mending them. Elena already has the only tool that could possibly be used to repair what she's done--but she's fighting for her life, and besides she's out of her mind. In a situation like that, how could wild magic do anything except make matters worse (break more Laws)? I hope this helps. (09/21/2005) |
Stumpy: Thank you for 'The Chronicles' - if only they were longer...... you can't get too much of a good thing (allegedly)
I have just read a thread on the GI where you comment upon the fact that the author gets only a small percentage of the selling price for his/her work.
Do you think that with the internet and online community there is a market for authors to sell direct to the public via a website? This is a concept which at least one major games producer is pursuing as it allows them to maximise profits whilst also not being at the mercy of their publishers. It also allows them to release additional content as and when they wish. Understand that this would probably not be viable for a new author, but for one who is well known it could be a perfectly reasonable proposition. Particularly with a 'cult' following.
Best wishes
Stumpy
|
Other writers have tried this--or some variation of it (Stephen King leaps to mind). I don't know how well it worked. But I'm the wrong guy to make the attempt. I'm a storyteller, not a bookseller. Even with a gun to my head, I wouldn't be able to force myself to do all the different chores necessary to marketting books online. And there are other problems. These days, publishers won't publish books unless the publisher gets the "electronic" rights. Any writer who wants to self-publish online will have to turn his/her back on all conventional forms of publication (unless, of course, you have clout on Stephen King's order of magnitude). I couldn't bring myself to do that. (09/21/2005) |
Hazel: Hi there,
It is a great pleasure to find your website. I, and I'm sure every other fan, greatly appreciate the time, thought and effort you put into replying to the various queries arising.
I am an avid reader, but somehow only came across your books two years ago. I have now read and re-read every single one of them, and completed the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant a third time in preparation for The Runes of The Earth (which I *loved*). Despite reading practically anything I can get my hands on (and I mean anything!)I have not found any authors' work as compelling or emotive as yours, nor indeed, thought provoking. What, do you believe, gives your work the extra "oomph" that seems to linger in the mind?
Thanks for your time.
|
Well, assuming that you don't supply "the extra 'oomph'" for yourself (a dubious assumption at best, since reading is an interactive process).... On one level, it has to be a function of imagination. On another, it has to be a function of narrative skill. And on another, it has to be a function of psychological insight/empathy. Logic requires such conclusions. But I suspect that there may be another factor at work as well: the amount of myself that I give to what I'm writing. Putting it crudely (because at the moment I can't think of a better way to say this), I don't "visit" my stories while I'm writing: I "live" them. I'm a participant, not a spectator. Somewhere deep inside, I put myself into all my characters and go through everything they experience or feel. (Which is why what I do is so ^#&% arduous.) (And which, I'm forced to add, wouldn't be possible without imagination, skill, and insight.) (Nor, in the case of prose storytelling, would it be possible for someone who isn't a fundamentally verbal person; someone who doesn't naturally experience life through words.) (09/21/2005) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Hello Steve! I was reading a question you recently answered, concerning the Haruchai and their obsessions with moral absolutes, and I was wondering - the Haruchai of the Last Chronicles, as far as we can see, appear to believe themselves the only ones who are worthy of preserving the Land, and they absolutely refuse to accept any criticism about their ways, their deeds, and the actions they undertook in order to become the Masters of the Land. In short, in their own eyes, they appear to believe themselves unassailable, and they exorcise the fear of being inadequate which was shown by the Haruchai in the Second Chronicles by establishing the tradition of the three Humbled, which should technically serve as reminders of past mistakes and lessons in humility. Even this tradition has become a source of pride though, as we learn that it is a great honor to be maimed into a Humbled, and the Haruchai actually fight to prove themselves worthy of this honor. So, in short, it seems that the Haruchai have a deep-rooted desire - perhaps on an unconscious level - to prove themselves to be the best, bar none. This is also reflected in the obsessive way all Haruchai we have known hone their physical skills to near-perfection.
Obviously, this attitude leads to a certain amount of metaphorical blindness (if I believe to be always right, and you show me evidence that I'm wrong, chances are I'll pretend I didn't see them and keep believing I'm always right), and so the Haruchai end up being generally impervious to outside influence - somewhat tragically, though, this imperviousness seems to apply more to their would-be allies than to their subtler foes.
Anyway, all of these considerations led me to wonder: Stave, who has shown the typical behaviour of the Masters throughout most of "Runes", eventually rejects at least part of this belief. Could the loss of his eye, which happens shortly before this event, also be taken to exemplify a "crack" in the imperviousness of the Haruchai (or at least Stave)? I mean: the marring of a Haruchai's near-perfect physical skills (and I would imagine that having one less eye does have an impact on those) could symbolize the shattering of Stave's preconceptions and a "crack" in the "moral armor" all Haruchai have? The Humbled are also maimed, but they do so voluntarily, and turn the maiming into a source of pride; whereas Stave's maiming seems to symbolize something more - although I could easily be reading too much into this event :)
|
I'm posting this more because of the thought and care you put into it than because I have anything substantial to add (although the theme is being explored further in "Fatal Revenant" even as we speak <grin>). But I do want to confirm that I intended the loss of Stave's eye pretty much the way you interpreted it. His "single" vision is both physically less and psychologically more than the ordinary "double" vision of the Haruchai. (09/21/2005) |
Rachel Bevilacqua: The Chronicls of Thomas Covenant have deeply touched me and they inspire me daily to face up to my fears and keep going, even though I know I'll probably fail. Having these books is like having a Staff of Law, they spread a warm sense of calmness and sureness through me whenever I have to face something I don't think I can do. My question, then, is how can your readers ever thank you enough for the precious gift you've given us?
|
You've already done so. It's not just that you enable me to earn a living while doing what I was born to do: by reading what I write and responding to it, you clarify and enhance my sense of purpose in life. And, as I'm sure you know, a sense of purpose is at least as precious as anything that I've ever given my readers. (09/21/2005) |
Daniel Bateson: Firstly a thank-you! I grew up in a house with more books that the average household. Great towering bookshelves filled with an enormous selection of subjects and stories. My mother, in her youth, worked in a book shop and I guess her love of books started there - seemingly she passed that love to me. These bookshelves happened to contain the then entire collection of "The Chronicals of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever"! and I was introduced to them at about the age of twelve (some seventeen years ago). As time passed I found "Mordant's Need" very entertaining. I annoyed many a bookshop clerk for the release of each and every "GAP" publication through the years. I am sure the many hours spent "glued" to the insides of all of these books has impaired my vision - though I have no regrets. At having found this web site I discover that there are still a good deal more of your books that I would like to own - one day...
SO my THANK-YOU!
I have noticed, after having read your "The Aging Student of the Martial Arts" article, that your use of Martial Arts or hand-to-hand combat through your work began sometime before you began your personal journey in Martial Arts. One thing that comes to mind is that your earlier work contained hand-to-hand combat that seemed to last longer than such combat in your later and most recent works. Perhaps I see this because my memory could be liken to that of a fish, but do you feel that your personal experience with Martial Arts has allowed you to create hand-to-hand combat that is shorter lived and more precise? Or is this just mere coincidence?
|
I've noticed something similar myself. Back in the, say, early "Covenant" and "Mordant's Need" days, I often described fights at greater length, but with less concrete detail. No doubt the fact that I had never seen a fight in my life played a part. But now, after years of study, my fight scenes tend to contain less movement (or fewer movements) but considerably more precision. That was never a conscious or deliberate change: it just happened as a result of changes in my own knowledge and experience. (09/24/2005) |
Zack Handlen: Mr. Donaldson,
I just started reading Runes of the Earth. It's been a couple years since I last read the Covenant books (although I did read most of the Gap series recently; had to put it to one side, as their darkness was really getting to me, but I'll be picking them up again soon), so I had to re-discover your writing style again. It's unique; initially, it always seems labored and over-done, but after a few paragraphs it becomes clear that this is intentional. The effect is one of the reasons I love your work so much, as it lends an amazing weight and intensity to the story, and makes the reader more vulnerable and empathetic to the characters and their needs.
I said this style is unique to you, and it is, but I have found one other writer with a similiarly gravid prose line, who's work I had only discovered a year ago- Mervyn Peake. You've mentioned elsewhere that you're a fan of the Gormenghast trilogy (although man, it hurts saying "trilogy" when you know the last book is as disappointing as it is), and I was wondering, has Peake been an influence on your writing? Had you read him before you started the first Covenant series? Or is it simply a case of two different authors developing similiar styles based on a similarity of intent, even if the end results are disparate?
Thank you, and thank you for your wonderful novels.
|
I suppose I could pretend that I wasn't influenced by Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books (as you say, the third is a crushing disappointment), but I would be lying. I love the richness of Peake's prose: in certain ways very akin to some of Joseph Conrad's writing ("Heart of Darkness" or any of the other "Marlowe" stories), but deployed for very different purposes. And I love what Peake achieves with his prose. Certainly I read him before I began work on "Covenant". My own purposes probably have more in common with Conrad's than with Peake's. To see what I mean, look at Peake's florid use of caricature, normally a technique of satire, but employed by Peake to poignant effect. You'll find little that could be called caricature in my novels--or in Conrad's. In this respect, Peake more closely resembles Dickens. (09/28/2005) |
Jory: Main Entry: floccinaucinihilipilification
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: an act or instance of judging something to be worthless or trivial
Etymology: the parts of the word each mean `at nothing' or `with a small price'
|
I couldn't resist looking ahead; and I've been astonished by the number of readers who have answered--correctly!--my question about "floccinaucinihilipilification" (try saying *that* three times fast). For reasons of space, I won't post the other responses. But you should all give yourselves a hearty pat on the back. (Or, if your shoulders are like mine, a pat on the head will suffice.) However, the award for both the quickest and the most comprehensive response goes to Robyn Butler of Australia, who turned in a veritable term paper on the subject. Kudos, girl! (09/28/2005) |
Tom: I guess you'll get quite a few answers to your request for information, but here's my bid for a no-prize: floccinaucinihilip[i]lification - the action of estimating as worthless. There was a missing i.
It's supposedly the longest word in the English language, along with floccipaucinihilipilification, which means exactly the same thing. I remember it from a 'did you know' article printed on the back of a packet of Walkers Crisps (or as Americans would say, chips) back in the 80s. Or maybe the 70s.
|
And you can reMEMber things like that? Wow! (09/28/2005) |
Paul: When I read Runes, my wife would get annoyed at me because I would always go "Ahhhhh", "ohhhh", "oh wow!", etc as new revelations were made.
In particular, I was struck by how you have managed to tie elements up from the first and second chronicles in such a way that the whole story has been planned from start to finish.
Examples? Amok's talk about seeing the Sandgorgons or the great desert and mentioning Merewives.. Weaving the Ranyhyn into the time elements of the latest story..
So I have to ask.. how much of that is planned and how much of that is clever writing to make it *look* like you had it all planned? :-)
I mean when you wrote how the Ranyhyn will hear their call says before its made, did you have any inkling of the 3rd chronicles storyline?
I can almost imagine when you have deftly managed to tie into something said in a previous book saying "hehe, they are gonna love that!"
Paul
|
I've already discussed this at some length. The short version: when I wrote the first "Covenant" trilogy, I threw in a lot of stuff (Sandgorgons, Elohim, etc.) just for world-building; I had no intention of continuing the story. But when I realized that I both wanted and knew how to continue the story, I planned "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles" before I started writing "The Wounded Land." And a significant part of that planning involved "mining" the first trilogy for raw materials. Well, by now "The Last Chronicles" has been pretty thoroughly planned. But I have to admit that the "mining" process is still underway. Putting it another way: I know very well what I'm trying to forge; but I still occasionally need ore. And every once in a while I *do* get that "they are gonna love that" feeling. Shameless, I know: a real character flaw. <grin> But there it is. (10/02/2005) |
Josiah: Hey Mr. Donaldson, it's good to get the chance to correspond with you again :)
your limit is still 2 I see, so, here's both. and, just so you know, I'm barely half serious with the second, so if you shoot it down bluntly, or ignore it all together, I won't be offended :-p
1) I recall you saying that after you wrote the first "Gap" novel, you put it away for a while because, if memory serves (I say that to much) it was because it bothered you that you could write that. I saw your reply to this statement in recent questions, and the answer gave me a new direction to take the question: do you have other works you've written and put aside, for whatever reason, that may see publication one day, or was "The Real Story" the only such work?
2) this question will seem out of place at first, please bear with me :)
have you ever watched any Japanese animation?
films I'd recommend are "Ghost in the Shell" and its sequel, as well as "Princess Mononoke" and "Spirited Away"
now my reasoning: I KNOW you've said that of all your works, you would least like to see Covenant on the big screen, small screen... any screen.
not only is your style of writing it to much a part of it, but there is also to much that can not be conveyed outside of text.
-that is, in normal movies. live action.
I think that an ANIMATED Covenant might be able to convey things. show things, even be truer to the land than a live action movie.
no. not like "The Hobbit" or "Wizards"
if you are unfamiliar with Japanese animation, or have heard damning things about it, I would ask you to put them aside, and rent either "Mononoke" or "Spirited Away." I think then you'd see why I believe something could be accomplished there that live action cannot.
as I've said, I KNOW you don't want it to become a movie. But you've also said it's (unfortunately) out of your hands. I (nervously and possibly foolishly) suggest this because, if a movie version ever DOES happen, I'd like for it to be good enough that you could feel proud of it, and glad for the adaptation they did.
|
1) No, "The Real Story" is the only time I've had that experience, and the only time since I "turned pro" that I've suppressed (temporarily or otherwise) a story I've written. Of course, my files are full of what I think of as my "journeyman" work (although a more appropriate term might be "juvenalia"). But I had to start a long way back in order to get to "Lord Foul's Bane." Please trust me when I say that no one needs to read my adolescent flounderings. 2) I've seen "Princess Mononoke" and "Howl's Moving Castle." Enjoyed them both. But the problem, as I see it, with a "Covenant" film isn't live action vs animation: it's internal vs external. Prose allows me to go inside my characters: film inherently looks at the characters from the outside. In other words, film is a fundamentally different form of storytelling, with entirely different strengths and weaknesses; strengths and weaknesses which, I suspect, are not well suited to my stories (especially the "Covenant" stories). (10/02/2005) |
Steve the Haruchai: I just read in one of the structured interviews that you were afraid people would read Runes and think you should have quit while you were ahead. I finished Runes yesterday, and let me assure you your fears were unfounded. It is excellent, at least as well written as the the other Covenant books. Great stuff. I had problems reading every word because I was so excited to find out what happened next. Thanks to this, I mistakenly thought Stave's name was Steve when I first encountered it and blew past it. I admit that before I double checked, I thought you had lost your mind. Steve the Haruchai? My mistake. Now I need to reread it at a more normal pace.
My question is, out of all the wonderful cultures you have created for the Covenant books (Haruchai, Giants, Stonedowne, etc), which are you the most proud of, which is your favorite?
Thanks for continuing the story. And, i think I speak for many people here, I sincerely hope that you were teasing us when Linden was told she would not see any Giants while she was in the Land this time.
|
I don't have favorite races/cultures/creatures/whatever. That's too generic. I have favorite characters. But I hasten to say--as I've often said before--that my favorites change from day to day and situation to situation. However, I suspect the results clearly indicate that I have found the Haruchai to be more creatively, well, fecund than anyone else. Even when compared to the Giants, the Haruchai have been a more constant presence in the overall story, and have supplied me with more individual characters. (10/02/2005) |
Kurt: I read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant trilogy many years ago when I was in high school. I recently pulled them off the shelf to reread them while on long business flights. To my dismay, I found that the last 25 pages (pp 453-475) are missing from my Balantine/DelRey paperback copy. The binding is still in very good condition so the pages could not have fallen out.
Is this a unique occurence or was it widespread? Is there some way/where to get an electronic copy of those 25 pages? I have searched the web with no luck...
|
This is not a problem that I've ever heard of before. Of course, all human endeavors are susceptible to mishap; and that definitely includes publishing. Still, your experience seems a bit extreme.... At one time, bootleg e-copies of the first six "Covenant" books were available on the web. But I'm told that source has now ceased to exist. Sorry about that. (10/05/2005) |
JP: On behalf of someone who wrote in to the GI, you had asked about audio book versions of the Chronicles, and you had asked us to "address them to Mr Castano at the e-address above", but Mr. Castano's email address isn't visible in the GI. So i'm submitting what I found here, since I can't send it straight to him.
On this page:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_nbg0804talking.hcsp
a british site claims to have audio copies of The Wounded Land and The Illearth War as read by John Chancer. I don't know if they have the rest of the 1st or 2nd Chronicles.
|
Unfortunately, I also don't have Mr Castano's e-address. So I'm posting this in the (admittedly faint) hope that he'll see it. I'm not at all familiar with the site you (ahem) cite, so I can't vouch for it. (10/05/2005) |
Barry Brown: Steve;
At the end of "White Gold Weilder" Pitchwife picked up Conenvant's body, and left with it. I guess since he was dead in RL, and in the land there was no need to be summoned back. Are you going to tell where it is buried??
Since the Law of Death was broken by the Power of Command, and the Law of Life was broken by the Forestial with the use of the Krill. The Staff of Law no longer supports these Laws. Will it not take a quest to the earthroot again to put these laws right?
Thanks;
Barry
|
Forgive me if this sounds brusque; but I'm afraid that all of your questions fall squarely under the heading of RAFO. Although I don't mean to increase your level of frustration, let me just say that I actually *like* answering such questions--in the story itself rather than in this interview. But that doesn't ever mean I actually *will* answer them: it simply means that if I *do* answer them I'll enjoy it. (10/05/2005) |
Allen: The language spoken by the peoples of the Land is very distinct; full of dignity, grandeur, a kind of romantic beauty and power; the sound the gods might of made if the gods were rendered subject to the trials of mortality.
I'm curious about what the antecedents to this language are. Could you name any specific poets or writers who set your vitals on fire when crafting such speech? Perhaps Covenant's Struggles Against Despite In The Arena Of The Land should be regarded as a gigantic opera. Did Wagner's arias play their part?
gracias, Allen
|
As I keep saying, I seldom have *conscious* antecedents (with the obvious exceptions of Wagner's Ring cycle for the GAP books and Tolkien's LOTR for "Covenant"--which, now that I think about it, hardly counts as "seldom" <grin>). Nevertheless it's obvious that I've been influenced by all kinds of things (e.g. Wagner's music and story more than his libretto). In addition to citing Joseph Conrad, Henry James, William Faulkner, and Sir Walter Scott (and George Meredith and Shakespeare and Dostoevsky and Mervyn Peake and Alfred Lord Tennyson and...), I should probably mention Gerard Manley Hopkins and William Butler Yeats. The distinctive rhetoric of the "Covenant" books would not be what it is without all of them. (10/05/2005) |
Krishnansu S. Tewari, MD: Thanks for answering my previous questions and for continuing this Gradual Interview in the midst of your writing for Fatal Revenant. I have a few more questions:
1. Although the Covenant books are among my favorite works of all time (I mentioned my other favorite authors in my previous question), I have to admit, I did not enjoy the last two books of the 2nd chronicles as much as I did the first four books and Runes.
So, my question is, although it seems from the readership that writes in to the GI that they all loved both the first and second chronicles tremendously, I have become curious if I'm the exception or have you heard any comments like mine regarding how they were disappointed with the 2nd chronicles? Please understand, I'm sure if I re-read them now (I plan to as time permits), I will probably realize how very wrong I was back in the early 80s.
Question #2: I know you don't speak about other living authors, but I thought I'd ask you what you thought about Alan Moore since he's not a novelist but mainly a comic book writer and you have mentioned you onced collected comic books. I would be interested in your comments about Watchmen, V for Vendetta, From Hell, etc. if you've read them. For me, you and Moore are the best writers alive today (along with Gabriel Garcia Marquez!).
Question #3: I don't know if you've discussed this, but are there any painters alive or dead that you think would realize your vision of the Land and your stories to some degree?
Sorry this note is so long. I now know from my last one that I should not expect to see an answer for atleast 5 months (maybe more!).
With warmest personal regards,
Krish Tewari, MD
|
1) In my experience, the response to "Covenant" is not as, well, homogeneous as you seem to think. Some people read and *loathed* all six books. Some liked the second trilogy much better than the first. Some loved the first and couldn't stomach the second at all. Some threw "Lord Foul's Bane" into the fire after the first 50 pages and refused to read another word. Some killed themselves. Some felt redeemed. (OK, now I'm just having fun.) So I'm sure you aren't alone. Certainly Lester del Rey positively abhorred Linden as a POV character. 2) I've read both Moore and Marquez with great interest; but ultimately neither of them suits my personal taste. On the other hand, I enjoy Jim Starlin. And Gaiman's "Sandman" books I re-read regularly, despite the sometimes execrable art. 3) That judgmental remark notwithstanding, I'm truly not a visual person. I can't really answer your question--except to say that in all these years I've only seen one painting that made me feel the way the Land feels in my imagination (it was a rendition of Revelstone for the still-entirely-hypothetical film of "Lord Foul's Bane"), and I don't even know who painted it. (10/05/2005) |
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.
Matthew S. Urdan: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
High School was an amazing time for me. My best friends and I had discovered the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Freshman year and the Second Chronicles came out as we were heading towards graduation. 1983, Senior Year, was amazing. Not only did we have White Gold Wielder, but we also had Return of the Jedi. In High School we read the best there was: Tolkien, McCaffrey, Bradley, Herbert, Brooks, Douglas Adams, and yes, on top of them all, Donaldson. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Rule!
You can't imagine my shock, surprise, and awe at finding the first volume of the Last Chronicles at Borders today. One question I've always had though regarding Andelain, Earthblood, and the like is what personal experience or place in your life are they based upon? What experience have you had in the wilderness, and where was that wilderness, that inspired such awe-inspiring and lovingly described places and concepts?
For me, the Gauley River in West Virginia, the Tuolumne River in California, Yosemite National Park, Lake Michigan and Mt. Rainier are all places of raw power and life-affirming spirituality. I'd like to know where your Andelain is and where Earthblood comes from. I strongly believe you've based them on a real place. They are too real in print to be artificial constructs. Either that, or you're a more gifted writer than you seem to believe, as evidenced by current interviews on this website.
I'll be eagerly awaiting all volumes of the Last Chronicles, and will consider every one of them a gift, whether or not you match the quality of the first Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.
Best Regards,
Matthew S. Urdan
Formerly of Detroit, now of Columbus, Ohio
|
I'm sorry to keep repeating myself; but I really did not base any of the places, powers, characters, or situations in the "Covenant" books on ANYthing from my own experience (except that I did own a white gold ring, leprosy is real, and Haven Farm is modeled on the place in south New Jersey--now a housing development--where I wrote the first three books). The explanation (such as it is) is that that's not how my imagination works. If anything, places/people/etc. from personal experience paralyze me as a writer. Only language truly fires my imagination. This does not make me "a more gifted writer". It simply means that I work with my limitations instead of against them, using *your* experiences to fill in the gaps. (10/05/2005) |
Nigel Sutton: Rather belatedly I have just started reading the Axebrewder/Fistoulari novels. Just can't put them down at the moment. In comparison to the fantasy books these seem, on the face of it, to be of a fairly simple first person reportage though none less compelling for that. How did they come about, being so diverse from your recognised output?
Really interested in this - where did the inspiration come from to "be" Brew?
|
I've said this before: on a conscious level (NOT the most reliable source of information), I decided to try my hand at mystery novels because I was so dissatisfied by other writers' mystery novels. From my perspective, both the "drawing room sleuth" (implausible puzzles) and the "hard-boiled detective" (static machismo) ignore the inherent wealth of the genre: unparalleled opportunities to examine character. To the extent that I wanted to work within a tradition, it was that of Raymond Chandler and Ross MacDonald. But even they fail one of my urgent requirements: an organic, personal, *necessary* relationship between the detective and the crime. So (like James Fennimore Cooper long ago), since I didn't like what I was reading, I decided to try to do better. The resounding commercial failure of "The Man Who" books suggests that I may not have succeeded. <grin> As for my unconscious motivations, they are purely a matter of speculation. But if you have *way* too much time on your hands, you might consider looking for connections between each Brew/Ginny novel and the immediately preceding sf/f epic. (10/05/2005) |
Evaleigh: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
I read Lord Fouls Bane when it first came out and the Land, since that book I read in the 70s, has always been apart of my life. Thank you for sharing your imagination and creation with me.
I read a section where you wrote that you felt in the past you werent a good enough writer to finish the Covenant Chronicles, and so you wrote and wrote until you felt you were ready. I have begun to reread Runes, with new eyes after reading that you place an exuberant amount of energy into each word, sentence and paragraph. I felt it only fair that I do the same while reading Runes.
Now, while still early into the second reading, I find myself at a new level of emersion into your story. Instead of being a song I tap my feet to, it is a soulful composition that strums chords and notes that resonate through me.
So, does your writing bring you the same joy as my reading of it?
|
I think I know what you're talking about. As a reader, I sometimes feel almost *exalted* by the power of brilliant writing and storytelling, even when the writing and the storytelling are all about pain. But as a writer, that isn't really possible for me. All of the to-ing and fro-ing, the self-doubt, the complex and vital efforts to solve what are essentially insoluble problems, that I find necessary (perhaps because of the nature of my ambitions, perhaps because I'm simply that kind of person) prevent the experience of writing from having much resemblence to the experience of reading. And the situation is worsened by the "experiential" way in which I write: I try--as much as imagination permits--to "go through" everything that happens in my stories. "The Runes of the Earth" was certainly not a joyful experience for Linden Avery: therefore it could not have been joyful for me. The fact that writing and reading can be such different experiences is one of the more amazing--and ambiguous--miracles of being human. (10/06/2005) |
Karen: Hello! Hope this finds you well.
I have read a couple of the questions submitted re the machinations of various characters in Chronicles and how essential their 'plots' are to the storyline and the outcome.
The answer I came up with to these questions myself before reading some of your own answers was that these needed to be so complex due to the fact that Lord Foul COULDN'T in fact just muscle in and somehow obtain the ring if it fell into other hands etc, because as stated by Lord Mhorham in TPTP, Covenant IS the white gold. This would mean that the ring simply couldnt be found/stolen by someone else as it would not have the same properties/power. Of course I was then confused in the 2nd Chronicles by the fact that Linden Avery appears to be almost some sort of Demi-God in terms of what she can do with her own abilities and Covenant's ring.
If Covenant IS the essence of the wild magic which is unleashed by the white gold, how is it that Linden then becomes the key character with regards to its useage?
Am I just being very dense here in seeing the explanation?
Thanks!
Regards
Karen
|
I think the point on which I've failed to be clear is that it's a question of *degree*. White gold is the instrument of wild magic. Any passing stranger with a bit of lore and/or sensitivity could get *some* use out of the ring. And the more lore and/or sensitivity that someone-not-Covenant has, the more useful the ring will be. But only the ring's true wielder, someone who has an organic relationship with that specific ring (Covenant, Joan), can access *all* of the power of wild magic. The Elenas and Lindens of the Land can evoke a LOT of power from white gold; but a LOT is a far cry from the near-absolute power required to destroy the Arch of Time. Lord Foul has no use for a LOT of power: he needs near-absolute power. Hence the somewhat oblique focus of his machinations. Does that help? (10/08/2005) |
David Pelton: Greetings and Salutations
Is there a location we can sign up to get notification when volume 2 of The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is published?
Thanks
David
|
Sorry. Neither my webmaster nor I have the time to compile the necessary database. News will be posted on this site promptly whenever I have any. (10/09/2005) |
Daryl McCormack: I am sure you hear it all the time, and don't have time to respond to all comments but I would like you to know "in your dwindling years" as you put it how much I loved and got out of your books. Thomas Covenant was a religious experience to me, a deeply moving and truly awesome story.
Was there a specific reason you chose Thomas to have leprosy??
If it helps the writer in you, "A man rides through" duo was an excellent book and I would never have been able to tell it was yours just by reading it, some authors always write in the same vein as it were and you can recognize it, those books don't and so can stand on their own as great books. Thanks again for bringing something special into my life.
Sincerely yours,
Daryl McCormack
|
It's probably obvious that I think in extremes. Because I grew up with the subject of leprosy (in a manner of speaking), it was quite familiar. And I considered it an apt metaphor for the kind of private alienation and loneliness that might drive an otherwise ordinary--and possibly even kind and loving--man to become a potential Despiser. Certainly I know (based on experiences physically if not emotionally less extreme than leprosy) how Covenant felt. And the success of the various "Chronicles" suggests that many of my readers also know how he felt. (10/12/2005) |
Vera B.: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you dearly for the superb duology of Mordant's Need. I don't care how long ago you wrote them, I consider them timeless classics in my personal library.
However, I do have a question. It seems Nyle was severely (to put it lightly) abused by Gilbur. What I was wondering is if you intended to make it seem like he was supposed to "heal" with a few words from King Joyse--I doubt it--or if his being named/assigned as Contender to Alend a recompense of sorts for the suffering he endured. Somehow, this is the only detail that I cannot seem to reconcile. I realize he made a few bad judgement calls, but...
Regardless of the answer(if there is one), I felt very satisfied with how Eremis' end came about, and I loved how this story ended with a great wedding! As a woman, I also appreciate the way women's role--especially Elega, Myste, and Terisa--changed that society's fate and, consequently, its culture concerning women. Thank you again for a wonderful tale. <sigh> I do wish you'd reconsider "revisiting" Mordant. They only had peace "for the time being"...
Sincerely,
Vera
|
And thank *you*! I'm quite proud of "Mordant's Need." And I've often wondered why more readers don't seem to notice the transformative role of women in the story. King Joyse's response to what Nyle did and suffered was intended as both forgiveness ("I don't hold what you did against you") and apology ("I'm sorry that my actions put you in the path of so much harm"). But I had a deeper idea in mind as well. Under the right circumstances, a gesture of trust toward someone who has (apparently) shown himself unworthy of trust can have a redemptive effect. In a very real sense, King Joyse *is* trying to help Nyle heal. (10/12/2005) |
John Dunn: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. I have several questions, on your various works.
The Man Who...
Firstly, I have read several of your The Man Who series, and I am looking forward to the others. In the last few years those books have been published under you own name, but almost all of them were published many years ago. The first two books (the onse I have read so far) note that there have been some revisions. Why did you revise those books from their original publication, and what did you actually revise? you have stated that you are proud of what you have written, so why the changes?
Secondly, I think I read you planned to publish one last Man Who book. When you originally conceived of the first book, did you know there would be others. You state that your creative process dictates how many books will be in a series; was this true for these books as well? Or was each book conceived of as a singular story in an open-ended series?
Thirdly, what person/idiot decided you should publish these books under an assumed name? As you know we are not a very literate people. I know nothing about the 'publishing business', yet I would assume that many readers read anything their favorite authors publish. As soon as I found out about The Man Who series I started to track down the books (actually had to end up ordering them on-line, the book stores do not seem to carry them). If I had known about these books years ago I would have bought them when they were originally published, as I am sure others would have too. What was the reason these books could not have been originally published under your own name?
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant
In all there series the Despiser wants to flee what he beleives is a prision: the Earth. He needs to destroy the Arch of Time to do so. Thus, he needs White Gold (correct me if I am wrong). You stated somewhere in the GI that we have to wonder how many Laws have to be broken before it all falls down, meaning if enough Laws are broken the Earth is destroyed (I think).
In the Illearth War turiya Raver uses the Illearth Stone to summon a tsunami. He is stopped by Lord Hyrim and three Bloodguard. Lord Hyrim states that if turiya Raver is successful in summoning the tsunami he will violate the Law that governs the sea, he will break that Law.
High Lord Elena uses the Blood of the Earth to break the Law of Death by summoning dead High Lord Kevin.
The Despiser obviously has access to powers that can break Law. Till the end of The Power that Preserves he has the full might of the Illearth Stone, besies the Blood of the Earth. If he can not use the Blood, perhaps a raver or one of his other servants? If we have to wonder just how many laws have to be broken before the Earth ends, why does Lord Foul not wonder that too? Why does not he nor his Ravers break as many Laws as possilbe to bring about the ruins of the Earth, and win his release? Maybe I simply do not understand somthing?
I know you are very busy writing the next book, and have your own personal life to attend to, so I will leave you with just that, and hope for an answer sometime in my life.
Best wishes to you and yours.
Most sincerely,
John Dunn
|
<whew> That's a lot. Ordinarily I ask people to limit themselves to two questions at a time. But you've been waiting for quite a while.... Briefly, then: THE MAN WHO 1) As I've said elsewhere, my revisions to the first three books involved only minor polishing. In small ways, I wanted to improve the rhythm and flow of the narrative. In one case, I thought that a particular character's dialogue was stilted. And in a very few cases, I found the names of the characters jarring. By my standards, I changed nothing substantive. 2) When I began these books, I envisioned them as stand-alone novels--apart from the minor (!) inconvenience (?) of the fact that the characters change and grow. With the third book, however, I realized that I was not actually creating an open-ended series. Some facet of my imagination seems to require a unifying story arc. So now I have a fairly clear idea of my ultimate destination. 3) My pseudonym was imposed on me by my publishers as a condition of publication. My publishers then were--as most publishers today are--married to the idea of "category" publishing. The underlying assumption is that readers of one category *will not* read books in another category--and that if they are somehow tricked into opening a book in another category (e.g. by using the same author's name in more than one category), they will feel profoundly betrayed. I consider this errant nonsense; but very few people in publishing agree with me. And perhaps they're right. "The Man Who" books under my name have sold just as poorly as they did under the name "Reed Stephens." THE CHRONICLES As I've said in a different context, it's a question of *scale*. Violating the laws of weather to summon a tsunami in Seareach is an almost trivial disruption to the weather-patterns of the entire Earth. Unless the core Laws (e.g. gravity and convection) are unmade, they will promptly and naturally efface the effects of any localized disturbance. By its very nature, Law seeks stability; seeks to correct imposed imbalances. In other words, not all unnatural actions inevitably destroy (or even damage) the Laws which they violate. On the scale of such disruptions, breaking the Law of Death is a far more profound violation. Yet even there Law strives to preserve itself. Raising Kevin's spirit does not automatically mean that every spirit of everyone who has ever died is now free to roam at will among the living. In a completely different sense than the Giant-Raver's tsunami, Elena's violation of Law is also a "local" phenomenon: it pertains to very specific spirits under very specific conditions. Lord Foul does indeed want to escape the Arch of Time. But if his desire depends on the kind of piecemeal disruption that occurs in the first trilogy, he'll have to wait a REALLY LONG TIME before the fabric of the most essential Laws begins to unravel. Entropy is on his side: inertia works against him. Hence his hunger for an excessive application of wild magic. (10/12/2005) |
Joe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I first picked up the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" in the late '70's, and to this day it remains the best I've ever read. Rather than perceiving hidden religious and political meanings in them, I enjoy them for what they are: vivid, thrilling, and emotionally stirring epics that know no equal. For this reason, I'd like to respond to a statement you made in the Sept. 2004 Publisher's Weekly: "There's this fear in the back of my head that readers who loved the first six Covenant books are going to look at the Last Chronicles and think, "I wish he'd quit while he was ahead." Well Mr. Donaldson, put your fear to rest. As high as my expectations were, "Runes of the Earth" exceeded them! I anxiously await the next three books,(An understatement if ever there was one!).
One thing I'd like to know: Are there, or have there been any high quality leatherbound publications of the "Chronicles"?
|
Thank you! As far as I know, the Easton edition of "Lord Foul's Bane," the Bantam/Spectra "collector's" editions of "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge," Donald M. Grant's edition of "Daughter of Regals," and the Gollancz "collector's" edition of "The Runes of the Earth" are my only "high quality leatherbound publications." But at some point Hill House may also release a "collector's" edition of "The Runes of the Earth" (don't hold your breath). (10/12/2005) |
Doc: Mr. Donaldson,
In TPTP Elena "takes" Covenant's ring while he is unconscious. Subsequently in TOT Kasreyn states that the reason he does not "rip the ring" from Covenant's finger is that a power given is different from a power taken. There are other times throughout The Chronicles where power or lore must be earned or learned before it can be used. In WGW Lord Foul himself must wait till Covenant chooses to give him the ring.
Why then did Elena feel that she could wield the ring after she had "taken" it from Covenant?
For that matter, what would it matter? Both Elena and Kasreyn are "Lore-wise", how would the act of "giving" as opposed to "taking" effect there actions.
|
By the end of TPTP, Elena is fully insane; so what do you expect? She's no longer capable of understanding--or even caring about--"the necessity of freedom." Why does the difference between "giving" and "taking" matter? Well, quite apart from the obvious moral issues.... Look at it this way: "taking" requires energy, perhaps vast amounts of it. That energy has to come from SOMEwhere, and of course it's going to come from the "taker" (where else would the "taker" get it?). So the more you "take," the less you *are*. Lore-wise beings like Kasreyn and Lord Foul understand that simply snatching Covenant's ring will do them more harm than good--especially when you consider the corollary that "taking" inherently prevents replication of the organic relationship between power and its natural wielder. (10/12/2005) |
Allen: What, in the final analysis, is the real difference between the epic fantasy and the space opera? I love both forms but I wonder if space opera doesn't bare even a tenuous relationship to epic fantasy. It makes perfect sense that the writer of the great Gap Saga also gave us "Covenant's struggles against Despite in the arena of the Land".
In an essay Gene Wolfe calls most science fiction "chrome-plated fantasy". I also have a friend who insists that science fiction in general bears the same relationship to our era that the great romances like "L'Morte D'Arthur" and "Orlando Furioso" bear to their eras.
Could space operas like the Gap be workings out of the same impulses that drive us to create epic fantasys?
|
Well, many people see science fiction as a sub-set of fantasy. Others regard fantasy as a sub-set of science fiction. The connections are obvious: both rely on the creation of "secondary realities," realities noticably different than the one most of us have agreed to inhabit. (In this framework, space opera is a sub-set of science fiction, while epic fantasy is the "main event" of fantasy.) Nevertheless the distinctions are important. In sf, the differences between our reality and the secondary creation are explained materially (rationally): x, y, or z has happened in science/technology, and therefore reality is changed. In fantasy, the differences are explained magically (arationally): x, y, or z powers (which can be imagined, but which defy any material explanation) exist, and therefore reality is changed. As I see it, such distinctions have profound implications. For example, fantasy is--sort of by definition--a journey into the non-rational possibilities of the human mind (a journey inward): sf is a journey into the rational possibilities of consensus reality (a journey outward). Of course, any storyteller of high aspiration will use *any* genre (sf, fantasy, western, mystery, historical, etc.) to explore the possibilities (both rational and otherwise) of the human mind. Nevertheless each form of storytelling offers unique possibilities, poses unique challenges, and presents unique obstacles or limitations. So in one sense all storytelling is storytelling, regardless of form or genre, and in another each form is peculiar to itself (although naturally there are always exceptions). In the first sense, equating, say, John Carter of Mars (space opera) with Conan the Barbarian (epic [?] fantasy) is perfectly apt. But in the second, equating, say, Simmons' "Hyperion" duology with Erikson's "Malazan" epic confuses the actual content of both. So I think your friend is mistaken. "Orlando Furioso" is to its era as "Lord of the Rings" is to ours, *not* as Simmons' "Hyperion" is to ours. (10/15/2005) |
Billy: First I just wanted to say thank you Mr Donaldson. I started reading the Covenant Chronicles when i was 14 mabey younger, im now 36. this story has spanned 22 years of my life and I have ready many many more books since then..this is still my favorite story beginning to end, I have the Runes of the Earth on Audio Book, but I havent listened to it yet, I want to read it first. I loved the first six books so much I actually Narrated an Unabridged Audio book for each book, including gilden fire inserted into the Illearth War (Read by me, for my personal use of course). thankyou again for restarting this Great Story,
My question is: have you considered narrating unabridged versions of the first six Covenant books your self? alot of work, I know, but we would love to hear it. and my other question is, during editing they make you cut segments of your books out to make them more marketable I guess? is there a possibility of Expanded Editions being released?
Best Wishes from a life time fan
|
Forgive me for saying so, but you have *way* too much time on your hands. <grin> No, I have never (and I do mean NEVER) "considered narrating unabridged versions of the first six Covenant books" myself. And I wouldn't do it at gun-point. Life is too short, and I have too many other things to do--including too many other books to write. (10/15/2005) |
Brent: Dear Mr.Donaldson,
I've become something of a sentence structure freak due to 'The Chronicles", and have made copious notes in the margins of my "Chronicles" paperbacks regarding the kinds of sentences used in succession (simple, complex, etc.), the use of parataxis, similes, and so on. All in an attempt to unlock how you write.
Unfortunately, because I've been doing this ever since I was about 13-years-old, I've become a little too familiar with your work, and find myself writing sentences dangerously close to your own. Therefore, I'd like to develop a kind of composing fluency that rescues me from relying on your's or anyone else's style or bag of writing tricks.
Any thoughts on this? Also, were there any particular books that helped you develop your grasp of sentence structure? That's something I've long wondered about.
Thanks in advance
|
I learned what I know about writing by studying other people's writing, not by studying books *about* writing. With that in mind, I have two suggestions. 1) Imagine a character as unlike yourself as possible, and then narrate something from that character's POV, preferrably in first person. I did this exercise quite a bit during my journeyman years--which is how I learned that I'm simply incapable of writing "dialect" <sigh>. 2) Apply your "Chronicles" methodology to as many other books as possible (preferrably books you admire, but even ones you don't admire will help). If you draw on enough different sources, you'll end up with an amalgam which is entirely your own. (10/15/2005) |
Rob Murnick: Hi Steve,
Pardon, but going over the GI I saw someone asked about the potential for TCOTC prequels, referencing Tolkien's Silmarillion as a prequel example, only to be surprised to see you reply by stating that prequels suck! I want to take your word for it that stand-alone prequel stories would be entirely inappropriate for TCOTC, but am I going too far to assume you don't like The Silmarillion?
|
You're right: I didn't particularly enjoy "The Silmarillion". It's really just a bunch of fragments imperfectly woven together. As such, it lacks a unifying "story arc" which permits the material to both concentrate and accumulate. In the absence of those qualities, I get bored pretty easily. Putting the problem another way: "The Silmarillion" is about too many different characters and situations that have little or nothing to do with each other. But that's not my objection to prequels in general. My general objection is that prequels have no real suspense because their outcome is already known. They are, inevitably, "historical documents" rather than "vital storytelling". (10/15/2005) |
Brad: Hi Stephen
Hope you're well. Ever since I became aware of the GI Ive checked in regularly, I am not aware of any other authors that indulge their readers in such a regular and lively exchange; so i'm sure I speak for many others when offering my appreciation for you taking time out from Fatal Revenant, not to mention having a life of your own! (after all, author is your profession, not your function).
I recently read on the GI several questions regarding the monetary rewards of your work and indeed authors in general, it was your belief that the number of authors that live in luxury as a result of their work was a tiny percentage of the total number of those published. My question regards the recent release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which reputedly is making its author an astonishing 1million an hour. My feelings on the books, (possibly unfounded as I have never read them) is they are diluted fantasy for the masses and naught more than a good read for kids. You have mentioned that you have read one of them and it didnt touch you.
Now, not to question your artisitc integrity, but doesnt that rankle you just a little, for someone to make such an astonishing amount of money out essentially re-hashing fables, fantasy and enid blyton novels? Ever been tempted to knock out a dumbed-down trashy fantasy purely for the sake of making money? Or possibly, do you not see the Potter books as having any relevance to your own work at all?
I appreciate your thoughts on this.
All the best,
Brad Glen
London, UK
|
Hey, I'm human. I have just as much ego, just as much vanity, just as much envy, just as much insecurity as anyone else: more than some, less than others. Of *course* I wish I had more readers. Of *course* I wish my work attracted more respect. Of *course* I wish other people had the good sense (?) to think the way I do. <sigh> But I'm smart enough to know that comparisons are invidious at best, and can be completely crippling. Far saner to attend to what *I'm* doing, and let the rest of the world attend to itself. And on that subject, a) I don't *want* "to knock out a dumbed-down trashy fantasy" (I have to look at myself in the mirror every day), and b) even if I did want that, I'm incapable of it because I can't turn off my brain (and if I could that would be the same thing as death). But make no mistake about it: J. K. Rowling is an extraordinarily skillful craftswoman. What she does doesn't appeal to me; but that doesn't mean she doesn't do it supremely well. (10/16/2005) |
Rob Smith: Dear Stephen,
A recent response in the GI intrigued me and I thought I'd ask for more info (We are greedy aren't we?)
You mentioned that you had a different editor for the paperback version of Runes than for the hardback. As an ignorant non author with no knowledge of the publishing business I'd always assumed that once a book had been through the Author/Editor cycle once it was a "finished" version regardless of format. I cannot think of a reason some text written in a hardcover book would be worth changing because the book had a differest (and more flexible) cover!
I'd be grateful for any examples or details you could share. (Unless this falls into the category of TMPDTM*)
* Things My Publisher Does To Me
Thanks again for humouring us and tolerating this ongoing inquisition!
|
In big publishing conglomorates, hardback editors and paperback editors are always separate people. Hardback and paperback publishing are procedurally different in various ways; and in any case it's too much work for one person. But that doesn't mean a book gets edited twice. The editor who "buys" the book (and who could as easily be a paperback as a hardback editor) does the actual editing (working with the author to produce an acceptable text): the other editor simply handles the procedural business of producing and marketting the book in a different format. (To complicate matters, in my case US and UK transactions are separate. Therefore two different editors *do* work on the actual editing, one US, one UK. But in practice they share the job so that the author is not inundated with conflicting editorial demands.) So: "The Last Chronicles" was originally acquired for the Putnams empire by Jennifer Hershey (a hardback editor), who therefore became "my" editor. The paperback editor's job was simply to convert the hardback into a paperback--and to market it in paperback-appropriate ways. But since "Runes" Jennifer Hershey has left the company. So now the paperback editor, Susan Allison, has officially become "my" editor. If/when she's satisfied with the text of "Fatal Revenant," someone who doesn't work with me at all will oversee the production and marketting of the hardcover. It follows that when changes are made in a book between the hardback and paperback editions, it only happens at the *author's* insistence; and every editor devoutly prays it won't happen. (10/16/2005) |
Adrian Smith: Hello Mr. Donaldson. I have a couple of questions from my reading of The Illearth War. First of all, was Amok created to lead seekers to the Earthblood only once? In the event that someone else desired to drink, who would lead them there and help them pass Damelon's Gate?
The second question relates to the Vow of the Bloodguard. At the time of the first and second chronicles, did any of the Bloodguard know the location of the remaining four Wards of Kevin's power? Do any of the Harauchi know where the Wards are in the Last Chronicles?
Thank you for your time.
|
Since Amok was unmade by leading Elena and Covenant to the EarthBlood, I think we can safely assume that he was a one-time-only offer. Naturally the Bloodguard learned a few things by being around the Lords; but Kevin did not burden the Bloodguard with his lore. Of course, the Bloodguard weren't interested. But Kevin's deeper reason--and a wise one, in my opinion--was that unearned knowledge is dangerous. Power without understanding (not to mention wisdom) is dangerous. Kevin intended the mastery of each Ward to enable the discovery of the next--IN SEQUENCE--until all Seven were finally known. And this entire scheme would be undermined if Kevin supplied any deliberate short-cuts (e.g. by telling the Bloodguard where the Wards were). No, as matters stand the lore of the Old Lords is just plain irretrievable. (10/16/2005) |
Kasreyn: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
When I discovered your website, I was thrilled by the depth of information and discussion available. Thank you *so* much for making something like this website available to the people who love your work. And if I may also take a moment, I'd like to say that I've enjoyed your books for many years now, especially the Chronicles and the Gap Cycle. You've inspired me as a writer and shown me I have a long way to go still.
Enough hero worship! Two questions per month, eh?
My first question is something that's bugged me for years: at the end of The Illearth War, Covenant was willing to give up his ring in the name of the woman he cared for - he was willing to give it to Troy so Troy could save Elena from Kevin. Admittedly he was under a lot of pressure at the time. And yet in the Second Chronicles, Covenant is informed by the Elohim that the earth's peril lies in the fact that Linden doesn't have his ring, and he refuses to give it to her, though he is once again under great pressure. He refuses even though he loves her, like he loved Elena, and he is also motivated by guilt and desire to save the land, as he was in Illearth War. Was it his victory over Foul in Power That Preserves that gave him this sense of self-assuredness or arrogance that prevents him from surrenduring his ring to Linden?
Also, in The Power that Preserves, during Covenant's aborted first summons, Mhoram reflects at one point that the way in which Covenant forced Morin and Bannor to choose between fidelity to Kevin or fidelity to the new Lords at Rivenrock somehow helped cause the breaking of the Vow. This has always rung true to me, but I've never quite been able to put my finger on *why*. Can you explain what the consequences were of Covenant's actions on Rivenrock, and how they led to - or enabled - the breaking of the Vow?
|
1) You're comparing apples and oranges. Of course, Covenant in "The One Tree" is not who he was in "The Illearth War": the parameters of discourse, if you will, are entirely different. But in addition Linden's "condition" in TOT cannot be compared to Elena's desperate straits at the end of TIW. Linden has (mostly) recovered from the crises of TWL and is functioning fairly well: Elena is in imminent danger of absolute destruction (or absolute corruption, take your pick). And, of course, Covenant has no particular reason to trust the Elohim--who may well be wrong in any case. 2) When Morin and Bannor aid Elena and Covenant on Rivenrock, they--in effect--enable Elena's insane use of the Power of Command. This introduces an inevitable self-doubt to a people who don't handle self-doubt well: you could say that it leaves the Bloodguard vulnerable to the consequences of the larger mistake of Korik, Sill, and Doar. (10/16/2005) |
Anthony Raythorn: From the late 70,s to the present I have being reading the chronicles.If the final book is not due to be published until 2013,what guarrentees have you put in place to ensure that the story will come to an end for your millions of avid readers in the event of your untimly demise?
|
Clearly you haven't been reading the GI interview long enough to learn that I'm never going to die. <grin> Which, it probably goes without saying, is not at all the same thing as living forever. (10/19/2005) |
James: Greetings!
'Having read THE LORD OF THE RINGS, in 3 days, at the tender-if somewhat angry-age of 13...well, I simply can't "wait" for #8 in the Chronicles you started w/Covenant!
My question is simple, yet laden for me with the kind of glamour only hidden "lore" can hold...LOL! Knowing your personal history w/ India, I wonder: Did you knowingly ascribe the names "Moksha, Turija, et al..." to the Ravers to exemplify their innate perversion? (Moksha, for instance, means "Liberation" in Sanskrit, and I have had Turija translated to mean "Brother".)I realize that many of the names in the Chronicles come strictly from your own inspiration, but the Sanskrit can't be denied,...no more than can be the Blood of the Earth....LOL!
Forgive me if I have repeated an oft asked question! I have only dared to ask this one, because it seemed, to me, overlooked by others...
Anywho, whatever moves you to write: I hope that fire burns for many lives to come! You strike a chord in many of your various works that I have longed to hear: thankyou.
Ever grateful,
James
|
I think I covered this some time ago. On the other hand, finding the answers you want in the GI must be a daunting task. <sigh> In any case.... Yes, I chose "moksha, turiya, and samadhi" deliberately, knowing what those words referred to in Sanskrit (broadly translated, they are all states of enlightenment). Those names reflect how the Ravers think of themselves. Their other names (Herem, Sheol, and Jehannum) are also real words, which reflect how other people think of the Ravers. Incidentally, real words (e.g. Elohim) are used as names here and there throughout the "Chronicles". But sometimes you can't recognize them unless you happen to speak Marathi. <grin> (10/19/2005) |
carlos armenta: i have a couple of questions that i hope you answer. first, i am going into my first year of college and hope to develope my writing skills and one day enter the fantasy genre, any advise on that? also as i read your chronicals i couldnt help but want to know how you could write an anti hero like thomas without actually hating him at certain points in the book? thx for your time, and just wanted to say my father i and i love your books.
|
This interview is littered with advice for aspiring writers. I won't repeat any of it here. In some form, I love all of my protagonists (although in some cases "pity" might be more accurate). I'm attracted to them for their possibilities, if not always for their initial emotions and actions. And I never hate them. For one thing, there is too much of "me" in them. And for another, I always know where they're going in the story, so I can appreciate why they need to go through their various stages along the way. In fact, I don't think of characters like Thomas Covenant--or even Angus Thermopyle--as "anti-heroes" at all. I would only use that term to refer to, say, Warden Dios, Cleatus Fane, or Nick Succorso. And even those guys inspire sadness rather than dislike in me. (10/19/2005) |
Glenda Boozer: Mr. Donaldson,
Thirteen years ago in New Orleans, you told me (as best I remember; I beg your forgiveness for any error I make in quoting) that you meant every word you had written. I know that you are not talking about "message." I find myself discovering new insights every time I reread any of your books, but they aren't about politics or religion; they are more basic and universal than that. Would it be reasonable to say that your aim is to write true words about fictional characters and situations? Is this, in your view, the storyteller's task?
|
Certainly my aim is to tell the truth about my characters and their dilemmas--and to tell it as vividly and sympathetically as I can. You could call that *my* task. But is it "the storyteller's task"? Who knows? I suspect that every storyteller has to make that kind of determination for him/herself, just as every reader has to decide what s/he considers important, valuable, or even fun. (10/19/2005) |
bob gosnay: Why white gold, how did he know such extremes how did you concieve such a thing as the pain of leprosy, how did you turn a total anti hero into the main character of your thomas covenant series?
|
I've answered these questions as well as I can. But if I tried for a hundred years, I couldn't really explain how I do what I do. In some essential but undefined sense, it's just the way I am. (10/20/2005) |
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.
Mabbie: So. Are we ever going to hear the tale of Baghoon the Unbearable and Thema Twofist?
...That would make me so happy. I like the Giants.
|
Im sorry. Im sure you wont be surprised to hear that this is yet another RAFO. (10/24/2005) |
David: Steve; I hope this finds all is well with you and yours. I have read all the Man Who novels. I actually own 2 of them that have Reed Stphens as the author, A.K.A. you. What I want is something good to happen for Mick. He fights addiction, gets beat up and shot at, he accidently kills his brother, and all the while he never gets the girl.
Steve; even Conenant finds love in the Land. Thank You for the tremendous ride. I promise to purchase a ticket to each and ever one. Kindest Regaurds, David
|
Well, I admit that ol Mick really takes a beating. In fact, The Man Who Fought Alone was rejected by a publisher on those very grounds: too much pain, too little reward. (Which is not the way *I* look at it, btw.) But he brace yourself adult material coming not to mention spoilers get laid in Alone. <grin> And Deborah Messengers name is not an accident. (10/24/2005) |
Anthony : Bravo on your performance on the Fantasy Bedtime Hour. You looked like you were having quite a bit of fun.
|
Oh, I was! So Im happy to say that Ive already been invited to appear in the final episode. And if I ask nicely, they may even let me wear the wig again. (10/24/2005) |
Steven Koper: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
In Lord Foul's Bane Atiaran describes the Viles as a "high and lofty race", if this is true how could they have sired (gave birth to?, created?) such a destructive and seemingly brute race as the Demondim? The Viles, Demondim, ur-viles and especially the Waynhim have always been an interesting aspect of the entire series to me.
Thank you for your time.
Yours Truly, Steven Koper
|
Serendipity can be a wonderful thing. As Ive said before, when I wrote the first Covenant trilogy I had no intention of ever carrying the story further. Instead I had in mind what might be called an *implied* story for the Viles/Demondim/ur-viles: they were intended as an example in the background of Despites effect on the nature or content of reality. But when I realized that I had two more Chronicles to write, I soon discovered that some (a lot?) of the background in the first trilogy was ripe for additional development. The Elohim and Sandgorgons are just two examples. (10/24/2005) |
Peter B.: Stephen,
I'm a big tennis fan, and once again sat spellbound watching Wimbledon. The most graceful and masterful player on the grass courts is once again Roger Federer. Are there any particular athletes that you admire?
Thanks.
|
I cant imagine how this relates to the purposes of the GI, but. As I get older, I find that more and more of the athletes I admire are from an earlier generation. John McEnroe and Roscoe Tanner in tennis, Bernie Kosar in football, Maurice Cheeks and John Stockton and Dr. J in basketball. But I no longer follow tennis. Perhaps because I was a varsity tennis player in college, when I lost interest in playing the game I lost interest in watching it. (10/24/2005) |
Phill Skelton: This is probably going to be not so much a question as a mini-essay thinly disguised as a question, but I hope it is of some interest.
I recently discovered the existence of the third chronicles, and devoured Runes in a few short days (and can I just say that I can think of very few writers - if any - who can make me *think* about what i've read quite as much as you do). Shortly after finishing Runes, I was reading Browning's "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came", and was struck by the similarity to Covenant's journey across the Spoiled Plains to confront the Despiser at the end of the first chronicles. There are the superficial, and largely uninteresting (to me), similarities: the trackless wasteland; the few scraps of life barely hanging on; the ancient battleground; the failure of allies who had been on the same quest; the tower at the end. (The grass, incidentally, is described as 'leprous'). I dare say a closer comparison could dredge up a few more. But the themes seem similar as well. The 'hero' is decidedly unheroic. He isn't looking for some glorious victory; he just wants an end to his search. And yet when presented with the final challenge, he at least takes up the gauntlet and prepares to fight. In an age when other writers were producing epics about King Arthur and other traditional romantic heroes, we have a poem about decay, failure and despair, yet like Covenant, that hero retains at his core the essential element of real heroism that makes a difference at the end.
Okay, I lied. There's not even the thin veneer of a lame question here. Maybe I'm just hoping to inspire you to read a poem that goes against the heroic conventions of its time in a way that I think you'd appreciate.
And thank you, once again, for all the books you've written.
|
This falls into the Department of Inevitable But Unconscious Influences. After the amount of time that I spent in college and graduate school studying--and admiring--Robert Browning, I can hardly pretend that I havent been influenced. But I wasnt conscious of the influence while I was writing the first Covenant trilogy, and only dimly became aware of it later. Incidentally, Tennyson was a contemporary of Brownings, and he also was *not* producing epics about King Arthur and other traditional romantic heroes. Sure, he wrote about King Arthur, but his theme was decay, failure and despair. And in a very different vein, George Merediths work was also full of darkness. I could go on. Victorian England was a fascinating time in part because its (extremely) conventional virtues elicited so much anguish from its more creative inhabitants. (10/24/2005) |
Donald Coward: Stephen;
In the June 2005 GI you discuss three paths to redemption that are linked to the TC chronicles. The three paths were: Redemption through Victory (the first chronicles); Redemption through Self-Sacrifice (or Surrender) (the second chronicles); and Redemption through the Sacrifice of Others (the last chronicles).
You validate the first two themes (and in my mind you also verify that they underlie the first two series) but suggest that the reader is way off with regard to the third path (In fact I believe you are overly dismissive in saying that the idea presented is simply an oxymoron and would have instead presumed that the reader was trying to convey the idea of redemption through the intervention/forgiveness of others such as the redemption of mankind by Jesus).
I am wondering if the true third path is Redemption through Children. I cant recall where I first saw this idea expressed, but Im a firm believer that many people are saved by the good works of their offspring rather than any overt act on their part. This would seem to fit with some of the themes in ROTE as well as highlighting the role that I understand your own father to have played in the inspiration of the TC character. Is this where you are going with the third path and the Last Chronicles?
|
<sigh> Ill probably get in (even more) trouble for saying this, but I dont buy the whole redemption of mankind by Jesus notion. As far as I can see, no one is ever redeemed by transferring the responsibility for or the consequences of his/her actions and intentions to someone else. (Just my opinion, folks.) Although I should probably be the last person on the planet to say anything that sounds like I dont value outside help--and even outside intervention. I probably wouldnt be alive today if I hadnt experienced the power of grace in one form or another. On a number of occasions. But in my experience that grace has never taken the form of having my essential responsibilities shouldered by someone else. Im committed to the idea of working out my own salvation--with fear and trembling. No, the third path for which my characters seek in The Last Chronicles is something else entirely--although children play a vital role, for good or ill. (Certainly *my* children are part of my experience of grace.) (10/24/2005) |
BRYAN HUBBARD: Mr. Donaldson. I first read the original chronicles in 1981, I was 9 at the time and then and now I think the Covenant novels are second only to Lord of The Rings as far as influenciing my love of reading. I have read almost every prominant author in the genre since and have always gone back to reread your books after a few years. Thanks for all you have given with your novels . Now my question would be this...in The One Tree' the thinng I have always wanted to know is why do the Elohim show little or no concern for the threat that Lord Fould poses, when in the past Earth power has proven useless against Despite and Despite seems to be able to subvert earth power to it's will ?
Findail seems not to worry so much about Lord Fouls ability to controll and pervert his power as he is about Covenants self control. I understand that Foul can't destroy the Arch of Time w/o the white gold but he could enslave the whole earth over time and that would include the Elohim I would guess. Anyway thaks again for your novels(Just finished This day ALL Gods Die). Kepp em' coming:)
|
In its simplest terms: the Elohim show no concern for the threat posed by Lord Foul because they see no threat--to them. They are rather self-absorbed. They believe that they are the answer to all things: therefore they can be in no danger. And they can see that other powers abroad in the Earth are adequate to deal with Lord Foul. Hence their vexation that Linden does not wield Covenants ring: that detail forces them to involve themselves in something that they believe should not be their problem. You could say that they only bother to Appoint one of themselves to solve a problem in order to prevent that problem from expanding to involve the rest of them. (10/24/2005) |
Chris O'Connell: Mr. Donaldson,
One question that kept bothering me as I listened (not read. I bought the 'book on CD'. It is wonderful) to Runes... Why didn't technology develop in the Land? I can understand why it wouldn't have developed when EarthPower is around ("Hey, look what happens when I move this coil of wire around this weird rock." "No thanks, look at how I'm using this pot of Graveling to cure cancer."). But given the absence of EarthPower, why wouldn't a technological society have developed, similar to what happened here, in the 'real' earth. About the same amount of time has passed in the Land since the Staff of Law was lost as has passed here on earth since Aristotle contemplated the nature of matter. You would think the farmers struggling to raise crops might find modern chemistry helpful in growing crops, things like printing presses, cotton gins etc. etc. would start cropping up.
I know that we all need to suspend a little disbelief when reading a fantasy novel, but you also consider the 'dignity of your creation' to be an important party of your stories. I'm not finding fault, just wondering how you feel about that possibility.
Is it possible that the Runes could not have progressed as it did had technology been 'discovered'? A stonedowner a little bored with the mundane details of life as a farmer is likely to help Linden, just for a little excitement. Is a computer programmer or engineer (or even a high school student studying for the SAT's) likely to do the same?
Thanks again for the wonderful times your books have given me.
Chris
|
This question keeps coming up. I've already tackled it more than once. To what I've said before, I'll just add two things. 1) The development of technology would violate the necessary conditions of the genre. (Just one example: LOTR. Elves live forever. After a few thousand years, don't you think one of them would get *bored* enough to try something new?) 2) Those conditions are necessary because they permit the telling of certain kinds of stories. Stories the essence of which is "magic" would be badly inhibited by "technology" (less by the specific technological developments themselves than by the attitude toward what constitutes reality which "technology" implies). The story that I want to tell in "The Last Chronicles" would be impossible in the presence of technological thinking. (10/26/2005) |
STEVE M: I recall listening to an interview with Frank Herbert several years ago where he said that the character of Duncan Idaho in the Dune chronicles was originally intended to be a minor character but as he wrote Idaho wound up developing into a major character. I am curious as to whether you have experienced this with any of your characters? Conversely have you ever created a character that you liked and intended to play a major role but as you wrote found that it really did not work and wound up minimizing its role or even eliminating it completely?
Secondly, the experience of reading a good book (for me) culminates with the natural anger, frustration and general feeling of being pissed off that I have in fact finished the book. Ergo, the better the book the more pissed off I get that the story and characters that I have come to know and love are gone. Naturally the Thomas Covenant books REALLY PISS ME OFF. It is clear that the Chronicles of TC must evoke am incredible gamut of emotions from you. What is your emotional reaction to a) writing such a monumental epic; and b) finishing writing such a monumental epic?
P.S. Sir, You are truly a genius.
|
I've had characters expand on me (always to good effect), but I've never had one shrink. Doubtless this is an effect of the way I work. Since I always know where I'm going (how the story is going to end), I also know who my major players have to be. That never changes. But sometimes (often?) minor players step out of the scenery and take on larger roles than I had originally anticipated (since I don't try to plan in advance every detail of how I'm going to get where I'm going). My emotions while I'm writing are pretty much the emotions of my characters (because I experience the story as they do)--with the difference that I feel frustration, fatigue, and despair more often than they do. My emotions when I've finished writing an epic depend on the passage of time. At first, I'm filled with depression, in part because I'm exhausted, in part because I can see how far I've fallen below my aspirations, in part because my life now seems to have no purpose, and in part because there's no ^#$^#$%$%ing closure (after mountains of writing come mountains of rewriting, followed by mountains of copyediting, followed by mountains of proofreading, followed by mountains soul-crushing promotional chores, followed by etc.). But gradually the situation changes. At times, rewriting can be almost restful (because it uses a completely different part of my brain)--except when I'm forced to hurry. Copyediting, on the other hand, is always infuriating beyond description. A finished book does provide a certain sense of closure, albeit too long delayed. And eventually enough time passes to let me look back on what I've done and feel proud of it. (10/26/2005) |
Luke A: Mr. Donaldson, after further viewing the GI, I decided to rephrase my original question to you as well as better clarify what I want to know.
My Question:
Focusing completely on Covenant's feelings, what was the purpose of having him reciprocate Elena's "innappropriate" attraction ?
Don't get me wrong, I was glad that Covenant didn't act on those feelings, but still he felt them... As a father of 3 daughters myself, I find it strange that Covenant harbored such feelings even after learning that Elena is his daughter.
Covenant definitely exhibits that he knows the difference between right and wrong( choosing not to kill/ shame for manipulations), so are we to believe that the revitalization of his ability to physically engage in sex has overpowered his basic sense of ethics and morality ? Even after making so many previous decisions based on those basic principles?
I don't mean to sound aggressive or disrespectful, but I just don't want to believe that Covenant is...well...a pervert.
Anyhow, I'm looking forward to your response, and thanks a billion for such great stories, keep it up !
|
Covenant and Elena are both in "impossible" situations, both literally and emotionally. Covenant has sex for the first time in, like, forever, and a few weeks later he's presented with a 40something daughter? Without going through any of the normal experiences of watching a child grow up? In a place that he doesn't even believe is real? Considering that the most powerful aphrodisiac in life is feeling desired by someone else? And that nothing about being a leper has prepared him to handle such situations? How could he possibly have an *appropriate* reaction? What could conceivably constitute an *appropriate* reaction in a situation like that? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that he doesn't act on his feelings is a triumphant display of his growing moral character. In one sense, Elena faces the same dilemma. Nothing that she's ever experienced has made Covenant real to her AS A FATHER. But in another sense, she stands on the opposite side of the problem. Almost EVerything that she's ever experienced has made him real to her AS A HERO, a figure of power, an enormously desirable source of redemption. Triock is the father-figure in Elena's life. Covenant is (in a manner of speaking) the figment of Lena's--and therefore of Elena's--most romantic fantasies. Does that help? (10/26/2005) |
Luther A: Thank you for the opportunity to pick your brain. And many thanks for the wonderful stories you've written (I'll leave it at that, I could write pages upon pages concerning how your work has brought me enjoyment.)
My question:
I found the apparent sexual tension between Covenant and Lena a bit uneasy to accept at first, but gradually I've gotten over it and tried my best to understand exactly why it(the tension) was there. Especially considering Covenant wanted what she offered in the worst way. Were you intending to be more "loud" so to speak, about how "flawed" Covenant was ? Was it Foul indirectly urging him to , in a sense, "love" the crime or the product of his crime against Lena ?
Any insight or explanation to this particular relationship would be greatly appreciated...and again thank you, more than I could ever say for helping a son strengthen a once-weak relationship with his father by discussing you wonderful stories. <smile>
|
I suppose it would be fair to say that I intended to be "loud." The story wouldn't have much point if Covenant didn't start out as a believable servant of Despite. Until his crime against Lena, he's pretty much exclusively a "victim" (passive, abused, etc.). I needed to shift him out of that role as promptly--and as vehemently--as possible. Otherwise he isn't a potential Despiser: he's just another tool or plaything. So I also consider it important that Lord Foul wasn't whispering in Covenant's ear, or sending a Raver to control him, or shaping his behavior in any other way. That crime is all Covenant. If it weren't--if he could escape any portion of his responsibility for it--everything that follows would shift. Eventually the moral logic of the story would collapse. (10/26/2005) |
Phillip Yorks: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I submitted a question a few months ago, but since the meat of that submission was merely to thank you for the positive influence that your novels have had upon my development as a person, I really did not expect an answer.
However, in the time that has passed since then, I have found that I really do have a question for you.
I have noticed that nearly all of your longer works have featured protagonists and important secondary characters who are morally ambiguous. You have referred often to the theme of rape in your works and how that is important in establishing the moral ambiguity of, say Thomas Covenent and Angus. But on the other hand, I must note that you did an admirable job of establishing Terisa's potential to slip to "the dark side" or at least to avoid opposing it in the "Mordant's Need" series. So, to my question. Do you feel that you have ever gone too far in depicting your main characters' potential for evil, or are you generally satisfied thzt you have not hit your readers over the head with a baseball bat but still made your point clear?
Let me add as commentary that I have read nearly all of your fantasy and science fiction work, and that it is my opinion that you have generally produced work that has improved upon your previous work. The exception to this would be the GAP series, which I felt suffered from the lack of a likable main character until the third book.
|
I guess it depends on what you mean by "gone too far." Clearly I went "too far" for your personal taste in the GAP books. And there has to be *some* reason why a million "Covenant" readers (US) and 100,000 "Mordant's Need" readers (US again) have refused to touch the GAP books. But if "too far" is measured by my own artistic standards, or by the particular rigor of my storytelling ambitions, then no, I've never "gone too far." And I still say that the GAP books are the best work I've ever done (although I'm aiming even higher in "The Last Chronicles"). (10/26/2005) |
Aidan Walters: First of all thank you for writing so many brilliant books.
My question is do you ever get annoyed at the massive amount of interest in your Covenent novels and the just as massive lack of interest in your other works? Everyone seems to dismiss you as 'the Covenent author', and even those few people who have read all your works seem to spend all there time talking about Covenent (eg see the massive amount posted about Covenent novels on your fansite in comparison to the rest of your work). As Mordant's Need and Gap (as well as your shorter fiction) are such stunning works this chasm of difference of opinion must be slightly irritating to say the least.
|
I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that I've been known to feel a near-suicidal dismay at the sheer *scale* on which everything that I've ever done--except "Covenant"--has been rejected. <sigh> But gradually over the years I've come to understand that readers are people, just like everyone else; and just like everyone else, they have the right to make their own decisions. They don't ask my opinion when they make their decisions--and they shouldn't if they could. God knows I've never asked for *their* opinions when I'm deciding what to write. I'm wise enough to know that life is too short to be spent suffering over things like comparative book sales. Now if I were just wise enough to *live* by what I know.... (10/26/2005) |
Eystein Finne (norwegian fan): Dear Mr. Donaldson
For the moment I'm reading "the Runes of the Earth". Linden is asked a question about her world. This made me think about the lack of interest all the inhabitants in the land show towards learning more about the world of Thomas and Linden.
If I was a inhabitant of the land and met Linden, I would certainly try to learn more about her world and how they solve problems.
My question is therefor: Have the Giants or the Haruchai any detailed knowledge about "our" world.
|
This question comes up a lot. But I don't actually understand it. It seems to advocate a violation of the essential conventions of storytelling. Of course, you're right: anyone from the Land who encountered Covenant or Linden would naturally be very curious (except perhaps in "The Last Chronicles," where the characters are so ignorant of their own world that they may not have much curiosity to spare). But from my perspective as a storyteller, it's an impossible situation. First, it would bog down the narrative something awful. (How *do* they make those boots? I've never seen anything like them. Well, they use a series of machines. What's a machine? Well, ohmyGod, this is going to take the next two hundred pages.) Second, dealing with such natural curiosity would involve telling the reader things the reader already knows. Third, simply asking questions about Covenant's/Linden's world would threaten the particular "suspension of disbelief" upon which fantasy necessarily depends. And answering those questions could violate the internal integrity of the fantasy world. Fourth, it's an inevitable necessity of storytelling that the teller has to judge what to put in and what to leave out. I leave out the natural curiosity of Stonedownors and Giants etc. because it simply isn't germane to my story--and I already have many truckloads of other stuff that I need to put in. (10/26/2005) |
Hazel: As I've mailed before, I think you're great. This however, isn't really a question. Nonetheless, a friend, knowing how much I enjoyed the TC books, directed me to the "Book A Minute" website http://rinkworks.com/bookaminute
There's a special section on SF/F where your work, along with Tolkiens, Ursula K.LeGuins, Philip K. Dick, Devid Eddingd etc., etc. appears, ultra-condensed.
All the Best from the Emerald Isle!
|
I'm posting this because I think everyone should know about the "Book A Minute" site. If you haven't been there, give yourself a treat. I'm not revealing the "ultra-condensed" versions of the first six "Covenant" books here because I don't want to spoil the surprise. As Dave Barry might say, "Thanks to alert reader Hazel!" (10/27/2005) |
Denese Van Over: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I have 24 years worth of questions to ask, and luckily for you this "gradual (meandering?) interview" has taken care of many of them. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for a quarter century of soul searching and intellectual stimulation...and for the laughter as well.
On to the question - While in college I had to read Wise Blood, by Flannery O'Connor. Something about her style and the story seemed uh, familiar, to say the least. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I see some striking similarities to *your* writing, particularly pertaining to Hazel Motes, who seems almost like one (or several) of your own characters. F. O'Connor had a flair for what has been described as "the Grotesque" in her descriptions of people and places. Space and courtesy restrain me from working myself into a long and most likely unnecessary explaination of my thinking in this matter -- I am sure you will either know what I mean, or...after you get done gut laughing, correct my assumptions. (grin) In short, is she an influence in your writing?
Side note...I earned an A+ for comparing and contrasting The Chronicles to Wise Blood, The River and Everything that Rises Must Converge.
Thank you again!
Denese Van Over
|
Here's another in the Department of Obvious But Unconscious Influences. I studied Flannery O'Connor in college and graduate school, so I can hardly pretend that I haven't been influenced by her (although much more in style than in substance). But the fact that I haven't mentioned her before in this interview demonstrates just how truly *unconscious* the influence has been. (10/27/2005) |
Marianne G Locke: Dear Mr Donaldson
In the 1990's when your 'Gap' novels were coming out, suicide bombers weren't very much in the news, at least not as far as I recall. Today of course suicide bombers are very much in the news; consequently I've been remembering the suicide bombers in at least one of the 'Gap' novels... I forget which one or ones though. (It's been a long time since I've read them!) I believe in the novels they were called 'kazes' weren't they? Were the kazes inspired by some real-world terrorism, or was it all just prescience on your part?
Also, I've heard you're fond of 'Doctor Who'. Have you seen the new series with Christopher Eccleston, and if so what did you think of it?
Kind regards
Marianne Locke
|
Gee. Are "real-world terrorism" and "prescience" my only choices? How about serendipity? Or synchronicity? Or just plain dumb luck (in this case, *bad* luck)? I can't even pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the times. (Gosh, what a gift for a phrase! <grin>) On the other hand (OK, that will be quite enough of *that*), anyone who pays close attention to the people around him/her is bound to pick up any number of unconscious cues. Who knows? Maybe Osama bin Laden (sp?) read the GAP books. Maybe I really am to blame for all the ills of the world (as I was once accused of being--in public, no less). Sorry, I (still) haven't seen the new "Doctor Who". (10/27/2005) |
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.
Eric Angevine: Steve -
It seems an inordinate number of people picked up the Covenant series as adolescents (including myself). Have you ever considered writing a series of books geared toward the adolescent market? Perhaps this age-warp would continue and you could become a best-selling author to the five-year-old crowd. Toddlers have despair too, you know.
Yours in jest,
Eric Angevine
|
I know you're playing. And I know that toddlers actually do have despair. But I've never aimed anything that I've ever written at a "target audience"--unless you define a target audience as "someone like me." (The "Covenant" books weren't written for adolescents because I wasn't an adolescent when I wrote them.) I'm not likely to change now. (10/29/2005) |
Robert T: Hi Stephen....
I've read a number of questions in the GI relating to your vocabulary. I've always felt this was one of the bonuses of your works. My own opinion is that writers are also teachers. Through their writings they stir others imaginations, and even inspire some to write themselves. They become, in a sense, custodians of language and as so it is their responsibility to use that language. If not them, who will do so?
When I read a word I don't understand, and I have to fetch the dictionary (and this happens frequently reading your works), I don't feel stupid. I feel challenged, and delighted. That word that I just looked up becomes special to me. Without writers like you, these obscure words might die. So thank you for keeping them alive.
I was just wondering if you agree with anything I've said...
|
Strangely, I don't agree. Or it might be more accurate to say that I simply don't think in these terms. (Perhaps other writers do. And perhaps they produce excellent work. I wouldn't know.) As far as I'm concerned, words are the tools of thought. Fancy words, common words, sublime words, crude words: tools. Naturally I want to have as many tools as possible. The more tools I have, the more things I can think about--and write about. But--and speaking purely for myself--I believe that writers are *not* "custodians of language." A story isn't a museum--or a zoo. The writer's primary responsibility (as an artist in language) is to use the *right* tools for the job at hand. The story determines the language. And I see myself as the servant of the story: I do NOT see myself as a teacher (or as a--drumroll, please--polemicist) in any useful sense of the term. Of course, I'm always pleased when a reader (you, for example) shares my delight in the rich possibilities of language. But that happens in retrospect (after I've already written something): it has nothing to do with how I make decisions when I'm actually writing. (10/29/2005) |
Matt: Hello Stephen! Allow me first to thank you for all your published works; they have been great gifts to my imagination and truly life-affirming. Having read some of your commentary on fantasy writing I feel as if I 'get' the genre more fully than I ever could without them, so thank you for that also. When you talk about writing, I want to write.
My question: were the wraiths of Andelain inspired at all by the wonderful firebug gatherings that can be seen in Ohio during summer evenings?
A poor question, perhaps, but it is after all just cover for a thank-you. So thank you!
|
Another Inevitable But Unconscious Influence. (I need an acronym.) Since I grew up in India, Ohio fireflies were a delightful surprise. How could I not have been affected by them? But I wasn't *aware* of thinking about them when I created the Wraiths of Andelain. The mind can be a very strange--and unexpectedly oblique--place. (10/29/2005) |
Jeff Periman: I just want to say the Thomas Covement Chronicles are such a graet read!!!! I just finished RUNES WOW!! Okay my question is the Ranhyns? Why horses?
Thanks for your time Jeff
|
Well, why not? This is a medieval-ish fantasy (technologically speaking <grin>). How else are people going to get around? Or did you mean, Why horses instead of some invented creature? Because Covenant is familiar with them (through Joan). Remember that he thinks the Land is a dream--and not without reason. So naturally many of the "raw materials," so to speak, of the Land are based on details from his "real life" (e.g. the Giants). (11/01/2005) |
Todd: I have a feeling that the following question may frustrate you, but I'm curious as to your answer.
You said that the "surquedry of the Elohim" as opposed to the "arrogance of the Elohim" was considerably more appropriate to what you were trying to communicate. Surquedry isn't in my leather bound Webster's or my nightstand dictionary, but is in the OED, as an alternate spelling of surquidry. It is defined there thus: "Arrogance, haughty pride, presumption". That certainly does fit the Elohim better than "arrogant". However, even the above average reader won't know the meaning of the word surquedry, and most won't have the OED as a resource in the next room, as I do. If the word you chose is so difficult for the average reader to find then isn't it your responsibility as an author to find a way to communicate "surquedry" to your reader without using the word?
|
I believe (just my opinion) that I've done better than that: I've both communicated "surquedry" to the reader *and* used the word. Putting it another way: I believe that a reader who doesn't have (or doesn't want) access to the OED will nonetheless gain an intuitive grasp of "surquedry" through exposure to the text; to the attitudes and behavior of the Elohim. In context, I have supplied an implied definition of the word. If later that reader decides to look up the word, his/her understanding of both the word *and* the Elohim will be enhanced. But if that reader *never* looks up the word, s/he still benefits from the fact that I used it. That reader now knows that there is something almost, well, paranormal about the arrogance displayed by the Elohim. (11/01/2005) |
steve cook: just read the latest installment of the G.I. and saw that Kent State University Libraries holds every version of your works...including re-writes!!!!! i knew there was something there but i didn't realise just how much.
having read everything you've ever published many times over, (i should get out more) i would love the chance to read the 'complete' works.
the problem, and hence my question, is....
As i'm VERY unlikely to ever visit your country, i will never be able to access the contents of K.S.U.L. Is there any way in which it could be accessed online, maybe even through this site?
once again thanks for everything.
|
Sorry. No one involved--not KSU, and certainly not yrs trly--has either the time or the money to scan all of those documents (*both* sides) so that they could be displayed online. Remember, much of the material (the first six "Covenant" books, the first two Brew/Ginny novels, all of the stories in "Daughter of Regals") was written with a typewriter, not a computer. Maybe when I have nothing better to do in life than become the Curator of the Donaldson Museum.... (11/01/2005) |
Chris O'Connell: Mr. Donaldson,
I'm a big fan and happy if I can make some contribution. I have heard Isaac Newton (he of the famous laws, not figs) credited with the 'standing on the shoulders of giants' quote.
Regards,
Chris
|
Many thanks! Now if I can just remember to credit Sir Isaac the next time I use that quote.... (11/01/2005) |
John Dunn: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. It is certainly not necessary, but greatly appreciated!
When you first began to write the Man Who series, did you know there would be more than one book? You have stated throughout the G.I. that when you conceive a story you know exactly how many books/parts it will take. Was it the same for your mystery novels? Or was each Man Who book a conception/stroy by inself, even though the second builds directly on the first, and so on, till the upcoming and eventual confrontation with el Senior? And if this is true, why do you think you thought process works differently when you write these mystery novels (as you have stated you have no plans for more Mordant's Need or Gap novels, and only conceived of the Second and Last Chronicles after Lester Del Ray kept baggering you about it)?
What ever the answer, I very much enjoy the Man Who novels, and have made a place for them in my perament collection.
Thanks for your stories!
The First Chronicles
|
It's been so long since you posted your question that you may already have found the answer. But just in case.... When I wrote "The Man Who Killed His Brother," I intended it to stand alone. I didn't realize that I was secretly writing a completely different kind of story until I embarked on "The Man Who Risked His Partner." At that point, I recognized where I was going, and so I began trying to develop both the "background" and the "foreground" stories simultaneously. (What can I tell you? I was young. I needed time to figure out that I'm a compulsive epicist.) I'm very aware that virtually everything I do in "The Man Who" books feels completely different--to me--than anything else I write. They make me "struggle" in a very different way. But I have no earthly idea why I feel compelled to write them. All I know is that their role in my writing life seems entirely necessary. I'm confident that I would never have written "The Second Chronicles" if I hadn't first written TMWKHB. "Mordant's Need" might not exist if I hadn't first written THWRHP. It's hard to imagine the GAP books without TMWTTGA. And "The Last Chronicles" would have been utterly impossible without TMWFA. (11/01/2005) |
Layne Solheim: As an avid reader of the entire Covenant storyline, there are times that I'd cross a sentence and I'd find myself reading and rereading the same thing--taken in by the "raw" descriptive power you've managed to describe in mere print.
My favorite is the calling to The Land in the Second Chron's..." "Then the eyes of the fire blazed at her, and she was lost in a yellow triumph that roared like the furnace of the sun."
I know you've been asked about favorite characters. Do you have your own favorite sentences (paragraphs/moments/etc.) as an author? Lines or phrases that, to you, really stand out from the body of the work?
|
I'm sorry: I can't even *attempt* an answer. The whole point (well, maybe not the *whole* point <grin>) of writing things down is to get them out of my head. As a general rule, I can't remember any of my own sentences, favorite or otherwise--except for those rare sentences which proved to be the original inspiration for a story. E.g. "But necromancy and the fatal arts were Sher Abener's province, and at last I fled from them." I can recite that in my sleep. (OK, one exception is when I screw up in a really dramatic way. That stuff is etched forever in my brain.) (11/01/2005) |
Brittany M Jones: Dearest Mr.Donaldson,
First I would like to say that you are absolutely my favorite author of all time. My mother started reading the Thomas Covenant Series when she was pregnant with my siblings and I. I began the journey of Thomas Covenant when I was in the fourth grade and have been in love with your books ever since. I am attending the University of New Mexico now and I guess my question is when you were writing the first Thomas Covenant series did you ever think that it would become the phenomenon of generations? Mostly I just wanted to thank you; your work has brought light into my life when I couldnt find any of my own.
Sincerely,
Brittany M Jones
|
No. And I still don't. "The phenomenon of generations." Forgive me: I don't intend to sound rude. But what does that even *mean*? I'm just a guy writing stories. And I'm blessed with a particularly devoted (not to mention intelligent and sensitive <grin>) group of readers. But I don't *feel* like I've created a "phenomenon." On the other hand, the entirely unexpected success of the first six "Covenant" books does seem rather remarkable.... (11/01/2005) |
Jim Latimer: Stephen, thank you so much for such a fantastic series. I started reading the 1st trilogy in high school/college (back in the late 70's-early 80's), and anxiously awaited each volume of the 2nd while in college. I've re-read the series numerous times since (I've only read LOTR more often), but imagine my surprise and delight last fall when the Last Chronicles appeared in my bookstore!!! I wait with bated breath (can you do that for years at a time???) for the next 3 volumes.
I lived in Southern New Jersey in high school, went to college and worked in New York for 7 years, then came back to South Jersey as a physics teacher in the late 80's. I'm back to stay....and I was interested to see you based Haven Farm on a place in my neck of the woods. Could you be a bit more specific? Just out of interest, specifically where in South Jersey was Anchorage Farm? I realize it's gone now (as are many of my favorite places from my high school years...such is progress), but I'm just interested. Thanks again so much for such a great part of my youth, and now a rebirth in my middle age.
|
The mailing address for Anchorage Farm was in Sewell. It was between Sewell and Glassboro, but much closer to Sewell. (11/02/2005) |
Mike (NOT from Sante Fe) G: For the life of me, I haven't been able to come up with a book related question for months that isn't too nitpicky or that you have answered many times... but I do have something to ask. As of today, you have indulged us all with nearly 900 answers- a lot of time and effort on your part, as everything you answer you obviously put sincere effort into. I can't help wondering if you realized what you were getting yourself into allowing us to ask questions <grin>
So is this good for you? Your answers seem to be less guarded than they were in the beginning, and it astounds me the insights you are willing to give to us; not just about your works, but yourself as well, since you are clearly a private person.
Anyway, I hope this is semething that you enjoy, and that you get something out of it.
And don't think we all don't notice that Michael from Santa Fe is clearly teacher's pet! <grin>
|
It's true: when I started the Gradual Interview I had absolutely no idea what I was getting into. And it *is* a lot of work. But overall I think it's been good for me. Diminishes some of the loneliness of writing. And when you've taken the kind of beatings that I have in life, you just naturally value affirmation (as who wouldn't?). If you think that "Michael from Santa Fe" gets more than his share of attention--tsk, tsk--it's probably because he keeps his questions simple; easy to answer. (11/02/2005) |
Alexa E. Hanson: Do you sign hats or just book templates? I've just realized how critically short life is so i've drawn up a list of things to do before it ends. You signing my hat is on that list. Don't be alarmed you're not alone.
|
In person, when I'm officially "in public," I try to sign whatever people want signed. (The strangest one so far: the guy who insisted that I sign his Scrooge McDuck comic book. Go figure *that* out.) But in my private life (e.g. by mail) I only sign bookplates. (11/02/2005) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
You have written in this gradual interview and elsewhere that your mind works slowly and you write slowly. I do not really think so. Consider: since 1977, though you began to write the First Chronicles in the early 70's, you have published 7 Covenant books, 2 Mordant Need books, 2 collection of short stories, 5 Gap books, and 4 The Man Who books. That is 20 books in about 35 or so years of writing. And lets not forget your poetry, albeit, seeming not in abundance (any published?). That is about a book every 1 3/4 year. What on earth makes you think that your mind works so slowly? It can't be based on how much you publish? Many authors have the same track record. Please explain why you think its so.
Another question. When you first wrote TMWKHB did you plan from the start Brew and Ginny would have to eventaully face him down in an as-of-yet unwritten book?
Thanks so much for you time and books! Both are greatly appreciated.
|
I've already answered your question about "The Man Who Killed His Brother." But as to your first question: It's all relative, of course. I know a man who can easily write 12 novels a year. And John Nichols wrote "The Milagro Beanfield War" in six weeks--a book longer than any of mine. On the other hand, Patricia McKillip usually manages a book a year--but her books are *much* shorter than mine. But of course it's also relative to me when I was younger. Somehow I wrote "A Man Rides Through" in a year--but "The Runes of the Earth," which is about the same length, took 2 1/2 years. And "The Man Who Fought Alone," which is considerably shorter, took three years. Anyway, by my count it's 20 books in 32 years (since I started work on "Lord Foul's Bane" in 1972). For full-time writing, that's not bad. But look at what Stephen King has done in the same amount of time. (11/02/2005) |
Tom: Stephen,
I bought a copy of Steven Erikson's Gardens Of The Moon a while back, at least in some part because of a quote from you printed prominantly on the front - "Erikson is an extraordinary writer... treat yourself". Now, in answer to a previous question, you refer to it as "...the most baffling book in the series...". I'm not sure I would have bought it if that had been printed instead. However, you are right on both counts (IMHO).
Which does lead to a question. Has there ever been an instance where you have been asked for your opinion of a book for promotional purposes, but you couldn't honestly say anything nice about it?
Tom
|
First, a bit of chronological context. I wrote my "blurb" for "The Gardens of the Moon" when I first read the book. I commented that it was "the most baffling book in the series" years later, when I had read four more installments. It isn't fair to compare the two remarks. In addition, the blurb (by its very nature) was intended for public use. My comments in the GI are intended for the more personal use of my readers. I'm often asked to provide blurbs for books I don't enjoy. When that happens, I simply refuse. And since I started work on "The Last Chronicles," I've instituted a no-blurbs policy across the board. This only becomes sticky when I'm asked to "blurb" a book I didn't enjoy that was written by a personal friend. In cases like that, I offer a general comment on the value of my friend's work rather than a specific comment about the book in question. (11/02/2005) |
Michael from Santa Fe: OK, here is a question I know you have not been asked in the GI - what are your feelings on parentheses? I noticed that in your answers to the GI you use them quite often (or you seem to), and I don't recall much of their use in your written works (or am I just missing them).
|
First, of course, punctuation is about clarity. But after that, it's about rhythm and timing. I use parentheses (regularly) here, and various *other* forms of punctuation, because they allow me to (perhaps) suggest the (rather) oblique way my mind works. But I avoid such things (as much as possible) in my stories because they (inevitably) interrupt the flow of the prose. Even the (comparatively) miniscule pauses which parentheses etc. impose on the reader hinder my efforts to create and control cumulative effects--which is not really a consideration in the GI. (11/02/2005) |
Reimund L Krohn: Mr. Donaldson,
Like many of your ardent fans here, I have been an admirer of yours for many years. The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant was the 2nd fantasy book I ever read (and I first read it back in 1984 when I was 13). Lord Foul's Bane was a difficult read after the rape of Lena, but I found after leaving the novel for some two months, I had to go back, I needed to know of Thomas Covenants fate.
You mentioned in a question dated back in March of this year that you always had your stories major events planned, prior to putting pen to paper. My question is this:
Having read The Second Chronicles several times, I was ALWAYS under the impression that your original intention in the Second Chronicles was to have Thomas Covenant successfully commit suicide in the Bane Fire, and thereby destroy it. I had thought that with Covenants death, Linden Avery would be faced with the responsibility of finishing what Covenant started, and dealing with his suicide and how it differed from her father's. Her father killed himself because of self-loathing (as she might assume Covenant himself had done), when in fact Covenant killed himself because he was too crippled by the Venom to face the Despiser (and therby risk the destruction of the Arch). I imagined that you might have intended for Linden to make for the Andelain to confront Covenants ghost... where I imagine Sunder and Hollian may NOT have perished.
Did you ever contemplate such a scenario, or is it just my imagination? It just always seemed like a logical step in the story - although (please don't get me wrong!!) I loved what you actually wrote!
RLK.
|
No. The scenario you describe for "The Second Chronicles" is *not* one that I ever considered. In fact, it never entered my head until I read your message. And just for the record: it would have destroyed my reasons for writing "The Second Chronicles"--and would have made "The Last Chronicles" completely impossible. (btw, I can add with confidence that Lester del Rey would have refused to publish the book you describe. But since he had already refused to publish "The One Tree," his [posthumous] opinion doesn't count for much. <grin>) But did I "set you up" to think that Covenant might die in the Banefire? Sure, I did. What's the point of telling stories where the stakes aren't real? (11/02/2005) |
Peter Purcell: I apologize if this question is over the line or if it scratches any emotional wounds.
But ... I've wondered since reading Runes. If I were divorced, and an author, I think I would find it cathartic to have a characters ex-wife repeatedly pound herself in the head! <GRIN>
Come on, tell us ... doesn't it make you smile even a little? ;)
|
OK, I admit that I'm grinning. <grin> See? But it really wasn't like that, despite the obvious synchronicities. Joan became "real" to me long before I ever met the ex-wife in question, and I knew her future story-arc pretty well before I married said ex-wife. (11/02/2005) |
Steve SanPietro: Hello Mr. Donaldson.
This is my second question in this forum. This time it's about the process of editing a novel (or any literature, for that matter).
When you submit a first draft to a pulisher--or editor, I'm not sure to where you submit your work at first--to what extent is your work edited. By this I mean, are parts of your original work actually re-written by the editor? Are parts of it taken out? Or is the editing process simply a series of suggestions which are sent back to the author, leaving him/her to dot he actual editing?
You mentioned on an earlier GI response (5/20/04) that you were in a hurry to proof-read the finished manuscript of ROTE, which is why you hadn't started working on FR by then. So, then does the editing process operate in this way: does an editor revise an author'swork, for the author to then check over and approve or not of the changes? And if so, how significant are the revisions that are made to a piece of literature, which aren't necessarily made by the pen of the author?
I ask this because I hope to one day become a writer (provided I don't turn out to be a bad writer, of course :} ).
On a side-note, I think that most of the words I know, I've learned from the Covenant books. However, I'm trying still to work up to the lexicon of SRD. :}
|
It's important to understand that a book is the intellectual property of its author, not of its publisher. (Unless the book is "work for hire," in which case the roles are reversed.) In general, contracts grant the publisher the right to make changes to things like punctuation, for the sake of conformity to "house style rules" (whatever those may be). But the same contracts forbid the publisher to make substantive changes without the author's approval. In practice, bad editors do rewrite books--and bad writers let them. But good editors offer only suggestions, observations, opinions, and criticisms: they never touch the actual prose (that's the author's job). And these days even bad editors don't have time to rewrite books very often. By contract, the editor's only real power (apart from the original decision to publish a manuscript) is to reject the book *if* the author refuses to make changes which satisfy the editor. Copy-editors are a whole 'nother ball-game. Their actual job is to check the book for factual and textual accuracy; but in practice they often rewrite everything in sight (which then forces the author to spend *many* hours re-creating the original from the wreckage caused by the copy-editor). The copy-editor's only real power is the power to infuriate; but most of them wield that power gleefully. And all of the above is separate from proof-reading. Proof-reading occurs *after* the editor and the author have agreed on an acceptable text, and *after* the author has repaired the damage done by the copy-editor. At this stage, the publisher creates what is in essence a "mock-up" of the book in its published form; and the author--and, ideally, several other people as well--then check the text once again, looking for errors introduced during the "mock-up" process as well as for errors which everyone involved has somehow managed to miss. That's proof-reading. Which is why I often say that writing a book never ends, it just peters out. Sure, I've produced a complete manuscript for X story. But then I have to do editorial revisions (as well as my own, which are usually much more stringent). Then I have to rescue the story from the copy-editor's wrecking-ball. Then I have to proof-read the text. And all of the above has to be done at least twice because US and UK publication are separate arrangements (therefore differing requirements have to be reconciled in a single text at every stage in the process). Really, it's amazing that anyone ever writes a *second* book. <sigh> (11/02/2005) |
Charles Adams: It seems frequent that some fans come to believe the "relationship" between the fan and the celebrity is of higher level (greater intimacy) than actually exists.
Have you ever worried that the Gradual Interview would cause a false sense of intimacy to be created between some of your fans (especially those who participate in this Interview) and yourself? Has any fan ever tried to "impose" such a relationship upon you?
|
Crazy people will impose fantasy relationships on any "celebrity" under any circumstances. That's probably inevitable. But I suspect that crazy people don't actually read the GI. I believe it would tend to rupture rather than reinforce their fantasies. In person, I do occasionally encounter crazy people. But so far none of them have derived their fantasies from the GI. (11/02/2005) |
Mitchell Oldman: Hello, hope you're doing well these days Mr. Donaldson. I like your Covenant books very much but am disheartened by the many years it will apparently take to complete the Last Chronicles. But I wanted to say that I think your female characters are and always have been very alluring, most recently in the character of Manethrall Hami to whom I have quite a crush...This is one area where you have a distinct advantage over Tolkien, Lord of the Rings is a great novel but it must be one of the most asexual books ever written. I would be interested in your thoughts on the sensuality implicit in the Covenant books.
Have you read the His Dark Materials Trilogy, by Phillip Pullman? What is your estimation of these books?
In many ways The Chronicles of Narnia are superior to Lord of the Rings. Although C.S. Lewis was inspired by J.R.R.Tolkien to write The Chronicles of Narnia there is a lightness and vivaciousness that contrasts strongly with the gloom and thunder of LOTR. The whole transition theme from our world to Narnia possesses a revelatory visionary power that Tolkien by beginning at the outset in Middle-earth doesn't have. Lewis perfected the concept of Tolkien's "sub-creation" and surpassed the master on not a few occasions. What is your opinion of the contrasting merits of these two seminal works? Being an admirer of both, as I am.
Thank you.
|
I *have* read "His Dark Materials." It was not really to my taste--but I read all three books, which is more than I've done for J. K. Rowling. Certainly I respect the rigor of Pullman's conception. I loved the "Narnia" books when I was in 7th or 8th grade: they thrilled me beyond description. But when I re-read them as an adult, I couldn't recapture my earlier excitement. And when I read them aloud to my children, we were all bored. Lewis' homilectic intent now seems so heavy-handed that it's almost lugubrious. (Just my opinion, as always.) For me, at least, storytelling is always diminished by preaching. In contrast, LOTR has survived at least 5 re-readings essentially intact. What I like about it changes from reading to reading; but I always like it. (11/07/2005) |
Allen: This is a question (or two) pertaining to the Mordant's Need duology. One of the characters in that work is named Artagel. I'm wondering if you took the name from Edmund Spenser's "Faerie Queene" which also features a character bearing that name (though Spenser's character is little more than a monstrous executioner - yours is a fine, good-hearted fellow!)
Considering that the "Faerie Queene" is Arthurian in some of its inspirations I'm also curious if the Arthurian mythos ever mattered to you.
Take care, Allen
|
<sigh> Yet another Inevitable But Unconscious Influence. I may be desperate enough to begin calling them IBUIs. I've never made an intensive study of Spenser; but I certainly spent a fair amount of time on "The Faerie Queene" in college. In retrospect, it seems obvious that more than a few seeds were planted. But to this day I have no conscious memory of Spenser's Artagel. However, I've mentioned Tennyson's "Idylls of the King" several times. And I also found quite a bit of power in the second half of T. H. White's "The Once and Future King." So yes, "the Arthurian mythos" does speak to me. (11/07/2005) |
Siobhan: Hello Mr. Donaldson -
First off, I'd like to thank you for so many wonderful books. I am a committed bibliophile, and I don't think any fantasy/sci-fi library is complete without the Chronicles, Mordant's Need and the GAP books.
The GAP books are my personal favourite, with so many tremendous characters and such a rip-roaring narrative. The scene where Punisher and Calm Horizons duke it out outside the swarm gives me shivers every time.
I don't really have a question that I *need* answered - in fact I prefer not to know what's coming, but I do wonder if you've ever read the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. I read that series and the GAP books at about the same time and noticed a confluence of ideas - chiefly dealing with the role of corrupt multi-national (or trans-national) corporations and how they, even above governments, foster some of the worst aspects of society.
Just a niggling curiosity of mine, is all.
I look forward to Fatal Revenant, and actually quite enjoy the anticipation of three more books! Three!
|
Sorry. I've read very little Robinson, and none of his "Mars" books. I read far too slowly for my own good. Doubtless I miss any number of outstanding books. (11/07/2005) |
Vincent Culp: Greetings good sir. First and foremost please allow me to express my gratitude for the many hours of enjoyment your books have brought me through the years, and hopefully will contiue to in the future. I've finished reading Runes of the earth and am acualy in the middle of reading it again. I am busily chewing my nails in anticipation of the next book in the Last Chronicles. Since I first happened upon Lord Foul's Bane in my English Class in High School I have been a devoted fan of your fantasy work, and the Second Chronicles is my favorite series of all time.
I have a few questions I'd like to ask: #1 How soon can I expect to have the next book in my grubby little paws?!?! lol....I'd hate to rush you but I've waited so long since the second chronicles. #2 Is it really all just a dream in Thomas Covenant's leperousy infected mind? He thinks this in the begining but is later convinced otherwise, but that may have just been him losing the little grasp he had left on sanity. Yes Linden has gone too, but perhaps she is just an image of someone he met, or may have at one time known? Joan even? Foul may just be that part of him who hates himself, that blames himself for the disease and the loss of his family. The fact that every time he enters the land he returns in the same physical condition that he left in points to this conclusion, as does the fact that he is always unconscious when he is called. #3 Will this particular possibility be resolved by the end of the series in one form or another, or will that be left open for the reader to decide? And lastly #4. I am an aspiring writer myself, do you have any words of wisdom for me?
It's an honor merely to have a talented writer such as yourself read my words. Thank you.
|
4) The GI is positively bestrewn with advice for writers. I won't repeat any of it here. 3) and 2) My problem with such questions is that they implicitly work backward--against the current of the story, as it were--rather than following the thematic developments as I actually intended them. My design is pretty linear, like virtually everything else I do. As Covenant becomes more and more engaged with and in the Land during the first "Chronicles," the question of whether or not the Land is "real" comes to matter less and less. Eventually he realizes that the Land's "reality" is not important at all: what *is* important is his love for the Land (and for Lena, and for Saltheart Foamfollower, and--if he were present--for Mhoram, and even for Bannor and the Ranyhyn). He learns to honor that part of himself which responds to, well, let's call it the iconography of the Land; and so he turns away from Despite. After that, questions of mere "reality" become trivial. So the story--at least in my mind--moves beyond those questions in "The Second Chronicles." As far as I can see, any attempt to interpret Linden's role, or Joan's, that doesn't take into account how Covenant's internal "reality" has changed can only sow confusion. In that sense, no, "The Last Chronicles" will not shed any more light on "is it all a dream?" than "The Second Chronicles" did. I left that issue behind decades ago. 1) I've said it before, and will no doubt say it again: information about the publication of "Fatal Revenant" will be posted in the "news" section of this site as soon as it (the information) becomes available. (11/07/2005) |
Jay Swartzfeger: Mr. Donaldson, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to answer fans questions in the gradual interview. You recently spent some time answering a few questions I had after your guest of honor appearance at Bubonicon 37; it's a real treat to have such access to my all time favorite writer! Before I'm labeled as an obsequious bootlick, I better get on with my question. ;)
As a writer, I find that reading works by strong stylists tend to have an influence on what I'm writing, almost like a 'bleed over' effect. Non-fiction doesn't affect me this way, but writers like Nabokov invariably *do*.
Do you intentionally change your reading habits -- or not read at all -- while working on your own projects? Or have you mastered your craft to the point where you can read work by other authors and not let literary 'cross-pollenization' occur?
|
Actually, I *crave* "literary 'cross-pollenization." It strengthens my skill-set. I *want* writers like (in my case) Conrad and James, Faulkner and McKillip, to affect what I'm writing. Of course, it is true that at my advanced age I'm less easily affected than I once was. And it's also true that rewriting tends to iron out the stylistic possibilities that other writers have made available to me. But still: I always love it when something I'm reading bleeds through into something I'm writing. When I was (much) younger, I *did* change my reading habits according to what I was writing: I read no fantasy at all while I was writing the first "Covenant" trilogy, and no mysteries at all while I was writing "The Man Who Killed His Brother." But that wasn't about stylistic influences: it was about fear. If I read a fantasy and liked it, I would feel intimidated--and so less able to do my own work. And if I read a fantasy and DISliked it, I would be dismayed by the fact that this bozo could get published while I could not; and again I would be less able to do my own work. Fortunately, with time and experience (and publication), that problem went away; so now what I'm writing has no effect on what I'm reading. (11/07/2005) |
STEVE M: This may seem like a dumb question but at the end of The Power That Preserves, Covenant defeats Foul by using the wild magic yet at the beginning of the Wounded Land Lord Foul informs Covenant that the wild magic was no longer potent against him. Reference is also made in the earlier books that Berek knew of the wild magic and that Kevin had also longed for it. Accordingly, there must have been some fundamental change in the nature of Lord Foul that would bring about this immunity to wild magic. Moreover, The Land, Kevin, Berek and even Lord Foul exist within the confines of the arch of time (albeit Foul is imprisoned) yet the wild magic is the keystone of the arch and and exists outside of the arch. Logically the wild magic should have worked against Foul at the end of White Gold Wielder. Indeed, in many ways Covenant and the Land went through substantial changes between the first and second trilogies but at least the character of Lord Foul seemed to be substantially the same. Could you elaborate on the change that Foul must have gone through betwen the first and second chronicles that gave him the immunity to the wild magic.
|
As I see it, the change isn't in Lord Foul (although he has become considerably smarter): the change is in Covenant ("You are the white gold"). The combination of what he goes through at the final crisis of "The Power that Preserves" with what he experiences at the very beginning of "The Wounded Land" renders him incapable of repeating his earlier success: because he now knows where he stands, knows what he loves, and is fully committed, he is simply *too* powerful to just duke it out with the Despiser. (And please remember also that Lord Foul is really into misdirection and partial truths. "The wild magic is no longer potent against me" could easily mean "because I'm going to mess you up so badly before you ever get to me that you'll be helpless.") Of course, Lord Foul isn't *really* the same in the first and second trilogies. In "The Second Chronicles," he's not only smarter: his larger aims are more clearly defined. Now it's not simply "DESPAIR FOR EVERYONE while I secretly destroy the Arch of Time": it's "Despair for you and you and you SO YOU'LL DESTROY THE ARCH FOR ME." If you see what I mean. And those larger aims will be even more clearly defined in "The Last Chronicles" (plus I think Lord Foul is still getting smarter). (11/07/2005) |
Simeon Rabbani: I have really enjoyed reading the gradual interview over the last few months and have found that just about any question I could have asked has already been asked (and answered). I do have one simple one, though.
After the 'Runes' paperback edition is released, will a list of the differences between it and the hardback edition be made available on this site? (I live in South America, and it will take a lot longer for any version of the book to make its way here.)
Thank you for the many, many hours of enjoyment and reflective thought while reading your books and pondering their themes.
Peace,
Simeon
|
This has been much debated. In the end, I decided not to post a list of the textual changes. For one thing, the kinds of "corrections" that I made for the paperback are embarrassing. ("How could I have been stupid enough to make a mistake like *that*? Thank God they're going to let me fix it!") For another, the corrections will be of interest to only an extremely small number of readers. For still another, the corrections themselves are small. And for yet another, I could easily argue that none of the corrections are "substantive": they do not in any way alter the *content* of "The Runes of the Earth." I'll humiliate myself by citing one example. If you compare the Prologue of "The Wounded Land" with the Prologue of "Runes," you may notice a discrepancy in the descriptions of Jeremiah's "family of origin." To my eternal chagrin, I got both the genders and the relative ages of his siblings wrong. Well, this sort of screw-up makes me want to shoot myself in the head--but it isn't substantive. It doesn't change the story in any way: it's the factual equivalent of a typo. So-o-o-o-- I hope you'll forgive me for feeling that I've already embarrassed myself enough. (11/07/2005) |
Jim Melvin: Dear Steve:
I recently joined (temporarily, for research purposes) a newsgroup made up of so-called medieval experts and was amazed to see how much they trash writers of epic fantasy. Your name wasn't brought up specifically, but several other big names were savaged by these people, including Tolkien. I realize that your characters and setting aren't medieval, but have you ever received criticism from these "experts"?
|
This is going to sound strange. To the best of my knowledge, my work has not been criticized by those experts. But such experts--or others like them--have criticized *me* fiercely because (and I really cant explain this) I care more about what things *mean* than about what they *are*. This happened during a public discussion about Why are there so many castles in fantasy novels? Apparently the answer the experts wanted was, Because we know so much about castles. My answer, unfortunately, was, Because castles provide a metaphorical context which is particularly apt for the storytelling purposes of fantasy. And at that point, the counter(?)attack(!!) became so vehement that we never talked about either the metaphorical context or the storytelling purposes of fantasy. <sigh> I still dont know what all that was about. (11/07/2005) |
Joseph McSheffrey: Stephen,
I've got a question that has nothing (I think?) to do with your writing. I hope it isn't too personal and that you don't mind answering it. I just read a question and answer here recently regarding your opinion on the various styles of the Martial Arts. What are your thoughts on Bruce Lee's philosophy which emphasizes no style at all, but to pull from whatever you connect with; be it Gung Fu, karate, Cha-Cha dancing, boxing or anything you experience?
I agree that there are no good or bad Martial Arts. One attending their own body and/or mind can never be a negative thing but what, in your humble opinion, is an example of a bad martial artist?
I would like to point out that I'm not a Martial artist in any form, so my "book only" knowledge (heh, no pun intended) may not measure for much.
Keep writing, you bastard! How dare you end RotE that way at your age!? ;)
Joseph
|
Bruce Lees stated philosophy--as distinct from his actual practice, which is rumored to have included a number of dangerous compromises--makes good sense to me. As I understand his no style style, he advocated that every student learn as much as possible from as many different sources as possible, and then--in essence--create his/her own style based on all that study; a style which not only reflects his/her physical strengths and weaknesses, but also expresses his/her personality and values. There are many different ways to talk about what makes a bad martial artist. Heres one: a student whose approach to training includes any one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Sloth, envy, wrath, greed, any of those things can distort or even cripple the study of the martial arts. Or heres another: a student whose approach to training concentrates exclusively on only one purpose, e.g. My body is my temple, and I want to perfect it (Ive heard that one), or, I want to be able to beat up drunks in bars (Ive heard that one a lot), or, I want to be able to prove to people that my way is the best way, the only right way. (11/07/2005) |
William Calderini: It would take a far better writer than I to communicate the profound impact that your books have had on me through the years. For the last 26 odd years or so, your Covenant series has been required reading for me on a semi-annual basis, and your words on what I consider to be the "virtue" of stubborness have helped carry me through some rather stormy seasons in my own life. So being so indebted already, I would like to offer up 2 questions to further extend the bill.
Number one. This is one that has intrigued me more and more on every subsequent reading of the Covenant Series. This concerns the end of White Gold Wielder when Linden Avery heals the land with the new Staff of Law. It seems that Linden pours every ounce of her passion, her belief, her very essence into the effort it takes to set things right. Linden, being a very complex character and my personal favorite, has many areas of darkness and light within her. The fact that she is almost consumed by this darkness is a testament to it's power within her. What I took from this ending was that Linden was able to "re-make" the land in "her own image" in a sense. I have always wondered what the Land re-made by Linden would be like. Would/will there be consequnces that would derive from the conflicts within her to be dealt with? So far, having finished Runes of The Earth, it seems that this issue has not been addressed. Are there/were there any plans to explore this line of thinking in books 2, 3, and 4?
Question 2. Although I have always considered you to be one of my literary "fathers", I have always considered Ayn Rand to be one of my literary "mothers". (And yes, what a strange and confused bastard child I was, LOL)
So the the question is, was naming one of the Hurachai characters 'Galt" an intentional nod to the "John Galt" charcter in Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged"? You must admit that the unrelenting devotion to strict ideaology, without compromise. a trait shared by both.
William R Calderini
|
1) Linden has re-made the Staff of Law, not the Law itself, and certainly not the Land. A good healer doesnt re-make his/her patients: s/he helps restore those patients to a state which should have been theirs all along (health). In addition, she didnt create Vain, and has no control over the energy which Findail supplies; so she could not re-make the Land in her own image even if she wanted to (which I sincerely doubt). 2) As a passionate anti-elitist, I dont have much use for Ayn Rand. If I had remembered that the name Galt appears in one of her books, I would have chosen a different name for my character. (11/07/2005) |
Newlyn Erratt: Hi. I just firstly wanted to let you know that I definately consider you my favorite auther of all time. I read the "Thomas Covenant" books when I was around thirteen. When, I was around fifteen I read The Gap series and it quickly became my favorite series. On to my questions.
Firstly, I noticed in a post you mentioned that you cringed when your son discovered the Xanth series. Why is that?
Secondly, what would you say is the reason that your books are so enveloping? Is it the character development? Does it come naturally or is it something planned?
When I first bought the Gap series as well as the first time I discovered the TC chronicles I literally couldn't put them down depriving myself of sleep just so I could find out what happened next. Thank you for your wonderful books
|
The "Xanth" books are too jokey for my taste. And when you've heard the same joke 30 or 40 times, it loses its appeal. Why are my books "so enveloping"? I've discussed this elsewhere in the GI; but I think there are two interlocking factors at work. First, I know how to design a good story. (If you think of "story" as the intersection of plot and character, then character development is crucial, but so is plot.) Second, I use a variety of storytelling techniques which are calculated to blur the boundaries between the story and the reader. Instead of maintaining a narrative distance (which is a much more common approach to storytelling), I work hard to make my readers experience my plot and my characters as vividly as I can. (11/09/2005) |
Eystein: Dear Mr. Donaldson
I have read all the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, and even dream about the world when I go to bed.
I would really want to know if you have given any thoughts about how much information the inhabitants of the land and the other creatures have about Thomas and Lindens world. Are they curious about "our" world?
|
This question--like the "Why hasn't technology developed in the Land?" question--keeps coming up. But it still baffles me. Implicit in the question is a vision of a different story than the one that actually fires my imagination. It probably goes something like this: in the first trilogy, Covenant spends several hundred pages explaining as much as he can about "our" world; in the second trilogy, technology, pollution, and strip-mining based on Covenant's earlier explanations have accomplished what the Sunbane could not (irrecoverable damage to the Land); and in the last story, space travel has transformed the "Chronicles" into the GAP books. <sigh> The plain fact is that the stories I want to tell in the "Chronicles" would be impossible without a hermetic, self-referential, and in many ways static "reality." You can't have it both ways. Either you accept the stories I want to tell, with their inherent strengths and limitations, or you find something else to read. (11/09/2005) |
Mark Morgon-Shaw: Hi
I've recently finished Runes of The Earth, and really enjoyed going back to the land but thought it was a very cruel place to end the book for the reader. I guess it guarantees we all rush out to buy the next one when it's finished.
My son is four years old and becoming more interested story books. I'd like to ask if you had any favourite children's books either as a child or a parent. I've just read him several of Roald Dahl's short stories which we both loved, can you recommend any other authors ? Would you ever write a story aimed at a younger audience yourself ?
|
In self-defense: there really wasn't any other way that I could have ended "Runes." All of my alternatives were anti-climaxes--*and* they would have failed to set the stage for "Fatal Revenant." I've already discussed "Narnia" at length. As a child, I read anything I could get my hands on: Leon Uris, James Michener, "Dave Dawson, World War II Flying Ace," "Bomba the Jungle Boy," mystery novels, "Reader's Digest." I don't recommend any of it. As a parent reading to my children, I had by far the most success with Roald Dahl and Daniel Pinkwater. And no, I'll never write a children's story. My mind doesn't work that way. Whenever my children wanted me to make up a story for them, I did so by cleverly prompting them to invent everything: all I did was ask them questions and flesh out their ideas. (11/09/2005) |
usivius: (I will not break tradition here, so:) Thank you very much for so many wonderful stories that touch the marrow of my soul. Don't die (I want another Axebrewder story after the next three TC books).
I am reading The Gap series for a second time since they came out slowly (I recall going through withdrawal waiting for the next book in a same manner as I am doing now for the Last Crons), and I am rediscovering such a fantastic story. My favourite will likely always be Mordant's Need, but The Gap has so much going for it that it is impossible to ignore. After book three of my re-read, I have really only one question which I wanted to ask you:
The names for the Amnion ships --- It struck me then and it is almost a personal distraction to me now in my second read, but they seem too human. I would almost expect them to be named by humans, not these cold, almost machine-like, logical aliens. I know it would not be as interesting to read a ship series number for the Amnion ships (W-54767), but it would seem to be a logical way to mark or name thier ships. I love the smirking humour behind the names (at least that is what I see from the author), but I find it a little distracting that the Amnion would think of naming their war ships "Calm Horizons".
Can you comment on your decision to give 'human-like' names to the ships of the cold alien species.
|
The thing to keep in mind is that the Amnion ship-names *as given* are translations--and approximate translations at best, since humans can't actually receive, much less interpret, the full range of Amnion communication. You might do better of think of the ship-names as inadequately articulated concepts which the Amnion find desirable. (And who said the Amnion were a "cold" alien species? I don't think of them that way. They certainly crave "calm horizons." But for them, "peace" doesn't mean "the absence of war," or "everybody getting along well": it means "we consume everything until nothing remains that isn't us.") (11/09/2005) |
Mary Terrell (Arrogance): First off, Mr. Donaldson, I thank you incredibly for providing the only fantasy literature that has ever given me nightmares. <grin> I'm a 'second generation' fan of the Covenant books through help of my father (who in turn caused those nightmares by reading Lord Foul's Bane to me as a bed time story when I was around 4 or 5 years old.)
Now, onto the question. Despite my constant re-readings of the Covenant books, I never found a passage that states Covenant's eye color. I see him as having a type of worn, tired blue eye color; but what is the official color, if anything?
(Yes, its trivial, but I always had a fascination for eye colors.)
|
See, I keep *telling* you I'm not a visual person. <grin> Eye color? Covenant has eye color? Why wasn't I informed about this? It's actually a problem in my real life. It's not that I literally don't "see" things like eye color (or the color of the pickup truck that just rammed me, or even its general condition, never mind its make and model). It's that they simply don't *register* in my memory unless I apply words to them. Or perhaps the problem is that my imagination is too flexible: I can "remember" anything I want--unless I restrict myself to the facts by naming them. In any case-- In one of your spare lives, when you have nothing better to do <grin>, read all of my published works and make a list of all the characters who *do* have a specified eye color. It'll be a pretty short list. (11/12/2005) |
Tom Griffin: A few years ago I read a story by Robert Silverberg in which he stated in the introduction that he lifted the idea for the story from a part of another work that was mentioned once then never again. His story was nothing like the original, he just was inspired by the idea. My question for you is, is this an acceptable way to get ideas and what if the original idea was from one of your works? What would you expect in the way of compensation?
|
I'm not sure I understand your question; but let's try this. Say writer A "lifts" an idea from something that writer B published. If when writer A is done, the idea can still be recognized as belonging to writer B, that's a no-no. In fact, there are laws protecting writer B in such situations. But EVerybody gets their ideas from SOMEwhere. So the test is: has writer A transformed the idea enough to "own" it, to make it original? If so, there's no problem. No permission is needed, and no compensation is given. Just one example. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the "Elder Eddas" knows Tolkien's "source" for his "ring of power." But nobody in his/her right mind would claim that Tolkien hasn't transformed the basic idea enough to "own" it. For him, the "Elder Eddas" weren't so much a "source" as a "starting point" from which he evolved his own ideas. Is that clear? (11/12/2005) |
Joseph McSheffrey: Stephen,
Is there ever a time when you regret this much communication with your fan base? I refer to the GI. Do you think that the questions posed to you here have any effect on your future writings of the Last Chronicles? Do you find yourself tightening up on story plots because you know if you don't "Joey from Chicago" is going to point that sonofabitch out! Okay, that is an exaggeration, but it is human nature and you get my point. It is clear that you care quite a bit about your fans or you would never do this GI in the first place. I applaud you for that as much as for your heart wrenching books.
Obviously you (not *you*, but any artist creating something) draw upon experience, which this GI must be. I imagine you have a myriad of face-to-face conversations similar to ones in the GI. Okay, the GI isn't really a conversation, but it must evoke certain things within you? I wonder if this written form of thoughts has a more profound impact on your writing than a casual, verbal conversation with an actual friend or that annoying fellow that happened to recognize you at the bar.
Most artists don't open themselves up to the public in this way. As a huge fan I can't help but want to establish the connection, but at the same time I worry it adversely effects your creativity. Does that show a lack of faith in you? I certainly don't feel that way on the surface. I think it shows more a faith in the power of the public.
Just rambling... maybe I've had too much wine! Ignore this and get back to the sequel of your damn CLIFFHANGER! Sonofa...
Joseph
|
I've spent a bit of time on GI-related topics. But I hope to clarify a few points. First, I do indeed occasionally "tighten up" what I'm writing because of issues which have been raised here. But I don't do it because if I don't X, Y, or Z reader will complain: I do it because the issues are valid--and because I might have missed them otherwise. I'm human. And, as I like to say, I don't write by Divine Inspiration: I write by Divine Intervention. In other words, I need all the help I can get. Second, I've never had a face-to-face conversation with another writer (or any other artist) that in any way resembles the GI. Interviews are a specialized form of discourse. When I'm sitting around with other writers who also happen to be friends, we may talk about our lives, or our editors, or our peers, or even our paychecks; but we never talk about the content of what we write. (Oh, sometimes a friend might say, "You really chewed the carpet in that book." Or I might say, "I really like what you did with so-and-so." But it never goes any further than that. I suppose I could say that we're interested in each other as people rather than writers.) So it follows that the GI is more likely to affect what I write than any personal conversation--or than any other form of interview, for that matter, since in more "normal" interviews I do all the talking, and the people who ask the questions reveal virtually nothing. Third, so far I have not detected any adverse effect on my work. I do sometimes groan at the amount of effort I've committed myself to here. But usually it pays off. Broadly speaking (there are always exceptions), this particular form of discourse weeds out people who wish to do me harm, or who feel harmed by me, or who desire some kind of impossible (and inherently destructive) symbiosis. As a result, the GI often feels both supportive and companionable. (11/23/2005) |
Scott Marchus: I have to admit that I haven't read your new book yet- I bought it and met you a few months back when you were on your promotional tour, but I was in no great hurry to read it because.... well... I guess you are in no great hurry to finish the series. I'm trying to avoid the aches and pains of waiting for the next installment.... I've already done that with a couple of your series, and I just can't stand it anymore. If you died tomorrow, I may never get around to reading that book (!) ;p
What I have been reading (based on your reccomendation) is Steven Erikson's series. I am happy to say that I am very hooked, and I was curious: who is your favorite character in the Malazan series so far (and why)?
|
What do you mean, I'm "in no great hurry to finish the series"? Avaunt, Lugubrious One! <grin> I'm working as fast as my age, energy, and circumstances permit. Honest. Like many readers of the "Malazan" books, I'm particularly fond of Whiskeyjack and his cadre, especially Quick Ben and Kalam. But I'm also intrigued by Captain Paran. Why? Who knows? "Sympathy" is far too subjective for any convenient explanation. (11/23/2005) |
Paul: Here's an interesting idea..if you feel like indulging me on..
In developing the story and characters for TC books, have you ever gone down a certain plot/character path and then decided that it was just too dumb? Better still, has anybody (editors, family, etc) managed to convince you that an idea was bad and to rework it.
If so, I was wondering if you would list a couple that spring to mind. I have a morbid fascination to know what could have been if it was not for some 'constructive' feedback :-)
|
Why are people so eager to know why and how I almost screwed up? I would have thought that my verifiable mistakes are embarrassing enough.... But it is in some sense "public knowledge" that Lester del Rey convinced me to cut "Gilden-fire" out of "The Illearth War," and to rework the narrative of the entire mission to Seareach. His reasoning was sound, and as soon as he explained it I had to agree with him. Although the material was viable in itself, it obliquely undermined the integrity of Covenant's POV. (I've discussed this is more detail elsewhere.) Less well-known is that fact that Lester also persuaded me to tone down the sexual issues between Covenant and Elena. I'm a natural-born over-doer, and in the original drafts I had thrown all caution to the winds. Lester helped me to see various ways in which excess can be self-defeating. However, my most common narrative error does not involve going down a poor "plot/character path": it involves using the wrong POV. From time to time throughout my writing life, I have drifted into the mistake of viewing the story through the wrong eyes. (Lester used to say, "The story should always be told from the POV of the person who has the most at stake." A bit over-simple, perhaps, but useful nonetheless.) In the short term, this always has the effect of making the writing easier. Eventually, however, I slam head-first into a logjam of my own making. Then I'm forced to back-track (sometimes a considerable distance), not to change the plot or the characters, but to find a more effective perspective. (11/23/2005) |
Pete Warner: Sir,
Bravo sir. You have changed the landscape of my imagination forever. Tolkein first showed me a door to possibilities I hadn't previously considered existed. Thomas Covenant forcibly kicked it open (probably hurting his foot and muttering "hellfire"!)
A return to the Land in 2005 is like a return of a loved one from beyond the grave. The downside is that I must be reacquainted with the grief of loss when one day it all comes to an end once more. A fatal revanant indeed.
I hope I might get away with asking two questions:
1) No sooner is a new literary success upon us then we have to endure the parodies: Bored of the Rings, Barry Trotter et al. I have no problem with parody on fan sites but loathe the idea of honest shelf space being sacrificed to accomodate them. I wonder what your feeling would be if you were ever approached about the idea of a Thomas Covenant parody (I am assuming that you would actually *be* approached!)
2) Like LotR, I am delighted that you use chapter titles. Not that a numerically ordered bunch of chapters affect the quality of a story for me - it's just an inexplicable affection I have for titled chapters. Does your use of chapter titles reflect a similar affection on your part? Do you title your chapters before, during or after their completion? My favourite chapter title of yours is "Something Broken" - I still think about the concept several times a week. From LotR I have a soft spot for "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit".
Thanks for your time. May the flame of your genius never burn out.
Sincerely,
Pete Warner
|
1) Well, there's always the argument that anything worth doing is worth mocking. And I do enjoy a good parody (witness "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour"), although they often go on too long. (But there are exceptions. Look at Terry Prachett.) However, one thing is certain: no one is ever going to ask my permission. They'll just do it. 2) I, too, like chapter titles, although I don't always use them. When I *do* use them, I try to come up with the title before I write the chapter, on the theory that the title helps me focus. But I often change my mind partway through the chapter, or when I finish it, or when I realize that the title would better suit some other chapter. (11/23/2005) |
Revan: "But consider the implications for humankind of the sort of effective "immortality" Holt envisions. (And never mind the mere detail that we would cease to be who we are.)"
Would it really be so bad were we to achieve an effective "immortality"? (not a egalitarian immortality of course, because that would be an obvious catastrophe) You say that we could cease to be who we are, what, in your opinion, would we become, in what way would we change that would be for the worst? Why was Holt so wrong in his vision?
|
As it happens, I was thinking of "egalitarian immortality". As a confirmed egalitarian, I consider any form of elitist immortality an atrocity. Who chooses the elite? The moral implications alone are appalling. And who controls the elite once they've been chosen? Do you really want the Dubyas and Cheneys of the world (or even the Einsteins and Mother Theresas) to live forever--and to acquire the kind of power that immortality would make possible? At the very least, we would become a species of gods and drones. Need I add, "Just my opinion"? (11/23/2005) |
Jeff: I don't really do this sort of fan thing. I love your work, but that's between me and the book, not you and I in any meaningful way. Still, I was inordinately pleased to find that the "Runes" copy I bought at Media Play was, for some reason, signed. Didn't even cost more.
Finally, my question (maybe answered elsewhere, haven't waded through all the interview yet): Do you do extensive research on the various systems of thought implied (sometimes stated outright) by your characters and in your novels? Rely on your native intelligence to fill in from basic knowledge? Because it seems that your characters act from what they believe, in a "natural" way, so I wondered if you know people very well, know belief systems very well, or some amalgamation of the two? In a way, the answer is irrelevant, because the characters and stories are great, which is all that matters in fiction. Still, I'm curious.
Jeff
|
I'm afraid I don't do anything that a more systematic thinker could call "extensive research." On any subject. Except fiction. I've learned virtually everything I know about ideas (pretending for the moment that I didn't actually go to college or grad school <grin>) by studying fiction. And I believe something that S. P. Somtow once said: "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry." Certainly I consider all of my stories to be forms of inquiry. So I suppose you could say that I do my research as much by writing stories as by reading them. Still, I've made what might be called an "intensive" rather than an "extensive" study of people. Starting with myself. As a result, I know quite a bit about how perceptions of reality shape behavior. Does that answer your question? (11/23/2005) |
John Dunn: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for taking the time to read and answer some of these questions!
I have now read all of "The Man Who" books, and though I enjoyed them greatly, I must say that "The Man Who Fought Alone" was simply outstanding. I find it hard to explain in a tangible way, but I think because of that particular book, Brew is now one of my most cherished characters. I know some people have said that they identified the the villain from a particular scene relatively early, as I did, though I didn't figure out the why, but I thought it was of little importance. The journey of that story is the true treasure. But now I find myself with a problem.
Ok. So it will take you around 3 years to write each new Covenant book. So 9 more years till that series is finished. Not that I am not enjoying this new and last adventure into the Land; I am! But then, I think I can properly assume that it will be another 2 or 3 years after the publication of the last Covenant book till we find out what happens next in Brew's life. This simply won't do.
I have a few suggestions.
1. Less sleep; more writing.
2. Postpone a Covenant book or two.
3. Stop reading our silly questions and write more.
4. Ummm.... just write more quickly.
5. Again, I ask: Why are you reading this and now working. Back to work. Chop chop!!
Other than that I don't really have any questions. But most seriously, "The Man Who" book are outstanding; the "Fought Alone" simply great.
Best wishes and all that.
|
I can't imagine why none of these ideas ever occurred to me. They seem so obvious now that you point them out. <grin> But thank you for your good opinion of "The Man Who" books. That isn't something I get to hear very often, so it's especially welcome. (11/27/2005) |
Eric Spahr: Dr. Donaldson
I would first like to say thank you for having a forum that allows your fans to provide feedback.
Second, I have a question about Linden Avery from Runes.
Early in the story, while in her 'real world', she gives Joan her ring back to calm her. But then she also states that any attempt to restrain Joan from hurting herself fail.
I remember the passage roughly saying that restraints would just fall off in the night.
Is Joan really that stupid that she couldnot see Lord Foul at work?
Not an insult to you, but the observation that she KNEW that Foul could work in this world, she in fact remarks on memories of his influence of the weak willed in her world.
I would think the second or third time the restraints 'fell off' she would have taken the ring away. She know how much Lord Foul wants access to white gold.
So why did she not 'connect the dots'?
|
First, I assume your question is really about Linden rathr than Joan. I hope that's accurate. Other than that.... <sigh> Sometimes the more obvious something is to me the more trouble I have explaining it. As a general observation, I find that "connecting the dots" as a reader of fiction--or as any kind of observer--is a whole lot easier than it is in real life. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to smack people I know because they can't connect the dots in their lives; but I *don't* smack them because I've learned with anguish and sorrow and I'm pretty ^#$$&U& lousy at connecting the dots in my own life. After that, I suppose you could say about Linden that it's all a question of what her assumptions are and where her attention is focused. (After all, the poor woman doesn't know she's a character in a novel.) Trying to keep the list short (and remembering that we're only talking about the Prologue of "The Runes of the Earth"), her assumptions are: a) the struggles of the Land to survive Lord Foul revolve around Covenant, not around Linden herself, and certainly not around Joan, because b) Joan isn't now and has never been--in Linden's experience--a figure of power, she's just *bait*, on top of which c) Linden has never been given any reason to believe that any ring except Covenant's matters, in addition to the fact that d) Linden has left Covenant "in charge" of the Land's reality (the Arch of Time), so she has no reason to believe that Lord Foul will ever be a problem again. As for Linden's attention, she's a physician who has spent all of her life except for one (apparently) long night living in a world that follows rules she knows and understands, rules to which she was born, and she is (very naturally, in my opinion) focused on Joan as a *patient* rather than as a *threat*. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but if I were in Linden's place I think I could have made the same mistake she makes 12 times out of 10. And as an additional point, remember that Linden's decision to give Joan her ring is a "successful" therapy: it significantly reduces the amount of damage Joan does to herself, as well as the amount of hysteria Joan displays. Also: have you ever tried withholding relief from a person who is obviously in terrible pain? Do you know what that kind of decision costs the person who does the withholding? (Covenant's decision in "The Power that Preserves" to reject the Land for the sake of a threatened child is relevant here.) Finally, how do you know that Linden's decision wasn't the best possible choice under the circumstances? You haven't read the rest of the story yet: you don't know what the eventual outcome of Linden's actions--or Joan's--will be. <sigh> All of the above may be over-kill. If so, I hope you'll pardon me. I've been known to become downright belligerent in defense of my characters. (11/27/2005) |
Jon Bernstein: Hi Stephen,
Have you ever given thought to turning one of your works like Mordant's Need or some unpublished short strory into a graphic novel
And if so what are the odds of someone like me taking a shot at drawing some panels up?
I know it's a long shot but it never hurts to ask.
Thanks
Jon Bernstein
|
No, I've never considered the idea, in part because my mind doesn't work that way (alltogethernow: "I'm not a visual person"), and in part because I don't own the rights. It's standard practice that those rights are held by the publisher. (Exceptions occur, of course, but they wouldn't in my case because I don't have that kind of clout.) (11/27/2005) |
Michael from Santa Fe: When Runes of the Earth started, we learned that Linden had adopted a son which she loved with all her heart and was taking a lot of her time and energy and that she still obviously missed and loved Covenant despereately. She has not remarried and the text makes no mention that she has had even a boyfriend in the intervening years since she was last in the Land. Now this may fall under the heading of "just because it's not in the text doesn't mean it didn't happen", but gosh, you mean she hasn't gotten laid in ten years?
|
Well, it happens. But this is pretty far outside the parameters of the story I'm trying to tell, so in a sense your guess is as good as mine. (11/27/2005) |
H. Scarbrough: Hello. I had a question on the Land itself in particular. I searched the GI and it didnt seem like anyone has hit on this point yet but if they have forgive me asking again. It seems that the Land itself, was based in part on the human body. In Illearth war, Thomas and Elena pass through "Damelons Door" to find the earth blood. The description seemed very similar to the human ear. Damelons door being the eardrum and the earthblood being the pool of wax. the long descent down to the pool being the eustachin tube. And it seemed that, I believe, that Fouls Creche was alot like the human eye in in its description. If you can answer to the truthfulness or the idiocy of my observation it would be appreciated. It has been bugging me for over 15 years. Thanks
|
Writers often take metaphors wherever they can find them. And the idea of the Land as a "body" (e.g. the internal body of Covenant's psyche) is certainly defensible. But I did not have any specific organs in mind, either for the geography within Melenkurion Skyweir or for the structure of Foul's Creche. And I sure wouldn't want to push this line of imagery too much further (Andelain? Kevin's Watch? <ouch>). (11/27/2005) |
Dave Hollin, Wales: Stephen,
many thanks for all the years of pleasure your writing has given me. Along with Tolkien, Pratchett, Adams (Douglas that is), you really are up there at the top.
A couple of clumsy questions if I may?
Like Tolkien, one thing constantly intrigues me about The Land. There are never any "technological advances" in the Land even though many thousands of years pass by. Tolkien also leaves little room for such "natural" progression of development for races in Middle Earth. Is this a coincidence? Further to this I am very intrigued by the "civilisation" present at the time of Berek before the first lords are created. Pardon my groping ignorance, it almost seems as though there is another separate world in existence for that time period, almost "historical" with parallels to real history. I mean there are glimpses of battles, cities and tales innumerable (Doriendor Corishev, Doom's retreat, etc) from this proto-world you alude to in the first chronicles. One could almost say that if left to a natural progression this could have resulted in a world much more familiar to ourselves! Did you ever think about developing this strand of the the Land's tapestry further or was it just litarary teasing to draw the audience in? I must admit that I went on to read the Silmarillion before LOTR because of tantalising details Tolkien left lying about in the Hobbit.
Anyway I have rambled enough. Many thanks again for your books, your friendship through hard times (even though you didnt know it!) and your obvious humanity.
Regards Dave
|
I don't get compared to Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams very often, so I'll assume that's a compliment. <grin> (I enjoy both authors. But Judy-Lynn del Rey once said of "Lord Foul's Bane," "It isn't a book you can just laugh your way through over the weekend.") I've already discussed the Land's lack of technological progress--no doubt since you first posted your question, lo! these many months ago. So I'll just say that, no, I've never considered exploring the civilization that rose and fell with Doriendor Corishev--or any other civilization that doesn't impinge directly on the story I'm trying to tell. As I've observed with some regularity, I don't create--even casually--things I don't need. I needed places like Doom's Retreat and Doriendor Corishev to have a past, so I gave them one (or a sketch of one). But a fully-developed past was unnecessary. And worse, it would have been a distraction. You can call this "literary teasing" if you wish: I prefer to think of it as world-building. (Or "staying on task," if you're as ADD as I am. <grin>) (11/30/2005) |
Sean Casey: Stephen, you say you admire the works of messrs Erikson and King - do you only like writers with the same name as you?
My sensible question is partly about the same thing - The Dark Tower series. You've said in reply to questions that you don't like an omniscient viewpoint that skips around the minds of various characters and that you're not keen on prequels. The Dark Tower contains both of those things (Wizard and Glass arguably being a prequel). Does the other Stephen carry off these techniques in a way that you particularly like or are they flaws in an otherwise excellent story? (Personally, I'd agree with the latter.)
|
Well, Erikson spells his name with a "v" instead of a "ph". Doubtless that explains why his books aren't better-known. My memory isn't what it was, and it wasn't exactly encyclopedic to begin with. But I don't remember King ever using "an omniscient viewpoint that skips around the minds of the various characters" in the Dark Tower novels. He does change POV regularly--even often--but he does so clearly, coherently (he does not change within a specific episode or action), and I'll call it respectfully (while he's using a specific POV, he respects its limitations: he does not use that POV to provide information which that POV could not possess--e.g. knowledge of the private thoughts of other characters). The kind of omniscient viewpoint I loathe is the kind that tries to tell you how everybody sees everything simultaneously, or that floats indiscriminately from one POV to another within an action, or within a defined sequence of actions. (Dickens does this. So do Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn. But, curiously, they only do it at the beginnings of books, as if they were feeling their way along. As soon as they hit their stride, they stop playing fast-and-loose with POV.) As for prequels: I distinguish between "prequels" (which in my lexicon are not essential to the comprehension of the present story) and "back-story" (which *is* essential). No one needs to read "The Silmarillion"--or even "The Hobbit"--to understand LOTR. But Roland's back-story contributes a great deal to the Dark Tower saga. (OK, I admit it: when I first started to read Roland's tale in "Wizard and Glass," I was impatient with it. It felt like a distraction from the main story. But that feeling evaporated quickly--which I consider a real tribute to King's narrative skill.) (11/30/2005) |
Anonymous: Why are all your female heroines "broken"?
|
Do you mean Min Donner? Koina Hannish? Sorus Chatelaine, perhaps? The First of the Search? King Joyse's wife and daughters? From my perspective, I don't write about "broken" females, I write about "broken" people. (12/03/2005) |
James: Hi Stephen,
Sorry, not a question but instead a compliment. I have just finished reading your book of short fiction, Reave the Just, and I have to say that it was thoroughly enjoyable. In fact, I was happily surprised to find that I liked every single story in it. After finding the Gap series just a trifle too mean spirited for my tastes, Reave was a welcome return for me to your writings.
Well, one question I suppose: was the "stranger" from the story By Any Other Name also an incarnation of Reave the Just? Seemed to have a similar MO. Speaking of which, why do your heroes have to endure such beatings in order to save their charges?
|
Yes, the "rescuer" in "By Any Other Name" is Reave (from "Reave the Just"). That's one of the several implications of the title. It isn't just my "heroes" who "endure such beatings". It's also the people they rescue--and half the supporting cast as well. By and large, Donaldson characters get beat up a lot. Gee (I want to say), *my* life is hard. I get beat up all the time. Why shouldn't the same thing happen to my characters? But that retort is only half serious. A more serious answer is: easy victories don't mean anything. Triumph over evil (or pain, or fear, or any other obstacle) is only easy when the evil (or pain or fear etc.) is trivial. Why would I want to waste your time telling stories that are trivial? (12/03/2005) |
Anonymous: I have found few books that have captivated me as much as Your Covenant series. My eye sight site does not allow me the hour that I enjoy reading as they once did. I therefore would like to commend you and your team for pulling together "The Runes of the Earth" Audio Read by Scott Brick and released by Penquin. Are your other Covenent works available on audio format as of yet? I also have heard the rumblings of a movie (Can film really do your works justice)as LOTR was a great movie the books were much better still.
|
This bears repeating. The Library of Congress "Books On Tape" program has several Donaldson titles. And then there's www.audible.com. Other sources may exist as well. But as far as I know, no one has ever tackled producing the Donaldson "canon" comprehensively in an audible format. I consider that unfortunate; but it isn't under my control. (12/03/2005) |
Daniel Bjrkman: Dear Mr Donaldson...
Thank you very much for your answer to my previous questions. It's taken me some time to come up with two more that hasn't been asked by someone else (I found this interview way too late; most of the questions I had have already been taken, darn it) and that I can't sort of figure out your answer to from what I've already heard. Still, I succeeded in finding untapped reserves of ignorance in myself. (*grins*)
1) I'm not sure I understand where Linden's ability to possess people comes from. Other people with the health-sense don't seem to have it. I admit that I was pretty young when I read the Second Chronicles and I might have missed the obvious answer, but could you please fill me in anyway?
2) I'm rereading "Runes of the Earth" right now, and the part about the One Forest and the Ravers in combination with something you said here got me thinking.
I can see how Foul considers himself "more important, even more good" than others. Everything on the Earth just looks so SMALL to him that destroying everything in order to free a celestial, divine being such as himself from the indignity of having to interact with them seems to him as the lesser of two evils - maybe even a just punishment for these crude, insignificant beings who has dared to impose their presence on his refined sensibilities. For Foul, I guess the highest possible good would be "me being restored to my rightful places in the heavens."
The Ravers took me a bit more time to figure out. But given that they are said to be a sort of incarnation of humanity's infrinchement on the Land, a sort of avatars of industrialism... could it be that they define the highest possible good as "us owning everything"? That they think that things only become good and beautiful and important by belonging to the Ravers themselves?
It would certainly make symbolical sense. The Ravers are possessing spirits, after all, and "possess" is just another word for "own." And if my reasoning is correct, they'd certainly consider themselves "more good" than everyone else. By possessing someone, they would by their own reasoning be granting that someone an ultimate blessing.
That was a long-winded way to ask a simple question. What do you think about the idea? Was it what you had in mind?
Sincerely,
Daniel Bjrkman
|
<sigh> Things that seem so simple to me are often difficult to explain. Nonetheless I press on. <rueful smile> 1) Two points. a) Who in the first trilogy--apart from the bad guys--would even *want* to possess anyone else? Health-sense-wise, everyone is pretty much on an equal footing. And "reverence for life" sort of defines the prevailing ethos. b) There are issues of *degree*. In the second trilogy, everyone else has little or no health-sense: Linden has too much (certainly more than she can handle; arguably more than anyone else has ever had, since she was a skilled physician to begin with). And in a very real sense, "mind" cannot be distinguished from "body". The brain is everywhere: its neurons unify the entire organism. So an ability to see into and influence the state of the body is by definition an ability to see into and influence the state of the mind. Linden's ability to possess is only different *in degree* from "ordinary" health-sense as it is understood in the first trilogy. (Of course, we all know that "differences in degree become differences in kind." [Marx] But Linden herself is different "in kind" than the natural inhabitants of the Land.) 2) Your interpretations--being yours--are inherently just as valid as mine. But I do think about, say, the Ravers in very different terms. Trying to compress some large concepts into a very short space: much of the power of fantasy as a form of communication arises from the fact that it permits, enables, and even encourages exaggeration and personification. (Hence the disdain that the "literary establishment" feels toward fantasy.) William James has some interesting things to say about this. In fantasy, storytellers can explore the arational aspects of being human through arealistic means (magic, monsters, archetypal evil, whatever). So you might think of the Ravers this way: take a blind, kllling (and ultimately terror-based) emotion like "road rage"; remove the many complexities of the individual who feels the rage; transpose that distilled emotion back to a pre-medieval, or even pre-barbarian, form of reality; and then personify it (give it form and identity as if it were a definable person). Hey, presto: Ravers. They don't want to "own" anything: they want to destroy everything that they hate (which--although they would deny it--just happens to be everything that they fear). They "take possession" because (being nothing more than distilled emotions) that's the only method by which they can carry out their desires. Does this help? (12/07/2005) |
Sirus LaVey: I found Runes of the Earth and freaked out!I have made so many of my friends read The Chronicles you wouldn't believe...When you describe the Haruchai I imagine an army of Jet Li's and Jackie Chans.Sometimes I wonder if that is your intention.I am a musician and my band Ghost of Dreams forgotten have a few songs based on stories in The Chronicles.I wonder if you mind or get upset.It is totally in tribute to the emotional depths your books take us.One of the songs is The Unhomed.Thank you for continuing the saga-book one of The Last Chronicles ruled!!!!!!m/m/ Sirus
|
First, I don't object at all to "songs based on stories in The Chronicles." I'm flattered. Carry on with my blessing. Second, I never even heard of Jackie Chan or Jet Li until at least 15 years after I finished "The Second Chronicles." Historically, we would have to say that Chan and Li are based on the Haruchai, rather than the other way around. <huge grin> (12/07/2005) |
Drew (drew): I've noticed, as I'm sure you have, many requests from aspiring writters. Anything from, how to start a stroy, to how to find the right publisher.
It must be the most flattering thing an auther can hear, that his books moved so many people to want to write.
I'm just curious, have any aspiring writters ever sent you any of their manuscripts, or even published works?
If so, are there any we've heard of?
Thank you.
|
There are several scenarios. 1) An aspiring writer sends me a manuscript. I always return it unread because it is just *rude* to intrude on my life and time in that way. 2) An aspiring writer asks permission to send me a manuscript. I always say no because I (as perhaps any writer is) am the wrong person for the job. I have too many opinions about how books *should* be written, and those opinions are too passionately held, to be of any use to an aspiring writer. Crudely put, writers need readers, not other writers--and writers are seldom useful readers. 3) An editor sends me a manuscript about to be published. (No, they never ask permission. But they also don't take it personally if I just throw the manuscript away.) If the writer was not known to me, in the old days I would read the manuscript if I respected the editor. Now I don't have the time. However, if the writer was/is known to me, I'll make a special effort, either because the writer is a friend, or because I know the writer's work is good, or both. This isn't a direct answer to your question, but I hope it tells you what you want to know. Is it flattering to receive requests (of any kind) from aspiring writers? Sometimes yes: usually no. The truest thing I know about becoming a writer--and I knew this without anyone telling me--is that each individual has to figure it out for him/herself. All of the very best lessons that I've learned about writing came from a) readers, not writers, and b) studying other people's writing. Asking an admired writer for help is like trying to take a shortcut on a road that permits no shortcuts. (12/10/2005) |
Bill Ridgway: I read every reference in the GI which contained Elohim. I understand that the term means "God", or thereabouts. I was wondering if you ever studied anthroposophy or Rudolph Steiner?
Elohim is one of the seven levels of higher beings.
Thank you for all your wonderful work.
|
Forgive my ignorance. I've never even *heard* of "anthroposophy" or Rudolph Steiner. I could actually say quite a bit about this, mostly having to do with my belief that fiction (storytelling) is a richer source of ideas and understanding than any non-fiction. But that's just my opinion. And sometimes ignorance is just ignorance. (12/10/2005) |
jim melvin: Dear Stephen:
As a writer, I find myself revising and revising and -- finally -- having to let it go. I can never reach what I consider the point of perfection. If you were allowed to go back over Lord Foul's Bane today and do another revision, would you find a lot of things you'd like to change? Or would you change very little?
|
Although I see serious flaws in both "Covenant" trilogies (perhaps a bit less in "Lord Foul's Bane" than elsewhere), I wouldn't accept an opportunity to go back and revise if I were offered one. (Except in the small, infuriating case of the end of the Prologue of "The Wounded Land", where I would *love* to rearrange Jeremiah's position among his siblings. <grin>) Several reasons. 1) The quest for "perfection" (however defined) isn't just impossible: it's downright self-destructive. We're human; therefore fallible. We can't be truly creative unless we accept our propensity to screw up. 2) I am no longer the man I was when I wrote my earlier books. Whatever else we might say about that younger individual, his work had its own unique integrity. I could not impose my present values, desires, skills, or instincts on my earlier work without violating that integrity in some form. (Look at how Henry James crippled his own books by rewriting them later in life.) 3) The "flaws" I now see in the first and second trilogies are too global--or perhaps merely too structural (or, in the case of "White Gold Wielder", too personal)--to be repaired by anything less than complete reconsideration. I'm better at story-design now than I was then; and I understand my characters better. If I were willing to spend my life writing the same books over and over again, "The Illearth War," "The Power that Preserves," "The Wounded Land," and "White Gold Wielder" would be quite different than they are now. But what would be the point? They still wouldn't be "perfect"--and I would have wasted much of my life. In short, I don't aspire to "perfection." I aspire to "the absolute best that I'm capable of today." (12/14/2005) |
sgeddes: Mr. Donaldson:
It would seem rather redundant to continue to heap praise on you for your obviously brilliant literary accomplishments. Nevertheless, I must say that it is a very few authors who are worthy of being read for more than entertainment.
My question, while woefully mundane, has long troubled me. It concerns proper names. While many of the proper names in the chronicles are standard fantasy creations, there are several fundamental names which are not, (e.g. The Land, Lord Foul). Why are these names so obvious? Even Covenants name builds a powerful connection between his character and the rather biblical overtones of his role in the chronicles. Therefore, I am curious about your motivation in using words in these instances that are not traditionally considered to be names.
I will wait patiently for Revenant with the rest. I thank you sincerely for many hours of enjoyable reading.
|
Whether or not my chosen technique (in this case, names like "the Land," "the Earth," "the One Forest," etc.) succeeded in its purpose, my intent was to convey the numinous simplicity with which the inhabitants of the Land once viewed (and revered) their world. It's analogous to the way in which a loving father might call his son "Son" rather than "[Proper Name]", not to diminish his son's distinctive individuality, but rather to emphasize how much he values his relationship with his son. Thus: "Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." Or think of Indian tribe that consider themselves simply "the People." The entire ethos of the Land's people--Stonedownors, Woodhevennin, Lords--revolves around cherishing their world both directly and spiritually. So why, I asked myself, would such people use anything other than the simplest of nouns for their most fundamental relationships? And how would the comprehension of the reader be enhanced if I devised unfamiliar names instead of using obvious nouns? (Just as a side-note: people tend to give their "lands" names when they are clearly aware that *other* "lands" exist. In those cases, names are needed to identify and distinguish. The people of the Land have--for good reason, I think--a comparatively hermetic world-view.) (12/14/2005) |
Tony Powell: Having stated many times that you never begin a story unless you know how it ends, one assumes that this "not starting a story until you know how it ends" is a sort of covenant with yourself as a writer, a reassurance that the work is worthy of your name on the cover.
But when we consider that you have also stated that you had the Third Chronicles in mind all along, how could you possibly have justified (and settled for) publishing --- indeed, writing --- only the first two chronicles?
|
I've explained the delay between the "Second" and "Last Chronicles" several times, often on this site. I won't repeat myself. But the issue of "not starting a story until [I] know how it ends" isn't a "covenant" I've made with myself: it's a requirement imposed by my imagination, my style of creative thought. I simply *can't* start a story until I know exactly where I'm going. Storytelling involves making an enormously complex--and seemingly endless--series of decisions; and I have to have some basis on which to reach those decisions. Other writers make their decisions by different methods, some more intuitive, some less. My method is--in a manner of speaking--imposed on me by who I am. Without it, I would find storytelling impossible. (12/14/2005) |
Stephen: I've been reading your books since I was fourteen or so, and I still find today that I can learn from them today.
For instance, I only learned recently that "Shaheed" is Arabic (I think) for "martyr." How wonderful! Also that the prefix "ur-" means "original."
Also, is the word "ur-vile" one of your creations, or had you heard that somewhere before? I ask because when I was a boy there was a primitive computer game called "Rogue," and one of the monsters was an ur-vile. I guess i assumed this was a legendary beast that you had appropriated, but i can find no entry of it anywhere. I must assume the Rogue creators read your books!
Thank you again for your storytelling and your patience with us, your loyal readers.
--Steve Trimble
|
As far as I know, I came up with "ur-viles" all on my own. (Which wasn't hard. As an English major, I was familiar with the "ur-" concept. And C. S. Lewis set a precedent for Viles by writing about--if memory serves--Hags and Cruels.) I've never heard of--and certainly never played--a computer game called "Rogue". Considering my background, it's a bit peculiar that I have in some sense misused the "ur-". Among English majors--at least of my generation--"ur-" denotes "original," but it connotes "hypothetical." It refers to an original which we believe to exist, but which we do not possess. I twisted that quite a bit with "ur-viles" and "ur-Lord," trying to suggest an artificial and possibly corrupt relationship. (12/14/2005) |
Scott Flowers: Hello to my all-time-favorite author! I've been privileged to have read all of your published works n times and concur with much aforementioned kudos of same. I have also been reading this GI with interest since shortly after it's inception (and have submitted many questions via telepathic thought alone.) This Q, however, has persistently recurred such that I am compelled to post:
Assuming that your mortality is rescinded or extended until well past the completion of the Final Chronicles (and I do), what happens should we hit the 'end of time' before the fourth and final volume is released? I am speaking here of the Mayan calendar end-date of July 2012 (per Gregorian,) which I understand eclipses your own reported projection for the release of 'The Last Dark.'
The ancient Mayans based an entire multi-million-year cycle on the aforementioned end date. They knew Earth's cycle around the milky way when modern astronomers have only calculated the same at around the time 'Lord Foul's Bane' was released. [reference 'Maya Cosmogenesis 2012' by John Major Jenkins ISBN 1879181487]
My own personal assumtion is that the 'end of time' does not necessarily equate to the 'end of the world' (our world), but just in case I am wrong <grin,> I am hoping that there might be a contingency plan to provide at least an outline of satisfaction to this saga so that we your grateful audience aren't bereft upon our final ascenscion to the next world.
Even as I jest, I mean this plea quite sincerely. I for one can not imagine completing my experience here until I have read all of Thomas Covenant that you have to share.
Thanks again so much for so much!
|
I'm sorry. I don't know your future. I don't even know mine. And I certainly don't know what's going to happen to the world we live in. But two comments. 1) If the "end of time" occurs before I finish publishing "The Last Chronicles," I doubt that either of us will be in a position to care. 2) It's curious to note that the Mayan "end of time" may indeed coincide with the "end of time" in the Land. <shameless grin> (12/21/2005) |
Mr Kuldip Caberwal: Thanks for filling the void in me, but how are you inspired to form your characters,have most of your amazing work and there's so many realistic ones, pictures,?friends?celebs?
|
I've answered this before--although I admit that the GI has now become unwieldy beyond belief, so I can't really complain about the fact that questions are repeated occasionally. The short answer is: I make it all up. I don't base people, places, or situations on anything that I've consciously experienced. (Unconscious experience is entirely another matter, of course; but it's a complete mystery to me, so I can't explain it.) In fact, I can hardly write at all if I don't have the sensation that I'm making it all up. (12/21/2005) |
Matthew Preuss: Hello, Steve you're my hero! When I finally got around to reading The Chronicles of Thomas covenant I was blown away on every level. Recently I just had some luck getting a question through to Terry Brooks (I won a map for having my question chosen). Amidst this world of high technology what is the best way to fuse Eastern Mysticism with the Western Religious traditions? Also do you believe in real magick?
|
<sigh> There's a trouble-maker in every crowd.... I don't try "to fuse Eastern Mysticism with the Western Religious traditions" because I don't hold with either of them. I just glean nuggets wherever I can; and the result is an undifferentiated mish-mash with which I'm quite comfortable. Do I believe in "real magick"? I can't answer that until you define "real" and "magick". (This is *your* question. I'm not going to do all the work for you. <grin>) But I'll tell you this: I never have to look very far to find evidence of transcendence. (12/21/2005) |
pete minister: Hey Steve,
where can i get one of those "Girls of the land" calendars you mentioned.
keep up the good work.
|
EBay? Somebody? I want one myself. <grin> (12/21/2005) |
Lou Sytsma: Hello again - I hope this email finds you well.
A curiousity question - Have you ever during the creation of any of the Convenant novels written or contemplated a situation where one of the characters of the Land was transported to Convenant's world?
Thanks for your time.
|
I can honestly say, No. In fact, No, no, a thousand times no! That would be an absolute violation of the integrity of the stories I'm trying to tell. In fact, just trying to think about your question makes my skin crawl. (Don't take that personally. It's a description of how my mind works, not a criticism of your question.) (12/21/2005) |
Todd: You said that you found The Silmarillion to be fragmented, and that was one of the reasons (I'm sure there are many more(why you don't like prequels). I'm quite certain that you understand that The Silmarillion was an unfinished work, and if Tolkien had the time - and money - to devote himself entirely to the task, that the fragmentation you speak of would have been, I believe, perfect coherency.
Given that, what is your thought of The Silmarillion? Imagine that it wasn't fragmented. It is already considered a phenomenon by many; we know that it is was an incomplete work - therefore it had to be fragmented. If you died (forbid!) while writing the Last Chronicles, and someone who was familiar with your story (if such a person exists) finished it, it too would be fragmented, and less a story.
So - imagine that Tolkien had lived to write his prequel, would that change your mind about prequels?
Granted, the prequels that have been written in the modern age of fantasy, that I am familiar with, are horrible at best. But they weren't written by Tolkien - or by you.
I'm lumping you into, I'm sure, uncomfortable territory, as most writers of fantasy quell when Tolkien's name is uttered. But still - I'm interested in your reply.
|
If Tolkien had completed "The Silmarillion," I probably would have read it with more pleasure (which isn't much, considering how little I enjoyed the book we have). But it wouldn't change my views on prequels. As a story, "The Silmarillion" has (this is just my opinion) several fundamental flaws. I'll mention two. 1) Even "complete," it is *inherently* fragmented: in essence, it contains a number of interwoven short stories which do not (indeed, can not) accumulate to form a satisfying novel. I don't enjoy such things much, even when they're well done. 2) It concentrates on (this really is just my opinion) what I consider to be the least interesting inhabitants of Tolkien's world, the Elves, who are simply too static to hold my attention. Show me an artistically complete "Silmarillion" and I'll probably read it. But I won't write a prequel. (12/23/2005) |
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.
John: Mr. Donaldson,
You have written often that you put alot of thought into what you write; and it has been said that sometimes your plots are seemingly overly intricate (Myself, I do not see this). With this in mind, my question regards Anson Sternway. This might be a spoiler for those who have not read The Man Who Fought Alone....
Ok, so Sternway killed Bernie Applewait. He walked into the bathroom and came upon Bernie flailing at Hardshorn with his flik. Sternway had planned to meet Hardshorn in the bathroom after Hardshorn's 'picks' had looted the convention. Sternway had not expected Brew to "tag the picks" (quote take from TMWFA). Applewait's presence was certainly not expected by Sternway. A fight ensues; Bernie smacks Sternway in the forearm with the flik, Sternway disarms the flik and uses it to crush Bernie's throat.
Ok, knowing Sternway as we do from all the information provided up until this point when Brew confronts him, I am a little confused by Sternways action. He is extremely arrogant and conceited; he is an 8th level Dan (I think) and enjoys fighting for fun. In the moment that Sternway found Bernie trying to subdue Hardshorn, and the moment that Bernie recognized Sternway, Sternway joins the fight. I have a hard time seeing Sternway using the flik to kill Bernie; knowing his character I think Sternway would instinctively use his hands to do the deed.
I can see Sternway plotting after killing Bernie to remove the flik to confuse any investigation, but in the spur of the moment was it just by chance that he grabbed the flik and used it to kill Bernie? Or am I over analyzing this?
And yes, it is most likely going to kill me to wait 10 to 12 years for the next Man Who book. *frown* So write faster! I swear, if I die before you finish that series, you WILL be haunted. I promise. Really.
Anyway, thanks for the time, and most especially you books. Best to you and yours.
|
This may indeed contain spoilers for people who haven't read "The Man Who Fought Alone". Look at it this way: how would it serve Sternway's purpose(s) to leave behind a body which was obviously killed with someone's bare hands? That immediately reduces the list of suspects. Whereas virtually ANYone can kill a person using a flik to the throat.... Sternway is nothing if not cold and calculating, and he wants to cast suspicion elsewhere (e.g. to frame Hardshorn). That said, I'm very glad that you enjoyed the book enough to ask questions about it--and to be interested in its obviously-necessary sequel. (12/24/2005) |
Paul: This is a very theoretical question: if someone had more money than sense, what would you say to an offer of scanning the Donaldson collection at Kent State University and placing it in PDF format to make it accessible (via the web) to people who are too far away to ever be likely to visit in person? If the answer is 'yes', what legal or other steps would be necessary to get the wheels in motion (assuming finance was there to support the effort)?
I know from what you have said previously that you can't imagine why anyone would want to read that stuff, but we're fans, and it's in our contract to be obsessive about this kind of thing! I remember discussing something similar with someone in a band - they also couldn't understand why someone would be interested in hearing album demos and outtakes, but to fans this is great stuff to listen to how things evolved (and sometimes the demos are better than the final version of course... polishing can often take the shine off).
Another quick question (I don't think this has been asked, not that I could find)...why do you do this (the GI), or put another way, why do other authors not do this!?
One final request - if you haven't done so recently by the time you get to this question, could you give us a quick update on progress with Fat Rev please. And given the likely time delay, better wish you happy Xmas too!
|
In order: Hmm. This is a highly hypothetical question. I'm not entirely sure how it would work. At present, the Donaldson Collection is "on loan" to the KSU Libraries. This presumably means that an obsessive person with pots of money and loads of free time would need permission from both me and KSU. And I don't know whether or not I would give permission. I'm torn between "Where's the harm?" and "Why would I want my out-takes, screwups, etc. made generally available?" Simpler for everyone to wait until I'm dead. <grin> At that point, the "loan" will become a "gift"; KSU will own the collection; and our hypothetical OCD person will only need KSU's permission. And KSU would probably give (supervised) permission for the sake of (legitimate) self-promotion. Why do I do the GI? It seemed like a good idea at the time. <rueful smile> The only reason I have a web site in the first place is that my publisher insisted. I thought it was a bad idea; a waste of everyone's time. But I acceded because I want to keep my publisher happy. In that spirit, when my webmaster first proposed the idea of a "gradual interview," it was intended to simply encourage interest in "The Last Chronicles." I did *not* anticipate the sheer scale of the response--or the amount of work that I had inadvertently agreed to do. <sigh> However. Since then, the GI has taken on an entirely unexpected life of its own. And the amount of work I have to do is balanced by the rewards I get (which I've discussed elsewhere). I suspect the primary reason more writers don't do something similar is that they feel--as I once did--that no one would really care. I don't give updates on "Fatal Revenant" because I don't want to turn that process into a tease. When I have something substantial to report, I'll post "news" on this site. Until then, I won't toy with you by saying things like, The first draft is already longer than "Runes". <malicious grin> (12/24/2005) |
Andy Pastuszak: Mr. Donaldson,
I became a huge fan of your with the first Chronicles series, which I read in high school. As much as I truly loved both chronicles, the books I think disturbed me the most and had me thinking really long and hard were the books in the gap series.
The Amnion's method of mutaing you into one of them and having you lose everything about your humanity gave me chills and almost giave me nightmares. I don't think Stephen King could have come up with something scarier than losing one's own humanity but staying alive and intelligent.
What inspired you to write the Gap series, and where did you draw your inspiration for the Amnion>
|
I've already written a lot about my original "inspiration" for the GAP books. But the Amnion in particular.... Well, there are shape-shifters in Wagner's RING cycle (one of the powers of the magic ring is shape-shifting). There are shape-shifters throughout much of modern fantasy (Patricia A. McKillip's work is only one of many examples). And I've always thought that the whole idea is scarier than it is generally presented as being. So all I did was extend the basic concept into imposed, involuntary, and irreversible shape-shifting. The idea that *I* might be transformed into a manifestation or servant of something I abhor certainly gives *me* nightmares. (12/24/2005) |
Elmer Hoffmann: I first picked up "Ill Earth War" at age 8 back in 1980 or so. After eagerly devouring its content, I quickly purchased the remaining 2 books in the series spending the rainy days of the northern California coast in my room reading the series, twice. Since then I've read both chronicles several times, enjoying them immensely and I contribute these fine literary works to rousing my initial interest in reading.
When browsing through the book store and coming across The Runes of the Earth, my heart jumped, joyfully. I honestly never expected to see a continuation of the saga.
Ive read The Runes of the Earth and thoroughly enjoyed it. I love the fantasy world youve created. If the Last Chronicles turns out to be a great success will you consider continuing writing about The Land and its wonders if not the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant?
|
I don't have a crystal ball. And if I had one, I hope I would be wise enough not to use it. But at present I simply cannot imagine writing anything set in the same world beyond "The Last Chronicles." Put crudely, it ain't called "The *Last* Chronicles" for nuttin'. "Success"--or the lack of it--has nothing to do with how I decide what to write. (12/25/2005) |
James Hastings: A few questions:
1) If the denizens of the land drove, which side of the road would they drive on?
2)Someone in the GI stated, "the Haruchai of the Last Chronicles, as far as we can see, appear to believe themselves the only ones who are worthy of preserving the Land, and they absolutely refuse to accept any criticism about their ways, their deeds, and the actions they undertook in order to become the Masters of the Land." That made me wonder: Is the Bush administration based upon the Last Chronicles in any way? (Excluding the physical perfection of the Haruchai, of course.)
3) Did you base the Land's cosmology off of this website? http://www.fixedearth.com/
4)Could you take Covenant in a fight, and if so, would you feel guilty afterwards?
5)Have you ever considered a Reunion book, like "An All Star Land Christmas" or something? Everybody gets a song or two with Hillary Duff and in the end Turiya Raver learns the true meaning of Christmas! Think about it. If it goes well, you could spin it off for Valentines Day, Halloween and... Patriots Day or something.
6) Does the 2 question limit apply to questions you refuse to answer?
And finally, a comment: Linden Avery would make a terrible date.
|
You may not be surprised to hear that this reminds me of a joke. How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Two. One to set the giraffe on fire, and one to fill the bathtub with multicolored power tools. (12/25/2005) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
I have a plethora of questions, if you don't mind too much.
Covenant failed in his attempt to forge the Staff of Law in "The One Tree". He pointed to a particular branch on the Tree where he wanted Seadreamer to grab. You described the branch as ending "in a flat stump as if the rest of it had been cut off". We know that Berek forged the original Staff of Law from the One Tree; was this the remaining branch that he had used to do so? And, how was Berek able to acquire such a branch without rousing the Worm as did Seadreamer?
Covenant suffers from acrophobia. I myself have long suffered from the same such fear, though it has lessened a good deal since my childhood. Through treatment and therapy I learned that such phobias have various causes, which usually at their root are the result of emotional insecurities. Part of my 'treatment' consisted of confronting and even accepting/dealing with those emotional insecurities. At the end of "The Power that Preserves" has not Covenant learned the same to some extent? To this end, shouldn't his fear of heights be somewhat lessened at the beginning of the Second Chronicles (though it is true that he had not gone through any treatment)?
In the G.I., on September 7, 2005, you posted Anonymous' question where in part he asked of Stephen King's Dark Tower's main character suffering a similar loss of two fingers. You responded, "As far as I'm concerned, it's just a coincidence. I didn't encounter Stephen King's Dark Tower series until long after I had written the first "Covenant" trilogy". I think Anonymous was suggesting that perhaps King might have been influenced by you, not you by him. King published the Dark Tower in 1982, years after the First Chronicles. Any thoughts?
And on another topic entirely, I read in an interview that you said you write differently now than you did when you first began to write. You said that for the First Chronicles you knew every little thing that would happen before you wrote the books. Everything was planned out. However, now you say you'r more interested in developing why your characters do as they do, and do not plot out the story as detailed as before prior to writing. Do you think this was your natural evolution as a writer? Was it the only way in which you *could* develop? Or, lookin back, would it have been possible to write back then as you write now? I know this simply might be pure speculation, but I'm just curious.
Now I have more of a request than a question. I know you have read in public specific segments from "Fatal Revenant". Would it be possible for you to post on you website ANY part of "Fatal Revenant" prior to it being edited, and then the same part after the editing and your revision? A before and after. I am simply fascinated by the writing process. If so, that would be great, and if not, it's ok, your still my favorite author!
Well, I actually have more questions, but I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your time in reading and responding to us in the G.I., it is greatly appreciated.
Best wishes!
|
Taking your questions in reverse order (because I find scrolling easier that way): Its highly unlikely that Ill ever post the kind of before and after excerpts you describe. I find it embarrassing to let people see work which is less than the best I can do. (Which is actually rather silly of me; but there it is.) Plus there are serious contractual issues involved. My publishers have paid for first publication rights, which means I would need their permission to post anything; which in turn means I would have to let them *see* the material first--and they wouldnt be able to make an informed decision without reading the whole book, so after finishing the first draft I would have to let them read it *before* I did any revisions; and trust me when I say that if I did that really bad things could happen. (So why, you ask, do I do readings at all? Because most people dont have phonographic memories, and meanwhile I sometimes learn a lot by hearing my prose out loud. And why do my publishers permit readings? In context, readings are considered good (i.e. free) advertising.) I am not capable of writing now as I did 25+ years ago; and 25+ years ago I was not capable of writing as I do now. The changes during that time were probably inevitable, given my personality, experiences, aspirations, and abilities. Of course, different writers follow different trajectories. But my increasing absorption in the details that make my characters real, like my increasing ability to trust my story-design instincts, seems to be the natural result of who I am and how Ive lived. I couldnt even begin to speculate about Stephen Kings creative process--and if I could, I wouldnt. But I will say this: there are no new ideas; there are only new writers. In that sense, it doesnt matter what a writers ideas *are*: it only matters what that writer *does* with his/her ideas. And what Stephen King does with his ideas is always uniquely his own. Acrophobia. I have a mild form myself. Ive had truckloads of treatment, both on the couch and in life. And after 30+ years Im happy to report some improvement in my ability to manage my fear. But Covenant never had my advantages. And *his* acrophobia, unlike mine, is a metaphor: like his leprosy, it represents an attempt by the author to communicate something larger than the literal. <sigh> Yes, the stump you mention probably *is* where Berek got the wood for the original Staff of Law. And no, Im not going to tell you how he did it without rousing the Worm. Some things are better left unexplained. Others are too easily inferred to be improved by explanation. (12/31/2005) |
Steve M: I have no political motivation behind this question other then to stimulate discussion. You have said that you don't write about race. What are your thoughts about casting someone like Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson or Laurence Fishburne in the role of Thomas Covenant? Morgan Freeman as Mhoram, Prothall or Foul? Halle Berry as Elena? Alfre Woodard as Atiaran? Wesley Snipes as Bannor?
|
Well, personally Id rather see Wesley Snipes as Brinn--or even Stave. But playing any Haruchai would severely restrict his *flair*. With the right effects, he might make a good Saltheart Foamfollower. As would Morgan Freeman. Delroy Lindo as Lord Mhoram? Ving Rhames as Grimmand Honninscrave? Halle Berry as Linden? Why not? But I cant see--or, more appropriately, hear--any of them as Covenant. Who could shout out Hellfire and bloody damnation! with just the right blend of vehemence and shame? (12/31/2005) |
dlbpharmd: It seems clear that you do not consider Gilden-Fire to be a part of the official Covenant mythology. For example, two reasons have been given for the expansion of the Haruchai into the Land during the time of Kevin: one is to test themselves in combat against others (Runes); the other reason is to conquer resources (food, etc) for their homes and families (Gilden-Fire.) Another example is in Gilden-Fire the quest for Coercri is beset by ur-viles in Grimmerdhore, but in The Illearth War Runnik gives a different version of those events. In my mind it matters little - but I would like to know if certain things about the Haruchai past as told in Gilden-Fire you still consider to be true, i.e, the circumstances surrounding the swearing of the Vow before Revelstone, determination of leadership by combat, etc.
2) Is there any significance to the leader of the Haruchai in Runes having the title of "the Voice of the Haruchai" instead of First Mark?
Thank you again for the Covenant stories - waiting anxiously for Fatal Revenant!
|
1) Gilden-Fire is an out-take, rescued from my wastebasket by an improbable sequence of events which I regularly wish had never happened. Nothing in it remains true in my mind--except perhaps the personalities of the Lords--unless that information is confirmed by some passage in the authorized text (e.g. leadership by combat). 2) If I can remember that far back. <sigh> The command titles in the first Covenant trilogy are analogous to rank in the Warward: they express the role of the Bloodguard as part of the physical forces wielded by the Council of Lords. They existed because human armies require a clearly defined chain of command. So when the Vow was broken, the command titles ceased to have any meaning. They were never intended to express an inherent aspect of Haruchai society. Hence their absence from all of the subsequent Chronicles. (12/31/2005) |
mrdna: I am 36. I first read your books when I was aroun 15 or so. In the decades since, I have read them over 50 times. WHenever I cannot find a new book that is satisfying, I just seem to retreat to the Land. My wife just doesn't understand... Is there anything you can do to cure this addiction?
|
Gee, thats like asking if theres anything alcohol can do to cure alcoholism. Clearly you need a 12-Step Program of some kind; and the first step is going to involve taking responsibility for your own actions. Then youll need some form of submission to a higher power, which in your case will necessitate immersion in other peoples books. I advise repeated readings of Dostoevskys The Idiot and Merediths Modern Love. (12/31/2005) |
Gary: I have a question about Elena in the Illearth War. In one of your previous responses in the GI, you said that one of the reasons that the Lords chose Elena to be the High Lord was that she, like TC, had the ability to save or damn the Land. She was also at the edge of the knife and capable of epic victory or defeat.
My question is that did Elena herself know that was one of the main reasons that she was chosen to be High Lord? Did she realize that she might have a fatal flaw within her? For example, TC was always reminded by most everyone that he would save or damn the Land. Many people did not trust he would do the right thing, and he was always reminded of this. However, most people seem to trust Elena, at least to her face. Perhaps the Lords concealed their distrust for Elena for the same reasons they concealed her heritage from Hile Troy?
|
Sure, people kept telling Covenant that he will save or damn the Land. But does he see himself that way? Does he realize that hes on some kind of knife-edge? That he may have a fatal flaw? I doubt it. Nothing in the text suggests it (to the best of my recollection). If anything, hes more inclined to think of himself as the victim of his illness. In practice, you might say that he sees himself as *all* flaw. I suspect that the same concept applies to Elena, but in reverse. She doesnt see herself as flawed, or on a knife-edge: like Troy, shes *too* sure of who she is and what she can do. But the attitude of the Lords toward her would be comparable to their attitude toward Covenant: not distrust, but rather a kind of chosen trust (rather like a leap of faith). The reasoning might go something like this: if you choose to believe that something good will happen, and plan for it, you may or may not be right; but if you choose to believe that something bad will happen, and plan for it, you pretty much guarantee that nothing good *can* happen. (By the way, this proposition has been confirmed by my personal experience.) As for the fact that the Lords have kept secrets about Elena from Troy, it might be considered simple compassion toward Covenant (sparing Covenant the extremes of Troys impulse to be judgmental); or it might be seen as acting on their policy of deliberate trust. (12/31/2005) |
Dave Greer: Steve
A question, sorry if you've answered it previously.
How long would you have carried on pushing LFB if it had continued to be rejected? And what career would you have chosen had your writing career not taken off?
Thanks in advance
|
Part of the sheer terror of having LFB rejected by every fiction publisher in the US was the knowledge that I had found my true calling, the work I was born to do. One consequence or corollary was an absolute inability to imagine doing anything else. I didnt know how to live in a world that held no place for me. My plan--to the extent that I had one--was to submit LFB to British publishers. And doubtless I would have tried to get some kind of job (teaching?). But if Lester del Rey hadnt picked LFB out of his slush pile, the only thing I would really have done is died--emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, if not physically. I had neither the strength nor the tools (e.g. wisdom) to survive unending confirmation that my best simply wasnt good enough. (12/31/2005) |
Chris O'Connell: Mr. Donaldson, I just finished listening to 'State of Fear' by Michael Crighton. In the book he has quite a bit to say about the environment. Whether I agree with him or not, I'm not sure yet... but he does make a point of saying (in reference to the environment) that we can not 'preserve' it. Our environment is a dynamic system and is always changing. He points to our national parks as an example of how terribly we have messed up something by trying to preserve it in the state it was in when the park was set up. Although it may be a subtle difference, he says we should be learning to 'manage' nature, rather than preserve it.
I saw the Lords of the First Chronicles making the same mistake with Kevin's Lore. The Lords were just trying to preserve the lore (and the law) by trying to re-learn lore that was thousands of years old. At the end of the First Chronicles, Mhoram realized the error and saw that the land and law couldn't be preserved. It was too dynamic and alive and changing and required a different approach (I'm reminded of the phrase, 'the day you stop growing is the day you die').
Now that we are in the Third Chronicles, the Masters are making the same mistake. It seems obvious that the Masters are eventually doomed to failure for trying to preserve the land, rather than learning how to help the land change and grow.
Did this concept of 'preservation' being a doomed concept from the start exist in your mind as you were writing, or am I rationalizing something I 'think' I see in your work in hindsight. I'm intentionally leaving this very open because I'm curious to see your response to this line of thought (I guess you could answer 'yes' or 'no' to what I asked, but what fun would that be :).
Thanks in advance,
Chris
|
Hmm. One small matter first. I disagree with you about Mhorams realization. In my view, his recognition was that the Oath of Peace (a construct of the new Lords) had been misunderstood--or misapplied--not that the land and law couldnt be preserved. Now. I havent read State of Fear. My instinctive reaction to your description of Crightons ideas is that Im not sure human beings are *qualified* to manage the environment, and we might all be better off if we let the environment manage itself. (Polluting and depleting the world as fast as we can does NOT constitute either managing the environment ourselves or letting the environment manage itself. What were really doing is creating conditions which will eventually force the environment to manage *us*.) (In this, the Masters are very unlike the Lords. The Lords wanted to nurture and support their environment. The Masters want to prevent people from having any impact at all on their environment.) But I wasnt thinking in your specific terms--preservation being a doomed concept--when I planned any of the Chronicles. Of course, I was profoundly affected by Tolkien, who pretty much defined (and imposed?) the proposition that the world is becoming less than it was as one of the necessary characteristics of epic fantasy. (And if Tolkien didnt do it, Tennyson did.) However, I wasnt consciously trying to emulate Tolkien--or Tennyson--in the Chronicles. On a conscious level, I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down), and to suggest that it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can. (12/31/2005) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Hello Steve! As I write, you just answered my question about Stave (thank you!), and here I am again already... What can I say, I love your books :)
Anyway, I replied to a Kevin's Watch thread about Covenant giving the ring to Foul in the Second Chronicles, and a thought stroke me as odd - which perhaps correlates a bit with what you once said about the recurring theme of blindness in the Chronicles.
It is startling to notice how Chronicles characters who have a "keener" sight than others (Kevin's oracular abilities, Linden's earthsight, Hile Troy's "Land-given sight", Elena's "second sight", Foul's "surveillance") almost always tend to blind themselves or fool themselves (Kevin's belief that Covenant would damn the Land, Linden's inability to see even a hint of Covenant's true intentions about giving the ring to the Despiser, Hile Troy's incapacity to believe in Covenant's role as a savior of the Land, Elena's unwillingness to believe Covenant's warning about the EarthBlood, Foul's inability to see Covenant's lack of true despair when receiving the ring, and so on) whereas characters who are "blinded" in some way - that is, unable to perceive the full depth of the world (Covenant without earthsight, innocent Lena, the Unfettered Healer, blinded Troy realizing the only way to save his army) often develop a clearer understanding about what is truly happening (or what will happen), and what to do - even of the sacrifices those actions might entail. Do you think this is actually a plausible consideration, especially after noticing the recurring theme about blindness and sight (which I find a very interesting theme, considering you said yourself you are not a "visual" author)?
|
(The fact that Im not a visual person probably explains why I use so many visual metaphors.) I dont see how anyone could argue with the interpretation youve suggested. I dont think in those kinds of thematic terms when Im actually writing a story; but I certainly become aware of the storys themes, and develop them consciously, while Im rewriting. And youre bound to have noticed that the theme of *paradox* is everywhere in the Chronicles. Somewhere in what Ill call my apprenticeship (everything that I produced before I started on Lord Fouls Bane), I wrote--although I no longer remember where or why--The back of blessing bears a curse/For taking comfort one is worse/And promise is its own reverse. Stating the same insight in terms that better suit my current thinking, I now believe that every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use. In one form or another, youll find such notions throughout the Chronicles. (12/31/2005) |
Charley: Dear Stephen,
I found it very interesting to hear you describe the level of immersion that you put into your books and stories. I feel the same way when I read them! I actually am THERE, I care and sympathize (as in feeling their emotions) with the people that live there. I think of them as more real than imagined, The Land as a place than a setting, a memory rather than a painting. I have dreamed of the Land, and waked wanting to be there. I just want to THANK YOU! for your work, and Godspeed on the final books. I hope I live to see their completion, I hope you live to complete them, and consider the wait to read each one just a small irritaton that needles my anticipation for them.
My question and a comment: Do you consider a letter like mine a burden? Or do they help you in some small way? The reason I wrote to you was to give you something back, as a small debt I feel that wants to be paid.
|
Theres actually quite a bit that could be said about this. At the risk of being cryptic, Ill try to keep it short. On an emotional level, the most fundamental human need may be the need for confirmation that we exist. Our deepest fear may be that we *dont* exist--or that we *wont* exist--and so we hunger for evidence that were really here. In general, people tend to get their confirmation, their evidence, from their interactions with other people (work, family, friends, etc.). (Of course, any form of sensory input can serve as evidence. Inevitably, however, the reactions of other beings--even pets--have more power than any self-generated confirmation.) But. Of necessity, writing is usually a solitary occupation. And its more solitary than non-writers realize, in part because every aspect of publication is so impersonal, in part because the lag between *writing* and *being read* is so long, and in part because the writer so seldom has any interaction at all with the reader (which in itself is a more complex issue than most people realize: its difficult for non-writers to understand that most public interactions between writer and reader--e.g. autographings, readings, Q&A--are profoundly IMpersonal, since both writer and reader are acting out what might be called generic roles). And in more personal ways my isolation is exacerbated by a variety of factors: native shyness, systemic aculturation, poor judgment, bad luck, the inevitable diminishment that comes with age, etc.. As a result, writers in general, and I in particular, tend to suffer from a peculiar--and somewhat paradoxical--deprivation: we dont get enough confirmation that we exist. (Which explains why writers so often become wildly eccentric, or collapse into problems like alcoholism, or both.) The bottom line is this: messages like yours, and the GI in general, serve as reminders that I exist. The generic quality Ive just mentioned dilutes the benefits; but the benefits are still real. All of which is a rather elaborate way of saying, Thank you. <rueful smile> (12/31/2005) |
mrC: Stephen,the two (or perhaps should I say four) books of Mordant's need, were sensational. Some of the best fantasy work I have ever read, and will stay within my heart for the rest of my life. Wonderfull characters plot and realm, but I need not tell you all of this. My question to you is will you ever write more books on Teresa, Geraden and Mordant itself, or do you feel that that the last book was the end of the tale? For I would personally love to read the further adventures of the characters which populate Orison.
|
More than any other big project Ive tackled, Mordants Need feels *finished* to me as it stands. I dont know what the future holds--and I certainly cant predict the various processes of my imagination. But I dont anticipate ever returning to Terisa and Geraden--or to Orison and Mordant. (01/01/2006) |
Alex: I have a silly question to ask you... It is one, however that has nagged at me on and off when I've tried to discuss your Gap books. Ok, I lied, it's really two questions:
1) Who do most people think is the main character in Gap?
2) In writing terminology, how would you categorize the "point of view" your Gap books are written in? In other words... In the first person, In the third person...
There are a number of people in the story that are given near equal "paper time" if you will, which I have never seen anywhere else, even in your other works. I just love how you were able to tell the story through the eyes of so many characters to the point I would say, they are ALL main characters.
Thank you so much for the gift of the Land to us!
|
1) I cant really answer this question because its never come up before. Ive never met anyone who admitted wondering who the main character was. 2) The POV in the GAP books would probably be called multiple third person limited. Multiple and third person are self-explanatory: limited (which is probably self-explanatory also) refers to the fact that the flow of information to the reader never violates the boundaries of the POV characters perceptions, personality, background, knowledge, and motivation. Like every possible narrative stance, this one has advantages and disadvantages. The obvious advantage is the ability to weave a (large) number of story-threads sort of at once. The less obvious advantage is the ability to weave those threads with more immediacy (therefore more suspense) than if they were presented indirectly--or by inference. The disadvantage--and its a big one--is that in order to play fair with both the characters and the reader the author has to completely re-invent reality with every shift in POV. One of the keys to using multiple third person limited successfully is to understand that each POV character is the protagonist (the main character) in his/her personal drama. Which probably explains why the GAP books seem to have so *many* main characters. In practical terms, Liete and Ciro are comparatively minor characters. But when they provide the POV, reality only exists through their eyes--and only their reality exists (which is not quite the same thing). (01/01/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen
What techniques do you have for coming up with names and words? Do you have any favourite words and names of your own creation, in terms of how they sound, what they look like on the page or their meaning?
Thanks.
|
Ive discussed this before--several hundred questions ago (so finding it in the GI wont be easy <sigh>). The short answer is: I do it by ear. The name (or made-up word) has to sound/feel right to me. But if I have a choice (and only if I have a choice) of names/words that sound/feel right, I go by meaning. I chose names like Sunder and Covenant and Terisa Morgan and Warden Dios because I had more than one option. I chose names like Hollian and Mhoram and Geraden and Nick Succorso because those were the only ones I could think of that satisfied my ear. Of course, sometimes my only option also has meaning (the various names of the Ravers leap to mind). But I dont insist on that. If it sounds right, and I dont have any better ideas, Im perfectly content. (01/01/2006) |
Michael Johnson: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I don't know if this falls under the category of a question or not, so forgive me if this ends up simply being a note of praise...although I would hope one can never get too much praise, I don't want to waste time you could be using on Fatal Revenant :-)
I am a fan of all your works; I first read The First Chronicles when I was a kid, and it set me on a path to study not just literature, but the so-called "popular genres" in particular: fantasy, horror, science fiction, mystery, etc.
But, having begun to reread Runes of the Earth finally (being a teacher it is unfortunately hard to find the time to squeeze in books for pleasure nowadays), it occured to me that the emphasis on Corruption in the Last Chronicles has a curious relationship to history and story in the Land, more so than in the previous books. The Giants have always been storytellers (and tellingly seem to have absented themselves again due to the influence of the Masters), but it is interesting that you have placed the people of the Land within a vacuum where history and story are concerned - the with-holding of history and tales has caused them to lose touch with Earthpower, and in some ways, I have always equated Earthpower with the identity of the Land and those in it - and the Land was necessary as a kind of crucible for both Covenant and Linden to find their true selves, in a sense, and to find personal answers to their own inner despair.
I really feel like I am simply praising this as a theme in Runes, and perhaps in the novels to come, so I guess to justify this message I should pose a question somewhere :-) Was this a theme you had planned to explore and purposefully weave into the fabric of the Last Chronicles, or simply a happy accident of the story itself unfolding? Either way, the idea that our existence as individuals relies on an understanding of our own history AND as tellers of tales is a fascinating one - and one that I could easily see Corruption wreaking great havoc with. It seems to me that in the previous Chronicles Covenant's own story has been Corrupted so that he is known as the Land's greatest villain. I thought that was bad enough; but it seems we have now arrived at the annihilation of all stories - and worse, that the people of the Land have done it to themselves. In addition, it seems the caesures could have the unintended effect of rewriting history - which symbolically hints at the many ways those in control seem to make history and stories work to their own benefit. Is this possibly an element of Corruption you yourself feel strongly about in the modern world as well?
At any rate, I wanted to share the fact that I find the idea profoundly disturbing and dramatically compelling, and wished to congratulate you on upping the stakes consistently from one Chronicles (is that grammatically correct? :-) ) to the next.
Good luck with Fatal Revenant. I eagerly await finding answers to my questions in your books...and finding more questions in need of answers :-)
Yours,
Mike Johnson
Grand Haven, Michigan
|
Im not sure how to respond. Have I deliberately placed the people of the Land within a vacuum where history and story are concerned? Yes. Do I intend to suggest that the absence of storytelling (personal, local, regional, and national history, etc.) *in itself* corrupts identity, and furthermore provides fertile ground for Corruption on a more global or metaphysical scale? Yes. Am I going to say any more about this here (including drawing parallels to the modern world)? No. I cant think of any way to discuss the themes youve raised without committing spoilers. Except to confirm that I do consider storytelling essential to identity, and to assert that I believe storytelling is the most necessary survival skill humanity has. If we cant tell stories, we cant resolve conundrums of any kind. (01/01/2006) |
James DiBenedetto: Considering how long it's going to be from when you wrote the first word of "Runes" until the day you complete your final rewrite on "The Last Dark", are you concerned at all that you may well be dramatically changed as a writer (not to mention a person) in the decade it'll take to complete the Last Chronicles?
Do you worry that the Steve of 2010 who's experienced something life-changing (hopefully in a good way; the birth of a grandchild, or somesuch) will not want to (or not be able to, being a radically different person) finish the Chronicles in the way that you envisioned when you began them?
I only ask because (if memory serves), you wrote both the first and second Chronicles in a much more compressed span of time, with less opportunity for life to alter you while in the middle of writing...
|
Well, the GAP books took seven years of my life; and I didnt waver then. And people of my age tend to change more slowly than younger individuals. And during the writing of both the first and second Covenant trilogies I experienced a number of life-altering shocks, all of which changed me as a person, and none of which changed my artistic vision. I probably cant hope to convey the degree to which I perceive my work (the stories that have come to me to be told) as existing separate from--and even independent of--myself. On a rational level, of course, this is nonsense. In fact, my work probably wouldnt be worth reading if it werent an expression of who I am. But I really dont *experience* it that way. On my own purely perceptual level, stories like The Last Chronicles occupy a plane of existence entirely distinct from mine. So. From my perspective, LIFE doesnt change the story: it only changes the resources (insight, experience, energy, moral fiber, time, attitude, etc.) that the teller brings to the story. A number of GI readers have already commented on various ways in which the narrative methodology of The Last Chronicles differs from that of the previous books (the compression of events into shorter periods of time, for example, or the proportionate increase of dialogue). Such changes reflect changes in me; in the tools that I have to work with; in the nature of my ambitions as a storyteller. But (from my own purely personal POV) these changes neither imply nor necessitate changes in the story itself. The Last Chronicles is going exactly where I intended it to go way back in the late 70s when the ideas first came to me. Ive often said, as you may recall, that I cant write at all if I dont know where Im going. My destination is the basis on which every decision is made. Therefore a change in destination would require me to scrap everything (including The Runes of the Earth and all of my work on Fatal Revenant) and start over from scratch. That isnt just unlikely: for me, its probably impossible. (01/01/2006) |
Chris ( from Australia): Steve,
I finished Runes 2 months ago, , and have deliberately waited till now to write to you , because I wanted to think about all the Chronicles.
My greatest joy in getting 'Runes', was the need to reread my favourite 6 books after 12 years of dust gathering. It was a great joy rekindling memories of old friends like Saltheart, Lord Mhorham ,Linden and quietly yelling at Covenent to 'get on with it'.
My question. Why the decision to write a book that is so blatantly different in concept and style , in that it covers such a small period of time? Was this always your intention ? To be truthful, I found it difficult going, as I found the characters were bogged down in dialogue and analysis. Having said that,, the last chapter opened my eyes, so I will hang in there for 'Fatal'.
|
Since I consider it self-evident that different stories require different storytelling methods, your question isnt clear to me. Do you mean, Why am I unwilling to repeat myself? or, Why am I a different person than I was 20 years ago? In either case, the answer is, Because the alternative is death (creative, personal, or both). If you didnt enjoy The Runes of the Earth, I advise you to stop reading The Last Chronicles. Life is too short to spend it on books you dont like. (01/01/2006) |
Kate Gowers: It seems to be, that by both name and character (mostly), Lord Foul is the epitome of evil. However, he has developed, over the course of the books, a more 'rounded' (OK, only just, but still) personality from the mwhwhahahah type thing he may have started with. Indeed, we now have him doing our heroes favours (even if it his for his own, no doubt nefarious purposes).
So...can good things come from evil intent? Can evil be changed? At the end of one of the earlier books (I don't have copies here in front of me), didn't Foul regress to pre-infanthood? Was Foul ever a child? If so, who raised him? Is there hope for redemption of Foul himself, or would your own beliefs prevent that? If Lucifer, as it were, can be a fallen angel, can we have a risen devil?
Even if (as I suspect), this is not a plan, how do you feel about the redemption of evil?
Cheers!
Kate
|
You raise a number of interesting issues which are difficult to discuss in the abstract--and about which I dont want to be concrete for fearing of tipping my hand. So Im going to restrict myself to a few comments. 1) Lord Foul has always had a reason for what hes doing. Whatever he may have been before creation, he is a prisoner now; like many prisoners, he loathes everything about his prison; and if finding a way to escape involves doing massive damage to his prison, so much the better. The fact of his prison justifies all of his actions. 2) Imagery such as Lord Fouls regression should probably be interpreted metaphorically. Or symbolically, if you prefer. If he is an eternal being, then notions like infancy and dotage have no literal meaning. And if he is not, then all we have to do is wait for him to die of old age. 3) Can we have a risen devil? I refer you to Angus Thermopyle. Can good things come from evil intent? Can bad things come from good intent? Can good things be accomplished by evil means? Consider Warden Dios. (01/01/2006) |
John Blackburn: I read a bit about leprosy recently (Wikipedia and WHO website). It seems with modern drugs it is not so terrible as it was for Covenant. With multi-drug therapy (MDT) it can be completely cured in 12 months, in the sense that the bacterium is destroyed. Of course, if nerves are damaged the body remains numb and VSE is necessary for the rest of the patients life. But, once cured, if Covenant cuts himself shaving and *notices the cut*, he is in no more danger than the rest of us. The leprosy will not reoccur and the disease doesn't prevent healing, it's not like hemophilia!
Another statement on the WHO site is that on the *first dose* of MDT, the patient is no longer contagious - the transmission of the disease is interrupted. So, if they can accept this, the townspeople shouldn't reject Covenant.
Do you think these statements are true? (I appreciate that my knowledge is very limited). If so, do you think it makes the books seem a little dated? It means most of the statements made by the doctors in the beginning of LFB are no longer accurate. In 2005, Covenant wouldn't be in such despair and wouldn't be rejected by other people so much.
Also, is there such a thing as a "primary" case of leprosy?
|
Yes, advances in modern medicine *do* make the first three Covenant books seem dated. On the other hand, the information youve acquired isnt very widely known, in part because leprosy has always had a low profile in the US--and possibly in Europe as well--so the impact of my out-dated facts isnt as severe as it could be. And people are *very* slow to give up their prejudices. And yes, there *is* such a thing as a primary case of leprosy--although nowadays medical people might speak of unknown etiology rather than primary. (01/01/2006) |
Ross: About Kurt's question on 10/5, I just wanted to mention that the end pages falling out of the Ballantine paperback is NOT an isolated occurrence. I owned two copies of Lord Foul's Bane printed around 1984, and BOTH of them lost pages. The one I'm holding now, from the 23rd printing, lost pages 429 to the end, with more pages just ready to fall out. Seems like the glue just gave out...
Of course, I can't ever bring myself to throw away books, and I'm not about to start with THIS ONE!
|
FYI (01/01/2006) |
Karen: Hi Mr Donaldson.
Firstly I just wanted to say congratulations on writing an excellent epic fantasy; there are too many run of the mill stories out there today that don't really capture the imagination.
Now on to the question. I know you have often stated that you have no interest in writing a prequel to the Chronicles, even though many people have stated a wish to read such a tale (myself included), but I wondered if you would actually know how to write it if you were so inclined? I mean in the sense that obviously you have brought elements of the Land's history and past characters into the Chronicles but did you explore them in enough depth to base a whole book on them?
|
Prequels. <sigh> Since Ive never seen a viable role-model, I have nothing to guide me. And, as I keep saying, Im an efficient writer in the sense that I only create what I *need*. So the amount of background that I carry around in my head--or in my notes--is far too sketchy to be considered a story (or stories). I have no material to work from. In other words, no, I would have no idea *how* to write a prequel. Assuming that I *wanted* to write one, which I dont. (01/01/2006) |
Jenkins: You comment that "Fantasy is not *about* material reality, or even material plausibility. It does not describe or comment upon rational or tangible observations of the external world; the world of science and technology." Yet in my opinion Fantasy and Science Fiction are both about other-worlds, so how would you respond to Sir Arthur C. Clarke's dictum that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." There are borderline books like Frank Herbert's Dune for example where it's not always clear what is "magic" and what is science.
|
I dont know how to explain this any better than I already have. Writers like Clarke--and Hal Clement--and Larry Niven--are reductive materialists. (OK, OK: from time to time, Clarke is a bit less reductive than Clement or Niven.) For them, there can exist only one form of transcendance: that which transcends our present knowledge. In the end, therefore, everything comes down to physics. If it *looks* numinous or spiritual or immeasurable, thats because our perceptions are limited by ignorance, not because reality actually contains anything numinous or spiritual or immeasurable. I disagree. (Of course, I could be wrong. But so could they.) As far as Im concerned, life is palpably greater than the sum of its parts. As far as Im concerned, life *by definition* transcends measurement. Naturally, not all science fiction denies transcendance--and not all fantasy affirms it. But if you want to grasp the difference between what Clarke (for example) is trying to communicate and what Im trying to communicate, youll need to recognize that he and I are working from radically distinct paradigms. Or if that doesnt help, try this. A writer like Clarke is looking outward at the mysteries of the universe. Im looking inward at the mysteries of identity, emotion, and imagination. (A sour critic once said of Clarke, He writes about human beings as if hes never actually met one. Well, guess why.) So even if you assert that science will eventually be able to elucidate all the mysteries of identity, emotion, and imagination, you can still acknowledge that magic and monsters are useful metaphors for describing the actual experience of *having* identity, emotion, and imagination. Such issues dont interest the Clarkes and Clements and Nivens of the world, but they fascinate me. (01/01/2006) |
Tim: Mr. Donaldson:
I picked up Lord Fouls Bane at a used bookstore sometime in my teen years. (1980 or 81)
My question, and I have many, but I'll ask the one that scratches me the hardest:
I astonished myself when I kept reading after this deformed coward raped Lena upon having his health restored.
Thomas is not, by any means, a like-able person. When you decided to portray your hero as a diseased rapist that spent the first two books refusing to help, refusing to believe, were you astonished at his growing popularity?
Are you still?
|
Yes, the popularity of the Covenant books when they first came out absolutely astonished me. I was amazed enough when they were published at all: their subsequent success left me dumbfounded. Whenever I chance to look behind me, Im still taken by surprise. Since the first trilogy, of course, the protagonists of the Chronicles have become a bit easier to live with. <rueful smile> As a result, its easier for me to understand why people continue reading than why they started in the first place. (01/01/2006) |
Bruce Leckart: In "The Man Who Killed His Brother," How did Brew manage to spend time in the police station after he rescued Teresa Maria, without getting busted. Recall that she had his coat and he was wearing his shoulder holster and his .45!
|
He has a license for the gun. Why would he be busted? (01/01/2006) |
Charles W. Adams: I've researched the GI, and can't find an answer to a question that has puzzled me for a while. I'll start with questions not meant for you to answer, but to help explain my lack of understanding:
When Covenant is summoned at the start of the 2nd Chronicles, Foul tells him something to the effect that white gold is now powerless against him. Did this mean that if Covenant had a go at Foul (such as at the end of the first chronicles), wild magic would have been no more potent against Foul than a light breeze? If Linden got the ring, would the ring retain the same level of effectiveness (or lack thereof)? If so, what was the cause or catalyst of white gold losing it's effectiveness against Foul? If not, why only in Covenant's hands: The fact that Covenant chose to be summoned? Or his life being saved by the Creator? His becoming a tool of either or both Foul and the Creator? Does this mean that wild magic does in fact follow some law, which rendered the ring effectless against Foul?
So the real question comes: If this doesn't spoil anything, can you offer some additional insite and explanation as to what happened to cause the white gold to become powerless against Foul?
|
Its useful to remember that Lord Foul tells the truth in ways that are intended to mislead. In one sense, he is speaking the literal truth: he can no longer be defeated by raw power, in part because circumstances have changed, in part because his tactics have changed, in part because Covenant has changed. But in another sense, the literal truth is a form of misdirection: during the course of Lord Fouls manipulations, Covenant will become *too* powerful to fight without simultaneously destroying the Arch of Time. So white gold has become powerless in the sense that Covenant cant afford to use it. If the Despiser actually wanted to be *honest*, he might have said, By the time Im done with you, youll be more dangerous to the Land than I am, and your love for the Land will prevent you from being able to fight me effectively. A hydrogen bomb isnt powerless to knock out the back wall of your house so you can add that sun porch youve always wanted--but it might as well be. <grin> (01/01/2006) |
Jacques Poitras: I recently re-read The Illearth War for the first time since I discovered it as a teenager (I'm now 37), and I was struck by something.
The shift to Hile Troy's point of view would suggest The Land is "real" -- because someone other than Covenant is experiencing it. This takes place well before Covenant himself comes to this realization (when he sees his wound upon his return to our world at the end of the book).
This device must have been a conscious choice for you as the author, because you could have structured the story to maintain Covenant's point of view (and thus maintain the possibility he is imagining The Land) ... i.e. by having Troy recap it all for Covenant when they meet up after Melenkurion Skyweir.
Why, then, reveal The Land's reality to the reader before Covenant realizes it?
(Or did you just structure it this way because having Troy recap it for Covenant would prevent the Elena-Convenant-Kevin-Bannor sequence being climax of the entire book?)
Thanks ... and by the way, I'm finding the books hold up quite well now that I'm a "grown-up."
|
My reasoning--and Lester del Rey agreed--was that since Troy comes from Covenants reality his POV doesnt violate the underlying premises of Covenants Unbelief. However, I will ruefully admit that if I were writing the original Chronicles now I would structure them more rigorously to support the integrity of Covenants dilemma. (01/01/2006) |
Emil van Zuylen: Dear Stephen,
It's been a while... but one question keeps coming up in my mind, insisting to be asked:
When you conceived of the Last Chronicles as being four books, how did you come up with the titles?
Meaning, did you already have an overall structure in mind, and the titles came as a natural consequence. Or was there a more intuitive road.
Or none of the above?
Keep up the good writing. Thank you for your time,
Emil
|
Id have to say that I took a more intuitive road. Although the general story has been clear to me for a long time--including its division into four books--Ive gone through quite a long list of possible titles over the years. Some of which were impossibly unwieldy, while others proved inappropriate. Some I discarded with regret; others with active relief. I didnt settle on the titles Ive announced until I began making concrete preparations to begin work on The Last Chronicles. (01/01/2006) |
Dave Robinson: Hi
The Chronicles are my favourite books. Thank you for writing them, and especially thanks for undertaking the huge task of writing the Last Chronicles. My question, however, is about your other books.
I found myself comparing Joyse and Warden. At first I thought perhaps they were similar (both are powerful men who inspire great loyalty, but for secret reasons take actions that lead others to doubt and suspect them), but on greater reflection I think perhaps they are more antithetical. Joyse risks everything because he doesn't want to sacrifice anyone for the greater good; whereas Warden is prepared to do unconscionable things in order to take a shot at saving his world by undermining Holt's power. Did it occur to you writing Joyse that it would be a more interesting king (i.e. Warden) who was active in deeds of seeming wickedness pursuant to his goal of ultimate good? Or perhaps Warden's character arose completely out of your interpretation of Wotan?
That may seem like an obscure and geeky question, but it's interesting to me.
Thanks again.
|
While Im working on a story--any story--I never really know what Im going to write next. Looking back over my writing life, I can easily see Mordants Need as a kind of gentle warm-up for the GAP books, and King Joyse as an analogous preparation for Warden Dios. But stories arent told looking back; and as Ive just said, I dont look forward either. So I didnt have Warden Dios sort of hidden in the back of my mind while I was dealing with King Joyse; and I didnt look back at Joyse while I was dealing with Dios. The differences I see revolve primarily around the differences in the stories themselves. The GAP books have a number of down-and-dirty qualities which are entirely absent from Mordants Need, despite some similarities in theme and even structure. Compared to the GAP books--or even to the Chronicles--Mordants Need is conspicuously less harsh. So naturally the actions of the characters in general are less harsh. But theres another point which may be worth mentioning. Joyse is king: Dios is not. You might say that Joyse occupies Holt Fasners role, while Dios position more closely resembles Castellan Lebbicks. In that respect, Dios actions/motivations/exigencies cant really be measured by Joyses. (01/01/2006) |
Allen: I loved "Strange Dreams" - the anthology of other writer's short stories which you chose for your own good sweet purposes. Orson Scott Card's story was particularly gratifying. And I am saddened that the story doesn't remain in print.
Could you (post hoc, of course) say what the two or three central purposes of the anthology are?
Best wishes, Allen
|
I explained my purposes in the preface to Strange Dreams: the anthology is simply a collection of short stories I havent been able to forget. My only other intent--to the extent that I had one--was to try to make more people aware of those stories (and of their authors). (01/01/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen
The UK editions of your books (I think I'm right in saying) all use British conventions of punctuation and spelling ('single' as opposed to "double" quotation marks, 'colour' as opposed to 'color' etc). You've said that you have both a US and a UK editor, but isn't producing two versions of a text a bit redundant? Most American writers published in Britain seem to use American English. Why is your work different in this respect? (Or have I just not read enough US authors?)
|
Seems a bit odd, I agree. But my British publishers have always converted my punctuation to standard British usage--as they do with other US authors--and they usually convert my spelling as well. (Ive even seen books where some of the words are changed. Realtor becomes estate agent, vacation becomes holiday, etc..) However, the same thing happens in the opposite direction: US publishers routinely Americanize books by British authors. I suppose it has to do with making the book easy for its intended audience. (01/01/2006) |
Jodi Whitmore: I read your first two chronicles over twenty years ago. I enjoyed them so much I have kept the books and the memory of reading them all these years, so when the first book of the last chronicles came out I bought it right away, read it immediately and was anxious to find book two. While I was looking, I was bothered by all of the pieces I had forgotten from the first books, so I reread them. I finished that much too quickly, and went back to my search for book two. After coming to your web-site, I find that I shouldn't expect it until late 2007 and the following books years later. I'm dismayed. If the books were conceived years ago, is there any way to shorten the time line? I'm so looking forward to getting back to the story.
|
<sigh> I hate how long it takes me to write at least as intensely as you do. If I were younger, less ambitious, and didnt care so much about the important people in my life, I might find a way to shorten the time line. But as matters stand, were all pretty much stuck. The best I can offer you is that Im giving it my best shot. (01/01/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe (NOT Mike G (who is NOT from Santa Fe)): So, I have to ask, you mentioned that you may guest again on the last episode Fantasy Bedtime Hour. Do you know if they plan on doing "The Illearth War" next?
|
"Fantasy Bedtime Hour" will NOT be doing "The Illearth War," or any other Donaldson book, when they finish killing off "Lord Foul's Bane." Heatherley and Julie told me what their next project will be. But it's *their* project, not mine: you'll have to ask them what it is. (01/01/2006) |
Bryan J. Flynn: Hello Steve. I hope all is well with you. I've been catching up with the GI as I haven't been to your site for five months. I must say your dedication to the GI is amazing and I wish my other favorite authors were as accessible in this medium.
One question: it seems in your writings generally and in Covenant specifically that organized groups tend not to fare well in your narrative. For example, the Haruchai as a body have been unhelpful to the Land; the Unhomed were Undone by their faith in the birth of triplets; the Old Lords failed in their stewardship; the cult that harbored Joan and Roger caused them harm and placed them in a susceptible position to Foul.
At the same time the Unfettered Ones are treated with reverence, Foamfollower as the last of his kind became the Pure One, Findail and Vain as avatars of their kind are ultimately noble, and of course Covenant and Lindens individual strivings against Lord Foul are the essence of these novels.
A long-winded way to get at my question, but is it a conscious/unconscious choice on your part to esteem the individual, a personal preference, or is it dictated by the genre?
Warmest Regards and Thanks,
Bryan
|
I suspect that it's largely an unconscious choice. Of course, storytelling by its very nature tends to focus on individuals rather than groups (if for no other reason than because "mob psychology"--or bureaucratic psychology, for that matter--is so much less diverse, and so much more predictable, than the mental/emotional interactions of individuals). In addition, I'm inclined to believe that human experience is fundamentally defined by what happens within us as individuals rather than by what happens between us as groups (a debatable assertion, I realize). But underneath all that, I suspect, lies the unconscious--and possibly unwarrented--assumption(s) that everyone else feels as alone and out of place as I do; that groups in general are defined by the fact that they exclude *me* (sometimes in really astonishing ways); and that humans in groups generally behave worse than they do as individuals. (All of which may be entirely perceptual--and perhaps even self-imposed--on my part; but there it is.) (01/11/2006) |
Allen: My question considers the physical violence depicted in "The Man Who Fought Alone" and the Gap Cycle. I've had some experience of violence in "real life" situations and my basic feeling is that the best depictors of violence in art over the last thirty years are Martin Scorsese and yourself. I am really tempted to ask you an obnoxious question like 'Have you ever experienced or witnessed violence outside of the studios and tournaments in a martial arts context?" That question is really none of my business but - inquiring and experienced minds want to know. Alas.
Second question. When I read "The Man Who Fought Alone" I was puzzled - why is the mood less grim than say, the Gap Cycle? Or is that an odd question?
Thank you very much for your consideration and great labors. You are an American treasure ( but I hope Bush doesn't give you an award. )( Oops.)
|
I've never been beaten up, or caught in an angry mob. I didn't witness the killings at Kent State, although I was a student there at the time. In that sense, no, I haven't experienced "real life" violence. On the other hand, I've experienced lots and lots of emotional, moral, political, and bureaucratic violence and abuse. I suppose that the violence in my books seems real because I know what violence "feels like". Why is "The Man Who Fought Alone" less grim than the GAP cycle? Gosh, there are so *many* reasons.... The obvious one is that the stakes are much higher in the GAP books. But look at it this way: at its core, Mick Axbrewder's personality is less grim than Angus Thermopyle's. Brew's sardonic sense of humor expresses itself in all kinds of unexpected ways: Angus may not have a sense of humor at all. And since these characters occupy "made up" worlds, it almost goes without saying that their worlds are extensions of their personalities (perceptually and metaphorically, if not literally). (01/11/2006) |
Christian Bonn: Please don't take this in a negative way. I enjoy reading your ongoing 'Gradual Interview' as much, if not more so, than some of your published work. I find the way you fence with readers and their 'questions' vastly entertaining.
From the way you compose your responses, I get the sense, right or wrong, that you delight in the challenge of interacting with your readers. Which is why I find the Interview so engaging -- I can't wait to see in new response how you bob and weave, parry and attack, and occasionally, like a matador, wave a red cloth in front of your questioners.
Is responding to these questions really as fun for you as it seems (to me)? I hope so...keep it up if you can.
|
There's no denying it: sometimes I *am* having fun. Of more than one kind. There's outright humor, of course (sometimes rather cleverly disguised, if I do say so myself--which I just did <grin>). But at times I also enjoy the challenge of both revealing and concealing myself simultaneously. Naturally it isn't *all* fun. Different questions present different challenges. Inevitably my emotional responses (both those revealed and those concealed) vary. But pleasure is one of the many motivators that keep me coming back to the GI. (01/11/2006) |
Alison: A couple of very simple ones for you which you may have answered before... Have you ever considered playing with mirrors again? And how did you come up with such characters that are so depressed yet optimistic? So often, especially when I read Covenant, I want to scream that it's o.k. to have a pinch of pity for yourself, which although he might not appreciate it, Thomas Covenant deserves!
And as for your work being hard to get a hold of, we were lucky enough in Australia (and hopefully the rest of the world) to have both Covenant series published in two Omnibus versions. Although I must say that your Gap work is very hard to come by. Us poor sods down under... Always the last to know!!!
Seriously though, as a great fan of all things fantasy fiction, we really appreciate all your time and effort that must go into your work... Keep it up!!
|
I've discusssed Mordant's future--or the lack of it--several times recently. Doubtless those answers appeared after you posted your question. That's the problem with being so far behind.... <sigh> As for how I create my characters: I wish I could explain it. It is an act of imagination (and I wish I could explain *that*), but it feels more like an exercise in empathy. What would it feel like to experience x when y has already happened to you, and you were expecting z? On a semi-hypnotic level, I do try to *become* my characters. And that's about all I can tell you. The rest is a mystery, at least to me (which is probably why I write mysteries <grin>). (01/14/2006) |
Terry Rawlins: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Have you ever considered having any of your "Covenant" books illustrated and re-issued. For example, the George R R Martin, "Songs of Fire and Ice" series is being done one by one and are fantastic. Your stories are so rich with imagery that I'm sure major artists would jump at the opportunity. Plus, those of us who can't visualize things as well as others would really enjoy the "help". :-)
Thanks for great books,
Terry
|
As I've said in other contexts, I don't make these kinds of decisions--especially where the "Covenant" books are concerned. For reasons which I think I explained (much) earlier in this interview, when I signed the contracts for the first six "Chronicles" I pretty much gave away all the rights. So illustrated editions are entirely in the hands of DEL REY/Ballantine, a company that has shown no actual interest in promoting the "Covenant" books. Not being a visual person myself, I don't regret the lack of illustrated editions. And there's another factor. (Now *here's* a bit of Donaldson arcana for you.) When the original "Covenant" books were first translated into German, they were illustrated (if that's the right word for it)--and I was absolutely astonished by the number of naked women (!) who had crept into my books behind my back. Sadly, these drawings lacked the necessary lubricity for a "Girls of the Land" calendar. But in every other way they were truly bizarre. An illustrated "Covenant" trilogy might actively scare me. <grin> (01/14/2006) |
Linda Olson: Mr. Donaldson;
The necessity of evil and the paradox of power are questions that have challenged great philosophers for centuries. Do you consider yourself a philosopher,as well as an author? It must gratifying to know you have inspired so much discussion/examination of our fundamental nature as human beings.
Linda Olson
10/07/05
|
Merciful Heavens! A phiLOsopher? That sounds suspiciously like a polemicist. <grin> No, I'm just a storyteller who happens to have an intensely fundamentalist upbringing, a profound distrust for all things bureaucratic, and a fascination with ideas. The "content"--if that's what it is--of my stories is a tribute to the stories themselves, not to me. Still.... I've never forgotten (and no doubt have mentioned before) hearing S. P. Somtow say, "Fantasy is the only valid tool for theological inquiry." My entire pscyhe twanged when I heard that. (01/20/2006) |
Revan: Hi Stephen.
I've been looking over your bad characters lately, and when i read aboutpeople like Eremis and Holt Fasner, I wonder, can all their hungers and amibition ever be fulfilled. Would they ever have the ability ro sit back and say, "That's enough?"
My second question is this: If they did achieve all their hearts desires, what kind of people would they be? Would they become self-destructive; considering the seeking and longing for power and/or are the only things that they strive for?
Cheers - Revan
|
If I may pretend to quote from a textbook for a moment: "It is characteristic of profound and systemic narcissism that it can never be satisfied." In the course of my life, I'm met far too many people who were/are, in essence, black holes. If they could do it, they would devour the entire created cosmos--and then feel sorry for themselves because they deserve more. Eremis and Holt Fasner may have enough mental toughness to avoid self-pity. (Nick Succorso, on the other hand, does not.) Nevertheless I suspect that a) their hungers could never be satisfied, and b) any surrender to an unappeasable appetite is inherently self-destructive. Look at any dictator. I have a few hungers like that myself, so I think I know what I'm talking about. What saves me (if you accept the unsupported assertion that I'm *not* Eremis or Holt or Nick <grin>) is that I decline to be ruled by the abyss within. (01/20/2006) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
1) I one of your recent replies in the GI, you state (rather slyly, in my opinion) that "as matters stand, the lore of the Old Lords is just plain irretrievable."
"As matters stand"? Is this some sort of hint that Kevin's Lore might feature in Fatal Revenant? Your answer sure sounded like a heads-up or teaser! :)
2) Is Lord Foul bound by all the Laws of the Earth, since he is imprisoned there? I know he cannot violate the Law of death, etc without help, but could he be affected by the Power of Command, or the might of the Elohim? Or is Foul somehow beyond such things?
|
1) Some days I simply can't resist my impulse to tease. I get an entirely malicious pleasure out of creating misleading expectations. Of course, that's one of the keys to my writing in general. I work hard at setting up expectations which I intend to both frustrate and fulfill in unforeseeable ways. 2) Yes, Lord Foul is bound by Law: otherwise his existence in time wouldn't be a prison. Such things as the Power of Command and the strange resources of the Elohim are not *in themselves* violations of Law. Obviously, they can be used to *threaten* Law. And Lord Foul might conceivably be impacted by them. But it is not an accident that LF is never defeated by gambits like High Lord Elena's. In such cases, Law preserves as well as imprisons the Despiser. (01/20/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen - Yet Another Question About the Rape of Lena.
If I remember correctly, the viewpoint changes from Thomas to Lena at the moment he assaults her. Why did you write it that way, and would you have done the same if you were writing that scene now? (I can't help thinking that The Man Who wrote The Real Story would have stuck with Covenant's point of view.)
Thanks.
|
Its difficult to say what the man I am today would have done 30+ years ago. But I did have a clear and deliberate reason for taking the risk of that shift in POV (I mean the risk that I might undermine Covenants view of the Land). I *wanted* my readers to think ill of Covenant. To judge him harshly. To see him, not as a victim, but as a victimizer. To realize that he really could turn into the Despiser. That was vital to my intentions, both tactically and strategically. Therefore I decided to watch his violence from the perspective of its victim. Further, I feel constrained to point out that Angus/Morn is a very different situation than Covenant/Lena. Right from the start, Covenant is introduced to the reader *as a victim*. It would be difficult to say the same of Angus. So of necessity the narrative logic (the logic both of what happens and of how those events are described) is also very different. (01/22/2006) |
Tom: Stephen,
Every time I write a question, I include a "thank you" that I end up removing before I click on Submit. On re-reading it always sounds way too fan-boy, and never really captures what I want to say. So this time, just two words. Thank you.
I have a vague memory of reading an interview with you, perhaps around the time of the publication of The Wounded Land. In it you say that you never write down your ideas, because if an idea is not worth remembering it's not worth putting in a book.
My first question is, was this something you did say? If so, my second question would be, is this still the case?
Tom
|
Speaking very loosely, Ive always worked this way. But I need to be clear about one thing. When I say that I never write down my ideas, Im talking about *germ* ideas, the original hints of stories. If such an idea clings to me even when I make no effort to hold onto it, I can feel confident that it both deserves and needs to be written. (Once I actually start to work on a story idea, however, I write down EVerything. Even subsidiary ideas that turn out to be bad or unusable live for a while--possibly for years--in my notes. Im simply too fallible to trust my memory for every detail. As evidence, I need only cite the problems of internal consistency in the hardcover edition of The Runes of the Earth. In addition, writing things down is crucial to how I think.) But there are exceptions. When my *germ* idea takes the form of an actual sentence--which happened with Reave the Just, The Kings of Tarshish, By Any Other Name, and, obliquely, The Man Who Tried to Get Away--I *do* write that down, even though at the time I cant imagine what the sentence actually means. Actual sentences feel like spells or invocations: they dont work unless I get them exactly right. (01/22/2006) |
Jason D. Wittman: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First, a thank you. You were kind enough to sign my copies of your books in the hotel lobby at WFC, and I thought I should take another opportunity to voice my appreciation. You were very gracious.
Now to my questions: you stated in your afterword to _The Real Story_ that listening to Wagner's _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ inspired you (in part) to write the Gap series. Does that mean that you are fluent in German? Do you know any other foreign languages? You also said that some of your literary techniques in TCoTC "were extrapolated from the way Wagner used musical ideas." I'm curious to know how that worked, though I'd understand if you found it difficult to explain.
Finally: have you read China Mieville? You've stated on the GI that you're a fan of Mervyn Peake, and Mieville is a big fan of Peake, and tries to emulate him in his writing. I highly recommend him to you, though you should be forewarned that he is weird, weird, weird. :-)
Take care, and keep writing,
Jason
|
Sadly, Im not fluent in any languages except English and Clich <grin>. I found going to India when I was 4 more than a little traumatic; and one symptom of my particular distress is that I locked my mind against languages I didnt understand. And now I sort of *cant* learn foreign languages. In college I missed Phi Beta Kappa by .003 in my GPA because of my Ds in German. No, I understand Wagner by reading the scores (in piano reduction) and libretti while listening to the music. Because I wanted to understand the emotional power that Wagners music has over me, however, Ive read a fair amount *about* his music. For example, he used repeated musical motifs to (literally) underscore the links, the relevance, between the various aspects of his composition. And when I became conscious of how his techniques affected me, I began trying to develop stylistic analogues in my own writing. China Mieville: Ive read Perdido Street Station (and have referred to Mieville elsewhere in the GI). I wouldnt describe his work as weird: in good sf/f, strangeness is one of the norms (which makes it something of an oxymoron <grin>). But I would describe it as dense, difficult, and disturbing--all of which are either strengths or weaknesses, depending on the predilections of the particular reader. In my case, those qualities elicited admiration. (01/22/2006) |
Colette Harman: SOJOURN is not synonymous with journey, as you improperly use it, over and over again in the Thomas Covenant series! The definition of sojourn is 'a temporary stay or rest' (noun) or 'to temporarily stay or rest' somewhere (verb).
OKAY?!
P.S.: I enjoyed 'The Runes of the Earth'.
|
<sigh> Just in case anyone is inclined to doubt me when I call myself fallible. (01/22/2006) |
Charles Adams: One of the most enjoyable parts of ROTE was when I as a reader had the opportunity to observe Foul's direct reaction to events not going according to [his] plan. I think this is our very first direct view of his reactions to such events.
I tried to think of other times when things didn't go as expected by Foul, and all I could come up with was when Covenant refused his summoning to save the girl in his own world. At this point, though, we did not see Foul's direct reaction to this unexpected development.
Which leads to my question: Did you ever construct what events would have occurred if Covenant had been successfully summoned? And if that "story" is more detailed than "Covenant is summoned as planned and the Land is destroyed...", are you willing to share some of the details?
Thanks!
|
A couple of issues. On a practical level, I dont need to construct a detailed sequence of events in order to see that particular idea wont work. OK, so early in The Power that Preserves Mhoram succeeds in summoning Covenant. Now what? How can Covenant possibly end up confronting the Despiser in Fouls Creche? The distance from Revelstone is much greater than from Mithil Stonedown; the timing is all wrong; and Lord Fouls entire army is in the way. As a matter of story design, it cant be done. I would have had to re-plan virtually the entire trilogy in order to make that idea work. But on a deeper level, I dont construct those kinds of hypothetical story-lines (and this is especially true of the first Covenant trilogy) because--for lack of a better description--I design my stories backward. I start with the ending, the climax (my reason for telling the story), and I figure things out in reverse until I reach a point where I can begin the story. So I knew that Covenant needed to arrive late in the final war, and that therefore he needed to refuse Mhorams summons, long before I knew what had to happen in Lord Fouls Bane. I doubt that I spent five seconds considering the possibility that Covenant might *accept* Mhorams summons. All I cared about was *why* Covenant would refuse. This is part of what I mean when I describe myself as an efficient writer. Because I build my stories backward, I only think about the things I absolutely have to have in order to reach my ending. (01/22/2006) |
John Blackburn: 1) Foul's stategy is always to manipulate covenant into an excessive use of wild magic. This implies that he cannot simply kill covenant and take the ring for himself, he has to get covenant to use it (excessively); or make covy give him the ring voluntarily. BUT in TPTP, Foul orders two people to kill covy and take his ring: Pietten and dead-Elena. So what happened? has Foul given up hope of escaping the Arch of Time through covenant-manipulation? Does he think he, or dead-Elena can now use the ring directly? and the krill turns green which seems to indicate he CAN! When in Foul's throne room, even covy thinks "hmm, the only reason he isn't rippin' my fingers off to get the ring is he thinks I know how to use it". So Covy thinks Foul can use the ring directly if he wants!
2) Why did Hile Troy use Ramen as messengers? Why not use proper soldiers, preferably horse-mounted (best of all: Bloodguard on Ranyhyn). The Ramen are only reluctantly loyal to the lords. Gay/rue is a terrible messenger, not only is she late, but she can't say how big the army is. And are there no other ramen messengers except gay? Troy went through so much hell as a result, it seems it was his own fault! But even with the extra 5 days, there'd still be lots of marching! Why not camp somewhere in the center plains?
|
Boy howdy. 1) Sure, Foul can take the ring and use it. Anybody can. They just cant use it *enough* to break Foul out of his prison. Two Laws prevent it: the fundamental identification of Covenant with his ring; and the necessity of freedom. Only when Covenant uses excessive wild magic by choice will the Arch of Time fall. And Foul is smart enough to know this. But hes also smart enough to think of more than one path toward his goal. If someone else (e.g. dead Elena) takes the ring and chooses to use it, s/he may eventually damage enough Laws in enough different ways to make the whole system crumble. (Elena certainly got off to a good start by destroying the Staff of Law.) Foul always has more than one plan at work. Hes always trying to create new possibilities. And hes always eager to capitalize on new possibilities, even unexpected ones. 2) What exactly do you think Troy should have done? Send out all of the Bloodguard to watch every league of Landsdrop and just hope that enough of them returned alive to help him fight Foul? (And do you really think that the Bloodguard would have agreed to such a plan?) Remember, Troy and the Lords do NOT know what Foul is going to do. They only have hints. And theres no theoretical reason why Foul couldnt send his army north of Andelain rather than south. So why isnt it reasonable to trust allies who happen to live near one possible line of attack? In addition, I think you underestimate the Ramen. Sure, they dont ride. And sure, theyre reluctant allies in the sense that they distrust anyone who rides Ranyhyn into danger. But they have other resources (e.g. stealth--and I wont even mention their skills as scouts and trackers) that the Bloodguard lack. And they do both love the Land and hate Fangthane. Why is it a mistake to trust them? (01/22/2006) |
Mark Holdsworth: The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Wards of High Lord Kevin's Seven Wards are not described in any detail in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Series (as far as I remember), and all we know concerning the Third Ward is that it was discovered between the times of the First and Second Chronicles. Should these missing Wards be considered lost lore, destroyed during the Ritual of Desecration, or will their purpose(s) be revealed in the Third Chronicles?
Thanks for creating the Land. Your novels flow like a great musical score. I seem to listen to the words you write more than just visualize what they portray. I consider myself a visually oriented person, so this is no small feat!
|
Tsk tsk. Yall are becomin increasingly clever in your attempts to elicit spoilers. <grin> (01/22/2006) |
Daniel Bauer: Mr. Donaldson:
Thanks for creating and sharing a wonderful world with the Thomas Covenant novels. It is great to immerse myself in fantasys like this.
I confess that as a reader I tend to only get the first layer of many things. I've tried repeatedly (back in my college days) to interpret depth, but my creative writing teachers always seemed to indicate that my interpretations were beyond what the author intended. How they knew, I still don't know - but I learned to stop "reading into things."
To that end, I'd like to know if I'm missing one thing in particular, regarding the "Wierd," "Wurd," and "Worm of the world's end". I get that these are different interpretations of the fundamental make-up of the land, similar to concepts of "God," "Jehovah," and "Allah" (which I believe are different interpretations based on the same supernatural being). Different people see the same things differently, hence the different terms. However, you must delicately choose when to use each word (and sometimes you use all three).
Am I (again) trying to read more into your text than is there? Or am I missing something more by skimming the surface?
Thanks again for the Land, and for the opportunity to connect with you in this forum.
|
I have no idea what your creative writing teachers (?) thought they were talking about. Any truly creative act, almost by definition, has more depth than the reader/viewer/hearer/recipient is able to absorb by skimming the surface. Very broadly speaking, bookstores seem to be full of books written by people who dont think enough (or at all). It seems strange that creative writing teachers would encourage you to think less. But I assure you that my use of Weird, Wurd, Worm, and Wyrd is not an accident. And I chose them all because they sound sort of like Word: In the beginning was the Word, which is certainly a fundamental truth about *my* creative process. I cant speak for concepts like God, Jehovah, and Allah (or Vishnu); but I *can* say that Im nowhere near done exploring Weird/Wurd/Worm/Wyrd/Word--and that I intend these near-homophones to convey a meaning which is difficult to communicate by other means. (01/22/2006) |
Garrett Pyke: Dear Sir,
I've enjoyed your Covenant series more (and on more levels) than anything else I've read. I especially enjoyed the chapters called Lord Mhoram's Victory and The Healer.
For curiositys sake I would like to know the translations of the names of the Ravers (Moksha, Turiya, Samadhi). Also, has anyone ever asked you what the healer saw when the root of Covenant's mental illness was revealed to her?
Thanks,
-Garrett
|
<sigh> My current theme seems to be fallibility. When I came up with the names moksha, turiya, and samadhi for the Ravers, I knew exactly what they meant. But that was 30+ years ago. Now I only remember that the words are Sanskrit, and that they refer to states or forms of enlightenment. It cant be difficult to deduce what the healer saw when the root of Covenants mental illness was revealed to her. She saw the nature and scale of his pain, the extent to which he had *become* his pain, and the dark potential consequences of his pain: in other words, she saw what *she* would have to become/endure in order to heal him. (I refer you to the description of Christ crucified at the end of Lord Fouls Bane.) A daunting prospect, in my opinion. (01/22/2006) |
Phillip: Hey there,
I find that I'm fascinated by the fact that my second or third favorite author (Gene Wolfe clearly being my favorite and you being more or less tied with Tolkein) has given us such a clear and easy way to communicate with him about his writings. I chack back regularly to see what you have added to your gradual interview and greatly appreciate the opportunity to read your responses from your fans. I have several questions and thought I might give you the opportunity to respond if anything I ask strikes a chord in you.
1. First of all, where did you get the idea for a gradual interview in the first place? I believe that you have touched on some of the things that you get out of it in the past, but what was the genesis of this and what did you originally hope to acheive by it?
3. I've seen several questions (esp. relating to runes)that comment upon how the Land does not seem to progress technologically. That has led me to wonder about the relationship between your understanding of history and it's relationship to the fantasy worlds that you have created. Do you consciously draw any inspiration from real world historical situations when you develop. say. the political or social settings that you present?
4. In the Second Chronicles, the Ranyhyn were notably absent from the story. Did you ever consider incorporating them into the narrative? Why did you choose not to bring them back?
I'd like to thank you for the body of work that you have released and to let you know that I eagerly await the publication of anything that you have written.
|
Because I'm running so far behind in the GI, I usually ask people to limit themselves to two questions at a time. So I've deleted all but three of your questions. Please feel free to post them again. I'll get to them eventually. <sigh> 1) This interview was my webmaster's idea. I was originally reluctant, but I decided to go ahead in the hope of encouraging more people to read my books. Wanting to be read goes with the territory of being a writer. 3) As I've said in response to other questions, no, I don't draw any conscious inspiration from the "real world". That includes history and politics and religion, as well as places, people, and situations. For reasons I'm unable to explain, I *need* the sensation that I'm "making it all up." Otherwise my imagination shuts down. 4) The Ranyhyn were absent from "The Second Chronicles" because that's exactly what they--and the Ramen--would do when threatened by the Sunbane. They can't fight it. As since the Ranyhyn have a unique relationship with Earthpower, they would be uniquely vulnerable to the corruptive effects of the Sunbane. Oh, I suppose they could have hidden out in Andelain for an unforeseeable number of centuries. But that doesn't fit my understanding of either the Ranyhyn or the Ramen. So what else could they do? The Ramen, at least, are nomadic by nature. As soon as I realized that I would be writing about an evil like the Sunbane, I knew that the Ranyhyn would not appear in the story. (01/29/2006) |
Mathias Johnson: Hi, Steven! Thanks for the wonderful worlds you've created, and for the fascinating characters inhabiting them!
I have a writer's question concerning both the physical items needed to create a world and in the names that are given to these objects: to what extent do you worry yourself about a name/object's origin and/or its link to this reality? In my own writing, I seem to quibble endlessly with myself about this sort of detail (not wanting a fantasy world to sound so foreign that it's jarring, but not wishing to simply throw in "squirrels" and "apples" and whatnot. How have you been able to strike such a great balance?
|
I wish I could explain it. Much of the "balance" to which you refer is a matter of "feel". And every writer has his/her sense of what fits and what doesn't. But in my case my definition of "efficiency" applies: I only create what I need. Since, for example, I want the Land to feel like an idealized version of our world rather than like an utterly alien place, I've invented only those objects (Gilden trees, aliantha), animals (kresh, Ranyhyn), beings (Giants, Elohim, Haruchai) and creatures (too numerous to cite) that I find absolutely necessary. I haven't bothered to devise my own small woodland animals or ordinary foods (or fabrics, or construction materials, or etc.) because I don't need them. You might say that in the case of the "Chronicles" I'm operating on a continuum between the Land in its unthreatened state (where the difference between the Land and our world is primarily a matter of degree, not of kind) and the nightmares which crave the Land's destruction. The farther I move from "unthreatened" to "nightmares," the more I invent. But you'll find a different balance in every writer worth reading. I'll just mention China Mieville, in whose work ordinary people provide the familiar element while the reality in which they live is the stuff of nightmare. The continuum along which Mieville moves is entirely unlike mine (although there are some interesting sub rosa similarities). (02/01/2006) |
Gerry Sewell: I've read that the Thomas Covenant series was optioned for film - is that true and has a production date been set? Second, I agree with your assessment that film can never capture the internalized conflict the characters evidence in writing. However, given the blithe ignorance we display as we continue to destroy this earth, isn't it time to allow the beauty of the Land to disturb our psyche some? Best of luck regardless.
|
The idea of a "Covenant" film remains purely speculative (although I've been paid for an option), and I refuse to worry about it. *If* such a film is ever made, its worth will depend entirely on the integrity and imagination of its director, designers, screenwriter, and cast, not (in fact, emphatically NOT) on anything I've done--or can do. (02/01/2006) |
Daniel Bjrkman: Dear Mr Donaldson...
Well, it's a new month, which means I get to ask two more questions - at least I hope that's how it works.
1) When I read the word "lore," my mind automatically translates it as lore = knowledge = science, which is to say, I tend to interpret magic in fantasy as simply a sort of alternative technology - say the right words, go through the right mental exersises, and sparkly stuff happens.
This confused me with the First Chronicles last time I read them, because no one ever seems to study magic, as such. They study things like legends and history, and somehow, magic slips in. So now I'm thinking, maybe I should alter my mental translation to lore = wisdom = philosophy?
For example, when a Lord sings an old song and stuff happens as a result, is it the song that does it - or is the song just a ritual that states the Lord's faith in the principles he serves, meaningless in itself and only irreplacable in the sense that it's old and heavy with tradition and therefore a more potent symbol than a newly written song would be?
If so, the Masters' suppression of the Land's history takes on a whole new level of horror...
2) Something that struck me with the Last Chronicles was the way Linden thinks about Covenant. It felt to me like she kind of idolised him - denied the very idea that he could ever do anything wrong. This, to me, is doing him a disservice, because I've always felt that what made him so heroic was that he did brave and noble things while most of the time wanting nothing as much as curling up in a ball and letting other people sort it out.
Okay, that's a bit too harsh a description, but you see what I mean, I hope. He's twice as heroic for overcoming his inner weakness in addition to the outer challanges - and I feel it sounds like Linden can't remember the fact that he had any inner weakness.
So my question is, has Linden idolised her memory of Covenant in the last ten years to the point where she recalls him as being almost superhuman? Or is she just focusing on the stuff she admired about him, while still being fully aware of his weaknesses?
Sincerely,
Daniel Bjrkman
|
1) I'm inclined to say that "lore = knowledge + training + comprehension (which is not at all the same thing as knowledge or training) + passion/energy/commitment. I like karate analogies. Knowing what the techniques are, and practicing their execution, does not make an effective martial artist. Understanding of the techniques (on every level, from body dynamics to a multiplicity of applications to the judgment necessary for appropriate use) is also required. But in addition, the prospective martial artist has to *care*--and care in the right way (both passionately and selflessly). Ultimately the energy, the magic, comes from within its wielder. The various disciplines of lore enable the energy to emerge effectively. And those old songs: they're invocations, not accidental utterances empowered by age. In TIW, Lord Mhoram summons Caerroil Wildwood by singing the Forestal's song--and it works because it *is* the Forestal's song, accurately rendered from the Forestal's own being. The song has power because it is inherently and inescapably relevant, not because it's old or magical. 2) Yes, I suspect that Linden has a bad case of "hero worship" for Covenant. The passage of time allows us to idealize (or demonize) all kinds of things. And you're right: she's wrong about him (in the sense that her "hero worship" causes her to disregard his actual humanity--and to demean her own). Which he would be the first to tell her--if he ever had the chance. (He does the best he can in "Runes," but the poor blighter is *dead*, after all <grin>.) (02/01/2006) |
Jo: I have completed the first book of a two book series. I have let family and friends read it and asked for honest opinions which on the whole have been positve. The problem is I cant seem to find a publisher because I dont have an agent and this is my first publication - and I cant seem to get an agent because I dont have a publisher interested in my work - can you offer any advice?
|
It's true that the current publishing climate militates against people in your position. Life is full of exceptions (and miracles), but in general neither editors nor agents can afford the time and effort to look at unsolicited manuscripts. Of course, you can always go the "small press" route (although I have no idea how that works in practical terms). You can go the "vanity press" route, which has always carried a stigma. You can go the "e-publishing" or "published on demand" routes, but both of those methodologies are still in their infancy (so there are still a lot of problems to be solved). I can't advise you about any of those approaches. What I *can* do is describe the generally-accepted paradigm for coping with your problem. With (many) variations, it goes like this: First, you acquire a "credential" of some kind. You win a fiction contest. You earn an MFA in creative writing. You get a story published in a "literary" (i.e. non-paying) magazine. You survive a nationally-televised hostage situation. (OK, I don't recommend that one.) SOMEthing to make a professional reader think you know what you're doing. Second--or first, if the other "first" is out of the question--you concentrate on writing short stories and submitting them to magazines. Magazine editors--especially in sf/f--read (and even accept) unsolicited, unagented manuscripts all the time. To your "credential," you attempt to add a "track record." In the old days, they used to say that you should sell short stories steadily for five years before you try to sell a novel. That seems rather extreme to me; but who knows? Third, "track record" in hand (because the real purpose of the "credential" is to help you acquire a "track record"), you approach an agent with your novel. If you have a "track record," most agents *will* read your novel, for the obvious reason that they can believe they won't be wasting their time. Of course, if you are Blessed By The Gods, your short stories will be published by an editor who raves about you to an editor who publishes novels. In that case, you'll be able to show your novel directly to an editor. (But, I hasten to add, you'll still want an agent. As soon as an editor says, "Yes, I want to publish you," you should take your novel to a good agent. The agent will almost certainly accept you as a client, since you've already broken the initial ice--and after that you'll *have* an agent, which solves an enormous number of problems down the road.) Or, if you're blessed with extraordinary personal charm and persuasiveness, you can try to meet an actual editor (say, at an sf/f convention)--or an actual agent--and see if you can talk him/her into reading your manuscript. When this works, it works well because of the personal connection. But it doesn't work often. And trying to gain the support of some other writer or writers never works. Most writers are notoriously idiosyncratic readers, and both editors and agents have good reason not to trust them. Are you discouraged yet? <sigh> (02/04/2006) |
Br Gregory Dulmes: Why is the book called "Runes of the Earth"? I don't recall even seeing the word "runes" in the text. ???
|
Primarily, it has to do with the messages/information/history/prophecy that Anele "reads" or "hears" in stone. But I'm also referring to the idea that (and I'm probably paraphrasing this badly) a person's fate is "graven in the heart of the rock." (02/05/2006) |
Ingebrigt: First off; the usual praise. Thank you for the Gap sequence, Mordant and The Land, not to forget our friend Mike. Keep writing!
Second, a thing that has been bugging me the last 3 times i read the Gap; what does humanity buy from the Amnion? I mean; IMC sells ore, pirates sells just about everything, but what makes the credits flow both ways, what makes this a working economy?
|
In a word, bioengineering. The particular science/technolog/nature of the Amnion has enormous ramifications--and a huge array of applications which could be safely traded away (by "safely" I mean "without threatening the larger agenda of the Amnion"). I'm just speculating here; but I imagine that much of humankind's medical technology was derived or extrapolated from trade with the Amnion. (02/05/2006) |
An Obvious Geek: You've answered tons of questions about hugely varying topics, satisfying hundreds of people.
.. but you haven't answered...
.. could Thomas Covenant beat up Gandalf?
I personally think Covenant could take Gandalf up until the part where Gandalf would make him feel horribly guilty about it in a haughty tone wielded with a cutting british accent.
Just trying to bring a smile to the face of an author who has brought many an emotion to my own face. In other words, thank you!
|
But seriously, folks.... There's an interesting issue hidden beneath the surface of this joke. It is a crucial aspect of LOTR that Gandalf does NOT "save the world". He guides and influences events in many ways; but he does not play a Covenant-like role in the story. (Shucks, he never even gets to throw down with the king of the Ringwraiths.) Neither does Aragorn, for that matter. Clearly it is important to Tolkien's intent that Middle Earth is saved by the smallest and most mundane (or at any rate least dramatic) of his characters: the Hobbits. People who consider Donaldson a Tolkien imitator should think more deeply about the differences between Gandalf and Covenant. (02/05/2006) |
Sean Casey: Stephen
A couple of questions/points about slang in the Gap books. I assume 'kaze' is abbreviated from 'kamikaze' and is therefore pronounced 'kah-zee'. I don't know if you'd know this, but there's a British slang word 'karzy' (it has various spellings) that means toilet, and is apparently from the Italian for house. Would knowing something like that change your mind about creating a name or word?
Also, dare I ask what the noun/verb 'cornhole' means? Dare you tell me?
Thanks.
|
Yes, the term "kaze" is derived from "kamikaze," so your pronunciation is correct. And no, I didn't know about "karzy," but if I had known, the information would have made no difference to me. I do try to be clear; but I don't worry about every conceivable misapprehension: since I'm human, I'm always going to miss a few, no matter how hard I worry. OK, "cornhole". Brace yourself. It's a verb that refers to anal intercourse, usually forcible (and involuntary on the part of the person being "cornholed"). (02/08/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Besides yourself, one of my favorite authors is Stephen King (and I'm not a big fan of horror fiction in general). From what I've read in the GI you also seem to like him. A few years ago he was awarded the "National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters" - a very prestigious award from what I gather - the Academy Award of literature. Anyway, there was a big stink in "literary circles" about giving him the award. I didn't understand. It seemed that since he was popular and wrote in a genre that was not acceptable or beneath them that he should not be given the award. His acceptance speech was almost a defense of popular authors and popular fiction. I guess my question to you is: as someone who is an author, who deals with the publishing business, and has studied literature throughout your life, who are these people in "literary circles"? What are they looking for in "great literature"? Why was King such a threat to them?
|
Actually, we could spend hours on this. I'll try to be concise (or cryptic, whichever comes first). I suspect that no human endeavor is free of prejudice. This includes what we might call the "literary establishment," people who have dedicated themselves to the study and analysis of fiction as a form of high art. So defined, the "literary establishment" is comprised of most academics in most English departments, as well as many high-minded editors, those of the New York Times Book Review and the New Yorker notable among them. The self-described "intelligensia." And the vast majority of those people make the automatic assumption that "popular = junk." In part because we live in such a profoundly anti-intellectual society, intellectuals are naturally inclined to view everyone else (a population which out-numbers intellectuals thousands to one) as dolts. It's a form of self-defense. So it follows logically that if the dolts like something, it must be bad. By definition. Even in the (very) open-minded college--and university--where I studied literature, the "popular = junk" sub-text was pervasive and unavoidable. And that assumption is hard to argue with. Isn't it Sturgeon's Law that states, "90% of everything is junk"? From an analytical perspective, it's actually easier to defend the prejudice that "all popular literature is junk" than it is to prove that "90% of 'serious'--i.e. unpopular--literature is junk." But there's more. We're talking about jobs here, careers, people's lives. Academics, and intellectuals of all hues, can't live on art alone: they still have to eat. Which means that they must (as much as humanly possible) establish "objective" criteria by which to demonstrate the worth of what they do. And those criteria inevitably (if not deliberately) revolve around matters of intellect rather than of emotion--for the simple and obvious reason that emotions are too subjective and individual to be useful as criteria for excellence or worth. So what happens? The "literary establishment" ignores the emotional substance of literature in order to concentrate on more objective issues, such as "technique." Emotion isn't susceptible to critical analysis: technique is. (E.g. Shakespeare scholars don't try to analyse how a particular play makes an audience "feel". They don't even try to analyse how the characters in that play "feel". Instead they concentrate, say, on how Shakespeare's development of imagery and symbol enhances the meaning of his language. Of course, we all know that we wouldn't read--or watch--Shakespeare if his plays didn't have the power to make us "feel". And scholars know that as well as we do. They simply lack the intellectual tools to analyse emotion/passion in ways that are both useful and "objective".) Well, from the POV of the "literary establishment," King has two huge strikes against him. He's popular. And (although for his own needs he has technique to burn) his primary appeal is to the emotions rather than to the intellect. He deals in terror and courage, which are impossibe to quantify, and certainly can't be analysed objectively. By its very nature, the "literary establishment" is only comfortable with work that appeals primarily to the intellect rather than to the emotions. Unless you're dead. <sigh> Then it becomes OK for a writer to have been popular in his/her day. We can't be expected to "feel" the way people did "back then." Therefore the distance imposed by death and time allows us to ignore the emotional substance of literature and concentrate instead on its intellectual dimensions. (02/08/2006) |
Natha: I also was raised as a missionary kid in another country....I often find myself searching for traces of thoughts, philosophy, or theology that might be tied to your MK past(much as my "present" is inevitably tied to my past) as I read your books. Do you feel that the experiences and lessons of those years in India seep through into the Thomas Covenant books? I have found them all to be absolutely wonderful, and have read them multiple times over. I just purchased "Runes" and have started reading it....it makes a really nice break from my dissertation writing!!! I wish I could make my dissertation as gripping as your books! If I could make readers come to know and love my bacteria the way you allow us to come to know and love your characters, I'd be an amazingly successful scientist!
|
I keep saying this: not consciously. Of COURSE what I do is shaped by who I am. And of COURSE who I am is shaped by my experiences (of all kinds). But I'm not *conscious* of letting my life, or my experiences, or even my beliefs "seep" into what I write. It seems to happen while I'm not looking. (02/08/2006) |
Usivius: You have mentioned that you know exactly how a story will go before you start to write, but it is obvious that you can't possibly have all the little details down. In fact, during the process of writing, going form A to B to C, etc, in between all this, interesting developments likely happen that mold the story without diverting it from its path. Regarding the defeat of Eremis at the hands (or mind) or Teresa, at what point did you decide how he was going to meet his end? (Mordant's Need is my favourite --- and the end of Eremis has to be one of the best endings to a villian ever!)
|
You might be surprised at how many "little details" it's possible to plan from the beginning. Remember, as a general rule I design my stories from the back to the front. That method allows an enormous amount of preparation. However.... It was "The Mirror of Her Dreams" that taught me the benefits of not trying to plan *too* much too early. During the writing of that book, I began to develop a more flexible approach to, well, let's call them "mid-stream" details of all kinds, large and small. So, in regard to Eremis' defeat: the general pattern of what happened to him is implicit in the nature of Terisa's relationship with mirrors. She only has that one power, so naturally she was going to use it against him. I knew that all along. But the specific details--e.g. the fact that he was frozen in a priapic state--evolved during the writing, as I grew to understand him more and more. (02/11/2006) |
Lou Sytsma: Hi Steve - I hope this note finds you well.
I am curious as to how you proceed with a piece of work after the first draft is completed. Do you let it sit for several weeks to allow yourself some distance from it? It is my understanding some writers do this to make the second draft process easier.
Between the first and second draft do you have a group of trusted readers - say 4 or 5 people - to whom you give the draft to read, to get their feedback?
Once again, thanks for your time.
|
I do need a way to make the transition between the "creative" and "critical" functions of my brain. Distance (in time) helps with that transition, so in some ways the fact that it takes me so long to write a ^#$%@! first draft is a plus: by page 1000+ I have a *lot* of distance from page 1. <sigh> But feedback also helps me adjust from the perspective of the writer to the (very different) perspective of a reader. So I do have 2-3 people who are willing to read for me, who will do so in a timely fashion (after spending so much time writing, I hate waiting for feedback), and who can be trusted to not talk about what they've read with anyone except me <grin>. Of course, I always need rest after I've finished a first draft. But I try to keep that as short as possible. As soon as I get some feedbag, er, feedback, I start rewriting. (02/15/2006) |
phil friedman: Dear Steve: I'm a long-time fan of yours, and of what I consider good fantasy generally, starting with LOTR, A.T. Wright's "Islandia," Dune, etc. But I'm only a recent discoverer of your website, including the GI. So forgive me if I hit something long-since dead, or at least seriously wounded: Why the genre's constant background of essentially unmitigated evil (Lord Foul; Sauron; even (but not quite) Baron Harkonnen). I guess I concluded with Tolkien when I started reading fantasy (late 60s) that the reality--the grey--was within the Fellowship, and I could write off Sauron-Hitler-Stalin as a temporal product of Tolkien's times. For unless you're willing to say that George Bush and friends are Hitler, which even I won't, it doesn't take unmitigated evil to cause big problems, just the wrong shade of grey. What ya' think? Peace and Prosperity, and I anxiously await TFR.
|
Well, first I'd like to suggest that "unmotivated" might be a more useful term than "unmitigated". Baron Harkonnen has plenty of motivation: Iago, on the other hand, seems to revel in evil for its own sake (as does Master Eremis to some extent). In LOTR, Sauron appears "unmitigated," although I dimly recall that "The Silmarillion" supplies him with some motivation. And motivation--reasons; clear, comprehensible, and possibly even sympathetic goals--is what separates various "shades of grey" from "unmitigated" evil. In more realistic contexts, one might argue that "evil" is when "the ends justify the means"--and the "ends" are entirely self-serving. But there's also another factor at work in fantasy (moreso than in science fiction). Almost by definition, fantasy (good or "serious" fantasy, anyway) tends toward the archetypal. Think Satan in "Paradise Lost," or Vivien and Modred in "The Idylls of the King." Indeed, much of the vital substance of fantasy arises from its exploration of the power of archetypes in human desires and actions. (I might go so far as to assert that those "shades of grey" are created by the struggle between conflicting archetypes within the individual human mind.) Again by definition, archetypes lie at the core of "what it means to be human," and fantasy exists (in daydreams as well as in literature) as a quest for that core. On that basis, when fantasy addresses "unmitigated" evil without trivializing it, fantasy is "doing its job". In contrast, when fantasy offers us "unmotivated" evil, the quest for the archetypal has failed. Which is all as clear as mud, I suspect. My brain may have acquired a virus, possibly a trojan horse. (02/15/2006) |
Anonymous: Are there places in the Chronicles with the names of:
Boundary Hills,
Central Hills Close,
Mithil Bridge,
Ramen Covert,
Llurallin River,
and Hidden Valley?
If these places are found in the books, where are they found? Are they on any of the book maps?
Thank you
|
"Central Hills Close" and "Hidden Valley" don't ring any bells at the moment. (Which doesn't mean much: my memory is cheese.) "Llurallin River" is on the map. Other locations I have deliberately left unspecified, in part to avoid visual clutter, and in part because the exact locations are unnecessary to the story. (02/15/2006) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
Thank you again for taking the time to address your readers. We appreciate what you do for us.
I just wanted to ask a question referring back to The One Tree. When the Kemper wanted TC's ring, he was going to use his ocular to get Covenant to give him the ring. Wouldn't that be the same as ripping it off his hand? Using thurgy to gain his ends rather than a knife?
Also, I wanted to let you know that excerpts of the series are published online still at http://theland.antgear.com/.
Thank you again,
Perry Bell.
|
You're right. Using magic to coerce the ring from Covenant is no different, morally, than ripping it off his finger by force. But I refer you to previous discussions about the *degree* of power that can be wielded with white gold. If the Kemper gets Covenant to surrender his ring by magical manipulation, he (the Kemper) won't obtain power on the Planet Destroyer scale; but he might end up with the wild magic equivalent of a hydrogen bomb. A guy like Kasreyn would be happy to have that much force--until his greed (inevitably) moves up to the next level. (02/16/2006) |
William Byrd: Mr. Donaldson,
I could blow encredible smoke over the way your works have affected me over the years (and into the present), but I won't. I've labored long over what, if any, intelligent question I could ask you in this format, and finally this one comes to mind. (And please forgive if it's been asked before. I haven't been able to keep up with all of the GI)
Do you feel that your characters are an expression of yourself or of external factors?
As a second, perhaps bonus question (for me anyway <g>), have you ever considered any similarities <sp?> between the Bloodguard and Vulcans?
Anyway, thanks for this opportunity to contact one of my favorite authors.
William
|
This is another question about "unconscious influences." As I keep saying, I do not consciously base characters (or anything else--with the obvious exceptions of information about leprosy, the martial arts, and karate tournaments) on anyone or anything "real." I certainly don't base them on any aspect of myself (although I do allow touches of my personal rhetorical style to bleed into Axbrewder's narrative voice). But OF COURSE everything that I write is an expression of myself on one level or another. And OF COURSE who I am (and therefore what I express) is profoundly influenced by external factors. So the short answer is, "Neither one. Both. Yes. No. And all of the above." As for your second question: my conscious mind has never once, not even for a second, "considered any similarities between the Bloodguard and Vulcans". But unconsciously? I sure doubt it. I'm still trying to figure out what those "similarities" might *be*. I mean, aside from a general disinclination to express emotion directly.... (02/16/2006) |
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.
Daniel Bauer: Earlier someone asked about "lifting" stories. The question, and your response, made me think of the myriad of Star Wars novels written by many different authors. The forward to each novel thanks G. Lucas "for creating such a wonderful world, and letting the rest of us play in it."
While I don't know the specifics of the deals these writers have with Lucas, it makes me wonder if you'd allow other writers to play in your worlds - Mordant, the land, Gap, etc. The story plot, characters, etc. would be the writer's (writers'?), but the setting would be clearly your property.
I doubt that such stories would transend the original work enough to not be credited to you. Also, I have a hard time imagining stories in these settings that you haven't already told. However, the question remains: would you engage in such endeavors?
|
No, I would never give "commercial" permission (i.e. permission that involves money and commercial publication, as distinct from the writing that some people do for their personal enjoyment and the enjoyment of their friends) for other writers to "use" either my worlds or my characters. I've already told (or am in the process of telling) the story of those characters: any addition or adjustment from a perspective outside mine would undermine and possibly even falsify my work. And, unlike the example you cited, there is an organic relationship between my characters and their worlds. Those worlds exist so that I can write about those characters: the worlds make the stories possible. So any story that inserted new characters into my worlds (or that took even the least central of my characters in new directions) would have the effect of, well, polluting the vision and purpose which form the foundation of my work. Plus, leaving aside issues that pertain to the integrity of my work, I believe (just my opinion) that it's *bad* (damaging, self-limiting, perhaps even self-demeaning) for writers to borrow or "lift" characters or stories from someone else. In my view, using someone else's imagination instead of your own hurts you (I'm using "you" in the generic sense here). Riding on the back of someone else's imagination dooms you to mediocrity. JUST MY OPINION. (02/20/2006) |
Perry Bell: Hello again Stephen,
Thank you again for taking the time to address your readers.
I wanted to point out a small error <grin> regarding TC's eye color.
See, I keep *telling* you I'm not a visual person. <grin> Eye color? Covenant has eye color? Why wasn't I informed about this?
In TPTP, Elena's eyes are described as "they were grey, much like his own".
Ok, now to my question :)
On the watch, there was a discussion about Creator/Despiser/Covenant= same person.
If I understand this correctly, and the books take that direction, then wouldn't the Land and the Earth for that matter, be destroyed? I know this is hypothetical, but so far that is the direction I have been seeing as well.
Also, would Linden be able to be effective against Foul? She never traded herself for anyone, but when TC spoke to the creator at the end of the first series, he had made his choice and would have only been a tool, not free though.
Linden only spoke to TC at the end of the second series, but never to the creator again. Does that mean she is still protected by the necessity of freedom?
I hope this question makes sense
Thanks again for everything.
Perry Bell
|
Do I need to repeat that I'm not a visual person? <grin> Clearly some of my readers know more about eye-color than I do. Now. I urge you not to interpret what follows as a "spoiler." I'm responding to a question about storytelling logic: I'm not (by which I mean *not*) commenting on the direction of "The Last Chronicles." Sure, I see how Covenant = Despiser = Creator might imply the eventual and necessary destruction of the Land, the Earth, and even Time. But I could also argue that your equation contains an illogical assumption. The statement "Creator/Despiser/Covenant = same person" suggests "Creator/Despiser/Covenant = (only) same person" instead of, say, "Creator/Despiser/Covenant = same person (plus)". Putting it another way: your postulate seems to assume that a person can only be the sum of his/her parts. But what happens to your reasoning if you consider the idea that a person might be greater (or less) than the sum of his/her parts? Also you appear to assume that because "Despiser = Covenant" is willing to take direct action while "Creator = Covenant" is not, "Despiser = Covenant" is therefore *stronger* than "Creator = Covenant". Or perhaps you assume that Covenant has somehow surrendered his freedom, thereby diminishing himself. That ain't necessarily so. The fact that Covenant is dead doesn't automatically mean that the outcome of the equation has already been determined. What do you suppose that Linden is *for* in "The Second Chronicles"? She adds to and complicates the equation exponentially. Meanwhile, there seems to be considerable confusion about what "the necessity of freedom" means. Choices freely made do not deprive anyone of freedom: those choices are the very definition of freedom. So when Covenant, in effect, picks the Creator's "side" instead of Lord Foul's, he hasn't surrendered any aspect of his necessary freedom. In fact, he has affirmed his freedom by acting on his own choices. In contrast, filling Covenant's veins with venom in an attempt to tamper with or coerce his choices is a doomed strategem because it violates "the necessity of freedom". (Unless, of course, Covenant breaks down under the pressure--unless he shows himself to be less than the sum of his parts--by surrendering responsibility for his choices and actions, his freedom.) (02/20/2006) |
Vincent Culp: Because these are your books, and you are the creator behind them, you of course have the ultimate perspective of them and I wouldn't dare argue my point of veiw of them against your's. I do however find myself veiwing the actions of your protagonist from a different angle entirely than that which you seem to portray, at least in your interveiws. I think Covenant himself knows that the land is not real. I believe that as he has grown attached to the fantasy which is the land...eg a place where he is at first looked upon as a prophet, and then later on a hero, and even a savior...he's letting himself lose touch with reality. Each time he returns to the land it is for a longer period of time, to the point where he is not only never going to leave the land, but is an essential part of it. This all seems to me like a form of megalomania, scitzophrenia, and paranoia. The trauma he has faced in life has driven him from the real world into a fantasy world of his own creation, where he has gone from periah, to messiah, yet he still behaves for the most part like a spoiled child. 'Why me?' he used to say, merely in the hopes that someone would tell him that he was chosen because he is special, that he deserves to be treated with awe and reverance, not for anything he has done, but simply for who he is. To me it is everything else that is irrelevant, because it is all a delusion he has fostered in order to make himself feel better about himself. I love it, I eagerly await the chance to read more of this magnificent world of his mind.......but in the end Thomas Covenant is a drooling psychopath who's very acceptance of the land is a betrayal of his own sanity. (just my veiw) :)
|
You raise an interesting point. My response is: show me where it says that in the text. Show me where the text says--or even hints--that "Covenant is a drooling psychopath whose very aceptance of the Land is a betrayal of his own sanity." In the meantime, I'll counter that after four visits to the Land in the first trilogy, Covenant functions both effectively and constructively in the "real world" for ten years. "Drooling psychopaths" don't usually do things like that. I'm reminded of a woman who once told me--strenuously--that "Mordant's Need" is a sexist nightmare in which women are destroyed for the glory of male egos. My response there was the same: show me where it says that in the text. She couldn't, of course. Her interpretation was based on a set of psychological beliefs which required her to view the text as if it had been written in a code which only she could decipher; as if the text did not--and *could* not--mean what it said. Well, when the interpretation of a text necessitates ignoring the content of that text, we're faced with an insurmountable breakdown of communication. (02/20/2006) |
Arnold Blatz: Why isn't George Bush as eloquent a speaker as Lord Foul? I mean, obviously Bush has been taking lessons from the old Gray Slayer but I seriously feel something is lacking. As the (ahem) creator of Lord Foul perhaps you have an answer.
|
This isn't a forum for political discussion. But I think that the answer to your question is obvious. Bush needs a better speechwriter--and he didn't ask me. <grin> Like *that* was ever going to happen. (02/22/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: There has been a lot of discussion in the GI about Covenant movies and of course the books, but to your knowledge has any of your work ever been performed on the stage?
|
Not to my knowledge, no. And I can see why. How could the results be anything other than disappointing--not to mention bizarre? Although now that I think about it, "The Conqueror Worm" might work.... (02/22/2006) |
Martin Bennett: I have just finished reading 'Something Wicked This Way Comes', very surprised to note the similarities between that novel and the climax of the First Chronicles. Was this novel one of your inspirations when writing 'White Gold Wielder' (ignoring the subconscious inspiration that we receive from any text that we have read)? The Illustrated Man and his cronies were defeated by starving them of the pain that we feel, by laughing in evil's face as it were. Also, there is the theme of 'de-aging' - several key players became younger on the carousel, and LF regressed to babyhood and beyond. Thirdly, the battlegrounds of both novels seem firmly set in the intellectual arena (one of the greatest reasons that I have for admiring Thomas Covenant).
|
An interesting question. There's only one problem: I didn't read "Something Wicked This Way Comes" until long after I'd written the first "Covenant" trilogy. Of course, Bradbury's book was published years earlier--so obviously he must have been imitating a novel that he knew I would write some day. <grin> (02/22/2006) |
Shawn Speakman: Hi Stephen,
A lot of Covenant resides within me - and many of us for that matter. I have you to thank for giving me the chance to fully understand and grasp the good and bad parts of myself through Covenant and recognize my own ability for despite and capacity to care and love. Through analysis, I am a stronger person for having read your work.
To an easy questeion: Has there been any interest to produce "The First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" in a brand new, hardcover edition/set? Would you allow such books to become a reality if a publisher wanted to do it? I'd love to have a nice set of hardcovers sitting on my desk with a beautiful uniformity to them.
Best Wishes, Shawn
|
Well, it isn't up to me: those rights are held by DEL REY/Ballantine. But naturally I would have no objection. Covenants 1-6 *are* available in omnibus hardcovers from the Science Fiction Book Club. And Hill House has talked about doing limited collector's editions. But since Hill House is already 15 months late with "The Runes of the Earth," I'm not counting on anything there. (02/22/2006) |
Jeff: Mr. Donaldson,
As a freshman in college a lifetime ago, someone introduced me to your writing and I've been hooked ever since. I began reading Terry Brooks about the same time. You both started at roughly the same time and both worked with the same publisher and editor. Was there ever any interaction between the two of you during that time? I wouldn't want to offend either of you...but from this loyal reader's perspective please know I'd rather wait the extra time between books and know I was getting your best...probably best to stop there. I've enjoyed reading through the gradual interview and appreciate the time you continue investing in it. Many thanks!
|
As it happens, I've had the pleasure of Terry's acquaintance. In fact, we were introduced by Lester and Judy-Lynn del Rey. And he did me a huge--if indirect--service with "The Sword of Shannara." The astonishing success of that book opened doors for a number of other writers, yrs trly included. But we haven't laid eyes on each other in many years. (02/22/2006) |
Allen: Mr. Donaldson
I'm not sure whether or not you've quite answered this question yet but - when you say you have no new ideas for works after the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant does that include The Man Who series?
I sense a larger purpose in the Man Who books but its unclear what that is to me, right now. What would you say its larger purpose is - besides bringing dignity back to noir?
Thank you for your consideration,
Allen
|
You're quite right: there *is* a "larger purpose" behind TMW books. I can't seem to help myself. Everything turns into an epic eventually. As for the next installment in the series (because at least one more installment is obviously necessary): I know where the story goes, but at the moment I have absolutely no idea how to get there. If that makes any sense. But I'm not worried about Brew/Ginny right now. I have too many other characters on my mind. (02/22/2006) |
Brent Morgan: I am an avid fan who looks foreward to each book published in each series with bated-breath. Why is it going to take until 2013 for the last chronicles of Thomas Covenant to be completed?
I understand marketing, and how hard-back gets published then 1-year later, soft-cover. Then approximately 6mo to 1 more year next book in series and so on. But PLEASE 2007 before 2nd book in this series and expected publication date of the last book in this series is 2013?
Does Steve need time to write the books? What's up? No insult intended-just disappointed that fans can't read story sooner.
|
I've already discussed this at length in the Gradual Interview. I'm not going to repeat everything here. The short answer? I simply can't write any faster. Not without surrendering to a terminal disappointment in my own shortcomings. (02/22/2006) |
Ian: Really quick question on pronunciation. How do you pronounce Coercri? I see it as "care-cry" bur am not completely sure... thank you for your time. :)
|
As far as I'm concerned, you can pronounce things any way that suits you. But personally, I pronounce it COOR-cree. I was thinking of the French word for "heart" (coeur [sp?]) and added "cry," but I made some mental adjustments while I thought about it. (02/27/2006) |
Matt Hope: Hi Stephen.
First a backhanded compliment for the unintentional tiredness you've caused me because I was up till three in the morning avidly reading one of your books. I now refer to the visage of myself unshaven and red eyed as the "Donaldson Face".
Anyway, in much of your work you seem to explore the theme of nature vs disorder/corruption. To what extent do you think your work has been influenced by a concern by the way we treat our own environment?
In particular the Land, (at least before Foul gets through with it) seems to represent an idyllic world where people live in balance with natural forces. Is this the kind of world you'd like to see people moving towards?
P.S. Sorry if that all sounds a bit eco-hippyish.
|
File this under "unconscious influences." I'm a closet eco-hippy myself--although I have no particular desire to "get back to nature." <grin> Humankind's rape of the planet strikes me as inherently self-destructive. But, as I keep saying, I don't write to preach. I'm a storyteller, not an advocate for my own convictions (except as they pertain to storytelling). When I created the Land, I wasn't trying to imagine "an idyllic world": I was trying to create a place that could stand as the opposite of leprosy--and of the way in which lepers have been treated historically. (02/27/2006) |
Lindsay Addison: Hi Steve,
You've been thanked/praised/blamed many times over for your written work, so assuming that is an understood, I'd like to thank you for your humor and tolerance in responding to questions. I doubt I'm the only one, but I follow the GI as much for a good laugh as anything else.
And so, in a spirit of some facetiousness, but with sincere puzzlement, I would like to ask what the heck did you mean by the word "latias"? I have looked in all concievable sources and have come up empty. This is quite a feat in and of itself, since I've found entries even for roynish (thanks, OED).
For reference, here's the quotation in which it appeared.
"It appeared to be a dwelling of some kind, a tall, open-sided construct planted in the grass. Bare poles at the corners, and at intervals along the sides, supported a latticed ceiling of smaller wooden shafts like LATIAS; and sod had been placed over the lattice to form a roof of deep grass."
(RotE 256, U.S. hardcover)
Help! <G>
|
Well, OBviously you didn't consult your Spanish-English dictionary. <grin> Or maybe I made that part up. The text describes "latias" pretty well. A "latia" is a long stick, typically about as thick as a wrist, and as straight as possible, used to support a roof of some kind. Of course, they don't necessarily form a lattice. Usually they're laid side-by-side to form a platform on which roofing materials (sod, leaves, tar-paper, whatever) can be placed. Latias are not uncommon in the US Southwest, even in up-scale homes (they aren't really practical for commercial structures). (02/27/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Have you seen "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and what did you think of it?
|
Well, since you asked.... (And remember that this is JUST MY OPINION.) The film exacerbates all the flaws of the book. By making the text literal, the film prevents the imaginations of the audience/readers from supplying what Lewis left out: a quality which I might describe as a "sense of scale," physical, emotional, even moral. The film makes Narnia look tiny; Aslan doesn't seem even a little bit numinous; any literal "Father Christmas" is a joke; and the "winter wonderland" conveys absolutely no sense of evil. Of course, I could make all of these same statements about the book. In that sense, the film is genuinely faithful to the book. But Lewis gives his readers' imaginations room to work for him instead of against him. The film thwarts that essential process. JMO! (02/27/2006) |
Jim: Thank you so much for your books. I have been a fan of your work since I read the First Chronicles in 1979. My question has to do with point of view and a particular scene in Runes. You stated that you write everything in the sequence in which [the character] experiences it. Also, you mention that you try to experience the story, both sequentially and emotionally, as if I were indeed inside the head(s) of my protagonist(s) or POV character(s). To me, one of the most powerful and emotional scenes in Runes is where Linden and company are rescued the first time by the Ramen. Clearly she has no clue who these people are. Yet your description of how they move and fight just as clearly identifies them as Ramen to any reader of the First Chronicles. I have read Runes twice and cried at this scene both times. I appreciate that you let the reader slowly realize what was happening rather than have the Ramen come up and say We are Ramen and we are here to save you. I experienced Lindens emotions at being rescued by some unknown force, but also stronger emotions at the return of a beloved people that I thought were lost forever. Knowing that this book must be written from Lindens POV, did you realize the effect this scene would have on your readers? Thank you again for taking the time to participate in this forum.
|
Naturally I hope that what I write will touch my readers in important ways. And I work very hard at juggling a number of different priorities simultaneously: e.g. preparing "surprises" that will affect both devoted "Covenant" fans and new readers without violating the integrity of my chosen POV. But I can't honestly say that I'm able to predict how these things will work out in practice. One of my problems is that I put a great deal of effort into *preparing* my surprises; so much effort, in fact, that I always suspect myself of *telegraphing* what I have mind. The technical challenges are quite complex. The "jump out of the closet without forewarning" surprise is dead easy, dirt cheap--especially with a restricted narrative POV--and I consider it cheating. By my standards, the ideal surprise is both genuinely unexpected and (in retrospect) entirely inevitable. Which is only possible when the ground (as it were) has been effectively prepared. I don't know how often I achieve that ideal, but I sure do try. (02/27/2006) |
Rex: Steven,
First the silly question. Is Kevin's Watch a Timex? A Rolex?
Now the real question. I hope I'm paraphrasing you correctly when I remember you saying that since you are no longer the person you were, your writing will be different now than it was then. For one thing, you have additional writing under your belt (that is, if you keep your manuscripts in your pants :-)), and you have more experiences, more reflection, more living done that you can bring to bear on your current work. So, are you conciously aware of any thoughts or experiences you've had after the Second Chronicles that are influencing the Final Chronicles?
|
No, seriously, it's a TAG Heuer. Didn't I make that obvious? An enormous amount of what I write is unconsciously rather than consciously motivated--which I consider a Good Thing. (*How* I write it, on the other hand, is very consciously motivated.) The only "thoughts or experiences" I've had "after the Second Chronicles that are influencing the [Last] Chronicles" *consciously* are the first six "Covenant" books themselves. Re-reading those books in preparation for "The Last Chronicles" affected what I'm doing now in all kinds of ways. I'll only mention one: the things that I wish I could "fix" in the first six books (primarily structural and what I'll call "psychological" problems) multiplied my determination not to make those same mistakes again. Unconsciously, of course, everything in my personal life (e.g. writing the GAP books; studying karate; getting older) *must* be affecting "The Last Chronicles." But I'm not aware of it--and I probably won't be until after this project is done. (02/27/2006) |
Andrew: I have a question and a comment.
My question is: Have you ever been approached to co-author a novel with another fantasy/SF writer? (My search in the GI did not uncover a response to this).
My comment is that as an adult, I find most contemptorary fantasy difficult to read (too much of it is cartoonish or poorly written), but I continue to have a soft spot for your work. The reason is that as a reader you know where the story is going, and (from past experience) the ride will be a good one, intellectually and otherwise. As I grow older (I discovered your work some 20 years ago) I appreciate that even more. Thanks.
|
Yes, a fine writer named Midori Snyder once suggested that she and I write a fantasy/martial arts novel together. I like her, I like her work, I liked her idea, and I wanted to do it. But it just didn't come to life for me. Which was predictable, I suppose. Only once in my life have I ever gotten a story idea from a person (instead of "out of the blue"); and in that case I twisted the idea so dramatically that the person who gave it to me disavowed it. (The story was "Animal Lover," and the person who really should have gotten credit was Max Sandler.) I guess I'm dependent on the sensation that my story ideas come to me from the universe (i.e. from my unconscious) rather than from someone who has opinions about what should be done with them. (02/27/2006) |
Anonymous: Hello. A friend has referred me to a book by Stephen Donaldson which is divided into three sections. Each section is a re-telling of the story from a different character's perspective. As you progress, the characters that you thought were the heros turn out to be the villians and vice versa (or something to this effect). My friend could not remember the name of the book and all of my searching is turning up empty. My question is "What is the title of this science fiction novel?" Thanks.
|
Sure sounds like "The Real Story," the first book in my 5-volume sf saga collectively called the GAP books (or cycle, or sequence, depending on my mood). (02/27/2006) |
Alistair: Dear Steve,
Please forgive this intrusion into your valuable time. I have just finished The Runes of the Earth and eagerly await the publication of Fatal Revenant, in order that I can once again take up temporary residence in the Land. I would ask when it is due to be published, but that would be beside the point (I shall just have to wait until I can get my hands on it)
I have read many of your books, but by no means all of them, although one day I hope to have done so. The first books I came across of yours were the Second Chronicles, and I have eagerly read every book I have encountered bearing your name. I would, if you dont mind, like to ask what it is that first led you to write and what it is that now drives you to continue writing.
I know I asked the question before finding out whether you minded, but that is I feel the best way to elicit an answer.
Thank you in advance
|
In some ways, your question is unanswerable. (Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? Why does anyone do what they do?) In others, I've spent some time on it earlier in this interview. The short answer? This is the work I was born--and raised--to do. I was born verbal, dependent on language (don't ask me why: *I* didn't choose my genetic makeup); and my childhood taught me that storytelling is perhaps my most essential survival skill. So here I am, doing the only work in the world that suits who I am. (02/28/2006) |
Ian L. Morgan: A question that has been burning in me since I started reading the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Are you a Christian? I ask that because the allegory involved with Covenant's crimes against Lena, his Unbelief and ultimately his sacrifice for the Land are very reminiscent of other Christian Allegory/Fantasy novels(Lord of the Rings, The Narnia books) I know this may seem offensive so I apologize in advance and thank you for your time.
|
As I've said before on occasion, I don't consider my personal convictions (religious, political, ecological, whatever) relevant to the content of my work--or to this public forum. In practice, the content of any communicative work arises from an interaction or synergy between the work and its audience. And (speaking now exclusively of books) in this interaction or synergy the author is conspicuously absent. Only the text is relevant to the reader. In other words, what you see is what you get. If you see Christian allegory in "The Chronicles," that's what you get. If, on the other hand, you see an existentialist diatribe against any attempt to impose external meaning on human actions--or perhaps against any attempt to alter the relationship between human actions and their consequences--that's also what you get. Under the circumstances, it's remarkable that audiences do often achieve a degree of consensus. Both Lewis and Tolkien claimed that their works (Narnia and LOTR) were not allegorical. At a guess, I would say that 90% of readers dismiss Lewis' assertion and accept Tolkien's. Of course, we could discuss whether or not the text of "The Chronicles" qualifies as allegory. But first we would have to define allegory. By any definition that I'm familiar with, I dislike allegory in general, and I strive against it in my own work. (02/28/2006) |
John Dean: My neighbor loaned me Lord Foul's Bane when I was in middle school, and that was my start to a book a day reading habit for decades. I've read the first two chronicles several dozen times - they are that good, and I enjoy them that much, even after all this time. So thank you for instilling in me such a love of reading.
I had not known the last chronicles were coming until stumbling across the book - and of course everything else I was reading is now on hold so I can begin the new book. I haven't read it yet, so my question won't pertain to any details of the book, but rather your timeframe.
You must have a time machine hiding somewhere to have published the first two chronicles in such a relatively short period of time. I think most of us are now accustomed to waiting three to four years for a book from our favorite authors. After having machinegunned the first two chronicles, do you have any suggestions to help us deal with the delay between installments this time around? Granted, it will seem quite short compared to the time between WGW and Runes, but after having seen what you can do in such a short period of time, the wait is going to be quite painful.
But thank you for returning to The Land. I had many questions in my mind after reading WGW that I had never planned on being able to learn answers to. I'm hoping, after seeing some of your posts in here, that I will find the resolution to some of the story arcs I had wondered about.
|
"Machinegunned the first two chronicles"? Oh, my aching sacro-iliac. Is that what you call ten years of my life? Sure, the fact that 6 books were published between 1977 and 1983 conveys the impression that I worked fast when I was young. But I'll mention that I had all three volumes of the first trilogy written before I found a publisher, and I began working on them in 1972. That's 11 years for 6 books (well, 7, since we should probably count "The Man Who Killed His Brother"). It sure didn't feel like "machinegunning" to me. Still, it's true that I'm a lot slower now. Age and infirmity combine badly with higher expectations. So how do any of us cope with the delay? Well, there are a fair number of good books out there, and some of them are going begging. I'll just mention (again) Tim Powers, Patricia McKillip, Steven Erikson, Melanie Rawn, Peter Straub, Sean Russell. I hear some interesting word-of-mouth about David Keck, so I'm looking forward to giving him a try. And don't even get me *started* on non-fantasy writers.... (02/28/2006) |
phil: Dear Steven: I originally intended to let this question await my reread of GAP, which I agree is your best (and most difficult) completed work to date, and most political. Do not get me wrong. If stranded somewhere with sufficient notice, Mordant's Need would certainly accompany me because it's way up on my ultimate list. But there is, in my humble judgment, so much more to GAP--notably the vagaries and ambiguities of capitalist society--even if it takes much more work to find it.
As for my question, which is really a comment, you frequently state that beyond your published works, your politics and religion are your own (a laudable sentiment in any times, and particularly now in the USA). But you also wrote in Dec. 2004 that you wouldn't vote for anyone who seemed to want power. I suggest that you can't really mean what you said. For example, whether we're talking about King Joyse or the Allend Contender, many people covet political office because they honestly believe they can do better than others, and better for others. Further, you obviously wouldn't want a computer programmer editing your books. Political power is not fundamentally different. Yes, too much power for too long in any context, such as being head of the UMC, can corrupt. But don't you want a combination of inspirational vision and experience everywhere, most of all among our leaders? The notion of the "reluctant" warrior or here, politician, is obviously deeply ingrained in the American pysche, and with good cause--it serves the ruling class quite well, thank you. The notion can glorify and sanctify violence, while simultaneously denigrating both vision and experience. Remember, both Lincoln and FDR wanted to be president, not just Nixon. And though before my time (dob-56), I'm grateful for their efforts, as threatened as they may currently be. As always, peace and prosperity.
|
You raise a thoughtful and worthy point. I must have been in a parTICularly bad mood when I wrote that I "wouldn't vote for anyone who seemed to want power." <sigh> Our political system typically excludes anyone who *doesn't* want power (no surprise there), and I still vote, so I can only conclude that my assertion was: a) bullshit; b) "exaggeration for effect"; or c) taken out of context (OK, I just threw that one in to console myself). It's one of the essential conundrums/paradoxes of human life that we have far more potential, for good or ill, in groups; and groups by their very nature require leadership (or else they're just mobs); but--and this is admittedly a huge generalization--groups tend to behave worse than individuals do. If people didn't cooperate to form groups, we wouldn't have Mayo Clinics--or hospitals at all--but we also wouldn't have the war in Iraq. And take a look at "Human Resources Departments," many of which are viciously inhumane. It probably isn't fair to say that "Power [always] corrupts," but it is certainly true that "Power tends to corrupt." (Some interesting studies have been made about the effect of being prison guards on otherwise-decent people.) And it seems clear to me (just my opinion) that whenever a group fosters an "us vs them" attitude, terrible things happen. Your point about "the 'reluctant' warrior" is also interesting here. U. S. Grant may have been our most "reluctant" President; and he is generally creditted with running a profoundly corrupt regime. My point is...well, I don't really have a point. I'll simply admit that I'm often taken aback by the inherent contradictions of my own attitudes and prejudices. My "flexibility of mind" runs deep--which is a great strength for a storyteller, but which may make me pretty useless as a political analyst. That's one of several reasons why I try to keep my personal beliefs (politics, religion, etc.) out of the GI. (03/01/2006) |
Talon: This could be a spoiler for Runes..
Taking into account hints (or bits of text my delusional mind has taken as hints)..
1. ... was Foul truly betrayed at the way things turned out at the end of the Second Chronicles or was someone else...?
2. Linden Avery's hole in her shirt from being shot sure would fit a krill blade nicely... (Does that count as a question or a statement?)
|
1. Wait a minute. Who says that Lord Foul was "betrayed" at the end of "The Second Chronicles"? I thought he was "defeated," which may be the same thing from his point of view, but which is not the same thing at all from everyone else's point of view. But was there *some* kind of betrayal hidden away in Lord Foul's defeat in "The Second Chronicles"? Or even in the first trilogy? Hmmm. 2. You're visualizing a different dagger than I am. The one that I have in mind has a flat double-edged blade, so it isn't likely to produce a circular hole. (03/01/2006) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
I was surprised, but delighted, to read in the GI that you alone read and respond to our questions. To be honest, I wouldn't think that you had the time to do so without someone to help you screen the questions. Not that I wish you to stop! But I would like to ask if you answer *all* questions posted? I assume that for you to answer all questions would require too much time, which is a very finite resource. Do you cull questions you think would be helpful to the GI, or do you in fact answer all in due time?
Now, another topic, if you would permit. Throughout your stories the "evil" characters share a particular trait. They trust. They trust that those they plot against and those who oppose them will make the wrong choices. Though their plans may be intricate, your "villains", from Foul to Holt to el Senor, rely upon those who oppose them to in fact help defeat themselves. Foul, nor the others, can not see the future. As example, Foul did not know Elena would break the Law of Death (as you stated in the GI). He, and the others, simply trusted that those who oppose him would act out of desperation and by doing so fail. As Nakahatchi told Brew, "You will not be ready indeed until your pain has become separate from your anger." This was the failing of the High Lords, the Haruchai, and many others, including and up to Brew.
I know you have stated that our own observations are our own, and in that sense correct. But I hope this was what you intended. Your stories are about people, from Foul to Covenant, from Terisa to Holt and Morn, and Brew and Ginny and el Senior, attempting to "judge" a persons nature, and based upon that understanding manipulate (for good or bad) the environment to their desired ends. Truly wonderful.
Thank you for your stories and your time.
|
First, about the GI. I've already covered this, but the information bears repeating. 1) I don't use "creative writing time" to tackle the GI, so this interview doesn't delay my "real" work. 2) I read every message. And I delete a fair number of them. Some vanish because I'm tired of answering them. (E.g. "When will the next book be released?" "Why isn't there a 'Covenant' movie?") Some are too personal for a public forum. (In those cases, however, I try to send a personal response when I've been given an e-mail address.) And some (fortunately few) are just plain abusive. (Naturally I want to strike back. But in situations like this "striking back" is a lose/lose proposition. It gives the attack legitimacy, and will never sway the attacker.) Now. "Evil" characters and trust. I don't see how you could be wrong. EVerybody everywhere "trusts" in one form or another. We *all* form perceptions of people and situations, and we act on those perceptions. In fact, we all gain most of our insights into other people (as well as ourselves) by observing actions and thinking about the perceptions implied by those actions. To pick a crude example: core-level pessimists tend to live their lives flinching because they "trust" that nothing good can happen. In the case of my "evil" characters, as with *all* of my characters, the content of their "trust" reveals who and what they are inside. It seems perfectly true that characters like Lord Foul, Holt Fasner, and el Senor "trust" Covenant, Warden Dios, and Brew/Ginny to participate in (and even enable) their own defeats. Foul, Fasner, and el Senior are egocentric cynics, "despisers": how could they think or act otherwise? But the same kind of statement could be made about Covenant, Dios, and Brew/Ginny themselves. They may well be haunted or redeemed by doubt, but in the end they "trust" that valor, love, and sacrifice will suffice. (03/01/2006) |
Chris Dupee: Hello! I'm a huge fan of your books and would really like to have a
couple of my books signed for my collection. I'm
not sure what the proper protocol is here, but I thought I would ask! Are
you having any promotional appearances around
Toronto, Ontario, Canada? Signings are pretty rare up here! If not, is there any way for me to have you
sign a couple books or bookplates for me? I would gladly pay all postage charges! They would be the
prize of my small but growing collection!
Thanks very much for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Chris Dupee
7 Redwood Crt
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
L8H 2P9
|
I don't control where I go on book tours; but information on how to obtain autographs is available on the "contact" page of this site. (03/01/2006) |
Patrick Supeene: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
I have really enjoyed reading the Thomas Covenant books and your short stories. I find your vocabulary astonishing and your descriptions extremely vivid.
I wonder, though, about your use of the word "transubstantiation," in The Runes of the Earth. My understanding is that the term refers to a change in substance that is not accompanied by a change in the accidents. After the consecration during Mass, what was bread and wine still looks, tastes, feels, etc. like bread and wine. The accidents remain, but they have no substance in which to inhere. The substance has become Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Many thanks for the outstanding literature you have produced.
|
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. By your definition, I've used the word correctly--at least far as I can tell. What's the problem? Is it your contention that the word can only be used in reference to the Christian sacrament of communion? In that case, yes, I've mis-used the word. But I like to think that words can be used as metaphors, or can be extended (in some form) beyond their most literal denotations. That, it seems to me, is part of the glory of language. Why can't the general concept of "incarnating the sacred in the mundane" be applied in contexts that have nothing to do with churches, priests, or even coherent religions? (03/01/2006) |
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.
Anonymous: Hello to my favourite author. I have read all of your books, but there is one short story that I just don't get. It's the conqueror worm, and I really feel like I'm missing the whole point of this story.
What message are you trying to convey?
Thanks
|
Try thinking of the centipede as a metaphor for--or an incarnation of--Creel's jealousy. His own internal poison (in the form of the centipede) eventually causes him to un-man himself. In essence, "The Conqueror Worm" is a mediation on the self-destructive nature of Creel's emotions. (03/01/2006) |
Zoppo Tarchen: Mr Donaldson: Praise offered as a thousand blessings upon you.
Having read all of your works and now to be able to ask a question of you directly is awesome.
In Tibet there is a wonderful fruit known as Goji (Tibetan Goji is a different species from Chinese Wolfberry which share the same genus but have vastly different properties and is often proffered as Goji) a small berry that is energetic and nourishing though it has cranberry, cherry, plum, raspberry overtones. While you were a child in India or at any time did you encountered this fruit and is it the inspiration for Aliantha? Perhaps of any food Goji comes closest to your description of Aliantha's healing and nourishing powers. I look forward to FR and anything else you produce.
Namaste
Zoppo Tarchen
|
Thanks for the information! I've never heard of "Goji" before. All of my time in India was spent south of Bombay (Mumbai): I never went far enough north to see the Taj Mahal, never mind the Himalayas. So nothing Tibetan ever entered my, well, sphere of perception. (03/02/2006) |
Steven John Andrews: Dear Mr Donaldson
i am at the moment raeding the gap series for the second time (having read thomas covenant 3 times)and am amazed at the differance between the two books.what was your inspiration for the gap? the detail is brilliant.thankyou.
if you ever come to the land down under(god's own)please let me know as i would love to pick your brain. If at all possible iwould like to have a signed copie of the gap series,willing to pay for shipping ect.. once agian thank you for your great books.
steve andrews.,
waikiki,west australia
|
Well, I suppose it's theoretically possible that I was influenced by "Doc" Smith's "Lensman" books. I read them long before I ever imagined writing sf myself. But the conscious inspiration (this is the short version) was a desire to combine the three-way drama between Angus Thermopyle, Morn Hyland, and Nick Succorso with Wagner's "Ring" cycle. It's unlikely that I'll visit Australia anytime soon. If you want autographs, information about how to get them is on the "contact" page of this site. (03/02/2006) |
Todd: You said in an earlier answer, "As for Foul's reasons for messing with the Lords: why do you assume that they had no real power to release him from his prison? The very fact that Berek created the Staff (an organic instrument vulnerable to destruction) shows that the Lords were (inadvertently) helping to create the conditions necessary to Foul's release: they were (unintentionally) devising ways by which Law would be made vulnerable to damage. In addition, I see no reason to assume that Foul *knew* the Arch of Time would survive the Ritual of Desecration: he may very well have been hoping that such a draconian violation of Law would be enough to spring him free. Remember, he, too, is learning as he goes."
So - my question is, how did Foul come to learn of white gold, and perhaps more importantly, how did the people of the Land come to learn of white gold?
Hope all is going well with Fatal Revenant.
|
In every reality, the past is always full of mysteries. Most remain mysteries. But sometimes we get glimpses.... Other than that, all I can say is, RAFO. Not very satisfying, I know. <sigh> (03/02/2006) |
Brian, UK: I was first introduced to LFB by a friend who said they were like LOTR with a hobbit dying every other chapter (bet you're pleased that didn't appear on a cover) but were the best read around. Like so many others, I have loved your work over the years and am pleased to hear that us in the UK have suppoeted you well.
My questions :
1) Your writing pattern seems to have been, TC1, Man who1, TC2, Man Who2, Mordant, Man Who3, Gap, Man Who4, TC3, Man Who5? When did you write the short stories? Did they get written over a long span or in a great outpouring of stored up ideas (and obviously have you got any fermenting away at the moment)
2) The name Hergrom always struck me as unusual compared to the generally simpler and harder (for want of a better word) names of the rest of the Haruchai. Does it have any significance?
Thanks for the time & effort you put into this, hope it keeps refreshing and inspiring you.
|
1) My actual pattern is: big project, a few short stories, a mystery novel, then another big project; and so on. After "The Second Chronicles," I accumulated enough stories for "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales." And after the GAP cycle, I had enough new stories for "Reave the Just and Other Tales." This pattern is likely to continue (although I don't have any particular ideas "fermenting" at the moment); so after "The Last Chronicles" I'll probably write some short stories before I tackle The Man Who 5. 2) There is no literal significance to the name Hergrom. Admittedly it isn't as "punchy" as most Haruchai names. But I wanted to keep my options open. And there *is* precedent for two-syllable names (Bannor, Tuvor, Korik, Handir). Someday I may experiment with *three* syllables. <grin> (03/02/2006) |
Brian Wellman: Hello, Mr. Donaldson.
Ever since I read the first Covenant series I have wanted to beg this request of you <smile>: to please, please, please write out the full back story of the Land in the time of High Lord Kevin, from the making of the bond with the land to the making and hiding of the seven wards, etc., etc., etc. I would love to read the prequels to the first Chronicles...to read about the Land in its hey-day, so to speak.
Thank you for a terrific series. I'm looking forward reading the next four.
|
I'm sorry. I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. I don't, won't, and probably can't write prequels. I don't like them when other people write them, and I have no inclination to tackle the challenge myself. My imagination just doesn't work that way. (03/02/2006) |
djb: It seems that white gold can destroy the land in two different ways: 1) by destroying the arch of time and 2) by waking the worm of the world's end.
Am I wrong in thinking these are essentially the same thing?
djb
|
Well, in effect they certainly come to the same thing. But they require different methodologies. You might well ask why Lord Foul doesn't just rouse the Worm himself. That sure sounds simpler than trying to manipulate a white gold wielder. But I suspect (just guessing here <grin>) that he's afraid he might get eaten. (03/02/2006) |
Olaf Keith: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
just a short notice in case nobody told you already. Heyne, your German publishers, will publish THE RUNES OF THE EARTH as DIE RUNEN DER ERDE (literal translation) in September 2006 as a trade paperback original. The first two trilogies will be reprinted in the same month in two massive one-volumes trade paperbacks with matching cover art.
The artwork for all three books is already online at amazon.de
Die Runen der Erde
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/3453532546.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Die Macht des Rings (First Trilogy)
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/345353204X.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Der Bogen der Zeit (Second Trilogy)
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/3453532074.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Merry Christmas,
Olaf Keith
|
Thanks for the information! I'm glad to make it available here. (03/02/2006) |
Thanatos: Ok, first things first: your GAP books must be my current all-time favourite book series. I suspect that you and I must have a very similar mindset, because there were only a couple of chapters in all five books that I didn't "get".
Now, to the question: I was wondering if you could explain how you came to use the name "Hashi Lebwohl" for your "Loge/Loki" equivalent. I think I understand your thought processes for the other Wagnerian god-equivalents, but Hashi's name eludes me.
BTW, nice trick with naming Holt's mother after the Norse Fates. (Norna/the Norns.)
FYI, there's a page about the GAP series at wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gap_Cycle
some of which I wrote.
|
Some things I can explain. Others happen purely by intuition or "feel," and them I can't explain. So: "Leb wohl" ("farewell") is what Wotan sings to Brunhilde as he puts her into an enchanted sleep (as punishment for defending Sigmund and Sieglinde against him) right before he summons Loge to guard her with fire. (All of this, of course, is from Wagner's "Ring" cycle.) Thus Loge's fire becomes the symbol of Wotan's love and respect for Brunhilde, and of his bereavement at losing her--and at everything that follows from her defiance. So it isn't much of a stretch to see the fire (and therefore Loge) as Wotan's farewell gift to Brunhilde, the magic which eventually enables her to bring about his destruction. But "Hashi" I can't explain. It just popped into my head--and felt right. However, it may conceivably be a reference to "hashish," and therefore to Hashi's rather dissociated (or perhaps I should say oblique) relationship with people and events. (On the other hand, I may just be grasping at straws. <grin>) (03/02/2006) |
Nigel: exam question:
Covenant's leprosy is a metaphor for Lord Foul on The Earth. Discuss.
|
Have you ever wanted to lynch one of your professors? Or laugh out loud at an exam question? Tsk tsk. In a pure world, I would respond by asking you to define your terms. Are you referring to the Earth of Covenant's "real world" or the Earth of the Land? But I'll skip all that. Of COURSE Covenant's leprosy is not "a metaphor for Lord Foul on The Earth." Despite is expressed, not by his leprosy, but by the attitudes of people (in the "real world") toward his leprosy--and by his own subsequent attitude toward himself and other people (in the Land). So there. (03/02/2006) |
Joel McIver: Hi Stephen. Forgive me if you've answered this question before, but why didn't Hile Troy -- a man from our world with military expertise -- attempt to introduce some sophisticated communication and weapons technology when he was asked to take on the Raver's army? We know the Land has swords (and therefore forges etc) so guns might be feasible, for example.
I'm glad you *didn't* have him do these things, of course -- such things would have seemed a bit incongruous -- but the fact that he made no attempt at all to import homeworld methods doesn't seem to square with his character.
|
It probably goes without saying that I disagree with you. Troy's behavior is perfectly consistent with his character: he loves the Land just the way it is. But remember that he's never actually *seen* a gun--or a radio. And assuming that he's actually studied how such things are made.... Try this experiment: assuming that there is no language barrier, and leaving all of your equipment and supplies behind, hike out into the wilds of Borneo until you encounter a totally isolated tribe that uses iron in weapons; then make a gun. Let me know how it goes. <grin> (03/02/2006) |
Vix Johnston: I have only just begin to read the first of the Chronicles, and so I am not yet an official fan - what I have read so far has been somewhat confusing. I have two questions...
Firstly, how did you come to create the Land? Did you have ideas about the people then try to build thier landscape around them and thier way of life, or did you draw the Land then work out who belonged where?
Secondly... Why do you think fantasy novels in general have to use such involved vocabulary (and I don't mean the coloquial terms for world-specific items and events). I've noticed this in every fantasy novel I've ever read - it usually seems like the author has been dictionary-surfing and either decides to use the same (very complex and little-used) word at least once in every chapter or decides to throw a few in whenever the hero sits down and looks around him. I expect it of Tolkien, but it happens everywhere from Anne McCaffrey through to yourself... vertiginous, recidivist. I'm not above actually looking these things us, but don't you think that it pushes less-dedicated readers away (younger ones especially)?
|
How did I create the Land? Well, the short answer is: I started with the character of Thomas Covenant and tried to imagine a place that was the opposite of having leprosy. Then I tried to imagine what kind of people, races, beings, landscapes, creatures, etc. might occupy and complete such a place. Vocabulary in fantasy is a complex issue. Some words fall into the genre simply because they've become familiar to fantasy readers (and therefore fantasy writers). Some words are unfamiliar to the reader but are normal and ordinary to the writer (because the reader and the writer naturally have different experiences in/with life). Some words are used *because* they are unfamiliar: some writers (such as yrs trly) are trying to create a sensation of the exotic and the magical through language. And some words are used because the writer (yrs trly again) isn't actually *trying* to attract "less-dedicated readers." (My books are really only worth reading if the reader is willing to do some of the work.) Curiously, "younger" readers have been attracted to "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" in droves. (03/03/2006) |
Scott McGreal: Hi Stephen,
I've been a great admirer of your work since I was introduced to the TCTC in 1982 when I was still in school. I just finished re-reading the First Chronicles for the fifth time and am now well into the Second. I'm really looking forward with great anticipation to the remaining works in the Last Chronicles.
I was wondering recently why in the Second Chronicles, the Dead appear to people only in Andelain and not elsewhere in the Land? I understand that Law resisted the Sunbane in Andelain, but I'm not sure what the connection is with the dead appearing there.
I also have a comment rather than a question. Recently you said that you were unable to say what color Covenant's eyes were because you are not a visual person. I think you may underestimate yourself! Shortly after you made this comment I happened to be reading The Illearth War, and in chapter 6 (p. 79 of the Fontana edition) Covenant notices that Elena's eyes are "grey like his own." Even though you may not be a visual person, The Chronicles do contain alot of visual information.
Thanks very much for conducting this Gradual Interview, I have found your comments and answers very illuminating.
|
Yet another reader who knows more about eye color than I do.... <grin> There's more than one way to look at why the Dead only appear in Andelain; but the crucial point is that their appearance is in some sense a manifestation of Earthpower (Law-ful or otherwise). I think of it this way: Earthpower flows closer to the surface in Andelain than elsewhere. Meanwhile the Sunbane is also Earthpower, but in a form so corrupted that its energy isn't available for most natural--or quasi-natural--manifestations. And the appearance of the Dead *is* a "quasi-natural manifestation": it's a natural consequence of the fact that the Law of Death has been damaged. Plus I have to say: having the Dead appear only in Andelain just plain *feels* right to me. (03/03/2006) |
Edward: Well, this isn't a question more of a comment that I'd like to know your opinion on. You said that C.S. Lewis's approach was "homiletic" that's the same as allegory I guess, but Lewis himself said in a letter that an allegory has a definite meaning a direct correlation and there was no intended or even implicit connection between Christianity and the Chronicles of Narnia. It's there if you want it, if not, not. And that his stories were intended more to remind you of the scent of a flower that you can't quite place, so to speak. And after all this effected Tolkien as well who had to constantly deny that TLOTR was about World War II, and Sauron was Hitler, etc. Do you think that you overplay the significance of "story arch". What I like in stories are usually things that are not strictly necessary for the narrative. James Joyce's idea of the epiphany for example. And Lewis and Tolkien have a great many epiphanies in their books, for me. Describing a character as being not just pale but absolutely white "like a sheet of paper", or a castle being the color of red sandstone, or the way a lion will crouch when running, this kind of vivid substantiality is very magical in writing, and is even more important than narrative. Or the way Tolkien will mention a character only once, but endow it with solidity and vast implications.
|
Your question appears to be in two parts. First, about Lewis, Tolkien, and allegory. You know what they say: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. No matter what Lewis may have said, the allegorical elements in "Narnia" are too obvious to miss. In fact, many tens of thousands of people have failed to miss them. In contrast, LOTR can't be read as allegory without pushing the definition of "allegory" past all recognizable usage. (Of course, none of this has anything to do with the qualities that you enjoy in Lewis and Tolkien. For every reader, books are what they are. Calling them "allegorical," for example, doesn't change what they are: it merely describes how they're perceived. And "perception" is nothing if not idiosyncratic as well as mutable.) But "Do you think that you overplay the significance of 'story arch'"? Are you equating "allegory" with "story arch"? I don't. And as a man who prides himself on "story arch," I can say with perfect certainty that a "story arch" (however beautiful or well-designed it may be) that isn't filled with what you call "epiphanies" doesn't satisfy me. At the same time, "epiphanies" (however profuse they may be) that aren't held together and concentrated by a good "story arch" don't satisfy me either. I need both. (03/08/2006) |
phil: Dear Steve: To be more succinct than I have previously, institutional religion and even theology of any sort play little or no role in any of your fictional worlds, or even in any or your major characters. I gather such absence is not coincidental. Given your personal background, I suspect there's much you could say/write on such matters. Why have you chosen to speak to them only by your silence? As always, peace and prosperity.
|
You're right, of course: I make virtually no use of "institutional religion" in my stories (with the obvious exceptions of "Penance" and the "tent revival" in TPTP). "Theology" is a different matter: if you held a gun to my head, I could probably argue that my work is full of theology in one form or another. Haven't I already quoted--or misquoted--S. P. Somtow: "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry"? Still, your point is a valid one. "Religion" plays no role at all in the lives of the vast majority of my characters. I've often asked myself about that, and I've concluded that the subject is simply too personal: it elicits very strong emotions in me, emotions which would overwhelm any story in which I attempted to include them. Throughout this interview, I've tried to explain in various ways that--for me--storytelling requires a certain "impersonality." Storytelling can't be about *me* (except to the extent that it articulates my convictions about storytelling). It can't be about my beliefs or emotions on any subject: it can only be about the story. (Which probably explains my irrational insistence that the ideas for stories come from somewhere "outside" me: a necessary fiction which allows me to treat the story as if its existence is independent of my self; my ego, my emotions, my needs.) You could say that I exclude "religion" from my work because otherwise my personal emotions would distort and ultimately destroy the story. Or you could say that my personal emotions on the subject are so intense that they swamp my imagination, preventing me from even conceiving--never mind executing--any story. (03/08/2006) |
Joshua Arnold: Mr. Donaldson,
First, allow me to express my deep respect for your work. Chronicles managed to capture me in a way few other books ever have (if any!). I am anxiously awaiting the conclusion to the series.
My question is not about the Chronicles, per se. Instead I direct my inquiry to the subject of writing itself. As an aspiring author myself, I have enjoyed your insights into the craft, which I have gleaned from the GI.
Creative writing, I've discovered (through personal experience) can be a dangerous thing. It is all too easy to lose ourselves in the stories we weave--mostly because that sort of obsession is necessary to create a truly compelling narrative. I wonder if you have ever found yourself, while in the process of working on a story, so immersed in the story world that you begin to lose touch with the real world.
|
Well, "lose touch with the real world" might be an over-statement. But being deeply immersed in what I'm writing does have a tendency to exacerbate my natural absent-mindedness. When my subconscious is hard at work, it can interfere with my more mundane awareness of what I'm doing when I'm not writing (e.g. from time to time I simply "forget" where I'm going when I get in the car). And I've been known to experience a kind of sub rosa "leakage" as the emotions of what I'm writing spill over into my personal life. (When I was much younger, this "leakage" sometimes ran in the other direction: my personal emotions spilled into what I was writing. But that hasn't happened for a long time. I'm more vigilant now.) However, none of this prevents me from coping accurately with "the real world"--*as needed*. I don't "lose touch" with people or situations that I consider important. (Except when I'm exhausted <sigh>: none of us are at our best when we're exhausted.) (03/08/2006) |
Gary S Swimeley: Mr Donaldson,
I have always found something visceral about your books. Your characters have a depth and breadth about them. I found Covenant in the early 80s and craved more. While waiting for the second chronicles, I dug out my Marvel comic collection. As I reread the Kree-Skrull war in the Avengers, I stumbled across letter written by you.
What impact did comic books have on your writing? Who are/were your favorite comic book writers?
Thank you for the hours of enjoyment you have provided me.
Gary
<>
|
Comic books didn't have any impact on my writing that I can see (although I still enjoy them), but they probably accentuated my natural interest in "long form" storytelling. Mostly they fed my need for fantasy and even adventure at a time when my studies (college, graduate school, and afterward) precluded such things. Today in some places (admittedly few), you could write a thesis on the Kree-Skrull war. That would have been inconceivable in my day. Probably my all-time favorite comic book writer (and sometimes artist) was Jim Starlin. I really loved his vast saga on the Infinity Gems, as well as his all-too-brief work on Warlock. (03/12/2006) |
Jerry Erbe: This may seem obvious to most readers, but I'm a simpleton and often times don't grasp the deeper or hidden references often made by writers. That being said, you've mentioned on several occasions that Wild Magic tends to increase in intensity the more it is used and that the more it is used the harder it is to control. This sounds to me as though you're describing an addiction. IS Wild Magic some sort of conscience or unconscious metaphor for addiction as we in the "real world" may perceive it?
Second, if you had been unable to support yourself as a writer, what would your second career choice have been? Im not sure why this interests me, but it does.
|
Standard Disclaimer: You're the reader. You have the right to interpret the books however you want. Without you, there *is* no story: there are only arbitrary black squiggles on sheets of wood pulp. With that in mind.... Do I consider wild magic to be a "conscious or unconscious metaphor for addiction"? Absolutely not. (Except in the rather extreme sense that most of us are "addicted" to being alive.) Wild magic is just energy. It's ruinous or redemptive, according to how it's used. You might think of as the sun: terribly destructive if you get too close; but from a "safe" distance, the fundamental source of all life. Energy is all good--until it isn't (until it becomes too much); just as control is all good--until it isn't. Or might think of it this way: how often do alcohol, heroin, crack, or crystal meth save the world? Even if you decide to consider wild magic comparable to addiction (in one form or another), you still need to take into account the fact that what you're addicted *to* makes an important difference. Being "addicted" to "doing as much good as possible for other people" may well become self-destructive, but it simply isn't the same thing as being "addicted" to "getting other people to give you everything you want all the time, regardless of the cost to them." Your question about what I would do if I couldn't support myself as a writer reminds me of an old Carol Burnett skit, in which she says, "Last year, my husband died. So I did the only thing I could do. I became a widow." I suppose I would have tried to become a teacher; but it's more likely that I would simply have become dead--perhaps not physically, but in other equally-important ways. (03/13/2006) |
Daniel: In the TC Chronicles, why the different spellings of Weird/Wurd/etc.? How, as an author, do you choose which to spell when?
Thanks for the opportunity to communicate with you.
djb
|
The words are all spelled so that they sound similar because I want the reader to know that the concepts are related to each other. The words are spelled differently because each race (e.g. ur-viles, Elohim) has its own unique understanding/interpretation of the concept. And as the author, I hope I keep them straight when I'm writing about those races (e.g. Weird for ur-viles and Waynhim, not for Elohim). (03/13/2006) |
Andrew, Rio, Brazil: Mr. Donaldson,
I suppose the relationship between an author and his publisher is not always easy. So, on this subject:-
1) Don't you feel frustrated that publishers can assume so much control over your work? (Haven't you ever thought of, perhaps together with other authors, setting up your own publishing company and contracting professionals to deal with day-to-day activities, to avoid this, without needing to take time away from the writing itself?).
2) Does the publisher "filter" the questions submitted via this GI, or do you receive them all directly? ;-)
Thanks for your excellent work, especially Covenant.
My sincere best wishes for health, wealth and happiness in 2006 for you and your family !
|
1) Sometimes I'm frustrated by both the process and the results. And I suspect that whenever an individual deals with a corporation, frustration looms (and the bigger the corporation, the worse the frustration is likely to be). But the basic concept doesn't frustrate me at all: I get paid; and they do all the things I either can't do or don't want to do. (In fact, the very idea of setting up my own corporate entity to take the place of the corporation I deal with now makes me want hide under the bed.) Just *think* of all the jobs the publisher does for me, which range from choosing the font to arranging book tours to suffering the immediate consequences if the book doesn't sell. And in practice, large corporations have advantages with which no small entity (e.g. an authors' co-op publishing company) can compete, such as the power to negotiate favorable deals with printing and distribution companies. No, I like the basic system just fine. Most of my personal complaints revolve around how mega-corporate ownership actively prevents individual publishing companies (however large) from doing good work. 2) I own my web site and am solely responsible for its content. My webmaster does all of the maintenance: I do all of the answering--and all of the filtering. (03/13/2006) |
Paul: Given that Covenant is a writer, how is it that he never draws parallels between his ring and the 'One Ring' in Lord of the Rings? Did LoTR not exist in his reality, did you never consider that crossing his mind or did you deliberately avoid it crossing his mind?
Thanks, and looking forward to TFR so much!
|
I want to ask: What am I, crazy? But what I mean is: Why on earth would I want to *encourage* comparisons to LOTR? My career has already been damaged enough by Tolkien's irresponsible determination to write about a ring when he could have used practically anything else. <grin> And in any case, I'm a writer of fiction. On every level, I construct my "realities" to suit the needs of the story I want to tell. As does every writer of fiction. Introducing LOTR to Covenant's "reality" would have done nothing except distract the reader from *my* story. (03/13/2006) |
Matt: Dear Steve,
I've long been a huge fan of your work and it's brought me many hours of pleasurable reading. Thanks!
Anyway, I've recently been re-reading "Reave The Just" and I wanted to ask you about the two Reave stories. Reave is definitely one of my favourite characters, perhaps because I like the concept of a non-hero, a man who through the purity of his actions allows other people to free themselves. A sort of catalyst.
What I'd like to know is where you came up with the idea of a character like that and do you think that many of your characters have the potential to be heroic, only they trap themselves in webs of their own devising?
|
As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, the original inspiration for the story "Reave the Just" came in the form of the first sentence. In practical terms, I sort of discovered Reave through Jillet. The more I knew about Jillet, the more I understood what he needed Reave to be. The whole subject of "the potential to be heroic" may be too large and complex for my poor frayed brain to encompass. But I sure do write about it a lot. <sigh> And Nick Succorso leaps to mind (as does the phrase "mind-forged manacles" [William Blake]). Now *there's* a character who has all the raw materials of a hero, but who is completely trapped (and doomed) by the (entirely internal) mechanics of his bitter ego-centricity. Certainly I write about characters who display no apparent potential for heroism (Maxim Igensard?). But "the potential to be heroic" is always on my mind, as are the profound and insidious ways in which perception either distorts or enhances that potential. (03/13/2006) |
Niddy: Dear Lord Donaldson,
I have two questions:
a) What are your feelings about missiles? Do you have a lot of respect for works of literature which centre around missiles?
b) What are your feelings about shovels? Do you feel they contribute a lot to the fantasy genre?
Yours sincerely,
Niddy.
|
Dear Acolyte Niddy: a) Being phallic, missiles demand respect. "Works of literature which centre around missiles" deserve all the esteem they get from me. b) Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre. However, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the characters. Signed by my own hand, Lord Donaldson (03/13/2006) |
Jim Melvin: Dear Stephen:
Do you believe that it is possible, within the literary boundaries of epic fantasy, to write a novel that rivals any other in terms of artistic quality and integrity?
|
Absolutely! Henry James himself insisted that a work of literature cannot be judged by the *nature* of the author's ideas, but only by the quality of what the author *does* with those ideas. And if that isn't sufficient authority, I need only observe that the oldest and most enduring works of storytelling in every language on this planet are *all* fantasy. Without exception. (Go ahead: think of an exception. Take your time. And if you *do* think of one, PLEASE let me know. The information would be good for me.) (03/13/2006) |
steve cook: hi Stephen, just brought the audiobook of 'Runes' read by Anton Lesser. it retails at less than 17 and with the sales bringing the price down i paid just over 11 for it.(don't know what that means in $ but it's a pittance) obviously i'm chuffed to bits with it, but the only slight bugbear is that it's an abridged version. my question is what percentage of the written word is lost?
by the time you get round to this question (no criticism intended) i'll have probably read along to the discs and worked out the answer for myself, but it's always nicer to check the page with the anticipation of seeing your responce.
thanks again
|
The Orion "audiobook" is on 6 CDs. The unabridged Penguin "audiobook" is on 22 CDs. So roughly 70% of the text is lost in the Orion version. Which is why I hate abridged editions. I worked *hard* on that 70%. (03/13/2006) |
Martin Bennett: My question is simple: how much do you actually like Thomas Covenant? I ask this because of the reaction I have had from a few friends that I have spoken to about The Chronicles - a profound dislike for Covenant, which seems to carry over into a profound dislike for the stories that surround him. In my opinion I doubt that any of these people have managed to read much further than the rape of Lena in LFB.
I personally have always admired and liked Covenant, but I have always admired the intellectual people I have met rather than the materialistic ones. I think perhaps my friends are put off reading further into The Chronicles by a greater reason than dislike for the character; that they pretty soon realise - if only on a subconscious level - that the battles in this story are mainly on an intellectual level.
Another way that I look at it is that I know people who will only admire a work of art - in the most obvious example, a picture - if it portrays a beautiful subject. To these people a wonderfully painted portrait of an 'ugly' old man will be repellent compared to a poorly painted portrait of a 'pretty' girl. Covenant may not be pretty to look at, but boy is he painted beautifully.
|
I respect Covenant--but then I try to respect all of my characters. And I admire him: hes a braver man than I am. But like? Have you ever found that it can be difficult to like the people you respect and admire? Its a curious phenomenon which I occasionally experience. If someone that I admire and respect has qualities which I know I lack--and which cause me pain because I know I lack them--then liking that someone can be a real struggle. If, on the other hand, the qualities that I know I lack are *not* ones which I yearn for but fail to achieve, then liking that someone becomes easy. That may not be very clear; but it is *intended* as an answer to your question. <sigh> Or, approaching the matter from a different direction: When I sit down and read the Covenant books straight through, I admire, respect, and am moved by the character. But when I just dip into the books (perhaps researching a point of internal consistency), Covenants behavior jars and even offends me. In other words, taken out of context--out of the internal logic of his development--hes quite UNlikeable. A lesson I try to remember when Im dealing with real people rather than characters. Most of us primarily meet real people out of context: we have no idea what their personal stories are. So its often useful to reserve judgment. (03/15/2006) |
STEVE M: Can you clear up certain questions about the Arch of Time. Not to sound to nave but what precisely is the arch of time. The description given in the text is that the Creator needed a place to for his creation to be so that he created the arch to hold the earth within its confines. Since it is called the arch of time does the term refer to a temporal explanation, i.e. the arch begins at the time of creation and ends at the end of time/destruction? Armageddon? etc.? If yes, is there in fact an end of time/end of creation or is the arch in and of itself infinite?
The second part of my inquiry has to do with the concept of the arch or the Land being a prison for Lord Foul. According to the creation story, the creator did not realize until too late that Despite had infiltrated his creation. If the creator were to extend his hand and interfere, the arch of time would be destroyed and despite would be free to wreak havoc in the Universe, hence the necessity of summoning Covenant or Linden to the Land and hoping that the exercise of their free will and choices that are made independent of the creators influence will save the Earth/the Land. This leads to another problem does the destruction of the arch of time necessarily mean the destruction of the Earth? In theory, the creator could interfere destroy, defeat or at the very least fight Lord Foul with the result being the Earth and/or the Land continuing along their merry way but with Foul free to wreak havoc throughout the universe. The problem is this. Isnt despite already present in the universe? Isnt the very essence of the human psyche a never ending struggle between good and evil? In essence isnt the terminology we use designating good and evil more symbolic of two opposing forces which yield a new outcome. I.E. thesis + antihesis = synthesis. Moreover, the universe itself reflects a never ending struggle between these forces. Indeed, in many respects isnt creation and despite manifestations of the same thing? I know that these inquiries cover a lot of ground but the prime inquiry revolves around the fact that the Arch of Time doesnt really seem to be a prison for Foul at all. Practically speaking, Despite has always and will always be free to wreak its havoc in the universe. In retrospect, I guess this isnt a question at all but more of a request for a comment on these observations and how they relate to the Chronicles.
|
Your questions go in so many directions at once that theyre difficult to address. For example, to say that the human psyche is a never ending struggle and between good and evil is enTIREly different than saying the universe itself reflects a never ending struggle between these forces. The former assertion is defensible, if open to debate. The latter is at best anthropomorphic, and at worst observably and even theologically suspect. So Im having trouble filtering my way through to a subject on which I can actually comment. But the most obvious and necessary comment is that The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are a work of *fiction*, a construct of a human mind. They describe specific characters in specific situations in a specific IMAGINARY reality. They do not contain or even reflect the universe: in fact, they dont pretend to do that. A statement like, The Arch of Time cannot be a prison for Lord Foul because we see evil everywhere around us is like saying--forgive me--We know that oranges do not exist because Im sitting in a chair. (Now I remember that this is why I got so tired of Creator questions.) Your perceptions about the world, or the universe, in which you live naturally affect how you read a book--as they should--but its important not to blur the distinction between the book (a completely artificial fiction which--we hope--follows its own internal rules consistently) and the world in which you live. (And dont even get me started on the UNIverse). The Arch of Time *is* a prison for Lord Foul because he is an atemporal (eternal; unfettered by time, causality, or sequence) being who is forced to exist temporally, and who cannot--at present--return to his natural state. Such an unrealistic state of affairs is only possible in a work of fiction. As for the Arch itself: well, I admit that the language is inherently misleading. It implies a pre-defined structure with--among other things--two necessary ends (because an arch cant stand without two ends which are attached to foundations). I regret that. I simply dont have (and perhaps the people of the Land dont have) a better way to refer to what is actually a *process*; or a set of on-going rules or mechanics which simultaneously enable things like chronology and consecutiveness (without which life as we know it would be impossible, and the Earth of The Chronicles would certainly cease to exist) and prevent things like wandering through eternity, or being everywhere at once, or even being in two places at once. My best analogy is the act of storytelling. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant would be gibberish if I didnt abide by a number of rules (like the Law of Time), some of which are so obvious that we dont even think about them. Like sequence, linearity: sentences dont actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove order itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE. I could go on and on about this; but Im sure you get the point. (03/15/2006) |
Ian Boulton: Hi Stephen - First off, thanks for all your fantasy works. The Chronicles are profoundly moving and like many on the GI, I consider them to be a part of my own life, which has been enriched by them.
My understanding is that you conceived the First Chronicles as a self contained story before being persuaded to write the Second Chronicles - in which case Covenant's defeat of Foul at the end of TPTP was initially intended to be considered as the end of Foul (at least to the satisfaction of the readers and presumably, the author) - even though the eventual revelation that he was merely diminished had a precedent (The Ritual of Desecration).
After Covenants victory, the reappearance of Foul in the Second Chronicles makes it obvious that diminishing him at the end of WGW was also not the end of Foul and it therefore made sense to find out many years later that you conceived the Last Chronicles at the same time as the Second Chronicles.
So and please just ignore my whole question if it amounts to requesting the biggest spoiler of them all if Foul is the eternal being certain replies in the GI indicate, is it possible to permanently destroy him? Im not particularly adept at understanding all the parallels and metaphors made with our own despite or Covenants or Lindens and take the story pretty much at face value.
Thanks for your time.
|
It sounds like you may be asking: Is there a final solution to the Problem of Evil? And I suspect that there *is*--but only on a case-by-case level, one individual at a time. (And no, I dont mean death. <grin>) On the other hand, I cant prove it. All I can do is tell stories and hope that they convey a worthwhile degree of emotional/psychological/spiritual credibility. (03/15/2006) |
Sean Casey: The question I wanted to ask was 'Given that he's a multiple-murderer and worse, shouldn't Angus have died or faced some other punishment at the end of the Gap series?', but I suspect your answer would be something along the lines of 'No, because that's not the story I wanted to tell.'
My question, then is this: How would the effect of the Gap books differ if Angus, after redeeming himself, faced justice - poetic or literal - for all the crimes he's committed, if he was killed or went to jail for the rest of his life? Why did you choose to have Angus sailing off into the sunset (not that suns actually set in space)?
Putting the same question in yet another way, what would the friends and relatives of the mining family Angus incinerated in The Real Story feel about his fate?
|
Should Angus have experienced some form of justice at the end of the GAP books? I have a couple of problems with your question. First, Im not sure that should is a very useful word, in storytelling or in life. Certainly the word has an undercurrent of judgment, of denunciation, which runs counter to my convictions about storytelling. And life certainly doesnt care about such things. I know that *I* dont care: whenever people tell me what I should do--or not do--I just stop listening. <grin> Then theres the difficulty of defining what either of us mean by justice. Apparently you think of justice as some form of, well, punishment or retribution. A re-statement might look like this: You caused pain, therefore you deserve pain. Which sounds reasonable enough. But a) who caused pain *first*? (in the GAP books, isnt it really Angus *mother* who should be punished? or the person who started *her* down the road of pain?), b) where does it *end*? (since no one ever gets through life without causing pain, were stuck in a never-ending tsunami of justice), and c) at what point do we start taking into account the fact that some people change? that some people (like Morn) just plain grow, while others (like Angus) are dragged kicking and screaming into growth? (And, by the bye, do you really want to punish people for turning their lives around? Do you think that a world without forgiveness, restitution, or amends would be a better place?) Answering an earlier question, I was speaking about context. What can the concept of justice possibly mean if it doesnt take context into account? But youre right <rueful smile>: all of that is really irrelevant. My only true answer to your question is: Thats not the story that came to me to be written. And lest you think Im being glib: doesnt Angus fate seem to *fit* the narrative world in which he exists? Would the GAP books really be the GAP books if they were about justice? What about some justice for Morn, who after all committed a capital crime with a zone implant, and deserves SOMEthing a little better than the thanks of a grateful planet? Part of the underlying sorrow--and, perhaps, the underlying significance--of this story lies in its fundamental lack of resolution. (03/15/2006) |
Sean Casey: Are you worried that after answering all these questions, no one will have anything to ask you when you go on tour? Or, given how stressful you find touring, is that the real reason you do this GI? :)
|
I should be so lucky. But the sad fact is: only a tiny percentage of the people who attend my author events have ever looked at my web site (or, perhaps, at *any* web site). And a majority of the people who *do* look at my web site dont read this interview. So Im really not saving myself any trouble. (03/15/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Whoa! OK, thanks for more than I ever wanted to know about the word "cornhole"! I guess instead of a question I have a request: please never tell us where you learned this word! :-)
|
Ha HA, Foolish Mortal! I have you in my power NOW! I picked up that word from Faulkner. (03/15/2006) |
Paul: Sorry, a flippant question...if you had to choose one of your characters to be stranded on a desert island with, who would it be (and why)? And would it make a difference if the stranding were temporary (let's say a week) versus permanent (which in your case is a very long time given your reluctance to shuffle of this mortal coil).
|
Be serious. How could I pick anyone who wasn't a total babe? <grin> So that pretty much restricts me to Linden Avery, Terisa Morgan, Morn Hyland, and, well, Koina Hannish (who would probably bring a whole lot less luggage to the island than the others would). Permanent, temporary, what's the difference? We're all supposed to live in the "now" anyway. But I suspect that Linden might bring more variety to the experience. That would be a plus over the long haul. (03/15/2006) |
Karen: Hello Mr Donaldson I hope you are well
I know you have explored with other contributors to the GI how you come up with the various character names in your books. But I have noticed that many of the names have meanings which are very apt to the characters. For example in The Gap, 'Warden Dios'. He is in essence the Warden of Earth and Humanity and 'Dios' means 'God'. Was this intentional?
The same with Thomas Covenant. A Covenant is a kind of agreement, or pact, which in a sense Covenant has with The Land and it's people's, as well as with his own conscience. Are there certain characters that you have purposely given such meaningful names to or is it just because you liked the names and they seemed to fit?
|
My first requirement is always that a name has to satisfy my ear: if it doesn't "sound" right, I don't use it. But with both Warden Dios and Thomas Covenant I actively wanted to give those characters meaningful names. So I searched until I found both sound and meaning. In the case of Dios, I meant "Warden" both as "one who protects" (such as a game warden) and "one who protects against" (such as a prison warden). But I also had double meanings for Thomas Covenant. "Thomas" was, of course, the "doubting" Apostle. But in the Bible there are *two* "covenants," "the covenant of law" and "the covenant of grace". If you think of "law" as the restrictions (commandments) imposed by Covenant's leprosy, and "grace" as his eventual ability to become more humane (to sacrifice himself for people and causes other than himself), you'll see what I mean. In other cases, of course, meaning is sort of a by-product of sound (Sunder; Angus Thermopyle). And in still others, only sound matters (Hollian; Koina Hannish). But if a particular name in my stories seems to you to have meaning, that's usually deliberate. In some cases, I'll admit, those meanings would surprise you because they're derived from languages that aren't English (primarily Marathi). Or because the references are so obscure that only I can possibly "get" them. In others, I'm playing "sounds like" rather than using real words or names. (03/17/2006) |
djb: In the "chronicles," TC and LA both translate into the land without breaking the Arch of Time. Why can't Lord Foul just translate out of the land similarly? If it requires someone from outside the arch to "pull" him out, why doesn't the creator?
Sorry if this paradox should be obvious, but I seem to be missing something here.
|
Some things are so "obvious" to me that I can't figure out how to explain them. This usually means that the "obviousness" is intuitive rather than rational, so it tends to defy explication. But look at it this way: it's like storytelling. (OK, OK, I admit that I've used this explanation before. Give me enough time, and EVerything is "like storytelling". <sigh>) I create a story which--ideally--works by its own consistent internal rules or logic, and which therefore has its own integrity; integrity which--again, ideally--exists entirely separate from me. I cannot then *alter* the story (after the fact, as it were) without violating its integrity. You, on the other hand, are the reader. You can't *alter* the story under any circumstances. And you certainly can't pull pieces or characters out of it for your own purposes: not without violating *your* integrity (and risking a lawsuit <grin>). But you *can* let yourself be drawn into the story. And if you do that--and if the story has power--you don't fully return to your own life until the story releases you (ends). Meanwhile your imaginative/empathetic participation in the story violates neither its integrity nor your own. So if you think of Covenant and Linden as *you* and the Creator as *me*.... Does that make any sense? (03/17/2006) |
David Brown: Dear Mr Donaldson,
I was just wondering if like many successful authors who have created such a popular world, you get legions of devoted fans sending you fan fiction?
And if you do, is it something that you read or do you find it cringeworthingly embarrassing?
|
No one sends me fan fiction. In part, this is because I protect my privacy (in other words, people don't know *how* to send me fan fiction); and in part, it's because I've often announced in no uncertain terms that I won't *read* fan fiction if it is sent to me. I have no real objection to fan fiction (unless it involves a copyright violation). But I'm not willing to confuse my imagination by filling it with other people's ideas. Also, I suspect that there's something, well, *strict* about my stories which tends to inhibit people from spinning off their own ideas. I can't be sure of that, of course: it's just an intuitive perception. (03/17/2006) |
Ken Zufall: In response to another question, you said:
"And remember, I'm dealing with a "reality" which is inextricably bound to the mind(s) of my protagonist(s). According the rules I've created, we simply *can't* have the Land without Covenant/Linden. It really would be cheating if I suddenly announced, "OK, I was just kidding about that whole maybe-it's-not-real, you-are-the-white-gold shtick. Let's pretend it never happened." "
I had assumed that the reality of the Land was affirmed by people other than Covenant crossing over to it from "our" world (Troy, Linden, Covenant's wife, Linden's son, [forgive me, I'm horrible at recalling names /blush] Roger). I mean, the question of reality was always one for Covenant; bringing other people into the Land--especially Linden and the others crossing over without Covenant at the beginning of RotE--seems to verify that the Land has a separate existence without Covenant.
Is this not a safe assumption? Is there something in the text I've missed that lends credence to Covenant's earlier--and understandable--doubts about the Land's existence?
|
In most obvious ways, of course, you're quite correct: the story has left the whole issue of "reality" (is-it-or-isn't-it) far behind. But everything that I'm doing is still built on the foundation of Covenant's dilemmas and attitudes: Covenant's mind (his "psychodrama," if you will) provides the basis, the essential presuppositions, for everything that I've constructed since the first chapter of "Lord Foul's Bane." In "The Second Chronicles," I *think* I succeeded at expanding the foundation to include Linden's mind/heart/journey. But she and Covenant remain the only characters who really do provide a foundation. Troy doesn't count because a) he completely accepts the Land "as is" with little or no emotional baggage, apart from his inclination to repeat Kevin's mistakes (so in that sense he "reflects" the Land, he doesn't "generate" it, if you see what I mean), and b) he isn't in the story long enough to carry the narrative weight that Linden and Covenant do. And people like Roger and Joan don't count simply because they aren't POV characters: they don't provide the mind(s) through which the reality of the Land is created. Beneath the surface--OK, perhaps *far* beneath the surface--it remains true that we can't have the Land without Covenant and/or Linden. (03/17/2006) |
Russell Smith: I am currently re-reading (again) the 2nd Chronicals, leading up to diving into Runes of the Earth. I found myself referring to the map in the books, and the glossary to reaquaint myself with some things. The thought kept occuring to me... did you (and do you now) work with a map (or many maps) of the Land as reference while writing, or is the Land clearly mapped out in your mind ?
|
Yes, I do work from a map, a hand-drawn, entirely personal, and virtually illegible design which as far as I'm concerned is the only *accurate* map. The published maps in their various manifestations have all been derived from *my* map, but right from the start they've introduced any number of errors. At the moment, I can't remember what's in "The Atlas of the Land" (and I'm far from home, so I can't check it), but every other published map of the Land has been at best a loose approximation. I've put an enormous amount of effort into trying to correct this problem for "Fatal Revenant." But in the end I can't control what gets published. The artists my publishers work with (since I'm genuinely incapable of producing a publishable map myself) typically disregard my explicit instructions. If I had the time--which I do not--I would hunt down an artist myself and work with him/her to create exactly what I want. Certainly my publishers would be grateful if I took this problem off their hands. However, that's further than I'm willing to go. I need my time for writing. (03/17/2006) |
Allen: "Hellfire and bloody damnation" is a marvellous phrase. When I first encountered it as a whee child it learned me how to cuss and I was the envy of many who were stuck with more conventional burgeois forms of foul language.
Where, may I be permitted to ask, did you discover such fine language? It sounds British. I guess the Raj was before your time and fundamentalist missionarys don't swear like gentlemen (at least not on television) so I am left to ponder the origins of your character's flowery speech.
|
In general, I learned my rhetorical resources the hard way, by reading as much as I could (primarily British literature)--and by studying what I read assiduously. Which is why I'm now able to deploy a variety of different narrative "voices" as needed. But the specific phrase you mention came from SOMEwhere. I remember that distinctly. I simply can't remember *where*. <sigh> At any rate, it isn't original. It's been said that "Age doth make cowards of us all." (Shakespeare?) I disagree. But there's no doubt in my mind that "Age doth" induce a whole cascade of system failures. (03/18/2006) |
Patrick Fisher: Mr Donaldson,
The chronicles of the Unbeliever change my out look on life. I think that the messages and themes involved in your books are very relevant and important to all people. I think everybody should read them.
Unfortunatly, most people these days are unwilling to read books. "why read it if you can watch the movie" they say. Which leads me to my question.
If a movie was to come out, do you think the story would loose some of its impact? In areas like Andelain, the viewer would never 'feel' the sensations that the books give. The experience would lack the descriptive quality of the books.
It would mean that movie-goers are missing out on a large chunk of what makes the story so special. Do you see any way around this?
Thankyou for your time, and thankyou for writing the chronicles,
Patrick Fisher (Australia)
|
I've lost interest in the subject of a "Covenant" movie. (Please don't take this personally. It's not a complaint about your question.) But I've seen some evidence that a movie can cause a book to lose some of its impact. I know at least a couple of people who read LOTR after seeing the movies. They think the movies are much better. <sigh> (03/18/2006) |
Mark Johnston: As most readers of your Gradual Interview are aware, you do not subscribe to the notion of doing any prequels to the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Would you have any objections to any budding writers out there having a try?
|
Well, I have practical objections (copyright violation) and creative objections (I've insisted on several occasions recently that "you can't have the Land without Covenant and/or Linden"). So I'll never give my permission for other writers (budding or otherwise) to publish "Chronicles" prequels. BUT. I have no objection at all to what's commonly called "fan fiction": stories written without pay for the amusement and edification of the writer, and possibly of the writer's friends and associates--as long as the original sources are given appropriate credit. Who am I to try to interfere with the creative impulses of other people? (03/18/2006) |
Nathan Reinhold: Will any of the previous books be produced on compact disc? I have only found "The Runes of the Earth. I have not read any of the books but my brothers loved them. I spend a lot of time on the road and would like to get the chance to experience them while driving.
Thanks,
Nathan
|
As I think I've said before, these things are a matter of sales. If a book like "Runes" sells well enough, and if the audio version sells well enough, publishers naturally go looking for other ways to make money from the same project. Well, "Runes" has sold pretty well as a book, but the CD sales have been abysmal. So it's *very* unlikely that any of my earlier work will appear in audio versions. Except, of course, through the Library of Congress "Books on Tape" program. A few extra Donaldson titles are available there (I don't know exactly which ones). (03/18/2006) |
Geoff: Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the incredible books. They have been a recurring and important part of my literary diet since I was 13.
I have a quick question regarding the people of the Land. I was wondering if you ever considered that they be vegetarians? It just seems to me, that considering their reverent attitude to all things natural and their non destructive lifestyle choices (ie, fire without destroying wood), that a meat eating diet doesn't quite fit their character. Or would that have made them too hippy-trippy?
|
Honestly, it never crossed my mind. Which does seem like an over-sight, now that you bring it up. But every day I'm reminded--usually in some embarrassing way--that it really isn't possible to think about EVerything. (03/18/2006) |
Charis: I am having trouble reconciling the names of the Ravers with the descriptions given for the states of enlightenment. Can you shed some light on something that I may be missing?
Moksha, Turiya, Samadhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi
Sorry if you only got the last part of this earlier.
|
Somewhere deep in the bowels of the GI.... Oh, well. Moksha, turiya, and samadhi are what the Ravers call *themselves*: the names reflect the self-image of the Ravers. Sheol, Herem, and Jehannum are "given" names which reflect what *other* people think of the Ravers. Although Lord Foul probably revels in the name "Foul," I seriously doubt that he considers himself "evil." "Evil" doesn't often think of itself that way, in my (admittedly limited) experience: instead "evil" sees itself as a form of Higher Good. Just ask any self-respecting terrorist. Or Pat Robertson. Or.... (03/18/2006) |
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.
Neil Sayer: First of all the usual thanks for all the enjoyment you've given me and so many others over the years. Through my first discovery of The Land, through Mordants Need, The Gap, Brew and the short stories - it's all been wonderful.
A noticeable characteristic of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is the vast stretches of time it encompasses. I sometimes find it difficult to finish one volume knowing that the characters I have come to love over the most reason saga will be long dead and buried by the time I start the next.
Do you ever feel similarly affected by the 'loss' of these characters or do they somehow remain 'alive' in your previous work?
...or am I just being overly-sentimental?!
Best wishes
Neil
|
I certainly can't comment on whether or not you're "overly-sentimental". <grin> How would *I* know? But I don't share your feelings--for the simple reason that the books haven't ceased to exist. I can revisit them whenever I want. Of course, revisiting them means that I grieve again for characters like Foamfollower. But that's OK. I'm just glad that books still have the power to move me. (03/18/2006) |
Chris Allan : Stephen
Thanks for answering my question on 01/01/06. Although you were rightly confused with my question, you did answer fairly and succinctly.
Just a quick comment. I know every artist is passionate over what they do, and most of us in the 'non art ' world can only envy that you can spend your life on your passion. Well done.
I do however take offence when you jump to a conclusion that if the reader does not 'love' a particular style or direction the author takes , then the simple answer is 'stop reading ,and go find another book!'
Don't treat readers( call them fans if you prefer) with contempt .I will read the Final Chronicles whether I enjoyed 'Runes' or not, if only in reverence to the first 2 Chronicles, and for the obvious rerason that I want to know what happens to Tom.
'The Life's too short' cliche does you a disservice .
|
Please accept my regrets. I didn't mean my response to your earlier message to sound either dismissive or contemptuous (although I think I can see why it *did* sound that way). Sometimes I'm in a hurry, and I'm more brusque than I intend to be. But I'm perfectly sincere about what I was trying to express. I'm not *entitled* to your attention--and certainly not to your respect. If I don't earn those things in your eyes (and in this case your eyes are the only ones that matter), then I honestly can't think of a reason for you to continue reading. Please believe me when I say that I'm not putting you down here. "Life's too short" has become a cliche because it's so *true*. Certainly *my* life is too short for everything that I want to do and accomplish--and read. When I observe that you and I are in the same boat, I mean no offense. (03/18/2006) |
Charles W. Adams: You have stated that the GI has been of value to you, and I think you have even said that you are a better writer for it.
Have you conciously altered what/how you are writing Fatal Revenant as a result of the GI? Or better stated: Is there any part of Fatal Revenant that is conciously influenced by the GI?
|
Well.... Nothing that anyone says is likely to affect what I want to do with this story. But there *are* oblique influences. One is that questions in the GI help me identify areas in which I've failed to be clear in the previous books. ("If one person calls you a donkey, laugh and walk away. If two people...." etc.) That's useful. And sometimes, quite unexpectedly--and VERY indirectly--the GI causes me to reexamine some detail of my intentions. Some question or comment somehow reminds me that I'm secretly dissatisfied (and in fact have been secretly dissatisfied for some time) with one facet or another of my Grand Design. And no, I'm not willing to be concrete about this. Any concrete answer to your question would be a howling spoiler. (03/19/2006) |
John Rollo: A general never knows anything with certainty, never sees his enemy clearly, and never knows positively where he is. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
Dr. Donaldson,
I have spent several hours reading through a portion of this interview, and I have observed that your patience and generosity are even more remarkable than your works of fiction. Thank you for this opportunity.
Recently having reread the first Chronicles for the first time since first reading them as a callow youth more than 20 years ago, I discovered that I was skeptical about Hile Troy's characterization as a strategy savant. I realize that we are talking about a work of fantasy where warfare involves magic and mythic beasts. Still, the assumptions that underpin Troy's *master plan* are highly suspect to the student of (Earthly) military history.
So I'll put it to you, Dr. Donaldson: how much research did you put into military affairs or strategy before conceiving of Troy's drama? Would the plot of the Illearth War unfold the same if you were writing it today? Would you moderate Troy's hubris and show him to be a victim of circumstance instead?
Thanks for your time and your wonderful novels. Lest you be concerned, I thoroughly enjoyed the novels the second time around... even if Hile Troy couldn't strategize his way out of a wet paper sack!
|
You raise a point on which opinions vary widely. Other people have told me that I must have done a great deal of research into "military affairs or strategy," and that Troy is realistically portrayed as "a victim of circumstance". It's not an issue that I'm willing to argue either way. But I'll risk a few observations. No, I haven't done any particular research into the subject of military strategy. Doubtless I'm completely ignorant about the practical side of such things. But then, so is Troy. He's a pure abstract theorist, with no practical experience of any kind; and his theoretical work involved a style of warfare entirely different than Napoleon's--or the Land's. From that perspective, his original plans still seem quite rational to me (using rivers for rapid deployment, trying to choose advantageous terrain, etc.). Just my opinion, of course. But if I were writing "The Illearth War" today, I wouldn't change any aspect of his role. And let me just observe that in centuries past the Lords *have* tried other approaches to battling Lord Foul's armies--with disastrous results. In his own desperate way, Troy achieved a major victory. I still don't see how that victory could have been achieved by other means. (03/20/2006) |
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.
Padraig Timmins: Stephen,
Have you been approached at all about any of the Covenant Chronicles being developed as a Radio Dramatisation?
I would have thought you get thoroughly fed up with comparisons to The Lord of the Rings so I humbly apologise for even suggesting any more links, but this is the best one I have in mind to make such a link to. In that the BBC's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, adapted by Brian Sibley, was awesome.
I would have thought that the BBC, or an organisation of similar quality, would be able to a great adaptation of the Covenant Chronicles too.
What do you think, and has anyone approached you about it?
Cheers
Padraig
|
No commercial entity or "person with money" has ever approached me on the subject. And since I don't listen to the radio, I actually have no idea whether or not ANYthing I've written could be effectively dramatized in that medium. Seems in theory like it ought to be more "possible" than a stage play; but I don't really know. (03/21/2006) |
Mark: Dear Stephen,
I was fortunate enough to pick up your second book
The Man Who Killed His Brother when someone put it on the table at work where people leace books for others. I was was so blown away that i ordered the other three books immediateky and am now reading The Man Who Fought Alone.
Is the a next ginny/Mick (excuse me axebrewder) on the way. Sure hope so...
Best Regards
Mark J Weinberg
|
I'm afraid you have a long wait ahead of you. I have a one-track mind, and "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" will consume my attention for the foreseeable future. I *do* want to write at least one more Brew/Ginny novel. But I can't promise anything at this point. (03/22/2006) |
Another Obvious Geek.: I see Gandalf in the role of the Old Man who both Covenant and Linden encounter in our world so I doubt Covenant could beat him up. The real question is, could Lord Foul lay the smack down on Sauron; they are both demigods.
That would be a celebrity death match I would like to see.
|
But they have such different methologies. Especially now. I like to think that Lord Foul would turn Sauron inside-out. <grin> (03/22/2006) |
Russell Smith: Thank you for your wonderful stories and characters, and thank you for the gradual interview. There are many, many hours of entertainment in them both.
This is more an observation than a question. I am surprised at the apparent distance between the writer and the publisher, from your accounts in this gradual interview. As a person firmly on the reading end of the process, I have always imagined the writer being closely involved right through the publishing phases. There seem to be a lot of cases where you are acknowledging your reader for passing of information concerning publication of your material. Maybe this is limited to the ancillary publications - audio books etc ?
Are you involved in the process of brining a book to publication (artwork, format), and has you involvement changed as you have become more widely published ?
|
Typically, the author's involvement in the process of publication (and here I'm talking exclusively about the process of publication, not, say, about the process of book promotion) begins and ends with the text. Everything that pertains to the actual words is the author's department: the author does not have a say in ANYthing else. (For example, I *begged* Putnams to use a larger or more readable font for "The Runes of the Earth," but I was--politely--ignored.) And since publishers have so many departments, and those departments feel so little need to communicate with each other (never mind the author), "distance" is exacerbated in every direction. It's all about "turf," really. In an (extremely) insecure business like publishing, protecting your turf is probably more important than any other aspect of your job. I could bore myself by giving you lots of examples; but why bother? Among authors, only the mega-heavyweights (Stephen King leaps to mind) have enough clout to intrude successfully on the publisher's turf. The rest of us have to accept what we get. As I've said before, in theory I don't object at all. In fact, I *like* this system--in theory. *I* don't want to spend my days choosing fonts. In practice, I'm often unhappy with the results. But in practice, my publishers are no doubt often unhappy with *my* results; so that's fair. (04/01/2006) |
James Peck: I'm cheating, this is both a question and a coment. I remember when Lord Foul's Bane first came out... I was 13, and totally blown away by it. And since then I've read pretty much everything you've written. I was hugely impressed with the 1st chronicles, but not so much with the second. Honestly, I thought you were a bit too long winded and that it dragged really badly near the end. However, then you wrote Mordant's Need and I really really loved it... it was much faster paced and a damn good story.
So now I've read The Bane of the Earth, and although it took a little while to get going, I think it may be the best book you've ever written.
So my question is this, in terms of the pace of the next books in the series, will they be more like Mordant's Need, or more like the 2nd Chronicles?
Also, in the next books, is there any chance of Linden meeting up with the spirits of Lena or Elena? I think that would prove a fascinating encounter.
Thank you for all you've done;
Jim Peck
Tampa, Florida
|
Sorry, I can't answer either of your questions. Since I don't share your perception of "pace," I can't predict how you will react to the pacing of, say, "Fatal Revenant". (Remember that I spend 2+ years working on a book that you can probably read in a couple of weeks. Under the circumstances, it simply isn't possible for me to share your perception of pace.) And I can't comment on up-coming events--or non-events--in "The Last Chronicles" without diminishing the enjoyment of other readers. (04/01/2006) |
Jon: Hi Stephen,
I do martial arts and spar and grapple regularly. Becuase of this I think I have a good understanding of the realities of the application of violence (to a degree.) Do you feel that your experience in Karate and experience in sparring, in being hit and hitting someone back, has given you any more insight into acts of physical violence. I find the Haurachi fighting in Runes to be more realistic in some ways than in the previous books.
|
It's inevitable, I think, that my study of the martial arts has affected my "understanding" (if that's the right word) of physical violence on every level, from the practical to the metaphorical to the spiritual. And I certainly agree that the way the Haruchai fight is described more realistically in "The Runes of the Earth" than it is in any of the previous "Chronicles." If you're interested in observing my, well, "development" on this subject over the course of my writing life, you might enjoy the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels. Read in order, they reveal rather overtly how my perception of physical violence is changing. (04/01/2006) |
Brian: I love your books. When they were first being released I was too young to appreciate the difference between hard copies and paper backs. Is there any chance that your books will be re-released in hard copy again?
|
As far as I know, the only source for any of my earlier books in hardcover is the Science Fiction Book Club: there you can get "omnibus" editions of the first two "Covenant" trilogies. Other plans to re-release earlier books in hardcover have fallen by the wayside. The unpleasant truth is that I just don't sell well enough to justify the expense. (04/01/2006) |
Steve: I just read Runes of the Earth and I want you to know how disappointed I am that you used profanity in your writings. You have always been one of my favorite authors, and I always recommended you to other people. I even had a hope in my heart that my children could one day enjoy your books as I have. After 20 years of waiting, imagine my shock to see the curse words you used. I mean, Linden Avery cursing? You are better than this. One question: Why? Please help me to regain respect for you and your work, at least so that I can enjoy this series somewhat. By the way, I whited out all the profanity so that this book could be in "proper" Covenant form.
Sincerely,
Disappointed fan
|
I shouldn't touch this. It's a lose/lose proposition. I won't be able to persuade you; and I may well increase your sense of disappointment. But I'm going to plunge in anyway ("Fools rush" etc.) because the subject interests me--and because you aren't alone in your reaction. First, I think we need to make an important distinction. The "Covenant" books have always contained *profanity* ("Hellfire and bloody damnation": need I say more?). The real difference between the first six books and "The Runes of the Earth" (primarily the Prologue) is *obscenity*, which I will loosely define as "crude and hurtful references to bodily functions, organs, and actions." For example, the "F" word in various permutations. In the abstract, it seems to me that profanity is inherently more violent, vehement, and hurtful than obscenity. Consigning someone else to "the eternal fires of hell" (e.g. "Damn you") is (conceptually) *worse* than accusing someone else of unnatural physical acts. In practice, however, virtually everyone (myself included) reacts more strongly to obscenity than to profanity. I think this is true because obscenity is more, well, *real* than profanity. Most of us simply cannot wrap our minds around "the eternal fires of hell," but we all have way too much (intimate) experience with bodily violence, bodily crudeness, and even bodily perversion. As an idea, profanity may be "worse" than obscenity, but as a tangible experience obscenity is unquestionably "worse". Of course, none of the above pertains directly to your disappointment. The "distinction" doesn't matter to you: only the "fact" matters to you. And the "fact" is that "The Runes of the Earth" contains more "offensive" language (primarily in the Prologue) than the previous six "Covenant" books combined. So why did I do it? I have two reasons, one general, one specific. In general, and as a matter of personal conviction, I do not believe that *any* word is inherently good or bad, benign or hurtful, acceptable or offensive. Words are simply the tools of communication; and as a dedicated storyteller with extremely high aspirations, I can not afford to reject--or even judge--*any* of the tools available to me. As far as I can tell, what makes a word good or bad, benign or hurtful, acceptable or offensive, is the *intent* of the person who uses it. Which brings me to the specific. I consider it important to distinguish between *my* intent and the intent of the character I'm writing about. Barton Lytton is a useful example. *My* intent is to tell the truth about him, using every tool at my disposal: to do anything less would betray my own aspirations. *His* intent is to express his anger, humiliation, and feelings of intimidation toward Linden: he wants to regain some sense of personal authority, and even of personal worth, by attacking the person who has most strenuously criticized him. And how else can he *do* that? He's the sheriff: he can't exactly beat her up. He can't expose her as a professional sham, or prove that she obstructed a criminal investigation, or find personal skeletons in her closet. How else could he possibly strike back, except through language? He uses obscenity (and profanity) because he *wants* to hurt her. His language is offensive, not because the words themselves are offensive, but because he *intends* to offend. And that's the truth: some people *do* want to hurt others, and they don't care how they do it. (It's also an observable fact that people who use profanity and obscenity tend to elicit profanity and obscenity from others. Intense emotion or action elicits intense emotion or action *of the same kind* in response.) So I ask you: what would the effect be if I "cleaned up" Barton Lytton; if I made him less offensive in his conduct, therefore more comfortable to read about? Wouldn't that constitute *lying*? Wouldn't that imply that human evil isn't *really* as bad as we all know it is? Certainly circumlocution can convey the same information as direct utterance, but it doesn't have the same impact. And if the "Covenant" books contain any message at all, surely that message is that the desire to cause pain *does* have impact. (04/02/2006) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Hello Steve! How are you?
We're currently having an interesting discussion on the Watch, in which it was postulated that the similarities between the Demondim and the Ravers - i.e. both sorts of creatures are essentially disembodied entities capable of possessing physical bodies, both sorts of creatures have a burning touch (although through different means), and both sorts of creatures appear to have a communal sense of identity in addition to an individual identity (at least in the case of the Ravers) - suggest a relationship between the two kinds of creatures.
It has been further postulated that: either the Ravers are twisted Demondim (perhaps changed by the Illearth Stone) or that the Demondim were "designed" by the Viles based upon a "study" of the Ravers. The former theory has at least a timeline issue, whereas the latter apparently has none; it is also intriguing to notice that while the Ravers possess living bodies (therefore needing strength to subdue the original spirit within the body, but not to animate the body), the Demondim possess dead bodies (therefore needing strength to animate, whether mystically or physically, the dead body, but not to deal with any "soul").
So, the question is, are we on to something? Or is it just withdrawal symptoms while we hunger for Fatal Revenant? *grins*
|
I hate to commit myself on subjects like this. But your speculations sure sound like "withdrawal symptoms" to me. <grin> Surely the "Covenant" books indicate SOMEwhere that the Ravers and the Demondim have separate etiologies. Not to mention distinct histories. (04/05/2006) |
Alistair: Dear Stephen, I posted a question here some days ago, but I feel I should have qualified the question and will now do so if you don't mind.
The question was what inspired you to write and what drives you to continue to write. What should have asked was: Were you attending Kent State University at the time of the anti-war riots and did that have an influence on your perceptions of people and did it impact upon your writing
|
Yes, I was attending Kent State at the time of the infamous shootings. I wasn't on campus: I was working in Akron City Hospital while attending grad school at Kent in the evenings. But since I lived in Kent, I experienced more of the direct aftermath than 99% of the students (who were evacuated within hours). I could go on at some length about the various horrors of that time; but I'd like to spare myself those memories. I'll just mention that on a number of occasions people who were willing to pull the trigger pointed guns at me. Cops, security guards, neighbors. The effects were profound, but their impact on my writing (as I keep saying) was/is unconscious rather than conscious. They helped shape who I am as a person and how I view the world (people, situations, etc.). But I don't think about them while I'm writing--and I certainly don't set out to write *about* them. (04/05/2006) |
Sean Casey: Berek Halfhand, Thomas Covenant, Roland Deschain, Rand al'Thor, Jaime Lannister, Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Heboric Ghost Hands, Ginny Fistoulari.
All fantasy characters who have lost all or part of a hand or two (OK, Ginny's not a fantasy character, but she sprang from the brain of a fantasy writer). What does the loss of such a useful appendage symbolise and why do you think so many writers have incorporated it into their stories?
|
I don't mean to sound dismissive; but this seems perfectly obvious to me. Our hands are what we use to *do* things. (Jacob Bronowski [sp?], if memory serves, wrote eloquently about the intimate relationship between the use of our hands and the development of our minds.) Damaged hands symbolize (at the very least) damaged function. Damaged coping skills. An inability--you should pardon the expression--to really get a grip. Which is pretty apt, if you ask me. (04/05/2006) |
Tim: Hi Stephen,
Just a quick question: a Yahoo search for your name turned up a website for "Stop Prisoner Rape". I was just wondering if this is/was yours, or is it being led by another Stephen Donaldson?
|
Believe it or not, there is--or was--another "Stephen Donaldson," a prison reform activist who wrote and campaigned extensively. I've heard (VERY indirectly) that in his case "Stephen Donaldson" was a pseudonym; and that he died several years ago, a consequence of his personal experience with "prisoner rape". (I really must emphasize that this is hearsay, and may be entirely unfounded.) Because of the similarity of names, people (I won't say who) have occasionally announced *my* death. As far as I know, that particular rumor is false. (04/05/2006) |
Turin: When the Haruchai communicate mentally, it's apparently supposed to be some form of telephathy that goes beyond mere verbiage. How far does "the true speech of the Haruchai" go? ...Pictures? Feelings? Sound effects?
Since Lord Foul's attacks against the Land are virtually always ecological and since in The Runes of the Earth you had one of your protagonists defend that which is "liberal", Can we now admit the politics in this series...?
|
I think of Haruchai communication as a kind of "gestalt" telepathy which conveys entire thought processes and personal experiences intact. Words are doubtless part of the whole, as are images, insights, and sensations. But I don't want to carry this idea too far: I don't mean to suggest that the Haruchai effectively share *one* mind--or that they all think alike. There's clearly a voluntary (and idiosyncratic) component in their mental "speech". Gee, did I use the word "liberal" in "The Runes of the Earth"? (And, speaking politically or ecologically, what does that word even *mean*?) I hope I haven't asserted that the "Covenant" books cannot be interpreted politically or ecologically. But I do insist that I didn't write them to promote my personal political or ecological--or even religious--convictions. What you find in my books is as much a function of *your* mind as it is of *mine*. (04/05/2006) |
Grant Lovett: All the Covenant books have a summary at the front of 'what has gone before' but this is absent in Mordants Need and more importantly The Gap books, where there was quite a wait between books..Was this for artistic, stylistic, practical or some other purpose ?
And I reiterate many of my fellow fans in thanking you for all the time you must spend on this forum.
|
"What Has Gone Before" exists in the "Covenant" books because Lester del Rey commanded it. He considered some form of synopsis essential to the success of multi-volume fantasy (ref. LOTR). And while he was my editor (through "The Wounded Land"), he wrote the WHGB material himself. After that, my new editor continued the practice. And since WHGB has become part of the Covenant "template"--and because so many years have passed since "White Gold Wielder"--I did the job myself for "Runes". But I *hate* doing that kind of writing (reducing long years of work to a barely-articulate mumble), so I don't do it whenever I can avoid it. My editors for "Mordant's Need" and the GAP books saw no need for synopses, and I *gratefully* accepted their judgment. (04/05/2006) |
john keenan 2: can your publishers please let me know where I can purchase a complete hardcopy set of the Gap Series.
Beats Thomas hands down and would love to get hold of a few sets for presents.
thanks
john
western australia
|
My publishers will be of no help to you. They "remaindered" their editions long ago: as far as they are concerned, those books no longer exist. A helpful visitor to this site suggests: www.abebooks.com Apparently abebooks.com specializes in locating second-hand books in any format or condition you desire. I haven't tried it, but it might work. (04/05/2006) |
Jason D. Wittman: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I just read the post in this GI about who would win a Gandalf vs. Covenant battle. In your reply, you made an interesting point that Gandalf does not "save the world" so much as motivate certain people and set plans in motion so that the world is saved by the hobbits, whereas Covenant takes a more direct hand in matters. I think an equally interesting comparison would be Sauron vs. Lord Foul. Aside from Foul being the more operatic of the two villains--he only makes a few appearances throughout the Chronicles, but they are big appearances, while Sauron is never seen, only talked about (one of the few things about LOTR that I find disappointing)--the biggest difference is their motivations. Sauron strives for conquest, while Lord Foul strives for destruction. Is that inaccurate?
One more thing: you have said that Lord Foul (or at least your perception of him) has changed over the years. He is no longer the incarnation of Ee-vil that we met in LFB. So is he still the Lord Foul who "laughs at lepers", as Covenant says of him in The Wounded Land? Just curious.
Hope this finds you well.
Jason
|
Your Sauron/LF analysis seems accurate to me. I'm no expert on Sauron; but LF can't get what he wants without the destruction of "reality as we know it". Regardless of whatever I may or may not have said about LF as "the incarnation of Ee-vil" (the memory is the first thing to go--by which I mean that once it goes you no longer remember losing anything else <sigh>), he's still a contemptuous SOB. Finite beings are just so *puny*.... If he didn't laugh at lepers, he'd probably have to kill himself--except no, he can't do that because he's immortal. (btw, "immortal" for LF and "immortal" for the Elohim are two entirely different concepts. The Elohim are immortal *within the Arch of Time*. If time no longer exists, they won't either. LF doesn't have that problem.) (04/12/2006) |
Thomas Griffin: This GI has many thought-provoking questions, and I'm sure that there are some that were simply too inane or weird to be posted. Care to share some of the more bizarre questions that you have received, if any?
|
I've received some questions that seemed bizarre to me. But very few of them were intended that way. So why would I want to risk embarrassing well-meaning people who happen to think (very) differently than I do? (04/13/2006) |
john p. ostrander jr: i have just finished "runes of the earth" and you have outdone yourself once again! i never thought you would write "the last chronicles" but am so glad you are! you have left me groveling for "revenant" so please hurry but don't skimp! my 2 questions: " what has allowed lord foul to gain strength to endanger the land once again and what will be the titles of the last 3 books of the last chronicles?" thank you!
|
The Despiser is an immortal being. He's always going to find his way back to strength in one form or another. That form may vary according to the circumstances in which he finds himself. But since he can't be killed, he's bound to return. (And it's always theoretically possible that his servants work to restore him--or that he draws new energy from other evils, like the lurker of the Sarangrave, or from banes still hidden deep in the Earth.) The next book in "The Last Chronicles" will be "Fatal Revenant." (Information is posted under "news" on this site.) After that comes "Should Pass Utterly" and "The Last Dark." (04/13/2006) |
Karen: Hi there Mr Donaldson
Just a quick question about the Chronicles. Sorry if this is another subject which you have already been over.
As the series progresses we find out more about the history of the Land and what happened to Kevin when he enacted the Ritual of Desecration.
My question is, How do we know what happened? Surely anyone who witnessed his meeting with Lord Foul would have been killed in the Ritual, yet we hear that Kevin realised at the last his mistake and 'died howling'. Is there actually an explanation for how we know all this (perhaps we don't and it is all assumption on the part of the other characters), or is it one of those things that we have to just skim over and accept as part of the story?
Looking forward to Fatal Revenant immensely!
Thanks for your time
|
Legends are like that. They're full of details which are difficult to trace. But I see no reason to assume that LF himself didn't tell the story. He might have a lot to gain by portraying Kevin that way. And he would *love* to spread the tale. How would LF tell the story? The easiest way would be through the Ravers; through people possessed by the Ravers; through people listening to people possessed by the Ravers. (04/13/2006) |
phil friedman: Dear Steve: As many GI-others have written, many deep thanks for the GI. I only hope that you gain as much as we, who are already way ahead from reading your books. Even in hardbook at full retail, the cost of a good book (or album) pales against its many rewards. (And that goes for "Mick" and Ginny too; without being silly, you cannot write too much for this reader).
Upon considering both your prior article and GI-answer, I agree both that "motivation" and "means" are the central issues concerning evil, and that what may appear external (LF, Sauron, etc.) is at least partly a reflection of our internal struggle with darker impulses.
My problem remains twofold. First, the personified evil, when we confront it during the story, usually threatens something akin to extinction, utter [unmitigated?] slavery, way more than a bad hair day. Granted, bad hair days don't make for terribly interesting books, but neither are our normal struggles typically life-threatening.
Second, referring to Marx, the process of personifying evil can lose evil's social dimensions (paraphrasing Marx, "We may make our own worlds, but not exactly as we might hope" [given that our visions of the new are tied to our experiences of the old, whether we know it or not].) In other words, there are few real people whose motivations, like LF's, threaten existence (although [V?]Pres. Cheney seems to be trying his best). And such motivations have a social (and not just individual) context that shaped and maybe ignored them, which is why they may have reached a cataclysmic state. (All of which are substantially addressed and explored in GAP.)
I guess what I'm saying is that fantasy (maybe all fiction, even nonfiction) in general can lose the "nurture" side of the balance, particularly when it comes to presenting evil, even when the focus of the story is an individual's struggle. That's why I'm so interested in the fantasy world itself--how it works, how its people subsist, how they govern themselves. And most important, how their problems arose and who's doing what about them, pro and con. Obviously this issue is even more complex given TC's other-wordly citizenship, though it seems that many of the purported values in the different worlds are similar.
As I write, I think maybe something to consider is (how's that for a passive weak construction to try to avoid being tarred as presumptuous) some added attention (which doesn't mean much) to the development of the Land's crisis during the long interim between TC's or LA's last visit, and why the Land's folks failed to fix it--in other words, what Anele and the SoL really symbolize besides one person and a nice stick. As Marx also discussed, there may be so-called great people, but neither they nor those they seek to vanquish come from nowhere. Leaving this one behind, I guess where I come down is that evil or anything that can truly threaten reasonable existence (apart from the random, such as a wayward asteroid) has a history which stems from that same existence, and almost no one, for better or worse, is irreplaceable.
Finally, and continuing to speak of evil, in this era of U.S.international warmongering and torture, including Pentagon-planted stories in Iraq and domestic spying and legal attacks on whistleblowers at home, two suggested nonfiction reads: for us almost oldtimers, Bertram Gross' 1980 "Friendly Fascism" remains eerily prescient and relevant, and; Univ. CO Prof. Fred Anderson's 2005 "Dominion of War...North American Empire from 1500 to 2000." Anderson's book, organized around a series of biographical sketches (Samuel de Champlain, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant through Colin Powell), argues that empire was inherent in America's birth and, like now, can have drastically bad consequences (such as the American-Mexican War leading to the Civil War). It's eminently readable, and a great refresher course on both U.S. history and the relationship between leaders (or at least important people) and their societies. As always, peace and prosperity.
|
I'm posting this, not because it asks a question (it doesn't), and not because I have anything new to say on the subject (I don't: as I've said before, epic fantasy--as I write it--is intended to reflect an "internal" rather than an "external" reality, and such things as Personified Evil are intended as *aspects* of that internal reality rather than as direct depictions of (over)simplified evil), but because issues are raised here which deserve attention. There are times when I'm both gratified and humbled by how thoughtful (I mean full of thought) my readers can be. (04/16/2006) |
J.A. Frank: Will it be possible to obtain all SRD publications in e-book format some day? The Runes of Earth was the first e-book I bothered to read on my Treo650 and was amazed that I actually read in under two weeks! Since waiting around for the next in the series is... not pleasant, I would like to tote around the rest of his works in ebook format to revisit the other six books until the next in the series is completed. I have hardbacks of most of SRD's works, and I have found it increasingly difficult to read a book for pleasure due to their size, availability. I passed on the complete paperback collection to other interested readers (who are now hooked) so I do not have another portable version lying around. If you send this stuff to SRD, "... hey, man! E-books work - suprisingly well."
|
I suspect that the transmission of books in various forms through electronic media is the wave of the future. But at present, there simply isn't enough money in e-books for publishers to invest much time and effort in them. And my books, in particularly, don't sell well enough to inspire extra time and effort from my publishers. In addition, most people who are comfortable in the world of the Internet, e-mail, iPods, and PDAs don't realize that they are still a rather small segment of the general population. The last figures I saw indicated that only 10% of US homes have computers. The larger population isn't *ready* for e-books. And just to give you a bit of context: when "The Runes of the Earth" was high on ereader.com's bestseller list, it had sold somewhere between 20 and 25 copies. From a book publisher's perspective, that's chump change. So in the foreseeable future, no publisher is going to expend the time and effort to make my "back list" available in e-formats. (You may be interested to know, however, the DEL REY/Ballantine *does* want to release e-books for the first six "Chronicles". But DR/B doesn't own those rights: I do. And DR/B is unwilling to *pay* me for those rights. Well, as a career move, it's suicidal for an author to give away his/her work for free. I don't have the time, expertise, or money to become an e-publisher myself. And if I did, DR/B might sue me under the "competing publication" clause of my contract.) And that won't change unless I somehow become one or two orders of magnitude more successful than I am now. (04/16/2006) |
Sean Casey: Woohoo! It's 1 February, so I finally get to ask a couple more questions.
Something I've been thinking about asking for a while now is your response to criticism. Some of your answers have given me the impression that, for want of a better description, you're dismissive of negative feedback. You've explained this in respect of reviews, saying that they are aimed at readers and are therefore not really relevant to you as a writer.
I suppose that any criticism that comes after the publication of a piece of work is irrelevant, because once it's out there, there's not much you can do about it. However, any valid criticism surely has an impact on the way you would approach a future work.
I also realise that much of the criticism you get probably tends to repeat itself ad nauseam: problematic protagonists, verbosity, repeating yourself ad nauseam... You've made decisions about your style that clearly aren't going to be reversed.
To focus on a specific (and, thinking about it, this whole question is probably just an excuse to mention this - and yes, I know you've dealt with it before): in The Man Who Bought a Phone - sorry, The Man Who Fought Alone, the bad guy kicked the arse of another character and said something incriminating - highly suspicious at the very least. Which Brew, who was watching this, completely ignored. I spent the rest of the novel wondering when he was going to follow up this blindingly obvious lead. As you can imagine, this really spoiled the book for me.
Saying this as diplomatically as I can, that seemed to me to be an authorial misjudgment.
OK - got that off my chest.
So (at last, a question) what is your attitude towards criticism? Not continuity or typographic errors, not things that are inherent to you as writer - your language and characters - but the issues of judgment like the example above. And when in the writing process do you seek criticism and who from?
Thanks.
PS: There's less to criticise in the whole Donaldson oeuvre than in some single novels I've read.
I read The Da Vinci Code recently.
|
Subjects like this tend to rile me. I'll try to stay calm. 1) You're right: once a book is published, criticism (valid or otherwise) doesn't do any good. During my writing and rewriting process, I seek out the most intensive feedback I can find, especially negative feedback. Mostly from my editors, my agent, and my friends. Then I'm done. 2) I didn't create the GI so that readers could review my work, positively or negatively. I took on this task to answer questions. Criticism (valid or otherwise) is out of place here. 3) There *is* no such thing as "valid" or "constructive" criticism--unless the person on the receiving end asks for it. If the recipient doesn't *ask*, he/she isn't, well, receptive; and the criticism is wasted. So it follows that what people choose to call "valid" or "constructive" criticism exists for the benefit of the critic, not for the good of the person being criticized. It serves the ego of the critic. 4) In my experience, so-called "valid criticism" is seldom based on an accurate reading of the text. Your critique of "The Man Who Fought Alone" is a good example. The text makes clear that Sternway and Hardshorn are acquainted with each other. Well, speaking as a man who has been beaten up people I know, I can assure you that there is nothing inherently "incriminating" about Hardshorn's protest. I've said similar things myself for the most obvious of reasons: I don't like getting beaten up, and I wasn't expecting it. In addition, Brew does *not* ignore Hardshorn's protest. In fact, he repeats it to himself several times. But he isn't in a very coherent frame of mind (again I speak from personal experience). In his condition, he finds it difficult to distinguish between "natural" protests and "incriminating" objections. If you still find his reaction--or lack of reaction--implausible, I can only surmise that you haven't been hit in the head as often as I have. So yes, it's probably fair to say that I'm "dismissive of negative feedback"--in this forum. It doesn't do me any good, it distorts the purposes of the GI, I didn't ask for it, and it tends to be debatable. But does any of this mean that I consider my work to be "above" criticism? Of course not. I'm at least as fallible as any other human being. And I'm more dedicated than most to learning from my mistakes. My only point is that I have reasons for being "dismissive of negative feedback" when I didn't ask for it. (04/19/2006) |
Tony Powell: I am fascinated by your writing approach. While I entirely understand your pragmatic back-to-front method, when I try to do the same, I find that the planning somehow drains the excitement of writing right out of me, as if the rest is a paint-by-numbers exercise.
(This is curiously similar to what happens when I make the mistake of telling someone about my stories before I write them. The magic evaporates, and invariably I can't continue.)
How do you plan your books so completely and still maintain the energy/excitement necessary to write them?
I guess I'm asking this: you have said you write because you must. Must what?
|
"Must what?" Must experience the story, of course. Every writer is different. I know many; and I don't know anyone who works the way I do. However, I suspect that every writer needs to feel a sense of "discovery," of imaginative surprise, in one form or another. For me, that sense seems to come primarily from putting the story into words (truly telling it rather than merely summarizing or describing it). No doubt this is an effect of the fact that I see and feel most intensely through language. For other writers of my acquaintance, that sense of discovery or surprise seems to come from finding out what happens next. For others, the discovery is learning what kind of character would do what the story requires. There is no right or wrong approach. There is only "what works" for each individual writer. (04/19/2006) |
Allen: Two questions
1. What scienti-fictional works are ante-cedents to the Gap Cycle? I've joked that the Gap is Star Wars Goes To Hell but I was wondering what stories or shows affected your great work.
2. This is a nasty question (the kind we all want to ask but we know you will not answer) and I hope you forgive me for it, but: who are the writers and works of literature you hate the most. Nosey readers would also like to know WHY?
(Alas!)
Thank you for your consideration,
Allen
|
1) I suppose I would have to mention "Dune," "Star Trek," and E. E. Smith's "Lensman" series. Also Asimov's original "Foundation" books. Blish's "Cities in Flight". But those are unconscious influences. I wasn't *thinking* about any of them when I wrote the GAP books. 2) I'm not really going to answer this question. But I will say this: what infuriates me the most is when talented writers produce stupid books. Usually I attribute the problem to laziness (or some other form of self-indulgence) because I find it difficult to believe that true talent and true stupidity can both exist in the same mind. (04/19/2006) |
Lou Sytsma: Hello again. Hope all is well.
Here's a question I hope you have not been asked yet. Are you familar with Joss Whedon at all? While I am not a devout follower of all his work, I do enjoy the dialogue he comes up with for his characters. His latest effort, the short-lived Firefly tv series and the concluding movie - Serenity, are prime examples of his writing ability. Something you may want to check out.
BTW - sneaking in some extra questions here - do you find dialogue easy to write? Do you read your writing out loud to see if it sounds right?
Thanks for your time.
|
I'm a major "Buffy" fan. I enjoyed "Angel" and "Firefly" ("Serenity" not so much). Of course, Whedon didn't write *all* of those stories. But his dialogue (like his stories) often has serious power. Dialogue does *not* come easily to me. In fact, no other single aspect of my books gets rewritten as extensively (and intensively) as the dialogue. And yet-- As I get older, I find dialogue more and more *exciting*. (Com'on. Who else d'ya know who would use an "argument" for the climax of a fantasy novel?) No doubt that's why there's more dialogue in "Runes" than in any other "Covenant" book. (04/19/2006) |
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.
Fist & Faith: Would it be fair to say the Creator isn't particularly worried about Foul escaping his prison; rather, he doesn't want his creation destroyed in the process? I say this not just because he was powerful enough to imprison Foul in the first place, but also because he cannot enter the Arch of Time without destroying it - presumably because it couldn't contain his puissance (heh) - while it holds Foul quite easily.
|
Certainly the "background assumptions" of the "Chronicles" seem to imply that at one time (before the Earth was created) LF occupied the same version of eternity that the Creator does. If the Creator was OK with *that*, we can probably infer that he (He?) doesn't really care about keeping LF prisoner: he cares about his creation. In fact, if he could do so without destroying Time, he might conceivably set LF free just to spare his creation more pain. Two points. 1) Don't confuse "breaking in" with "breaking out". Those are two ENTIRELY different problems. They pertain to the nature of existence, eternal vs temporal--a distinction which I perceive to be vital, but which (sadly) surpasses my poor powers of explication. 2) It's worth asking, What's creation *for*? What was the Creator hoping to accomplish when he made the Earth? (04/19/2006) |
phillip andrew bennett low: I don't have the book in front of me, but towards the beginning of "The Wounded Land," Dr. Berenford describes one of Covenant's novels, which argues something to the effect of "Guilt is power, because the use of power is guilt, therefore only guilty people can be effective."
Is this your position as well? Surely it's self-evident, both in the world of your novels and the world of our day-to-day life, that there are people who are capable of exercising power without experiencing appropriate guilt.
|
I'm not sure I actually have a position on this. But I feel constrained to point out that the absence of a feeling of guilt does not necessarily imply an absence of guilt. Our world is rife with sociopaths, and none of them feel guilty. Does that make them innocent? Hardly. But it does allow them a certain, well, latitude in the exercise of power. I'm a storyteller: I'm not in the business of passing judgment. But I've seen that "power corrupts." Surely that's not an accident. (04/19/2006) |
Len Quici: Mr. Donaldson
Firstly, let me "thank You" for the world you've created for myself and your legion of fans! Secondly, I've been wondering for some time if you've ever read The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell and, if so, did it affect your molding of Thomas Covenant? If not, pick up a copy!!
|
No, I haven't read Campbell's famous book. And I probably shouldn't. Anything that might make someone like me self-conscious tends to be damaging. ("Self-awareness" good: "self-consciousness" very bad. Although the distinction is hard to explain. Self-awareness involves being fully present in the task of the moment. Self-consciousness involves *watching* the task of the moment. People who feel self-conscious are almost always at their least creative.) (04/23/2006) |
Ossie: Having always considered you a fantasy author albeit my favourite by far I did not feel a great urge to read your non-fantasy or sci-fi writings, namely the Man Who series: not because I didnt think they would be good, more I guess because I thought I would always have Covenant/Mordent/Gap in the back of my mind while reading them. Recently however I decided to read them more out of respect for you as an author in general, and I have to say I really enjoyed them: not just enjoyed them, but enjoyed them a great deal more than I expected to. The almost ceremonial way in which Brew approaches an audience with Manolo is vaguely reminiscent of the formal tone of most fantasy, and I think you have created an entirely believable universe in which your characters reside. So again, thank you.
My question relates to the Ravers: unlike most Ultimate Evil Enemy With Second-Most-Evil-Sidekick-Or-Sidekicks, Foul & the Ravers did not come from the same source: Foul is the supernatural uber-baddie of the story in that he comes from outside the world of the Land, whereas the Ravers did not come with him pre-packaged as his supernatural underlings but, as far as I remember, were originally inhabitants of the Land. Apart from the fact that both are evil, & the Ravers have now achieved some measure of supernatural ability themselves, their goals do not seem all that common. Yet somehow the Ravers have become the first lieutenants of Foul. You have said before that you are an efficient writer in that you only create what you need to tell your story, without needing a great detailed history or backstory mapped out even in your own head, but to the extent that you have thought about it, how did the Ravers come to serve Foul as they do? Unless Foul holds something over them that I have missed, why did & do the Ravers continue to serve him as they do?
As a very minor 2nd question, have you ever considered that the Man Who series would lend itself to movie adaptation much better than perhaps the Covenant or Gap stories? Thankyou again in anticipation and I eagerly await the rest of the Last Chronicles.
|
I'm glad you like "The Man Who" books. You're right: they would be much easier to make into movies than "Covenant". But then, almost everything I've written would be easier than "Covenant".... <sigh> I think you're making too much of a meal out of why the Ravers serve LF. In the real world, as we all know, people who *hate* are perfectly willing to nuke anyone, even their natural allies. Change the skin tone, or the accent, or the pagination of the holy texts, and EVERYONE is an enemy. But "Covenant" is fiction; and in fiction--especially in fantasy--writers are allowed (even expected) to concentrate their themes in ways which aren't always literally realistic. Certainly in fantasy, like attracts like. Giants are drawn to Lords. Ravers are drawn to the Despiser. And remember, LF's only *known* power is his ability to influence minds; to make other people and beings do his dirty work. Directing the energies of souls which are already full of hate (like the Ravers)? Piece of cake. Or perhaps I should say, Radial segment of baked confection. <grin> (04/26/2006) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
If Covenant *is* the white gold, and the ring is an instrument to access that power, are there other ways in which to access this power? Now that Covenant is dead he can be summoned or sent away as a spirit, as explained to Linden at the end of WGW. I suspect that Foul summoned Covenant and sent him to Linden at the end of ROTE. But Linden has the ring, which Covenant wanted her to have. I do not believe Foul has absolute control over the power of white gold, otherwise he would have used Covenant to destroy the Arch (If Covenant, though dead, has such power). The ability to summon or banish does not make Covenant a willing participant. But Linden *was* given the ring by Covenant of his own free will. What I am asking...I think...
(1)does Foul have access to the white gold through the revenant of Covenant; (never mind Joan and her ring now walking through the Land)
(2)does the ring give Linden potential control over dead Covenant?
Happy typing!
|
With trepidation, I'm not filing this under "spoilers". A mistake, perhaps.... This whole conundrum would be much simpler if you accepted Mhoram's statement ("You are the white gold") as a metaphor. (He could have said of Linden in TROTE, "You are the Staff of Law".) In the kind of fantasy I write, power always comes from within (within the Earth, within Covenant, within the ur-viles, etc.). It may require an instrument of expression (white gold, a staff, Gildenlode, orcrest, whatever), but the instrument is primarily an enabling device: it isn't *really* the source of the power. And the source uses the instrument, not the other way around. Linden (or LF) can no more control Covenant through white gold than I can control you through my computer. Putting it another way: wild magic is an expression or manifestation of who Covenant is: *he* is not an expression or manifestation of what wild magic is (he's so much more than that). Sure, a certain kind of "power by proxy" is possible through *possession*. But such power is limited by the necesssity of freedom: possession violates the identity, the integrity, of the power-source, which weakens the power enormously. (04/26/2006) |
Joshua Arnold: Mr. Donaldson,
Most would agree Chronicles is your most popular work. What, do you think, is the least popular and why?
|
The sales figures are clear: my least popular books are the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels. Even my short story collections sell better. Why? I'm just guessing. But I suspect that there are two factors. 1) Mystery readers want longer series, and they want the books in the series to appear more often. As an extremely broad generalization, mystery series don't "take off" until there at least 5 books. And the (many) years between Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels tend to conceal the fact that a series even exists. 2) Mystery readers (and they are not alone in this) *like* the conventions of their preferred genre; but the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels violate those conventions relentlessly. (04/27/2006) |
Dan O'Brien: I have the hardover edition of the first book of the new Covenant series but decided not to read it until I re-read the rest of the Covenant books. I found all but White Gold Wielder, and this has not re-appeared anywhere that I can see. It seems a natural to re-release all the previous books to generate readers for the new series, so why can't I find new copies of Wielder? Help!
PS: I live in Japan, so online shopping resources would be nost welcome. But I don't want a used copy! If the publisher is not re-releasing the original books, get them to!
|
Other readers of this site have had succcess with www.abebooks.com. Nothing I write sells well enough to justify hardcover reissues--except for things like omnibus editions from the Science Fiction Book Club. Paperbacks are another matter. WGW is readily available from Amazon.com. (04/27/2006) |
DrGonzo: Hey! Nice work on finishing *revenant* in a shorter time than *runes*, hope you keep up the trend! I have two questions to ask, one concerning *the chronicles* and the other *the gap*. The first concerning *the chronicles* is more of an observation of the use of the phrase "the last dark" in WGW. I quote, "she had not mustered the bare decency to cry aloud as she strangled her mother, drove that poor sick woman terrified and alone into the last dark." is this a reference to the final book of the series? Or just a turn of phrase that you particularly liked? Probably not the deepest question ever, but there you go. The second question, concerning the gap is, the characters of Angus and morn and Davies appear to be viewable from psychoanalytical angle. Their experiences, and I maybe speaking prematurely here, as I have not finished the fifth book, are incredibly similar. Angus dominates morn. The UMCP dominate Angus. They both have experienced torture and are running from their past. Davies fits into this because of the genius stroke of force-growing and mind transfer. But of course once the process has finished he is his own person, but only to a degree, he is still his fathers son and the triangle is complete. Am I anywhere near the mark here? By the way, that is one messed up family you created there.
well hope this is worthy of an answer. thanks for the great stories.
DrGonzo
|
Yes, the reference you noticed for "the last dark" is intentional. It's actually sort of difficult to find a Donaldson character who can't be viewed from a "psychoanalytical angle". <sigh> Goes with the territory of being me, I suppose. Certainly all of my characters (the main ones, anyway) seem to be engaged in some sort of struggle for identity. And the classic identity triangle (victim-victimizer-rescuer) can be found almost everywhere you look. Davies is only one (overt) example. Angus and Morn also qualify. (04/29/2006) |
John Blackburn: 1) What if Elena had used the Power of Command to order the destruction of Foul's Creche? That's what I would have done! foul would be unable to beseige Revelstone in TPTP.
2) Foul seems to be able to generate infinite armies which always give him the (unfair) advantage. I wonder what the logistics are, he must need stocks of food to breed Kresh etc, so where are his fields, farm animals, grain stores etc? If they are somewhere near the Creche, could the Giants sail down and set fire to them? It always seemed unfair that however brave and resourceful the goodies, they will always lose because of the overwhelming no of troops Foul can create (this is also an issue in LOTR).
In the 2nd Chrons, Foul presumably has no ability to create armies because the Creche was destroyed? But then he doesn't need to.
|
1) Sure, Elena could have done as you suggest. If she were a completely different person. And if you don't mind the fact that the whole remainder of the first trilogy falls completely apart. And achieving nothing more than a comparatively minor and brief victory doesn't bother you (sure, LF loses his home, and presumably also the Illearth Stone, but *he's* just fine, thank you very much, and he'll be back--soon). "Disasters which enable victory" are a constant theme in the "Chronicles". 2) The bad guys in big fantasy novels always seem to have this power. Who supplies all those orcs and other allies in LOTR? And what could possibly *grow* in the ruined earth which surrounds Foul's Creche? No, I think we have to assume that LF's armies are the product of magic, not any form of "natural" reproduction or food supplies. (04/29/2006) |
Steve: Stephen,
Loved Runes and was wondering if you are planning to post any part of the next book here, and if your are? When that might take place?
|
If/when my publishers give their approval, I probably will post an excerpt from "Fatal Revenant" here. But I can't begin to guess *when* that might happen. Aside from the crucial issue of "approval," there's the complex question of supplying an excerpt which a) doesn't give too much away, and b) won't be rewritten before publication. (04/29/2006) |
Jeffrey Smith: Greetings,
In re-reading the 2nd TC trilogy, I realized that there was yet another word I didn't know. As usual, I looked it up. The last section of WGW is entitled "Apotheosis." Merriam-Webster says the word either means "elevation to divine status" or "the perfect example."
Which did you mean? Are we to take from the heading that the end of WGW is TC's ascension to godhood, perhaps becoming a member of the same power stratum as the Creator and Lord Foul? If not, what is TC the perfect example of in the last section of WGW?
Or, is there a definition of the word that Merriam-Webster didn't tell me about? ;)
|
My dictionary agrees with yours; but there is also an implication of "culmination," of an epic process carried through to its final crisis/transformation. I think that Covenant's becoming a crucial part of the Arch of Time might qualify as "elevation to divine status". (OK, so he's not the Creator. But who is these days? <grin>) And the story certainly intends Covenant as "the perfect example" of a *redeemer*--or at least of an opponent for Despite. (04/29/2006) |
Robert Evans: Stephen, at the beginning of The Wounded Land, Dr. Beresford and Linden are discussing Thomas Covenant's first novel and his subsequent less successful writing, and I have to wonder whether you had a premonition of the same happening in your own writing career: the earliest work completely overshadowing everything that came after? If this touches a sore spot, please accept my apologies.
|
No, I didn't have any premonitions of that kind. None whatsoever. I never actually expected to get published at all. (However, since my premonitions--when I do get them--are pretty much always wrong, I would probably be better off if I *had* had a premonition about the state of my subsequent career. <grin>) (04/29/2006) |
Phillip: Well, yesterday I had an aspiring, unpublished author tell me he wanted to mention me in the dedication page of his first book.
That got me thinking. You've written lots of books and mentioned lots of people in your dedications. Could you talk about that for a minute? How do you choose whom to dedicate a book to. Do you ask their permission ordinarily? Do you tell them about this ahead of time or leave it as a surprise?
|
No, I've never asked anyone's permission to dedicate a book. (And I do try to keep it a surprise.) Dedications are my way of saying "thank you" to people who have been especially important in my life. Since the dedications are about *my* emotions, not those of the dedicatee, I feel I have the right to express my gratitude publicly. (Of course, it probably depends on what the gratitude is *for* <grin>.) (04/29/2006) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Hope you'll indulge me and answer another question.
I know Lord Foul tricked the Lords into allowing him on their council in the distant past, but did he actually go by the name "Lord Foul"? Or did he have an alias at the time?
It seems incongruous that these intelligent and wise leaders of the Land would fail to note that someone with a monicker like "Foul" might be a bit dodgy...
Thanks again for your wonderful books,
Marc
|
Surely you realize that I can't answer your question without sounding disingenuous at best, and at worst downright specious? I'm afraid you'll just have to assume that: a) I don't have an answer, and I don't care; b) I do have an answer, and I don't want to reveal it; or c) I don't have an answer, and I'm going to scramble madly until I come up with one. <grin> Take your pick. (04/29/2006) |
Suzanne: I am currently re-reading the original two trilogies in preparation for reading "Runes"... because I want to savor every word. I originally read the series in the early 1980's and frankly my memory of the details was lacking. I appreciate the glossary in the back of each book, but could you possibly include a phonetic pronunciation? Or better yet... publish it on the website? I find myself struggling sometimes on the words rather than enjoying their meaning. Thank you so much for continuing the Covenant story.
|
Hmm. Perplexing. Making a pronunciation guide available on this site is certainly do-able. And I can't imagine that my publishers would object. But think of the *work*! It's not like I don't already have plenty to do. And it's not like I actually care how people pronounce particular words (although I am bemused when readers correct *my* pronunciation). (04/29/2006) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
As always, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to your questions. It is greatly appreciated.
Now. Throughout the G.I., you have written of two influences: your unconscious and conscious mind. You have responded you have little idea of how you unconscious mind works, and are sometimes amazed at the results. You wrote, An enormous amount of what I write is unconsciously rather than consciously motivated--which I consider a Good Thing. Have you been able to discern if upon learning of the results of your unconscious mind your future writing has been affected? Sure, you still have your conscious mind to work with, but even so, has such knowledge altered/influenced what you will write? As an example, the use of blindness in some of your works. You wrote you were not aware of such an influence until Anele came along. Now that you are aware of it, has your work changed on a conscious level, for this or any other unconscious influence you now recognize?
This question may seem a bit strange--on an entirely different topic altogether--but I imagine you spend much of your waking hours before the computer. Have your hands and/or wrist suffered from such overuse? I have read that long hours of repetitive movement (typing)and overuse could possibly cause damage, nerve damage among them. Or do you take precautions to prevent such damage? I ask this because I truly hope such things have not happened to you (no one likes pain), and because selfishly, I thing such an 'illness' would prolong the publication of your books, which would then be hard for *me* to bear.
Best Wishes!
|
When my conscious mind becomes aware of what my unconscious mind has been doing, it often affects *how* I write (the actual sentences) but now *what* I write (the shape of the story, the nature of the characters, etc.). *Unless* my conscious mind has been struggling to solve a narrative problem to which my unconscious already knows the answer. Then, when my unconscious deigns to reveal the answer, my conscious mind does exactly as instructed (with a huge sigh of relief, I might add). I *do* have a "repetitive motion" problem with my right thumb because I use a trackball instead of a mouse--and because I've been injured there several times. But it has no real impact on my work, or my quality of life. (05/01/2006) |
Phillip: Again, I can't think you enough for this opportuntiy to ask you a question or two. So, very quickly:
1.) I was catching up on your GI and I ran across a statement you made about expending considerable effort on trying to get a good, accurate map for Fatal Revenent. Now, since the regular map of the Land has been pretty much established, dare I assume that we are speaking of a map of somewhere else and that the location of the story will be moving outside the Land?
2.) Like many of your readers I am wondering how progress is coming on Fatal Revenant. I can understand why you would not want to address this in the GI, as you would be bombarded with questions from here on, but would it be possible to have your webmaster give us a very short update somewhere else?
|
1) No, the map I was referring to is a map of the Land. "Established" or not, the published versions of the "Covenant" maps have always been full of inaccuracies. Not being a visual person, I've just tried not to worry about that. After all, the general shape of the place *is* accurate. But since the rights to the old map belong to DEL REY/Ballantine, my new publishers naturally want a map of their own. Since I have to start from scratch anyway, I really want to get it right this time. 2) I'm not willing to "tease" people with my progress on "Fatal Revenant". Definitive information, when there is any, is posted promptly in the "news" section of this site. (05/03/2006) |
Dave: I hope this question hasn't come too many times before...
I have been writing for about a year now and I have found that a surprising number of scenes I write about come to me directly from a nightmare or a powerful dream.
In your creative processes, how often have you lifted a scene directly from a nightmare?
If you do have scenes like this, how often do you remain "true" to the dream?
Oh, and by the way, I have to say that somewhere here in the GI, you mentioned how much pre-planning you put into your work. Understanding this fact gave me the confidence to begin writing, and for that too, I have to say Thanks!
Dave
|
No, I've never drawn any material for my stories from any dream or nightmare. In fact, I don't generally have a very "rich" dream-life. I attribute this to the way in which the dream-making part of my nature is allowed to express itself in storytelling. Apart from some recurring nightmares--which have no literal connection to what I write--I don't seem to *need* dreams (I mean dreams that I remember when I wake up). However, the half-awake state immediately before or after sleep is sometimes fruitful. My most dramatic example: one night long ago, in that half-awake state, I "heard" every sentence describing every detail of the Celebration of Spring ("Lord Foul's Bane"). The next day, I simply transcribed what I remembered--which was pretty much everything. But I was young then. These days, the most I get is a glimpse of a scene, or perhaps a full sentence. The unconscious works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. (05/03/2006) |
Dangerous Dave in Denver: Dear brother Donaldson,
In December 2004 you stated that you "don't read Card because I don't approve of his stand on censorship (he's all in favor--as long as the Mormons get to do the censoring)."
Would you elaborate on that statement? I'm a Mormon. I own and read your work (as many other Mormons do). As far as I know, the church has not banned members from reading/buying SF/fantasy, or any other genre.
All I can tell you is that this Mormon will continue to buy and read your work for as long as you publish.
Thanks, Dave
|
I really don't have anything to add. I've heard Card speak passionately in favor of censorship. The view he presented in his speech is that his (Mormon) values are the *right* values, and that those values *should* be imposed on everyone else. Book burning is good--as long as it's done in accordance with Mormon doctrine. Of course, I'm perfectly well aware that a whole host of Mormons don't share his views. But my repugnance for his stated position defies utterance. (05/04/2006) |
phillip andrew bennett low: Quick question about the Gap series: why was everyone falling all over themselves to proclaim the antimutagen "the salvation of humankind" -- when it seemed to be a genuine concern that the moment the Amnion got their hands on it, they would be able to find a way to neutralize it? It can hardly be a very effective form of protection if it can't be used in a widespread, defensive manner.
|
Hmm. Are you absolutely sure that the Amnion *would* get their hands on it? And that they *would* be able to "neutralize" it "the moment [they] got their hands on it"? (And who is this "everyone" who's "falling all over themselves" anyway?) Sure, any new technology (biological or otherwise) only gives its wielder a temporary advantage. But sometimes wars are won with temporary advantages. And sometimes one temporary advantage buys enough time to create another. And another. (05/04/2006) |
A devoted fan.: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have a quick question regarding Fatal Revenant; will the same artist who did the cover art for Runes of the Earth do the cover art for the Putnam edition of Fatal Revenant? I thought the cover art for Runes was very good and was hoping that the subsequent books maintain a similar style so that you can tell theyre all books in the same collection.
Thanks for the great books!
|
Last I heard, Michael Whelan *does* plan to do the cover art for "Fatal Revenant"--with one condition: he isn't willing to work under the kind of deadline pressure that was placed on him for "The Runes of the Earth". (Makes sense to me: I feel the same.) So if my publishers try to do a rush job on FR, as they did on TROTE, we can probably count Whelan out. (05/04/2006) |
Scott Carpenter: Greetings. I must have read the first TC books around 1980, and have been a great fan ever since (I hope I'm not the only one to memorize verse from TC). The original trilogy was edited a bit, as I recall past "from the author" tidbits. Is there any possibility of releasing (in hardback, esp.) the original stories? The one chapter excerpt from the second book mentioned that you had to re-write the journey to Seareach as a report given by the bloodguard. I assume much was left unsaid in their traditionally terse account of events. Thanks for your time here, and know that your stories are much appreciated and enjoyed by us poor souls who would love to visit The Land. (If you want a proofreader, I'm free)
|
I hope I've said before--but it bears repeating--that I have no, zero, nada intention of publishing my "out-takes". Not under any conceivable circumstances. They are "out-takes" because the book is *better* with them, well, taken out. The passages to which you refer (from "The Illearth War") are merely the most dramatic examples of a process in which I believe passionately and engage diligently: improving my work by *honing* it. I'm much more concerned with cutting out *enough* than I am with cutting out *too much*. (05/05/2006) |
Usivius: "Words, words, words"... I love that line from Hamlet. So simple, yet in the context of the play, means so much for those who choose to see it.
Relative to this, I just want to say again, "Thank you for pointing me in the direction of Patricia McKillip." Point blank, you are my favourite fictional writer. Ms. McKillip now runs a close second. After gobbling up 4 of her books in a couple of months I am astounded at how words, from the proper mind/pen can do soooo much!
My elaborately drawn question has something to do with the subjective and objective view of writing: Are the 'best' writers those whose stories 'touch' people? And I guess the obvious answer is subjective: 'Whatever touches the reader is valid'. But I have a feeling it goes beyond this. There are etherial (objective) truths here, that some writers are better than others, AND some authors can 'touch' people (viscerally and to the core of their 'soul') like no others.
(Yes, another topic from me about creativity, but one I have tried to explore and question for many years). Any thoughts, o' wise and esteemed writer?
:)
U.
|
I'm not sure that your question *has* an answer. After all, there are plenty of readers who explicitly do NOT read to be "touched" as you describe. Their definition of "good" or "best" might have nothing to do with their emotional response (or lack of response) to a work of art--and might also tell *us* nothing about that work of art. Back in the days when I taught writing, I used to say (sometimes strenuously) that "Good is subjective: bad is objective." Just to pick one trivial example. Confusing pronoun reference is an "objective" problem: a writer who can't keep his/her pronouns straight actively prevents comprehension (which, I think we can all agree, is *not* a Good Thing). The same principle applies on every level of storytelling. But the farther we move from the objectively bad, the more we enter the domain of the subjective. I call Patricia McKillip "the most elegant and evocative stylist writing today." Someone else (this is purely hypothetical) might call her work "effete and juvenile." To such a reader, I could never *prove* that I was right. Nor could such a reader ever persuade me. No, I'm afraid that *time* is the only reliable judge. And I don't mean 5 years, or 10, or even 50. There are reasons why we read Shakespeare instead of, say, Marlowe, or James instead of Galsworthy. But the only convenient way I can think of describe those reasons is to say that Shakespeare and James have "passed the test of time." Not exactly original; but there it is. (05/08/2006) |
Phil: My question is about fantasy. What the hell is this genre, really? I've read your own description of the aspects of good fantasy, but I wanted to know if you had any comments about all the damn elves and dwarves and dragons lining the shelves at bookstores. Does fantasy really need to be written in a medieval-type period with magic and knights and all? Don't get me wrong, I like swords and magic and dragons (I could do without all the damned songs), but the term fantasy to me seems to not be constrained by these cliches. Why are these images so popular? Could it really have been Tolkien, or is this coming from somewhere more universal?
I'm trying to find my own voice as a writer and I love fantasy and relate to the epic struggles and such, but I'm just not sure I understand the current state of the genre enough to not make these mistakes. Any comments would be great.
|
Actually, there's a fair amount of what's called "urban fantasy" out there (fantasy in which "traditional" fantasy elements--e.g. elves, demons--intrude on "realistic" settings). There's "magic realism," in which unexplained "magic-like" powers influence "realistic" lives. There are entire sub-genres of werewolf/vampire fantasy (where "realistic" settings are crucial to the horror--and attraction--of the "monsters"). And there's fantasy which blends elements of fantasy and science fiction (China Mieville leaps to mind). My personal, condensed definition of fantasy: storytelling which uses metaphors of magic and monsters to explore what it means to be human. Certainly the marketplace is glutted with what's called "epic" or "high" fantasy (although most of it is too cliche-ridden, implausible--I mean the characters don't make sense--and even boring to deserve either of those labels). But that's because the ^#$%!@ stuff SELLS. Why does it sell? Your guess is as good as mine. Mine include: 1) People actually *like* cliches. They're familiar; therefore comforting. 2) There really is something archetypal, something profoundly human, about "medieval-type" settings, magic swords, dragons, etc.. Most cultures on this planet produce "fantasy" in one form or another, and in every example I'm aware of, "medieval-type" settings, magic weapons, and monsters like dragons play an important part. This can't be an accident. (05/10/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't think this has been asked...if you had to pick one book that you would be stuck reading the rest of your life, what would you pick? (The old stuck on desert isle question).
As an aside, I was looking at a copy of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation's Edge" today. The Dedication said: "Dedicated to Betty Prashker, who insisted, and to Lester del Rey, who nagged" this made me smile due to all the stories you've told us about the "love-hate" relationship you had with Lester - looks like other authors had similar experiences. :-)
|
This is a whimsical question, and I can only give it a whimsical answer. (And whimsy, by its very nature, changes constantly, so I might come up with a different answer ten minutes from now.) <ahem> At the moment, it's a toss-up between the complete poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins and George Meredith's sonnet sequence "Modern Love". But Hopkins' poetry would probably be a better choice. One could spend a lifetime learning the music of those lines. And "Modern Love" is SO full of sadness and pain.... (05/10/2006) |
Doug Lynch: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
Thanks for maintaining the GI in addition to your writing schedule. I find it fascinating to read your on-going dialogue with readers who all love your works.
Now on to a question, and it is admittedly a "light weight" one: I noticed that your literary agent is named "Howard Morhaim." Is it just a coincidence that "Morhaim" and "Mhoram" look a lot alike? I have searched the site in order to find out if this has been answered before, and it does not appear so.
|
And speaking of being whimsical: No, it's just a coincidence. I first created Mhoram close to ten years before I met Howard Morhaim. (05/10/2006) |
Jason Smith: Mr Donaldson,
I began reading your books at a very young age and was shocked when I walked into a bookstore and saw "The Runes of the Earth" after twenty years. After reading the new book (and finding your website) I remembered the one thing that bothered me about the Second Chronicles.
At the end of "The Power that Preserves", Lord Mhoram makes reference to finding a new way to serve the Land. Obviously, something happened to the Council of the Lords before the Sunbane took hold or they would have fought it. Did the Lord's abandon the use of Earthpower? In the new book the Haruchai believe Earthpower is the cause of evil in the Land and actively move to stop its' use. It seemed, at the end of "The Power that Preserves", that Mhoram was disenchanted with the way they (the Lord's)were using Earthpower and that their use ultimately led to Kevin invoking the Ritual of Desecration. I guess my question is: Was High Lord Mhoram partially to blame for the Land again falling under the grip of Lord Fould by steering the Lord's in a new direction?
|
Well, they say that "No good deed goes unpunished".... <grin> But no, I think it's a mistake to blame Mhoram for failing to foreseen *every* possible outcome of his actions--for *millenia*. Most of us can't foresee the effects of our actions an hour from now. You're holding him responsible for everything that everybody ever did for three and a half thousand years after he was High Lord. The Oath of Peace was a Good Thing. The fact that it gradually came to be misinterpreted (or interpreted in a restrictive way) doesn't invalidate it. Life is simply like that. People take the ideas they're given and move in new directions. Sometimes those directions are constructive: sometimes they aren't. The "fault"--if there is any--doesn't lie with the people who first came up with the ideas. Mhoram recognized the need to change how the Oath of Peace (and perhaps lore in general) had come to be interpreted. That was a Good Thing (witness his unprecedented victory in defense of Revelstone). He can't be blamed for the universal truth that "change happens". Nor can he be blamed for the fact that subtle manipulation guided (inevitable) change in a destructive direction. (05/17/2006) |
Stephen (from England): Dear Stephen,
Kind regards to you!
I hope you like my questions!
Question 1:
I read that after the success of the original "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever", (and you were thinking about may be doing a sequel) that you thought up the ideas for *both* the second and third chonicles at the same time!
As you have said elsewhere that your story-ideas very often begin with the story-endings (which you then build a story towards), I was wondering whether actually the idea for the third chronicles "arrived" before the idea for the second! Is this what happened? Did the idea for the third chronicles, give rise to the idea for the second?
Question 2:
Kevin Anderson has revealed on his "Dune 7 Blog" (at dunenovels.com) that he dictates his work into a microcassette recorder. Can you imagine ever working this way? Have you ever done it? And I wonder whether their are any oral storytelling competitions that you might have taken part in! And can hold your own in *telling* a tale "off the cuff"! :-)
I hope you have great fun and success. And I cheekily hope that you find unexpected joy in all future booktours! ;-)
Best wishes and thanks,
Stephen
|
1) The process was sequential. After the first trilogy, I realized that the story could *only* go to the conclusion of "The Second Chronicles"--and if it went *there*, then it would logically have to go where it's going now, toward the end of "The Last Dark". In other words, the ideas came in the order in which I'm using them. 2) I'm not really an oral storyteller. I couldn't write a *paragraph* aloud--in ANY form--never mind an entire story. (When my children were young, they used to ask me to make up stories for them--which I did by "tricking" them into actually making up the stories themselves.) In part, this is because I do a lot of flipping back and forth through what I've already composed--which would be impossibly unwieldy in an "aural" medium, so I would (in effect) have to memorize the story word for word as I composed it. The mere idea makes me want to scream. But another part of the explanation is that for me being creative is fundamentally "manual": it is utterly dependent on the interaction between my fingers and my imagination (Bronowski, I believe, talks about this eloquently in "The Ascent of Man"). Other writers are different, of course. Some can only create longhand. Some require a typewriter. And some--Henry James leaps to mind--are perfectly capable of dictating their work. Me, I just require a keyboard (although I dislike the "touch" of most modern computer keyboards). (05/17/2006) |
Allen: This may sound like an odd question but here goes -
A reviewer once wrote "Covenant is Donaldson's genius." Note that he did not say Covenant is a PRODUCT of Donaldson's genius; also, he did not say Covenant is a product of PURE GENIUS.
His remark makes me think Genius = duende or tutelary spirit. Do you feel in any way that Covenat represents in some fundamental way the core generative powers of your imagination and is not merely a product of your imagination?
Ok. Well, I told you it was an odd question.
Thank you for your consideration,
Allen
|
The reviewer in question definitely meant that Thomas Covenant was my "tutelary [or inspiring] spirit." The reviewer implied that without TC "The Chronicles" would not be worth reading--and neither would anything else that I ever wrote. But he was wrong. Whatever my "genius" may be (in his sense of the term), it isn't TC--or *any* of my characters. (05/17/2006) |
Sean Casey: If you could ask questions of your favourite authors in a GI-style forum (regardless of whether they're alive or dead), what kind of thing would you ask and of whom?
Thanks.
|
I wouldn't do it. Don't get me wrong: I like meeting writers I respect. But it isn't because I want to ask them questions. I like to express my appreciation. And I want to form an impression of who they are as human beings--which is something I can only do in person. (On the other hand, I don't want any of that enough to wait in line for it. <sigh> One reason I enjoy sf/f conventions is the opportunity to meet writers casually.) Basically I'm a one-to-one kind of guy. Forums like the GI are too impersonal for me. (05/21/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I saw in the news section that the first draft of "Fatal Revenant" was completed! Yeah! Congratulations, and thank you! I also saw that it is probably going to be longer than Runes but that you wrote it faster. Any comments on why this book, although longer, was produced quicker? Was it just that Runes was first and so it took a little extra time to get "back into" the story? Was this one more fun and so went faster? Am I postulating on something I know nothing about and so should just shut up now?...
|
"Fun" has nothing to do with it. This story is only going to become more and more difficult to write as it goes along. No, the fact that I was able to write "Fatal Revenant" more quickly than "Runes" has to do with the decreasing complexity of the decision-making process. I know exactly where I need to go in the story; but at the beginning of "Runes" I was, say, 1,200,000 words--and at least 1,200,000 possibilities--away from my destination. Finding my way toward my goal, and only my goal, through such a vast thicket of words, actions, interactions, characters, emotions, etc. is an enormous challenge. But each choice, each decision, eliminates all of the *other* choices that I could have made at that particular moment. So at the end of "Runes," I was "only" 900,000 words, and 900,000 possibilities, away from my destination. Believe it or not, a 25% reduction in the sheer complexity of the decisions ahead of me does make certain aspects of writing the story easier. Sadly, as the complexity of my decisions declines, the complexity of my characters' emotions increases. Where Linden is at the start of "Runes" is far simpler than where she is at the start of "Fatal Revenant". So as the story goes along, it becomes less and less a test of my ability to make decisions and more and more a test of my ability to understand the implications of those decisions. Still, it's an historical fact that I do tend to write faster as I get closer to my original reason for telling the story. I attribute this to, well, Grace--i.e. the mystery of my subconscious mind. I wrote the last three chapters of "Fatal Revenant" much faster than the first three--and it sure ain't because I became smarter, more talented, or younger. <sigh> (05/21/2006) |
Karen: Hi there
Hope you are well.
I have a question about the chronicles and some of this may form a Runes Spoiler.
Is it in any way significant that Joan was the one who selected white gold as the metal for the wedding rings? Is this what gave Covenant the power of the wild magic, because he didn't consciously choose it for himself in much the same way he didn't choose to enter the Land? Does this also therefore, mean that in the Last chronicles Joan is not free because she did choose and that is why the attacks on the Land in the Last chrons are in the form of casures rather than a direct attack on the Arch?
Sorry actually 2 questions:
I am also a little confused about the necessity of freedom in the sense that in the 2nd Chrons, Covenant believes because he made a choice about his course of action that he is in a sense no longer free. Does this just mean he is no longer keeping the Despiser guessing as to what his intentions are and if so, curtails his freedom in the sense that his options are no longer open? Of course he could've always changed his mind!
|
No spoilers here. No, I've never considered it significant that Joan chose white gold for the wedding rings--except to the extent that it underscores Covenant's initial perception of his own helplessness. As the story progresses, his relationship with himself modulates (he becomes determined to take action in spite of his perceived helplessness), and so the fact that Joan chose white gold originally becomes less and less meaningful. (To use an overly-dramatic analogy: none of us chose to be born, but that doesn't spare us from responsibility for our own actions and commitments.) If you're confused about "the necessity of freedom," that's probably because Covenant himself is confused. <sigh> By committing himself to the Land, he hasn't really surrendered his "freedom" (after all, he chose that commitment freely): he's only surrendered his unpredictability (which in turn makes him easier to manipulate: an important detail in "The Second Chronicles"). If he had indeed given up his "freedom," his power would be thereby contricted, and he wouldn't need to worry so much about destroying the world. (05/24/2006) |
tia: Has your 'gap series' been recorded for any type of 'book on tape'? We own the books, love them and would love to own them on tape. Thank you so much.
|
Long ago, "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" were released on heavily-abridged tapes. But they didn't sell at all, so the project was dropped. The Library of Congress "Books on Tape" program may or may not include the GAP books: I don't know. But I don't think that those tapes are for sale to the general public. (05/24/2006) |
Andrew Roy: Mr. Donaldson,
In reading the Wounded Land (which was the first I had read - a birthday gift) I had to read the whole series start to finish about six times. I would also like to say that there are too few books today that are *worth* picking back up. I love the chronicles and am *super* happy that you picked them up again.
A couple of questions: (From Wounded Land) You wrote the only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken. I'm curious as to the origin of this staggering revelation.
(From the Gap Series) I loved this series as much as the chronicles and was amazed by the versatility you've shown in writing an epic fantasy double trilogy then the Gap Series. In the Gap Series, most chapters (I believe the Real Story is excluded) are named after a character, and set up to be their perception of the events that progress. I've never before seen it done in that fashion and it fascinated me as to how you as the author now had an even greater measure of control as to the experience of the audience. Is this a "Stephen R. Donalson" original idea, or were you inspired by something else you had read?
|
"Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayeth the preacher. There is nothing new under the sun." Sometimes I think that an idea is original. But I can't swear to it because I never know what my unconscious mind has picked up while I'm not looking--or what my conscious mind has conveniently chosen to forget. As far as I know, the "only way to hurt a man" idea is original. But I'm not sure. On the other hand, I *am* sure that the way I named chapters in the GAP cycle is NOT original: I simply can't remember where I've seen it before. <sigh> (05/24/2006) |
Peter B.: In the G.I. you stated (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that the reason Lord Foul doesn't simply rouse the Worm of the World's End himself is that he's afraid of being eaten. I would like to point out that he has a natural defense--he would taste QUITE foul.
It seems incongruous, though, that the Worm could really make Lord Foul squirm. Even if Foul were diminished for countless centuries from the encounter and floated in the vastness of space without real substance he would still be free, wouldn't he? The only way his hesitancy makes sense would be if such an action, and its resulting incapacitating consequences, would put Foul at the mercy of the Creator.
Then again, everything Foul does and strives for is through the manipulation of events, and is dependent upon an individual's freedom of choice. One could argue that the Creator operates in a similar manner, albeit in a less direct manner and more benign. One can see them then as separate metaphors, underlying landscapes of human thought and direction. And when was the last time an archetype, even a powerful one, ever DID anything by itself?
|
Matters of "taste" aside <grin>, you raise some interesting points. Certainly both the Creator and Lord Foul work indirectly. I would argue, however, that the Creator does so because he respects the independent integrity of his own creation, while Lord Foul does so because he's trapped within that creation, and indirection is required of him by the nature of his imprisonment. (If he could rouse the Worm himself and escape, he would have done it eons ago.) There are strong similarities to the "Chained God" in Erikson's "Malazan" books. The Chained God can do many things, but he can't shatter his fetters. He has to get other powers to do that for him. (I say this only having read the first five books, so I can't be sure where the story is going.) (05/24/2006) |
Andrew: Mr. Donaldson:
I am a huge fan of your work and had read the first and second chronicles 5 times over. I am fascinated by the Haruchai and more so by the Bloodguard.
In the second chronicles in Andelain Bannor had requested that Thomas Covenant redeem his people as their plight was an abomination. It's never a gentle story for these Haruchai, but now in the final chronicles the Masters serve Foul as surely as the Ravers. Cail's son is as full of self loathing as Covenant himself at his worst moment. Their plight is as bad or worse now, and their history, originally haunted only by their failure of letting Kevin Landwater send them away for the Ritual of Desecration, is now plagued by failure.
In Runes of the Earth, Stave, at his own peril, has chosen to take a path that differs from the group. I'm no Haruchai expert, but the only other times that this had occurred ended badly. Bannor revealed the seventh ward, the bloodguard with the chip of the illearth stone tried to confront Corruption and were maimed in Covenant's image, and there was Cail who threw himself to the merewives. (I exclude Brinn - by my knowledge, any Haruchai would be honored to try himself against the guardian of the One Tree.)
Knowing that in your books, old concepts don't die off, but lie dormant waiting to gain collossal magnitude, my question is this:
Knowing that this redemption is still pending, will three books be enough?
|
Ha! This sounds like a roundabout attempt to trick me into a spoiler. <grin> But seriously: I'm just me. I don't have any God-like powers. (If I did, I would be a danger to all of us.) Only time will tell whether I'm capable of achieving my intentions. But I can tell you this: there ain't going to be any more than three more books. Win or lose, triumph or disaster, "The Last Chronicles" will have four--and only four--volumes. (05/24/2006) |
J C Bronsted: This may seem a strange question.
I believe you said you write on a computer. Do you compose in standard manuscript formatting? (Courier 12, double-spaced, etc) And if so, do you print those pages during the first draft?
This question as I type it suddenly reminds me of John Gardner's observation that the most frequent question many people asked at university was "Do you write with a pen, a typewriter, or what?", and that he "suspect[ed] the question is more important than it seems on the surface. It brings up magical considerations--the kinds of things compulsive gamblers are said to worry about: When one plays roulette, should one wear a hat or not, and if one should, should one cock it to the left or to the right?" ... "The Question...also implies questions about...vision and revision, and at its deepest level, asks whether or not there is really, for the young writer, any hope." (Gardner, On Becoming a Novelist, 119)
Not to levy too much significance on my question of passing curiosity <grin>
[again, tremendous thanks for this forum]
|
Gardner raises some fascinating issues. But your question itself was simple: I'll stick to that. I use a 14-point non-proportional font, Financial. It puts a different number of words on a page than Courier 12, but I find it easier to read, and I became accustomed to it a *long* time ago. I double-space (so that I'll be able to see the words more clearly). And I print out everything, in part so that I'll have a backup (one of many), and in part because sometimes working longhand with a piece of paper helps me to think in new ways. But I compose on legal (8 1/2 X 14) paper instead of normal manuscript pages (8 1/2 X 11). I started doing this back in my typewriter days, when using longer pages meant that I had to roll in new sheets less often. But I've continued the practice because it saves paper. Incidentally, I use the cheapest paper I can find. And I often reuse paper, printing out one novel on the back of another. I only use "good" paper when I submit a (normal size) manuscript to my publishers. (05/24/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I'll ask this question, although you may not wish to answer. I was thinking about the current state of modern fantasy. Just glancing around my own bookshelves and the fantasy/sf bestseller lists it seems that we (being readers of fantasy) are being bombarded with what I would like to call "the neverending series". I understand authors, the popular ones anyway, can make a great deal of money "milking a series" for want of a better term. I'm sure most would deny they are doing this, but geez...Brooks comes out with a new Shannara book EVERY year. Feist publishes a new riftwar book almost every year. Don't get me started with Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time. Terry Goodkind also seems to be stuck on the Sword of Truth. I know most people would just say, "so, don't read them". Some I am considering doing just that - but I guess my complaint is the time/money investment I've made in reading the earlier novels (not knowing most of the time that the series I've just started reading may NEVER END). Plus, I like theses authors, they are smart people, can't they give us some NEW stuff. I know you had questions about returning to Thomas Covenant, but hey, at least you said - boom, it's going to be four books, here are their titles - read'em if you want. Sorry for the rant, so to my question - what do you think of all this? I know you probably don't read any of the series I mentioned (from what I've gathered earlier in the GI) but you must have some thoughts on how modern fantasy is being sold and marketed to us unwashed masses. My own personnel feelings, and all of the above is JUST MY OPINION, is that in the long run this is bad for the genre.
|
OK, without discussing anyone specifically.... First, we all have to live with Sturgeon's Law (at least I *think* it's Sturgeon's Law): 90% of everything is junk. That's unfortunate; but it ain't gonna change. Second, writers (even some of the writers you've listed) often complain about the same thing you do. It's a market-driven problem: series sell. They sell better than anything that stands alone. And "never-ending" series, series which can (at least in theory) repeat themselves eternally without ever doing anything imaginative or original or insightful, sell better than any other kind of series. Even publishers complain: they say that they get tired of publishing the same old thing year after year. But what can they do? They're in the business of making money; and the market has proven over and over and OVER again that repetitive, open-ended, pointless series make more money than anything else. Personally, I consider this a symptom of the fact that our society is in decline. But then that's just *my* opinion. <sigh> (05/27/2006) |
Daniel Bauer: Regarding the second chronicles:
At first, I was put off by Elemesnedene and what seemed to me to be the ephemeral whims of the Elohim. After time, I came to understand their purpose in the story and thier need to be polar opposite to Vain (whom I adored). Not that I liked them any more, but I understood their purpose. But, the essense of the Elohim's nature leaves me with a question:
The people with a permanent-yet-ephemeral existance (is that possible?) have a literal creation theory. The theory is validated in "the one tree" when the quest nearly wakes the worm of the world's end. It seems odd to me that beings that can change their physical characteristics with a thought and an attitude of "do whatever makes you happy" would have a true literal understanding of the creation of the world. Perhaps it's not actually a question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
On a totally different vane: Another author I've read claims to never have suffered from writers block because he's never stopped writing. I wonder if you've suffered writer's block or have thoughts on how to get over it.
Again, thanks for taking the time to communicate with your readers. Your stories are wonderful, and do stand on their own - but your dialoge adds depth I appreciate.
|
The Elohim are part of their world. In some ways, they are an *essential* part of their world. How could they *not* have a literal view of creation, in one form or another? (btw, I wouldn't describe the Elohim as "permanent-yet-ephemeral". The Giants got it right (as usual): "permanence at rest, and permanence in motion". The Elohim are a defining example of "permanence in motion".) People use the term "writer's block" to cover a wide and conflicting variety of problems. As a result, writer's block itself becomes difficult to talk about. So: my understanding of writer's block (which is not at all original with me: I may have gotten it from Bruno Bettleheim) is as a paralysis induced by (premature) self-criticism. The writer cannot put anything down on paper because nothing seems good enough. This may well be an over-simplification. Nonetheless it's useful because it gives us something we can actually talk about. No. I've never suffered from writer's block. A very long time ago (in college, actually) I learned a crucial lesson: whenever I sit down to write, I have to give myself permission to write badly. Not because I want the eventual result to be anything less than excellent, but because paralysis is a far worse problem than inadequacy. If what I write sucks, I can always rewrite. But if I don't write at all, I'm dead right from the start. Writing enables writing ("service enables service"). A music analyst/historian named Newman (I'm sure I've quoted this before) wrote of Beethoven, "A great composer does not compose because he is inspired. He becomes inspired because he is composing." This is vital to the creative process. But from time to time I *have* experienced what I call "life block": a paralysis induced by pain, trauma, abuse, fear, depression, PTSD, whatever you want to call it. At those times, I can't write, not because I'm self-critical, but because the act of writing causes more pain (emotional, not physical) than I can stand. Later I get over it. Which has taught me (far too late in life) that in addition to giving myself permission to write badly, I also need to give myself permission to tend to my own well-being. (05/28/2006) |
Michael Hand: I have been a major fan ever since first picking up Lord Fouls Bane, and have read the first and second chronicles countless times. I was ecstatic to hear of the release of the first book in the last chronicles.
I am perturbed, however, about the release date of the last book in the 'Last Chronicles'. On www.kevinswatch.com, the release date for 'The Last Dark' is shown as 2013.
According to the Mayan prophecies the world is going to end in December 2012 which means we are all going to miss out on the last book.
Would it be possible for you to have the series complete so we can all read the conclusion before the end of the world?
|
It's possible that "human error" has led to a few small miscalculations about when the end of the world will actually occur. I see no reason to believe that the publication of "The Last Dark" won't coincide exactly with (or even cause) the end of the world. <grin> (05/28/2006) |
John Thorpe: A couple (3) Chronicles questions I don't think you've covered...
1) The Ranyhyn can sense a summons/need through time and do whatever is necessary to show up in the nick of time. Why then do they need to be physically present in the Plains of Ra to be available for Covenenant in TPTP?
2) Also in TPTP, Triock/Raver practically soils himself around Covenant until he learns that TC can't use his ring. In the second chronicles, after TC has shown himself capable of kicking Foul's butt, the Ravers attack (venom-enhanced) Covenant directly. Are they no longer afraid for themselves?
3) You've written that it doesn't matter whether the Land is "real" but it does seem to matter that it can perceived either way, the Land and Unbelief together. Do you agree that as the chronicles progress it gets harder to disbelieve the reality of the Land based on the strange events that occur in the real world. Even allowing for the "shared dream" of TC and LA, can you argue that the Land is a dream and explain the actions of the cultists, Joan, Roger, etc.
|
1) This is one of the very few instances in which I wish I could make retrospective changes in the earlier "Chronicles." If I had that option, I would eliminate the issue you raise by subtly altering the explanation for why the Ranyhyn remain in TPTP. As matters stand, however, you'll simply have to imagine that some barrier prevents the Ranyhyn from hearing a summons when they aren't "present" in the Land (a barrier that pertains to the fundamental nature of the Land). 2) I don't know how to answer such questions because they compare situations that have virtually nothing in common. In the first trilogy, the Ravers have good reasons for wanting/needing to keep a "host" like Triock alive and active. The only comparable situation in "The Second Chronicles" involves Marid. Covenant is much more of a "known quantity" in the second trilogy. Creatures like rats are expendable. Gibbon can draw on the full force of the Banefire. Etc. etc.. 3) Naturally the idea that the Land is "unreal" becomes less and less relevant (therefore less and less plausible) as the "Chronicles" progress. That's inevitable: the themes of the story modulate steadily into new keys. If they didn't, the story wouldn't be worth telling. (06/04/2006) |
Jeff: Hello,
I have a great respect for your writing. Actually it's a bit sad, whenever I encounter a 5 best books discussion I'm hard pressed not to list one or another of your books for 1 through to 5.
I have a few questions..
It is easy for a reader to find the 'magic' of a story when reading, but I find it very hard when reading my own work to find the magic that friends and family insist is there (gotta love 'em..) Do you see that 'magic' reading your own stories? 47 knockbacks to get a publisher for your first book, that strikes me as very persistent. What motivated you to keep trying? Was it self belief? Others' insistence? Or just pure stubbornness :)
I happened on an interview excerpt where you were discussing the balance of wanting an idea to be ready vs wanting to express it. You were quoted as saying you generally found writing to be a labour, not receiving a 'glow' until afterwards.
When reading the Runes of the Earth, at some point during Linden's time on earth I read a passage and thought to myself.. *That* is why I love reading Donaldson. However, after I finished the Runes of the Earth I was left with the feeling that this really was a labour, it wasn't easy to write, and that you were filling gaps between moments of planned brilliance with ... stuff.
For me, this rushed feeling was in such contrast with your previous work.. and I am curious about how much of an effect the time pressures you are under (whether self imposed or driven by external sources) has had on your decision to write the 'final chapter' of the Land.
-Jeff
|
Reorganizing a bit.... I've already said more than I care to repeat about how/why I survived 47 rejections for "Lord Foul's Bane." The core explanation is that the story itself kept me alive and working. Stories do that for me. And part of their salvific power lies in the fact that they are almost unendurably difficult. Now. Why would you *expect* to see the "magic" in your own work? You're on the inside looking out: the reader is on the outside looking in. Your perspective and the reader's have virtually nothing in common. The real "magic" is that communication occurs at all. The fact that some writers communicate more effectively than others (however you choose to define "effectiveness") is an almost incidental side-effect of the essential mystery. Which brings me to the issue of "rushed" and "stuff" in "The Runes of the Earth". I don't share your perspective: I can't. All I can tell you is: a) the pacing of the story is deliberately different than anything else I've ever done; b) my publishers consider the book "leisurely" (excessively so) rather than "rushed," so on a practical level I've been under constant pressure to "get on with it"; c) you didn't cite any specific "stuff"--and in any case I probably couldn't respond without spoilers--but I can assure (from my exclusive perspective "inside") that EVerything in "Runes" is intended to both enable and fortify the larger story (by which I mean both the larger story of "The Last Chronicles" and the larger story of the entire saga). (06/04/2006) |
Ian: I was wondering if you would mind if I wrote some fanfiction based around the chronicles in my blog? I have loved these books since I started reading them, and they have inspired me in many ways. Any feedback would be appreciated. :) thanks.
BTW: I just started reading Runes of the Earth, and I think it is just totally beautiful. Thank you very much!!
|
This is touchy issue because I don't own the publication rights to the various "Chronicles": my publishers do. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever excites you--as long as you give proper credit to your sources, you assure your readers that I have not read or "authorized" your work, and you don't accept any money. But I can't promise that my publishers will have the same reaction. And I have no control over what they may or may not consider "acceptable". "Authorized" is an important point. If you imply in any way that the *content* of your fanfiction (rather than the simple act of writing it) has somehow met with my approval, I'll be forced to contradict you vociferously. <sigh> And let me just add--ENTIRELY as a matter of personal opinion, so please don't take this the wrong way--that I wonder whether writing fanfiction is actually good for you. Wouldn't you be better off creating your own stories? Sure, coming up with your own characters, worlds, and plots is hard. But you might find the effort worthwhile. (06/04/2006) |
Matt Vomacka: "However, good agents (and sensible publishers, of where there are precious few) protect their authors by making sure that the author gets paid for each and every movie regardless of who owns the rights, or what the content of the movie actually is."
~Back from like, 2004
If the movie actually moved too far from LFB, would you consider severing ties with it? Understandably, the temptation of cash might interest you (if they're going to botch the work, you deserve just compensation ;) ) but how far do you imagine the movie going before it became not just annoying but painful to acknowledge?
That being said, I'd actually appreciate a LFB movie. Not because I'd expect it to be good or anything, but because it might attract more readers. I think a good number of people I know *might* enjoy the series if I could convince them to try it.
~~~
Also, a random comment. You said
"And if that isn't sufficient authority, I need only observe that the oldest and most enduring works of storytelling in every language on this planet are *all* fantasy. Without exception. (Go ahead: think of an exception. Take your time. And if you *do* think of one, PLEASE let me know. The information would be good for me.)"
Well, I'll admit it's on a borderline between the real world and fantasy, that is, it certainly goes beyond the realm of normalcy...but [how about Moby Dick?
I think Milton's "Paradise Lost" would be fanfiction, since regardless of the bible's truth, Milton is writing a fictional story based on another written work. Yay.
Thanks for your time, assuming it's spent.
|
I doubt that I would ever dissociate myself from a LFB movie. (The author--and publisher--get paid whether the author disavows the movie or not.) For one thing, I suspect that most people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the author of a book (or graphic novel) and the makers of a movie. For another, I agree that movies (even bad ones) can attract new readers. For another, I don't have any "ego" invested in a LFB movie (not yet, anyway <sigh>). And for yet another, history has shown that movie-makers who don't respect their sources alienate their "core audience"--which leads to a substantial loss of revenue. Just look at Lynch's atrocious "Dune". When I asked for exceptions to my assertion that "the oldest and most enduring works of storytelling...are *all* fantasy," I was thinking of works older than the Bible--and MUCH older than "Moby Dick". I had in mind works like "The Epic of Gilgamesh," "The Mahabhratha," "The Elder Eddas," and the ancient Japanese epics. (06/04/2006) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
The question I would like to ask is, there are several references to Linden "having too much power" so what I am wondering is, is that possible for her if she cannot use both at the same time? I mean, the ring could wipe everything off the planet, but not the staff. Or is that the Haruchai's take on Linden rather than a fact?
Thank you again for taking the time to answer all these questions!
Respectfully,
Perry Bell
|
If I understand your question.... Linden has "too much power" in that she wouldn't survive trying to use both white gold and the Staff of Law *simultaneously*. Never mind the fact that wild magic and Lawful Earthpower are inherently antithetical. She's MORTAL: she has limits. Any attempt to channel such immense and divergent forces would tear her apart. As they would any mortal being in the "Chronicles"--and possibly the immortal ones as well. (06/04/2006) |
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.
Luke McKeown: Hi Stephen,
May I firstly thank you for your excellent first book of the Last Chronicles.
I am wondering if it is your intention to create a near mythical world which can be sown into the fabric of our own myths etc? I sometimes get the feel when re-reading the first six books that this could be so.
Keep up the good work Stephen, can't wait for the next part!
|
Does anyone ever *intend* "to create a near mythical world which can be sown into the fabric of our own myths etc"? I don't think it works that way. In fact, I suspect that attempting to accomplish such a feat would preclude success. It is only by focusing exclusively on specific characters in specific situations, on specific stories, that writers (occasionally, mysteriously, without forewarning or premeditation) tap into universal insights. (06/04/2006) |
Robert: You asked if there were any languages whose oldest and most enduring works were not fantasy. Old Latin is dominated by Plautus, Ennius, and Terence. Plautus and Terence adapted Greek comedies, creating a mix between farce and sitcom (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum is based on Plautus plays). Ennius was a poet, however his poetry was as likely to be dominated by philosophy and theogony as fantasy. Even his epic was rooted in the historic rather than legendary era, and, had it been released today, would have been just as likely to end up in the historical fiction end of the bookshelf as the fantasy. Its also worth noting that full plays of Plautus survive, whereas Ennius exists only in fragments.
Lucretius was the greatest epic poet between Ennius and Virgil, and his gifts were turned more towards philosophy and science than fantasy. Virgil, feeding off of Lucretius meter and vocabulary as much as Homers themes and content, would finally bring a real rip-roaring fantasy to Latin literature, 150 years after Romans started putting pen to paper.
-a Classics/History Major
|
Actually, I asked if there were any ancient *stories* which were not fantasy. And I was thinking of stories which pre-date Ennius. btw, how *do* you distinguish between "theogony" and fantasy? Can't both be described as attempts to understand, well, life by using "metaphors of magic and monsters"? (06/04/2006) |
Shawn: Sir:
My reasons for disturbing you are twofold; I have first a small set of questions and a simple statement.
My questions are these: although I know that the GAP sequence draws from Der Ring des Nibelungen for inspiration, and that it seems to have followed its natural course, have there ever been plans to explore what Angus does with the rest of his life? What, exactly, he does with Mr. Fastner? The idea that he keeps Mr. Fastner alive may provoke a certain Schadenfreude in even the most pious, I am sure. And what of Morn and her ilk? Surely Davies does not write a novel and go on a book tour? One might assume that his drive to act would not allow him to sit still, even when all was well.
My statement is simple: Thank you. While I am sure that this is something you hear often, I shall not allow the reluctance of telling to interfere with your potential joy of hearing. Simply, thank you.
|
I've said it before: I don't know what my writing future holds. I'm often surprised by the ideas that come to me. Once I'm done with "The Last Chronicles"...well, who knows? But I'm fairly sure that I'll never write any prequels. The idea bores me. And I have no plans to continue anything I've already done (except the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels). I rather like the open-endedness of the GAP novels. And I have no particular itch to write more about those characters and/or situations. (06/05/2006) |
Cal Walker: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Rather than overtly gush, I thought I would condense my praise by stating: Your writing satisfies my sweet tooth. That said, I'd like to ask my question. I remember when first reading "The Chronicles" being frustrated that Thomas Covenant never attempted to verify/prove the existance of Hile Troy after returning to his own world. This seemed a perfectly reasonable way for Covenant to confirm his belief that he had merely been locked in a dream. I'm wondering if Covenant's psyche so fragile that he could not risk finding out he was wrong about the land and what he had done to Lena, or is there another expanation? Thank you for your consideration.
|
Actually, if memory serves--which it probably does, since I have "The Power that Preserves" right in front of me <grin>--Covenant *does* try to confirm Hile Troy's "reality". Apart from hiring a private detective (probably not a good idea in his situation), he does the only thing I could think of if I were in his position: he makes a phone call. With what we might politely call unsatisfying results. Plus there's the whole "mental and emotional isolation of the leper" problem.... (06/05/2006) |
WTS: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Firstly, I find I am compelled to write the usual praise for you excellent storytelling; you can pretty much pick any one of the first paragraphs in the GI, add a flourish and a puff of smoke, and it will fit here <grin>.
That aside, I have wondered recently, during my reread of TCTC, is it possible that the old beggar that in the first two cronicles appeared as an omen of Covenant and Linden's entries to the land was an incarnation of the creator? The god-appearing-as-a-beggar schtick in not unheard of elsewhere which makes me think that's not what you're doing.
That brings me to my second point, which is, since he didn't appear to Linden in "Runes," is it possible that someone else could have filled that role, i.e. Jerimiah? Or would that be telling? <grin>
Typing this brought me to two more questions, with which I will be as brief as possible, lest I be forced to trouble you with more ;)
1) I seem to remember in "Runes" that Linden Avery is surprized to find herself in The Land without having first seen the old beggar. Why would this be she's only been to the land once before, so it doesn't seem likely that she would have anticipated the pattern.
2) Does the Creator have any part in the "real" world, our world, Covenant's world? Or is he restricted to the world of the Land?
|
<sigh> Picture the author muttering to himself, "'Creator' questions! Is there no end?" Yes, I intend(ed) the old beggar to represent the Land's Creator. The fact that this idea has been used before is one of several reasons why I decided not to be more explicit about it. As for the beggar's absence from "The Runes of the Earth"--yes, that would be telling. 1) Linden is aware of the pattern because Covenant told her about his previous experience. 2) As I've said, the Land's Creator does appear in Covenant's "real" world. But what does that have to with "our" world? Covenant's "real" world is just as fictional as the Land. (06/05/2006) |
Dana: Hi Stephen!
I was completely hooked on the "Gap" series from page one. I think I even fell in love with Nick Succorso (yes, I'm a strange woman...)
Wondering if there is any plans afoot to somehow get these book translated into a film?
cheers
Dana
|
"Plans" might be too strong a word for it. There have been discussions about a GAP "option" off and on for years. If anything actually happens, I'll post the information in the "news" section of this site. (06/05/2006) |
Lynne : After finding out about a new installment in the Covenant saga (on the Library board at Pemberley.com, a Jane Austen website--your fans are everywhere!) I Googled (ick-I guess it's a verb now) and found your site. It's been ages since I've read Mordant, Covenant or the Gap series, so it looks like I'll have to revisit Covenant in order to appreciate the new books. I admit to feeling ambiguous about that. It means my "must read" pile gets reshuffled. I've skimmed the ongoing interviews; please allow me a brief comment before coming to my actual question. You seem upset by questions about your personal life. I don't blame you; you have a right to privacy. You also have every reason to be concerned there may be a few whack jobs out there who could make your and your family's lives a living hell. However, weirdos and whack jobs aside, some people simply want to feel some sort of connection to a person whose work they admire.
My question: In one of your replies, you mentioned "fundamentalist Christianity" as an influence, yet in another post you say you want nothing to do with a God that would play games with people the way he or she played games with Job. So are you like Hawthorne, wanting to eschew his Puritanical past yet not quite able to shake its influence in spite of himself? And what about redemption? My husband gave up on the Gap series after the first book because nobody seems worth redeeming. When I pointed out that that's what he likes about Thackeray, he retorted, "yeah, but I can laugh at Thackeray's characters." We were able to laugh at Master Eremis (so arrogant and full of himself) while despising him for his treachery, but you don't make it that easy in the Gap books. It seems your characters (the ones with any capacity to feel guilt or remorse, anyway) find their own way to redeem themselves. Is that finally your point? Seems a more Humanist view than the conventional Christian view of salvation by grace.
Thanks for your patience and your generosity.
|
This seems like a suitable--i.e. completely arbitrary--opportunity to mention that I'll be taking a hiatus from the GI for a while. Some people use the word "vacation," but since I've never been away this long, I don't know what to expect. In any case, I won't come back on line until July. Now. "Fundamentalist Christianity" is "bred in the bone" for me; so deeply ingrained that it can never be extirpated, no matter how hard I may try. (As Flannery O'Conner has observed, people are defined as much by what they run away from as by what they run toward.) My conscious mind no longer lives in that world: my unconscious does what it wills. Still, one can hardly look back on Donaldson books--*any* Donaldson books--without becoming aware that they're about redemption. My protagonists *always* have to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling." Clearly this is a Humanist--or even an Existentialist--view of "redemption". Yet the stuff in the marrow of my bones never goes away. To the idea that "nobody [in the GAP books] seems worth redeeming," my instinctive reaction is: Would Christ have said that? Who needs redemption more than those who appear least worthy? (06/08/2006) |
Jim Griffiths: Steve,
Thank you for that. I've read all your books and will read all that you WILL write, coz you're Not going to die...... though suppose I will....
Question- What, if anything, in your books has made you cry?
For me, a forty odd male, TC's caamora for the Giants in TWL and Terisas realising that her father has virtually disavowed her and forgotten her have to be my two, oh god moments, Thank you again for your work. You DO make a difference.
There is also love in the world...
Jim
|
(Just personal enough to make me squirm; not personal enough to refuse to answer.... <sigh>) We all have our unique vulnerabilities. Mine tend to involve "validation". The scene in "A Man Rides Through" where the Tor begs to be assured that he hasn't failed his King. The scene in "This Day All Gods Die" where Morn reads her message from Warden Dios. That sort of thing. (06/12/2006) |
Bob Greiner: A fairly mundane, question, I'm afraid, Mr. Donaldson -- about pronunciation. My wife and I have both just re-read "Mordant's Need" and in our discussions we found we disagreed on how to pronounce the names of King Joyse and Geraden. I suspect we might not be the only ones, so your answer could be relevant to a lot of readers. I read them as "Joyz" and "Ger-AD-en" (hard "g") and she reads "Joisey" (as a native of the Garden State might call home) and "JER-a-den." Is either of us even close?
|
As I've said before: Hey, they're your books, you can pronounce the names any way you want. Personally, I say "Joyce" (like "James Joyce") and "GER-a-den" (hard g). (06/12/2006) |
Chris O'Connell: Mr. Donaldson, I have searched to see if you have answered this question already and haven't found it. If you have, and I just used the wrong keywords, my apologies... Anyway, I am curious to hear your reaction to the reality that most of your fans seem far more interested in the world of Thomas Covenant and the Land, than in any of your other works. I find it a bit odd, yet I think I fall into the same category. I personally think that 'The Real Story' is one of the greatest books I have ever read (I think I finished the whole thing in a 24 hour period with very little sleep). Yet, I will admit that I am far more interested in learning about Giants and Ravers and white gold than I am in the world of the Gap. I have visted Kevins Watch, but if one existed, I doubt I would visit a similar site dedicated to the Gap Cycle. I find that I am not exactly asking this question in a way that makes it easy to answer, so my apologies. I guess I'm really just interested in hearing your thoughts about this without trying to direct your answer in any way. I apologize for this, since this sort of open ended question probably takes much more time to answer than the typical 'Who do you think would win in a fight; Russell Crowe or Bannor of the Bloodguard?' sort of question, and I don't want to take too much of your time. But, I'll take whatever of your time I can get... :)
Chris
|
(Well, I'm back. Didja miss me? <grin>) As a writer who labors with equal intensity (and growing ambition) over everything I write, I'm naturally saddened that none of my other work "speaks" to my readers as powerfully, or as consistently, as "Covenant" does. Nonetheless the fact that readers, well, love the Land more than, say, the world of the GAP seems perfectly natural--and even predictable. (In fact, I've been predicting it myself at every stage of my career.) What's at issue, I think, isn't either the stories themselves or my skill in telling them. It's a function, rather, of the setting. The Land is simply *bigger* (in every sense except physical scale) than any other world I've created: more magical, richer in history, more diversely populated, more inherently epic; in short, just plain more *attractive*. My readers are more interested in the Land (its history, its characters, its implications and possibilities) because the Land is simply more interestING. (Plus there's the whole psychodrama/journey inward/transcendentalism dimension of good fantasy which I've discussed at length elsewhere.) Or so I tell myself. The alternative is to believe that I've been losing it as a writer for decades now; and that way lies madness--or at least seppuku. <sigh> (06/29/2006) |
Debbie R: Mr Donaldson,
I'm wondering if you have met many of your fellow
authors in the science fantasy realm, and if so do
you find alot in common. I list you as my number one favorite in science-fantasy, having read Lord
Foul's Bane at least 6 times!! I also have to say
your Gap series was amazing and such a different
"read" from Covenant. I am ashamed to say that I just found out 2 nights ago about the Final Chronicles, I never has seen it at my local book
store even though I had been browsing the shelves
looking for any new titles of yours.
Please keep on writing as long as you can!!
|
One of the great pleasures of writing sf/f is that it has enabled me to meet many of my fellow writers. As a group, they are as diverse as any other group of human beings. In fact, the only thing I can say with confidence about us as a group is that when we get together we don't want to talk about writing. (Writing is, after all, an intensely private occupation for everyone who does it.) We only talk about writing when we're talking to readers. Among ourselves, we discuss agents, publishers, other writers, books in general. But mainly we talk about life. Just like normal folks. <grin> (06/29/2006) |
Patrick Scalia: Just finished _Runes of the Earth_ and let me tell you it was a thrill to return to the land after so many years.
My questions are: How long have you been training in the fighting arts, and did this experience affect your characterization of the Bloodguard in any way? To those of us who have trained the description of the Bloodguards' fighting sounds quite authentic.
Thanks.
|
I've been studying the martial arts for, oh, 18 years now. I'm glad that it shows. But I don't "use" it consciously (except in the case of "The Man Who Fought Alone" and "The Killing Stroke"). Instead it has simply become one of the many resources that I bring to everything I write, like my "ear" for language and my sense of narrative timing. (06/29/2006) |
Sean Casey: As you've said many times, you only create as much backstory and world detail as you need for the plot and a ceratin amount of flavour. But you keep getting asked questions about the world of the Land. Have any of them prompted you to invent more detail or think more about the processes that made the Land what it is? Have any of them helped you in putting the flesh on the bones of the Last Chronicles?
|
Yes, the questions I'm asked in the GI *do* occasionally prompt me to think more clearly, and in greater detail, about issues over which I might otherwise be inclined to gloss. (And no, I'm not going to tell you *which* questions--or which issues. That would lead me almost immediately into the quicksand of spoilers.) That's one of several reasons why I persist with the GI, despite the fact that I've already answered 1200+ questions. At unexpected moments, this dialogue becomes a fecund and challenging experience. Even questions like "Could Saltheart Foamfollower beat up Hercules?" are not entirely devoid of merit. <grin> As a general rule, I find that questions are only "entirely devoid of merit" when I permit myself to scoff at them. In other words, a question is only "entirely devoid of merit" when I make it so. ("Creator" questions leap to mind. <sigh>) (06/29/2006) |
Jim Munson: Interesting comment by Dean Koontz on Amazon's "Fishbowl," the new streaming site hosted by Bill Maher. He basically said that authors he knows who spend a great deal of time on their websites find their productivity going straight to hell. Any truth to that?
|
It's easy to see how that could happen. But it always comes down to the unique ethic and discipline of the particular writer. In my case, I only use non-work time for my web site. Today, for example: I'm jetlagged out of my mind, effectively incapable of accomplishing anything useful on "Fatal Revenant"; so instead I'm trying to reawaken my brain here. (06/29/2006) |
Ian G: Okay, now this one confuses me... In the Second "Chronicles" the Haruchai say that the Bloodguard had Linden's sight, but the Haruchai don't possess it... yet in the Last Chronicles, in many cases they seem to surpass Linden even in defiance of Kevins Dirt... how does that work? And just ahead of time, can't wait for Fatal Revenant... *grin*
|
Well, here's my explanation, for what it's worth: the Sunbane and Kevin's Dirt are very different forms of evil. The Sunbane was a corrosion of Law itself, an attack on "the natural order." Kevin's Dirt is more like, well, a fog; a veil which obscures perception, but which does not alter what lies behind it. Ergo, the "transcendant" nature of the Haruchai was affected in "The Second Chronicles" but is not in "The Last Chronicles". (06/30/2006) |
Patrick Osborne: I have yet to read The Runes of The Earth, though it is now wending its way from Amazon.com to my home. I have been a great fan of the Covenant Series since I was Thirteen.
As I read The One Tree for the first time, I was enthralled by the sea journey to the Isle of The One Tree. When I grew older I re-read it, after having finally read thoroughly, Coleridge's Rhime of the Ancient Mariner and was pleased to see the parralels between that poem and some of the particulars of the events of The One Tree. Was this intentional?
I do wish you would reconsider the making of a Film of The Chronicles, though understand why you would not encourage the Studios to "Hack" this story to make it fit onto the screen.
Cheers!
Patrick
|
Another example of Unconscious vs Conscious influences. As a man with both a B.A. and an M.A. (and a Litt.D) in English literature, I can hardly be anything less than well acquainted with Coleridge in general, and with his Ancient Mariner in particular. But I wasn't *thinking about* Coleridge's poem when I wrote "The One Tree." The poem's influence simply leaked out of my subconscious while I was concentrating on other things. (Which, by the bye, is one of my primary reasons for continuing to do what I do. I *live* for those occasions when--as I like to say--"I write better than I know how"; when my unconscious puts more into the prose than my conscious mind is able to provide. As I get older and more experienced, those occasions become increasingly subtle. But they still occur--for which I'm devoutly grateful.) By now, I hope I've made it clear that I have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether or not anyone ever makes a "Covenant" film. At extremely rare intervals, circumstances grant me the power to say Yes or No to a movie option. When that happens, I always say Yes (unless they want me to write the screenplay, in which case I say No without hesitation). But the circumstances themselves are entirely outside my control. As they should be: it ain't *my* money. <grin> (06/30/2006) |
Ian G: I have a real quick question: I have been rereading the complete Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, up to Runes of the earth, and a question just came up. Will it ever be explained why the leader of the clave was the "Na-Mhoram?" Was it just something Foul did to hurt Covenant because Mhoram was a close friend, or did Mhoram become corrupt? Thank you for your writings.
Another question, just because I couldn't find it... how much do the signed bookplates cost? Once again, thank you :)
|
Can I pick "none of the above"? Of *course* Mhoram didn't become corrupt. And it seems unlikely that the title "na-Mhoram" would have evolved simply to hurt Covenant's feelings. Please keep in mind that 3500 years passed between the end of TPTP and the beginning of TWL. I think we can assume that for a significant number of centuries after his defeat, Lord Foul was powerless, and the Council flourished. When LF did begin to exert his influence again, he chose an extremely subtle--and very time-consuming--approach: the gradual corruption of the Council into the Clave. This was done by tiny increments over many centuries. One of those increments (but only one) was changing the "High Lord" title to "na-Mhoram", a change which was doubtless justified as an act of homage to the greatest of the new (post Ritual) Lords, but the real significance of which involved the slow re-definition of the Council and its purposes. The "na-Mhoram" title was an attempt to lend authority, validity, to that re-definition. I hope that's clear? I'm too tired to tell. <sigh> There is no charge for my signed bookplates. You don't even have to pay for postage. (06/30/2006) |
Drew (drew): Hi Steven. I've used the search function, and it appears that this question(s) has not been asked yet.
I asked on Kevenswatch once, but never really got an answer their, so I though I'd try it on you.
These questions are about the term *Bestseller*.
What constitutes a bestseller? Is it total sales? or sales in a specific time period?
Which of your books have been Bestsellers?
Thank you.
|
The term "bestseller" refers to *speed* of sales: sales in a specific time period. A book that sells 300,000 copies in one month is a major bestseller, even if it never sells another copy after that. A book that sells 1,000,000 copies in a year, and continues to sell for 20 years, can easily *not* be a bestseller. (Of course, there are sub-categories of "bestsellers". A book can easily stay at the top of the sf/f genre bestseller lists for months without ever appearing on the NY Times Bestseller List.) Leaving genre lists aside, only two of my books have ever been hardcover "bestsellers": "The One Tree" and "White Gold Wielder". The five "Covenant" books after LFB were all paperback bestsellers. BUT. After nearly 30 years, every book I've ever published is currently in print. I'll take that over bestseller-dom any day. (06/30/2006) |
Peter Purcell: "seppuku"
Ritual suicide by disembowelment formerly practiced by Japanese samurai. Also called hara-kiri.
WOW! Had to go to dictionary.com for that one!!! LOL You could have just said hara-kiri!!
BTW, OF COURSE WE MISSED YOU!!
|
Ah, but you missed one of the subtleties. <grin> "Hara-kiri" was only performed by the grandest and most consequential of lords: it's far more ceremonial and elaborate than seppuku, which is reserved for us lesser mortals, and which can be authentically performed in private (although having a good friend standing by to finish the job is always advisable). (06/30/2006) |
chris summers: Hi, I wrote to you for the first time last month. I'm a musician, and I make my living doing it, basically i've been doing it for round thirty years. I rarely ever get tired of it, but on occasions its hard to motivate myself when it comes to writing new material etc. but then the thought comes to me, as it always does when i'm in that situation, "Stop whining dude, you've spent your whole life doing the thing you love, and you never have to clock in at eight, and out at five, or take orders from some boring old fart in a suit, life is great" .......usually that does the trick, but not always. I was wondering, is it the same for you? Do you ever get tired of writing, is it a hobby too? after you were recognised, did all the fun go out of it, has it become just a job? I hope thats not the case. You must be heartened by the letters and wonderful comments by people, and I am in great admiration of your work. Obviously when you first started writing, getting responses like this must have made you feel over the moon, but now all these years and books later do you still get the same feeling inside when you read them. I hope my quetions haven't been too intrusive, and just one final one, Whats your favourite place on Earth??............Thanks for answering my first letter to you. Chris Summers
|
I think I've made it clear in the GI that writing has never been "fun" for me. I certainly don't approach it as a "hobby": it's a "calling"; something I feel *commanded* to do. On the other side of the emotional dynamic, I'm daily grateful that I can support myself and my loved ones by doing the work I was born to do (which also happens to be the only work I'm qualified for <rueful smile>). I never forget that I'm blessed in ways which few people ever experience. That said.... Things *have* changed since the days when I was writing the first "Covenant" books. Age and experience, of course. But in addition: although my rejection years were grim and cruel in many ways, and I paid a high price for them, they had one benefit which I lost as soon as I was published. Freedom. Since I was a failure anyway (or appeared to be), and nothing was expected of me, I could do absolutely whatever I wanted, however I wanted to do it. Take any risk. Push any limit. And that changed as soon as "earning a living" ceased to be a dream and instead became a necessity. A strange sort of role-reversal: affirmation took the place of rejection; and--for lack of a better term--responsibility took the place of freedom. I could go on about this at some length; but I'll just cite one example. Suddenly, as soon as I found a publisher, "artistic integrity" mattered. If storytelling were a job instead of a calling, I could have simply gone for the money--which would have made my life a hell of a lot easier. But no: I need a sense of creative purity. Which means that ever since I started to get paid my life has been a constant struggle between "earning a living" (i.e. pleasing my publishers, who are naturally all about money) and "artistic integrity". I like to believe that I haven't compromised. But I've paid a high price (emotionally as well as financially) for sticking to my convictions. (If you doubt me, consider the fact that I'm on my 4th publisher--and no one who has published me in the past is willing to do so again. I don't leave publishers: they send me away because my stubbornness costs them money.) (07/01/2006) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
A question was posted in the G.I. regarding the use of profanity in ROTE. Specifically, you were asked why you chose to use more profanity/obscenity than the previous Covenant books. The question states that they had whited out all the profanity so the book could be in proper Covenant form.
It is my observation this is a littledisingenuous. I am reminded of the saying Actions speak louder than words. Covenant commits an act of rape upon his first arrival to the Land. I believe rape to be an extreme act of obscenity worse than any word/s could beeven though words are often used as weapons and can be very damaging (as your response to this question pointed out). I must wonder if someone who would whit out words of profanity would also whit out the rape scene in LFB. To do so would irrevocably alter the entire proceeding Chronicles, First, Second and Last. And I must wonder why someone would embrace the first two Chronicles, fueled, to a very large extent upon Covenants act of rape, but despair the use of specific words in the Last Chronicles.
Hum, I do not seem to be asking a question, but rather making a statement, and I I'm not sure if that is what you intended the G.I. to be used for. If not, Im sorry. And it is not my intent to attack the other poster to the GI. I just feel (as someone who has loved not just the Chronicles, but all your works) that your works have always been about somethingwell, dark. The people in your stories often experience terrible events. It would be unrealistic if Linden, in the real world, did not experience the use of profanity, but did experience other dark events, such as Covenants murder, the suicide of her father in her presence, the mental/physical abuse of Joan. And I must wonder why anyone would think it could be so?
Best wishes to you.
|
Thanks! I'm glad to hear other perspectives on this issue, which is clearly distressing to a number of readers. (07/01/2006) |
JD: Steve,
Recently, I came across a book by "Reed Stevens" called "Treasure of Taos: Tales of Northern New Mexico". Considering that you live in New Mexico, and that this book was published close to the time you still used that name (1992)...well, I would think this book is not yours, otherwise you would have it listed on this site. I have been unable to find out any information of this book or it's author. Do you know of this book, or its author?
Best Wishes.
|
Sorry, there's nothing I can tell you--apart from pointing out the difference in spelling ("Stevens" rather than "Stephens"). I've never heard of the book myself, or its author. (07/01/2006) |
James Sletten: I have greatly enjoyed your books over the years, especially The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I appreciate this opportunity to ask you a question.
You have mentioned before that creating the character of Terisa Morgan helped you prepare for Linden Avery. I couldnt help but notice certain similarities between Adept Havelock and Anele; midway through Runes, I realized that I was picturing an image of Anele that was very similar to how I pictured Havelock. Did Havelock contribute to the creation of Anele?
-Thank You
|
I keep coming back to the "Conscious vs Unconscious." On some level, everything contributes to everything. Everything I am and do builds on everything I was and did. But I wasn't *thinking about* Havelock when I created Anele. Rather I was trying to imagine a (thematically) logical extension of Nassic, Sunder's father. And I was--and am--struggling to comprehend what the consequences of being in Anele's position must be. (As I've said before, the fact that Anele is Elena spelled backward is just a happy coincidence: the unconscious mind enriching the conscious process.) (07/02/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: This may be obvious, but does the title "Shall Pass Utterly" come from the lines in "Lord Kevin's Lament" where it states that "beauty and truth shall *NOT* pass utterly from the Earth"? And if so, I must say, "I have a bad feeling about this"... :-)
|
The actual line (from "Lord Kevin's Lament" in TIW) is "did You intend/that beauty and truth should pass utterly from the/Earth?" And yes, that's where I got the title for Covenant 9. And that gives you "a bad feeling"? In a *Covenant* book? <grin> Oh, dear. (07/06/2006) |
Mitchell: What is your opinion of the writings of Robert E. Howard?
|
They don't appeal to me. (07/06/2006) |
Vincent: Hail Mr. Donaldson,
It's been a while since I came to this site and had the opportunity to read, not only your stories, but your insight and personal opinions. Honestly I don't believe there is any other writer out there who converses with the readers like they are 'real' people. I think that is wonderful and I hope you will continue to so for a long time.
I remember mentioning to you that I was a writer. Well I have been writing what I think of as fairly fast, an average of 9 pages a day...not counting weekends and drinking days...and I was wondering, how many pages a month would you personaly consider fast?
Oh and I suppose the last thing I'd like to ask is, what do you feel about getting an agent to help publish someone's first book? Is it important to have their wider knowledge of the how's and what's of the business, or should I just start slinging manuscripts around? I know you can't recommend any agent or publisher specificaly because of a conflict of interest. My appologies if you have already answered this question, I just didn't feel like wading through the GI to find it...*laughing*
|
Writers vary enormously--just like Real People. I know a writer who can comfortably write a, oh, 240-260 page novel in ten days. And I know a writer who struggles to produce a 240-260 page novel in a year. (These are manuscript pages, double-spaced etc.) I live somewhere between those extremes (although I'm slowing down with age). When I'm "in the groove," I can do around 30 pages a week (so 6 a day). At that rate, I could produce a 240 page novel in 8 weeks--if I ever wrote anything that short. <grin> And of course, I'm not always "in the groove." And I haven't yet mentioned rewriting. Over the long haul, my *effective* rate is probably closer to 10-15 pages a week (I haven't actually tried to figure this out). These days, you have to have an agent. Publishers no longer read unsolicited manuscripts. Just "slinging manuscripts around" isn't going to work. (07/07/2006) |
Christian Bonn: While I assume you are in great and vigorous health, how would you handle your Last Chronicles in a [life- and livelihood threatening disease]? Would you want some designated author to complete your Last Chronicles for you posthumously? Would you rush to complete Last Chronicles yourself as best you could? Would you just leave the conclusion of your series to the imagination of your readers? Also, I wonder what type of precedent there is for authors who fail to outlive their many volume epics?
Forgive me for bringing up such a morbid topic in the gradual interview, but you seem accessible enough to consider and respond to this type of question carefully. Stay healthy!
|
For once, I'll try to avoid a jokey answer. (Surely you understand that this is an uncomfortable subject? At my age, I'm forced to think about death--my own, and that of the people I care about--with some regularity; but it ain't exactly fun. Hence my impulse to defuse the issue with jokes.) First, I need to emphasize that I *do not* have a plan for this contingency. I don't know what I would do if the situation came up. So everything that I'm about to say is pure speculation. (And please: no volunteers. Do I need to say this? If/when the situation arises, I'll make my own plans, thank you. If nothing else, that will be consistent with the way I've lived my writing life.) Being as detail- and care-oriented as I am, I can't imagine "rushing" anything--unless I happen to be somewhere quite near the end of a particular volume, or a particular phase of the story. In that case, I might try to put on a burst of speed. One thing that I believe I would *not* do is authorize my publishers (or my estate) to pick some random writer to finish the project for me. Sorry, but this is the inside of *my* head we're talking about. No strangers allowed. At the moment, I'm torn between two scenarios. 1) I contact a writer whom I know and respect personally, and I ask him/her to finish the job for me. If s/he agrees, I spend as much time as I have left discussing the story so that my candidate has as clear an idea as possible of my intentions. 2) I just give my notes to my publishers and ask them to publish the notes verbatim at the end of however much I've completed. That way, each reader can imagine the conclusion of the story for him/herself. Of course, these are only the thoughts of the moment. Assuming that I don't think otherwise later: "how much time I have left" will be a big factor. I can think of two examples of writers in the predicament you describe: Mervyn Peake (who appears to have rushed "Titus Alone" in order to complete his trilogy), and E. R. R. Eddison, he of "The Worm Ouroboros" [sp?], who left behind dissociated fragments of a projected trilogy or tetralogy (for some reason, I can't remember which right now). Whatever happens, I won't follow Eddison's example, for the simple reason that I write the story in the same sequence that I intend it to be read; I don't "skip around" in the tale, as Eddison did. (07/08/2006) |
Tom: Greetings, sir! I'm a representative of a younger generation of your readers, and I've got about six of my 16-18 year old friends into all your works over the last couple of years. I've had the pleasure of reading your books both as a child, unable perhaps to grasp many of the complexities and yet able to be whisked away with ease into your rich immersive worlds, and after having matured ((to an extent, at least ;-)), able to appreciate more of the ideas hiding under the surface. Allow me to be the sixty thousandth person to thank you for some of the most beautiful and inspiring reads I've experienced.
Now then, I'll try to ask a couple of things which haven't been asked before:
1. Lovecraft once said that "Any great and lasting book must be ambiguous. It is a mirror that makes the reader's features known, but the author must seem to be unaware of the significance of his work." Got any thoughts on this, and if you have the time, on his writings in general?
2. Another thing for which I must thank you is pointing me in the direction of Steven Erikson. The sheer scale of his work borders on insane, but he's an absolutely fascinating read. This is probably a less unique question, but I just wondered which *event* in the "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" series you have enjoyed the most thusfar? Personally Coltaine's chain of dogs moved me very, very much, as did the Mappo-Icarium situation and the ending of Memories of Ice. (btw I'm only up to "House of Chains", so please try not to spoil anything for me, or for that matter anybody else. ;-))
Thanks in advance for any replies you may give.
|
1) Lovecraft's work doesn't appeal to me. As to the sentences you quote: in my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there is less to them than meets the eye. If "Any great and lasting book must be ambiguous," then I guess we'll have to forget a lot of Shakespeare. Ambiguity is only one of many possible creative tools/goals. It has no inherent value: its importance depends upon the skill, intelligence, purposes, and talent of the writer who deploys it. And that second sentence: what does that even *mean*? I grant you that the best writers don't go around trumpeting the "significance" of their work. That kind of ego is almost always a symptom of mediocrity. The best writers concentrate on the story at hand: they let "significance" take care of itself. (They also let story-as-mirror take care of itself.) But that is not at all the same thing as "must seem to be unaware of the significance". One of the qualities that I treasure in great books is that the authors know what they're doing: the authors as well as the stories have a clear sense of purpose. 2) So far, my favorite aspect of "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" is the emergence of Quick Ben and Captain Paran as major players. But in my opinion the most *powerful* installment so far is "Memories of Ice". Just opinions, folks. Take them for what they're worth. (07/08/2006) |
David Wiles: Dear Steve; In Andelain people encounter their dead.
Is it only for people who have a message from their dead? If I recall correctly, Covenant was in Andelain with Atiarian when the attack occured on the Wraiths during their dance at the Celebraton of Spring and there was no encounters for either him or Atiarian.
Also, is it possible to take a Caesure back before they were actually created.
Your stories are always a well met Waymeet to me regaurdless of the many times I have read them.
Sincerly, David Wiles
|
When Covenant entered Andelain with Atiaran, the Law of Death had not yet been broken: hence no Dead. TWL implies that "ordinary" people who enter Andelain do meet their Dead. However, the story reserves such encounters for the primary characters. (Note that in WGW the First and Pitchwife do not meet their Dead--since, apart from Honninscrave, their personal dead did not die in the Land.) If caesures could not be taken back before they were actually created, Linden would never have been able to retrieve the Staff of Law. (07/08/2006) |
John Butcher:
Dear Mr Donaldson,
Thank you very much for answering my previous question. Here is one about the Gap which has long puzzled me.
At the end of 'Forbidden Knowledge' we see Warden's guilt over committing a crime against Angus' soul, the implication being that this is a step too far and 'it's got to stop.' Yet the terms for making someone a cyborg, 'wedding' and 'welding', are clearly already established, so individuals must have been welded before. Why, then, does the case of Angus so perturb Warden, especially as, being 'the slime of the universe', Angus might be thought to be slightly less deserving of sympathy than almost anybody else?
|
Warden's feeling that "It's got to stop" isn't personal to Angus. Warden knows perfectly well that he's committing the same crime against Angus that he deplores in Holt Fasner. No, the "It" in Warden's declaration is the whole moral/political/economic climate which permits and even encourages "wedding and welding": the climate which Holt has created (with Warden's initially naive and later despairing aid). When Warden announces that "It's got to stop," he's proclaiming his intention to *use* Angus--and Morn--in order to bring Holt down. (07/09/2006) |
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.
Andrew: As I recently read the GI, it seemed to me that you are genuinely peeved that your books don't sell more than they do. That theme is repeated in many comments. Since Runes was a NYT bestseller, that surprises me. Is that true? If so, how do *you* determine whether or not a novel is truly successful?
|
"Peeved" is the wrong word for my current emotions. Saddened, sure. Disappointed, unquestionably. It's hard for a writer to come down from the Olympian heights achieved by the first six "Covenant" books in paperback, and "The One Tree" and "White Gold Wielder" in hardcover. That's human nature, I suspect. When you're "on top," the fall is never pleasant. And since I write to be read, I naturally hate to lose readers. But excuse me: "Runes" was a NYT bestseller? Not on any NYT beseller list I ever saw. When my publishers in their promotional efforts refer to the NYT beseller list, they're talking about the first six "Covenant" books, not "Runes". (To be fair: "Runes" has sold *very* well in England.) But what makes a novel "successful" to its author? There are probably more answers than there are authors. I have several myself. Sure, I would love a huge readership. And a movie based on something I've written *might* be good for my ego. (Or not.) But at the end of the day, it's being able to look myself in the eye that matters most to me. The GAP books haven't sold 10% of the "Covenant" books. And my mystery novels haven't sold 10% of the GAP books. But I can still look myself in the eye. (07/09/2006) |
Anonymous: Were you ever asked to contribute a story to the "Legends" short story anthologies put together by Robert Silverberg? I ask because I certainly think you SHOULD have been, even if you declined to contribute a story. Just curious.
|
Yes, I was asked. I declined for several reasons. The main reason is that I had/have no suitable ideas. My imagination doesn't work that way. But I also know myself: I would have wanted to contribute a *better* story than any of my peers; and that kind of ego-based competitiveness is bad for me--as well as bad for storytelling. (07/09/2006) |
Rex: Even though there could be any number of reasons why you completed the draft of "Fatal Revenant" more quickly than Runes (even though "Revenant" is longer), I want to ask: do you think that you are getting extra impetus by the fact that you are finishing the Covenant story? Do you normally write faster the closer you get to the end of a story?
|
It's true: I *do* write faster as I near the end of a story. The closer I get to my reasons for telling the story, the clearer my path becomes (for the simple reason that there are fewer and fewer possible ways to get where I'm going). But keep in the mind that the end of this particular story is still two long books away. "Fatal Revenant" is way too early for my usual acceleration to kick in. No, I wrote FR more quickly than "Runes" because a) I've suffered fewer interruptions, and b) I'm in much better health. (07/11/2006) |
DrGonzo: [Much deleted here to save space. Not that I don't appreciate it: I do. But the GI is already turning into a tome. <sigh>]
1 . you evidently had good reason to have covenant sacrifice himself at the end of the second chronicles. working within your own constraints, the law of death is broken in the first chronicles which was a stand alone series you had no intention to continue at the time, when you came to write the second chrons you said that the idea for the last chrons developed as well. was this event just an eventuality that would have happened whether the idea for the last chrons had come to you or not? or is it an event that depends on the completion of the story? the law of death was already broken so its easy to kill of a character, even covenant.
(you probable cant answer this but i thought i'd ask anyway.)
2 . was your intended audience of a mature mind [rather than a child's], or are you generaly ambivalent to this issue?? also, without opening a debate, does the concept of censorship bother you from an authors poiint of view???
ok so i rammbled but there are some points in there so if you feel generous enough to answere them i would be grateful
DrGonzo
|
1) I'm having a little trouble identifying your actual question. It sounds like you're asking: if I hadn't planned "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles" almost simultaneously (in other words, if I hadn't known where the story was going to go after the end of "The Second Chronicles"), would I have killed Covenant off at the end of WGW? And I'm afraid you're right: I can't answer. This isn't a RAFO/spoiler issue. It's just that the ideas for the "Second" and "Last" stories arrived so close to simultaneously, grew so naturally out of the first trilogy, and felt so inevitable to me, that I simply can't imagine them in any other form. However. The fact that "The Second Chronicles" has endured the test of time so well (20 years, anyway) suggests that Covenant's sacrifice fits the story and can stand on its own--without reference to "The Last Chronicles"--just as his victory in TPTP fits the story and can stand on its own without reference to "The Second Chronicles". 2) As I've said before, I'm vaguely horrified at the idea of children--or even young teens--reading "Covenant". I intended the story for adults. The fact that so many readers have tackled the books "too young," and have not been irretrievably scarred by the experience, is a great comfort to me. <grin> As a human being--never mind as an author, or a reader--I abhor censorship. The moral flaws of censorship are so many and so obvious that I can't discuss them coherently. I'll just mention one: censorship dehumanizes the people who are denied access to whatever is being censored. However. I also believe that "teaching" your children is one of the fundamental responsibilities of parenting. Just as a matter of my personal opinion, I happen to think that censorship is not a particularly effective or humane parenting tool. But I will defend the right of any parents to make their own decisions on this subject. If I don't, I'll be engaging in a kind of moral censorship myself. (07/16/2006) |
David S. Hawkins: Mr. Donaldson,
I am not quite done with Runes yet, I am taking my time and enjoying it! I will probably finish by May sometime, at which point, I will dive back into the Gap for the summer
[again, much has been deleted to save space]
I know I should be asking you a question, so; Is the legend of the worm of the world's end a sign that the universe of "The Land" limited to the planet? If the world is destroyed by the Worm, does that in fact destroy the Arch of Time or the "universe"? The Worm appears to be the core of the planet, which surely would tell the tale of a doomed planet, but the Arch is bigger than the planet isn't it?
With anticipation of your future works!
Dave
|
Remember, we're dealing with myth, symbol, and epic in "The Chronicles". They are not intended as a literal reflection of the reality in which we live. Rather they are intended as a symbolic reflection of *some* of the realities of being human. With that in mind: I've always assumed that if the Worm destroys the world, "reality as we know it"--not just in the Land, or in the planet of the Land, but in the entire created universe which contains the Land--will cease to exist. So yes, I've always assumed that destroying the world implies (or even necessitates) destroying the Arch of Time. And the universe cannot exist without Time. (07/16/2006) |
Matt Fensome: Dear Stephen,
Through reading the interviews (both 'structured' and 'gradual') on this site I've noted a few names that recur - Conrad, Faulkner, Peake and Henry James in particular - as your literary 'heroes' or inspirations.
I'm of the opinion that most great genre writers are great because they read deeply and enthusiastically *outside* their genre, so I for one would love to hear a few thoughts, however brief, about these guys. I'm especially interested in how you feel they've influenced or inspired you as a writer of fantasy and sci-fi in particular.
Are these guys a natural choice for a fantasy writer's heroes, or is there some leap to be made here? What specifically about these writers do you admire or love? Have you tried to emulate specific devices or elements of their style in your writing? How far over the question limit am I now?
Finally - if you could send a question to Conrad or Faulkner or Henry James or Mervyn Peake's 'gradual interview', what would you ask any or all of them? ;)
Thanks very much in advance (and thanks again for the GI itself),
Matt.
|
I feel compelled to warn against a few generalizations. First, I doubt "that most great genre writers are great because they read deeply and enthusiastically *outside* their genre." Writers are too distinctive--not to mention idiosyncratic--to support broad assertions. For example, I know of mediocre genre writers who "read deeply and enthusiastically etc." This suggests that the nature of the reading cannot be a defining characteristic of greatness. Second, I'm concerned about generalizations concerning "greatness" itself, since--as I've argued elsewhere--one obvious characteristic of greatness is uniqueness (e.g. LOTR simply could not have been written by anyone other than Tolkien). Generalizing about anything which is inherently unique is laden with conceptual pitfalls. Third (which follows from my first two postulates), my example isn't likely to be of real use to anyone else. Certainly when I talk to other writers I invariably find that their reading is wildly different than mine. Everybody (and I do mean EVerybody) has to find his/her own path. With all of that in mind: I studied James for story structure and Faulkner for rhetoric. I studied Conrad for style--and for his demonstration that "adventure stories" can be used for the most serious literary purposes (a vital lesson which I could not have learned from, say, James Joyce). Tolkien (I don't know a better way to put this) gave me "permission" to write fantasy: he created the modern fantasy epic. And Peake showed me that fantasy can do great things which don't involve wars and quests. He also deploys a wider variety of narrative strategies than Tolkien does. As for Questions For Famous (Dead) Writers: I don't have any. (I think I've said this before.) Everything I want to know is contained within their work. All I have to do is find it. (07/16/2006) |
Alex: First let me say that I found myself reading your books by pure chance about a year ago and since that time I have come to own them all. I just can't help falling into the Land as I read and I can't wait to see what happens in the next book. Now to my question...
In the second chronicles Covenant dies and yet with the person who the story revolves around being gone the story continues without so much as a slight falter. Didn't you find it extreamly hard to continue a story without the person the story is about?
"Runes" was just as deep and rich as the books that came before. Linden has become strong without Covenant to draw her forward. The peoples of the land have grown and changed with the passage of time, yet again. It's all so much to account for and I can only guess at how hard it must be to convey such things as clearly as you have...
I hope that you will continue to write with such grace long after the land has passed.
|
This, in a nutshell, is one reason why I worked so hard to establish Linden Avery as a POV character in "The Second Chronicles": to enable "The Last Chronicles". I've spent so much time with Linden that the transition has been comparatively seamless. *Other* consistency issues, however, have been far more troublesome. <sigh> I've mentioned several of them elsewhere in the GI. (07/16/2006) |
Bob Meads: Mr Donaldson,
I have always been facinated by the obscure words you use in TC, and am currently reading "The One Tree". I have come across a word that the definition that Merriam-Webster gives is not satisfactory. That word is "unhermeneuticable". The word is uttered by PitchWife, about Findail the Appointed (page 366 , paperback).
The word itself doesn't come up on Merriam Webster's site. The closest is 'hermeneutics' which means: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible).
this doesnt seem to fit the context, as Pitchwife relates:
"He perceives some unhermeneuticable peril --"
Can you tell me what it meant in this context?
Have you ever made up new words? <grin>
thanks!!
Bob
|
OK, I made up "unhermeneuticable". <sigh> And I'll admit that it does sound unlikely, coming from Pitchwife. I just couldn't resist the temptation: words like that are too much fun. But its implied meaning extrapolates rather nicely, I think, from "hermeneutics". Pitchwife refers to a "peril" which defies "the methodological principles of [spiritual or religious] interpretation." That fits the themes of the story, if not the characteristic rhetoric of the Giants. And I do occasionally have a good reason for underscoring those themes. (07/16/2006) |
kevin: In the Second Chronicles, was it your intent to base the Clave off the christain church? there is a lot of comparison, and I wondered if gibbon being possessed by the raver was an allusion to some of the evil ways of the church.
|
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Clave was "based" on "the christian church"--or any particular church or religion. But there's no question that the Clave (intentionally) reflects my personal experience with specific churches, specific brands of fundamentalism. And the distortions of the Rede mimic the scriptural distortions practiced by religious fanatics of every description. Christianity and Islam appear to be uniquely susceptible to such distortions; but I suspect that they occur in every religion. Just my opinion, of course. (07/18/2006) |
Sean Casey: You've talked in this interview about your reasons for using certain words, certain kind of words. Some of your writing can be pretty heavily laden with similes. What does your use of imagery bring to your work? Do you have any favourite images you'd care to share?
|
As far as I'm concerned, imagery is the life-blood of writing. It is a rich tool for making the reader *see* and *feel* the story: it inspires sight in the reader's mind; and it also creates mood, atmosphere, emotional resonance. It can be used to control timing and pace--which also have a direct effect on emotion. But it can do more: it can enable and enhance meaning. A material detail can achieve the concentrated import of symbolism and universality through imagery. Of course, many writers think differently. Some aspire to the reticence of Hemmingway or Vonnegut rather than the profusion of Shakespeare or Peake. Some consider imagery a form of laziness or self-indulgence: it's easier to describe something by saying it's "like" something else than to actually *describe* that something. And some consider mood, atmosphere, emotion to be the province of the reader rather than the writer: the reader should find those things because they are inherent to the material, not because the writer added them by using imagery. But I disagree. (Just my opinion, of course.) And I might add that almost any use of language can contain a wealth of "implied" imagery. The simple fact that we're talking about this is an example--because of course we aren't actually "talking" at all. My use of the word "talking" implies a simile. Many writers who appear to eschew imagery are merely embedding it rather than deploying it directly. (Notice the abundance of implied images in *that* sentence.) (07/19/2006) |
Lynne H: In one of your responses here in the GI, you named Jane Austen as one of the "giants." Although your context and hers are very different, and your canvas is considerably larger, I actually find that the two of you are not so dissimilar, particularly in how you treat your characters, respecting even the so-called "minor" ones. You're both very witty. And you work with flawed characters who somehow manage to "earn" (for lack of a better word) their happy endings (putting things a bit simply here to save time and bandwidth--this could be the subject of several pages). I would like to know which of Austen's novels is your favorite and why?
Also, as a public school teacher, I am curious as to what disappointed you about the reading assignments your children were given when they were attending school. Many teachers, unfortunately, take the books that were forced on them in high school and college and, out of laziness or lack of imagination, force them on their students. I can't imagine dragging my high-school freshman English classes kicking and screaming through The Great Gatsby. If any of your children's teachers had had the good sense to ask your advice, what would you have suggested?
Thanks for the opportunity to ask.
|
"Emma" is my favorite Austen novel. (Is it everyone's?) Having just read "Persuasion" for the first time, I see so much more precision, vividness, and variety in "Emma". And the vindications in "Emma" seem more honestly "earned" than those in "Persuasion". "Emma" is one of those books that I re-read every ten years or so because it really is good for me. Back in my day, high school reading involved a seemingly interminable trudge through books like "Silas Marner" and "The Pathfinder". The goal, apparently, was to teach us to hate reading through sheer boredom. For my children, unfortunately, the goal was to teach them to hate reading by immersing them in despair. "A Separate Peace." Sylvia Plath. Toni Morrison's darkest works. "The Catcher in the Rye." Etc. I did everything I could at home to undermine this process; but its effects run deep. In my opinion, if we want to raise a generation of readers, we need to teach them that reading is exciting. Please, let's have some Alfred Bester. Some selected Heinlein (before he became self-righteous and pedantic). Some Patricia McKillip. Some Doris Piserchia (if she were still in print: "Star Rider" is really quite extraordinary). And I wouldn't neglect Susan Cooper or Diana Wynne Jones. (07/22/2006) |
Sean Casey: In one of Stephen King's introductions to The Dark Tower books he says: 'There were probably half a dozen Merrys and Pippins slogging through the mud at Max Yasgur's farm during the Great Woodstock Music Festival, twice as many Frodos, and hippie Gandalfs without number. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was madly popular in those days, and while I never made it to Woodstock (say sorry), I suppose I was at least a halfling-hippie. Enough of one, at any rate, to have read the books and fallen in love with them.'
Were you a halfling-hippie? :)
Having been born in the mid-seventies, the associations between the hippie movement and TLotR are something I've only read about. How do those associations colour your perception of Tolkien's work? Did they at all influence your decision to write fantasy?
|
No, I was never "a halfling-hippie": my missionary blood precluded such possibilities. In any case, I've always lived pretty far outside the current fads/fashions, whatever they may be. You couldn't have dragged me to Woodstock at gun-point. <grin> But that didn't stop me from falling in love with LOTR. Still, it's true that the Hobbits have never been my favorite characters in that story. The "hippie" movement of the 60's influenced me only to the extent that its purer spirits were non-judgmental and compassionate--and its actions exposed the darkness and cynicism of The Establishment. The Kent State shootings (I was there) affected me far more than the hippies I knew. (07/22/2006) |
thinbuddha: Since I haven't seen this in the GI, I have to assume that it has been asked, and that you chose not to answer.... But I'll ask anyway, because I'm nosey:
Have you had any experiences with "psychedelic" drugs in your lifetime?
|
No. I prefer to live life straight. No distortions. No excuses. (To the extent that such ideals are humanly possible. <sigh>) (07/22/2006) |
Darrin Cole: Gidday Stephen, A philosophical question of sorts.
In a universe of infinite possibilities, have you ever given thought to the idea that sometimes authors tap into realities that are actually out there, or that by creating a work such as Covenant Or Mirror or any of your other glorious children, that you could be casting these creations out on to the void to become realities. Not to take away from your skill at all, that your stories are all you is totally in evidence when reading the GI or any interviews etc you have written, just wondering if you have ever toyed with these ideas? In an infinite universe all things are not just possible but likely.
|
I don't think that way myself (much), but I don't dismiss the possibilities you suggest. After all, I've often said that my ideas for stories seem to come to me from somewhere "outside" my conscious reality. And while I'm not entirely persuaded that the universe (as we currently know it) is in fact "infinite" (for example, I enjoy imagining that galaxies are molecules in the body of the universe--which in turn sort of implies that the universe itself is only one body among many--which then implies that the universe must be finite), I like the idea that "In an infinite universe all things are not just possible but likely." (07/22/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: In reading the GI I get the impression that you are a fan of movies, either going to the theater or watching at home, do you have a favorite film(s)?
|
Yes, I do enjoy movies, at home and in the theater. But I've seen so *many* that picking a favorite--or favorites--would be unpleasantly difficult. Just for grins, however: "Fist of Legend," starring Jet Li, and "Hospital," starring George C. Scott. Oh, and I've found "The Andersonville Trial" (Richard Basehart, William Shatner, et al) impossible to forget. (07/22/2006) |
Brian Matthews: I have read often in the GI that the GAP series is your favorite out of the four series currently completed. Some readers may dismay given the popularity of Covenent! Yet to me this makes perfect sense. As a professional storyteller, I believe you would approach each project with a set of objectives which you would like to achieve by the end of that series. Obviously, with the GAP series being the most recently completed, you would feel you have reached your best with that series. If we were to ride a caesure back to the early 1990s, you may have responded with, "I have done my best work with Mordant's Need." Likewise with the Second Chronicles in the mid-1980s: "I feel that the Second Chronicles accomplished more than the First Chronicles." Some years from now, we may hear that the Last Chronicles is, in your opinion, your best work to date. It is a natural progression of a professional storyteller.
There is no question asked above, just something I have thought about for several months before putting it down in the GI. (I also work very slowly <grin>). I eagerly await Fatal Revenent and thanks much for the recommendation of Steve Erikson; he is a wonderful author!!
|
You make a valid point. But I don't think I've ever felt that way about "The Second Chronicles." I won't mention shorter works because they aren't germane; but there it's obvious to me that my work has been uneven. (07/22/2006) |
Bob: Mr. Donaldson, thanks for the awesome series. I cannot wait to read Fatal Revenant .
I have a question that has bothered me, and I havent seen an answer in the GI, so I apologize if I have missed it in the TC series or the GI:
When someone is summoned to the land, they stay until the summoner is killed; this seems to be Law, except for Hile Troy. He was summoned by Atarian Trell-Mate , but she died during the summoning. Shouldn't he have likewise been called back to his balcony ledge to die in the apartment fire?
|
I've always operated under the assumption that Troy died in his fire *before* Atiaran died in hers. Certainly "The Last Chronicles" is predicated on that assumption. (07/22/2006) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
I was wondering if you find writing Anele's character to be challenging or irritating in any way. I know it is a challenge to write any character, but Anele seems like he would be harder to write.
Also, do you like the Haruchai less/more now that they have become masters? Just curious. :)
If these fall under spoilers, I apologise.
Thanks again! I anxiously await FR.
Perry Bell
|
Anele *is* a challenge. I struggle to keep all of his multiple personalities straight. But he doesn't irritate me at all. Really, I'm proud of him: proud of who he is, and proud of having created him. I feel similarly about the Haruchai. This may sound glib, but it contains an important truth: I love all of my characters. When I don't feel proud of them, it isn't because they have failed me (or lost my interest, or whatever); it's because I have failed them. Since I don't think I've failed the Haruchai--at least not so far.... (07/23/2006) |
Dave P: I first read Lord Foul's Bane back in high school, which is something like 25 years ago now(1982 or so). A friend of mine recommended the book, and I gave it a try. After a chapter or two, I couldn't get into it, and didn't really like the way it was going. I tried to give it back, but my friend convinced me to keep reading. We had some inane high school deal, where I would get to punch him as hard as I could or something like that if I didn't like the book at the end. If I liked it, I would have to read on through The Power That Preserves.
Well, let's just say, I didn't get to punch my friend (not that I would really want to anyway). I finished LFB and got through the rest of the trilogy, and then couldn't wait until each of the second chronicles was released.
So my question is this - have you ever had a book that you just didn't like at the start? Something that you wanted to put down, but finished anyway, and eventually loved it for the writing, content, or other reason?
|
The only example that comes immediately to mind is (brace yourself) LOTR. I never saw the appeal of the Hobbits, and Bilbo's birthday party made me want to quit reading half a dozen times. (Years later, when I read "The Hobbit," I did so entirely out of a sense of obligation to LOTR. I never actually enjoyed it.) The process by which I fell in love with the books was so gradual that I didn't notice I was in love until I reached the Mines of Moria [sp?]. (07/23/2006) |
Anonymous: Have you ever had a chance to read or know of any children's fantasy / sci-fi for ages 10-13 that you would recommend? Thirty years ago I read a series by Lloyd Alexander that was decent. There is just so much on the market now with the success of JK Rowling that it is hard to get a fix on well written material for that age group. Thanks.
|
The "Narnia" books are *very* uneven, but at their best they're well worth reading. Phillip Pulman [sp? sorry, I don't have my library here] and Susan Cooper come to mind. And many Diana Wynne Jones books deserve high recommendations. Patricia McKillip's early work, including "The Forgotten Beasts of Eld". "Watership Down"--although it is pretty slow for that age group. If I had my brain with me today, I could come up with other suggestions. But sadly.... (07/23/2006) |
Andrew Kamell: Hello. I have always enjoyed your books as great storytelling, as well as being fascinated by your various perspectives on moral/ethical/spiritual issues. In fact, you threatened to leave the bookstore in Albuquerque when I asked you about spiritual things. ;-)
One of the constant dilemmas your characters face is about whether it is OK to do something evil for a good purpose. Some of your characters reject this absolutely; others are willing to do some things in that way. Linden is constantly struggling with the statement "Good cannot come from evil means," but then doesn't follow that and has good come from it (as well as evil).
The early Christians, following Jesus's teachings such as "turn the other cheek," rejected violence, killing, and war absolutely; a few Christians have continued to follow that every since. When the Christians took over the Roman Empire, and didn't want to just surrender to the barbarians, most changed to accept violence, and killing, in certain very limited circumstances of a "just war." This was supposed to be very limited; it was responsive (not preventative); it was to be in response to a certain, ongoing evil; the evil that it was to stop must be greater than the evils of war; the response must be proportional, and so on. In other words, their answer was "occasionally, but use great caution." A third strain (which totally ignores that whole aspect of Jesus' teaching) is militant, neoconservative philosophy where "we are in the right and therefore are justified in doing anything to forward our cause; our ends justify our means." Terry Goodkind expresses that in a fantasy setting; the administration does in real-life.
Anyway, I hope you don't mind me putting some of my own thoughts in here. Would you be willing to share some more of your thoughts on the validity of "good can't come from evil means" and your thoughts on war/killing, whether & when just wars exist, etc?
|
I think I've made it pretty obvious that I don't want to discuss (or even think about) my own views on religion, politics, and personal morality. (btw, I'm only half kidding when I say I don't want to think about such things. My creative ethic requires me to avoid imposing my own issues on what I write.) It's clear from the obsessive way I write about violence (and queries like, "Does the end justify the means?") that I consider it an important and troubling question. But you might not want to draw too many conclusions on that basis. Violence in storytelling is also a vehicle for communication (which tends to be less true in real life)--and a rich source of metaphors and symbols. These are shark-infested waters. <sigh> But I'll stick my toe in this far: using religion to justify killing is undiluted bull*hit. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide behind a rock. (07/26/2006) |
M. Coleman: In response to your comments about Arthur C. Clarke and so called reductive materialism you can just as well say reductive subjectivity because after all the mysteries that Clarke writes about have reality and substance (out-there) while identity, emotion and imagination are limited to the individual. Other races in infinite space are very likely while something like Tolkiens Gandalf is essentially a religious figure and therefore impossible in nature.
That wasn't a question so I'll ask one here.
How do you keep a character like Lord Foul from dominating everything in the story as he is such a charismatic figure? In what specific ways do you elicit the expected sympathies, I assume, in Thomas Covenant and his band instead? Tolkien was not successful in my case in getting me to feel for the fate of the rolling hills and dales of The Shire. I always thought Mordor was a much more interesting and fascinating place and Sauron a more powerful construction then Gandalf. Tolkien was a repressed Anglo-Catholic and he invested more of his pent up creative energies in the evils of Middle Earth to the benefit of his books. I feel the same thing in reading Stephen King and your own books as well.
|
Hoo boy. "Identity, emotion and imagination are limited to the individual"? "Gandalf is essentially a religious figure and therefore impossible in nature"? Them's fightin' words where Ah come from. <grin> Reality is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask any good quantum physicist. Your comments on LOTR are equally interesting--and equally open to debate. But as for how I "keep a character like Lord Foul from dominating everything in the story," that's dead easy: I just don't let him on stage very often. <grin> I suspect that you would find him (and Sauron) somewhat less charismatic if you spent more time in their company. (07/26/2006) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Hello Steve! First of all, thanks for answering my previous question (but I suppose these thank you notices are now standard issue for returning GI submitters *grin*).
Time and again, I have found out that if I wish to write a certain story, I first need to build the world where the story would be based; however, this process of creation is not limited to the little slice of the world I would need for the story. Rather, in time, it leads me to build the whole world, its cultures, its history, its geography, even if a large part of the world will never even be hinted at in my story. I think Tolkien described this process as "sub-creation"; in time, I have grown to feel great affection for my world, regardless of the stories I set in it. In this, my creative process differs substantially from yours, according to how you described it in the GI; as I understand it, your primary commitment is to the story, as opposed to the world you create to contain it. But my question is - have you ever grown to particularly love any of the worlds you have created for your stories, independently of the story you set in it? That is - has it ever happened to you that, even after completing a story, you have later found yourself thinking of the world you set it in, simply because it got under your skin?
|
As you observe, we are profoundly different in this regard. My worlds exist to serve their stories: my stories do not exist to serve their worlds. What I fall in love with is language and character, emotion and meaning. Setting is the outward manifestation of those loves. It has never taken on a separate reality, identity, or value in my imagination. So no, as far as I can tell I never think about my imagined worlds for their own sake. (Since my unconscious mind has a life of its own, I can't speak for it with equal confidence. But it has never drawn me back to a world when I thought I was done.) (07/26/2006) |
Allen: I've been reading Edward Said's book "On Late Style" and a rather odd question occurred to me. In his book Said says that some grand masters live to achieve a late style that "crowns years of aesthetic effort and achievement." One form of late style - embodied by Shakespeare, Wagner and such - is that of maturity, an unearthly serenity, and ripeness. But another kind of late style - see Beethoven, Theodor Adorno, and Giuseppe Lampedusa - is that of fragmentation, irresolution, tension, and contrariness.
Unless you intend to skip your late style - always a possibility considering your quest for immortality - what form of late style will you enter into after completing Covenant's struggles against Despite in the arena of the Land?
Thank you very much for your efforts.
Allen
|
Implicit in your question seems to be the notion that creative types (Shakespeare, Beethoven, et al) *choose* their "late style". But I'm not sure it works that way. I suspect that "late style" is something that audiences perceive, but that creators don't intend (and may not even notice). Well, how would I know? I really only have myself to go by. But I never, ever think things like, "Gee, I'm almost 60, so I better get started on ripeness (or fragmentation)." No, I only think, "What do I need to do to make this specific story work?" Of course, my age (in experience, skill, and energy) affects the resources that I bring to bear on a specific story. And I'm not blind to some of the ways in which my resources have changed over the years. But none of that actually matters to me (expect to the extent that I don't like getting older <sigh>): the only thing that matters to me is the specific story I'm trying to tell. And I suspect that the same is true for other artistic personalities. "Late style" (whatever it may be) only becomes apparent in retrospect; from the outside (as it were). It doesn't develop consciously. (07/29/2006) |
Ossie: Lately on the GI there have been several questions regarding parts of your work lost due to editing: bluntly, "can we see/will you publish lost chapters, edited sections, an 'author's cut' etc". Your response seems fair enough: the final work is improved due to this editing & you would prefer people not see it before that. But if I could perhaps paraphrase the impression *I* get that people are really asking: are there any cases where you truly did not want to cut (or add) material, and remain convinced it should have remained even now, but for whatever reason "lost" that particular battle? "What Has Gone Before" comes to mind - you have discussed the history of this: are there others? Thank you again for all the pleasure your work has given me - waiting eagerly for FR.
|
No, I've never lost any substantive battles over my work. I had to go all the way to the wall to prevent Lester del Rey from imposing inferior work on me. But I went to the wall. I would have given up publication before I gave up what I perceive as "artistic integrity". I've never published anything that "would have been better if I hadn't been pressured to cut/change x, y, or z". (Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I always *like* making cuts and changes. But it's the effort I complain about, not the objective. I don't make any cuts or changes unless I approve of the objective.) "What Has Gone Before" is an entirely different subject. That stuff is a convenience for the reader: it is not a substantive component of the story. So there I don't worry about issues like "artistic integrity". (07/29/2006) |
Robert Evans: Since an Indonesian volcano is currently in the news, I was wondering how much study of geology you've done. The "Fire-Lions" of Mount Thunder are a remarkably apt description of pyroclastic flows, years before video footage of these fascinating phenomenon became widely available. You also mention volcano phenomena in other places, such as Hotash Slay and in the Wightwarrens. Is geology/volcanology a particular field of interest for you?
Thanks for any reply!
|
Sorry. I could probably write down on the back of my hand everything I know about geology/volcanology. Apart from obligatory high school science classes, and looking at the pictures (*very* infrequently) in magazines like "National Geographic," I know squat: it's all imagination. (btw, "pyroclastic" is a very cool word!) (07/29/2006) |
Louis Whaley: Dear Steve,
I am not at leisure to read now as much as I did in the 80's, when I started the Thomas Covenant series (I was introduced to it by someone much younger than I, when I was an undergraduate; now I'm married, a father, and a graduate student). I was hoping for a movie but after LTR I see the limitations and now I'm ambivalent. Now when I think movie, I think miniseries on television a la SciFi channel treatment of the Dune series; do you care to comment on the visual presentation of (your) SF-fantasy work on televison? From what I've looked at, writing novels is much more difficult than screenplays; couldn't you control the visual presentation of your work by writing the screenplays yourself, because after Ballantine gives permission for you to write them, don't they lose a degree of control over the final product?
Sincerely,
Louis
|
1) Actually, I *can't* write screenplays. They are an entirely different form of communication, and I lack pretty much all of the necessary skills. 2) The screenplays that I've seen contain NO visual information. They contain lines like, "Establishing shot: Revelstone," and everything else is left to the directors and designers. The screenwriter has absolutely no say in matters like visual presentation. 3) Even if all of the above weren't true, I *wouldn't* write screenplays. I have too many other things to do: I'm not going to spend my life reworking earlier stories. And I can't work with committees (surely it's obvious that film--like theater and tv--is all done by committee?). (07/29/2006) |
STEVE M: With regard to the TC Universe. You have previously stated that you only create as much of a background/history that is needed to write the story. I also recall an earlier discussion involving a lack of real "religion" in the Land. Keeping this in mind the TC books are filled with themes and motifs involving redemption, Good v. Evil (albeit final battle or not), a Creator, salvation and/or a savior, need I go on? Ostensibly all blatantly religious themes. Furthermore I harken back to a specific chapter in the First Chronicles where TC has a run in with a couple of religious evangelists. So much for the introduction, what I am getting at is this. There is very little background/biography of TC as person; what is life was like, childhood, influences etc. Of course for purposes of the story you are telling I recognize that is impossible and impractical to really write the "biography of Thomas Covenant", however, such a complex character unquestionably has an even more complex biography so his life i.e. his character for all intents and purposes begins when he contracts leprosy (again we have another sickness/disease with biblical overtones; don't even get me started on the implications of healing the leprosy). With all of the aforementioned in mind, the question that I have goes to your general intent in creating the TC character. Did you envision him as character with deep religious beliefs or values? Was it your intention to convey a religious upbringing? Statements such as "Hellfire" or "Bloody Damnation" certainly suggest this fact. I know that this question may seem a bit long winded but may be helpful in further understanding such a complex character. What were your thoughts on these issues as you created and developed the TC character and Universe?
|
I suggest that you re-read the last page of "Lord Foul's Bane". It's all there (obliquely, of course)--including an explanation for why Covenant has so little "back-story" (not to mention information about his personality and beliefs). In practice, it's obvious that we know a great deal more about Linden Avery's background than we do about Covenant's. I did not intend to present Covenant "as [a] character with deep religious beliefs or values": I intended to present him as a character whose struggles are *about* "deep religious beliefs and values". (I hope the distinction I'm trying to make is clear.) And in keeping with my argument that fantasy is internal drama acted out as if it were external drama, everything else is addressed, well, in disguise. You mentioned healing the leper and Covenant's idiosycratic profanity: details like that are pretty overt. But look at other details: the Land has cathedrals (Revelstone, Revelwood), scripture (Kevin's Lore), bishop-figures (the Lords), a seminary (the Loresraat), pastor-figures (the teachers in the Loresraat), prophets (the Unfettered), even lay preachers (Atiaran). (Just because they don't talk about "God" doesn't mean they ain't got religion. <grin>) However, I hasten to insist that none of this is intended to reflect Covenant's personal beliefs. Rather it is intended to shed light on the meaning of his personal struggle. (07/30/2006) |
Andrew Roy: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
Thank you so much for this forum and answering my questions to date. I find quite a few interesting interpretations of your work in this forum as well as many questions that had not occurred to me.
My first question involves the Coursers from second chronicles. I had read second chronicles first which may be a root cause of my misconception (if indeed it is a misconception).
I had always thought that the Coursers were Ranyhyn that were twisted into Coursers by the corruption of earthpower that is the Sunbane. I don't think anything I read ever confirmed this notion, but the only way to find out is to ask.
Next, one of my all time favorites Nom the Sandgorgon! This whole concept of the contained fury in Sandgorgon's Doom is amazing. When Nom was called upon by Covenant and rent himself a Raver, he became intelligent. Before this encounter, it seemed like the Sandgorgons were forces of nature, weapons of the Kemper, to be contained and used as necessary.
Do they still exist in the Land? Have they been freed? **I'll totally understand if I have to wait for the answer for another book or two or three.** But I'd really like to know, did Nom know to come before he was called like the Ranyhyn do, or is he just that fast?
And lastly, in the GAP series, which is totally amazing, which charater's perpective was the most fun to write from. **My bet would be on Nick or Angus, but I can't be sure.**
|
You'll understand that I'm not prepared to say anything about the content of what I'm writing now. But I can assure you: 1) I *never* intended the Coursers as "corrupted" Ranyhyn; it was always my vision that the Ramen would take the Ranyhyn to safety during the crisis of the Clave/Sunbane, just as they did during the Ritual of Desecration; b) Nom's ability to answer Covenant's summons to Revelstone was a function of Kasreyn's magic in creating Sandgorgons Doom; it was not a power inherent to the Sandgorgons. In the GAP books, I probably enjoyed Hashi Lebwohl more than anyone else. But I also want to mention Min Donner and Koina Hannish. And I have quite a fondness for Liete Corregio's brief center-stage appearances. (07/30/2006) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: "As a general rule, I find that questions are only "entirely devoid of merit" when I permit myself to scoff at them. In other words, a question is only "entirely devoid of merit" when I make it so. ("Creator" questions leap to mind. <sigh>)"
Who would ask those? *said with as innocent a tone as I can manage!!"
|
I've always been a good Straight Man. (07/30/2006) |
James M.: Stephen, I recently reread the GAP series and noticed a bit of a striking difference between this series and the Covenant books. Please bear with me while I try to articulate into words what are, at best, mere impressions.
The GAP books seem, to me at least, more literal than the Covenant books. They seem more logical, not necessarily in plot but in character development. I noticed in the GAP books several discussions between characters that were very direct and literal about their current situation. They addressed their immediate situation directly, mostly between Morn and Nick in the second book.
Conversely, the Covenant books always seemed to be more impressionistic in nature. What I mean is that importance seemed to be placed more on Covenant's emotional reaction to certain events and there was a lot of guesswork involved in trying to figure out exactly what was going on, or exactly why Covenant reacted this way or said this thing.
I guess my question is, if you understand what I'm saying, was this difference in writing style deliberate, was it dependent on setting (sci-fi vs. fantasy), or did it just happen naturally?
|
To say that the style in the GAP books is "literal" while that in the "Covenant" books is "impressionistic" is as good a description as any. And the difference is definitely deliberate (not to mention strenuous). But I don't think that the difference is a function of setting (sf vs f)--at least not directly. I see it as required by the differences in the stories (which then necessitate differences in setting). Of course, the "tone" of the GAP books is intended to have more *edge*, and this is reflected in the prose on every level. But the most obvious difference in the stories (a difference which positively screams for different styles) revolves around the use of POV. The GAP books have perhaps 20 (I haven't actually counted) POV characters: the "Covenant" books have very few. Well, long stretches of story with a single POV allow me the luxury of exploring character, mood, setting, etc. "impressionistically". But when the POV changes often, I have to "get to the point" as efficiently as possible: I simply don't have *room* to do anything else. Hence the more "literal" approach to communication (both between me and the reader and between one character and another). This really isn't setting-dependent (I mean "setting" in the generic sense, sf vs f). There are many fantasy novels out there that use multiple POVs, and their style of communication is typically more "literal" than "Covenant". In contrast, some of the most "impressionistic" fiction I've ever read is sf: "The Stars My Destination" (Bester) and "The Void Captain's Tale" (Spinrad), just to pick two obvious examples. (07/30/2006) |
Joe: Hi Stephen,
You seem to have such a great sense of humour but so little of it is reflected in your work. The humour that is present is so subtle! Is that intentional when you create? Have you ever intentionally written something funny only to cut it later because it didn't fit with the current mood? (which I admit is usually bleak!)
Just curious,
Joe
|
Well, you're right: what little humor there is in my work tends to be both bleak and oblique. It usually relies on irony and sarcasm (although there *is* a pillow-fight in "Mordant's Need"). But this isn't a deliberate choice on my part: it's just one of my many limitations as a writer. I can't *do* humor--not in any sense that's useful in storytelling. I would love to be able to compose, well, let's call it "broad humor" when it would fit in a story. For example, some of the ancient tales of the Giants posilutely cry out for broad humor. Sadly, I ain't got it. Broad humor isn't in my toolkit. If memory serves, while I was working on "The Second Chronicles" I wrote a Giantish song about a character called "Scroll the Appalling". But I cut it out later because it just wasn't funny. (07/30/2006) |
Brad M: Hi Stephen,
First let me say like so many before a sincere thankyou for your wonderful stories. I have read everything you have written - The Chronicles and Gap series dozens of times - in my life you are the most important author ever.
My questions regard the Hurachai. I have always enjoyed the Hurachai as characters and feelI understand them somewhat. We all know of their intense underlying passion, and reference is often made of the difficulty they have expressing certain concepts in verbal speech that is unnatural to them. Is your understanding of the natural Hurachai form of communication as allowing scope for expressing the great passion within these men (and women I assume) or do you think they are as cool and emotionless in their silent communing as they are with verbal communication?
Secondly how do you think Cail, and Bannor for that matter what respond to the choices there people have made leading to their position in Runes? I see these 2 characters as probably the only Hurachai to have learned the lesson of what the harsh judgemental nature of the Hurachai ultimately yields...any thoughts?
|
I think of the mental communication of the Haruchai as a sort of "gestalt" transmission: they share the *whole* experience--thought, emotion, image, sound, everything. Of course, the way they de-emphasize emotion in ordinary speech is bound to be reflected in their conscious mental discourse. They have made an explicit "moral" commitment to detachment. But on some level, their passions are conveyed--and shared--directly. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they're doing now. From my perspective, the "lesson" of their own nature is one that the Haruchai have had to learn over and over again. This is because, on some very deep level, they just don't get it ("it" being the lesson you refer to). Perhaps this is an effect of the fact that races and peoples in fantasy novels tend to be fairly static. Or perhaps there's some other explanation. In any event, it seems likely to me that Bannor and Cail would understand and even support both Stave and Handir. (Which is about as vague as I can make this answer without straying into spoilers. <sigh>) (08/06/2006) |
Allen: This is a bizarre question but here goes - Is fantasy literature as it is currently written getting better or worse or remaining about the same?
Of course there are time periods involved. Let's pretend that William Morris invented modern fantasy. Since Morris have we seen a great rising with its inevitable peak and a decline? Or is it all down hill from there? Or is it a mixed bag?
Thank you so much for your hard work. The payoff comes with the bitter-bright glory that covers the name Donaldson.
Allen
|
Yes? No? Maybe? Of course? Impossible? All of the above? How would *I* know? But your proposition--"Let's pretend that William Morris invented modern fantasy"--is pretty much dependent on the word "modern," since we can probably all agree that Morris didn't write "Beowulf," or "The Epic of Gilgamesh," or even "The Tempest". In other words, we've had fantasy about as long as we've had story. The mere fact that you've asked your question implies that fantasy as an essential form of human communication swells and ebbs in recurring cycles. Well, I don't have a crystal ball: I can't define where we are in the current cycle, much less predict where the cycle is going. But the fact that McKillip, Erikson, and Powers are all our contemporaries suggests to me that we may be living in a Golden Age of "modern fantasy". (Or conversely--<sigh>--the fact that McKillip, Erikson, and Powers don't sell very well may suggest that we're living in a Golden Age of Dreck.) (08/06/2006) |
David Linehan: Hi Mr D,
As a personal observation for readers who have never met you. I thought I would relate my experience of your Q & A and book signing for ROTE at the Waterstones bookstore in Manchester, England, 11th November 2004, when you kindly signed my hardback copy of the 1983 Richard Drew publication of the First Chronicles, among others. ;-)
From the bio's in the dust jackets of your books I had always assumed that you were a somewhat austere and reserved person. So what an amazing and delightful contrast you proved to be as an engaging, passionate and entertaining speaker that night. You infused the evening with your fervor for writing and your animated responses to the questions posed, put flesh on the bones of the author! This was all the more surprising as I'd previously read on the G.I. that you didn't necessarily relish such events. So thanks so much for that.
A couple of questions. What dictionary or dictionaries do you use? And have you ever tasted a beverage and thought 'this could be Diamondraught'?
P.S. Thankyou so much for 'Also love in the world'.
|
OK, I admit that I'm mostly posting this for the gratification of my own ego. <rueful smile> It's nice to think that I succeed at something which I find draining to the point of debilitation. On a day-to-day basis, I use any dictionary I can get my hands on. But in emergencies (!) I turn to the Oxford English Dictionary (complete with magnifying glass). I don't know if it qualifies as diamondraught, but I have very fond memories of Black Bush Irish whiskey. (08/06/2006) |
Raymond L. Yacht: 1. Thank you for recommending Stephen Erikson. Good fantasy is my favorite genre to read, but unfortunately I think much of what is out there is unreadable. What is your opinion of authors who are still recycling old stereotypical races, such as elves and dwarves?
2. Have you ever played role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons? You would be great at playing or especially running one of these games. I realize these games have a stigma of being for dorks, children, and dorky children, but then, so does fantasy literature, and I don't care.
3. The Final Chronicles are 4 books instead of 3, bringing the total of Covenant books up to 10, which seems to be a magic number for epic fantasy series. Was this part of the decision to expand to 4 books?
Thanks for all you have written, keep it up.
|
1) I hardly ever read such books myself--so I suppose that reveals my opinion clearly enough. I prefer writers who have the ability and make the effort to come up with their own material. But Tolkien himself demonstrates that "recycled" "stereotypes" can be made fresh and glistening by a writer with the right gifts. And writers like Janny Wurts and the lamented David Gemmell prove that there are still nuggets to be found in old gold-mines. 2) No, I've never played D&D. For me, it's, well, "too much like work". I prefer very different recreations. 3) I'm unaware that "10...is a magic number for epic fantasy series." In any case, I came up with my ideas more than 25 years ago: long before there were any comparable epic fantasy series. And to complicate matters further: left to myself, I might have ended up with 11 "Covenant" books rather than 10 (as I've explained elsewhere, "The Second Chronicles" is a trilogy because Lester del Rey made it so, not because I did). For some unconscious reason, I appear to prefer 4-part structures. "Mordant's Need" is in four parts. "The Second Chronicles" (like "the Last Chronicles") was planned in four (sub-divided) parts. The GAP books can be seen as four parts with an extended prologue. But the short answer is No. I've *always* intended "The Last Chronicles" to be four books. (08/06/2006) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: I was intrigued by an answer you gave to a question today. Paraphrasing: None of your characters are your inspiring spirit.
Then who or what is your muse? Or is it different for each Series? Each story?
Am I correct in associating 'muse' with 'inspiring spirit'
Thanks!
|
The existence of obsessively-recurring themes in my work might suggest that those themes are my "muse," my "inspiring spirit." But I don't think that way. In fact, I don't think about Muses or Inspiring Spirits at all. However, I suppose that my Muse is the God of Language: the mysterious power of words in sequence to convey vast riches of meaning and emotion. (Note to self: insert innumerable examples.) (08/06/2006) |
Jason D. Wittman: Mr. Donaldson,
I am currently re-reading your Gap books, and I recently came across your relation of the death of Godsen Frik. I was a bit surprised at how you had the death occur off stage (I remember being surprised the first time I read it as well). Considering the ramifications it had on the story as a whole. Why did you treat that part of the story in that particular way?
Regards,
Jason
|
The short answer is that having it happen off-stage saves narrative space. Blowing him up in front of the reader would have added several pages to the book--especially when you consider that first I would have had to create a scene in which witnesses were present for good narrative reasons. The more subtle (therefore more difficult to explain) answer has to do with Frik's "weight" as a character, both in itself and as it compares to the "weight" of every other character in the book. Multiple POVs always demand a complex balancing act (e.g. do I want to give Frik's death the same stature I've assigned to the attack on Vertigus?), and in the end I suspect that every writer does it by "feel". I did what felt right to me, or harmonious, or appropriate. However, I could argue that--from the perspective of the larger story--the primary significance of Frik's death does not reside in Frik himself, but rather in the fact that Dios can now put Hannish in Frik's place. (Sure, we learn something about Fasner in the process--but we probably already knew that.) In other words, I wasn't trying to dis Frik as a character: I was trying to keep the story moving both efficiently and harmoniously. (08/07/2006) |
HarriK: I recently re-read "The Man Who Fought Alone" after coming home from an exhibition where I assisted my Martial Arts teacher and seeing the book on the shelf. It seemed to be a good time to reread it because fate had conspired to make me notice it.
It actually surprised me how the book seemed completely different to the first time I read it. I scanned through your other books quickly - The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and The Gap series. I only looked at a page or two per book. Again I noticed that the book seemed different. Other than of course that it was a test of will power to stop reading, lol!
I think my question is that do you actually actively attempt to create several different levels in a book you have written, or do you think that this is something that naturally happens as the individual who is reading evolves in terms of character and experience? Perhaps they are able to see things they have not before?
Secondly I have to note with a degree of amusement that when I thought back to the Martial Arts exhibition that I could indeed spot a number of "true believers" - perhaps even myself if I look in the mirror. Are you now or have you ever been a "true believer"? I guess my interpretation of a "true believer" is someone who clings to the crutch of Martial Arts as a means of bolstering their self-identity. What is your interpretation?
Respectfully yours and still waiting with anticipation for "Fatal Revenant". To the point where my friend and I are refusing to complete the last 50 pages or so of "The Runes of the Earth" knowing we still have to wait for the next book!
|
Yes, I do try to work on as many different levels as I can when I'm telling a story. Some of this happens--in a manner of speaking--spontaneously: I just have that kind of mind. And some of it happens because I spend so much time *thinking* about the story: while I'm planning it, when I'm writing, during the various stage of rewriting. One way or another, I'm always trying to weave a few more threads than I'm actually capable of handling. <rueful smile> I'm a missionary kid: I was raised to be a True Believer. It's bred in the bone. Which is only one of many reasons why I wrote TCOTCTU the way I did. That story is both an affirmation and an antidote. ("Gee, Martha, what is he on about *now*?") I've learned that if you (speaking generically) are inclined to be a True Believer, you had better be very careful--not to mention critical--about what you choose to believe *in*. The martial arts are a good example. Funakoshi wrote, "The ultimate aim of the art of karate lies not in victory or defeat, but in the perfection of the character of its participants." Well, that's certainly an attractive notion. But after a few years in the martial arts, I couldn't help noticing that some martial artists spend decade after decade becoming lousier and lousier human beings. In those cases, the study of the martial arts hasn't produced perfection of character: it has merely exposed the underlying meanness and brutality of the student. Ergo, the study of the martial arts does not *inherently* lead to perfection of character. Therefore being a True Believer in the martial arts is--if I may say so--misguided. As is (just to pick a random example) being a True Believer in Jihadism. If, on the other hand, you choose to believe that "perfection of character" is worth striving for, then the martial arts can be a productive road toward your goal. I'm a True Believer about all kinds of things, one of which I'll call (for the sake of convenience) Selfless Storytelling: storytelling which exists for its own sake rather for the gratification of its author. Of course, nothing is ever truly perfect. I have as much ego as anyone else: I like gratification as much as anyone does. But underneath all of my natural confusion (not to mention rot), I don't write because I want to be read, or because I want to make money, or because I want to be famous. I write because I'm a True Believer. Because I believe that the story is worth telling. For its own sake. (08/09/2006) |
Alun H Brown: Hi Stephen,
You explained recently in the GI that the Creator 'respects the integrity of his own creation' and therefore has to work indirectly around such integrity.
You've often talked about having a similar attitude yourself to your characters, stressing the importance of their 'dignity'. (It is one of the things that makes your writing a cut above, IMHO). So my question is this...is the Creator in the Chronicles (as opposed to the Creator OF the Chronicles) also you?
Or did he just choose you in his own image? ;-)
Profoundest thanks for your wonder-full work.
|
Let's be honest. What could I possibly know about "God"? I have no conceptual tools, no aids to understanding, which are not inherently anthropomorphic; therefore inherently false. All I have to work with is my imagination. Hence my rather frenetic assertions that the "Creator" in "The Chronicles" is a *character*: I made him up, and any attempt to draw conclusions OUTSIDE THE TEXT is doomed to error. So, keeping rigidly in mind the fact that "The Chronicles" is a work of fiction; that I invented everything in it: in fact, I used myself as a model for the "Creator". I don't mean myself as a person--or a personality. I mean myself as a storyteller. I invented the "Creator" on the assumption that his attitudes and convictions about creation are pretty much the same as mine. Which, I freely admit, sounds rather grandiose. (Less courteous descriptions also come to mind.) But what else was I going to do? Throughout history, human beings have clung to notions of "God(s)" which are *more* rather than less anthropomorphic than the one I chose for "The Chronicles". (08/09/2006) |
Gene Marsh: Mr. Donaldson,
I hope this finds you well. It has been several months since I have written.
My question is one of structure: In the detailing of the work you have "mapped out", do you find typically yourself drawn to "fleshing out" the conclusion of a piece and working your way back, or do you write in much the same manner the story unfolds, following your map? I would think the latter would/could lead to more changes in the work as you go.
Best regards always,
Gene Marsh
|
As I've said many times, if I don't know how a story ends, I can't tell it at all. The ending is my reason for telling the story. Once I know the ending, I plan backward (sometimes vaguely) until I reach a viable starting point. But that doesn't mean I "flesh out" the conclusion before I do anything else. Far from it. My sense of an "ending" involves some sort of intersection between ideas, events, and emotions; but I make no attempt whatsoever to "pin it down," to make it concrete or tangible. All it has to do is feel important and, well, "real" to me. After that, I write "in [exactly] the same manner [as] the story unfolds": I experience the story along with my characters. In my case, however, this process doesn't "change" the story as I go: it "gives definition" to the story as I go. I "flesh out" the specifics of my conclusion only when I'm intimately familiar with all of the processes which lead to and enable that conclusion. (08/09/2006) |
Reed Byers: Dear Stephen:
Long-time reader, first-time writer. Heh.
I've been trying to reconcile some of the things you've said about the "reality" of The Land. (I imagine this topic is becoming almost as popular with you as "Creator" questions!)
You've explained several times that the Land's "reality/unreality" is no longer relevent to your story -- and I guess the way I see it is, that's fine, so long as subsequent events don't force us to revisit the issue. A while back, you said something that really stuck with me:
===
It really would be cheating if I suddenly announced, "OK, I was just kidding about that whole maybe-it's-not-real, you-are-the-white-gold shtick. Let's pretend it never happened."
===
By making the "unreality" of the Land virtually impossible, it feels to me that you WERE kidding about the whole "maybe-it's-not-real shtick". It can't possibly "not be real" anymore, can it?
Thank you (as always) for some of my favorite fantasy novels, as well as for your generosity in sharing your thoughts with us in this forum!
|
I disagree emphatically with your central assertion (that the "reality" of the Land has been absolutely confirmed). When I said that "unreality/reality" is no longer relevant, I was speaking of the themes of the story: in crude terms, after the first trilogy Covenant and Linden don't *care* whether the Land is real or not. But I insist that I'm still playing by the same rules which govern the first trilogy. I believe that there is nothing in Covenant's/Linden's "real" world which unequivocally confirms the Land's independent existence (I mean independent of their perception of it). Sure, there are a number of people in the "real" world (in both "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles") who behave pretty strangely. And sure, no one in Linden's "reality" knows how Joan keeps getting out of her restraints. But "the Land and Lord Foul are 'real'" is not the only *possible* explanation for those things. Meanwhile, what happens to Covenant and Linden in the Land never has any material, physical effect on their subsequent "real" lives--a detail which implies the "unreality" of their experiences in the Land. Of course, I'm well aware that the sheer tangible specificity of what happens to Covenant and Linden in the Land positively begs for the reader's "belief"--or, to be more accurate, the reader's "suspension of disbelief". But that suspension of disbelief is essential to the experience of reading *any* fiction, not just sf/f, and certainly not just "The Chronicles". We could probably discuss specific details (e.g. how did Linden end up with Covenant's ring?) for hours. But *I'm* confident that I haven't violated any of the rules on which the first trilogy is predicated. (08/10/2006) |
Joshua Kirch: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I'm a huge fan of your work, especially the Gap Cycle. The first two Covenant Chronicles were huge influences in my decision to become a novelist- or at least attempt to do so.
I'm writing for two reasons. First of all, I know that your decision to write the last chronicles was made in the face of a lot of fear. I wanted to let you know that at least one fan thinks this to be your best yet.
My second reason for writing is that, as a struggling writer, I'd love to know what allowed you to break through that fear. Were there any thoughts that you found especially helpful?
Thank you,
Josha
|
Of course, age is a factor. I've had my nose rubbed in my mortality. If I'm not going to face my fears now, when do I propose to get around to it? How much longer do I have? Can anyone really afford to wait? But in my case the process started 20+ years ago. As soon as I became aware of how completely fear ruled my whole life, I began trying to change that dynamic. I don't *want* to be ruled: I want to be the master of myself. Which means that I have to accept responsibility for determining the meaning of my own life. I've been through many stages, all of which have to be repeated for each fear. First I have to identify each fear; to call it by its true name. Then I have to validate each fear; to understand where it comes from, and why it is--for lack of a better term--normal. (Pathologizing fear only strengthens it: a point which is made repeatedly in the GAP books. Life is full of situations in which fear is the best friend we'll ever have.) Then I have to define a concrete, constructive choice which is different than the one suggested by each fear. I've never found a simple method for doing any of this. In every single case (of which I seem to have an endless supply), I've had to work it through arduously, one small step at a time. I know people who make progress by intuitive leaps, or with personal mantras, or through the intelligent use of medication <grin>. But I'm not one of them. In my case, fear isn't something I "break through": it's something I carry kicking and screaming on my back. Rather like Morn Hyland. (08/10/2006) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Exactly what makes a book a best-seller? An article published in May of 2006 stated "[Terry] Brooks shouldnt worry about a lack of interest in his work. Straken: High Druid of Shannara, Book 3 has sold 72,000 copies since it was published in September 2005." For some reason I didn't expect this...I expected more (I guess as a people we simply don't read).
So: what *is* expected in sells - hard or soft cover - for a book to be considered a 'best seller'?
|
The term "bestseller" refers to speed of sales, not quantity. And it's relative to all the other books that were published at the same time. A book that sells 72,000 copies in hardcover in, say, two months can be at the top of the bestseller lists--if all of its immediate "competitors" sell fewer copies in the same time period. Or 72,000 copies can leave a book nowhere to be seen on the lists--if all of its competitors sell more. In other words, luck plays a huge role. In the long run, the only reason "being a bestseller" matters is that it actively promotes sales: people are more likely to buy a book if they know it's a "bestseller"--especially when the purchase is impulsive rather than premeditated--and reviewers are more likely to review a book if they know it's a "bestseller" (which increases public awareness of the book). (08/10/2006) |
J C Bronsted: I have read in the GI that your publisher forced you to have your Mystery novels published under a pseudonym. Is this common, so far as you know?
I ask because I am writing [among many] two primary novels, one which would undoubtedly be classified Fantasy, and another which would be more "mainstream" (under 'Fiction' at the bookstore?). I imagine a scenario in which my books are located in two different sections of the bookstore! My second question is, How do publishers (again, in your experience/to your knowledge) react to authors who wriggle out of their neat little cubby holes?
Thank you again for this forum.
|
It's not common for books by one author to end up in two (or more) different sections of a bookstore (although that's happening to me now). On the other hand, imposing pseudonyms by publishing category *is* common. So in practice books by one author *do* commonly end up in two (or more) different sections of a bookstore--but no one knows (including the bookstore) because the books are by different "authors". I know writers with four or five pseudonyms: that's just how the business works. Even Stephen King was forced to use a pseudonym in his early years simply because he was "too" prolific. <sigh> As a rule, publishers don't like it when writers violate their categories. From the publisher's perspective, a pseudonym is usually (not always) mandatory--which in turn means that promotional efforts for one book don't help sell the other. The publisher is "forced" to waste money, time, and energy promoting "two" different authors. (08/11/2006) |
Jonathan Atkinson: Hi Steve,
I was just wondering whether when you think of a name for a character in one of your stories, you ever do a web search to see whether the name has already been used by someone else? I ask, because I have just started to read A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin, and was stunned to find that there is a character called "Marillion" in it (if you don't know, Marillion is a long established British progressive rock band who have had worldwide success). When asked if he chose the name intentionally (the character is a singer), Mr Martin admitted he had never heard of the band and that it was just a coincidence! Methinks a search on the name before he decided to use it might have made him reconsider whether it was wise to use the name.
Kind regards
Jon Atkinson
|
No, I've never done as you suggest. And I don't see the problem. Where is the harm if a writer accidentally stumbles on a "real" name? (Personally, I'll be astonished if our planet doesn't hold at least one person named "Davies Hyland".) Indeed, leaving aside issues of libel, where is the harm if a writer deliberately uses a "real" name? There are only so many letters in the alphabet, and they can only be combined in a finite number of ways. There are times when the Internet offers us *too* much information.... (08/11/2006) |
raymond luxuryyacht: Here's a strange one for you. I was watching the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championships, mixed martial arts fighting that is a blend of every type of martial arts you can think of) the other day and was thinking about how a fighter, no matter how good, can not compete in a full contact fight if they have no skills on the ground. You can put a guy who has been doing Karate for 20 years against someone who has done jiujitsu for 2, and the jiujitsu fighter will consistantly win by taking the fight to mat and forcing the karate guy to submit. Not a knock against karate, it just doesn't prepare someone to fight on the ground. My question is this - are the haruchai versed in this type of fighting, or would they be out of their element if the fight went ot the ground? I'm guessing the answer is you have never thought about such a silly point, but I was curious.
|
Of course you're right about "ground skills" (unless you have more than one opponent). But let me just say that anyone who has been studying karate for 20 years and hasn't learned how to avoid being taken to the ground hasn't been paying attention. However, I think we can assume--at least for the purposes of "The Chronicles"--that the Haruchai are *complete* fighters. How could they not be? (08/11/2006) |
Anthony: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
When all has been written on the life and death of Thomas Covenant, will there be anything personally written on the life of Stephen R. Donaldson? A memoire?
Thanks,
Anthony
|
Not if I have anything to say about it. My life is *my* business. On the other hand, people have been known to change their minds. I may change mine someday. (Perhaps before it rots altogether.) Who knows? (08/11/2006) |
Sturgeon's Lawyer: Sir,
Thanks, great books, etc.
Observation on the value of the GI: A few months ago I had read the various Chronicles (repeatedly) but never read another word of your fiction -- though _Daughter of Regals_ had sat on my shelf for years. I found this site, began reading the GI, and said, "H'm." Then began reading _DoR_. "Well," I said, "There's clearly more to this Donaldson guy than Covenant's clenchings." And last week I ordered the entire GAP series.
Onward. Rather than questions, as such, let me try poking at some of your disingenuousnesses (is that a word?) and see if I can shake something loose.
1. In a not-too-long-ago GI answer, you said that the title of _Runes of the Earth_ referred to the fate graven in the very rock, blablablah. I assume you don't think we're dumb enough to believe that the guy who plays on Worm/Wyrd/Weird/Word/etc. wasn't playing on "Ruins?"
2. Bahgoon and Thelma -- yeah, that's a RAFO, all right, but you write in a very structured and deliberate (though passionate) way. I invoke Chekov's Law: that gun was polished in Act I and loaded in Act II; you're too good a writer not to fire it in Act III.
3 and last. It's no spoiler as such to note the long-ago statement that the FC ends with "Covenant becoming Foul." Seems to me that the only way that can make sense is if Covenant, Foul, and Creator all become each other in some way. Yeah, I know, RAFO... and you may even choose to delete this non-question as too spoily, and I'll understand.
|
1) "Dumb"? Who said anything about "dumb"? I was asked a literal question: I gave a literal answer. If I had been asked whether the fact that "runes" sounds like "ruins" has any significance, I might have replied that the word "runes" itself can have a variety of applications. (It is, after all, a form of written language. Which takes us back to words. Which takes us back to Word/Wyrd, etc.) If that seems disingenuous to you--well, of *course* it is. But what are my alternatives? Would you really prefer an endless run of spoilers? 2) "The Last Chronicles" is all about breaking Laws. I'm too good a writer *not* to question the validity or usefulness of things like "Chekov's Law". (What? *More* disingenuousness? Is there no end?) 3) I can think of quite a variety of scenarios which would lead to "Covenant becoming Foul" without bringing the Creator into the equation. (And there's nothing disingenuous about *that* assertion: it's a plain statement of fact.) (08/12/2006) |
Matt Baldwin: Keeping up with tradition and duty, I must thank you first for your works, they are truely superior to almost all in the fantasy genre. I do have a question relative to the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and hope that it is not a spoiler for future novels. I'd like to know a little bit more about the Illearth Stone, where it came from, how it came to be, and if Lord Foul had the entire stone in the first chronicles or just a piece.
Also, on a different note, I'd like to know what you consider, personally, your masterpeice. Thank you for your time in reading and answering these questions.
|
I've always assumed that the Illearth Stone was made by Lord Foul (or a-Jeroth, as his friends call him) while he was interfering with the process of creation; before the Creator finished his work by sealing the Arch of Time. If you accept that assumption, then it probably follows that LF retrieved *all* of the Stone. I mean, since he already knew everything there is to know about the Stone, and all.... (08/12/2006) |
Dennis Wise: I spent a fair amount of time last summer in the Kent State Special collections, browsing through your collection. On the GI you mentioned that you had your "juvenalia" stashed there -- i.e., pre-Lord Foul's Bane stuff. Questions:
1. You made mention in an interview somewhere that you'd written an early spy novel set in some invented African country. Yet I didn't see it there.
2. Wooster has a copy of your senior thesis, but not KSU, sadly enough. (I was never able to make it up to Wooster!)
Anyway, so I just wondered if you left these things out intentionally, or if the spy novel even exists anymore, and whatnot. And, yes, I actually would have been interested in these things, plus anything else there might have been. :)
Thank you!
|
I must have misspoken in some context--or made some assertion which was too easy to misconstrue. No, my "unpublished" work is NOT at Kent State. I'm sorry I gave you the impression that it was. It's still in my filing cabinets somewhere--unless I managed to lose some of it, which is always possible. Kent has a complete (I think?) collection of manuscripts for every story I've ever published. Unpublished work I've kept to myself (although there is some on this web site). I regret misleading you. If I'm ever fortunate--or unfortunate--enough to see my death coming, I intend to empty my filing cabinets by sending everything to the Kent State University Libraries. But that day, I piously hope, is far in the future. (08/13/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: How did you come up with the idea of making the Giants impervious to fire? Since you have stated before that you only "invent the things you need" was it just so Saltheart would be able to carry Covenant through the lava at Hotash Slay? Or did that plot point come from the invention of the "caamora" fire cleansing ritual? Some other reason?
|
Would you believe "it just seemed to fit"? Really, nearly 30 years later, I can't remember the genesis of every single detail. (08/14/2006) |
Martin Bennett: You recently mentioned that 'Runes' sold very well in England. Can you speculate at all as to why that should be? Yes, I am English - I was honoured to get your signature in my copy of 'Runes' in Forbidden Planet, having stood patiently behind a man with at least 5 copies of every book you've written - but I don't personally know any Americans that I can compare book-reading tastes with.
|
Of course, all I can do is speculate. I don't have any particular insights into "national character"--even my own. But it's a fact that the UK "consumes" far more books per capita than the US does. And I wouldn't be the 1st--or even the 100,001st--to observe that US culture is profoundly anti-intellectual (not to mention anti-cultural) in many ways. The conceptual poverty of our public discourse is a case in point--as is the "ghetto mentality" of people who consider themselves intellectuals. But some people argue that the Brits are just "tougher" than we are: less afraid of pain; less likely to shy away from challenging texts. Maybe losing an empire has something to do with it <rueful smile>. (08/14/2006) |
Peter B.: Hi Stephen.
I noticed you stated in a earlier response that you were "saddened" and "disappointed" that your later works have never matched the success of the first 6 Covenant books.
How did the sales of Runes compare with Mordant and the Gap series? I keep wondering why Runes has never been released in a mass paperback format (as opposed to the trade paperback). Is this sales related or perhaps some other consideration?
For what it's worth, as a long-time reader who has enjoyed all your works, I have a good feeling that the Last Chronicles will keep rising artistically and commercially.
|
"The Runes of the Earth" compares favorably with "The Mirror of Her Dreams" and "A Man Rides Through". Sales of the GAP books were--and still are--much lower. (08/14/2006) |
Walter Langendorf: You've mentioned several times that the Ravers are named after states of enlightenment, and further that these names are the ones they give themselves.
Further you've mentioned that they have no hierarchy. They started out as brothers, became Ravers as brothers and serve LF as brothers.
My question is this:
When you feel inspired to put a Raver in a scene, do you have any reason specific to the Raver itself for choosing one over another? Basically, do you have individual traits and chracteristics for each of them? Are they interchangeable (with the exception of the one that got rent, obviously)?
|
From my perspective, the Ravers have always been pretty much interchangeable: more of a "gestalt" concept than actual characters. I suppose I think of them as Lord Foul's hands. (08/14/2006) |
Mike , Missouri: First, I must thank you, for the millionth time, for the worlds you create for us. Now to make this short , Eremis sent Saddith to Lebbick(and we all know what happens), after Terisa was attacked in the bazaar and feinted, Geradan told her Saddith was trying to suduce him while she was sleeping. Was Eremis to blame for this also? Nobody seemed to make the connection in the story. Thank you again, for all you give us.
|
No, Saddith is just a natural-born seductress. She doesn't need prompting (except perhaps in the case of a man as unappealing as Lebbick). Seduction is her definition of "female" power. Unadulterated sexism--if that's not an oxymoron <grin>. (08/14/2006) |
Jeff: My question is about the Giants. Most of them have names that are based on "normal" English words that evoke something about their character... Saltheart Foamfollower, Wavenhair Haleall, Gossamer Glowlymn, Cable Seadreamer, even the Giant-Ravers... but not Grimmand Honninscrave. There are echoes in it (grim, rave, crave), but it's not straightforward like the other Giant names are. Was this intentional? If so, why; what does this say about him or his relationship w/ the other Giants? Or was this a case where, as you've talked about, you just liked the sound of the words?
Maybe it's Giantish for "Briny the Pirate" ? ;-)
Thanks and Be True,
jb
|
Sadly, the truth is less interesting than your speculations. I started with something along the lines of "Grim-hand Honors-crave," but that seemed rather (if I may say so) heavy-handed, so I blurred the syllables. I didn't want to make it *too* obvious that he had a special fate. To be consistent, of course, I should have thrown in a few other similar names; but alas.... (08/14/2006) |
Peter Bejmuk: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I read the Gap sequence six or seven years ago and just recently learned about the "Der Ring des Nibelungen" link. It seems that in my voracious appetite for the storyline, I skipped your afterward in the Real Story and went straight on to Forbidden Knowledge. After finally reading your afterward a few days ago, I have much deeper insight and appreciation into the Gap books.
First off, I know that you have a dislike for hypothetical questions, and I know you always encourage writers to make "their own worlds". That said, there is a chance that - in the near or distant future - some writer (hopefully a good one!) may take your published material and form another story about the structure - perhaps in written form, or perhaps in another medium - in the same way you retold parts of Der Ring into the Gap Cycle. Does that idea appeal to you, or does it make you a little hesitant?
If someone retold (say, for example) the Thomas Covenant saga in a new way (in space, in the same way you retold Der Ring, for instance) a century from now, do you believe that your work would be viewed differently than if such an event would not occur? Obviously, as such a project would include credit to you (and, unlike my original read through the Gap Cycle, the reader *would* read the author's note on the link between the works) it would generate new interest in your published works, but do you think it would do *more* than just that?
Completely unrelated note - I originally picked up my copies of the TC trilogies in England, and having since moved back to the USA have noticed that there are quite a few editions with varying covers floating around out there. As the Author, do you personally have a collection of the various covers (or copies of the actual artwork) that have been made for your books across the globe? I know you have no control over what goes on the various editions of your books, but do your publishers ever give you a copy of any of the newer editions (or even show you all of the covers), especially the international editions?
Once again, thanks for the books.
|
What's that old line? "Bad writers borrow. Good writers steal." The point is that any good writer (any good creative artist) draws on pre-existing material in one form or another, consciously or unconsciously. ("Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. There is nothing new under the sun.") Most readers don't ask, "What were Tolkien's sources for LOTR?" even though some of his sources were obviously the same ones that Wagner used for his "Ring" cycle. Why? Because Tolkien *transformed* his sources as he used them: he "made them his own". So it follows, I think, that LOTR--and the "Ring" cycle--did not inspire many people to go read the "Elder Eddas". The value of both works lies in what their sources were transformed *into*, not in what those sources actually *were*. (Of course, those sources have their own distinctive value. But that's a separate issue.) In my (very limited) experience, no other author has "announced" his sources as blatantly as I did for the GAP books. However, that announcement is irrelevant to the essential question: did I succeed at truly transforming my sources, or didn't I? If the former, then knowing about Wagner's "Ring" may enhance the reading experience, but isn't essential. If the latter, then knowing about Wagner's "Ring" will simply underscore my failure. (So why did I do it? you might well ask. Why did I set myself up to be more easily judged--and possibly dismissed--than most other writers? The explanation, sadly, is rather mundane. I mean, apart from sharing my love of Wagner. My publishers insisted on an "afterword"--because, they said, "The Real Story" was too short to stand on its own--and I couldn't think of anything else to write about.) Well, all of the above applies to whatever may happen decades or centuries from now. I'll be long dead, so I won't be in a position to express my opinions. But the test will remain the same. If some creative soul uses my work as a source, does he/she transform it? Or not? (In either case, there's nothing "obvious" about giving "credit" in these situations. We're back to "borrow" vs "steal". Very few writers--or creative artists of any kind--acknowledge their sources.) Ah, cover art. No, I have nothing like a complete collection. Often I'm not even informed when a book of mine is translated--or simply repackaged. Publishers are just too busy. And I have none of the original art. If "art" is the right word for some of the covers I've had. (08/15/2006) |
James Hastings: I'm having trouble figuring out how to phrase the question I want to ask. Please pardon me if I plod a bit.
I believe that anybody can grace themselves and their lives by learning an art. By art I generally mean any craft that one can devote themselves to deeply. I draw and paint. Others might play basketball or fix cars. So long as someone loves that craft and commits themselves to understanding it on a deep, detailed level, I have no problem calling them art. And I think learning one art form benefits a person's entire life.
Your craft is writing (among others that you've mentioned). As such, you must understand it down to a level of detail that even those of us who have studied literature will probably see half of what you see in any passage of text (as can be seen in some of the funnier questions you get).
These insights into the minutiae of arts-practice are what really interest me. So I was wondering how technically you dissect the process of writing. Do you see it as a series of separate but related tasks that taken together make up the discipline of writing? Do you know what your specific strengths and weaknesses are (like say, "expository dialogue is always a pain to me" or whatever). Do you ever "practice" to get better at certain things or challenge yourself in specific areas? Is there any one aspect that you are particularly proud of your improvement with over your career? (One of the reasons I wanted to ask this is because there is a huge shift in the flow of the text from your early work in the first two chronicles and the latest installment. I was curious as to what exactly had changed in your writing and to what extent it was conscious.)
When you read others' works do you view it more from the point of view of a writer, viewing their methods and tactics, or are you able to lose yourself in the characters, events and ideas of the text as much as any of us outsiders?
Finally, at this point in your career, despite the fact that you've said writing can be a painful process, have you come to love it for it's own sake, and the breadth of knowledge you have of it, or is it still more of a means to get the ideas you have to express out?
I understand that this might be too big a subject to address in this forum and wont be offended if you skip it, but I wanted to at least get these big questions out there.
Thanks!
|
I've been putting this off because your questions are even more difficult to answer than they were to ask. I want to be able to make some kind of "statement" about the process by which one learns a craft/art as subjective and open-ended as storytelling (where there are no "right" answers--unlike, say, repairing cars). But I haven't been able to think of an approach that satisfies me. By now, I must've tried out--and discarded--six or eight. No doubt the problem arises from the fact that I don't actually want to spend the rest of my life writing about writing. <rueful smile> Anyway, I'm going to address your questions literally, even though I know that probably won't answer your *real* question. In order, then: Over the decades of my study of writing, I've dissected it in every way I can think of (both as a reader and as a writer). At one extreme, I've spent many X many hours analyzing how Shakespeare evolves patterns of imagery to enhance meaning, insight, and emotion within a particular play. At the other, I've practically made a career out of watching how other writers use "-ing" words. (What do they gain--or lose--by using the same sound, and the same means of describing an action, over and over again? Under what circumstances does repetition "work"? When does it detract from content?) Any art/craft requires learning a certain (usually wide) array of discrete skills/tasks and then integrating those disparate elements into an organic whole. Studying "separate but related tasks" isn't enough: those tasks have to be studied both separately *and* in context. I'm aware of some of my specific strengths and weaknesses. (Here my study of writing is very different than my study of karate. In karate, I have teachers who help me understand and work on my weaknesses. In writing, all I get are critics who find fault with my results, but who can't tell me where those faults come from.) I often "'practice' to get better at certain things or challenge [my]self in specific areas." "The Man Who Fought Alone" took me practically forever because I was challenging a number of my weaknesses simultaneously. However, there are certain weaknesses that I have (so far) simply given up on. For example, I can't write "dialect": a very useful tool, if you've got it; but I ain't got it. The areas in which I feel that I've improved the most are what I call: a) "organizing large narrative structures"; and b) "giving my characters dignity". The author of the first six "Covenant" books could not have accomplished what I did in the GAP sequence. And yet, on a minute-by-minute basis, I spend most of my attention and energy on how my sentences "flow". (What *is* it, exactly, that allows or enables one sentence to carry the reader irresistably into the next?) Without question, I read as a writer rather than as a reader. I don't even try to turn off the part of my mind that studies how the author of whatever I'm reading does what he/she does. If I didn't believe in writing/storytelling for its own sake, I would have quit eons ago. Just because I find writing arduous and even painful doesn't mean that I'm not passionately engaged with it. And for a "language" person like me, writing can never be separated from what I'm writing. For me, writing isn't just a means of expression: it *is* what I'm expressing. (08/16/2006) |
JD: Steve,
Another author, lets call him XX, post on his web-site, "if he isn't working on something new", he quickly becomes bored with what he is writing.I thought to myself, "No wonder I can't read his crap any longer... if it eventually bores him, how does he expect his readers to stay interested?" (With that in mind, I can't understand how he is so financially successful--his works are very popular, somehow.)
Two questions:
1. Would you consider such a author as providing a disservice to his readers? Shouldn't they expect more, or perhaps they simply don't want more?
2. Have you ever become bored or somehow put off by what you have writing?
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.
|
I can't honestly say that I understand the basis for your question. Is XX working on more than one book simultaneously? But with that confusion in mind.... 1) A writer who is bored by his/her own work is doing a greater disservice to him/herself than to the reader. After all, the reader has the option of not reading the da*n stuff. <grin> 2) Bored by what I'm writing? Never. Put off by it? Sometimes. But invariably that's because I've screwed up somewhere; followed a false trail into a narrative cul-de-sac. The fault is always in me, not in the story I'm trying to tell. Lester del Rey used to say that he was two writers. (He actually used names for both, but I don't remember what they were--except that neither one was "Lester".) One was lazy, always looking for the easy way out. The other was gifted and strict. His (Lester's) on-going dilemma was that the lazy one regularly seduced the gifted one, substituting counterfeit coin for true currency. So he (Lester) always had to be able to tell the difference between counterfeit and true--which wasn't easy, given a clever counterfeit. In one form or another, every creative artist or craftsman faces the same challenge. (08/16/2006) |
Andrew, Rio, Brazil: Dr. Donaldson,
You've mentioned Lester del Rey several times in this G.I. but I don't remember you ever commenting on his own books. I was wondering, do you like his style of writing and storylines?
Somewhere you commented that he read LFB around 1976. At that time he'd recently released (1973) a longer version ("The Sky Is Falling") of his 1954 SF story "No More Stars", in which the main character Dave Hanson also suffers a sort of transition between worlds. Do you think this may have made him particularly susceptible to the theme of TCOTC ?
One last question. Was it Birinir who caused subsequent problems for the Giants when he called on the Bodach Glas, while replying to Foamfollower and Osondrea in LFB? (or is that a spoiler?).
Many thanks for your excellent work, long may you continue !
|
I've read a number of Lester del Rey short stories, but none of his novels. In my opinion--and this is just my opinion--he was an intelligent craftsman rather than an inspired artist. I have no idea what effect his own work may or may not have had on his receptiveness to "Covenant". Whatever it was that poor Birinair did, he is in no way responsible for anything that subsequently happened to the Giants. (Incidentally, I seem to recall that "Bodach Glas" has a source in English literature; but I no longer remember what it is.) (08/17/2006) |
David Wiles: Mordants Need and A Man Rides Through were very new to me. Not since Zelazny's Amber series had a story come out that did not need magic rings and sorcerer's as a main thrust to the story.
Mirror's. What was your inspiriation for mirror's? Terisa needed them to prove to herself that she exisited. It seems that alot of your protagonist's are lonely.
|
The lines from "Silverlock" quoted in "The Mirror of Her Dreams" and "A Man Rides Through" were my immediate inspiration. But of course I also drew on "Through the Looking Glass" and Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions". There's nothing original in the basic concept. What, *lonely*? *Donaldson* characters? Surely you jest. (08/17/2006) |
David Wiles: Steve; I need to here of Scroll the giant. Joy IS in the ears that here after all. If you would dig it out and share it we will listen.
|
I was going to blow you off (no offense). I'm not particularly interested in the contents of my wastebasket. But then, almost inadvertently, I stumbled on a copy of "Scroll the Appalling". In fact, it has been published: back in June, 1982, in an Australian fanzine called "Wahf-full", issue 9, variously referred to as "Volume 4, No. 1" and "29 vi 82". So here it is, "a song sung by Pitchwife in contemplation of the Soulbiter." I think you'll see why I cut it out of WGW. And even if you don't, I do. Looking back, I'm reassured to see that I made the right decision. "Scroll the Appalling" Scroll was calm, though beset as ever. Mishap found him in all weather, For which he has been sadly sung. Vessels sank beneath his feet; Balmy winds were changed to sleet; His life grew weeds instead of wheat, For which he has been sorely sung. But Scroll was not dismayed by doubt. His calm was never tossed about. "This little wind," he said aloud, When gales every Giant cowed, "Will pass"-- For which he has been sung. Once a reef took on his ship And would not let the dromond [ital] slip, For which he has been faintly sung. But Scroll was not a whit distressed: With calm he was extremely blessed. He ordered every sail dressed, For which he has been wanly sung. Top-heavy in an icy blast, His Giantship capsized at last. "This reef is beaten now!" he cried. In such victories he took pride And sank-- For which he has been sung. Upon a time he fought a war With whales beached upon the shore, For which he has been slightly sung. His losses there were rather dear: One ship, two longboats, and a spear. But Scroll could not be reached by fear, For which he has been wrily sung. Dead fishes could not him affright: He flailed at whales all the night. And when the tide bore them away, "How bravely we have won today!" He said-- For which he has been sung. Now Scroll would not submit to death, Though Giants begged for his last breath, For which he has been darkly sung. He said that he would walk the world With all his victories unfurled 'Til Time itself was bent and curled, For which he has been grimly sung. So he was locked up in a rock And sealed tighter than a crock To stop him. Yet he bravely called, "I will be calm and free!" Appalled, They fled-- For which he has been sung. So there. (Incidentally, some of the formatting seems to have disappeared. A web site eccentricity. Each line that ends in "sung" should be indented.) (08/17/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: When you published "Gilden-Fire" (which I get the impression you somewhat regret now - probably because you get crazy questions about it like the one I'm about to hit you with) you mentioned that "The Illearth War" was originally split into four parts, not the three in the published version of the book. The missing Part II dealt exclusively with the Lords trip to Seareach. I understand why it was removed, you have covered that in detail. But "Gilden-Fire" seems to me to be only one chapter of that lost Part - the other Parts of "The Illearth War" (Revelstone, The Warmark and The Blood of the Earth) are all made up of multiple chapters. I understand that the important parts of that story you had the Bloodguard bring back and tell to Covenent (the chapters: Runnik's Tale and Tull's Tale). I guess my question to you is, just out of curiosity and I totally understand if you must <sigh deeply> and refuse to answer either because you don't remember, you don't want to, or it's buried in your notes, but how many chapters were in that removed Part II, what was the Part's name and what were the names of the chapters, besides "Gilden-Fire"?
|
Most of what you want to know, I don't remember. All the "high points" of what I cut out have been covered in one way or another, either with "Gilden-Fire" or through Runnik's and Tull's tales. The rest exists only in my manuscripts, which are all at the Kent State University Libraries; so I can't even refresh my own memory, much less answer your questions. (08/17/2006) |
Phil: So what happens to the Gradual Interview after the current Covenant series is done? I often wonder how much of what is submitted as a question actually makes it to the GI, and whether or not this is just a very fancy marketing vehicle (in other words, the bad stuff is filtered out and the glowing praise of your work is posted). If it goes away after this series, so be it. That's so long from now that I don't think it would be inappropriate anyhow. I suppose if someone is reading the GI, they're probably a die-hard fan, so that explains the lack of negative posts.
So does this thing get dismantled? Does it get saved and archived somewhere? If I spent all this time responding to people's questions, I'd probably want a copy of it somewhere.
You really do handle these questions with grace. How much thought do you put into these responses? I get the feeling you're really at peace when reading your responses.
|
Hmm. It seems I must try to dispell (again?) some misconceptions about the GI. In general, I only delete questions which have been asked repeatedly, and to which I have no answer (e.g. when will the next book be published?). Some questions I delete because they're simply too personal (I mean about the person posting the question, not about me) for a "public" forum--but when the question includes an e-mail address, I send a reply that doesn't appear in the GI. I only delete "bad stuff" when it takes the form of a personal attack (oddly, the people who post such messages *never* include an e-mail address), or when I cannot imagine what a useful reply might be. However, very few criticisms are ever posted, in part (obviously) because I discourage them, and in part (I think) because people who don't like what I do don't consider it worth their time and effort to tell me so. I do "prune" messages from time to time to save space: more often than not, what I cut out is "praise". Is the GI a "marketing vehicle"? Of course. But I also hope that it's informative. It certainly is to me. I haven't given any thought to the eventual future of the GI. But I don't want it to go to waste: I've put too much of myself into it. For the present, I intend to start sending printouts to the Kent State University Libraries. And at some point I hope we'll figure out a way to archive the entire site at Kent State. Other than that, however.... I suppose I'll keep going until the difficulties start to overwhelm the benefits. (08/17/2006) |
Dave: I've got a question similar to one you answered recently when someone asked if you find yourself working (writing) faster as you get to the end of a story. My question is a little more specific.
Do you find yourself writing faster now that you don't have to lay the ground work for more Covenant sequels? I would guess that you still have to put together the foundation for books three and four, but you don't have to worry about what's beyond that any more. You've gotten to culmination.
|
The short answer is: no. Sure, the Land already exists (for the purposes of storytelling, anyway). The back-story already exists. But I still "have to lay the ground work" for two more books. My intentions for "The Last Chronicles" require a large amount of research into the previous volumes. And with each new story, I have to, well, re-invent the wheel: I have to provide enough re-description, re-explanation, etc., to refresh the memories of older readers, and to bring newer readers up to speed; and I have to account for 3500 years of "absence" in ways that enable me to tell an entirely new story without sacrificing the relevance of the previous story. <whew> Makes me tired just to think about it. <grin> (08/17/2006) |
Ethan from NoCal: Hi Stephen, I hope things are going well.
Recently watched a documentary which described the the ancient Aztecs relationship with the Sun as being a very bloody one. They believed that the blood from thier victims was responsible for the Suns power. Did you consciously have this in mind when you were making up the Clave or was that another example of your unconscious mind involved in your decision making(or am I totally off the mark on this)? Secondly(perhaps related), I've always envisioned the Haruchai as having South American features.
|
I did have some vague knowledge of the Aztecs, but I didn't make any conscious reference to it, so this could easily be another example of an unconscious influence. Since the influence (if any) was unconscious, however, I can't tell you whether you're "off the mark" or not. I don't know. Broadly speaking, I wanted you to envision the Haruchai in any way that suits you. The images in my mind are more Asian than South American (which is totally predictable, considering my background). (08/17/2006) |
Dave P: Thanks once again for all your works, and taking the time to answer my questions, and the questions of others. Now a couple more:
How would you rank your works based on how happy/proud you are of how they came out? Are there some you are extremely proud of, and others that you wish never went to publication?
And how satisfied are you with your career? Can you say that you've had a full, complete career, and if you retired now, you would be happy with the way things turned out? Or would you say that you've got things that still need to be accomplished - other than finishing the current series?
|
It has already been observed that I tend to be most proud of my most recent work (although this only applies to big sagas, not to short stories or stand-alone novels). But there's nothing that I "wish never went to publication". Granted some inevitable unevenness--and some strange publishing circumstances--I'm prepared to stand behind everything I've ever published. Satisfied with my career? I wasn't born to be satisfied: I'm always striving for more. But that doesn't change the fact that I've been extremely blessed. Successful movies and endless bestseller lists create the illusion that the typical writer wallows in abundance; but the truth is far otherwise. I've been more fortunate than 99% of my peers. How much more can one man want? Without seeming actively churlish? (08/18/2006) |
Chris: Hi, I was wondering if your experiences with the natural world have influenced your description of the Land? Have hikes or other outside activities inspired some of your descriptions of Andelain, the effects of the Sunbane, or something else? In a similar thread, have you had certain bonding experiences with nature that helped develop the idea that (at times) the Lands inhabitants can see their surroundings on a deeper level?
|
Not consciously. As I keep saying, I don't "write from life": I make it all up. I'm sure that the beauty and exoticism--and the poverty and degradation--of India affected me profoundly. But I'm not *conscious* of any of that when I write. And in my personal reality, I'm more a theoretical than a practical nature-lover. As a kid, I did enough hiking and camping to last me for several lifetimes. <sigh> (08/18/2006) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Daniel Wolf: Mr. Donaldson. Thankyou.
Of your books,I first read The Wounded Land, after recieving it from a non reading friend of mine. I skipped the "What has gone Before" and went straight to Chapter one.I thought at first that the Doctor and Leper were going to take on a religious cult in North America. Not having the background or expectations I am now equipped with, I was astonished with the Land. The references to The First Chronicles(which at the time I honestly never knew existed) made it even more mysterious and deep. I read very slowly and the Second Chr. took me about four months. Then I found the First Chr. and it all happened again.
The question I most want to ask is. Does T/C calling the Sandgorgon remind you of Angus turning the Amnion cannon against them when he blocked it? Both actions remind me of Aikedo.
Also you mentioned that an element in the Gap came from a disinfectant bottle. Was it the Symbiotic crystal communication procedure?
Dan
|
Frankly, it never occurred to me to make a connection between Covenant/Sandgorgon and Angus/Amnion cannon. Although I have some small acquaintaince with Aikedo, I don't really think in those terms. And I don't see the comparison. Both Covenant's action and Angus' seem like direct attacks to me, not "turning the energy of your enemy's attack against him". Ah, how stories change in the telling. <sigh> My "disinfectant bottle" story refers to a scene in "The Power that Preserves," not to anything in the GAP books. (08/23/2006) |
Will: Is there any artwork to go with the series? I have looked all over the internet trying to find some but alas i have found none. so i was wondering do you have any stashed away somewhere?
im looking for Art of The Bloodguard and Banner. so if you stashed some please share with us, if its not asking to much.
|
Sorry, there's no source of "Covenant artwork" that I know of. Years ago, a book called (I think) "Realms of Fantasy" offered two or three paintings; but I'm sure it's long out of print. Doubtless some "personal use" art exists somewhere, but I wouldn't know how to track it down. *I* certainly don't have a collection of such artwork. (08/23/2006) |
Jon: Mr Donaldson,
Throughout the Gradual Interview you have made several references to the fact that you are a slow reader. If I have understood you correctly, you seem to suggest that the way you read (slowly and consciously) was instilled in you by your years of academic study. I found this admission particularly interesting and would like to offer a few personal remarks, which I hope are not too long-winded and which do have relevance to the question that follows.
My own experience is not dissimilar, in that I also learned to read carefully and consciously as a student of literature. However, I have come to realise that this may have been a bit of a mixed blessing. Prior to my exposure to literary theory, I was an avid reader of stories, particularly fantasy but also of the classics, and especially those greats who seemed most concerned with storytelling (Im thinking of Dickens, Conan Doyle, Haggard, then, rather than Proust, Joyce, Mann etc.). Academic study opened up whole new dimensions for me in my appreciation of fiction in that it made me much more conscious of, particularly, the language, craft, themes, and context. Applying the tools of psychoanalysis, for example, brought the reading of a text to a wholly different level. I also found I could appreciate poetry, something that had hitherto been closed to me. However, I found that I had in some way lost my innocence as a reader. I was no longer finding myself being swept along by the story, as I had previously been, and found it much harder to read certain kinds of book (popular fiction and fantasy especially). Theory based study had made me not only more conscious but, unfortunately, more cynical, more inclined to deconstruct than, in the words of Lawrence, to trust the tale.
Now to my question. It regards your own training as a literary critic and your admission of being a slow reader. Did you also, in a sense, lose your innocence as a reader? Were you also a quicker, and more trusting reader, more willing to suspend disbelief for want of a better term, before you got your literary training? And, like me, do you have the experience of having gained much but also of having lost something significant through the experience? Further, do you agree that textual theory tends to foster a cynicism in the reader and a hostility towards the fantastic, as well as a distrust of mere story? This may, of course, also be extended to your experience as a writer; meaning, does your training as a lit critic ever hinder your storytelling impulses? (Despite the preponderance of question marks I think there are essentially two questions here).
Apologies if this was a bit long. Thanks for writing the best modern fantasies, and good luck with the rest of the series.
Jon
|
(Forgive the pruning. I hope I haven't distorted the essence of your question(s).) Here's another question I've been putting off because there are so many things I *could* say but I don't know where to start with them, or which of them would be most useful. Certainly "the loss of innocence" has been a theme of Western literature pretty much ever since we've had literature--and I won't even mention Western psychology, Western politics, or Western religions. It's one of the undergirding themes of LOTR, as it is of "Idylls of the King". And Wagner's Ring cycle. And at least some Mann. And (arguably) Cervantes. And yet "the loss of innocence" is not a theme which moves me. I've often thought that the loss of innocence was a natural and inevitable consequence of growing up, and that "feeling bad about it"--don't take this personally--was a symptom of not wanting to grow up. Contrarily, I've often thought that there *is* no such thing as "innocence" (not even in wee babies), and that mourning over something we never had is symptomatic of a deeper dilemma, the fundamental conundrum of being human ("the absurd" according to thinkers like Sartre, "the abyss" according to thinkers like Nietzsche). Since I come from a "Calvinist" background where people believed that babies who died at birth roasted in the fires of Hell eternally, it probably makes psychological or spiritual sense that I'm inclined to doubt the existence of "innocence". But none of this directly addresses your question(s). So, to continue avoiding you.... <grin> One martial arts style with which I'm more than peripherally acquainted is Kajukembo (even though I can never remember whether it's "bo" or "po" <sigh>). As part of its philosophy, Kajukembo asserts that there are three levels of skill: primitive, mechanical, and spontaneous. In "primitive," we blunder through the techniques and katas because we don't really know how to do them, or why we do them that way instead of some other way, but we're carried along by what we're learning. (In practice, we need to describe a stage that comes before "primitive". After all, a young reader can't be swept away by a story until he/she has reached a certain level of reading fluency.) In "mechanical," we know what the techniques and katas are, we know how they work, we even know why they work--but we can't *use* them without making a conscious choice to do so. We have to think about every step, every action, whether proactive or reactive. (At this stage, some karate teachers--keeping it simple--say "Thinking is stinking.") In "spontaneous," the techniques and katas have been so deeply integrated into the mind/body/spirit that they appear to "just happen," and their use is almost literally as natural as breathing. At this level, the conscious mind hardly appears to be engaged at all, although it does make deliberate, continuous choices on such subjects as "degree of force". (I could go on and on about this, but I'll "choose" to control myself. <grin>) I find this analogy useful because it fits my personal experience, both as a reader and as a writer. Each stage has been valuable and necessary. And--at least for me--none has involved "the loss of innocence". Certainly none has deprived me of my ability to appreciate "story". (On the other hand, I'm satisfied by fewer and fewer books every year. I value "story" too highly to enjoy watching it done badly. Simultaneously I value "story" too highly to enjoy watching it be ignored as unimportant. And because I consider "story" and "character" inextricable, I don't enjoy books that either gloss over or sneer at their own characters.) As it happens, I know a lot of scholars, academics, and intellectuals. And over the years, I've observed a rising tide of cynicism in them. From the perspective of Kajukembo, these individuals are all willingly, even eagerly "stuck" in the "mechanical" stage of development. First they're obsessed with the "mechanics" of literature (and at that point they aren't cynical). But then a certain frustration sets in (the actual problem is that they aren't moving on to the "spontaneous," but the perceived problems are a) that the "mechanical" stage of reading does not qualify anyone to write, and b) that there's no practical reward for progressing beyond the "mechical," especially in academic settings). The individuals I'm describing move from observing the "mechanics" of literature to observing the *process* of observing the "mechanics" of literature. For them, "story" then becomes a necessary burden: necessary because without it there would be nothing to study; burden because "story" distracts us from studying the *analysis* of "story". Critical theory takes the place of literature. And this is where cynicism sets in. The more a reader expends his/her energy thinking about thinking about "story," the further that reader is removed from the human sustenance which is (I believe) the essence of "story". It may be a law of nature that a lack of emotional sustenance breeds cynicism the way rotting flesh breeds maggots. As I say, stuck. In my particular case, my training as a literary critic was essential to my deveopment as a writer. BUT. At a certain point (in graduate school, after seven years of "lit crit" training), I became aware of the problem you describe. I realized that my training had stopped carrying me toward my goal. Instead my training was carrying me away from my goal. So I "dropped out" at my earliest opportunity. (Even then, I had to spend some time flushing the negative effects of "too much" literary criticism out of my system. But fortunately I escaped in time to do so.) I hope this is clear enough. I'm sort of addicted to karate analogies. <sigh> (08/27/2006) |
Matt: I hope you don't mind answering a question of a technical nature, that might be of help to aspiring writers. The question concerns *pacing*.
To me, the most difficult (technical) thing about writing fiction is that I *write* so much slower than a reader would *read*. And...because...it...takes...so...much...longer...to...write, it's hard to tell if the pace (for a reader) would be exciting at all. An action sequence, for a reader, might take 5 breathless minutes to peruse...but the writer might have worked on those 5 pages for a week or more.
I don't have any solution to this myself, other than re-reading what I've already written ad infinitum, pretending that *I* am the reader. But at some point my brain becomes desensitized to what's on the paper. (After all, *I* wrote it.)
Do you have any rules-of-thumb in your own writing, such as "Well I need to describe the scene, a room (say) in Revelstone, so I'll force myself to describe it in x number of words/sentences, then move on to something juicy happening..."? Or do you work on a more intuitive level? I guess what I'm asking is, what advice do you have for a writer who is having trouble seeing the forest for the trees?
Thanks for considering my question!
|
I think this is a huge challenge for any writer. Yes, writers move through the story far more slowly than readers do. Yes, this causes enormous problems of "translation" (accomodating the reader's perspective within the writer's): "pace" is only one of the difficulties. And yes, reading your own prose *as if* it had been written by someone else is both numbing and, ultimately, impossible. And no, there aren't any "rules". Each writer solves the problem(s) in his/her own way. (Try to imagine a Patricia McKillip novel "paced" like a Stephen King novel. But don't give yourself an aneurysm. <grin>) I think of my own approach as "trained intuition": I do it "by feel". Years and years of practice and study permit me to proceed *as if* by reflex. My only advice if you can't "see the forest for the trees" is: look at a different forest; stare at different trees. Instead of obsessing about your own work, study someone else's. Observe, for example, how Stephen King "slows down time" for the reader whenever he writes a Big Scene (which, incidentally, is one of the keys to his success): the faster and more urgently events move, the more words (details) he uses to describe them. The more you're able to see in other people's work, the better qualified you'll be to make decisions about your own. (08/29/2006) |
Perry Bell: Hi Stephen,
I was wondering, have the haruchai met their dead in Andelain? I went back through every single chapter of every single book ( I love rereading the chronicals, who dont??) but cannot seem to see any such encounters. I wonder because it seems like Bannor would be a good choice to slap some sense into the masters. Any thoughts on the subject?
Thank you very much!
Perry Bell
|
The Masters in particular, and the Haruchai in general, are pretty good at keeping their secrets. They could party with their Dead on a regular basis, and none of us would ever know about it--unless one of my POV characters happened to witness their revels. (08/29/2006) |
Charles Adams: You have spoken of your love for language, vocabulary, structure, etc. Even how when you read you study what "it" is that makes a reader want to continue to the next sentence. Obviously such passion goes into the stories you craft.
My question is this: When you respond to a question in the GI, do you craft your response as carefully as you do your stories? Or are we seeing freeform Donaldson, Donaldson-unplugged?
|
Depends on the question. In some of my answers, I think it's pretty obvious that I'm just winging it. (Those are usually the short ones.) In other cases, I put quite a bit of thought into my answers. And I'm a compulsive self-editor. However, it's probably fair to say that nothing in the GI has been "crafted" to the same extent as my stories. If I did that, I'd still be answering questions from 2004. <rueful smile> (08/30/2006) |
Paul S.: On the question of POV. In an earlier post you said
"You may have noticed, however, that I *never* use "third person omniscient": that's where the writer takes the reader inside the head of every character in every scene. As a technique, I find it jarring and disruptive at best, utterly implausible at worst. And for very different reasons I've never done a "present tense" narrative. Only a supreme master could make a technique with so many inherent disadvantages convincing."
I re-read all of your novels recently -- as I am wont to do when a new novel in a series I love comes out. I've done the same with a couple of other authors who use the Third Person POV -- where they choose a single character (per scene, chapter, whatever) from who(m?) to relate the story.
My question is -- have you found works where 3rd Person Omni worked well and why do you think that authors do in fact chose this voice when it is so clearly fraught with peril?
|
It wasn't an uncommon approach during the Victorian era, especially among writers inclined to satire (if memory serves, Dickens, Thackery, and Trollope). Readers--and writers--expected different qualities from their novels in those days than we do today. The sort of narrative detachment (for lack of a better term) imposed by "3rd person omniscient" suited the purposes of the writers and the desires of their readers. In particular, satire demands disengagement of one form or another. And (again I'm relying on my fallible memory) both Doestoevsky and Solzhenitsyn wrote powerful novels that included "3rd person omni". As I recall, however, they used that POV while they were first deploying their characters and setting the stage: later in each novel, they focused in on single POVs. Any technique which imposes a distance between the reader and the characters can be useful, if it fits the intentions of the writer. Speaking purely for myself: when I want distance, I prefer to rely on tone. (08/30/2006) |
Roy Miyamoto: Thanks for taking the time to interact with your fans through this GI.
Question: In the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, once the Laws of the Land are broken, can they be mended?
|
Life is process. The word "mended" sort of implies "returned to its original state". About that I'm skeptical. Everything has moved on. And the whole notion of "mending"--or even "healing"--broken Laws troubles me: it could so easily have the unintended effect of diminishing the significance of the earlier stories. "Well, the Land was in trouble, but now everything is fine. No problem. Ergo: no reason to read the previous books. Or even this one." The past made us who we are. I like to think that I can find a better solution to the dilemma. (08/30/2006) |
Chris: Hi Stephen,
While reading Runes, I was curious at the absence of certain forms of technology, particularly cell phones and computers. It seems that Linden would want to have quick, ready access to Sandy.
Two possible explanations: 1) Linden is a technophobe 2) Runes take place in the past.
Or is there another reason why you did not include technology references?
|
My primary reason was that I wanted to preserve the emotional tone of Linden's and Covenant's "real world": I didn't want to change too many of the terms and conditions of that reality. After all, the more I change the "real world," the more time I have to spend explaining it before I can get to the main event. Many people already consider a Prologue that goes on for five chapters excessive. <sigh> However, my "secret" purpose was to give Covenant's and Linden's "real world" a certain timelessness; a certain detachment from the social/political/technological details of our "present" (whenever that "present" happens to be). Putting it another way: I wanted the "real world" to appear seamless from story to story. Literally, of course, that's impossible: circumstances have to change in order to enable each new story. But in "tone" or "flavor" I've given it my best shot. (08/30/2006) |
Acolyte Niddy: Dear Lord Donaldson,
Thank you for answering my previous questions. I'm sure you will agree they broke new ground in the interview.
Now I have two more.
a) Do you agree that Terisa of Morgan's ordeal would have been made much easier if she had thought to bring along a calculator? What caused her to omit this important piece of equipment?
b) Are you aware that you based your character, "Sib Mackern" on your previous character "Lord Foul the Despiser"? Was this a conscious or unconscious decision?
Thank you for answering my important questions.
Signed,
Acolyte Niddy.
|
OK, now you're just being silly. (09/03/2006) |
Darrin Cole: No question just a reference for you.
BODACH
(budagh) The Celtic form of Bugbear, or Bug-A-Boo, literally, 'old man'. It was a Highland belief that the Bodach would creep down chimneys and steal naughty children, although in other parts it was considered to be a death-warning spirit. The Bodach Glas, or Dark Grey Man is a death token, of which Sir Walter Scott makes such effective use in WAVERLEY towards the end of Fergus MacIvor's history.
|
Thank you! Now that you've refreshed my memory: yes, "Waverley" is exactly where I got "Bodach Glas". Since I had no reason to believe that I would ever be published, I was just having fun with literary in-jokes. (09/03/2006) |
Anonymous in Australia: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for your creative effort. I am in my early thirties, now, but first read The Land series as a young boy. Reading through Runes last summer was like reopening an inner eye which I'd forgotten since I was a kid. I cannot quite say how valuable that experience is.
I mostly wanted to say 'thank you.' Some of my favourite memories of reading have been within your Convenant boooks.
I am also driven to write, perhaps in the same sense you are. And I believe I understand the comments you have left in the G.I. about each artist having to work things out for his or her self. Reading that you found rejection 47 times makes the 3 rejection notices of the last month pinned to my wall seem almost optimistic.
Here are my questions. I actually wrote quite a bit before trimming it down to the below. I hope the language doesn't seem too clinical.
Q1 - What literary 'forms' do you find yourself coming back to, again and again? I can identity two, the potential of fiction to define an otherwise alienating reality, and the arc of human suffering and redemption. Are there any other key forms you would point to, yourself?
Q2 - Are there any such forms to which you find yourself drawn to, or are intrigued by?
Thank you!
NF.
|
I'm sorry: I don't understand your questions. You appear to use the word "forms" where I would use the word "themes". When I think "forms" I think "sonnet," "character sketch," "picaresque novel," etc.. As for themes, well, I don't choose my themes (surely I don't need to repeat that I'm not a polemicist?), they choose me. And even a casual glance at my work shows that the same themes appear over and over again: e.g. the (often inadvertent) struggle for personal integrity; or the power of small individuals to change the course of large events. But then, I don't choose my forms either: they are dictated by the stories they contain. (09/03/2006) |
Sean Casey: What, as a writer, is your opinion of secondhand books? Do you regard them as lost income for yourself and other writers who could probably do with the money? Or are you happy that people are just reading per se?
Couple of auxilliary questions: What, as far as you know, do publishers make of the sale of secondhand books? And do you buy and read secondhand books yourself?
Thanks.
|
I don't buy second-hand books myself. Since I'm dependent on the financial support of my readers, I make a point of giving other writers the same support. But I don't *disapprove* of second-hand books. They promote reading, sometimes for people who couldn't afford to read without them. (From a purely ego-based perspective, however: the thing I don't like about second-hand books is not that people buy them, but rather that people *sell* them. <rueful smile> "What, you don't want to *keep* my book? Woe is me! Also weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth!") I've never discussed the subject with a publisher (or an editor). But I imagine that their attitude is similar to mine. Since they can't *stop* the sale of second-hand books, they might as well be philosophical about it--or at least not think about it. (09/04/2006) |
Todd: Hi Steve,
There was a comment (not by you) that Brooks sold 72,000 books. I was wondering how many copies of Runes sold. Is that something you would be willing to share with us?
|
I don't have any reliable information. (I do get "royalty statements" from my publishers twice a year, but I stopped straining my brain to decipher them long ago.) However, I've been given the general impression that "Runes" sold between 60,000 and 70,000 copies in hardcover--in both the US and the UK. This is a considerably more impressive number in the UK than it is in the US, since the population of the UK is so much smaller. (09/04/2006) |
Chronos: Just checking to see how far behind you are in answering GI questions....
Today is 8/24/06
My prediction is that you are 67 days behind which would mean you would answer this on 10/30/06... No cheating!
|
Your computation rests on a false assumption: that I answer questions in order. The truth is that I use the "spray and pray" method. <grin> Currently I'm about 70 questions behind. (09/04/2006) |
Chris R. Vessey: First off, let me say that I was most pleasantly surprised when I found your website, and was astounded that you make the effort to communicate so directly with your fanbase.
Now, to my question. I realize that you had a very different type of childhood which exposed you to situations most of us would never encounter - and that you lived in "far off lands" . . . one aspect of your writing that has fascinated me is the use of names and naming conventions according to the races in your books, and related linguistic elements.
Is there a specific set of source languages that you used as patterns? I recall the Waynhim, Dukkha (and that name is a Pali word, no?) as having caught my interest. Years later, an east Indian friend used that word, and it immediately caught my attention. "Haruchai" sounds very Japanese. When I attempt to Google it, I get either references to your work (surprise, surprise) or the fact that many (MANY) people have used it as a forum alias name . . .
I apologize if this question has been asked before, I've only just discovered these forums and have not had the time to peruse all the back editions of the Gradual Interview.
Many thanks for all you've written, and will write.
-Chris
|
Sorry. I've had occasion to say before that I'm no linguist (witness my D's in college German). There's nothing Tolkien-esque hidden beneath the surface; no coherent background to the "foreign" words and names in the "Covenant" books. Within racial groups (the Ramen, the Giants, etc.), I do try to be consistent. Hence, for example, a number of the Ramen names draw on Marathi (a derivative of Hindi). But that's only because I want the names to sound consistent: I don't actually *speak* Marathi, despite my childhood exposure. Mainly I just "steal" whatever sounds right (especially when the right sound also happens to have a useful meaning). E.g. in Marathi "Pahni" means "water". (09/06/2006) |
John: Steve,
I couldn't find an answer to a particular question in the G.I, but I may have missed it.
In many of you books children are in danger/threatened/hurt as a main point of the story arc. We see this in LFB and deal with it's reprecussion in all three "Chronicles"; we see this in the Jeremiah story arc; we see this is the first two "Man Who" books; and again in the "Gap" books: the threat to Davies.
Was this conscious? And if so, why? My first guess is that children represent innocence, perhaps, or something pure, uncorrupted? Or was it something else?
Thanks!
|
Earlier in my career, I might have said that children represent "vulnerability" rather than "innocence". I think I've made it obvious that I consider "innocence" itself to be a flawed concept. Or perhaps I should say that the word itself doesn't seem very useful, since I find it difficult to come up with a workable definition that doesn't involve some form of willful ignorance. (In any case, Freud smashed the idea that children are "innocent" pretty thoroughly.) But now I *have* children, so I'm keenly aware of the primal power that can exist in the bond between a parent and a child; and the word "vulnerability" has a whole new meaning. 20 years ago, I would have had to *imagine* Linden's feelings for Jeremiah: now I know them intimately. None of which actually answers your question. So to further not answer your question: calling Lena and Davies "children" may be stretching the definition a bit. Of course literally they *are* the children of their parents; but they aren't "children" in the same sense that Jeremiah is (helplessly dependent). Davies is "born" capable of independent decisions and actions; and Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so. Thematically Lena, Davies, and Jeremiah don't have much in common. Jeremiah has more in common with the children in TMWKHB and THWRHP. (09/06/2006) |
Steve: I read The Man Who Fought Alone before I knew it was part of a whole The Man Who.. series, and so obviously before I knew it was the last book in that series. When I read Fought Alone, it seemed self-sufficient, i.e. it seemed complete as a novel without the need of books leading up to it. I still haven't yet read the first books in the Man Who series (although, I will). But reading Fought Alone, it seems like everything that needed explaining was explained so that you could just pick up from the last book in that series and it would make no difference to the experience. I don't know yet if the other books are like that, but I'm guessing that they are.
My question is: did you do this intentionally? Did you mean for the books to follow a sort-of episodic format, more like a TV show, rather than the more continuous, epic format that your other books fall into? Don't get me wrong; i'm not saying it's bad. In fact, I like it. I was just curious.
Thanks.
|
Yes, it's intentional. I wanted each of "The Man Who..." books to be able to stand alone as needed. There are several reasons. 1) It is almost a requirement of the genre. Mystery readers seem to want a lot of books about the same sleuth(s), and they want to be able to read those books in any order. (Unfortunately, this also implies that they do not want their sleuth(s)to "change"--a requirement which I've been unable to satisfy.) 2) I've always known that a lot of time would pass between installments in the series. I didn't foresee the *extent* to which my writing has slowed down; but I knew that these books would be sporadic at best. Writing them so that they could stand alone seemed like a necessary courtesy to my poor readers. Of course (this is me, remember) there *is* a larger story evolving in the background of "The Man Who..." books--which explains, at least in part, why my sleuth(s) do change. But I tried to ensure that the "foreground" story wasn't dependent on what lurks in the background. 3) I've never actually known how many installments the "background" story would require--which means that I've never been sure I would finish it. <sigh> So naturally I want each book to end at a viable "stopping place". Just in case, y'know, I don't quite succeed at living forever.... (09/07/2006) |
J C Bronsted: Earlier in the GI [I recall] you mentioned that you approached certain scenes from the "wrong" POV character, and realizing this, had to back track and discover the "right" POV...
I have the idea in my head that you referenced the GAP books with this acknowledgement, but cannot confirm (or disprove concretely) this through the search.
My question: would you care to cite a specific example of this? Who was the "wrong" POV (that you pursued) in a certain place, and why was the "right" POV mare apt for the story/scene, and [perhaps] how long did it take you to realize this, and by what means?
Thank you so much for this forum.
|
<sigh> I don't understand why readers (you certainly aren't alone in this) are so eager to know about my mistakes. God knows there are enough mistakes right there in print. The significant thing about the mistakes which are *not* "right there in print," it seems to me, is not that I made them, but rather that I caught and corrected them. Asking me what my "corrected" mistakes were feels rather like asking me to undergo reverse dentistry; replace repaired teeth with decayed ones. But for the sake of keeping peace in the family, so to speak.... "This Day All Gods Die," US hardcover, p. 318. Try to imagine that chapter told from Davies' point of view. Just don't hurt yourself. My usual clue that I've wandered down the wrong POV path is that I can feel my writing become more and more superficial. The prose feels glib to me: it skims the surface of what I want to communicate. But no matter how hard I try to *force* myself deeper, I continue to skid along the outside of the characters. And eventually I reach a personal cul-de-sac: I find myself no longer able to forge ahead because the story no longer makes sense. At which point, more by personal symptomatology than by critical analysis, I realize what's happened. Then I go back to find the place where I took the wrong POV path, and I rewrite everything from that point on. 25 pages? 50? 100? It varies. Fortunately, I don't make this mistake very often--which is why I sometimes have trouble recognizing that I've gone wrong. (09/07/2006) |
Anonymous: Mr. Donaldson;
Having read most-if-not-all of your books, I thank you for the literary contributions you've made. One of the things you wrote in the forward of 'Reave the Just & other tales' is that you found inspiration in your divorce to write.
How did you do that? How did you find the ability to create, and not just give up everything? Did you feel like you failed in one thing (the marriage) so you were compelled to succeed in another (the story)? Was it anger that drove you to write? Was it relief? Was it despair?
If it was despair, how did you -- how does *anyone* -- move on and *create*? How does one create and not just subsist, anymore?
How did you know -- years before -- that the only way to hurt a man who loses everything is to give him back something broken?
How did you know?
|
This seems a bit private for a public forum--on your side as well as on mine. But the absence of an e-mail address prevents a private reply, so.... Last question first. How did I know? That's what an imagination is for (although a bit of empathy doesn't hurt). Back then, I didn't have the kind of direct experience that informs my writing now (although I was intuitively aware that everyone is always broken, and that "healing," like "redemption," is a relative term). Now. The Introduction to "Reave the Just and Other Tales" doesn't actually say that I "found inspiration in [my] divorce to write." It says: "'The Kings of Tarshish Shall Bring Gifts' came to me while I was skidding down into a catastrophic divorce; 'Reave the Just' played a crucial role in my recovery afterward." In retrospect, it's tempting to look back at those stories and emphasize their thematic relevance. "The Kings" is an elegaic story about a young man who can't find the substance of his dreams within himself; who sees love and wonder and magic as external, beyond his power to choose. Which sounds a whole lot like "a catastrophic divorce" to me. "That other person is supposed to make me happy, but he/she isn't doing it. In fact, s/he is doing the exact opposite." "Reave the Just" is about a pair of "deluded" or "helpless" victims who are inspired to accept responsibility for the meaning of their own lives by an (imposed) awareness of someone else's suffering. I smell "recovery". But I think that such interpretations miss the real point. (So there's a relationship between my conscious and unconscious minds. So what? We knew that already. And stories aren't written in retrospect.) You asked *how*. From my perspective, it wasn't relief or anger or despair that drove me to write: it was writing (specifically storytelling) that enabled me to survive and eventually accomodate my relief and anger and despair. Storytelling has always been my #1 survival skill. "Service enables service." (Foamfollower had a fair amount to say about this.) We could get bogged down here in an attempt to define "despair"; but as far as I'm concerned, it always comes down to a feeling of being overwhelmed--or even erased--by things bigger than we are; of being less than worthless; of being helpless in the face of some vast and cruel darkness. A feeling of having the significance (or lack of significance) of our lives determined by something beyond our control. Well, storytelling--and Thomas Covenant--have taught me that no one has to accept that sorry state of affairs. Despair (I know this sounds harsh) is a *choice*: it is a decision (usually unconscious, I recognize) to be overwhelmed, to be helpless, to be erased. But as soon as someone (in my case, me) realizes that it *is* a choice, other choices become available. Sure, I had no power to make my marriage--or my divorce--into anything other than what they were. But the decision to surrender or affirm the meaning of my life was entirely mine. And, as I like to say, Anyone who *can* choose--*must* choose. So I chose storytelling over despair. And making that choice made it possible for me to go on making that choice. OK, so maybe the themes of "The Kings" and "Reave" are more germane than I want to admit. <rueful smile> (09/07/2006) |
Sean Casey: I was going to ask whether you were interested in psychology as a subject, but a search of the GI threw up this quote: 'In contrast, I suffer from a life-long fascination with psychology; and I like to believe that over the course of my writing life my portrayal of character has been thereby enriched.'
I have two questions that lead on from this. Are there any particular schools of psychology/therapy that you're interested in or that you feel are especially useful or accurate? And is the enrichment you mentioned subconscious or do you map out a character's personality (eg, x has a strong id and a weak superego which makes him do this, that and the other)?
|
As with the martial arts, I'm totally eclectic about psychology. I want to expose myself to as many different approaches as possible; take what works for me and let the rest go. And although I enjoy theory, I'm really an empiricist: I latch onto anything that sheds light for me, and I discard the rest. Of course, I have opinions. Who doesn't? I think that Shotokan is a good place to start the martial arts because it provides a flexible foundation that adapts easily to other approaches. In the same way, you could say that I "believe in" Cognitive Therapy. But what I *really* believe is that it isn't about the style (or the theory): it's about the relationship between the guide and the student. Styles--and theories--that shed no light for me can be vividly illuminating for other people. In particular, creating characters is *not* about theory. I never apply any form of analytic construct to my characters. I think about their circumstances, I think about the "vibe" that my POV character gets from them, and I try to put myself in their shoes, experience what it's like to be them. (With a POV character, of course, it's a bit more complicated. But I can still pick up a "vibe" by watching how they interact with other characters.) And I *learn*: I get to know them as the story goes along, so that when I rewrite they become more real. (That, incidentally, is the biggest single difference between my first and last drafts of a story: the characters come into better focus as I rewrite.) It goes without saying, I think, that anything which sheds light for me improves my ability to create characters. (09/07/2006) |
Tim Piper: Stave--uh, Steve.
I'm rereading the Gap, and it must be the finest space opera I've ever read. Not that it conforms to the conventions of that sub-genre, which may have contributed to its less than stellar sales. The mere thought of it on a big screen . . . Captain's Fancy's demise, the Massif 5 escape. The images are already there in my head.
The question: considering the relationship of Angus, Nick and Morn from the outset and that each seemed necessary to the story, did you ever have qualms toward ending Nick before he could make it to the last book?
This is not a reference to how it happened. I understand from the GI that your ending must be in place, though the story is written beginning to end. If I were to be so bold to apply a metaphor for the purpose of the question:
If the ending is the bulls-eye on a dart board (oh no! a sports metaphor), and a single throw defines the act of writing, when in this process did you realize his demise? When you put up the board? Or was it the release? Top of the arc or declination?
|
No, I didn't have any qualms about getting rid of Nick. I always knew that the story couldn't progress beyond a certain point (thematically, anyway) with Nick in it: I already had too many other characters clamoring to assume his role. But the actual details didn't become clear to me until I began to get to know Sorus Chatelaine in "Dark and Hung". (Sorry. Old joke.) As soon as I realized that she gave Nick his scars, I knew what had to happen in "Chaos and Order". (09/08/2006) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Hello Steve! Thanks for answering my previous question about falling in love with created worlds. I have another question that is somewhat similar... You said in the GI that you first envision the ending of a story, and then work backwards, choosing the major plot points for each story. However, as far as I understand, while even before starting the story you already know that the characters will have to go from plot point A to plot point B, you don't always know *how* they will do that. My question is - did you ever find yourself writing the part from point A to point B, only to realize, once arrived to point B, that the path you had chosen to get from A to B didn't "ring true", and that you should find another, better way?
Thanks!
|
Well, what do you mean by "path"? My "wrong paths" usually involve POV (as I've discussed elsewhere). But sometimes they involve misunderstanding a character. And rarely, they involve trying out events which just don't work (or leaving out events that need to be in there). Thank God for rewriting! In terms of how difficult such problems are to fix, they are (in descending order of magnitude): POV mistakes, erroneous or missing events, misunderstood characters (refining my perception of character is such a normal part of rewriting that it hardly seems worthy of comment). (09/08/2006) |
Ty: I have been pondering how your stories would translate to the screen, and hadn't heard that it was being considered by anyone until I saw your News blurb. My fear (particularly since you mentioned elsewhere that others hold the rights) is that any films of the Covenant or GAP series would be handled ineptly. Then it dawned on me: Anime! Of course anime can be done as ineptly as any other medium, but it *seems* to have so much more latitude to translate ideas in non-traditional (read: non-typical-Hollywood-blockbuster) ways. Do you have an opinion on that? Are you an anime fan? Do you think your stories would be served better by live action or animation? What would your ideal treatments for the Covenant and GAP series be?
On another note, I completely agree with the Interzone quote on the Commentary page about your ability to create unparalleled "narrative crescendos". I am drawn toward music that creates that same sense of motion, and as a musician/songwriter I look for opportunities to do the same. I think I have been influenced by your writing in that regard. Weird link, I know, but thanks!
ty
|
Anime has more possibilities than I first realized. But I can't help it: I want live action. Real actors with real faces as well as real voices. Not that anyone in the movie biz cares what I think.... (09/08/2006) |
Ossie: Hi Stephen rather than a question, I have 2 comments. Firstly, you have said on several occasions that the one character you feel was not given the time & attention to develop fully that you failed, in a sense was Davies Hyland. Having recently re-read the Gap series, I, as merely the lowly reader, would disagree. A saga the size of the Gap series was I never realised this before sprinkled with chapters carrying the points of view of a huge number of characters. The scale of the work itself was monumental to try & squeeze all the different points of view necessary to tell the story you needed, was positively daunting. Certainly Davies Hyland was an important character. But he was not one of the big 3 in the Victimiser/Victim/Saviour triangle: Morn, Angus & Nick. Given the need the devote the lions share of the narrative to those 3, and the necessary inclusion as well of the points of view of minor characters as varied as Maxim Igensard, Darrin Scroyle, Liete Corriegio and even Marc Vestibule (and did Norna get a brief appearance as well???), I personally think you gave Davies as much time, attention & development as it was possible to give with such competing priorities.
Secondly, having now read the entire Gap series again (the first time being soon after publication in the mid 90s), I was rather amused at the similarities of the lying and framing to get legislation passed to increase the power of the sheriffs of the day with recent real-life events: rise of terrorism, use of the opportunity to get the Patriot Act passed, linking the terrorist threat to Iraq to justify a full scale invasion etc etc. Can I, he asks with tongue firmly lodged in cheek, trick you into making a comment about *that*?
Eagerly awaiting Fatal Revenant.
|
Thank you. But I must not have been clear when I said that I "failed" Davies. I didn't mean that I neglected to grant him enough narrative space: I meant that I didn't see deeply enough into his unique psyche. I persist in believing that a better writer could have shed more light into his character in the time and space available. (Just my opinion, of course.) Deceit has been a prominent feature of political life ever since human beings discovered that they were capable of lying. I'm less troubled by the fact that our political leaders lie than I am by the way our "news" media support the lies. (09/08/2006) |
Rick Monroe: The statement about Fatal Rev going to US and UK editors got me thinking. Are there differences between a UK version and a US version?
I eagerly await the remaining books. I tried to draw out my reading of RotE, but found I couldn't wait until FE came out, and had to finish it. Thanks for your wonderful works, and for this ongoing interview.
|
There are no "substantive" differences, but there *are* many differences, all of which--as far as I can tell--are due to the fact that my UK publisher "Anglicizes" the text. Spelling and punctuation are changed to conform to British usage. And where the US and the UK use different words to mean the same thing (e.g. vacation/holiday), my UK publisher makes the swap. Why? Beats the by-products out of me. Are British readers *incapable* of reading--and enjoying--a book written in US English? I doubt it. Still, US publishers often "Americanize" British books, so I guess I shouldn't complain. (09/08/2006) |
Anonymous: Steve,
In your opinion, what is the proper etiquette on the number of books one should bring to have autographed at a convention/book-signing?
Thanks!
|
In my opinion, you should bring all the books you want autographed. Who knows when you'll get the chance again? But when there are other people waiting in line, the polite thing to do is get three books signed and then go back to the end of line. Keep cycling through the line until you have all the autographs you want. (09/11/2006) |
Debra: I'm sure I'm repeating most of your fans by saying I truely Love all your books. I was so happy to see the new book from 'The Last Chronicles'. After reading it I was anxious to get to the next one. I have searched everywhere trying to find out when the other 3 books are due to be released or at least the next one, but have not been able to find out. I did try to find it in your Gradual Interview but nothing came up. Thank you
|
It's probably time to repeat that "news"--when there is any--appears first in the "news" section of this web site. If the publication information you're looking for isn't there, then I don't have it. I'll also repeat that my contract allows three years per book. This isn't my publishers' idea: I insisted on it. I need that much time. (09/11/2006) |
Charles: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
A question for the gradual interview:
As a published writer, Thomas Covenant had gotten millions of dollars in royalties and could afford to live anywhere he wanted. Why did he stay in that crappy small town instead of moving to New York or even a nice college town somewhere? Sure, he's intransigent, but wasn't he carrying things a little too far?
(I know the "real" reason is that the story requires him to be an outcast. But is there a reason within the story? Maybe he's the victim of a gypsy curse? Or he lives on a parallel Earth that's much more conservative than our own, and his hometown is a relative bastion of tolerance and enlightenment?)
|
You appear to be laboring under a misconception about the financial rewards of being a writer. Sure, if Covenant published enough bestsellers, he would eventually get "millions of dollars". But as far as I know, only his first book did that well. And I know from experience that one bestseller isn't enough to produce the kind of financial independence you describe. Not even close. Sure, Covenant could probably have chosen to live elsewhere. But he isn't the kind of guy who runs away from his circumstances. After he gets done wallowing in them <grin> in the first trilogy, he faces them head-on. If he just *moved* whenever life got tough, he probably wouldn't be worth writing about. (09/11/2006) |
Dave Starner: Steve,
You recently mentioned a "Realms of Fantasy" book in a response to a question about Covenant artwork. I've seen this book at Half Price Books. No question this time, just thought some of the other GI readers might be interested. Half Price Books has locations across America and the one near me usually has multiple copies of the book.
Later,
Dave
|
For readers who are interested.... (09/11/2006) |
Shawn Rolan: Greetings and salutations, Mr. Donaldson,
My Question is somewhat simple with possibly some strange paradoxaial answers.If the Creator cannot reach throught the Arch Of Time and alter the natural course of events why is it that Lord Foul can reach through the Arch of Time to alter people in the *real* world? Would this not constitute a paradox within itself? If I recall correctly in The Power That Preserves Lord Foul did not have the White Gold,which was supposed to be the paradox within itself.So without the Wild Magic how could Lord Foul accomplish this without breaking the Arch of Time?Lord Foul altered a somewhat large group of people to do his bidding(Kidnapping Joan)and forcing Thomas Covenant to place himself on the sacrificial altar to complete Thomas Covenant's return to the Land, how did Lord Foul accomplish this without breaking the Arch?
|
I think we've been over this. First, fantasy is inherently a-rational. It must abide by its own internal logic; but it doesn't have to play by the same rules as our "normal" reality. Second, "The Chronicles" are all about paradox. And third (a point which makes perfect sense to me), the rules for "reaching out" from inside a closed system in order to connect to another closed system are fundamentally and inevitably different than the rules for "reaching into" a closed system from an unlimited, effectively infinite system in order to change the closed system. The two actions cannot be compared to each other. The first ("reaching out") is comparable to my attempt to answer your question. The second ("reaching into") might be comparable to my deciding that in "Fatal Revenant" the story would be more exciting if Revelstone could fly, or if Linden were male, or if Lord Foul were vulnerable to kryptonite. By "reaching out," I may very well affect your thinking, but I can't *impose* anything on you without your underlying consent. (Joan, like the commune she joined, was willing, nay, eager to be manipulated.) By "reaching into" my story in order to alter its internal logic and integrity, I can only destroy it. (09/12/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: This is more just an observation about your writing and maybe you can provide some insight for me (or not). What I have noticed, at least for myself, is that my favorite books of yours are always in the middle. What I mean by that is my favorite book of the First Chronicles is "The Illearth War". My favorite of the Second is "The One Tree". Their all great, but the middle book always speaks to me. I liked the middle books the best in the GAP series, and although it doesn't really have a middle book - I liked the middle part of Mordant's Need. The reason I mention this is that this is totally opposite of almost all other series I read - either the first or last book is always my favorite. My hypothesis is that other writers are "more excited" about the beginning and ending of their series and so the middle suffers. Yours do not. And perhaps it's just a peculiar quirk of my own pysche but having a strong middle is important to me and when a series does it almost always is my favorite book. Anyway, with this in mind I eagerly look forward to "Fatal Revenant" and "Shall Pass Utterly", I expect they'll be my favorites. Thanks again for all your work and your attention "to the middle".
|
Strangely, the most common complaint about large-scale fantasies is that the *ending*, not the middle, is the weakest part. The writer sets up something interesting, it chugs along for a while (retaining interest by introducing more and more complications), and then falls apart because the writer has no idea how to tie it all together in a satisfying fashion. But in your case... Well, I suspect (and I really am just speculating) that the first book is "work" (because you have to become accustomed to a whole new world, all new characters, etc., etc.) and the last book is a bereavement (because you have to let go of the things in which you've been immersing yourself), but in the middle you can just relax and enjoy it (reaping the benefits of the first book without experiencing the pangs of the last). (09/12/2006) |
Brian Linaberry: Mr. Donaldson-
First off, thanks for the many hours of pleasure your books have brought me.
I was wondering about 'The Real Story'. Your Gap books are my favorite sci-fi series, and I recommend them to everyone. But your extended prologue has put many people I know off the books. I thought it was a great way to launch the series, but am also aware that it doesn't necessarily fit the tone of the following volumes (at least in my opinion). I wondered if this was a calculated decision, or just the way it happened to work out.
Keep up the good work- can't wait for book eight!
|
I think it's clear that "The Real Story" does a lot to discourage people from reading the GAP books. It's *short*, hardly more than a pamphlet. Its narrative strategies are different than anything I've used before or since. And then there's the content.... <sigh> Nevertheless "The Real Story" was a conscious and deliberate departure from my usual methodologies. The problem I was trying to solve is a simple one: how can I lure the reader (not to mention myself) into spending an entire epic in the company of characters as despicable as Angus and Nick, or as "victimized" as Morn? Plunging head first into debasement on that scale didn't seem like a viable option: I would expect the reader to reel away in disgust. Hell, I wanted to reel away in disgust myself. So I decided to approach the nature of my characters in a gingerly, almost tentative fashion, hoping to snag the reader's interest by peeling off layers of misconception to reach the truth. I was trying to create a situation in which the *snag* would be stronger than the revulsion. Judging purely by sales, I failed miserably. But I don't consider "The Real Story"--or the GAP books--an artistic failure. It seems to me that spiraling rapidly down into darkness, and then having to scratch and claw back out again, is a fairly common human experience. And we never know what someone else is going through--or what they need in order to recover--unless we get a chance to peel away the layers. (09/12/2006) |
Steve: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
First I would like to say that probably my favorite character that you've created would have to be the Tor. There was something about him. When the injured Tor stood in as king, and then rode out to his death so that he could strike one last blow for Mordant in battle, that was more heroic than anything that I've seen in any Tolkein character. I also liked Adept Havelock very much.
My question is this. The people of Mordant are all deathly, and understandably, afraid of their own images. If someone from that world saw themselves reflected in a mirror, then they would go insane, etc. But when i was reading your books, I couldn't help wondering if it was the image itself which was dangerous, or was it the mirror in which the image is held? By that I mean, what if someone from Mordant saw themselves reflected in the water of a lake, etc? Would they go insane? OR, what if when Terisa was translated to Mordant, she brought with her a few of her favorite CDs to listen to. And then, someone saw their reflection in the back of one of those CDs. Would that have the same effect as a mirror?
Thank you, and thanks for all of your books.
|
The magic of images/reflections in "Mordant's Need" pertains specifically to glass mirrors. An image reflected in still water, or in some polished metal, would pose no danger. For the purposes of that story, I wanted to posit a very limited and (in some sense) "technological" form of magic (a lot of mechanical skill goes into making those mirrors)--although I've never been able to envision a "magic" which didn't ultimately rely on human talent/imagination/personality/spirit. (09/12/2006) |
Jeremy: You stated a Lysol Disinfectant can inspired one of the most powerful scenes in the Power That Preserves. My curiosity has got the better of me. Which one is it?
|
Haven't we covered this? It's the scene where Pietten tries to kill Covenant; where Lena dies saving Covenant, and he "releases" the Ranyhyn from their bond to him. (09/12/2006) |
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.
Anonymous: Steve,
You posted in the news section of your web site you have completed the 2nd draft of FR, and expect to complete a 3rd based upon editor recommendations. I know what your write is from you and is yours, but how much, if any, of this (or any book) belongs to the editor? They have input, to a degree (I would think - maybe I'm wrong), to influence how the story is told; so can an editor rightfully a story they work on as in small/large part theirs?
Thanks!
|
Some editors *do* "claim" the books they publish. Lester and Judy-Lynn del Rey not only launched their own imprint (DEL REY Books), but also put their personal "seals" (in Lester's case, a heraldic griffin) on the covers. Other editors "announce" themselves in the front matter of books: e.g. "Edited by Patrick Nielsen Hayden". There's a lot that could be said on the subject. For example, these "claims" can be seen as an attempt to shift attention away from the author to the editor. And like everything else (including the relationship between the editor and the author), such "claims" can be abused. But the general argument in their favor goes like this. 1) The editor made a meaningful contribution to the book (including the decision to publish it in the first place). Why shouldn't s/he get some credit--or accept some responsibility? 2) The "claim" permits you to compare your taste to that of the editor. Within two or three books, you'll know whether you and that editor like the same things. Then you can use the "claim" as a guide when you're deciding whether or not to give an unfamiliar writer a try. So what (apart from publication) constitudes "a meaningful contribution"? That varies wildly from one writer to the next--and from one editor to the next. In my case, no editor has ever determined the content of my work (although God knows Lester tried). But several editors (including Lester) have helped me to communicate my intentions more effectively. For that alone, I've always been happy to have their names on my books. (09/13/2006) |
Usivius: Thank you very much Mr. Donaldson for your absolutely delicious writing (all stories), and submitting yourself to answering the queries of you fans.
As much as I love and devour everything you have written, Mordant's Need remains my favourite.
I have one question about POV in this series. Almost the entire novel is done from the POV of Terisa. I can think of a few chapters with Lebbick and Eremis POV. But the one chapter that always is rivited in my mind, and I read it slowly, savouring it everytime, is the one in Eremis' POV as he looks down upon the angry crowd that has gathered to hear Saddith talk about how Lebbick beat her. It is a powerful and moving chapter that evokes a lot. And the 'narrative POV' of Eremis viewing this is chilling.
I have to ask: In this series, what kind of conscious decision do you make when you decide to with the POV in such a story, especially when 90% is told from a single character? Is it 'merely' so that an important scene can be told as it happens instead of as a recap to Terisa, who would not have been there?
Just wondering.
|
First, I have to object to the use of the word "merely" to describe any decision about POV in a story. <wry smile> Since any story can stand or fall on how POV is deployed, no choice is insignificant. "So that an important scene can be told as it happens" is not a trivial--or simple--reason for choosing a particular POV. After all, POV *always* reveals character (nothing "merely" about that), even when the character in question is dedicated to keeping secrets. It also establishes relationships with the reader; relationships which would not be available from some other POV. OK, now that I've got that off my chest.... It's important to remember that in "Mordant's Need" the fantasy world is explicitly accepted as "real". (It's her own substance Terisa doubts, not that of Geraden, or Saddith, or the Tor, or anyone else.) Therefore there's no inherent reason why *any* particular character can't serve as a POV. Most of the story is told through Terisa's eyes because I want to convey (as much as humanly possible) what it's like to be in her shoes; to experience such fundamental self-doubt while struggling to understand--and make decisions about--the (far more) real people around her. But I also want to convey (again, as much as humanly possible) that the people around her *are* real, that they make their own decisions for their own reasons, and that their actions have a material effect on the context within which she struggles. In order to accomplish this, I have to *show* the other characters in action: I have to demonstrate their "reality" in "real time," instead of presenting it as hearsay filtered through Terisa's POV. AND I have to do all of that without violating the parameters of Terisa's struggle (which is, after all, the centerpiece of the story). Therefore most of the story is told from Terisa's POV. Characters like Prince Kragen view events directly (as well as in "real time") because their actions are critical, and because they are (in essence) trying to solve the same puzzle Terisa is. And characters like Master Eremis view events obliquely (again preserving the "real time" requirement) because concealment is crucial to their intentions. (09/13/2006) |
Rod Andrews: Mr. Donaldson,
As many have said before, but it is my only chance to say it personally, thanks for the entertainment. Rarely have I enjoyed storytelling told with such craft.
In an earlier posting it was inferred that the The Last Chronicles ends with Thomas Covenant becoming Lord Foul. The writer states that this is no spoiler, which makes me think that you have confirmed this. I dont believe that would be so? So even though this is a simple question, would you mind ending my turmoil and straightening me out on point please?
By the way any chance you may grace Down Under (Australia) will a visit sometime?
|
Well, I did in fact make that statement. In public. Thinking back, I'm inclined to wish I hadn't said it. But we don't get to live our lives thinking back. <sigh> However. Like all of the public statements I made about "The Last Chronicles" years (decades?) ago, that one was designed to both reveal and conceal my intentions. Saying that "Thomas Covenant becomes Lord Foul" barely hints at the complexity of what I have in mind. Incidentally, a book tour is probably the only thing that would take me to Australia. (No offense. It's a very long trip, life is short, and I've already been there once.) And book tours are decided entirely by my publishers: I get to say yes or no, but I don't get to choose *where*. What my publishers may or may not want me to do in the years to come is completely unknown to me. (09/14/2006) |
Jeff: Just read the great news about the 2nd draft being complete. It made me wonder at what point do you begin the 3rd book in the series...not trying to push an "old" man to hard :) just curious about the process. Do you jump right in or do you wait?
Thanks for sharing your time and wit with us.
|
I have to do one thing at a time. That's just the way I am. I won't be able to do any effective writing on Covenant 9 until "Fatal Revenant" is officially *done*. Although naturally I'm doing a fair amount of thinking/planning ahead. In fact, my stack of notes for the last two books is bigger than the stack I had for all of "The Last Chronicles" when I started work on "The Runes of the Earth". (09/14/2006) |
Nathan R. Eddy: Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I have a strange question about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it pertains to the logic of the Last Chronicles. Earlier in the GI, you have said: ". . . I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down). . ." Well, the *truth* about the 2nd Law is that it implies an "arrow of time," a specific direction in which time flows. For this reason, we usually see things like cups falling to the floor and breaking, rather than shattered cups rising from the floor and spontaneously assembling themselves. The only time we'd witness such a reversal of entropy would be if we were watching a movie played in reverse.
So my question is this: if the Arch of Time is eventually broken, then won't the *arrow* of time also be broken? If the linear sequence of events no longer needs to flow in one direction, won't entropy be undone?
You have also said: ". . . it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process [of entropy] as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can."
So is the breaking of the Arch in itself an unexpected path to redemption? Achieving or fulfilling the "entire purpose of life?"
I like to think that this twisted logic might actually hold the key to the final "twist" at the end of this series--the way in which the Land is destroyed, and yet Lord Foul is defeated. Do I win? Did I guess the ending? :)
|
I accept your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (I'm no physicist, but it sounds right.) And I accept your conclusion that breaking the Arch of Time would break "the *arrow* of time," thus making entropy meaningless. But I don't think that any of us would like the results. As far as I can see, if entropy were rendered moot (by eliminating "the *arrow* of time"), the outcome would be...nothingness. Not freedom, not "redemption," not any concept that has human significance: just non-existence. Because if "the *arrow* of time" isn't pointing "forward," it isn't pointing anywhere, and nothing can ever happen. Ever again. As a matter of principle, I like "twisted logic." But in this case: sorry, no bonus points for you. <grin> (09/14/2006) |
Charlie: I can't believe that I've only just now found this site! I re-read the chonicles whenever my life gets confusing.
But I digress. My question is: Do the seven (six) words of power: Melenkurion abatha duroc minas mill & khabaal have English translations? Or were they simply chosen for their sound/look?
Kinslaughterer states that the Lords don't know the proper pronunciation of the words, so I assume they aren't spelled properly either. With this in mind, it is impossible to do an etymology of the words.
|
Since I'm no linguist <dramatic understatement>, I pretty much always choose such things for the way they sound. In general, I don't usually want them to have "literal" meanings. That can be painfully reductive. (I'm reminded of Doctor Strange's utterly unconvincing "incantations" in Marvel Comics several decades ago.) On the other hand, I wouldn't accept Kinslaughterer's "authority" on the subject. He's a Raver: why would he tell the truth? (09/15/2006) |
Jerry Erbe: I wanted to let you know how much I am enjoying "The Man Who," books. I have never read a book in the 'noir' style before (if that's a correct characterization) I wasnt sure if I could get into them or not, but surprisingly I really have.
The other day I was out in a restaurant where my 19 year-old daughter works and I was reading, This Day All Gods Die and she looked at me like I was crazy asked me if I hadnt read it already like 8 or 9 times? What is it do you think that causes a person to read and reread the same book or series of books over and over again? Certainly, there must be as many answers as there are readers, but I would suspect that there must be some underlying common denominator that possesses a person to do such a thing. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
Thanks again for sharing such wonderful stories with us.
|
Superficially, the explanation is obvious. People want to have the same experience again: feel the same emotions; enjoy the same pleasures. In one form or another, in one aspect of our lives or another, we all do it (hence, for example, "comfort food"--and romance novels). There can be something deeply reassuring about repeating experiences we value. They provide a form of stability and comfort--especially when we don't particularly like our actual lives. (I well remember a period of at least two years during which I obsessively watched episodes of "Dr Who" over and over again.) But I suspect that (at least in some cases) there may be deeper reasons. For example, a person may return to an experience (a book, a movie, an activity: anything that engages both the mind and the emotions) because he/she senses intuitively that the experience holds a "lesson" or insight which s/he wants to learn or acquire. (This is almost certainly not a conscious process: it's driven by instinct.) Or, for another example, a person may wish to *measure* him/herself against the yardstick of a valued experience: we can learn a lot about ourselves by seeing if/how the experience has changed since the last time we visited it (new insights into ourselves? new insights into the book or movie or activity?) (This tends to be a more conscious process.) In my case, for instance, I re-read LOTR whenever I feel a need to a) re-examine my own convictions/priorities in regard to writing fantasy, or b) search for a deeper understanding of Tolkien's achievement. (09/18/2006) |
Phil: Your responses to these questions really seem calm, clear, logical... very measured. The kind of person I'd love to bounce problems off of.
So, are you "that guy" that people always confide in with their problems? Do you have this same reflective wisdom in your personal life that you display here, or is it the written medium that draws it out of you?
|
No, I'm not "that guy". I keep myself too isolated (or "private," if you prefer). And writing gives me time to think, which then allows me to seem "wiser" than I really am. <grin> (09/18/2006) |
Mr. Moore: So, I was reading through some of this gradual interview and a question arose (I think as a commentary by you in response to someone's question). "Under what conditions does repetition lose it's effectiveness?" Or something like that.
So I was wondering, since you keep returning to the same-similar themes in the Covenant works (which have never bored me but rather stimulated my mind in ever novel ways) what do you think? Does this strategy in writing ever lose its effectiveness? I know it must, as I have read pieces that bludgeon certain points to death. I was just curious to know your thoughts, maybe even what you do to keep your recurring themes fresh not only to you as writer, but also to us as readers.
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
If I recall correctly (which is by no means certain <sigh>), my comment about "repetition" had to do with technique rather than theme. Of course, your query could apply to both. But from my perspective, they are very different questions. Speaking of theme: I don't worry about repetition. At all. Two reasons. 1) I don't set out to write about "themes". I set out to write about characters, emotions, and events; and somehow along the way themes emerge. If the same themes emerge over and over again, doubtless they do so because of who I am. But I still don't worry about "repeating myself" because: 2) As long as I continue to grow as a person and an artist, as long as I continue to raise my sights and push myself to tackle challenges I don't know how to handle, I'll never truly "repeat myself" because I won't be exactly the same person who wrote the previous story. *Some* aspect of what I'm doing will be "more" or "different" than it was before. In practice, technical repetition is a far more difficult and complex subject--because it's SO &$%&*&$% *subjective*. There are no rules: there are only instinct (feel) and experience, plus the kind of education that comes from studying how other writers deploy their techniques. One trivial example. Speaking entirely and solely for myself, I'm, well, let's call it "vulnerable" to "-ing" words. I *notice* them (unlike millions of happier mortals). And when a writer can't get through a paragraph without five or seven or ten "-ing" words, I don't just notice: I get distracted from the story. After a few paragraphs in a row of the same, my impatience turns into vexation. And yet I don't know even one other reader who reacts as I do. Or another, less trivial example: I know from reading the GI that some readers react negatively when they encounter "puissant" 10 times in 250,000 words; but the same repetition doesn't bother me at all. See? Subjective. So there can't be any rules or guidelines. In the end, every writer has to do what "feels right" to him/her, and let the chips fall where they may. (09/18/2006) |
Mark: Sir:
I first read TCTC in late 1978 while I was in college. A few years later I found a record (vinyl back then) from Caedmon of a spoken excerpt from WGW. I think you were the reader, and I think the excerpt was from the voyage through the Northron Wastes. However, with the passage of about a quarter century and my inability to readily locate my now thoroughly obsolete vinyl collection, I could be wrong about the details-but not about having the LP!
My question springs from what I remember of the liner notes. As I recall, you said that you "Wrote the story backward." By this you indicated that you knew where the book ended, and so wrote the final chapter. Then you wrote the penultimate and then the antepenultimate and so seriatim until you wrote the initial chapter.
Was that really what you said, and did?
It would seem to be of a piece with other information contained in the GI, but also appears to have been a rather direct comment on the mechanics of your writing that you are sometimes more reluctant to share.
Or perhaps I am paying too much attention to the man behind the curtain.
I now return to hanging on tenterhooks while you finish writing the next installment.
Namaste
|
First let me confirm your memory. In the mid-80s, Caedmon released an LP, read by yrs trly, of an excerpt from "White Gold Wielder". Cover art by Real Musgrave. A commercial disaster, despite Musgrave's inspired work. Now. In fact, I've been known to say that I "wrote the story backward," but that's glib and misleading. It would be more accurate to say that I *planned* the story backward. I've never (and I do mean NEVER) written the last chapter first. I've never even considered doing so. In order to protect the integrity and development of what my characters (and I) experience, I write from beginning to end. And I never deviate from that approach. But the *planning*-- Well, I've said it dozens of times: I can't write at all unless I know where I'm going. (09/18/2006) |
Anonymous: What do you think of Asimov's work? Though I'm not a huge science fiction buff, I'm reading "Nemisis" and to a degree reminds of the GAP books in plot, not in characterization. (I read elsewhere in the GI that you were not influenced by his work).
|
I've read a fair amount of Azimov, and enjoyed much of it. In my opinion (and his), he was not a great writer. (He once wrote of himself: "I am not a great writer by any standard I respect.") Rather he was an intelligent and skilled craftsman who knew what he was doing. (09/18/2006) |
David Wiles: Steve; A question was asked about art work of the Land. Although it is just drawings, there is the Atlas of the Land by Karen Wynn Fonstad. Also, the cover art for the original Gilden Fire shows a REAL neat picture of a Bloodgaurd fighting off the back of a Ranyhyn illustrated by Stephen E. Fabian. I have seen Gilden Fire for sale on the internet.
I have copy #268 of 270. The art work is also on the cover of the book as well. Signed by you of course.
|
Like "Realms of Fantasy," "The Atlas of the Land" is *long* out of print. As is "Gilden-Fire"--although it endured long past its legal "expiration date" (I think I've discussed the unauthorized Science Fiction Book Club edition elsewhere in the GI). (09/19/2006) |
John Rollo: Dear Mr. Donaldson;
As a fan of both yourself and Richard Wagner, I have been thinking about the theme of apocalyptic destruction and renewal lately. In the case of Wagner, for instance, it seems to me that this theme is romanticized to the point where one can see how the Nazis drew a degree of inspiration from the Ring cycle (as is often surmised). Though the context of Teutonic mythology is not eschatological, and the theme of renewal hints at a larger cycle of death and rebirth, the fever pitch of emotion in Wagners opera can easily carry away the unwary observer towards an ecstasy of dualism certain characters in the Ring cycle are readily identifiable as *good* and others as *evil*, creating the appearance of the final cleansing of evil via the heroic self-sacrifice of the good (and also implying that absolute goodness and absolute purity are compatible or that either can be achieved). Wagners intent is unclear to me, but I see a great deal of troubling smoke rising from the embers of Valhalla.
I note that the Chronicles also wrestle with a similar theme, though it seems to me with a great deal more prudence and clarity of purpose. Foul for instance cannot be vanquished in any conventional way, and is sure to reappear eventually no matter how heroically he is dispatched. Another fairly ready inference is that the Land is (at least in part) an archetypal arena that allows Covenant and Linden to directly experience hidden psychic and spiritual aspects of themselves for the first time (up to and including Foul), implying the overarching yet hidden unity of the moral landscape. Generally the Covenant mythos embraces the paradoxical nature of good and evil, and carefully avoids the dualistic formulas that so readily lead humanity to hubris and self-destruction.
I am wondering, sir, what you think of the role of these kinds of mythologies in human history: do the authors of epic fantasies bear a heavier responsibility than other artists, in that their works can become internalized into self-fulfilling prophecies writ large upon history? Is the deliberate inspiration of humanity something that registers at a conscious level when formulating your works? Do you believe that your involvement in this process falls outside the province of conscious choice? Do you feel motivated by the desire to redeem humanity? Do you think that humanity can be improved by replacing destructive internal mythologies with more constructive ones?
I appreciate your time in considering this question.
|
Well, it isn't one question <rueful smile>: it's several. But I've left your complex message unpruned because I believe that your reasoning deserves to stand as you wrote it--whether or not I can actually answer any of your questions. My reactions, for what they're worth.... You appear to assign a lot of *choice* (therefore power and responsibility) to fairly ordinary human beings. (Of course, I'm all about *choice* myself; but from my perspective that operates entirely in a personal arena, not on a societal or historical stage.) "The deliberate inspiration of humanity" may (or may not) be something that an individual creative artist *wants* (Wagner certainly had the ego for it); but I don't consider it something that the artist can *choose*. The power of any creative act depends on a synergy between the unique inspiration of the artist, the specific dispositions of the audience as individuals (which of course vary wildly over time), and the societal/cultural milieu in which the creative act is received (which again varies wildly over time: consider that Hitler came along decades after Wagner's death). The artist can choose what he/she creates, but can *not* choose the various dispositions of the individuals in the audience, or the continuously modulating societal/cultural milieu. (Never mind the fact that the artist cannot choose his/her natural gifts as a communicator.) In consequence, whether or not I (for example) "feel motivated by the desire to redeem humanity" is pretty much irrelevant. It either happens or it doesn't (in this lifetime, or at some point in the future): I couldn't *make* it happen if I wanted to. Do I "think that humanity can be improved by replacing destructive internal mythologies with more constructive ones?" Well, of course. But so what? Whether or not I have any say in the matter isn't up to me. (Meanwhile, I'm deliberately side-stepping the whole issue of what makes an "internal mythology" "constructive" rather than "destructive".) As a ludicrous example of assigning too much responsibility to the artist: on one notable occasion, I was publicly accused of *causing* drug abuse in the US (because--duh!--reading fantasy leads directly to drugs). Then (same occasion) I was accused of *causing* the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (because--why didn't I think of this myself?--by being a conscientious objector I empowered the Russian war machine). (09/20/2006) |
Grant: hello again,
have you noticed that 2 signed posters of your book covers (books 1 and 2 from the Gap) sold recently on ebay for quite a few hundred dollars...do you find that interesting ?
|
Interesting? Sure. Sane? Not particularly. <grin> (09/20/2006) |
steve: At last. A new month, and so a new question that I can ask on this website.
I'll keep it brief.
How often do you find yourself rereading what you've written? When I'm writing, I often reread what I have down after every paragraph that I've put down, sometimes sooner than that. All in all, it makes for a very slow writing proccess, but that's how I've been doing it. Do you do the same, or are you one of those writers who have to get everything down first before they can reread it?
Thanks,
Steve
|
I'm not sure how to take your question. I re-read immediately preceding sentences (and paragraphs) constantly. I can't imagine *not* doing that. And every day before I start work I re-read the previous day's efforts. But do you mean re-read *the whole thing*? In that case <shudder>, no. I'd never get anything done. However, I often do a lot of "spot checking," flipping back to earlier passages to confirm what I've already done. Does that count? (09/20/2006) |
J: If there was a fight between you and Chuck Norris, who would win?
|
Chuck Norris could crush me with his right wrist handcuffed to his left ankle. At his level of expertise, I'm just a casual dilettante. (09/20/2006) |
dlbpharmd: Would you please share with us your inspirations for the poem "My heart has rooms" from WGW?
Thanks, Don
|
I would if I had one. As far as I can recall, however, that song seemed to arise pretty naturally from Pitchwife himself (and from his circumstances, of course). (09/20/2006) |
Andrew (drew): Mr Donaldson:
I just read your answer about the US and UK versions of your stories, just a quick question...Do you know what version Canadian book stores get? I'm assuming it's the American Version, due to the punctuation; but I seem to recall that the Canadain versions of the Harry Potter books are the same as the UK versions; so I was currious about yours.
The message may get to you too late, but CBC Radio is bradcasting a live performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle...they broadcast online...check out CBC.ca for the schedule. (No I don't work for the CBC!)
|
As far as I know, my books are sent directly to Canada from the US, so the Canadian and US "versions" are literally identical. US publishers usually insist on including Canada in their contracts. But in J. K. Rowling's case, her original (UK) publisher can dictate any terms they want. (09/20/2006) |
Brian Matthews: You have several times spoken highly of Stephen King and his writing skills. Have you ever had the opportunity to meet the man?
|
Yes, I've had that pleasure several times. I don't really "know" him, but he has always treated me with exceptional courtesy. And he gives off a good "vibe," for whatever that (purely subjective) perception is worth. (09/21/2006) |
Matthew Yenkala: A recent comment mentioned that nearly two years after the publication of RUNES we have yet to see a mass market paperback edition. I know you have said that you can't say what your publishers will do, but it strikes me from a marketing standpoint, they would release the MM shortly in advance of the release of the hardcover of FATAL, would they not? This seems to be standard practice for series (I've noticed it with Brooks, Jordan and others); and now the trend is even to include a "preview" of the next book in the reissue of the previous one. (Even catalog titles are doing this; I have an edition of THE HOBBIT from 2001 that includes the first chapter of LOTR...)
My meandering point being, would it stand to reason--simply in your best professional educated guess--that we might see a MM paperback of RUNES 3-6 months before the release of FATAL; and that it might contain a "teaser" for the latter? (Much like you posted the first chapter of RUNES on this website.)
Matteo
|
Well, I suppose I could break down and actually *ask* my editor when (or if) Ace plans to release "The Runes of the Earth" in mass-market paperback. (The UK version came out a long time ago.) That would be more useful than guessing. But whatever happens, I very much doubt that the mass-market "Runes" will contain a "teaser" from "Fatal Revenant". That increases the cost of publication. Why spend the extra bucks when my web site offers a cheap (by which I mean completely free) alternative? No, I think it's far more likely that the "teaser" for "Fatal Revenant" (if there is one) will appear here rather than in any edition of "Runes". In any case, the whole "preview" approach is more effective for writers who write faster and sell more than I do. (09/21/2006) |
Ossie: This question may cause some discomfort, so I apologise in advance, but it surprised me so I thought I'd have a shot at asking. In a recent GI answer you were asked about the vulnerability/innocence of children as a theme in your writing, and you made the point that you would not consider Lena a "child" in the way that, say, Jeramiah is, because she was not was not "helplessly dependent". I would agree with that. But you then also said that "Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so". This is not an accusation, but a clarification: are you saying that Lena in some way "allowed" or "wanted" TC to attack her? Certainly, there was an element of hero-worship there both when TC first arrived in LFB & stll when he returned to the Land some 40 years later. But I always read that passage as Lena being 100% against the rape (obviously), despite any other feelings. Did you intend that some part of Lena wanted what happened? Or are you being more general in that she could have chosen not to go with TC, or run away at any point before the rape?
|
You're right: this does make me squirm. <sigh> First, let me state categorically that I am NOT suggesting that Lena wanted to be raped. Or that any woman wants to be raped. Or that any human being ever asks for or deserves such violence. Covenant (if he were here) would be the first to tell you that his treatment of Lena was both unconscionable and indefensible. Still, I do believe that Lena made a choice. (After all, she could have just jumped in the river.) A passive and unconscious choice, certainly--but a choice nonetheless. And I believe that people are responsible for their choices, even when those choices are passive and unconscious. To say otherwise is to deny the humanity of the person in question. Sure, Lena did NOT choose to be raped--but she also did NOT choose to fight or flee (or even scream). (Sidebar. Research by psychologists confirms over and over again that people who choose to fight back--against any rape-like violation--suffer significantly less emotional trauma *afterward* than people who choose to submit, even when the people who fight back suffer more physical damage than those who submit.) Now. I *assure* you that I do not mean any of this as a criticism of Lena. Far from it. I feel nothing but empathy for her--and outrage at Covenant. But the way I see it, she allowed her near-adulation for Covenant, and her teenage desire to be important to him, to paralyse her, well, let's call them her survival instincts. And her choice is full of meaning. (At least it is for me.) First, it underscores the nature of Covenant's crime (and of his own unconscious impulse to side with the Despiser). Second, it is emblematic of the acceptance and tolerance with which the people of the Land treat Covenant--even when that acceptance and tolerance involve severe self-sacrifice. And third, it reveals--in the most intimate and personal way possible--what acceptance and tolerance can COST. Thus (I think) it shows the sheer *scale* of the risk that the Lords (and Atiaran) take when they choose trust and hope over retribution. I hope this answers your question. (09/21/2006) |
Steve Vickery: Hi Steve
I just read Roger Zelazny's short story collection; Last Defender of Camelot.
In his introduction he mentioned a conversation with you where you asked him which book he wished he'd written. He doesn't say if he asked you the question back, so, what about it?
Cheers
Steve
|
If I recall the conversation (by no means a sure thing <sigh>), I began it by telling him that I wish I had written "A Rose for Ecclesiates" [sp?]. But I was much younger then, and reacted differently to many things. Nowadays I place a higher value on the fact that I didn't write--and couldn't have written--anyone else's work. I'm more inclined to like stories and novels *because* (at least in part) it would not have occurred to me to try to write them myself. When I feel envious of another writer, I envy his/her unique skills, not what s/he has done with those skills. (09/22/2006) |
Matt Vomacka: Erm, I've got a question that COULD be answered in a spoilerish way, but really what I'm going for is finding out whether you were establishing or cutting a plot thread waaaayyy early in the TC books.
Whatever - I now call your attention to LFB pg 6 and 7, where we find out Joan was a horse breaker, one whom Covenant felt "seduced" the horses. Hmmm. I'll ignore the "seduced" part for the purposes of this question ;), since it doesn't really relate to what this could portent for Runes.
My first thought was that this was some big hint that Joan would devastate the Ranyhyn, I'd guess during "Shall Pass Utterly" since the title seems apt for such a thing. Certainly, we begin to find out more about these horses in Runes. However, as I further considered this I began to think I was off the mark, since if I remember right you've said the chronicles were not written with the intention that there would be 2nd and 3rd chronicles neccessary. So I personally discounted this.
But now, I'm curious if when you wrote Joan as a horsebreaker - which as far as I can tell doesn't play into the plot of the first chronicles, or the second - you intended her to be involved more directly in the first chronicles. Or were in some way planning on mirroring Joan in the chronicles, as Covenant was (at least, physically) in Berek. Did you later drop this? Or did you, when writing the first chronicles, leave threads to use in later writings without necessarily intending a 10 book series?
Now a more mundane, boring question [about the GAP books]. The Scroyles didn't get a deserved ending, were completely detached from all the other characters (maybe a message passed to/from Hashi) and don't really impact much of anything. It's just...why did they exist? They're about the only characters I can think of in your books who weren't particularly interesting, didn't have a strong impact on other characters, etc.
|
(I've pruned your message quite a bit, mainly to make it easier to answer. <rueful smile>) In regard to Joan: it's important to remember a) that I never intended to continue past the first "Covenant" trilogy, and b) I planned the story backward--which implies that I never intended Joan to play any role apart from her present place in the first trilogy. So no, I didn't drop or change my plans for her: I didn't have any plans. (Of course, when I realized that I *did* want to continue into the "Second" and "Last Chronicles," I mined--for lack of a better term--the first trilogy assiduously, digging up the raw materials I needed. But that's a completely separate issue.) Why, then, did I describe Joan the way I did? I had a number of reasons. Primarily I was planting the seeds of the up-coming story in Covenant's conscious/unconscious mind; the seeds from which he "sprouts" his fantasy. (Look for Giants early in LFB. Shucks, I even foreshadowed Foamfollower's role as a sort of "moral arbiter".) Joan, not Covenant, was involved with horses: hence the presence of Ranyhyn--and his inability to "bond" with them. On a far more personal level, however--well, I'll admit to some prejudice here. Over the years, I've known a fair number of women who were passionately involved with horses; and every one of them would have dropped her husband in a heartbeat if he ever failed to be docile or "safe" enough. To my mind--especially way back then--a woman who "broke" horses was a sure bet to behave as Joan did. In addition: I've mentioned before that because I had never written fantasy until then, and had no idea what I was getting into, I felt a need to start with the familiar. Haven Farm (and its woods) was based directly on the place where I lived when I wrote the first trilogy. And Joan was modeled on several women I knew then (in other words, back in those days I didn't think of her as a real character: she was just a plot mechanism). As for the Scroyles: well, from my perspective, you underestimate the importance of their role in the asteroid battle; and the importance of what they reveal about Hashi Lebwohl; and their importance as a statement about the spectrum of people who live "outside the law" in this story. This last point is not a trivial issue. Sure, Holt Fasner's increasingly corrupt hegemony nurtures scum (the Bill, Milos Taverner). It accommodates "redeemable" rogues (Sorus Chatelaine). It leaves a fair number of basically decent people (Mikka Vasaczk, Vector Shaheed) in ethical limbo. But it also forces people with a certain kind of personal integrity or honor (the Scroyles) to find a path outside the rules; to define themselves by a private rather than a public moral code. (Which, *not* coincidentally, is where characters like Angus and Mikka and Vector end up.) Individuals like the Scroyles, and Liete Corregio, and Lane Harbinger are given (brief) prominence because of the light they shed on the characters around them--and on the story as a whole. (09/22/2006) |
Bill Weldon: Steven, Thank you for your reply to my last question. I do have another one, I have read several times in the GI that you have been studying Karate for 20 years. I was wondering was there a reason behind your taking up martial arts? The reason I ask is I just started my own studying of Tae Kwon Do, and have found that it has opened up both my mind, and body to a whole new perspective on things. Second when you write yourself into one of your literary cul-de-sac's how do you deal with correcting your path.
Thanks again
Bill
|
I first took up karate as an emotional outlet: I studied kata as a "dance of anger" which enabled me to vent distress which I could not express (safely) in any other form. But since then I've fallen in love with the martial arts, both for their own sake, and for what they contribute to my emotional and psychological well-being (among other things, they are a rich source of metaphors for my inner journeys). When I find myself in one of my narrative cul-de-sacs, I first have to go back and find the place where I "stepped off the path". Then I have to rewrite everything from that place onward (although I do draw much of my material from my erroneous first draft). (09/22/2006) |
Peter Bremer: Hi Steve.
I did a quick search through through the GI for an answer to my question, but didn't see anything, perhaps because the nature of what I'm positing is hard to pin down. Hopefully this hasn't been asked before. I don't want to waste your valuable time.
Personal redemption through personal choice and service seems to be a thread through your work, at least to me. Characters have bad, usually VERY bad things happen to them early on, which they have no control over, and then must face how they CHOOSE to deal with them. Thinking about Covenant, specifically, he certainly grows through the series, taking more responsibility as he gives of himself to the Land's defense. He is less giving to others in the "Real World", however, at least in a general sense. Sure, he saves the snake-bitten girl and takes care of Joan, but in an overall sense he doesn't give back what he has learned to the world surrounding Haven Farm. This is in contrast to Linden who while doing her share in the Land, actively takes part and supports the community as a physician or administrator. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not the Land is "real", is it fair to ask why Covenant was not more engaged away from the Land or can we chalk it up to individual differences between the characters or simply seeing the fantasy landscape as a manifestation of the internal world of the characters?
You state in "Epic Fantasy of the Modern World", that you "wanted to bring the epic back into contact with the real world" through one modern human being, Thomas Covenant. How does Covenant's relationship with his own physical "real" world affect the success of this attempt?
How's that for a convoluted question? :-)
|
To me, this sounds rather--unsympathetic. The man is a pariah, remember. What sort of engagement with his community do you think his neighbors would tolerate? He writes novels, which from my (perhaps selfish) perspective seems like an attempt to be "engaged," to give something back (although of course he can't actually write in public). He "gives alms to the poor" in the form of paying for their medical care (ref. both TWL and TROTE). And (don't underestimate the import of this) he doesn't run away: he doesn't (for example) change his name and move, looking for a "friendlier" place to live. In short, he does a lot more than I could do in his situation. (09/23/2006) |
Tony: Hi Stephen,
I've been reading the GI off and on for a while, but not got around to posting anything.
Anyway, I'd like to mention the 2 most powerful experiences I remember having reading your books, and ask you about them.
Firstly, I remember that you are the only author who has made me have a physical reaction to the text. From memory it was the first Covenant, when they find people in the forest (excuse the vagueness but I've not read it for a while) who are prevented from telling Covenant he has walked into a trap. I recall vividly - can even feel it now, about 24 years later - physically jumping when the trap was sprung!
Do you ever think about causing such strong physical reactions when you are writing?
Secondly, I remember the absolute revulsion I felt when I read the first GAP book. I couldn't believe you had written something so nasty, so misogynistic, etc. Needless to say I went on to read the rest of the series and thought they were fantastic, but did you set out to provoke such strong feelings, in order to imbue the rest of the books with such an emotional impact for readers?
Anyway, hope I've not repeated other questions. I hope you come to the UK with 'Fatal Revenant', as I was kicking myself at missing you last time.
Thanks,
Tony.
|
I don't believe that I have the power to *cause* ANYthing, so I don't think in those terms. Because I know what I'm going to write before I write it (and because writing is fundamentally different than reading), I don't/can't react the way a reader might. In general, however, I do try to find ways (both in planning and in writing) to maximize the intensity of my own experience--on the theory that, beneath the surface, my readers and I have a lot in common. "The Real Story" (the first GAP book) is an exception. There I *feared* the intensity of my material. So I departed from my usual methodologies in a conscious, deliberate attempt to NOT "provoke such strong feelings". By introducing the story in layers, I was trying a) to engage the reader intellectually before the emotions started to kick in, and b) to defuse the impact of those emotions by approaching them obliquely. After all, readers who feel "revulsion" in book one aren't likely to read the rest of the story--but the rest of the story is essential, if only to *justify* book one. <sigh> (09/23/2006) |
Scott R. Kuchma: Mr. Donaldson ,
In your answer , to another fan , concerning the "Man Who..." series you stated..."Of course (this is me, remember) there *is* a larger story evolving in the background of "The Man Who..." books...".
This is intriguing ! Would you consider that the "Man Who..." Series was written "knowing" the end of the story , as you state all your writings have been done , and if so , how does writing books that "stand on their own" fit into this writing style ?
I do hope you live forever as I want more of the "Man Who..." Series .I'd like to know the larger story too .
Looking forward to Fatal Revenant .
SRK
|
Here, as in so many other areas, "The Man Who..." books are an exception. I didn't begin to sense the presence of "a larger story in the background" until I was working on book two--and the exact nature of that "larger story" didn't become clear to me until I was planning book three. Meanwhile the conventions of the genre require books that can stand alone. (09/23/2006) |
David: Steve; You once wrote a story, What Makes Us Human. Was that a warm up or practice pages for the Gap series? By the way, it was a good read.
Thanks, David
|
I said everything I want to say about "What Makes Us Human" in the preface to "Reave the Just and Other Tales". It certainly wasn't a *conscious* preparation for anything. Neither were "Animal Lover" and "Mythological Beast," my two other forays into sf before the GAP books. (09/24/2006) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Are you aware of or have you read:
"'The first chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever' by Stephen Donaldson: A critical appraisal" by Susan Elizabeth Ellis, published by City of Birmingham Polytechnic, Department of Librarianship.
I could not find it listed anywhere on your site.
|
I wasn't aware of it. Is it accessible anywhere on the Internet? I'd like to take a look at it. And if it's suitable for this web site, I'd like to be able to get in touch with the author. (09/24/2006) |
Sabrina: In the age of technology, why is it that I can find current meaning in a trilogy that was published when I was three? I discovered Thomas Covenant a week ago and have just finished 'The Power that Preserves' (having read the other two first!) Never have I felt moved enough to write to an author before. Thank you, I'll be telling all my friends about him and look forward to getting my hands on the next trilogy...
|
I like to think that it's because good fantasy isn't about the external, material world (the world of technology): it's about the internal world of emotion and imagination. Good fantasy is relevant, not because it discusses the world in which we live, but because it discusses who we are in that world. And "who we are" doesn't change anywhere near as quickly as the external world does. (09/25/2006) |
Phill Skelton: I'm not sure if this question has been asked before, so feel free to ignore it if it has, and I'll actually have to go and use the search function! One of my first impressions of 'Runes' was that it felt 'short': relatively little happened in the book, at least at the simplistic level you would look at when writing a plot summary ("they did this, then they did that, then the book ended"). In comparison to, say, 'Lord Foul's Bane', or 'The Mirror of Her Dreams', where an awful lot of events happen, the narrative progression of 'Runes' is much more about ideas, revealing information, and character. Is this a deliverate choice of pacing, or a change in your style over the years? (It could be both of course). Is it that you now find the more conceptual approach of 'Runes' to be a better way of expressing the story and ideas than the 'presentational' (or 'dramatic') approach of earlier books, or is it more influenced by the kind of story you are trying to tell? Or to put it in a way that is probably far more annoying to you: if you were writing 'The Mirror of Her Dreams' now (writing, not re-writing) would you be inclined to put fewer action scenes in, putting the ideas you want to convey in those scenes in some other way, or would that play havoc with the pacing of the story to its detriment? (I get the impression from the GI that such 'what if' questions vex you because they are coming from some set of assumptions about how you write that you simply don't relate to in the slightest. Feel free to disregard the questions if they are coming from the wrong set of premises). I suppose the corollary to the question is whether the pacing is going to remain the same for the rest of the series, or has the more 'thoughtful' pace been used to lay the groundwork for something different in the later parts?
|
First, "Mordant's Need." You're right: hypothetical questions like that don't work for me because they're both obvious and unanswerable. Would "The Mirror of Her Dreams" be a different book if I wrote it today? Of course. I'm a different person--and a different writer--than I was 20 years ago. But I can't imagine what those differences would be because the story is already fixed in my mind (and I haven't re-read it in a very long time). But you aren't the first reader to comment that "The Runes of the Earth" seems *different* in some impressionistic way than the earlier Chronicles. "Runes" isn't literally *short*: it's longer than any previous "Covenant" book. And I can't relate to the idea that "relatively little happened." But there's no doubt that my characters spend more time "discussing their circumstances" than they do in the previous books; and these discussions probably don't seem like *events* (although they feel like events to me). I have a variety of responses. In no particular order: 1) There is an obvious (I think) "sea change" taking place in my work. Over the course of the past 20+ years, my stories are becoming more and more concerned with how my characters relate to each other (ref. various discussions about "character" and "dignity" earlier in the GI). 2) One of my ambitions for "The Last Chronicles" is that it will weave together *all* the "Covenant" books. Therefore I have an enormous number of threads to pick up from the earlier books. But my chosen POV (restricted 3rd person) limits the means available to pick up those threads. Under the circumstances, having my characters talk to each other seems like a natural (and relatively efficient) way of accomplishing my goal. 3) It isn't just "Runes". Ever since "Mordant's Need" (a pivotal work in my development as a writer), I've found that as the narrative edifices I want to construct become larger and more complex, they require larger and more complex foundations. I need to spend more time/space/words doing what I sometimes call "unrolling the canvas". Setting up the things I want to do later in the story. Look at the first two GAP books, which are (I think) absolutely necessary, but which in themselves do little more than hint at the scale of what's coming. (He*l, in the GAP books I was still unrolling the canvas through most of book three.) After reading just "The Real Story"--or "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge"--no one could guess what's about to unfold. Indeed, compared to the first two GAP books, "Runes" is downright *obvious* in terms of what it reveals about forthcoming events. Well, I believe that such foundations are critical to the effectiveness of the story as a whole. If you want to send a rocket into space, you'd better build a pretty da*n solid launch platform. In short, if you're concerned that "the pacing is going to remain the same for the rest of the series," read the GAP books. Or look at "The Man Who Fought Alone," where the first "crime" doesn't occur until a third of the way through the book. (09/26/2006) |
Tony Powell: I am in the early stages of an MFA in fiction. It's a "low-residency" program and students are only on campus twice a year for a ten-day workshop. Otherwise I am on my own and turning in work about once a month.
If you would, I would appreciate any advice you may have on persistence. It's not a matter of writing, per se (I write all the time), but of adherence to the work at hand. I admire your work for its language, depth and ideas. But I am absolutely agog at your discipline. My MFA mentor tells me I have the voice, the narrative movement, et al, all pretty much down. What I am dreadfully deficient in (and she hasn't mentioned this, but only because I am so good at hiding it) is the discipline for the "long-haul" work --- long stories or the novel.
I recognize that one of my "fears" is committing myself (plot, character development) to one direction or another, as if I might "get the wrong answer." So my question is two-fold:
Does the discipline come easy to you? And how do you know when (not where) to begin?
|
Such questions are difficult to answer because they're rife with unspoken assumptions, many of which I'm not qualified to address. Just one example: How do you know that the "long-haul" suits your talents, personality, desires, or needs? You seem to think that you *should* write long stories or novels. Why? Maybe your problem has nothing to do with discipline--or fear. Maybe your problem is that you're trying to go against the grain of who you are. If your goal is "to create something of value" rather than, say, "to make money," then your real task is to discover what suits and satisfies you. Imposing artificial objectives (a long story, a novel) can be a very useful learning experience; but it's a bass-ackward way to write. On the other hand, if all you want to do is make some money, then you had better learn discipline. And the only thing I know about effective discipline is that it starts with *respect*: respect for who you are and who you want to be; respect for the obstacles you face, and for your limitations in facing them; respect for what you want to accomplish. Although I'm often accused of self-discipline, I don't see it. As far as I'm concerned, discipline has nothing whatever to do with writing. I start here: 1) storytelling gives my life meaning (a strong inducement); and 2) telling the kind of stories I tell, and telling them the way I tell them, makes me feel more alive than almost anything else (another strong inducement). After that, everything on every level (for me, if for no one else) comes down to a tug of war between fear ("failure" is only one of my many fears) and frustration (losing the benefits described above drives me crazy). At the beginning of the day--or the beginning of the story--frustration wins out over fear (eventually) because (I think) I acknowledge, respect, and address my fear. (Sometimes I do this by writing about my fear instead of trying to write my story.) But after that initial hurdle, it's all about, well, "Service enables service": I'm able to write because I *am* writing, NOT because I have discipline. Storytelling brings me to life--and life strives for life. That's the nature of life. I'll admit that my approach to fear could be interpreted as discipline. I'll also admit that simply setting an alarm clock and getting out of bed when it goes off can be interpreted as discipline. And sometimes it does *feel* like discipline. Especially on a Monday. <sigh> But usually it feels (at least initially) like a profound dislike of frustration. Later it modulates into a profound preference for feeling alive. In all of this, I'm given immeasurable aid by my specific creative process. Planning stories backward and then writing them forward in a way that makes me experience them as fully as possible increases both my frustration when I'm not writing and my sense of being alive when I am writing. I *yearn* to know what it feels like to reach the goal that I see so clearly ahead of me. <whew> Because of the unspoken assumptions mentioned earlier, all of this may be irrelevant to you. But it's what I have. (10/02/2006) |
Matt Vomacka: Hey. I sent in some questions recently but I've got something to add; a few additions to the GI interview have been on the topic of art of The Land and your other works.
Wayne Barlowe wrote the book "Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy", a book with dozens of illustrations of various mythical characters and creatures and short blurbs on the works in which they are contained. One of them was Drool Rockworm, from Lord Foul's Bane.
Now, I actually can't find the book; I haven't looked for it in years anyway so I have no idea if it's even in my house. I hoped to turn up results with a google search but unfortunately I just got various book sellers and such. However, I *also* found this post from Kevin's Watch by a quickly departed member (2 posts); it's fairly informative and gives an opinion on the quality of the illustration.
"Howdy! First post.
I picked up a book by one of my favorite illustration-artists, Wayne Douglas Barlowe, called Barlowe's Guide to Fantasy. It is a follow-up to his Hugo-nominated Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials of the late seventies, which illustrated beings from many science-fiction classics. The Guide to Fantasy is a collection of depictions of beings from classic fantasy. On pages 28-29 may be found an illustration of Drool Rockworm, the cavewight. On first sight I thought "What the hell was he thinking?", but after some reflection and a re-reading of SRD's description, I can see it. Barlowe took the description of Drool's head as "like a battering ram" to an unexpected conclusion, but his cavewight design is strangely effective. Seeing this image makes it easier for me to imagine the antlike Sunbane-warped cavewights that make an appearance in The Wounded Land. There are problems with the illustration. In it, the Illearth Stone is held completely within one of Drool's fists, so that all that is visible of it is green light leaking through his fingers. I got a strong impression from the books that the Illearth Stone was quite a bit larger than that. The Giant-Ravers held flakes from it in their fists, and the flakes were clearly visible. Also there is a side-illustration of the Staff of Law which might work with the description of it from Lord Foul's Bane, but the desciption of Vain sliding the metal heels of the destroyed staff onto his wrist and ankle from The Wounded Land could not possibly work with Barlowe's design. Still, his work is interesting and informative. The two Guides are not Barlowe's best work. If you are curious about this artist, I can solidly recommend his book Expedition, which is a travelogue of an exploration of another world's ecosystem, and Barlowe's Inferno, which is a travelogue from Hell. It is terrible, beautiful, and not for the faint of nature."
Truth be told, I have no idea about the quality of the work in comparison to your description. One might suppose that I had purchased the book because I saw Rockworm in it, or had at least known of your work by that time, but in fact I did not. Instead, when I saw Lord Foul's Bane on a bookshelf one day, I knew I had heard of it before - I figured out pretty quickly that it was in connection with Barlowe's book. So, actually, you got at least 1 sale from the guy, regardless of his quality as an artist :)
|
[posted without comment for people who may be interested] (10/02/2006) |
Ted: Mr. Donaldson,
First, let me say that the "Covenant" books are to me the absolutebest in fantasy. Also, Mordant's Need was incredible. Being totally blind, I only have access to your books through talking books and none of your other books are indexed there. Again, you are truly a masterful storyteller.
My questions:
1. I noticed in the second chronicles that Covenant was in an inordinate amount of danger. I understand that he needed to be full of venom in order to bring about the utter danger of his power... but at times it seems you were using him for target practice. Like you were somehow disgusted with the whole Covenant thing and were taking out frustrations on the poor bastard. I've recently read how you were pressured into the second chronicles by your publisher. Was I wrong? Or was it just that Covenant had to go through everything to get where he was supposed to be?
Actually, I'll come back with my other questions as they pertain to "Runes of the Earth" and I want to go over the archives and make sure I'm not covering settled ground.
Thank you,
Ted
|
I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "inordinate". I don't waste my time putting things into my books that I don't need. From that perspective, nothing seems "inordinate" to me. With that in mind: 1) Yes, my publisher did "pressure" me to write "The Second Chronicles"--but that isn't why I wrote it. I wrote it because I believe in it. I certainly wasn't "taking out frustrations" on Covenant. 2) The *nature* of the danger in "The Second Chronicles" is fundamentally different than the danger in the first trilogy. Lord Foul isn't sending armies against the Lords (a rather "generic" threat which poses little personal danger to Covenant). Instead his machinations and malice are focused directly and intimately on Covenant--and Linden. In addition, his personal attacks serve to distract Covenant and Linden from the larger dangers of his real intentions. Which makes sense (at least to me), considering the failure of his previous strategy. 3) I didn't want to write a "re-tread" of the first trilogy. Instead I felt a very conscious desire to raise the stakes. As I do in "The Last Chronicles". (10/02/2006) |
M.R.K.: Mr. Donaldson, I hope you are doing well. I didn't know if you were aware of this (I didn't see it anywhere else in the G.I.) but there exists an audio-cassette recording of The Gap into Conflict: The Real Story. (my local library circulates it) It's abridged (only 2 cassettes) and the abridgement was approved by yourself, or so the case says. I am planning on re-reading the print version to get the full experience. This brings me to my actual question: Do you feel that audiobooks in general are just as good as printed books, i.e., do you listen to them yourself? I listen to many as well as read printed ones; I was first exposed to Thomas Covenant via the audio version of ROTE and I am very glad that I decided to go back and read the story from the beginning. The Real Story (read by Stephen Lang by the way, who does a great, gruff Angus Thermopyle) also left me wanting much more of the Gap. Many people I know argue that audiobooks do not give the same experience as printed ones. I argue that they do, or can, since they are the same material but simply in a different medium. I was wondering what you thought about that...?
thanks very much,
M.R.K.
|
Many years ago, Bantam Audio released "abridged" cassette tapes of both "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge". I did the abridgement of "The Real Story" myself because I only had to cut out 10% of the text. I refused to do the abridgement of "Forbidden Knowledge" because I was unwilling to cut 80-90% of the text. The tapes didn't sell at all, and the project was quickly abandoned. As a matter of principle, I disapprove of abridged editions in any form. If my story can be accurately conveyed in 50% or 30% or 10% of the original text, I must be a pretty lousy writer. I don't listen to audio books myself, abridged or otherwise. I can't "follow" stories in that format. And I do believe that the "medium" is essential to the "message": when you change the medium, you change the message. But I do *not* object to unabridged audio books in any sense. For some people, they are simply preferrable to printed books. (I see no harm in that.) For others, they are more practical than printed books. And for still others, they are the only viable option. In practice, I'm always glad when my publishers decide to release an unabridged audio version, even thought I don't/can't listen to them myself. (10/02/2006) |
Paul S.: Thank you for answering my previous questions!
Are you going to do a "trailer" for FR like you have on your Home Page for Runes?
Secondly... I just watched that trailer again... and something jumped out at me; one of the lines said "Linden never thought she would see TC again... " next slide says "But Despite cannot be killed."
Soooooo... just because Despite cannot be killed she will see TC? Or because TC IS Despite and Despite cannot be killed then she will see TC again? Or because Despite cannot be killed both Linden and TC are needed to help battle it? Or...???
I just never noticed that phrasing until now and in light of the recent "is TC really Lord Foul or vice versa or both and neither" discussions this could take on new meaning.
I guess the question is, why that phrasing?
|
I'm sure that we'll have a "trailer" for "Fatal Revenant" when the time comes. But if I were you, I wouldn't try so hard to *interpret* such information. For one thing, it's a "tease": it attempts to pique curiosity by giving hints which both reveal and obscure what's coming. And for another..., well, *I* didn't write the "trailer" for "Runes". (Kudos to my webmaster.) I approved it because I think it accomplishes its purpose; but I certainly don't feel *bound* by it. (10/02/2006) |
John Kottman: First, your work is amazing. Before reading RotE, I went back and reread all the previous ones. Fantastic. I reread Mordant's need at least once a year. Classic.
In Runes, the Haruchai, have set themselves up as defenders, and oppressors, of the people and the Land. Now we all know men are tough, but women can be down right nasty when backed into a corner. Can't their wives come down out of the mountains and kick some sense into them and save the land?
|
I'm morally certain that Haruchai women are as tough as their men (although perhaps in an entirely different way). But I think that the unique character of the Bloodguard/Haruchai is defined as much by what they give up as by what they strive for. Bringing their women "on stage" would require me to sacrifice an important dimension of their story. (10/02/2006) |
Preston: Mr. Donaldson,
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a fan of your Thomas Covenant series of books. I have enjoyed them immensely and they are one of the very few books I have voluntarily purchased in hardcover. That said, I would like to offer some unasked for, and assuredly unwanted, comments.
A couple of years ago I reread the entire six-book series. I had bought a number of your non-TC books over the years and had never been able to finish them -- they seemed to bog down and get decidedly uninteresting. I did make it to the end of the first of the Axbrewder books, and along the way I realized that you really like to write. By this I mean that you really enjoy act of writing and finding the most accurate way to express your intended meaning. I suspect this is one of the reasons I think your later books get bogged down.
I read Lord Foul's Bane when it first came out and as many others have written, was disturbed by the rape of Lena. After reading The Illearth War I understood enough of your reasoning for this act to understand its necessity. I reread the six-book series again this past summer and only after that did I learn that you had started a final four-book series. I bought a copy of Runes, and almost put it down several times, unfinished. For me, the story didn't start to take-off until three-quarters or so of the way into the book. And I made another realization.
The first TC trilogy is different than the second in one very important way: the brutality of the actions you force the characters to endure, and their consequences. Lena's rape may be the most striking, but look at the cognitive rape done to Pietten and Foamfollower's decision to let the act stand unhealed by hurtloam, the genocide of the Giants, to list just a few examples. The few examples in the second trilogy are tempered by ideas of sacrifice to notions of a greater good or ideals and so lack the intellectual punch that the raw horror of an unameliorated death would otherwise convey. This starkness of also lacking in Runes, and is one of the differences in how you are tempering Linden Avery compared to Thomas Covenant, and why it is less effective in my view.
As the saying goes, war is hell. The horrors and savageness of the battlefield are difficult to grasp until one has experienced it first hand, even if the modern-day battlefield often as not occurs in a corporate office or in an academic setting. This savageness punctuates the first TC trilogy, is tempered in the second trilogy, and entirely lacking in Runes. Runes is too long for the actual content of the story being told, and it is my thought that one reason for this is that the brutality has shifted to the timid side of the scale and away from the savage side. Your skill, the craft you display in your writing, has certainly improved through the years, yet in my opinion your storytelling was best in the first TC trilogy and the expression of your craft has gotten in the way of that.
To put this simply, consequences need sufficiently strong motivators, and in your later writing both are reined in, but especially the motivations that drive the characters have been timidized (if I can make up a new word here). Strong, bold writing is more effective, more enjoyable to read, and is better storytelling.
Best regards,
--Preston
|
It has been said (or at least implied) that I delete "criticism" (negative feedback) from the Gradual Interview. I do. I've given my reasons. Among them: 1) Criticism isn't what the GI is *for*. Negative feedback violates the tacit protocols (the "etiquettes") of this exchange. It's rather like criticizing the food when you're the guest at a dinner-party. 2) Criticism here serves no useful purpose. Since it focuses on books which have already been published, it cannot possibly do me any good. Ergo: 3) *Uninvited* criticism exists solely to feed the ego of the critic. To pretend otherwise is (at best) hypocritical. Preston has provided an apt demonstration of my point. (btw, he deserves credit for supplying an e-mail address. Most people who post such messages are too, well, let's call it "timid" to risk a personal response.) (10/02/2006) |
Anonymous: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I saw recently on the Fantasy Bedtime Hour website that the series is down to its final six episodes. Naturally, though I know you've said you *would* do another episode, this begs the question, are there any concrete plans for the return of Higgins O'Higgins?
Cheers
|
Sadly, Higgins O'Higgins is missing and presumed dead. He went home from Episode 27 haunted by the "arguing like earth and sky" question (which he botched something awful), and is believed to have perished of terminal frustration. Alas. (10/02/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You majored in English throughout your academic life. I majored in Computer Science myself, but always wanted to be an English major and took quite a few English classes for my electives. When taking those classes we were always given very regimented writing assignments. For example, "write a short story that explores these themes and uses sybolism to convey such an such an idea"...etc. My question for you is, after reading 1300+ answers you've written for the GI, I don't get the impression that that sort of "assigned" writing would appeal to you very much. Now, I understand you are in college and you have to do what the instructor wants, but how did you feel about your writing in college and did you ever clash with any professors about it?
|
I was an English major because I wanted to study English literature, not because I wanted someone to teach me how to write. In other words, I've never taken a "creative writing" class: in part for the reason you describe (such assignments are too generic to meet the needs of individual students), and in part because I distrust "creative writing" classes (and seminars, and workshops, etc.) on principle. (I say this having taught writing workshops myself. God knows *I* deserved to be distrusted.) I believe that "creative writing" cannot be taught: it can only be learned. And it can only be learned by people who want to learn it for themselves, who ask for criticism when they need it (that's *invited* criticism, folks, not the other kind), and who work hard to profit from the feedback they receive. (10/02/2006) |
MARK G: you have stated that the second draft of "Fatal Revenant" is at 1088 pages. any idea how many pages the published version will be?
have you ever tried an internal martial art like Tai Chi or Ba Gua Zhang btw? your writing is very focused on the internal aspects of life so it is interesting that you would choose an external art like karate.
|
I can't possibly answer your first question. I don't know how much my editors will ask me to cut the present 1088 pages. In addition, I'm talking about manuscript pages; but you asked about "the published version," which seems to imply book pages--and there is no simple correlation between manuscript pages and book pages. Depending on type size and lines per page, a 1088 page manuscript can become a 500 page book--or an 800 page book. I've been exposed to elements of Tai Chi and Ba Gua, but I've never studied any version of either. However, I don't buy the internal/external comparison with, say, Shotokan karate--although God knows those terms are used often enough. I can vouch for the internal dimensions of Shotokan, and I've witnessed the external dimensions of Tai Chi and Ba Gua. I'm more comfortable with descriptions like soft/hard, or circular/linear, or redirective/ballistic. But sticking with internal/external for the sake of discussion: Shotokan (external) is perfect for me precisely because I'm so inclined to the internal. It's all about balance; about challenging myself in ways which correct rather than exacerbate imbalances. People who are instinctively external need to study the internal. People (like me) who are instinctively internal need to study the external. (By the same reasoning, people who are inclined to pure form need to concentrate on fighting: people who are inclined to fight need to concentrate on pure form.) (10/03/2006) |
Ryan (from Australia): Dear Mr Donaldson,
I recently re-read 'The Illearth War' to confirm that Hile Troy never met the beggar/creator before going to the land. I was wondering whether this was because of the nature of his summoning, or if there was some other reason for this.
Thanks Greatly,
Ryan.
|
Well, both. From Troy's perspective, his summons was too sudden--and his life too hermetic--to permit an encounter like the one Covenant "enjoyed". From the Creator's perspective, he has to let Atiaran make her own choices. Asking him to foresee actions like hers is rather like asking him to control what happens within the Arch of Time. And from her perspective--I don't know how else to put this--her efforts were simply too ignorant to accomplish what she intended. She was after Covenant: she didn't mean to summon Troy. In contrast, Drool/Lord Foul knew exactly who they wanted *and* exactly how to get him. Another way to look at the whole situation is that the Creator is only "free" to encounter/affect someone like Covenant when Lord Foul is actively engaged in breaching the barrier between realities. Since LF had no intention whatsoever of summoning Troy, the Creator was--inevitably--"out of the loop". (10/03/2006) |
Joshua Ubaldo: Okay, I just found out that you were also interested in martial arts. I am actually an aspiring writer, and I was wondering if you got any inspiration from your travels down the way of the warrior? Or does it just help you concentrate more?
|
Actually, I've developed an entire shtick about "The Writer as Warrior"; but it's purely for my personal edification. Broadly speaking, however, it deals with facing fear, accepting consequences, and striving for balance. (10/04/2006) |
Ed from Phoenix: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for the opportunity to share in this open communication. I am very grateful for the thought provoking entertainment and reflection your stories have given me over the years.
To my question: In a few places in the GI you refer to Elenas mental imbalance while being High Lord and during her end-battle with High Lord Kevin I believe you said she was out of her mind. Admittedly, it has been a while since I last read TIW, but I never perceived her to be a character with a significant thought disorder (in contrast with characters such as Nassic or Anele). Certainly I saw her as a tragic figure, driven, impulsive and misguided. And certainly given the circumstances of her upbringing I can see how she could have become out of her mind. Also, I understand that if she had a thought disorder there is an important issue of degree when comparing her with a character like Anele.
Why do you view Elena as a character who is mentally imbalanced? What clues in the text did I miss suggesting her imbalance besides her misguided belief in the power that can be found in despair? Im just curious and looking forward to a little more insight on this.
Thanks!
Ed
|
The problem with such questions--and my answers--is that we tend to talk about Elena's mental state as if it were binary, either on or off, sane or crazy. But there are many hues and degrees of mental imbalance, and we all have them. Under the right circumstances--and the right kind of pressure--any of us might do something crazy. If Covenant had never returned to the Land, Elena might have been a fine High Lord. Clues to her imbalance? Well, the fact that she has a "thing" for her father (a known rapist) is certainly a sign that something is out of whack. (10/11/2006) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Several short questions:
Is it possible the Land will lose its "Gods"? Will 'Brew' lose his "Gods"?
You posted a rhetorical question a while back in one of your responses that asked how many Laws have to be broken before the entire system collapses. Would it be fair - in the context of the Last Chronicles - to rephrase that question to read how corrupt must a system become before it is better to start over?
Thanks.
|
These may be "short" questions, but that doesn't make them easy to answer. Ferinstance, who/what are Brew's "Gods"? I don't know what you're referring to. An argument could be made that the Land has already lost its "Gods". After all, the "Creator" is effectively impotent (since he can't intervene in events without violating the Arch of Time)--and no one worships him anyway. Meanwhile, the distinction between "corrupt" and "broken" or damaged seems more appropriate to Brew's version of reality than to the Land's. Lord Foul went down the "corrupting the system" road in "The Second Chronicles," and failed. "Broken" is a better description of what's happening in "The Last Chronicles". (10/11/2006) |
Captain Maybe: O, sagacious and logophilic Donaldson! Dost thou feel like a guru?
OK, I expect your answer to that is something along the lines of 'No,' but what I want to get at is your thoughts about the relationship between writer and reader. A fair fraction of the questions you answer on the GI (and presumably at book-signings etc) are about writing and the publishing industry. For people who read your work, are aspiring writers themselves and who may not have anyone else to ask, your willingness to field questions would appear to make you an obvious source of literary wisdom. How do you feel about this (albeit very minor) mentoring role? More broadly, is it an implicit part of an author's unwritten job description to take on this role?
|
It seems natural that aspiring writers (and students of writing) might want to question someone in my position. Its also natural (considering the many obstacles that I've had to overcome) that I have strong opinions on the subject of writing. And since I enjoy the illusion that I'm an expert of some kind <grin>, I often try to answer. But "is it an implicit part of an author's unwritten job description to take on this role?" Absolutely not. Some writers are entirely unsuited by personality, by inclination, by ego, by ethos, or by writing methodology to talk about what they do; or to generalize based on their personal experience. This has nothing whatever to do with the quality of their writing. It's a description of who the writer is, not what the writer does. Hel*, for all we know, *Shakespeare* was utterly inarticulate about writing. And no, I do NOT feel like a guru. <grin> If I did, I would probably be dangerous. (10/11/2006) |
GomeUr-Vile: The Power That Preserves. I always assumed this title was a reference to Covenant's power supply; the electricity powering the fridge that preserves the food. Which is a link in itself because he has to go to town to pay the bills. Therefore the land's struggles are a metaphor for his difficulty in paying the bills. If he cant pay the electricity bill the power that preserves the food in the fridge is wasted; hence the land is under threat.
|
This is a novel interpretation. (To which you're welcome. Whatever floats your boat....) I've always assumed that "the power that preserves" is love for and commitment to the Land; love and commitment which can only be found (as both Covenant and Mhoram find them) in "the eye of the paradox". (10/11/2006) |
Brian, UK: I have picked up the impression from the GI that one of the reasons for the "Man Who" books was that you wanted to write a detective book "properly". Are there any other genres you would like to write (assuming you could come up with good ideas of course)? Westerns? Romance? Comedy?
Although I enjoy reading less demanding fantasy series (no names) I wouldn't dream of re-reading them several times as I have with your books (and a few others) Are there any statistics that you know of on the re-reading of books? I suspect you would be a lot wealthier if you were paid by the number of times your books were read.
|
I'm uncomfortable with the word "properly". Perhaps because I read so many mystery novels in my youth, I felt a desire to write something that would satisfy me more. As I grew older, I became disenchanted with the comparative "impersonality" of most mystery novels. I wanted (for lack of a better description) crimes that would matter more to the sleuth(s). On occasion, I've wished (vaguely) that I could write a supernatural horror novel. But I've never had any ideas for such a story. I don't know if it would even be possible to compile statistics on re-reading. I've certainly never heard anyone in publishing (writers, editors, agents, publishers, journalists) say anything on the subject. (10/12/2006) |
Ossie: You have said that you planned the Last Chronicles at the same time as the Second Chronicles, seeding the 2C with all of the loose ends and back doors you would need to create the LC. However, obviously no-one else knew this & it took you 20 years to finally get around to the LC, after the publication of the 2C. If your plan to live forever had failed & you had joined the Creator before anyone even knew you had always planned to make the LC, would you have been happy with people thinking that the 2C was the ending you always intended for the entire story? Do you feel that, if circumstances had prevented the LC from ever existing, the 2C is a satisfactory end to the series? Or would it be a case of Im horrified you all actually thought I meant to end it with *that*?
|
Although I conceived "The Second" and "The Last Chronicles" at the same time, I was never absolutely sure that I would ever write the final story. As I've said before, "The Second Chronicles" convinced me that I wasn't a good enough writer to tackle "The Last". And of course I had no way of knowing what the "trajectory" of my writing life would be. So I was careful to leave the story in a place that satisfied me. If I had faced a premature death, say, ten years ago, I'm sure that I would have felt personally "incomplete"--because I hadn't finished what I started--but I doubt that I would have felt any aesthetic frustration. (10/12/2006) |
Joe Van Gompel: I note with both fascination and disgust the apparent real-world manifestation of your "Community of Retribution" in the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas. I had to disable all of my parental controls to get into their shameful, hate-filled website godhatesfags.com. They profess, among other things, that nobody is redeemed and that God doesn't really love everyone, which is pretty much contrary to the rest of Christianity's teachings. The only significant difference is that Westboro claims to disavow violence.
Were their teachings, or like teachings, an influence on your building of the Community of Retribution? The parallels between the two are startling.
And keep up the good work. Your descriptions of landscapes and vistas are second in quality only to Tolkien.
Joe
|
The parallels are certainly startling. But they're purely coincidental. (Which, curiously, I find more frightening than if I had known about the "Westboro Baptist Church".) I just grew up among too many "Christians" who used the word "love" when they meant either "fear" or "hate". Of course, using words to mean their opposite is a common practice in our society. (10/12/2006) |
Lynne H: I tried to find "shotgun" and "vigilantism" in the GI and didn't, so here goes.
Twenty mmpfh years after my first reading of the first two Covenant trilogies, I am certainly a different reader and a different person. I wasn't yet a parent and my husband hadn't yet become a law enforcement officer, so firearms weren't a "given" in our lives back then. So this time through, I was struck by Covenant's having purchased a shotgun in The Wounded Land when I had scarcely given it a thought the first time I read TWL. Nowadays the thought of someone's owning a firearm he's not sure he will make use of is mind-boggling. People I know either have them intending to use them or they refuse to even let their kids play at a friend's house where there may be a weapon, even if the weapons and ammo are locked up separately. Myriad plot points would have been altered if Covenant had used his shotgun, so I won't even get into that, but I am curious: Is this any reflection of your own . . .aversion? whatever? (I am thinking of your having served in a hospital as a conscientious objector).
Thanks for the opportunity to ask. It's been great rediscovering your work and, even better, sharing it with those of my children old enough to appreciate it.
|
Actually, I'm vaguely fascinated by guns. I've even taken shooting--and safety--lessons from a SWAT officer. For another perspective on the subject, you might look at "The Man Who..." books, especially "...Tried to Get Away". But Covenant has a shotgun precisely so that he can choose not to use it. Which sounds to me just like something I might have done in his situation. After all, Joan's return might (for good reason) make him feel, well, let's call it embattled. I thought that buying a shotgun and then deciding not to use it revealed a great deal about his inner journey--and about Linden's early effect on him. In very few words, I might add. <grin> (Thematically, of course, I was also trying to prepare the way for some of the events early in "The Runes of the Earth".) (10/25/2006) |
Anonymous: So, have you asked your editor when "Runes" will be released in Mass market paperback?
|
I have. Sadly, Ace has no immediate plans for a mass market edition of "The Runes of the Earth." The profit margins in mass market are very small, and Ace is still unsure that my sales justify the risk. This, I hasten to say, does not mean that there won't be a US mass market edition eventually: it just means that Ace isn't yet ready to make the decision. (10/25/2006) |
Gilbert Martinez: Mr. Donaldson,
I have a question concerning the World Fantasy Convention in Austin, Texas (Nov. 2-4). I'm planning on being there -- in fact, you are one of my favorite authors and I couldn't pass up a chance to meet you and perhaps hear you read an excerpt from Fatal Revenant.
I've looked over the schedule for the World Fantasy Convention, but don't see you on it. Can you provide details about what you plan to do at the convention? I'd greatly appreciate it so I can plan my visit.
Also, have you been to Austin before? It's a great town.
Thanks very much.
Gilbert
Austin, Texas
|
I am not scheduled for any programming at the Austin WFC. But I will be there. And I do try to be accessible on such occasions--whatever "accessible" turns out to mean at any given moment. <rueful smile> No, I've never been to Austin before. (10/25/2006) |
Tom Bracken: Dear Stephen:
This question regards the role of myths as they impact on human history.
I had the occasion to hear Barbara Rossing, a New Testament scholar, speak on her book regarding the Book of Revelations and the (unfortunately) popular Left Behind series. She contends that there is no basis for the notion that the Bible predicts a rapture, or that Jesus will return and lead a violent confrontation with the Anti-Christ, etc. She felt that Revelation was meant to be a description of the evil of the Roman Empire in the first century and the need for Christians to follow Jesus rather than Caesar.
Furthermore, she felt the whole Left Behind scenario was dangerous, in two ways. First, it ignores the real crisis on our hands, that of ecology and global warming. Second, it encourages us to welcome war in the Middle East as a sign that the end times are near.So, although she thinks this popular myth about the end times is unjustified, she also recognizes the power it may have on current popular and political thinking. (There are members of our presidents Cabinet that fully ascribe to this interpretation of scripture!)
I see several analogous situations in your work. It is never clear to us whether Thomas Covenant returned truly as predicted by the old Lords, or whether he is truly the new Berek the Halfhand. Still, as people believe that he is, he ends up fulfilling that prophecy , whether or not it was ever valid.
There is also some analogy in The Wounded Land. The focus of the attack on the land is largely ecological; nature has been distorted by humans evil actions (with Fouls direction of course). People believe in the myths which are propoganda dispersed by Foul about how the Sunbane is actually good rather than evil. (I recommended the second Chronicles to Dr. Rossing as she writes her current book on Revelation and ecology!).
So, do you see a role for myth that is not really true but is made true by the humans that believe in it? Is this a common focus in your work?
Tom Bracken
306 Birch St
Onamia MN 56359
srtrout@yahoo.com
|
You raise some interesting issues about how humankind uses--or misuses--it mythologies. Certainly the power of any myth arises from the credence that people give to it, nor from whether or not that myth is actually "true". And I must confess that a related theme seems to be creeping into "Fatal Revenant". But "myth" per se is not a common (or conscious) focus in my work. I'm already too familiar with (not to mention disgusted by) the kinds of distortions you describe. As a storyteller, I'm more interested in the way that knowledge can lead to hope or despair--or both. And in the strange power of "belief" to bring about its own fulfillment (for example, the manner in which the Lords insist on trusting Covenant eventually helps him to become trustworthy). It's pretty obvious that this process (belief bringing about its own fulfillment) *works* in the real world. (11/01/2006) |
David Shure: This is not really a question but a suggestion for those seeking unabridged audio editions of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Unbeliever. It appears that an unabridged edition for the first two trilogies does not exist. I have found that recent text to speech software with one of the "upgraded" voices does a more than adequate job. In a few hours I created an unabridged mp3 of both trilogies for my personal use from the e-books. For copyright reasons I believe that each reader must create their own mp3s, but the process is well worth the learning curve and can make a large range of works accessible. There a number of programs out there - I found Yeosoft Text to MP3 with the Neospeech "Paul" voice simple and it did not mangle the pronunciation too badly except for "Tohrm". I hope this helps - I had looked for a solution for this for several years.
|
I'm posting this as a matter of general information. I believe that the Books on Tape program of the Library of Congress includes the "Covenant" books (I could be wrong), but that doesn't make them generally available. Your approach seems rather ingenious--and (if you don't mind my saying so) rather effortful. But then, I don't happen to enjoy listening to books. btw, you're absolutely right about the copyright issues. (11/01/2006) |
Walter Langendorf: Drool has red glowing eyes, like lava. Ordinary Cave-Wights don't have eyes like this. Why does Drool have these eyes? Is this part of the sickening brought on by his misuse of the Staff of Law? Is it something he used the Staff to alter, like the moon? Is it a preexisting condition, perhaps part of what allowed him to rise to boss of the Cavewights?
Inquiring minds want to know!
|
Ultimately I think we have to blame Lord Foul. It's an effect of the misuse of power--and it does not bode well for Drool's future. <grin> (11/01/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Are you superstitious? In particular, are you superstitious about anything when it comes to your writing? You mentioned before that you always use the same type of font (more for aesthetic reasons than superstitious ones) and that you like to build a cocoon of sound while writing, but are there other things that your have to have while writing or else you just can't write?
|
I dont have any writing-related superstitions in the common sense of the term. I dont, for example, have to wear socks of a particular color, or spin my chair three times before starting a sentence. I dont even need a particular font, or a cocoon of sound: Im writing now without either of those benefits, and Ive written fiction on airplanes and in hotel rooms that lack virtually everything I find congenial to creative concentration. But anyone as ADD and OCD as I am is bound to have a broad range of eccentricities. Mine tend to involve the most mundane and even trivial aspects of daily living, like how I choose what clothes to wear on any given day. (11/06/2006) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Mr. Moore: Steve,
I am currently living in Cairo, Egypt as a teacher. The expat community here holds both writer's club and book club meetings once a month. The book club is simple: everyone chooses one book throughout the year for the group to read and then discuss. I have been toying with the notion of choosing a Covenant book. (No one here has heard of you, and they must learn!) My question is this: Do you have any advice as to which one? Of course, it should be either LFB or TWL. The first one I read in the series was TWL, and it proved a fine introduction to this universe. Any thoughts?
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
Well, if it were me, I wouldnt choose a Covenant book at all. Ive always thought that the safest thing to do is pick one of my short story collections: Daughter of Regals or Reave the Just. That way, people can find out if they like what I do without committing the time and energy to a novel that doesnt even tell a complete story. Ordinarily I would consider The Mirror of Her Dreams a relatively safe choice, but its longer than any Covenant book. But if you *must* have a Covenant book, indulge me by starting with LFB. You found TWL to be a fine introduction: I suspect that many other readers would disagree. (11/06/2006) |
Joshua Arnold: Two questions for you, Mr. Donaldson, that pertain to the craft of writing. And you have my thanks in advance for any response you can offer.
First, the debate of showing v. telling is an old one (in short: an author should endeavor to show not tell--his/her hand should be as invisible as possible). As an English Major myself, I've had to analyze works in terms of telling and showing. As a writer, I'm forced to examine my own work in similar terms. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the issue.
Second, both Covenant and the Gap are written in what you have called "multiple limited 3rd person POV." This POV is one that appeals to me greatly and I use it in my own work. I wonder, however, how you manage to remain true to the limited POV (i.e. staying completely inside a character's head ) and still provide description and imagery. After all, having a character look at herself in the mirror is a rather cheap way to show the audience what she looks like. Do you, perhaps, "cheat" and step outside of the chracter's head for a moment, show the scene, and then plunge back in?
|
Hmm. Ive never really known what to do with the old show not tell dictum. What exactly does it *mean*? After all, were talking about storyTELLING: the telling is sort of implied by the nature of the process. So I assume that when I tell you what Linden Avery, for example, is saying or doing, Im showing, but when I tell you what shes thinking or feeling, Im telling. Well, literature offers fine examples of the show not tell dictum. Hemmingway leaps to mind, as does Elmore Leonard--not to mention Shakespeare. But then, literature offers many examples of other approaches as well. If show not tell were the only valid approach, we would have to get rid of all of Faulkner and James, never mind Dostoevsky and Dickens. In the end, I think, every writer has to find a balance between showing and telling: a balance which a) suits his/her abilities, and b) fits his/her subject matter. Personally, I try very hard not to cheat in my use of 3rd person limited. But Im pretty flexible in how I use it. Since my own experience of being alive at any given moment (including this one) involves a wide range of mundane external perceptions and intimate internal reactions pretty much simultaneously--in other words, since nothing about my own experience of being alive takes place completely inside my own head--I strive to re-create that experience in storytelling. Which, I hasten to add, is impossible: first, because storytelling is stubbornly linear, one word after another, while in real life a wide range of things can happen all at once; and second, because storytelling imposes disciplines (for example, the necessity of communicating in a way that the reader can understand) which are largely absent from moment-by-moment real life. But within those constraints, I do the best I can. With (very) rare exceptions, I dont let my readers see anything that my POV character could not have seen, or know anything that my POV character could not have known. (On the other hand, I do often strive to encourage my readers to feel things which are different than what my POV character feels. But thats a completely different subject.) (11/06/2006) |
Guy Andrew Hall: I am sitting here trying to come up with a salutation to start my question and realize that, after having read many of the questions in the gradual interview, I am simply out of my league. So, let me start simply by saying "Hello!" Besides, I have already written twice to the interview, so I figure no need to get all cute. Although, truth be told, I do look good in my black.....
Oops. Sorry, lost my track of thought. It's the ADD. Note to self-refill medication.
Anyway-my question: Is it common for an aspiring, or novice, writer to quail at putting to paper because the story is not yet written in their head?
I ask because after many, many years I have gotten around to writing the first chapter of my novel, and lo and behold! I created a character that was not ever a thought prior to the writing. What's scary-he leapt out at me well defined. And worse-I know he is to die. Is this normal?
<sigh*> Okay, okay. I know. I know. Normal is still under debate. So, strike normal. Is it common?
*Sorry for stealing your shtick.
Well, not really. But anyway.......
|
But seriously. How would *I* know whats common, or uncommon, or preternatural to the point of freakishness? *Im* not inside anyone elses head. I only know what makes other people quail when they tell me; and they only tell me (if they tell me) one at a time. Frankly, I cant even speak for the people I can see from where Im sitting. I can really only speak for myself. However. Id be willing to bet cash money that it is not UNcommon for writers of every description (aspiring, novice, experienced, professional, awe-inspiring, whatever) to quail at putting birds, er, words on paper. Its a daunting prospect, writing. But what makes each individual writer quail? Ah, thats less certain. In my case, its the fact that I *do* know the story that strikes terror into my heart. But for other people--I imagine--staring at that first blank page (or screen) is like peering into the bitter eyes of the abyss. And I know at least one writer on whom the ghouls pounce in the *middle* of a story: starting is just fine, fun in fact, thank you very much--but those MIDDLES <shudder>, oh my God. I would hazard a guess that having a character pop in out of nowhere, fully-formed and doomed (or not), is not at all uncommon. Some of us even *like* the surprises that our unconscious minds spring on us. But more than that I really cant say. (11/11/2006) |
John: Steve,
Why do you think epic fantasy stories have become much more complex? One need not look further than the works of Robert Jordan or Steven Erikson. Compare these books (both started on in the 80's) with older works of fantasy, such as Ursula K. Le Guin's "Earthsea" saga, or even your "First Chronicles". By comparison, those eariler works were, in the narrative sense, were much less complex and simple. Don't misunderstand me: I greatly enjoyed both Le Guin's and your works, and I find Erikson's "Malazan" series to be simply fascinating. But now it seems that many new works of fantasy strive for this complexity of story/narrative. Why?
Thanks!
|
I cant speak for anyone else. But heres what I know. 1) Life is becoming more complex. Or reported perceptions of life are becoming more complex, which amounts to the same thing. Spend ten seconds comparing WWII with the war in Iraq, and youll see what I mean. So it seems only natural that fiction would follow life. 2) Whether or not life is becoming more complex, *I* am becoming more complex. An inevitable consequence of the fact that Im older, Ive experienced more, Ive felt more, Ive seen more, and Ive refused to stop thinking about it. Everything I look at has more sides than it once did, which may well mean that what Im looking at has become more complex, but which *certainly* means that I have become more complex. It seems only natural that this would be reflected in my storytelling. 3) Whether or not life (and/or I) has (have?) become more complex (and I sinCEREly hope that the syntax gods arent listening), I still have to compete for readers. I have to give my readers reason to believe that Im offering something they havent seen before, or can't get anywhere else. (Which is actually impossible. There is nothing new under the sun, etc..) And in this competition, I dont simply have to compete with my contemporaries: I have to compete with every writer who ever contributed to the foundations of the kind of story I want to write. (OK, OK, every writer I *know about* who ever contributed.) So it seems natural that I would try to, well, put more in. Of course, we dont have to work at it very hard to come up with other explanations. Series sell: the longer the series, the more money the writer makes: therefore (some) writers want to stretch out their series(es)(es)(oh, fudge): and there are only a finite number of ways to stretch out a series, adding complexity being one. But if I suspected myself of doing that, Id--well, never mind. Id write something else, lets leave it at that. (11/11/2006) |
Michael Weinhardt: Once you finish the first draft of the manuscript you send out for edit/review, how much time off do you give yourself ie how much time away from your work do you need before you can come back to it with a fresh mind.
|
As a rule, I give myself however long it takes my readers/editors to read. Of course, I need a bit of rest. But rewriting uses different mental muscles that writing does, so I dont need a *lot* of rest. What I DO need--and its vital to me--is something that flips the switch in my head from Creative to Critical. Apparently (brace yourself: understatement coming) Im not very good at flipping this switch for myself. Im actually quite good at rewriting--once Im in Critical mode. But to get into Critical mode, I need a reader--and, ideally, a reader who is willing to say, What the ***** is *that* supposed to mean? (11/11/2006) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I was wondering about the actual layout of the land itself. I have an old map of the Land, and it shows it doesn't connect with and other body of land, yet the Ramen had "left the land" as the the sunbane was coming. Now, they arent sea-faring people as the giants were, so, did the actually 'leave' the land or did they simply travel beyond the reach of the sunbane hoping not to run out of places where they would be safe?
Also, can you please explain why Esmer's power can neutralize Lindens wild magic?
Thanks again for everything you do :)
Perry Bell
|
The Land is a region on a globe in the same way that, say, Greece is region on a globe. The Land happens to be isolated on every side, the sea to the east and rugged mountains everywhere else. But if you go through the mountains, as the Ramen do with the Ranyhyn, you come to other lands. Well, I designed the Land that way for a variety of reasons, one of which was to make it a metaphorical arena. A place where the same issues that confront people everywhere are *concentrated*: a place where--in a manner of speaking--Earthpower flows much closer to the surface of reality. (Hence the name "*the* Land," as if it were the only place that matters.) That's why it's possible to get out from under the Sunbane. Or from under Kevin's Dirt. I haven't provided maps for any other regions of the globe because they aren't necessary to the story I'm trying to tell. (11/11/2006) |
Vincent: Why didn't the creator realize that by trapping Foul within the arch of time he was merely exacerbating the problem that Foul's banes would have produced? Was he attempting to protect other future 'projects' from his influence? Or did he believe that by forcing Foul to live amung the 'mortals' he might teach him some measure of compassion for them? What motivates Foul to constantly assail the people of the land? They aren't the cause of his situation and surely his anger would have subsided over time. Did he prompt/goad Kevin into performing the ritual of desecration because he hoped it would bring down the arch, or because he secretly feared that the lords' power would grow to one day rival his own? Now that Covenant is dead, with the law of death being broken, can Foul break the arch, or is he hopelessly trapped because the crux (Covenant) is now nothing more than a tool?
|
Gee, and I was SO hoping there wouldn't be any more Creator questions.... <rueful smile> OK (he said, girding up his loins), let's break this down into Creator questions and LF questions. Creator questions. You could say that the Creator trapped LF within the Arch by accident. (There's some textual justification for this view.) You could say that the Creator was solving his own "problem of how to deal with evil" by putting the bad guy in prison. (I can't think of any textual evidence, but the interpretation itself is probably defensible.) Or you could say that the Creator was taking a more holistic, even Zen approach to the situation: how can a living organism (the creation) grow if it doesn't have something both to strive for and to strive against? This is an extremely risky way of being a Creator: it requires him to give up on the whole notion of "perfection," and to face the very real prospect of complete failure. But it may conceivably be the most *loving* way of being a Creator. LF questions. Well, of course, misery loves company. In my experience, people who are in intense, chronic pain usually "punish" the people around them; anyone who happens to be within reach, including innocent bystanders. Such individuals ease the sting of their own pain by feeling empowered when they cause pain in others. But LF also has a better reason for being so nasty. He can't break the Arch of Time himself: only power wielded by other people has the potential to free him from his prison. So the ultimate aim of everything he does is to goad other people into extreme--and extremely destructive--acts of power (like the Ritual of Desecration). And, of course, if the people who are being goaded are in intense pain, they are more likely to exert power destructively. Meanwhile LF remains trapped because a) the Law of Time is the most fundamental--therefore the least easily damaged--of the necessary Laws, and b) Covenant's self-sacrifice (voluntarily becoming an inherent participant in the Arch) has made the Law of Time stronger rather than weaker. (To call Covenant "nothing more than a tool" is to disregard the voluntary nature of his sacrifice.) I hope that's clear. (11/11/2006) |
John Blackburn: 1) You mentioned you had comments/suggestions from both U.S. and UK editors on Fatal Revenant. How do you please them both? I'm sure they've got different suggestions, yet the final version will be the same, right? except for spelling changes, aubergine = eggplant etc. Do you find a compromise between the two, and your own ideas for the story.
2) In the UK, your work is getting put into single volumes (one for the first Chronicals, one for the second and one for Mordant's need). This happens for other fantasy writers, eg, I've got Jack Vance's Dying Earth series and Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea. Do you approve of this? It's a bit like box set DVDs but without the extras (could we have some extras? interview with author, pictures of ur-Viles etc, your father's notes on leprosy...?)
3) What was that Raver trying to achieve in Soaring Woodhelven in Lord Foul's Bane? (He arrived and left shortly before Covenant).
Thanks for the great work, I'm sure Fatal Revanant will be a big success because of the momentum building up.
|
1) Of course, the editors involved understand the reality of the problem you describe. So they talk to each other. They try to work out their differences. And they usually decide to emphasize different aspects of the book, so that I'll be able to satisfy one without disappointing the other. It's actually quite civilized. And new, in my experience. Until "The Last Chronicles," my UK editors have simply kept their mouths shut: instead of putting me in an untenable position, they have chosen to accept whatever my US editors accept. 2) I approve of anything that keeps my books in print. Personally, I don't like omnibus editions because they're heavy and the print is small. But that's a trivial concern compared to keeping my books in print. (Keep in mind, however, that the publishers are doing it to save money, so they certainly aren't going to pay for any "extras". The potential profits on books are much smaller than on DVDs.) 3) LF wants to alienate the people of the Land from Covenant (as if Covenant weren't already doing that for himself). The more the people of the Land distrust Covenant, the less likely he is to become the Land's redeemer. (11/11/2006) |
James DiBenedetto: Dear Steve,
I came across the Wired magazine "six word story" article, and my GI question was going to be to ask you to come up with an entry; but Isaw that you did actually provide one for the article. So: "Don't marry her. Buy a house."?
Can you give us a sequel? Or expand on it just a little bit?
Thank you!
James
|
Sadly, there's nothing original about it. There's an old joke that can be paraphrased as: "I used to enjoy getting married because I was in love. But that never worked out. So now whenever I feel the urge to get married, I just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house." Wired magazine asked me for a six word story: they didn't ask me to *think*. <grin> (11/12/2006) |
Neil Burton: Mr. Donaldson, I hope you're well! Like many people posting to this Q&A it is safe for you to assume that I'm a huge fan and admirer of your work. With that out of the way...
I've wondered on occasion whether authors who write and release a long story one book at a time would, on the whole, prefer not to? If there were no practical exigencies (there's a word I learned from you) for not doing so, would you in fact prefer to commit the whole story to paper before releasing it? Do you think you gain (or lose) anything by releasing it in serial format?
Although I can of course understand and accept that the schedule of the releases is dictated entirely by your needs as the author, I must admit that I'm now feeling a deep sense of dread and longing for the next in the Last Chronicles that is uncomfortably reminiscent of the long, cold nights between books in the Gap series. :)
|
As I learned when I was working on the first Covenant trilogy, there are some very real advantages to getting the whole story (in that case, three books) written before publication. The most obvious advantage has to do with internal consistency. If you slam into a problem in book three, you have the option of trying to solve it by changing book one. And because theres so little lag between books (you dont have to go through all the mechanical stages of preparing a manuscript for publication), your creative process itself can be more focused, therefore more consistent. As a result, Ive often suspected that writing them all before any of them were published might produce better books. In a pure world--a world where I didnt have to worry about either money or publishers--I might have wanted to write the whole of The Last Chronicles before releasing any of it. But of course I do have to worry about money. And publishers do have to worry about what I call keeping an authors name alive: when a decade or more passes between books, readers might be forgiven for forgetting that an author exists. Even as matters stand (a book every three years) my publishers are understandably afraid that readers will simply get tired of waiting. Hence the unfortunate fact that I now get paid less than at any other time in my sf/f writing career. And then theres my hunger to be read. I suspect that this is a universal and even congenital issue among writers. Writing is pretty da*n lonely, and being read eases the loneliness. I doubt that Im a strong enough person to spend 12 years working on The Last Chronicles without *some* sort of connection with people who read my work. (11/13/2006) |
David, Melbourne, Australia: Previously in the GI you have written "I cant afford to be influenced by the way other peoples 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." This was specifically fans theorising about what happens next,etc.
But I'm curious as to whether in the age of 'instant' feedback fan facination with a particular element of a story influences you to increase or even decrease its presence (assuming it doesn't interfere with the story telling). I'm thinking specifically of the Mahdoubt which you have spoken to Danlo about. Does it tempt you add more of the Mahdoubt, or red herrings or even blue ones for that matter?
Thanks for sharing your writing with us.
|
So far, Ive been pretty good at fending off the effects of instant feedback. Oh, sometimes the feedback does help make me aware of something that I might have missed; something that can make what Im working on stronger. Im human: Im perfectly capable of doing what I call dropping stitches. And Im grateful for anything that helps me avoid that problem. But does feedback inspired by fan fascination cause me to augment or diminish aspects of the story (a character, perhaps, or even simply an explanation)? I dont think so. (OK, OK, maybe it *does* cause me to increase or decrease the amount of explanation.) I respond diligently to the feedback that I get from the people who read for me *while* Im working on a book. The feedback, speculation, enthusiasm, disinterest, etc. that come in after Im done with a book have no influence *that Im aware of* on the future of the story. (11/13/2006) |
Daniel Wolf: Mr. Donaldson. Thankyou for answering my previous letter.
Even before I had heard anything at all about a potential Covenant movie, at the stage where I thought it was a unique idea, thought about only by me, I wondered about an appropriate leading man. My first choice obviously, was my self. Right age, height, build and capable of Wild rage and crippling doubt.
Then I saw the cover to the Cohen Brothers movie "The Man Who Wasn't There". Billy Bob Thorton in black and white with the whole 1950s look. Definately my first choice from that Hollywood bunch.
Question 1. Have you seen this film and/or its video cover. If so what do you think?
Question 2. Could you sleep if somebody took your beloved story and made a CGI monster out of it. I know it would mess with my emotions. You say you don't have the right stuff to be on the set, but who does. Defeat is only real in the past tense. Any one good enough to make this potential movie would know it would be a lot better with your active help.
I hope I haven't over stepped the mark.
DAN
|
1) No, I havent seen The Man Who Wasnt There. And I must confess that Ive rather lost interest in the whole Covenant-film question. I dont believe it will ever happen. To my way of thinking, thats a good thing. I suspect that Covenant--unlike, say, the GAP books--is essentially un-film-able. But (just my opinion) I certainly wouldnt cast Billy Bob Thornton as Covenant. World weary cynicism seems to be Thorntons best vein, and that wouldnt suit my story. 2) Of course, Ive never been in the situation you describe, so I dont know how it would affect me. But I like to think that I would experience a brief period of mild disappointment, and then get back to the things that really matter to me. I have no say over whether or not a movie ever gets made; I have no say over whether or not the movie (if it ever gets made) is any good; I have no say over whether or not the movie (if it ever gets made) is both good *and* respectful of my intentions; so what would be the point of taking any of this personally? Meanwhile I suspect that working with the kinds of committees that make movies would drive me completely crackers. (11/21/2006) |
MRK: Mr. Donaldson, thanks very much for answering my previous question.
Something I've been wondering about for a while was the "Spanish" dialogue in The Man Who Killed His Brother. Most authors, when they are writing in a foreign language, simply write some plain-old English dialogue and then just say that it's spoken in Spanish, Russian, what have you. You handled this very differently (and better), I thought; the Spanish-as-English dialogue in TMWKHB sounded more... I suppose dramatic, or perhaps poetic is the word, than the *actual* English dialogue in the rest of the book. You have said in past GI answers that you are no linguist; how did you arrive at writing the "Spanish" dialogue in this fashion?
thanks again,
MRK
|
Im not sure I had much choice. On the one hand, I really am not a linguist. On the other, that whole EnglishEnglishColloquialEnglish, he said in Spanish thing seems like cheating. And on one of the remaining hands, writers who simply give the dialogue in Spanish (or French, or German, or whatever) and dont translate it vex me. So I tried to think of a way to say things in English so that they would *sound* like Spanish (formal, perhaps, or courtly, rather than exotic). (11/21/2006) |
Matthew Yenkala: OK, definitely NOT something you've been asked before, or at least in the GI.
In the first volume of the late Jack Chalker's DANCING GODS series ("The River of Dancing Gods"), which tells how a trucker and hitch-hiker make their way to THE "primordial" fantasy world from which all of OUR fantasies derive, there is an offhanded reference to your work.
Specifically, one character (the witch Huspeth) describes her world: "This is a big world, much larger than the one from which thou comest. There are many other continents, and many other lands. One, called simply the Land, is so fouled up no one from thy world will believe it's real, even though he be there." It then goes on to refer to other fantasy worlds by other authors.
(This if from pg. 75 of the 1984 Ballantine paperback edition.)
Obviously there's no question of this being taken seriously as "canon", but I'm sure you were aware of this? And do you think it was meant as an homage or affectionate in-joke/"shout out" to a fellow author in the same field, at the same time, by the same publisher? (Hopefully it was not meant as a dig.)
Just curious!
Matthew Yenkala
|
No, actually, I wasnt aware of it. Chalker certainly never asked my permission (or even my opinion). And although I met him once many years ago, I didnt really know him; so I cant speculate about his attitude (homage/in-joke/dig/whatever). However, Im confident that no harm was intended--and that no harm was done. (11/21/2006) |
Norrie Sinclair: Dear Mr Donaldson
I came across this heroic endeavour of yours whilst trying to find out which idiot put a synopsis of Fatal Revenant on Amazon.co.uk a year in advance of publication. Given how livid I was on seeing it, I can only imagine how you felt. (I've just realised that I've dropped into the spoiler category with that.)
Anyway, a question: I'd love to know your take on "The art of writing" as opposed to "The craft of writing". (if indeed they do oppose.)
And lastly: You mentioned cliches a while back. My favourite quote is from Terry Pratchett:
"Cliches are the adjustable spanner (wrench) in the toolbox of communication."
I have the honour etc.
Norrie Sinclair
|
With the understanding that this is Just My Opinion. It seems to me that you can have craft without art, but you cannot have art without craft. Craft involves things like skill, intelligence, training, clarity of intention: things that can be learned (and yes, I do believe that intelligence can be learned--although perhaps not directly). Art requires craft because the elements of craft are essential to communication. But it also requires something more. What that something more *is* is open to discussion--and it may vary from artist to artist--but I think of it as imagination (in the sense of the term described by S. T. Coleridge), or passion, or instinct, or some blend/synergy/gestalt of the three. (This, by the way, is just another example of that penetrating lucidity which has made me the man I am today. <grin> Mommy, Mommy, whats the strange man talking about? No one knows, son. No one knows.) I enjoyed your quote from Pratchett. But speaking as a man who distrusts his own impulse to rely on cliches, and who lo-o-o-oves his adjustable spanner (any home repair that cant be accomplished with an adjustable spanner and duct tape isnt worth doing), Im not sure I agree. (11/21/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Just curious about this and if there may be some meaning I'm missing, but why does Linden always refer to Thomas Covenant as "Covenant", his last name? They become lovers and still she never calls him Thomas or Tom (as Joan does). At least I don't recall at any time when she thought of or called him by his first name.
|
Hmm. Well, EVeryone--including the author--refers to Covenant by his last name (if you dont count Giants and Lords and such, who prefer titles). There are probably several explanations. One is that I attended a very old-school school in India, where we were taught things like Men Must Be Referred To By Last Name, Women By First Name. (You have no idea how difficult it was for me to break this habit for the sake of the GAP books; but I solved it in Mordants Need by only letting my characters have one name each--with the obvious exception of Terisa Morgan, who is always called Terisa.) But in addition. Doesnt the text say somewhere that Covenant doesnt like being called Tom? (Thats not a detail I can check where Im sitting at the moment.) And then, well, I wanted from the beginning to emphasize Covenant rather than Thomas. Thomas the Doubter is already abundantly present as the Unbeliever. But in the Bible there are two covenants, the Covenant of Law and the Covenant of Grace. On both the micro and the macro levels, that aspect of my (on-going) story has always been essential to me. So by the time Linden came along, referring to Covenant as Covenant was so deeply embedded in my intentions that I could not have rooted it out if I had wanted to--which I did not. (11/21/2006) |
Vincent: It is not that I am taking anything away from the voluntary nature of Covenant's sacrifice when I say that to Foul he is little more than a tool. I say that because of the breaking of the law of death and Foul's mastery of the dead Kevin. If Foul were to have raised Covenant in this manner then he would indeed be nothing but a tool, and that was what the final part of Runes with 'Covenant' riding up to the gates of Revelstone led me to think. I felt the need to defend myself on that point because you dismissed my question as irrelevant. Not only that you mocked my entire question and did it in such a way that I looked like a buffoon for even asking it. Let me tell you the truth about the Creator, both yours and mine: He's bored. He's not good or evil. Those are concepts we ascribe to things because of how they effect our lives personaly. He doesn't care. Foul didn't even exist before he created him, and the only reason the creator does anything at all to help combat him is because he wants his creations to love him. He created Foul to be a villain and dumps misery and suffering upon him in abundance so that he will in turn be the bad guy so the people will then turn to him for help.
Maybe that doesn't have anything to do with your story, and maybe I am just upset because I am depressed, but you could have just ignored my question rather than mocking it. I idolized you. I'm not a stalker or some kind of psycho, I am just a fan, and an aspiring writer. I haven't included my e-mail address and I don't expect a response. I'll read your books because I enjoy them and anything that takes a little time out of the misery I go through on a daily basis is a boon, but personaly I think you are a jerk.
|
I wish I could remember your original question--or my response to it. And I wish that you had included an e-mail address, so I could send you a personal apology. It is not my intent to mock my readers. But sometimes my sense of humor gets a bit carried away. And sometimes I become impatient or vexed. That's not your fault, of course. But it does happen. Quite frankly, I use myself as a model for the Land's Creator. Since *I'm* not bored, I assume he isn't either. Please accept my regrets. (11/23/2006) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Kotenku: Mister Donaldson,
You've said it before that you tend to name characters based on whatever sounds good and pops into your head, but I've often wondered just why you happened to go with the name 'Gibbon' for the Raver, considering it also happens to be the name of a species of monkey. Were you aware of it at the time of writing? Was there any logic behind the choice of this name? Just what happened here?!
Thanks, and cheers,
Kotenku
|
I can't always explain my choices of names. Sometimes they just sound right to me. When that happens, I trust it. I learned long ago that it's a bad idea to censor my subconscious mind. Of course I was aware that "Gibbon" is a kind of monkey. But I'm still happy with the name. (11/25/2006) |
Todd: Hi Steve,
You recently answered a question about "showing" vs. "telling". Flaubert, I believe, said, "Dramatize, dramatize, dramatize". How does that fit into your beliefs re: writing?
Thanks
|
Of course, I'm no expert on Flaubert, so I'll have to speculate. But at a guess, I'd say that he uses "dramatize" to mean "showing". If I want you to know how a character feels, and I resist the impulse to just tell you, then my only recourse is to reveal (show) how that character feels through action and interaction: drama. None of this affects my "beliefs" as I've already expressed them. I want my stories to be as dramatic as possible; but since storytelling is, by definition, "telling," I try to make that work for me. (11/26/2006) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You may not want to answer this, but I don't think it is really a spoiler, more a question of construction: does "Fatal Revenant" end with a cliff-hanger the way "Runes" did? Also, thinking about this some, I don't believe you ended any of the previous Covenant books the way you ended "Runes". I believe you mentioned in a previous question that you had to end it there but it did make for a different feel, at least for me, to how the previous novels have left things when they ended. Oh well, as long as "The Last Dark" is not a cliff-hanger I'll be happy. Can't wait for October!
|
You're right: I don't want to answer your question. <grin> And you're right again when you observe that none of the previous "Covenant" books were constructed with cliff-hanger endings. (I did use cliff-hangers in "Mordant's Need." But none of the GAP books end the way "The Runes of the Earth" does.) Let me point out, however, that the construction of "The Second Chronicles" is very different than that of the first trilogy. Different stories require different storytelling methods. (11/26/2006) |
Captain Maybe: I've just finished watching the third season of 24 (only now because the BBC decided after day 2 that it was too expensive, damn them) and I realised that it reminds me a lot of my favourite series of books - the Gap sequence. It has that same breathless and brutal intensity, the convoluted plot and the reliance on technology; what it doesn't have is the depth of characterisation.
I had a vague recollection that the programme had been mentioned in the GI so I did a search: you said that the actress who played Teri Bauer could just possibly play Morn. Which suggests that you watch the show - do you (still)? What do you think of it and do you see parallels with your own work?
My second question is related, so I'll include it here. I also realised while watching 24 that something that film and TV can do very well is silence, the absence of anything happening, people just standing staring in shock, awe, grief, whatever. Prose can't do this (it seems to me) because there always have to be words on the page carrying the narrative forward. My question: How do you, as a writer, handle silences, pauses, absences of action?
|
I do watch 24. As a student of what I call long-form storytelling, Im interested in almost anything that promises to tell a coherent and interesting story in more than 42 minutes (or more than 242 minutes, for that matter). The problem with 24 is that it seldom delivers what it promises. More often, it conveys the sensation that the writers and directors are scrambling, even floundering, in a desperate attempt to stretch their story beyond its natural limits. The result is more and more implausibility as the episodes go by. (Just my opinion, of course.) Years ago, I followed Babylon 5 for much the same reason--and gave up on it when I began to believe that the wheels had come off. Every storytelling medium has its inherent advantages and disadvantages. Visual forms like film and theater are especially good at silences--and gestures--and action of all kinds--and (since these forms usually include sound) voices. (Of course, silence can be seen as a sub-set of sound, but thats not really the point here.) Images-with-sound allow the storyteller to communicate several messages simultaneously. They are not so good at managing emotional complexites--or at enlisting the imagination(s) of the audience. Its probably pretty obvious that I handle silences, pauses, absences of action by using those opportunities to delve into the hidden depths of my characters. (11/27/2006) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: We have been debating the change in your approach for evoking emotions from the earlier Covenant series to RUNES. However, rather than speculate I thought we could just ask you! Compare the followin from "The Wounded Land"....
Suddenly, Covenant's eyes were full of tears. They blinded him; he could not blink away visions of Saltheart Foamfollower- Foamfollower, whose laughter and pure heart had done more to defeat Lord Foul and heal the Land than any other power, despite the fact that his people had been butchered to the last child by a Giant-Raver wielding a fragment of the Illearth Stone, thus fulfilling the unconscious prophecy of their home in Seareach, which they had named Coercri, The Grieve.
All killed, all the Unhomed. They sprang from a sea-faring race, and in their wandering they had lost their way back to their people. Therefore they had made a new place for themselves in Seareach where they had lived for centuries, until three of their proud sons had been made into Giant-Ravers, servants of the Despiser. Then they had let themselves be slain, rather than perpetuate a people who could become the thing they hated.
Covenant wept for them, for the loss of so much love and fealty. He wept for Foamfollower, whose death had been gallant beyond any hope of emulation. He wept because the Giant standing before him now could not be one of the Unhomed, not one of the people he had learned to treasure. And because, in spite of everything, there were still Giants in the world. He did not know that he had cried aloud until Hollian touched him. "Ur-Lord. What pains you?"
"Giant!" he cried. "Don't you know me?" Stumbling, he went past Linden to the towering figure. "I'm Thomas Covenant."
"Thomas Covenant." The Giant spoke like the murmuring of a mountain. With gentle courtesy, as if he were moved by the sight of Covenant's tears, he bowed. "The giving of your name honors me. I take you as a friend, though it is strange to meet friends in this fell place. I am Grimmand Honninscrave." His eyes searched Covenant. "But I am disturbed at your knowledge. It appears that you have known Giants, Giants who did not return to give their tale to their people."
With Linden's receipt of Stave's profession of loyalty (arguably emotionally impactful) from "Runes" ....
Escorted by her friends, she approached Stave and bowed deeply, hoping that he would recognize the scale of her gratitude. However, the bow which he reurned to her resembled a farewell more than an acknowledgement. His manner conveyed the impression that for her sake he had turned his back on more things than she could understand.
She wanted to ask him how the Masters would respond to his profession of faith; but her throat was full of other words which demanded utterance.
Meeting his single gaze, she said with he whole heart, 'Thank you. I owe you more than I can ever repay.
'You've already done so much for me. You've been true ---' Her voice broke momentarily. 'I can't even begin to describe how glad I am ---'
Your earlier writing approach (I am NOT a writer) seems to directly connect the reader to the emotions being evoked. TWL and the Giants impact me more deeply than RUNES emotionally.
That doesn't mean I didn't think "Runes" was great - I did. But the writing seemed more designed to present the 'action' or 'discourse' and let the readers emotion flow thru (or not), whereas earlier writing seemed designed to pull emotion out. (Very effectively I might add!)
Is that a stylistic choice? An evolution of your writing style? Or simply my personal reaction to two different pieces not related to either of the above?
|
Tough question. (Bad dog. No bisquit.) And here I thought this was supposed to be easy. <rueful smile> In response, I want to pull my Don Quixote trick: get up on my horse and ride off on all directions. For instance, I want to observe that you are comparing unlike situations. (Almost by definition, Covenants first encounter with a Giant--after he thought that all of the Giants had been slaughtered, and Foamfollower died saving his life as well as the Lands--carries more of an emotional charge than Lindens validation by Stave.) And unlike characters. (The Giants have a very different emotional valence in these stories than the Haruchai do. And Covenant in the passage you quote has become a much more open--or less clenched--person than Linden is at the end of Runes.) Also I want to point out--mainly in self-defense <grin>--that much of what you quote from TWL is exactly the sort of prose my present editors would beg me to cut. (E.g. the passage you quote retells a big chunk of Giant history; and my editors would protest, But youve already told us that several times before.) And then theres the whole show v tell issue weve been discussing. But in addition to all that--well, the truth is that my writing *is* changing. Cant be helped. Ive made a very conscious effort to preserve the style of the first six Chronicles. But Im simply not the same person--or the same writer--who produced those books. I have strengths now that I lacked then--and Ive lost strengths that I had then. No matter what I do, I cant erase the effects (positive and negative) of the past 20+ years (not to mention the past 12+ books). And fighting against this fact can only paralyse me. So I suspect that what were dealing with here is evolution (or devolution, depending on your point of view <grin>) rather than stylistic choice. But my point of view is too subjective: in a sense, Im less qualified than you are to comment on such things. (11/27/2006) |
Garrett Pyke: One of the many things I enjoy about the Land is that good and evil are so well defined. Perhaps that is why it is such a wonderful escape from reality. But I find it especially interesting that you write evil so well---it is chilling, sometimes gruesome, potent and terribly real. In fact, I don't think I am a skilled enough writer to string together enough well-chosen adjectives or comparisions to approach describing how *evil* your depections of evil truly are. And the idea of the Despiser, an omniscient (or somewhat so) being who instead of a Christian God who loves us, despises us, builds my case. Do you think past experience inspires you to write evil so well, or is it something else?
Also, why would you name the Ravers after stages of enlightenment (assuming evil does not equal enlightenment)?
|
Approaching this in reverse order: Earlier in the GI, Ive discussed the names of the Ravers. Put simply, the human names (Sheol, Herem, Jehannum) express how other people think of the Ravers. The Ravers personal names (moksha, turiya, samadhi) express how they think of themselves. There are many ways in which I cant account for my abilities as a writer. The process by which I learned or developed them is too subjective (not to mention unconscious) for me to explain. But I do have a LOT of experience with evil that thinks of itself as good--which translates pretty easily to Evil that thinks of itself as Good. (11/30/2006) |
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.
Leslie Styles: I was wondering if you happened to have the word count for a few of your books, please?
The reason is simple enough, I'm currently working on a series of books (well the first of the series anyway, http://www.aeithar.info/FrontPage.htm ) and I'm trying to make a few comparisons of length and pacing with the various books in my collection. As your books form a large part of that collection, I thought I would see if you could help.
I'm aiming for fairly long books, 200,000 words each (107k done atm), and so pacing is a major consideration. I'm also interested to see how that length compares with other books.
Many thanks for your time.
|
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) |
Magnificat III: Hello. If you were to die before completing this new sequence of Covenant books do you feel that the earlier books could stand on their own without being incomplete as contrasted with for example The Lord of the Rings which would certainly be incomplete if Tolkien had died before finishing The Return of the King.
|
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) |
T. Cummins: Hello Stephen. Ill simply echo the good wishes and gratefulness that others have already presented to you. Ill just say that I feel very much the same way.
Here is a question that Im sure doesnt need answering but you may have an opinion or response in any case. After reading most if not all of the GI I realize that you probably havent wasted much mental energy on what Im about to ask.
Regarding the Moon of the Land. It occurred to me one day that celestial objects that make up the sky of the Land are similar in appearance (as theyve been described in the books) as those found in the sky of our own (real) earth. As I recall there is a mythology to the Lands creation that seems to explain the earth and sky in rather fanciful terms. What Im wondering is if the Lands Moon is an actual moon, a satellite of the Earth and therefore occupying space within the Earths gravitational field. If this is the case then is there an interplanetary space beyond the Lands Earth that might contain other planets, stars and possibly other lifeforms. (Uh oh. Ive stumbled into an X-files crossover. :-) I realize this is rather pointless but what the heck. For all I know the Last Chronicles might conclude with Foul being attacked by Martian war machines. Im sure we wouldnt see that coming.
Thanks.
|
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) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Has the cover art been completed for "Fatal Revenant" and any idea when it might be put on the web site?
|
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) |
Jeff: Mr. Donaldson,
(insert usual thanks for your work and availability here)
I just read that you're a bit bored with movie version talk, and I agree that the Gap books would film more easily...still, I think the Covenant books could make GREAT films, and I even know exactly how to do it, though I won't explain since I'm sure you don't want to read the very lengthy explanation of how. I will just say that the reason it is possible is the same reason that people talk about the visual aspects of your work even though you are a word-brained writer. So, the question, which is serious not just idle curiosity, is: How does one go about acquiring movie rights for a book? And I assume the cost for such rights is related to the author's commercial success?
|
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) |
Steve Brown: Thanks for taking the time to answer so many of our questions. You are simply the best!
On the Watch there is a question that has us chasing our tails...Where or What is Lindens reason to retrieve the Staff Of Law? Or how does she think it will help her find her son?
It does not appear to be in the text?
|
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.
Nathan R. Eddy: Do you take requests? Last month you responded to a question with the following: "On occasion, I've wished (vaguely) that I could write a supernatural horror novel. But I've never had any ideas for such a story."
I was reading a poll on the Watch about a Gap sequel/prequel. My opinion is that the Gap series is perfect as it is, and should not be revisited. I would much rather see you do something completely new, like a Stephen King-style horror story (or rather, a Donaldson-style horror story). Something that combines the gritty, dark realism of the Gap series with the fantastic, "supernatural" elements of your fantasy work. I would love to see your particular take on the dark, macabre aspects of What it Means to be Human. I'm sure you would manage to reveal something sublime and awe-inspiring.
Patiently waiting, with cash in hand, on whatever you decide to write next,
Nathan.
|
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) |
Pier Giorgio (Xar): Good day! I was reading the latest answers in the GI, and I came upon one that would seem to contradict what actually has happened before. In answer to a question by Mr. Daniel Wolf about how Linden's bullet wound would be duplicated in the Land, you said: "I'm not sure I can supply a "rational" explanation. But I feel strongly that guns don't belong in the Land (rather like technology in general), and Roger will not be wielding firearms if/when we encounter him again. As for Linden's bullet-hole: if you start from the assumption that she really is dead in the "real world," then the requirement that her physical circumstances must be duplicated in the Land disappears. Since she won't be going back to the "real world," there's no need for physical continuity."
However, in the Second Chronicles we actually saw an example of this replication of circumstances in Covenant's case: not only during the journey through Mt. Thunder did he suffer bruises and hurts that mirrored the ones Linden remembered on him when she had seen him going to the bonfire as a willing sacrifice to Joan, in the real world, but he was actually slain in the Land by a dagger-shaped lance of wild magic which struck in him the chest, providing the replication of the knife thrust that actually slew him in the real world.
On the other hand, Hile Troy's eventual death was never a fall from a building - but that might have to do with the circumstances of his summoning and with the essential transformation he underwent while still alive, which made him into a rather different being than the human Hile Troy from "The Illearth War".
So I suppose my question is (and I apologize if it is poorly phrased), does this mean that 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? So, to put it more clearly, that even if Linden is dead in the real world, she either might not experience any wound like a bullet hole, or she might experience a wound that *resembles* a bullet hole, but which could be caused by, for example, wild magic or another such Land-born weapon? And - if this is true, would the outcome (not wounded or wounded) depend on whether Linden manages to "transform" herself and "expand" in the Land like Covenant and Hile Troy did, or if she instead remains what she is?
Thanks!
|
OK, lets 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 Ive created) on this point. The problem arises, I suspect, from the fact that were 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, its simply *better* (in terms of the aesthetics of storytelling) if Covenants death in the Land (TPTP) mirrors his death in the real world. And then there are--well, lets pretend theyre Laws--which pertain to *meaning*. They involve the storytellers efforts to invest his/her story with emotional and/or symbolic resonance. This is where the transformations you mention become significant. Here Hile Troys example is more pertinent to Linden than Covenants is. After all, we could easily argue that Covenants 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 Troys 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 Covenants case, I managed to combine the two (which is always preferrable--when its 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 doesnt mean you can predict what will happen to Linden based on what has happened before. I wouldnt be telling this story if I didnt think I had something new to offer. (12/11/2006) |
Joshua Ubaldo: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks for answering my previous questions. I finally completed my collection of the first and 2nd chronicles after 5 years of searching. It seems that your books are in short supply here. I had just re-read The Wounded Land and was struck by one scene. When Lena, Atiaran and Trell helped Covenant in Andelain, was it out of forgiveness (finally) or was it out of the dire need of the Land that they were compelled? And I also read a review of Gilden-fire (where can i find that book?) which said that the book was not included in Illearth War because it cast Covenant's Unbelief in doubt. The review said that once Covenant returned to the Land, you affirmed that the Land was not a dream and that Covenant's Unbelief was renderred meaningless. what are your thoughts regarding this?
Did you intentionally put Hile Troy in the department of defense so that his existence can be denied by the government?
|
Hmm. Im having a little trouble sorting through all this. Lets break it down. 1) Lena, Atiaran, Trell: forgiveness or compulsion? Why cant 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 whats 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 Covenants Unbelief. But I dont 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 Ive never said anything like that. I dont consider Covenants Unbelief meaningless, and I dont 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 couldnt be traced by an ordinary civilian like Covenant. (12/11/2006) |
Vincent: -The darkness was so cold, so bitterly frigid that he could see his breath coalescing even in the pitch of the moonless night. He could feel it condensating as it left his lungs, then slipping between his chattering teeth like the forked tongue of a viper. This shadow less evening felt unnatural; tainted with cruelty and seemingly sentient malice.-
...lol...heya chief, just thought I'd toss ya a little exerpt from my current short story project: In Absence of Shadow. Just so you can get a peek at the new kid on the block so to speak. I'm not asking for criticism nor praise. I just like people to read my words; see what I see.
|
Vincent, Im exposing you like this because I think your paragraph raises an interesting point about storytelling and language. (In other words, youve 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 isnt a writer out there, from Shakespeare to King, Faulkner to McKillip, who cant 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 doesnt 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) |
Captain Maybe: Should 'This Day All Gods Die' not have a comma in it?
|
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) |
Patti McNamara: When will the Runes of the Earth be available in mass paperback?
|
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.
Joshua Ubaldo (paradox): Mr. Donaldson,
I just had a question involving your writing style. When you write, do you make an outline first as some "experts" say? Or do you let your characters weave the story for you?
We have an ongoing poll in the watch regarding the reality of the land. One opinion was that, in fact, the paradox of the land's reality was irrelevant by the second chronicles and some say that you made a mistake by making Lord Foul appear in the flames. what are your thoughts on this?
Another question about the martial arts. Do you participate in teaching shotokan?
Last question: I have just read "The man who fought alone." and I was wondering just how Sternway managed to sneak up on Sifu Hong? Although the book was very clear on how Anson got into the room, it was unclear how Anson actually managed to break Sifu Hong's neck in his sleep? Does ninjustsu actually play a part?
many thanks in advance...
|
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) |
Anonymous: Was Mhoram as a character fully "planned for" as a diamotetrical opposite to Covenant's unbelief or was that quality and his eventual lead role in TPTP and TIW more of a surprise that became more fully developed as the story began to unfold? Were any of Mhoram's characteristics / mannerisms / qualities based on real life acquantences or all just fictionaized? I can read over the sections in TPTP involving him and it never gets stale!
|
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) |
Ed from Phoenix: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
You may find this to be a silly question, but you've been kind enough to entertain more than a few silly questions for us across the years of this GI. I recall reading earlier that you put quite a bit of meaning into the name of Grimmand Honninscrave, but changed the name a little so as not to give too much away as to his eventual fate. You also mentioned that in an earlier draft of RotE, Mahrtiir had a different name (that you won't share with us).
If I remember right, Mahrtiir is a character who seeks to find meaning in his life through battle/conflict/adventure. The fact that a character with this direction in life has a name that sounds a lot like martyr seems like too good a fit to be a coincidence. I know I am probably dancing close to the line of a spoiler, and as such cannot expect too much of an answer, but I'm curious, was the connection I notice with his name intentional?
Thanks for everything,
Ed
|
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) |
Vincent: Do you find it helps to have a side project going when you are writing a novel? I thought it would be good to have something I can write on when I am stuck on my 'main' work, but I find that when I am having a block and can't write, I just plain can't write. *sigh* I'm waiting till I finish it to find a agent, though I have thought a few times of writing a short story to submit to a magazine, just to get something published, but my friends think it's best that I concentrate my work on my novel. What do you think? Do you think that having a short story in a genre specific magazine would help as far as getting my book published, or in getting a good agent?
|
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) |
Christopher H Lee: Many thanks for your books. The Cs of TC make up 90% of my Desert Island reading list. And now, my question:
As we see the early effects of global warming, with weather events becoming more violent but more sporadic (Indian monsoons, US rainfall, hurricanes etc.), bringing with them decreases in potable water and food sources but increases in pests and diseases, it almost feels as though we're experiencing the early days of the Sunbane. I'd love to have an idea of what is going through your mind as the real world begins to mirror your fictional one.
kind regards/chris..
|
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) |
MRK: I was intrigued by the passage very early in Forbidden Knowledge wherein Morn, experimenting with the zone implant control, accidentally activates the "Pain" control and the "Rest" control simultaneously, and the combination causes her to be "amorously aroused", let's say. What was your logic when you wrote this psychological alchemy? (since you can't hear my tone of voice I should say that I'm not being critical, merely curious)
Also, was Lena daughter of Atiaran named for Lena the violinist (or was it cellist?) in Joseph Conrad's novel Victory?
As far as I could tell, neither of these questions have been asked before so I apologize if I am mistaken.
thanks,
MRK
|
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) |
Todd: Hi Steve,
I hope your holidays are happy, and I wanted to thank you for your gifts (in the form of your novels) over the yeas. No other writer, aside from Tolkien, has given me more joy, satisfaction, etc. than you.
You're an inspiration not only to me, but many others as well. I hope that during the holidays you are more aware than ever of the great affection your readers have for you.
With much respect, great regard, and best wishes,
Todd
|
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) |
Kelly: On 27 Nov, your reply to a question about evoking emotion included, "-that much of what you quote from TWL is exactly the sort of prose my present editors would beg me to cut. (E.g. the passage you quote retells a big chunk of Giant history; and my editors would protest, But youve already told us that several times before.)"
I agree with Peter. That moment he quoted in TWL was very poignant, and it almost moved me to tears just reading that excerpt. The idea that an editor would want to cut that is beyond my comprehension. What you described there for Covenant is what we often experience when confronted with an emotionally charged situation. We recall past relevant memories, and they become part of our present response.
I understand that editors serve a purpose and can help correct many types of accidental mistakes/inconsistencies, but are you able to stop editors from taking such evocative prose out 100% of the time, or do you sometimes lose battles over such wonderful text?
Thank you for the GI and your wonderful stories.
|
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) |
Charles Adams: Hopefully you will not interpret this question as a push to impatiently advance on your work.
Fatal Revenant is in what sounds like the final stages of work by you, and we will hopefully see it sometime towards the end of next year. How much work and/or effort specific to the next book goes on during the cycle for this book? Or... do you put a specific period of time between finishing this book and starting the next book to recharge the batteries? Or of more interest... what is the defining point or transition for you that puts Fatal Revenant behind you and marks the beginning of your work on Shall Pass Utterly?
|
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) |
Ken (Durham UK): Stephen
Can I start by saying that I am a big fan of your work. I have read the 'Mordants need' books and as for the 'First' and 'Second' Chronicles, I have read them 3 times over now. The first time was when I was in my mid teens and the last time was a year ago at the age of 38, when I saw the 'Runes Of The Earth' advertised, reading all of the books again was like being re-united with old friends (Foamfollower, Bannor etc) on my last delve into covenants world, i felt that i enjoyed the whole thing on a different level, there was a lot of emotional content that went over my head the first time round. I have now read 'Runes' and thoroughly enjoyed it, (What a cliff hanger!!)
I am really looking forward to the next instalment.
Now can I be a little cheeky and ask you two questions, the first is an easy one.
Who do you admire amongst your fellow fantasy writers ( I have recently started reading Robert Jordan's 'The wheel of time' series, and am currently upto book 6)and do you read much of your genre from others? (That's already two questions, darn it)
Secondly
Do you think that the market for stories involving
'A hero-figure on a quest to defeat an impending doom in a another land, assisted by various characters and continually being attacked along the way by forces of evil'
will ever become over saturated, I personally hope not as I myself (Like thousands of others im sure) feel that I have a story inside me to write, and this is my favoured genre.
Finally thank you for being the kind of Author that is willing to put the time in to talk with his fans.
Thanks Ken.
|
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) |
Mike (NOT fom Sante Fe!) G: Steve-
You have talked at length about how your writing has changed over the years as you have matured, become a better writer, etc... and how that affects the overall tone and texture of the Covenant books. Your writing style has changed quite a bit. But how does that effect how you write Covenant as a character?
He is the constant around which the story revolves, so while he changes in the story as his experiences dictate they should (and I'm sure dying won't have helped his disposition much), his basic attitudes towards the Land and what must happen have to remain fairly similar. So how do you maintain that consistency 30 years down the road to get inside that character? Whatever inspirations in your life that helped you create Covenant are many years past, and yet you have to channel something of that back to write him as a character again, right?
As always, thanks for the time and thought you put into your answers for all of us.
|
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) |
Scott: Hi SRD-
I love your writing, and have read most of your books (several more than once). Thanks for the opportunity to throw you a question.
The thing is that fantasy writers, almost all of you, feel the need to throw in a poem every 20 pages or so. I am certainly the wrong person to comment on the quality of the poetry in question because I generally find it hard to "grok" poetry, but I've always found this aspect of fantasy a little annoying.... probably because I have such a hard time grokking it in the first place.
I suppose that the reason fantasy authors feel they are required to break into stanzas once in a while stems from Tolkein (prettymuch everything in the genre can be linked back to him in one way or another). And I assume the reason he did it is because so much of what inspired him- the myths that he drew from- are poetic in their original form.
So my questions are: do you feel this is an obligation, or do you do it because it feels right for your story? Do editors pressure authors to include poetry to fulfil the expectations of audiences (or do they try to limit poetry because it doesn't sell)? Are you aware of any modern authors who have tried to tell an epic fantasy tale in poem? It seems that Kazantzakis published a "sequal" to the Odyssey, but I have no idea if it was in poetic form. It seems like a story told in poem is a hard sell to modern audiences. Your thoughts?
|
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) |
Matt: Let me just quickly admit I have no exact quotes or references to back up anything I'm about to say. However, I'm pretty sure that on a number of appearances Foul implies that as long as he can escape the Arch of Time, he's certain to win victory over the Creator.
Assuming I'm right in recalling this...is this just misleading propoganda? Is Foul claiming this under the assumption that he'll have access to the White Gold? Or is there some other reason Foul might be guaranteed of victory?
For a stupider question, who's stronger between Mhoram and Kevin? I'd assume Kevin, but I really like Mhoram so I thought I'd make sure.
|
It's always been my understanding that "victory" for LF would be escape from Time. He can't "win victory over the Creator," any more than life can win victory over death (or vice versa). They are both Essential Principles of eternity: like light and dark, one has no meaning without the other. In the context of eternity, LF's "victory over the Creator" would be his escape from Time, which would necessarily include the destruction of the Arch, which would in turn destroy the specific instance of Creation that includes the Earth and the Land. Putting it as childishly as possible: "I broke your favorite toy, so I win." However, there are suggestions in "The Runes of the Earth" that LF may have raised his sights a bit (said the author shamelessly). Who is stronger, Mhoram or Kevin? Well, duh: Ben Grimm. Or, if I *must* try to give you a serious answer <sigh>, Kevin has more muscle (lore etc.) but Mhoram has more heart. (01/01/2007) |
Matthew Yenkala:
OK, I do not believe this has quite been covered in the GI, so here goes.
You are, very clearly, a writer, a wordsmith, a worker in prose. You have said over and over that it's what you are, storytelling is what you do, it's in your blood and bone.
You have stated that other forms of art--pictures, film, music--can affect and move you greatly. You have listed books and TV shows that you have enjoyed.
So my question is, have you EVER dabbled with any type of creative expressin beyond writing (and perhaps martial arts)? Painting, singing, kazoo blowing?
Artful and creative as many of your GI answers are, btw, I don't think they count, as it's still writing!
Just a lighthearted question for the holiday season...and I wish you the best for that season, btw.
Genuine Love
Matteo Yenkala morphiaflow@yahoo.com
Phoenix, AZ
|
At one time in my life, I sang a great deal. In fact, if I could have an imaginary life to go along with my real one, I would love to be an opera singer--as long as I could do it without the performance anxiety. (Ive also wanted to be a pianist, but thats even less realistic. Lousy small-motor coordination. And in the long run playing the piano would probably give me less emotional satisfaction than singing.) Upon occasion--he admitted with some embarrassment--I still sing along with operas while Im working. (01/03/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: OK, you're coming up on having answered 1500 questions as part of this "interview". Good job and thanks! You've mentioned (in one of your numerous other answers) that internal consistency in your stories is very important and you have huge amounts of notes to keep everything straight for you. However, when you answer some of these questions (which can be very detailed in what they want you to relate as far as why a character acted the way they did or the rules/laws of how things work in the imagined realm) how do you manage to keep that consistency in your answers (without constantly referring to said notes)? I'm not saying you *haven't* been consistent - I probably don't pay close enough attention to the minutae of some of your answers to know if anything you said in answer to one question doesn't jive with another answer (or the published text) - but I'm curious if this worries you or if you just do the best you can wherever you happen to be when answering our endless questions? Thanks again!
|
I suppose its about the context of the question. Or maybe it has more to do with my mood. Ive been known to check my facts rather obsessively when I answer GI questions. At other times, however, I just sort of wing it, trusting to my own understanding of my work to supply consistency as needed. You could say that different questions tweak me in different ways. But I do sometimes find myself taking a position that I suddenly realize I cant defend: then I really get serious about consistency. In short: sometimes I worry about it; sometimes I dont. (01/03/2007) |
Steve: Hello Mr.Donaldson. I got your reply to my April 2006 post about the use of obscenity in Runes of the Earth. I truly appreciate the attention you have given this. I am also quite impressed with the thorough detail in which you responded to my protest. In the last paragraph of your response you mentioned that you would have been "lying" if you allowed Barton Lytton to exist in your book without obscenity.
"So I ask you: what would the effect be if I "cleaned up" Barton Lytton; if I made him less offensive in his conduct, therefore more comfortable to read about? Wouldn't that constitute *lying*? Wouldn't that imply that human evil isn't *really* as bad as we all know it is?" (04/02/2006)
My question is this: How can you justify your statement to me in light of the incredible success of the previous Chronicles (which had no such obscenity)? You made Thomas Covenant one of the most memorable and "real" characters that has ever existed on the written page (without using such obscenity). Your readers understood perfectly well how evil Covenant's human nature was without obscenity. You found other creative avenues of description and THAT was the beauty of it all! I know that you have used obscenity in other books, but I still hold to my position that "Covenant" does not need it. In fact, I would suggest that the quality of the previous Chronicles were exemplified in their lack of obscenity.
In closing, I love your books and I just wanted to say thank you very much for all the hard work you are putting into the Last Chronicles. Differences aside, I would like to wish you and your family the very best during the holiday times. Merry Christmas to you Mr.Donaldson. Hope to hear from you soon.
|
Thank you for your good wishes. I dont want to prolong this discussion because I doubt that well ever agree on it. (Which is not a criticism of either of us: your opinions are just as valid as mine.) But I feel compelled to observe that when you compare what I was able to do with Thomas Covenant and what I did with Barton Lytton, youre comparing, well, apples and oranges (to coin a phrase <sigh>). According to Karl Marx, Differences in degree become differences in kind. In this case, the difference Im referring to is one of narrative space/room/pages. Creating and developing Covenant, I had (literally) hundreds of pages to work with. I could afford to deploy a large amount of material to dramatize (show rather than tell) his nature. With Lytton, I had, what? a grand total of ten pages? Fifteen at the outside? (I havent checked the exact number.) As a result, I didnt have many options. The circumstances of the story required me to work efficiently--or *crudely*, if you prefer. Give me another thirty pages, and I could have approached the character differently. But I didnt have that kind of room. Doubtless your central objection remains: Lyttons rhetoric--and Lindens response to it--violates the *tone* that youve come to expect from the Covenant books. If that statement of your position is accurate, you have six books worth of justification for your expectations. In response, I can only say that I have constructive reasons for violating the tone of what has gone before. In fact, violating the tone of what has gone before has been essential to my intentions ever since I decided to move beyond the first trilogy. The Sunbane certainly violated the former tone of the Land. Lyttons rhetoric prepares the way (metaphorically or symbolically rather than literally) for some of the things Im doing in The Last Chronicles. (01/03/2007) |
Jason D. Wittman: Hello again, Mr. Donaldson. Hope all is well.
In your previous posts on the GI, you have stated that you only come up with the information that you *need* in order to tell a story (for instance, you haven't written up indiviual biographies for each of the Old Lords because that would be irrelevant to the story you're writing). My question is: do you have to make a conscious effort to find a happy medium between too much information and too little? I'm asking this because I saw a showing a short time ago of Carl Theodor Dreyer's 1932 film *Vampyr* (supposedly based on J. Sheridan LeFanu's *Carmilla*, though I failed to see any but the vampire connection), and it frustrated me because it made very little sense. There was some disturbing imagery in it--one scene, which simply shows a door opening by some unseen impetus, was particularly disquietening--but for the most part, I was too confused to be scared. I understand the concept of withholding information in true (as opposed to slash & gore) horror--the monster around the corner is always scarier than the one in front of you--but in *Vampyr*, Dreyer was withholding *too* much. As a friend of mine excellently put it, "The job is to disturb the audience, not bewilder it." (One horror film that works very well with a minimum of information is 1962's *Carnival of Souls*, a low-budget flick that has developed a cult following.)
The good thing about this is that the one scene with the opening door inspired me to write a story that takes place on an abandoned sailing ship (so I can completely buy your story of a can of Lysol inspiring a scene in *The Power That Preserves*). But I'm curious to hear your thoughts about this. How closely do you have to monitor the information that you put in your stories?
Thank you for your time.
Jason
|
I suspect that every communicator--from artists to politicians--faces some version of this dilemma. Different intentions impose different requirements, but the essential problem is always present: what, and how much, to put in; what, and how much, to leave out. I like to use the analogy (in fact, I like it so much that it almost certainly occurs more than once in the GI) of walking vs driving. Someone (the writer) who walks past a tree sees a very different tree than someone (the reader) who drives past it. Yet it is the writers challenge to create a tree that the reader can both see and appreciate. So exactly how many leaves and branches *does* that tree need? Too many, and they blur. Too few, and the tree loses its character. In practice, this is always a judgment call--and some communicators will always display better judgment than others. (I havent seen Vampyr, so I cant comment.) As Ive said often, I only create what I need; but perhaps I should modify that assertion. In terms of my tree analogy: when I say that I only create what I need, Im talking about *branches*. Races. Continents. Histories. Even characters and plot developments. But if were talking about how many *leaves* a particular branch should have--put crudely, how many words I should throw at a particular scene or landscape or interaction or emotion--my first-draft answer is: As many as possible. Describe as much as possible. Explain as much as possible. Reveal as much as the exigencies of the story permit. I dont want to risk blocking my creative flow, or missing the crucial detail which brings everything to life, by (prematurely) restricting the number of leaves a branch can hold. Later, of course, I prune. Sometimes I prune a lot. But I would rather begin with the (easily corrected) mistake of too much than the (potentially fatal) mistake of too little. So do [I] have to make a conscious effort to find a happy medium between too much information and too little? Absolutely. Not to mention constantly. And I believe that every communicator has to do the same. My approach may be idiosyncratic, but the problem Im trying to solve is universal. (01/03/2007) |
Vincent:
I've come across a literary agency that offers a free first chapter critique, up to 20 pages, and I was wondering if you think it would be helpful to submit my work to such a critique? I have a feeling that much like hunger or wisdom, criticism may indeed be a fine thing, but who would willingly subject themselves to it? (Heh, well the wording isn't exact, but I'm sure you recognize Foamfollower's remark.)
Have you ever read the Misson Earth decology?
As always it is a great pleasure to share my thoughts with you Mr. Donaldson. I hope this holiday season finds you happy and well.
|
Two things. 1) Everyone needs criticism. Call it feedback if you prefer. Without it, we dont learn. In real life, life itself provides constant feedback (or criticism, if you happen to be feeling depressed <grin>). In creative efforts, we often have to go looking for feedback. While Im working on a book, I go to extreme lengths to acquire the kind of useful criticism I know I need; and I try to keep my eyes open for the kind of criticism I *dont* know I need. 2) The literary agency you describe. This sounds like a scam to me. *If* its a scam (I emphasize if), it goes like this. Your first 20 pages show tremendous promise. We want to read the whole book. Unfortunately, time constraints require us to charge a fee. Please send us the book with your check for $1500. If you choke up the money, the next response is, Were very excited about your novel. Unfortunately, it isnt publishable the way it is. Based on what weve read, we dont think you have the skills to do the necessary rewriting. When we receive your check for $7500, well do the rewriting for you. And if youre still going along with it, the next response is, You now have a wonderful book. In fact, were so excited about it that we want to publish it ourselves. Well need $20,000 to start the process, but your royalties will repay you many times over. And if youre *still* going along with it, you may receive an actual book. In fact, you may receive every single copy of the book--none of which will ever be sold because youre dealing with a vanity press instead of a real publisher. A reviewer once observed that one of L. Ron Hubbards Mission Earth books was satirical, and concluded, It is written with a disdain for syntax so global as to suggest a satire on the very possibility of communication through language. (01/10/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I know you have stated your <snicker> love of questions about magic, but I just have to ask this.
Why is it when Linden uses the staff of law, the fire emitted from the staff is yellow rather than the blue fire that was emitted when used by a lord? Does it have to do with the weilder of the staff, or the spirit of the weilder? I also wondered if this is an effect of linden wearing the ring but not actively employing the wild magic too.
Thanks again for all you do.
Perry Bell
|
Several reasons (although the presence and/or use of white gold is not among them). Of course, as you surmise, the spirit of the wielder is crucial. And Linden *made* her own Staff: after Berek, the Lords inherited the Staff. In addition, the Lords had lore: Linden does not (a detail not to be underestimated). (01/10/2007) |
Mark A. Morenz: Hello Stephen:
As always, many kudos and thanks for your creative endeavors (including this website's interactive content)!
Two Parts:
1-As I have had the opportunity to work with editors a bit (re: short stories), I've noticed a couple of biases that I'd be interested in hearing your feedback about:
A bias towards Realism versus Expressionism, even in spec fic-- Once I attempted a non-dictionary usage of a word (e.g. the girl "frumped" her face) and the editor refused to publish the short story until I changed it; although I'm willing to bet that more people would recognized how I used the word than how the dictionary defines it. How much leeway should an author be given to create their own idioms?
Love of language versus love of communicating-- The bias towards "love of language", it seems to me, leaves editors favoring (and excusing) longer, more baroque passages even when fewer words can communicate the scene. For the sake of argument, let's say that more words aren't needed for clarity.
2-Also, after a few acceptances, I've taken to moving past the "submitting to the semi-pro ezines" stage and have begun the "investigating literary agents for queries" stage. And not just for short-stories, but also for my novel as well. Any thoughts as you recall that stage in your career? I always pay careful attention to the advice (both implicit and explicit) found in your answers.
Can't wait for FR. Be well!
:-{)]
Mark M.
|
1) a) Writers have to *earn* the right to violate conventional usage. You have to prove that youre a master of the normal before you can get away with the unusual. And you have to create a rhetorical context in which the unusual fits. If your editors wont let you do something unusual, that may be because you havent convinced them youre the master of your effects. b) Clarity is by no means the *only* dimension of communication--or the only requirement of storytelling. Words have connotation as well as denotation. And what Ill call resonance is important. Many are the situations in which mere clarity reduces content. Its the absolute minimum that I demand of myself--and expect from other writers. Im always striving (or hoping) for more. Meanwhile, your experience with editors contradicts mine. As far as I can see, love of language is dying out. 2) I didnt go through investigating literary agents until after the first six Covenant books had already been published. Since I was extremely successful at that time, I could have had any agent I wanted. And by then I knew *many* writers, so I had both the freedom and the opportunity to spend a year sifting reputations before I settled on a candidate. Unless modern publishing changes dramatically, circumstances like mine will not recur. As a result, my experience isnt germane to anyone else. (01/10/2007) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: So what are some of the perks of being a famous writer? Any drawbacks?
|
What? There are perks? Why wasnt I told about this? But seriously. As in so many things, the good news is the bad news. Success brings validation (and who doesnt need validation these days?). Therefore success is also seductive: it lures attention away from the quality of the work and toward the reception of the work. Put another way: success feeds ego--and ego isnt conducive to artistic integrity. Writers (in fact, artists of all kinds) who lose the distinction between work and ego--who strive for success rather than for excellence--are doomed. (Of course, I dont mean *financially* doomed. But money is a pretty damn empty measure of excellence. And ultimately money is a pretty damn empty form of validation.) (01/10/2007) |
Dave: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks again for your writing and answering all our questions. Recently, I had a craving to read the First and Second Chronicles again. Couldn't find them in the basement, so I went out and ordered a new set of paperbacks. Hope you still benefit from the sales.
But the artist that does the covers - hope he/she isn't getting overpaid. Here's my question - does the artist usually read the book before creating the cover illustrations? The reason I'm asking is that the cover of The White Gold Wielder has a picture of a man and a woman, I'm assuming Covenant and Linden. They're standing on a plateau looking out over a valley. The man (Covenant?) as his ring on the left hand, which is around the woman's shoulder (Linden?). And in his right hand, he's holding the new Staff of Law. If I remember the ending of the book correctly, the event depicted isn't exactly in the timeline.
Are artists given this much leeway in their work?
|
Where cover art and leeway are concerned, there is enormous variety. Some publishers refuse to let their artists read the book: the art director describes the image/scene he/she wants, and the artist attempts to do satisfactory work. Some publishers own stock portfolios of pre-painted art, and they simply grab something out of the pile when they need a cover. In contrast, some artists will not do a cover without reading the book; and they often insist on choosing their own images/scenes. Lester del Rey considered cover art paramount: he let the artist do whatever the artist felt like--and they he changed the book to suit the cover. Some editors only care about the artists reputation: the specific art is a trivial consideration. In the case of the cover you describe, the editor asked the artist (Michael Herring) to create one vast painting which could be cut into six panels for the six Covenant books; and what the editor wanted in the original painting was symbolic resonance and variety rather than literal accuracy. But speaking *very* broadly: editors consider an evocative image/scene far more important than a literal one. Hence the many inaccuracies youve observed. (You may be interested to know that Darrel K. Sweets original cover for WGW depicted Marie Antoinette, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and a rhinoceros confronting Hawkman. First I wept. Then I screamed. Fortunately the success of TOT gave me the clout to insist on changes.) (01/10/2007) |
Kat: I read all the Covenant books and thought they were great but then I read your recent comments on The Chronicles of Narnia and thought you were totally nonsensical, I like you had my brain mutated by those Lewis books but they still affect me whilst you have said that they bored you now, this is strange considering you have a whole essay 'Books That Mattered' on this very website praising the Narnia stories.
I thought the Peter Jackson adaptation of Tolkien was an abomination. The homunculus visage of Elijah Wood was like a cataract on the books for me. I heard you didn't like the films either.
Do you agree with Larry Niven's idea that magic is a nonrenewable resource like any other in nature? I always thought this was an intriguing notion. Did this influence your writing the Thomas Covenant books in any way?
|
I've cut out quite a few of your questions. I only have so much time to spend on the Gradual Interview, and I need to give other readers a turn. Feel free to re-post as many questions as you want (although I never guarantee that I'll answer them <rueful smile>). First, "Narnia." I told the truth in "Books That Made A Difference". Those books transformed my imagination--when I was in junior high school. I might not be who I am today if I hadn't read them. But when I re-read them as an adult (30 years ago?), I found them preachy--and far too short to be really engaging. And when I read them aloud to my children (20 years ago?), we were all bored. Looking back, I think that I was transformed because Lewis showed me storytelling possibilities that I had never encountered before: an escape from the constrictions of missionary life without violating missionary beliefs (which I would have found too threatening at that age). Those possibilities suited me in profound ways that I could not have understood at the time. But I can't enjoy the books now. They're too short: they don't give me room to settle in. Their preachiness makes them seem condescending. And from time to time, Lewis' storytelling is outright *bad*. Just one example to show you what I mean. Lewis doesn't consistently protect the integrity of his "sub-creation" (Tolkien's term). Whenever he feels like it, he violates his own world by bringing in material from other sources (e.g. Father Christmas). These violations don't *fit*: they disrupt the necessary "suspension of disbelief". Naturally I don't expect to persuade you. I don't even *want* to persuade you. My opinions are just my opinions. I'm simply explaining my position. Second, Jackson's LOTR films. I had two advantages. One, I know that no movie can replicate a book: different media impose different content. ("Harry Potter" may be an exception; but I'm not going to get dragged into that discussion.) I went to see Jackson's films *knowing* that they could not tap Tolkien's springs of emotion and imagination. Two, I expected the films to be BAD. Abysmal. A travesty. So I was pleasantly surprised, even delighted, to find that the films are very well made on their own terms--and that they show real respect for their source material (unlike, say, Lynch with "Dune"). From my perspective, Jackson did what he could--which turned out to be a lot more (and better) than we had any right to expect. I don't read Niven, so I wasn't aware of his ideas. But I've made it clear in the GI that I think entropy rules. (Why else do my characters get so tired when they expend power?) In the context of "The Chronicles," magic is a nonrenewable resource--in the same sense that *sunlight* is a nonrenewable resource. Sure, our sun is burning itself out. But humankind may very well make itself extinct many millions of years before dwindling sunlight becomes a problem. I think of Earthpower (and even wild magic) in the same terms. (01/17/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I have seen several questions posted regarding Lindens need for the staff, but I have a question that hasnt been asked. You are probably tired of the questions about the staff which seems to have exploded onto the site recently, but here it is..
I have re-read every TC book (should be a staple in every household) and the original staff had carvings on it, even the medal heels. The new staff (created by Linden) didnt have the carvings but the heels did because they were the same ones retained by Bannor after TC destroyed the original staff with wild magic.The carvings on the heels however are some kind of symbols? Either symbols, or possibly words (this was never named in any of the books), would it be possible for the meanings of these words or symbols to be translated by the haruchai or by the giants if they appear? Also, could those carvings mean anything that could HELP Linden?
Thanks again for all you do! I cant wait till Fall 2007!
Perry Bell
|
There are times when I really want to urge you guys to get a life. <rueful smile> Dont you have better things to think about? (Whether or not I do myself is an open question.) Its safe to assume that everything about those iron heels (maybe I should have called them bands since Vain was able to get them on his wrists) contributes to their power, or to their role in the Staffs power: the composition of the iron, the way it was forged, the engraved (or stamped, or cast) symbols/runes/pictographs. But I wouldnt expect the Giants or the Haruchai to be able to translate the markings. None of those people have ever had access to the Lords Lore. (And where did the Lords *get* that Lore? Anyone?) And I certainly wouldnt expect the *author* to provide a translation, since he tries so hard to avoid being literal about magic. But will the symbols/carvings/whatever *help* Linden? How could they not? Theyre important to what the Staff of Law *is*. And (ooh, dj vu) she *needs* the Staff. (01/17/2007) |
Brian Matthews: So, after D&A of FR, what do you do then? Relax with a challenging round of progressive hopboard? Take a well earned vacation, and not just from writing? Or run around the city yelling, "Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last." <grin>
|
One of the (smaller) frustrations of being a writer is that you dont get to feel DONE with a book. The work doesnt end in a cathartic apotheosis: it seems to dribble on indefinitely. Last minute editorial suggestions. Copy-editing. Proofreading. Cover copy. Press releases. Book tours. After a while, you (or I, in this case) feel frantic to just GET IT OVER WITH. But there *is* a break--a potential vacation--surrounding D&A. Of course, the time spent waiting to hear whether my editors will officially approve the latest draft isnt very relaxing. Once my editors announce their satisfaction, however, the pressure is off for a while. Which in my case means that its time to tackle All Those Things Ive Been Putting Off. (A change is as good as a rest.) And get more sleep. I know, I know: that doesnt sound like much of a vacation. Or even a celebration. But I already spend too much of my time alone. I need the right people to celebrate--or take vacations--with. And their schedules dont always mesh well with mine. (There *are* other dimensions to this issue--but I value my privacy.) (01/17/2007) |
Debbie R: Mr Donaldson
I am fascinated by the idea of aliantha and am wondering how you got the idea of the flavor that you describe. I can't help but wonder if there would be a way to make aliantha flavored candy out there somehow!!
I also have to tell you that the mirror of her dreams got my sister hooked on you as an author about 8 years ago, and I am so proud that I passed along the "addiction" for you wonderful work..
Last question I promise.. do you ever do book tours and if so would you please consider coming to Alaska?? I promise to get my husband to take you salmon fishing if you will come.. yes that is a bribe of sorts
Just started the Runes of the Earth, as usual I am hooked again!!
|
Some ideas have explicit etiologies. Others (like the flavor of aliantha) seem to just happen. My experience of them is that they are generated by the act of writing: they are, in a sense, given to me by my story (or by my efforts to find the right language for my story). So: I dont think of a flavor and then try to describe it. I just try to put words together in ways that feel right. Then one thing leads to another--and I just keep going. Often I dont think things like, Thats actually a pretty cool idea, until long afterward (e.g. during revision). As Ive said before, I dont choose whether or not I do book tours, or where they go when I do them. (Of course, I *could* refuse to do them at all. But that would make my publishers unhappy: a bad thing for a writer. If I say yes, they decide where and how they want to spend their money.) Alaska seems a pretty unlikely destination (not enough people). And the prospect of salmon fishing would actively induce me to stay away. <grin> Not my idea of fun. (01/17/2007) |
Phillip: Once again, thank you for daring to do what no other author does, facing a veritable onslaught of questions from fans online and daring to answer many of them.
Recently I've been reading through a lot of the fantasy novels of Fred Saberhagen (Swords and Lost Swords.) If I were to classify my attitude towards them, I'd probably consider them "guilty pleasures," i.e. books that are interesting enough to grab my imagination and make me read quickly to the very end (seemingly after I get the first couple of chapters out of the way), but with very little that makes me think something like "Wow! What a tour de force!" at the end of the novel. That definitely makes his books above average according to my experience of them, I neither get bored with his writing nor do I ever feel that the stories he present aren't worth being taken seriously, but on the other hand what I've read doesn't have an effect that stays with me like the authors whose works I admire most. (Here's where I pathetically assure you that you're the best and beg for you to send us the rest of The Last Chronicles as quickly as possible.) Anyhow, I happened to run across this blurb from you on one of these books.
"Fred Saberhagen has always been one of the best writers in the business." -- Stephen R. Donaldson.
After I read that, I spent a bit of time thinking about why I prefer your books (and those of authors such as Gene Wolfe, Tolkein, and Ursula Le Guin) to his. I identified two charicteristics that I really enjoy but which seem to be less prominent in Saberhagen's works than in those of other authors I like such as yourself. These would be character who change over time in response to meaningful events in the story and fictional worlds and cultures that feature a lot of diversity and detail that adds up to a realistic whole. In fact it has always surprised me that you have several times spoken about your "economy" when coming up with the little details that make The Land so realistic; you certainly give the impression that the details of The Land's history and culture are very precise if unspoken.
Anyhow, I went through all of this to ask this fairly "simple" question: what particular aspects of Mr. Saberhagen's writings do you find admirable?
|
Ive known Fred for many years. What I admire most is his craftsmanship. Hes never written a stupid book. He may never have written a stupid paragraph. That kind of conscientious intelligence is rarer than you might think. It is certainly rarer than it ought to be. (01/17/2007) |
Kirk: Dear Steve,
First off I'd like to say am a huge fan of your work and it has touched me deeply. I have a "just for fun" question that I don't think has been asked yet and may give us some insight into your character as an author. My question is this, if you had a "magic ticket" that would allow you to visit any place or anyone, from any era in the land you created in your covenant books, would you use it? If so, who would you want to talk to and why? Or where would you most want to visit?
Myself I would actually like a crack at Lord Foul (under very controlled and safe circumstances *grin*) to find out what makes him tick and why he feels to need to be so evil just for the sake of being evil. Other than being pissed about being locked away in the land. Why doesn't he just decide to make the best of things, if for no other reason then to make existance tolerable? Obviously this would spoil the need for an antagonist but it would be interesting to know.
Anyway keep up the good work! Looking forward to the rest of the final chronicle books.
Regards,
Kirk
|
I wouldn't use the ticket. I'd give it to someone else. I've already had--or am having--the "E-ticket ride". If you doubt me, remember that *language* is essential to my experience of the story, and of everything that the story contains. I don't think that LF is "evil just for the sake of being evil." I think that (in his case, anyway) what we choose to call "evil" is driven by rage at being imprisoned, contempt for his prison, and despair at the possibility that he might not escape. The poor guy is probably tortured by the sheer *unfairness* of his plight. What did he do to deserve this? After all, it is his nature to be the Creator's opposite and/or antagonist. But if you ask him why he does what he does, you probably won't get a straight answer. He'll be too busy sneering at you. <rueful smile> (01/23/2007) |
Hesham: Hello Mr Donaldson,
Would like to say that all the Covenant Books have influnenced my way of seeing the world greatly. You certainly have a deep understanding of the human mind and the concept of despair and how a being reacts to it. My question is " does your writing put forward the concept that everything in life is shades of grey rather then black or white"? And because of this does it allows you to delve into the depths of the characters and situations you create?
Cheers
Hesham
|
Well, life is nothing if not ambiguous. Everything can be seen as shades of grey. On the other hand, life is always "in the eye of the beholder." In fact, one could argue that it is *exclusively* in the eye of the beholder. But to try to answer your question more directly: I don't think in terms of "shades of grey" when I write. In most cases, but especially when I'm working on "Covenant," I think about contradictions and paradoxes. (Just one obvious example: the "failure" of the quest for the One Tree in "The One Tree" is both a defeat *and* a victory. Brinn's fall enables him to bring down the Guardian. The fact that Covenant and/or Linden can't get a branch of the One Tree opens the door for a different kind of victory later.) For me (and I'm *only* speaking for myself here), this way of looking at my characters and situations is more useful than seeing shades of grey. (01/24/2007) |
drew: Hello Mister Donaldson, I'd like to ask you a question about Libraries.
How do you, as an author, feel about Libraries?
Couldn't they be concidered an early version of an MP3 file sharring website?
What I mean is this: Runes of the Earth is now available at most libraries...and although that consists of a lot of sales, how many people are going to read each book? I'd say a couple of dozen would be a safe bet-that's a couple of a dozen sales that didn't happen.
Now I realize that as an author, your only goal isn't books sales, and it must be pleasing at least to know that more people have read your books than copies that are sold...I just wanted your oppinion on this. (Shold I feel guilty the next time I read the GAP series from my local library?)
|
On a personal, idiosycratic, and even quixotic level, I've never actually liked libraries. But I approve of them wholeheartedly. Anything that promotes reading in general, and the reading of my books in particular, I consider good. Libraries make books available to people who--for a whole host of perfectly good reasons--either wouldn't or couldn't read them otherwise. (01/24/2007) |
Ed: Mr. Donaldson,
I was persusing the information available about you and your works on Wikipedia (which, by their information, we share the same birthday - May 13). One of the links there is to a page of manuscripts held by Kent State. There is an interesting picture on the page of information about the Illearth War (an illustration for the French edition: http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/literature/prose/donaldson/donald3.html).
I understand you generally have little control over how translations and illustrations are handled, but could you provide any insight as to how that picture relates to the story of The Illearth War?
Pondering,
Ed from Illinois
|
I can't explain the relationship because there isn't one. The French (in this case, the publisher J'ai Lu) can be pretty high-handed. They wanted a "commercial" cover; they didn't want to spend any money; they already owned the French rights to some Boris Vallejo art; so they just slapped a babe in a chain bikini on more than one of my books. J'ai Lu is the same publisher who published "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" as "The Chronicles of Thomas the Incredulous," and who translated "Saltheart Foamfollower" as "Briny the Pirate". Later Presses de la Cite whacked "Mordant's Need" into a trilogy for no apparent reason. Now many French readers think I'm an idiot. <sigh> I don't have "little control" over any of this. I have none. (01/24/2007) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: I've always been intrigued regarding your service as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. Why go through the hassle of obtaining a conscientious objector deferment, when you could have claimed your student status?
Dave
|
Back in those days, "student status" was only good through college, although it was sometimes (often?) extended through graduate school. But it was only a *deferment*, not an exemption. The draft could always get you later. And then there were the moral issues.... On the down side, the Selective Service only, well, selected a portion (a third? a quarter? I forget) of non-objectors; but they drafted 100% of the young men who had been granted C.O. status (although "officially" no one ever admitted that this was true). In effect, being drafted was punishment for objecting to the war. Hence my two years in a bottom-of-the-barrel job in a public hospital. Curiously, working in a hospital was only one of the "approved" jobs for a C.O.. Another was--I swear I'm not making this up--working in a dairy. God knows why. (01/25/2007) |
Vincent: Hello again sir. Thank you for taking the time to read my little bit of work and respond to me.
It's not enough to be a good writer anymore. You are a great writer, yet your sales don't reflect the magnitude of your ability, is that due to your agent, or publisher do you think? Or is it more of an issue of your work being a bit darker and laced with more mature issues and vocabulary than a Harry Potter, or Eragon? Not to dispairage either of those books or writers, or any others for that matter, but do you think you'd sell more if you geared your novels towards the mid-teen group? I'd hate to see you do such a thing because I enjoy your work as it is, but I also hate seeing your newest hardcover for sale at my local grocery store in the bargain bin. It smacks of disrespect to me, but you can rest assured my friend that I bought all six copies and gave them as christmas gifts to my closest...'literate' friends.
|
These are mysteries. If any publisher (or even agent, or publicist) knew what makes a book sell (or not), every book published would be a bestseller--and nothing else would ever see print. Writers like, say, just picking an example at random, me--or Patricia McKillip--or Tim Powers--or Steven Erikson--would be entirely screwed. *Fortunately* the reasons why one book takes off and another doesnt defy explication. Thus theres hope. If I were capable of aiming my work at, say, a younger audience, the results might well be disastrous in every conceivable way. One reason, I think, that commercial success cant be predicted (and if you doubt me, just look at who J. K. Rowlings US publisher is: a sure sign that no one expected her extraordinary success) is a factor I choose to call the zeitgeist: loosely translated, the spirit of the times. Sometimes *when* a book is published determines its success. A good example is Segals Love Story, a load of unrelieved tripe which nevertheless became a MONSTER bestseller in the early 70s--and which has now completely vanished from the public consciousness (taking its author with it). 50 years from now, only the most dessicated of literary historians will even know that Love Story was ever published. Why? Because Love Story just happened to catch the zeitgeist at exactly the right moment. Then the zeitgeist moved on, and Love Story immediately sank into its proper oblivion. The way I see it, the success of the Covenant books in the early 80s had little or nothing to do with their merits (real or imagined). After all, no one in his/her right mind could have predicted that long, dark books about leprosy and despair would become world-wide bestsellers. No, I believe that the first six books just happened to catch the zeitgeist. Now the zeitgeist has moved on. The good news is that Im still here (unlike Segal), writing books and selling them. Ah, the bargain bin. What publishers call remainders. Always a sad thing for the author, but probably inevitable considering how modern publishing works. In order to have enough stock to meet an unpredictable demand, publishers pretty much have to make too many copies. Then the book comes out in some version of paperback, the hardcover market immediately dries up, and the publisher is stuck with X amount of extra stock. Eventually the books are dumped into the bargain bins as remainders. (01/25/2007) |
Darrin Cole: Hey Mr D,
I noticed in an earlier answer you spoke about the danger of Covenant becoming a static carrier, though in my opinion several thousand years as the arch of time could go either way, causing extreme change or unbelievable static in Covenant.
My question is their danger of Linden also becoming static and might their be further perspective changes. I would be quite happy with Linden as the central character for the rest of the chronicles, she certainly has the depth, still it could be interesting (and I am hoping your going their)to see what you do with Jeremiah.
All the Best
Mr C
|
My fears that Covenant might become static referred to The Second Chronicles. As you say, much has changed for him since then. If you consider death a change. <grin> As for Linden, her circumstances are in an acute state of flux. Its difficult to become a static character when nothing in your life remains constant. (01/25/2007) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
It has been stated numerous times in the G.I., by you and some of the questions you have posted, that "power corrupts" and "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Many people, including most I know in my personal life, believe this to an incontestable truth. I must say that I disagree, and upon even a casual read of you major works (not to include your short stories), I would argue that your works agree with me.
To begin I would simply point out two real-life examples of people who held considerable power. Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler. I use these two figures because they are almost universally known, and both held power in times of great turmoil. Even a brief study of the lives of these two men would reveal one indisputable fact: their character was set long before either achieved power. You would be hard pressed to find any historian who would argue that Lincoln was not a good man before he achieve power, just as no one would argue that Hitler was not corrupt before he held power. Yet, it seems the more power Lincoln gained (suspending habeas corpus, etc.) the more benevolent, he became; the more power Hitler grabbed the more vile/corrupt he became. I would argue power amplifies/magnifies personality, and I would argue your major works support this idea.
Take Covenant. Upon his arrival to the Land he commits an act of rape, then throughout that book and the next he allows atrocities to occur. Is he corrupt? I do not know. But I do know that he *denies* he has any power. Only in TPTP does Covenant accepts he has any power (or he simply wants to end it), and when he accepts that he realizes he must act for the good even if he is unsuccessful. In the Second Chronicles there is never any doubt in Covenants mind that he must fight Foul. Accepting/gaining power seemed to have the opposite affect on Covenant that corrupting him. And it should be noted just how much power Covenant has.
Brew. He has power of a sort; he brandishes his gun often enough. And though he is a human plagued by mistakes, his moral compass never seemed to waver. It would be easy to imagine, in the world that Brew lives, someone of his disrepute could have easily found another form of living (perhaps with el Senior) when the world turned its back on him. But I do not recall a moment in any of the Man Who books where he questions his values or on what side he is on. If people have never read the Man Who books, a simple way to phrase it would be to say, if you do Bad, and cross Brew, hide your ass.
All of your books are written this way: Mordants Need, The Gap. I would argue, as stated above, power does not corrupt, it magnifies. When one of your main characters obtains any amount of power, it seems to set them on the right path, eventually. The goodness we know is in them, before it has been stomped on by tragedy (in a Donaldson book, imagine that!) is drawn out. They may not be wise in the use of their power, but there should be no doubt that they use their power not to intentionally serve corruption, but good. If you really believe power corrupts, your works do not show it. And I, for one, and happy about that.
|
Ive left your argument intact, although I dont intend to, well, argue with you. That Power corrupts is well-documented. (Years ago, there was an interesting study based on a prison model in which college student volunteers were randomly assigned to role-play either guards or prisoners. The study had to be stopped because the guards quickly became such vicious bullies that they began damaging the prisoners. As far as any of the researchers could tell, this was a function of circumstance rather than of personality.) That Absolute power corrupts absolutely is a bit more speculative (first we have to define absolute power), but it still has evidence to support it. However. To say that Power corrupts is not to say that Power always corrupts everyone. To say that Absolute power corrupts absolutely is not to say that Absolute power inevitably corrupts everyone absolutely, with no exceptions. (Concerning the study I just mentioned, one could argue that the kind of people who would refrain from abusing power would not have volunteered to be in the study at all.) Meanwhile, I cant resist observing that my protagonists are virtually always underdogs: theyre up against opponents with more power than they have. (01/25/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
Thanks for taking the time to address us readers :)
The first question is one that you yourself had asked in LFB and TIW but we never seen an answer to. Does the nature of the summons have anything to do with the person being summoned? TC was originally summoned by Drool at LF's behest. Now Linden was summoned by (if I get this right) LF directly.
The second question is more detailed so I apologize. How much help, if any, can TC be to Linden? I mean, he's dead, so is he not bound by the same laws Mhoram, Elena, Foamfollower, and Bannor were? When TC came back to the land and met his dead in Andelain, they could only give him cryptic answers at best, never a straight answer, so even though he IS the wild magic, is he bound by the same laws as his freinds were?
Thanks again for everything!
Respectfully,
Perry Bell
|
I think one could argue that there is a relationship between the emotional state of the person summoned and the means by which the summoning is performed. But (if I were the one making the argument <grin>) I wouldnt want to be too literal about it. Symbolic actions need (interpretive) room to maneuver. Linden was summoned by LF directly? In The Runes of the Earth? I dont think so. He made that mistake once already: he isnt likely to make it again. If the author has any intention whatsoever of playing fair with his readers, then Yes, Covenant in death will be bound by restrictions comparable to those which limited his friends in The Second Chronicles. Not necessarily the *same* restrictions, mind you: at the end of WGW, Covenants spirit became part of the Arch of Time, so naturally the rules governing him are somewhat different than for the more ordinary Dead. But still: there cant be anything simple about any of this. Which is really all I can say on the subject without drifting into spoiler territory. (01/29/2007) |
Alan: Hello,
You have said that you developed the idea for this last set of books many years ago. I fail to see how this, the Last chronicles of TC can be justified. All ended well in the Land at the end of White Gold Weilder; Lord Foul was totally defeated by TC, Linden restored the Land. The only place where Lord Foul could have survived is the Sunbane but that too was gone, healed by Linden and then Sunder and Hollian.
At the end of the First Chronicles yes you can see how Lord Foul survived, the Staff of Law was destroyed, but, and I have read the books many times, there is nowhere for Lord Foul to hide at the end of WGW.
I think ROTE is a good book and I will get the others when they come out but I have my doubts as to them being a solid part of the original 6 books.
regards
Alan
|
Hmm. I have a couple of different reactions. One is: if you could see (already) how The Last Chronicles can be justified, why would I need to write the story at all? Surely my *real* justification is that I can see something I havent revealed to you? But my other reaction is very different. I dont think of LF as a force which *can* be totally defeated. I think of him as an eternal and necessary being comparable to (if opposite than) the Creator. And, in my view, any ultimate solution to the problem of evil--if such a thing can be imagined--would require something more profound than Covenant and Linden accomplished at the end of White Gold Wielder. In any event, its way too soon for any of us to know whether The Last Chronicles will succeed at being a solid part of the original 6 books. (01/29/2007) |
John-Michael Perkins: Mr. Donaldson,
I recently bought a copy of the Runes of the Earth in a local Wal-Mart. I paid for it, took it home, and soon discovered, much to my excitemnt, that it had been autographed. I was just wondering how many of these you autographed, because I went back the next day and none of the other copies were autographed.
Thanks!
|
Before The Runes of the Earth was published, I pre-autographed 7500 copies to be distributed in parts of the US where I was not going to visit on my various book tours. (I also signed 1000 for my UK publisher, but those were for a special collectors edition.) By design, that distribution was pretty random, so finding one but not more is no surprise. (01/29/2007) |
Leah: I am a huge fan of the Covenant series, the characters and situations opening my eyes to entire new views on life and death, right and wrong. My question is, what inspired your interest in dealing in paradoxes and such heavy subjects?
And, secondly, how do you portray them to well? (the last question is more of a compliment than a question, but if you can answer it I would be most interested.)
Thanks for the Experiences,
Leah
|
If I could explain *how* Im able to do what I do, wellI probably wouldnt need to do anything else. I could make a very tidy living just doing that: i.e. explaining how the imagination works; how the relatively mundane transactions of neurons combine to produce results which exceed the parameters of those transactions. (Admittedly, there are *billions* of neurons--and many more possible combinations than there are neurons. As Karl Marx observed in a different context, Differences in degree become differences in kind. But that merely describes the *problem* of explaining how the imagination works: it doesnt bring us any closer to an answer.) In response to your first question, I suppose I could say that an interest in paradox was a necessary condition of the specific story I wanted to write (a fantasy about a man who rejects the fantasy world). Or I could say that an interest in paradox is a necessary condition of being a storyteller (since human beings are nothing if not self-contradictory). Unfortunately we all know of storytellers who pay no attention to such details. A more honest--or at least more personal--answer is that my mind-set is an effect of being raised in an artificial reality constructed by fundamentalist missionaries. As young children, we were taught, We know that X, Y, or Z perception of reality is a lie because it contradicts Scripture. But as we became older, we couldnt help noticing that every brand of fundamentalist drew its own unique conclusions from the same Scripture. And as we became still older, we noticed that X, Y, or Z consensus realities didnt go away just because the missionaries called them lies. So then we were taught, Faith is more important than reality. In fact, true faith necessarily contradicts reality. Credo qua impossibila est (Tertullian): I believe because it is impossible. Well, in my case, such training was so intensive, and so hermetic, that now efforts to resolve contradictions between belief (perception) and experience (reality) are inherent to the way I think. I cant *not* write about paradoxes and such heavy subjects. (02/11/2007) |
Teresa/Soulquest1970: Ok, I have a question. They say there is no such thing as a stupid question, but I do have one. It is something has been bugging me for years. How does Thomas Covenant get a haircut?
|
Very carefully. (02/11/2007) |
Bob M.: Mr. Donaldson, thanks so much for your willingness to answer our questions. I truly love your work.
You mentioned in the GI that you had met Stephen King, and that you liked (loved? ) his work.
I love his work as well and grew up reading It, The Stand, Salem's Lot, etc.
I cannot think on which conversation I would most like to eavesdrop on: You discussing your thoughts and feelings about his work, or him discussing the Thomas Covenant chronicles.
SO to my questions:
1. Did Mr. King say whether he had read the TC chronicles, and if so, would you care to divulge what they were?
2. What was your favorite Stephen King book, and why.
thanks :)
|
I believe that Stephen King has referred to "The Chronicles" in print (favorably?). Years ago, he let me know that he liked them. My personal favorite of King's many books is "The Eyes of the Dragon." I think he writes what might be called "pure" fantasy exceptionally well. Incidentally (for you trivia buffs), he and I once collaborated--with quite a few other writers--on what I think of as a "gag" story. It was so long ago that I've forgotten most of the details. But the purpose of the exercise was to raise money for a charity at an sf/f convention. Without any prior discussion, each writer in turn wrote for 30-45 minutes, then folded the paper so that only the last sentence was visible. With only that last sentence for "context," the next writer attempted to continue the "story". I had to go on from King's last sentence. The result, as I recall, was hysterically surreal. (02/13/2007) |
Ian Boulton: Hello Stephen,
Haven't asked a question for a year or so but during that time I have read three out of the four Axbrewder stories and am currently re-reading Mordant's Need for about the third or fourth time (what a fantastic and gripping story that is, by the way)!
You don't get too many GI questions/comments about The Man Who books so I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed them. There's no question here; I just wanted you to know, that's all!
Anyway, my question is slightly frivolous. I lost my original copy of The Mirror Of Her Dreams and when I bought a new copy last month it was an American edition. My first laugh out loud moment during my first read through of my original copy back in about 1988 was when Havelock says "horror and bollocks"! It's an expression that has since been part of my (clearly limited) vocabulary. However, my new American version of the book has the phrase as "horror and ballocks". My question is: what did you actually write? And do citizens of the United States really say "ballocks"?
Hope you don't think my submission is a waste of your time. I appreciate you are a very busy man on a very important mission but I just felt the GI needed a light-hearted non Covenant interlude!
Regards and best wishes, Ian Boulton
|
Aw, shucks. I probably just misspelled "bollocks". After all, I'm an Amurican. What do *we* know? But seriously: "horror and bollocks" is definitely *not* an Americanism. Which is why I like it, even if I can't spell it. (02/13/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I was wondering if you had ever come across a character that you regret creating? I know that happens in the trial stages of a book, but I meant, is there any one character in particular that you regret creating?
Thank you,
Perry Bell
|
I don't think I've *ever* regretted creating a character, even "in the trial stages of a book". I've certainly regretted screwing up when I created a character, but in cases like that I just try to get to know him/her better. (In other words, the fault--if there is one--is always mine, not the character's.) In fact, I can't even *imagine* regretting the creation of a character. That would be like regretting that I *have* an imagination. (02/13/2007) |
Allen: By the end of the Second Chronicles Thomas Covenant is reasonably dead. Is he trapped within the Arch of Time like Lord Foul?
|
"Trapped"? No. He is *part* of the Arch of Time, an aspect of the structure which constrains Lord Foul. I suppose you could call that being trapped--but it's a very different *kind* of "being trapped" than LF experiences. And he's there by his own choosing, which sort of negates the whole concept of "trapped". (02/13/2007) |
Jory: Hi Steve,
Were you aware one of your books were sent to the Mir Space Station? Astronaut Shannon Lucid was talking about her months aboard Mir:
"In another letter, Lucid wrote about reading the books her daughters hand-selected:
I picked out one and rapidly read it. I came to the last page and the hero, who was being chased by an angry mob, escaped by stepping through a mirror. The end. Continued in Volume Two. And was there Volume Two in my book bag? No. Could I dash out to the bookstore? No. Talk about a feeling of total isolation and frustration!!! You would never believe that grown children could totally frustrate you with their good intentions while you were in low earth orbit, but let me tell you, they certainly can.
See the pic here:
http://tinyurl.com/yqsude
Cheers!
|
Yes, I knew about this. As a supporter of the National Space Society, I receive their magazine, "Ad Astra," which ran an article about Shannon Lucid and included a picture of her bookshelves (where my books were clearly displayed). I'm quite proud of that. (02/13/2007) |
Ryan: G'day.
I have recently started reading the Gap series and noticed the similarity between Lord Foul and Angus Thermopyle, their Yellow Eyes. I was just wondering if this is a deliberate connection with Lord Foul, or just a coincidence. If this was a deliberate connection, Why did you use it.
Thankyou very much.
|
It's just a coincidence. I was visualizing a very different kind of "yellow" in each case. Angus has human eyes with a yellow-ish tinge to the whites (I've seen people with eyes like that). Lord Foul has what might be considered yellow flames that resemble fangs instead of human eyes. The only "connection" is the fact that I happened to use the word "yellow". (02/14/2007) |
John Walsh: I would like to start off by saying your writing resonated with me on some deep emotional level and helped me change my outlook on life, if not my life itself. (Covenant series) Reread them many times along with all your books.
I also appreciate the authors you've introduced me to in your gradual interview. McKilip and Powers especially.
I wonder how you put yourself in the land or space as in the Gap books? How do you take your mind out of your *real* life and go to the places you take the rest of us? What mental or physical preparation if any do you undertake?
Thanks in advance and thanks for all the hard work on our behalf.
John
|
Ah, another "how do you do what you do?" question. Honestly, I can't explain it. I just push myself as hard as I can, and you get the results. But on a much more practical level.... The GI is already full of "tips" based on my own experience and my conversations with other writers ("creative process," "writing & publishing process"). In one way or another, I think it all comes down to a form of self-hypnosis. Superficially, the idea is to cut out the awareness and intrusion of the external world. Beneath the surface, the idea is to cut out self-consciousness. There's nothing worse for being creative than watching yourself try to be creative. Of course, I have a whole list of personal rituals and mechanisms to, well, hypnotize myself. But what works for one person is useless for another. Every writer--every creative individual--has to discover/develop his/her own methods of mental or physical preparation. (02/14/2007) |
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.
MRK: Mr. Donaldson,
I'm a bit late in saying this: Ever since I have discovered and begun to read "TCOTC", I have been unable to get enough of your incomparable work. I've since moved on to "The Man Who..." mysteries, "The Gap Sequence" and "Mordant's Need", in that order. Your work has created a high benchmark for me and very few authors now are up to snuff against the standard you have created for me.
After I read "TROTE" I began to wonder something about the Elohim and the Ranyhyn. If I understand it correctly, both races are made up of beings that are essentially manifested Earthpower. They are, of course, vastly different in many ways, not the least of which is their respective attitudes toward lesser beings. I had the feeling that the Elohim would laugh (or perhaps scream) at the idea of having some kind of servitor race, such as the Ramen, attached to them. Then, of course, there are their somewhat opposing abilities, i.e. Ranyhyn are physical beings which can transcend time, Elohim are ethereal beings which can transcend space. Does it follow that the Ranyhyn are simply an expression of a certain aspect or aspects of Earthpower, while the Elohim embody *all* aspects? Or am I totally off the mark and/or making much ado about nothing? (this would not surprise me)
Thanks and Good Wishes,
MRK
|
You are essentially correct. The Ranyhyn are mortal horses embued with a certain amount of Earthpower as part of their essential nature. (In this respect, they are more analogous to the Haruchai than to the Elohim.) The Elohim are pure embodiments of Earthpower. They are immortal (i.e. lacking in mortality) in the same sense that Earthpower itself is immortal: Earthpower is the life-blood of, well, life, and the Elohim will live as long as the Earth lives. (02/15/2007) |
Michelle: Dear Sir,
I am working on reading through the Thomas Covenant stories, and I find myself identifying greatly with him as so many others probably do. I was wondering if you know of and would mind explaining the solution to the problem presented regarding how a person forgives himself. I see the redemption themes in the books I've read so far, but to know one is redeemed with the mind is greatly different from knowing it and forgiving the self from the heart. Redemption does not seem necessarily to bring about forgiveness. Thank you for your time.
|
Questions like this sort of scare me. Other reasons aside, they seem to impute a degree of wisdom that I know I don't possess. I'm just a guy who muddles through life like most other people. The fact that I routinely talk like an "authority" doesn't mean I actually *am* one. But I can tell you one thing that I've learned from experience. Self-forgiveness--like self-acceptance--usually can't be acquired in isolation. It's an interactive process: it requires other people. Of course, we all need people with whom we can be honest about the things for which we haven't forgiven ourselves. Talking to people who don't judge or reject what they hear can let a little light into the dark places of our hearts. But--and I must emphasize that I'm just talking about my own experience--that isn't enough. Other people serve a deeper purpose in this interactive process. (See? This is what I was referring to. I *sound* like an authority, even when I'm not. <sigh>) The real secret, it seems to me, is to forget about forgiving or accepting ourselves, and to concentrate instead on forgiving and accepting other people. (Which first requires us to *understand* them: a challenge that can only be met by looking at them without judging or rejecting them; a challenge that--I believe--constitutes the underlying purpose of storytelling.) Something mysterious happens when we forgive and accept someone else: some of that forgiveness and acceptance leaks back into us. It's slow; it's hard; and it requires the kind of concentration outward rather than inward that gradually changes "Covenant the rapist" into "Covenant the man who is filled with compassion and grief for the woman he raped". But it does work. At least in my experience. Incidentally, this is why storytelling is good for *me*, whether or not it's good for anyone else. It forces my concentration outward, onto settings and situations and characters, rather than inward, onto my personal sins and woes. The fact that this "concentration outward" is happening entirely inside my own head <rueful smile> doesn't vitiate its benefits. I honestly don't think of my stories as an expression of *me*--much less of my ego--so I really am concentrating outward. (Naturally I'm aware that this is just a trick of perception. Of *course* my stories are an expression of me. And my ego. But I sure don't *see* them that way--at least while I'm writing them.) But I digress. My point is this: in my experience, striving to forgive and accept other people does me more good than struggling to forgive and accept myself. Hmm. One more observation before my head explodes. Knowing what self-judgment, self-rejection, and even self-loathing feel like can be very useful when we try to forgive and accept other people. (02/15/2007) |
Lynne H: The Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels have been a very pleasant surprise. High praise from a non-reader of mysteries. Generally, most mystery novels are too formulaic to hold my interest. I find that authors tend to count on reader loyalty, taking it for granted that their fans will buy anything they write no matter how bad it is. I searched the GI and couldn't find any reference to which, if any, mystery writers influenced you (positively or negatively) as you were crafting your stories. I'm also wondering if you're a film noir buff.
|
The mystery writers who influenced me positively were Ross MacDonald, Raymond Chandler, and (to a lesser extent) Dashell Hammett. Negatively? Agatha Christie and--damn, now I've blanked out on the name of the man who wrote all those Perry Mason novels (the Donald Lam books were better). I wouldn't call myself a film noir "buff," but I do enjoy a good film noir. (02/15/2007) |
Dennis Scroggins: [cut to save space]
Here is my question, and forgive me if you have addressed it before: Do you have an emotional attachment to characters that you write? I ask, because in my experience in role playing games, I grow attached to my characters to the point that I can't play anymore because I care too much for them, my brain children, my creations. Similarly, your characters I also grew to love. You wrote them, but in reading them, they became a part of me, so to speak.
I just now had this thought: you wrote yourself into your books, didn't you? I think you wrote yourself as the old beggar, and as the creator whom, and also as the Land, whose need drew TC from our world.
Thanks very much in advance for responding, and I hope to read the last chronicles soon. Godspeed.
|
Of course I have emotional attachments to my characters. How could I not? I "experience" everything that happens to them. In fact, sometimes my personal (non-writing) life gets pretty complicated because I'm full of emotions that don't have anything to do with the people and circumstances around me: they belong to the story I'm writing, but they don't just evaporate when I leave work. This makes being me an adventure in all kinds of unexpected ways. <rueful smile> I wrote myself into my books? Where? The old beggar? Surely you jest. In a manner of speaking, I *do* write myself into my books; but I do it through *all* of my characters, not through any particular individual. And I do NOT mean that my characters speak for me--or represent me. Quite the reverse. I'm their advocate: I speak for all of *them* as honestly and accurately as I can. (02/19/2007) |
John Dunk: Live Poetry Society-Villanelles
I'll save most of my praise, except to say I like most of what you've written that I've read, and I've read most of what you've written that I can find. I waited 2 years for The Power That Preserves when the publishers said you lost the MS in SA.
But POETRY~!
Do you have a personal definition of poetry? what makes non-rhyming poetry different from descriptive prose, if there'e no metre?
*SHIT*
I like poetry, although most self-proclaimed poets I've met piss me off..
Anyway, your Covenant books have given me a great deal of pleasure. here's my attempt at a villanelle, maybe it'll give you some pleasure also. This poem is for the men that sailed on the Great Lakes of Michigan.. some never reached port.
.
.
Deep water hides the light of those who sail
Alone, they cross the desert of their need
Go down, go down to the dark sea and bail
.
They only seek to conquer or to fail
Not cattle, but an independant breed
Deep water hides the light of those who sail
.
Yet when the light above begins to pale
As ocean's depths accept their fragile seed
Go down, go down to the dark sea and bail
.
Dark waters close and lock their frigid jail
Forgetting valor or heroic deed
Deep water hides the light of those who sail.
.
When seas are calm, no evidence of gale
As tho a holy hand has drawn a screed
Go down, go down to the dark sea and bail
.
Against their fate, bold mariners must rale
Upon their bodies, scavengers do feed
Deep water hides the light of those who sail
Go down, go down to the dark sea and bail
.
End
Thanks for your writing, It has given me much pleasure.
John Dunk
|
First, I like your villanelle. The form you've chosen helps convey the "knell" of the sailors' fate. The definition of poetry that we used in graduate school was: "the most efficient possible use of language." Toward that end, things like metre and rhyme are powerful tools--but they're only tools, and they aren't the only tools. Another is implication: poetry often asks the reader to infer a great deal of its content (which is one reason poetry seldom functions well as "descriptive prose": poetry usually doesn't use enough words to be explicit in the same way that good descriptive prose can be explicit). And just because a poem lacks predictable metre doesn't mean that it lacks rhythm or cadence. Still, I make a distinction between poetry and verse: as I see it, verse is a concentrated or elevated use of language that nonetheless doesn't rise to the level of real poetry. By my standards, I doubt that I've ever written poetry. Certainly I would describe virtually every "song" in "The Chronicles" as verse rather than poetry. (Possible exception: "My heart has rooms that sigh with dust") (02/19/2007) |
Jon Myers: Hi! I have only recently learned about the GI (I am a bit of a technophobe), and I think it is the most wonderful thing any author could do. I love all your work (that I have read), and TC has been an important part of my life for nearly 30 years now.
Two burning questions:
1) Where did the Land's original settlers come from? The Legend of Berek Halfhand glosses over this, and seems in fact overly simplified. I would assume that they came from beyond the region that became the Southron Wastes (before it was a Waste). Did the King and Queen have any ties with their homeland? Did they all live in Doriendor Corishev, since there seems to be no evidence of any other ancient cities? Does that people still exist somewhere? Okay, so that was more than one question.
2) Have you ever thought about writing more books in the "Gap" universe?
|
1) One of the implications of Berek's story, I think, is that the Land was already "settled" when the southern kingdom ruled from Doriendor Corishev went to war. This is confirmed by the forests: SOMEone had already decimated the One Forest long before Berek came along. Well, I've always assumed that people found their way into the Land from a variety of directions long before Berek's war: shipwrecked, perhaps, on the coast of the Lower Land; trekking up through the Southron Range or down from the Northron Climbs (for example, I can picture tribes in bearskins against the cold, with travois and heavy axes, being harried southward by arghuleh). Certainly the Ramen had to come from somewhere. As I read them, the given texts are unclear, or even contradictory, about whether the Land's earlier inhabitants were united in any way before the kingdom where Berek was born began its incursions through Doom's Retreat. (That the texts are unclear or contradictory is no surprise. Every "real" historical record, oral or written, ever produced has the same problem. Human beings are like that. As is the author of "The Chronicles." <rueful smile>) At the moment, I'm only sure that the war between Berek's King and Queen was waged in the Land. 2) I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I go where my ideas take me. At present, I have no ideas for any more GAP books--or any more MORDANT books, for that matter. This may change, or it may not: I don't have a crystal ball. (Actually, I *do*--but it doesn't work for shit. <grin>) All I can tell you is that I'm going to continue doing what I've always done: writing what comes to me to be written. (02/19/2007) |
Susan: Congratulation on completion of Fatal Revenant! I eagerly anticipate its publication - and will now re-read the rest of the series in preparation.
How do you honestly feel about the non-start of the movie? Are you disappointed?
(Personally - I'm not. I love movies, but I love books more. And some stories live stronger and longer on the page than they ever will in CGI.)
Thomas Covenant lives somewhere better than Hollywood. I honestly don't think that I have read a series that impacted me more, or with such longevity. It's also the series that I have recommended or purchased for more people than any other I have read. Well done, and thank you so much.
PS Mick "Brew" Axbrewder in films - now that's something I can see happening, and I'd watch those without fearing disappointment.
|
In fact, I *am* disappointed--primarily because I'd like to be better known, but also because I'd like to have a more comfortable income in my <lugubrious sigh> declining years. But I've always thought that the "Covenant" books are essentially unfilmable. They're too inward for movies, and rely too heavily on language. "The Man Who" books would certainly work better on film--as would "Mordant's Need," and even some of my novellas. (02/19/2007) |
Teresa from South Carolina: Mr. Donaldson, I don't have a question. (When browsing through the GI, I always see you as Will Shatner in the SNL sketch about Star Trek convention-goers: "sigh") I just wanted to thank you for the Thomas Covenant books. I can't "get into" the books about fairies, dragons, and wizards. They just don't appeal to me at my age. I identify with Thomas Covenant's pain, his self-imposed emotional imprisonment, and his need for "salvation" from himself. I have read these books repeatedly until the pages are yellow and falling out of the bindings. Thank you for writing fantasy-genre material for the mature adult mind. I am looking forward to the rest of the story.
|
Thank you! Personally, I'm fed up with elves and dwarves--although fairies are high on the list of things I don't want to read about, and vampires are climbing fast. For some reason, I'm still comfortable with dragons and wizards--perhaps because I've seen both "used" more imaginatively than any elf, dwarf, or fairy I've encountered. If you want to start liking dragons again, read McKillip's "The Cygnet and the Firebird". (02/19/2007) |
Mark A. Morenz: Hello Stephen:
Thank you for your responses to my most recent questions. Especially I enjoyed your description of "resonance". I wonder if I could follow-up?
You mentioned that-- in the minds of editors (and, I suppose, Professors of Literature)-- writers have to "earn" the right to violate conventional usage. That is very reasonable, but it doesn't exactly get to my concern. I guess my question is better asked this way: *given that "conventional" usage often lags behind popular usage*, how much leeway should an author be given to create their own idioms? In scifi and fantasy especially, authors have unique opportunities to use language for effect. A Tom Clancy may have many ways of consummating the 'resonance' that he's created throughout one of his stories, but having the protag yell something like "Melenkurion Abatha!" at the climax isn't one of them.
I still surmise an overall bias against expressionism. You said clarity was a minimum, but to me Gibson's "Neuromancer" refutes that-- it was, it seems to me, deliberately unclear in places as to what exactly was happening. And I personally was troubled by "Neuromancer"s lack of clarity. But I respected how Gibson seemed to be infusing expressionism back into genre fic. By a strict definition, it was deficient storytelling in spots. But the book certainly was effective in communicating mood/emotional state/disharmony, etc...connecting with readers on a more direct emotional level, sort of a meta-storytelling (a trait that your COTC series shares, IMHO).
Thanks for your time!
:-{)]
Mark M.
~~~
BTW, just as an unsolicited recommendation: "The Time Traveller's Wife" (Niffenegger 2004) is the best individual novel that I've read in a very long time. I didn't know whether anyone had turned you onto that one or not, but if you ask I'm sure others whom you trust will agree! :-)
|
It seems to me that we've carried this discussion about far as we can in the abstract. These questions always come down to specifics: we would both have to have the same book open in front of us so that we could comment on specific words or sentences in specific contexts. As one example of the vagueness and general inutility that abstraction imposes on us: it's been a long time since I read "Neuromancer," but I certainly don't remember it being unclear. In addition, I'm not at all sure what you mean by "expressionism," or how expressionism might imply or necessitate a lack of clarity. But I can say this. "Given that 'conventional' usage often lags behind popular usage, how much leeway should an author be given to create their own idioms?" As I see it, there is no "should". There's only what you can do convincingly and what you can't. In my experience, editors aren't theorists or arbiters: they're pragmatic readers. They accept what "rings true," what conveys conviction or authority: they reject what doesn't. Here, unfortunately, we're veering once again into territory that can't be discussed--in this case because it's undefinable. All I know is that there are some writers who can make me trust them right from the start: although I can't see how they do it, they give me the clear impression that they know what they're doing, and that what they're doing matters. When that happens, I settle in to enjoy the experience. But when a writer does not inspire my trust--and inspire it early--I start to look for faults in what I'm reading. Infelicitous phrases. Obscure pronoun references. Faulty parallelisms. Whatever. At least in my case, my trust, my acceptance, my "suspension of disbelief," is won or lost fairly early in a piece of fiction. But I'm often unable to explain *how* that trust is won or lost. As far as I can tell, some writers just *sound* like they know what they're doing--in which case they get all the leeway they want--while other writers lack that *sound*--in which case they don't get much leeway at all. I know of one writer who has published entire novels that don't contain actual stories, but the writer gets away with it because the prose conveys absolute conviction. In fact, I was so entranced by the prose that I read those whole books before I even noticed that they had no stories. Now *that's* leeway. btw, thanks for mentioning "The Time Traveller's Wife". I'll look for it. (02/20/2007) |
Captain Maybe: Would you agree with the proposition that UK book covers are classier (for which read 'better' <grin>) than US covers? If so, would you care to comment on why that might be?
|
It's hard to generalize. I've had some *gorgeous* covers in the UK--but I've also had some real dogs (look at the Dominatrix from Hell on the UK hardcover of "Forbidden Knowledge," or the abymal wizard on the UK hardcover of "Reave the Just and Other Tales"). I've also had some terrific covers in the US (I'm thinking of "The Man Who Fought Alone"). But in general, I've had more covers that make me flinch in the US than in the UK. Speaking in the broadest possible terms: the difference in covers may result from the commitment of US publishers to the conventions of "category" (genre) publishing ("A fantasy novel won't sell unless it has a fantasy cover")--which in turn may result from the fact that books are usually harder to sell in the US than in the UK (we have so few readers, and the readers we do have tend to be snobs of one kind or another: "I only read mysteries," or, "I wouldn't touch that sci-fi junk," or, "Fiction is a waste of time"). (02/20/2007) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Ok, why wasn't I told that long ago there was a Covenant 'brand' of clothing? Huh? I have just found a place that sells vintage clothing and have come across a "wounded land: stephen r. donaldson tee-shirt". Thanks for keeping us informed! *grin* Were there Covenant undergarments too, sort of like "underoos" from long ago? If so, I will have to hunt them down and, well, lets just say one 35 year old man will be wearing them (notice I did not provide my name)!
|
This is news to me--and I hope that you're just kidding around. Way back in '83, my Australian publisher produced a "Stephen Donaldson/Unbeliever" t-shirt to help promote my Australian book tour. But I've never seen, or heard of, a "Wounded Land: Stephen R. Donaldson" t-shirt. Whatever it is, it's unauthorized, and could be considered a copyright infringement. Not that I care: I actually think the idea is pretty funny, and I'm certainly not going to tattle. But I'm afraid you'll have to hand-paint your own "Covenant" underwear. (Now *there's* an idea I wish I could get out of my head.) <grin> (02/22/2007) |
Anonymous: I've been waiting for this one to be asked but haven't seen it yet. Why the name change for the 3rd book?
|
Ah, well. There hasn't been a name change for Covenant 9 (Book Three of "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant")--yet. I simply mis-remembered the line of verse from which I wanted to derive the title. I remembered the line (from "Lord Kevin's Lament" in TIW) as "shall pass utterly," but when I (finally) checked the text, I saw my mistake; so I corrected the announced title on this site. Since then, however, my editors have let me know that they dislike "Should Pass Utterly" as a title. They think it will inhibit sales. By contract, they have the right to insist on a change. (When I was first published, I was told, "It's a rare writer who can call his title his own.") But they won't insist on a title I don't like, so I've been asked to come up with a new one. Sometime comparatively soon, a new title will appear here--after which I'll strenuously try to pretend that nothing has happened. (02/22/2007) |
Hesham: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Thank you for answering my previous question, and looking forward very the much to the contiuation of the Last chronicals (I hope it never ends).
My question is in relation to Runes where you have used time travel. I find time travel whether in sci fi or sci fantasy confusing at the best times. Certainly the imlpications are complex,and genearlly it's guess work with lots of what ifs. Are the mechanisms you used based on scientic methodology or are they based on magic, or both?
Cheers
Hesham
|
I've spent some time discussing this (look under "Runes of the Earth--spoilers"). Doubtless I'll spend more as the story continues. We're probably all familiar with the ol' time-paradox problem. An event in time A leads to disaster in time B, so people in time C go back to change A. They succeed: B is altered. Therefore the people in C are spared the consequences of the disaster--so they have no reason to alter A. Therefore A remains unaltered, the disaster in B happens, and the people in C go back to change A. It's a logical loop from which there appears to be no escape. No wonder it's confusing. As best I can, I'm working with a paradigm in which people from C visit A in order to accomplish things that have no effect at all on B, but that produce otherwise-unattainable benefits for C. If my reasoning holds, this preserves the linear sequence which leads from A to B to C without disturbing the logic that induced the people of C to go back to A. Of course, if time ain't linear, I'm screwed. <grin> But I console myself with the knowledge that if time *isn't* linear, I'll never know the difference. In either case, I think it's clear that my "mechanisms" are based on magic rather than science. I don't know enough about (among many other things) quantum mechanics to use any other approach. (02/22/2007) |
Jory: This is a followup to the anonymous post about a Wounded Land t-shirt. There was one on eBay recently; here is a link to the pic of the shirt (I hope it is still live when you get to this):
http://tinyurl.com/2vvsqz
|
Damn. That sure *looks* like an "authorized" t-shirt. It even has the DEL REY logo. But if Ballantine decided to license t-shirts, they never told me. Not (as I say) that I actually care. (02/22/2007) |
Donna: I'm so glad to have the Runes of Earth on audio. Scott Brick is excellent. I hope when Fatal Revenant comes out it is also going to in an audio format. Will Mr. Brick will also be doing that narration?
Oh yes, and even though this isn't a question, I have to add my voice to the many other fans to say again, thanks for writing. Thanks for writing more on the Land. Thanks for Linden be strong, be a woman, be a real character. I've enjoyed your books tremendously over the years. I look forward to more. D
|
Sorry, I have no way of knowing *if* Putnams will release an audio version of "Fatal Revenant," much less if Scott Brick will be hired for the job. It's way too early in the publishing process: Putnams hasn't even thought about such questions yet. In the end, it will come down to, How well did "Runes" sell on CD? Since I don't know, I can't predict what Putnams might decide. (02/23/2007) |
Graham Clark: I've just downloaded all 1103 pages of your Gradual Interview and spent most of the day reading the first 100 pages. My already high opinion of the emotive quality of your work has reached new heights with the care and attention spent on answering fans questions.
Anyway, just one question - do you tend to have difficulty finding writers who move you emotionally to the same depths that you portray in your own writing. Has anything fictional that you have read moved you tears?
Many thanks for all your hard work. I would appreciate and thoroughly treasure a response.
|
One unfortunate side-effect of the amount of time I've spent *studying* writing is that I'm very seldom able to read spontaneously rather than analytically. Books only (for lack of a better term) slip past my defenses when the storytelling and/or the writing is really superb Well, there isn't much out there that's *really* superb. And when the storytelling and/or the writing *is* that good, the writers often aren't aiming for the kind of emotional charge you describe. As a result, I'm almost never moved to tears by what I read. (Poetry is another matter. George Meredith's "Modern Love" sonnets get to me. And one of Robert Browning's poems for his wife, "To E. B. B.," hit me hard recently.) But Steven Erikson has managed it a couple of times in his "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" series. The Chain of Dogs. The betrayal of Whiskeyjack. The eventual fate of the Mhybe. (02/23/2007) |
Lee Jackson: Thank you for keeping everyone up to date on the status of the film option to Lord Foul's Bane. It saddens me to hear that the option was allowed to expire without renewal.
In the September interview, you said that you preferred a live action version to anything else. With the option expiration in mind, would you now be open to other possibilities (e.g., anime)?
|
Depends on what you mean by "open". Am I inclined to accept free money? <grin> Yes. Do I think that, say, anime would be an effective approach to the "Covenant" books? No. In my personal opinion, anything that isn't "live action" would inevitably falsify some of the fundamental characteristics of "The Chronicles". (02/28/2007) |
mark g: now that the 3rd draft of FR has been accepted, is there anything else you need to do on the second book or do you dive right in on SPU?
|
I'm sure I've mentioned elsewhere that working on a particular books never seems to end: it just dribbles away. There's the map for "Fatal Revenant" to consider (always a painful process because the people who draw maps punish me for requesting corrections by introducing new inaccuracies). Both my US and my UK publishers will send me copy-edited copies of the text, which I will have to go over meticulously. (Copy-editors delight in destroying my prose, my meaning, and even--occasionally--my characters.) Later both publishers will send me new copies for proof-reading. Both will want my help with things like cover copy. Both will want my input on cover art. Both will try to orchestrate as many interviews as they can: always an arduous process. Both will probably ask me to sign several thousand advance copies. Both may wish me to go on book tours. And as if that isn't enough, I proof-read my books after they're released in hardcover, looking more for internal inconsistencies than for typos (although there are always typos) so that the paperback will represent the best possible version of my intentions. What with one thing and another, getting started on Covenant 9 won't be easy. (02/28/2007) |
Jim K: As always, thank you for writing. I am reading Runes for the second time and want to know....
Are the Bloodguard part of the problem of Kevin's Dirt?
In other words, is their denial of Earthpower towards the common folk causing the phenomenon?
Also, I am starting to feel sorry for Foul. He and the stars are imprisoned, so to speak. Does the Creator hold some accountability towards the demise of his creation and Where is he?
thanks again. Jim K
|
No, the Haruchai share no responsibility for the existence of Kevin's Dirt. They don't do any magic. Withholding or stifling knowledge isn't the same thing as manipulating or tarnishing Earthpower. If asked, they might say that they consider Earthpower sacred: too sacred to be (mis)used by fallible human beings. According to at least one of the Creation myths in "The Chronicles" (memory, don't fail me now), the Creator was unaware of the Despiser's presence within Time when he sealed the Arch. But even if you don't accept that hypothesis, imprisoning a being like the Despiser seems a pretty rational thing to do. (At the moment, I'm too tired to engage in a theological discussion about whether or not evil is a necessary challenge for human beings to face.) (02/28/2007) |
Vincent: Hello again Steve, anxiously awaiting Fatal Revenant as always.
Has the third raver, Samadi/Sheol?, been destroyed completely, or will his/its spirit/power regenerate as Foul's has in the past?
I ask because I miss him. Three was a good number for ravers, don't ask me why, it just felt right.
I found an interview you did a short while ago online and you said:
I believe that as a group we sf/f writers are saner than mainstream writers. We concentrate on storytelling, and I believe that storytelling is actually good for us. In addition, in this field the storytelling tends to be about small people who become bigger instead of about small people who become smaller, which is usually the case in mainstream fiction. Our kind of storytelling relieves internal pressure. And we seem to feel that its possible to have constructive endings instead of destructive ones. As a result, I find that my peers are (very broadly speaking) nicer and happier people than the mainstream writers I know.
That kind of made me laugh, because the last thing I consider sf/f writers to be is sane.
Speaking of which, I have always wanted, and dreamed, to one day make enough money writing to move to India. Since you lived there a while, though admittedly not in the most enjoyable of ways, I was wondering what you thought of the country and whether you would suggest it as a nice place to go to live out my life in peace, or whether you would warn against it?
TTFN,
Your Friend Vincent.
|
I'm not willing to answer your question about samadhi Sheol. That's "spoiler" territory, and I hate revealing what I'm going to do--or not do. Are sf/f writers sane? Probably not--although I'm inclined to think that no one worth knowing is entirely sane. I'm certainly not. <rueful smile> But are sf/f writers saner than mainstream writers? In my (admittedly limited) experience, yes. The mainstream writers I've met are cynical, judgmental people--a state which they consider sane, but which I do not. (In fact, they appear to feel contempt for anyone who *isn't* cynical and judgmental.) Of course, there are any number of cynical, judgmental writers in sf/f. But they're a distinct minority among the 50-70 genre writers I've met. You want to move to *India*? My instinctive reaction is, you really are insane. Of course, I'm biased, certifiably so. But I have at least one rational reason for my bias: I *still* suffer from illnesses which I acquired in India. On a more emotional basis, I do know one or two people who had happy (but *brief*) visits to India. But everyone I know who spent significant amounts of time there has paid a high price for doing so. As it happens (he admitted reluctantly), they're all missionary kids, so they had rather abusive childhoods--and might have had similar experiences virtually anywhere. Quite apart from that, however, there's the sheer horror of the poverty and degradation in which the vast majority of Indians live. There's nothing like it in the US or Europe, and I don't see how anyone with a heart can look at it without being wounded by the experience. And I won't even mention the ubiquitous, systemic corruption.... Just my opinion. But I wouldn't advise a visit unless you have a cast-iron immune system; and I wouldn't suggest a prolonged stay unless you like surrounding yourself with people who are immeasurably worse off than you are. (*Damn.* I'd better check my blood-pressure.) (03/01/2007) |
Tom Stanley: Dear Stephen, In my teens (and, I'll confess, beyond), your vivid books were a sublime escape for me, and I continue to treasure them. I have been reading these discussions for some months now, and I have tried on several occasions to compose a question for you -- but every time I "try" to think of a question, I have found it's something I already know the answer to. That made me think. So my question is, do you think that another man's creativity is significantly and uniquely embellished in the eye of the beholder, so that, in essence, your creation becomes just as much theirs as it is yours? As I said, I already know my answer to this, but I'd like to hear you speak on it.
|
Is a writer's "creativity...significantly and uniquely embellished in the eye of the beholder"? I think so. After all, the reader's mind creates--or re-creates--the story and everything in it out of nothing more than black squiggles on pieces of paper. But does my creation become as much yours as it is mine? That depends on what we're specifically talking about. On the one hand, I did put a whole more work into those books than you did. I chose every one of those black squiggles. And I get paid for doing so--by you. On the other, your experience of reading those books is entirely and exclusively your own: that experience exists solely in your own thoughts and imagination--and *you* put it there, *I* didn't. In that sense, what you read belongs to you alone. The best I can hope for is that your experience bears some resemblance to mine. (03/01/2007) |
Mike Johnson: I don't know if you get tired of such comments, but thanks again for participating in this gradual interview. I can't think of any other contemporary author who would or has done such a thing, and the insights it has opened to me as a fan of your works is sometimes as fascinating or thought provoking as your works themselves.
Which actually leads me to ask (and I did a search through the archives to try to make sure this question HASNT been asked yet!), have you considered or are you considering publishing compiled questions (or even in its entirety!) from the gradual interview in book or written form? I know, I know...it exists in the dubious realm of cyberspace, but I would love to be able to page through it, see it in print organized by theme, literary work, etc. Hint, hint...I'd plunk down good money for it...
Anyways, thanks again...anxiously awaiting Fatal Revenant here on the shores of Lake Michigan...
Mike J.
Grand Haven, Mi
|
In fact, that idea *has* occurred to me. But I have no intention of doing it myself--or of suggesting it to anyone else. What a chore! Simply contemplating it makes me want to hide under a rock. Of course, I have as much ego as anyone else. If I ever gained enough literary stature to justify editing and publishing the GI, I'm sure I would feel gratified. But I wouldn't tackle the project myself. Someone else would have to take it on--of their own free will. And because I don't trust my ego, I would probably do everything in my power to distance myself from the project. (03/01/2007) |
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.
Ken Stearns: Your books are very important to me. You are one of my favorite writers.
Don't ask me how but I came I up with an idea for the TC books. Instead of movies it should be a TV series.
I have been watching Homicide, West Wing and Battlestar Galactica on DVD lately and these programs show that TV is capable of greatness and could do justice to the books. This way you have 22, 44, 66 shows to let the actors act and story evolve that way it should. What do you think? I also have a great idea for who can play TC but I am running out of room. Thank you for your time.
|
Actually, the producers who once owned the "Covenant" rights tried the TV idea before they decided not to renew their option. (03/01/2007) |
Slim: "Against All Things Ending" sounds magnificent!!! Wow...I can almost picture what is going to happen...:)
|
Gosh! I hope you can't picture *too* much.... (03/01/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You have stated previously that you did not know when the mass market paperback edition of "Runes" would come out. More and more I see the trade paperback versions of novels coming out shortly after the hardcover, much more so it seems to me than they did in the past (if they produced one at all). Is it possible that the sales of the TPB version of "Runes" is keeping your publisher from publishing the cheaper mass market version? How are the sales of the trade version? (Hopefully, well!)
|
It's all about "margin" vs cost of manufacture. Roughly speaking, the bookstore or -outlet buys the book from the publisher at 50% of the cover price. That's the margin. So the margin on a $26.95 hardcover is more than the margin on a $16 trade paperback, which is in turn more than the margin on, say, a $7.95 mass market paperback. So--duh--hardcover sales bring in a lot more money than an equal number of MMPB sales (ergo the publisher has to sell a *lot* more MMPBs), and TPBs fall somewhere in the middle. But. Hardcover books are very expensive to manufacture, so they really suck up the publisher's margin. Once a hardcover has been done, however, a TPB is actually cheaper to produce than a MMPB. Only the cover and binding change for a TPB, but the book has to be completely re-set for a MMPB, with fewer lines per page and therefore significantly more pages. So the publisher has to sell a *whole* lot more MMPBs in order to turn a profit. And then there's the unexplained fact that MMPBs in general just don't sell as well as they once did--at least in the US--while TPBs sell better than they once did. At any rate, that's true in sf/f. (Don't ask me why: I haven't a clue.) As a result, publishers tend to release a TPB as soon as they're sure they won't make any more money from the hardcover; but they milk the TPB for all it's worth before they consider releasing a MMPB. In view of the fact that "Runes" is now being remaindered on Amazon.com, my US publishers may make a decision about a MMPB fairly soon. (03/02/2007) |
Dan Wolf: Dan Wolf.
Mr Donaldson.
I could probally ask a hundred questions, but I'll keep it simple.
About five years ago I heard the word Elohim on television. My ears pricked up and I watched a 60 minutes kind of show about a religious group.
These people believe the Elohim live in space, and will one day return to Earth, presumably to take their followers with them on a trip of a lifetime through the Cosmos. I can't remember many details, except the the group had their own magazine.
1. Have you heard of these people or celestrial beings?
2. Are you into Wilbur Smith? I think he is really cool. His interpretation of magic ( in Warlock) reminds me of your own.
My other questions will have to wait until we both have a spare week or two. By the way - I have noticed that my GI questions are not ussually exactly as I wrote them. I now tell people (the four I know) that Stephen Donaldson edits my work,for free.
Until next time. DAN
|
1) "Elohim" is a real word with Biblical roots. But I've never heard it used in the way you describe. I certainly didn't know there is (or was) a cult of space-based-Elohim worshippers out there. 2) I've read a couple of Wilbur Smith books, but I didn't enjoy them enough to read more. I haven't read "Warlock". (03/03/2007) |
Captain Maybe: You recently said in response to a question (and I think you've said it several times previously on the GI) that you don't write about yourself, that you don't let your ego hijack your stories - or you try not to. Did your writing ever go through a phase of doing what you now strive to avoid? Did you ever write stories that were representations of your own issues, characters that were versions of yourself?
|
The short answer is, No. As a writer as well as a person, I had to travel a long way to get to "Lord Foul's Bane". When I started college, I was the kid in English lit classes whose papers were read aloud as examples of bad writing. And outside of class, I was blessed with readers who told me (kindly, and often in sorrow) just how bad my writing/storytelling was. If I hadn't learned almost immediately that I needed to get my ego out of the picture, I would have been too crushed to continue--and I certainly wouldn't have learned the lessons that my teachers and readers were trying to communicate. Throughout my life, setting my ego aside has been crucial to whatever progress I've made. (I should probably insert an apt quote from Foamfollower here, but I don't have the energy to look it up. <sigh>) (03/03/2007) |
Dave: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I know you have said that you're not really into audio books, but I was wondering if you ever listened to any of the Modern Scholar series? As you may know, these are series of lectures on various topics presented by professors in the subject field.
Specifically, I'm wondering if you every heard, or heard about, "Rings, Swords, and Monsters: Exploring Fantasy Literature" (http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=scholar.show_course&course_id=75). Other than Tolkien's, your Chronicles get more coverage than most works by modern fantasy authors. Just wondering if you knew about this, and were at all involved with the work of Professor Drout who taught the lectures.
|
I'm posting this because it may be of general interest. Personally, I don't enjoy audio books. And I'm not especially keen on being compared to Terry Brooks. <sigh> But I had never heard of the "Modern Scholars" series until you mentioned it. I know nothing about "Professor Drout," and I certainly wasn't involved with his work in any way. (03/06/2007) |
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I've recently started reading The Illearth War again after many years. One seemingly meaningless point has vexed me since I read it and I can't let it go. I'm SURE you'll have a reasonable explanation and I'll anxiously await your response. As the Warward prepares to march to battle against Lord Fouls minions, they are commanded by Hile Troy to build over 100 rafts to carry some of the troops downstream. Since the people of The Land do not destroy trees, what can we assume that they built the rafts out of? As I said, seemingly pointless, yet vexing nonetheless.
|
First, I think we can safely assume that the Lords/Warward/etc. made as much use as possible of wood that had already died naturally. Second, well, there are plenty of indications that the Lords et al *did* work with living wood (Gildenlode for the Giants leaps to mind, and all those staffs had to come from somewhere). In such cases, we can assume that they took individual branches/boughs rather than whole trees, that they were careful to preserve the health of the trees, and that they worked both sadly and respectfully. (03/06/2007) |
Lori: Hello.
I have always loved the first two Chronicles, and I've enjoyed reading and rereading them over the years. Somehow I missed the news about the Last Chronicles; I don't know if you can imagine my reaction when I stumbled across Runes. Actually, I'm kind of glad I just discovered it, because now I have less time to wait until FR comes out in October.
I have been enjoying the GI. Way back in 2004, Tracie asked what Lord Foul's Bane was, and you replied that Lester Del Rey came up with that title and you had no idea. She suggested the Illearth Stone, I think responding to the archaic meaning of "bane" as some type of poison. Going with the more common understanding of "bane" as something that "causes great distress or annoyance", I would suggest that Thomas Covenant himself was Lord Foul's bane.
Thank you for writing and sharing these books. They've enriched my life.
|
Lester isn't here, so we can't ask him. But I suspect that you're right. After all, what other interpretations *are* there? (03/06/2007) |
Jon Bernstein: Hi Stephen,
Too bad about the option expiring for a LFB movie, however I can't see it ever being made. The big issue to me would be Covenant's rape of Lena. I can't see a studio putting up money for a big budget fantasy film in which the hero is a rapist and taking the rape out would wreck the story. Did the people who originally optioned it ever discuss that with you?
Also is Mirror of her Dreams optioned? Of all your stuff those are the only two books that I can see being made into film.
Cheers
Jon
|
According to the producers who once held an option on "Covenant," the big stumbling block was not the rape of Lena: it was the ring. Any film or tv production based on "Covenant" would automatically be dismissed as a LOTR rip-off. So far, no one has ever expressed an interest in obtaining an option on "Mordant's Need." (03/06/2007) |
Jeff Smith: Just wanted to say . Runes was awesome. The best yet. The question is. How am I going to be able to wait until October?
Thanks for the great book.
Jeff
|
Drugs. That's how I do it. Of course, in my case the drugs are antibiotics, not mind-altering substances. <grin> But still: it passes the time. Or you could just read other books. There are a lot of good ones out there, even if you limit yourself to contemporary fantasy. (03/06/2007) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: Threads of your answers and thoughts of the Chronicles suggest a question.
AN ANSWER
First, from your answer to a question (CAPS mine)
"The Elohim are pure embodiments of Earthpower. They are immortal (i.e. lacking in mortality) in the same sense that Earthpower itself is immortal: Earthpower is the life-blood of, well, life, and THE ELOHIM WILL LIVE AS LONG AS THE EARTH LIVES".
THE TEXT
We know of three Elohim that were appointed; Kastenessen, the Colossus, and Findail.
First Kastenessen: from The One Tree - "we were compelled to bind him to his place, reaving him of name and choice and time to set him as a keystone for the threatened foundation of the north".
Then the Colossus: "... bind her in stone, exercising her name and being to form an interdict against that hate. Thus was she lost to herself and to her people-but the interdict remained while the will of the forest remained to hold it."
And we know how Findail was 'bound' with Vain to form the new staff.
THE QUESTIONS
In Runes, we find out that Kastenessen has been freed. This suggests that 'appointing' can be 'un-done'.
So, what about the Elohim that formed the Colossus of the Fall?
In The Wounded Land we find from Caer-Caveral that "The Colossus has fallen." that "the Sunbane had destroyed the forests, unbinding the will of wood which had upheld for millennia that stone monolith."
If the will of the wood was unbound ... and if elohim are immortal ... was she freed as well? If not, what happened to her?
Does this suggest that there is a power ... perhaps white gold, that can unbind Vain and Findail?
|
Listen, I'm serious: you *really* need to get a life. <grin> Meanwhile, this is the ol' apples-and-oranges problem. First, the Elohim who was bound into the Colossus wasn't Appointed: her binding was the will of the forest(s), not of her people. I'm not prepared to commit myself about her; but I'm inclined to think that she may have been able to slip free when the "will of wood" became too weak to hold her. Second, Kastenessen. If I had been able to foresee (way back in the early '80s) this bit of confusion, I might have omitted the word "name" from "reaving him of name and choice and time". I've always intended that he would retain himself: he was "bound" in the sense of "being tied down" (magically, of course), not in the sense of "being transformed into something else." (Don't forget that his Appointment was in part a punishment. What good is punishment if he isn't somehow aware of being punished?) Third, Findail. Now *he* was transformed. Sure, his essence, the substance of who he was, remains alive in the Staff of Law. But his melding with Vain by wild magic altered him so profoundly that concepts like "sentience" and "identity" no longer have any meaning. I don't doubt that the Staff could be destroyed, but doing so would not restore Findail to his former self. Instead his essence would probably be absorbed by Earthpower in general. Which may have been the fate of the Elohim who was bound in the Colossus; but as I say, I'm not prepared to commit myself. (03/07/2007) |
Tim Robinson: Hello, Mr. Donaldson:
Having read all of the "chronicles", "Mordant", and "Daughter", I looked forward to the space genre with the "Gap" trilogy, but being one of those fundamentalists who doesn't read, got increasingly bogged down in the language you chose to use in the mental soliloquies and dialog between your characters. I much prefer books to movies as they leave room for my imagination and the imagery that my mind creates in response to good fiction is vivid and lasting. Terry Gilliam, in his movie Tideland relates a young girl's measuring out her father's heroin doses, necrophilia, and other deeply disturbing scenes that stick like tar to a soul. I won't watch it because I don't want to have to agonize over a fictitious movie when it's over but I do want to think about my books later and choose them by author for that reason. Your Covenant character began with a "this is my dream and I'll do what I want to in it" denial that then justified his rape of Lena but then when he finally came either to the conclusion that his experience was valid, or that as a man thinks in his heart, so is he, his subsequent actions while not expunging his guilt, did show repentance and a redeemed character. The brevity of his foray into wantonness redeemed my own voyeurism in reading it by swinging the pendulum back to a basic good-over-evil strengthing experience. I just couldn't ride it in "Gap". In ROTE, I surmounted the language because I believed in the story. I still wouldnt let my 6 children read it, because I believe that familiarity with the obscene mars our other life choices for purity. This missive back of the actual question, what responsibility do you believe rests on authors generally and on you specifically to balance your need to create against the lasting effects of your prosaic choices in the imagination of readers? Books change thinking people.
|
I've already spent enough time discussing bad language (obscenity and profanity). I won't repeat myself here. But "what responsibility do you believe rests on authors generally and on you specifically to balance your need to create against the lasting effects of your prosaic choices in the imagination of readers?" In short, none. Reading is a choice which I do not impose on anyone. And being affected by what is read is also a choice which I do not impose on anyone. No, my responsibility is to what I call my "artistic integrity": if (and only if) I don't tell the truth about my imagination, my story-making impulse, and my characters, I've failed in my responsibilities. In this endeavor, I'm guided by what is appropriate to the specific story I'm telling, not by any desire to make my story either palatable or offensive to my readers, whoever they may turn out to be. Meanwhile: "I believe that familiarity with the obscene mars our other life choices for purity." Interesting. So you consider uninformed choices to be somehow morally superior to informed choices? I disagree. In my opinion--and this is JUST my opinion--uninformed "life choices for purity" are pretty much meaningless. A choice *for* "purity" only has substance when the person making the choice is well aware the s/he could have chosen something else. Let me give you a comparatively trivial example of what I mean. In high school, I refused to apply to any college except the one my parents had attended. I refused to visit--or even think about--any other colleges. In other words, I made a completely uninformed choice. As it happens, my choice worked out very well for me. But it wasn't a "moral" choice: it was all about fear. I didn't make that choice because I believed in my parents and their heritage (or their convictions and values): I made it because I was terrified of knowing what my options actually were. I didn't *want* options: I wanted to think that I actually *had* no choice. Because I was so scared, I was desperate to avoid the responsibility of making a real choice. Since then, I've come to believe that "moral" choices involve facing my fears (e.g. my fear that readers will reject what I write) rather than avoiding them. Informed choices are almost always scarier than uninformed ones; but it is in making informed choices that real responsibility (and honesty, and--yes--purity) lies. As I say, that's just my opinion. (03/07/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: It's been a while since I read the GAP books (maybe I need to again here shortly) but found myself thinking about love and the relationships between the three main characters: Angus, Morn and Nick. Now, I'm pretty confident that Morn never loved either Nick or Angus. After the way Angus treated her I don't think she ever felt anything like love toward him (although their relationship is very complicated). And never for Nick for that matter, in my opinion. Going the other way I'm less sure. Did Angus love Morn? Did Nick love Morn? I'm not sure. Nick's whole attitude toward all women seems to imply an inability to love anyone but himself. But that's just my reading of it. Any thoughts you could supply on the complex relationship between these three?
|
As I see it, Nick was never cabable of love: he was too entirely narcissistic to value anyone or anything other than himself. Where the story leaves Angus, I doubt that he is capable of love (yet); but Morn has penetrated his defenses to the extent that he is now able to value, fight for, and even respect another person: for him, a huge step toward real humanity. In contrast, I think that Morn *is* capable of love--but I doubt that she trusts anyone (except Davies) enough to actually love him. Certainly she'll never love anyone who reminds her of Nick or Angus. Of course, all three of them can be seen as case studies in narcissism. (Consider the way that Morn "uses" Nick in the first part of "Forbidden Knowledge".) As in real life, some narcissists are unreachable, while others are capable of change and growth. But I don't think of my characters that way--except, of course, in (distant) retrospect. (03/13/2007) |
David Wiles: Steve; Greetings from Fresno. You stated in a recent question that you would like to make more money. This was in a question on Covenant garments for sale. My suggestion is that you publish a cookbook of Food's Of the Land. Andelain Ale, Stonedowner Stew, Haruchi Hash, Top RAMEN (sorry):)
Anyway, I would proudly wear a Covenant T-shirt
Sincerly Yours, David Wiles
|
Obviously you've never tasted my cooking. (03/13/2007) |
Vincent: Hello again Steve, I hope you are doing well.
Writing is not an easy choice of career. Writing a novel stretches my abilities to near a snapping point. When I first started writing my story I thought I was great, but now when I read back over some of what I had written, I find it is more difficult than I imagined to set a pace and keep myself to it. The more the story develops in my head, the harder it is to relate at a proper speed. I want to rush forward to scenes that are a bit more thrilling, scenes that are clearer in my mind, but then I find that the more I weave these scenes in, the more my book becomes a series of scenes barely held together by bland narrative and dull dialog.
So, what I am asking from you, is whether I should go ahead and write out the scenes that I see so clearly in my head and then go back to flesh in the parts between, or should I keep to pace even though I write less and struggle harder?
|
There are no *right* ways to write stories--or *wrong* ways, either. There is only the specific way that works for the specific writer. I know a much-respected writer who writes the last scene of a story first, then writes further scenes or situations as they appeal to her, and finally creates the "connective tissue" that holds everything together. I know other writers (again, much-respected) who have no clear story ideas at all: they simply write a sentence to see where it leads, and eventually they discover their story. I'm told (I can't vouch for the accuracy of this) that Jack Vance started with a one page outline or summary of his story, which he then fleshed in to perhaps four pages, then to possibly twelve pages; and he continued in that fashion, simply fleshing in his outline, until he had a complete story (short story, novel, whatever). I've even heard of a writer who sat at his typewriter and transcribed stories as his wife dictated them to him--telepathically. Well, any of these approaches would make me plumber--if it didn't kill me first. But that's not the point. The point is that you gotta figure out what works for *you*--and you're the only one who can do that. I found my approach partly by instinct, partly by trial-and-error (I did a *lot* of experimenting back in what I call my "journeyman" years). I assume that's normal. (03/15/2007) |
Chris: I read the GI regularly but never had a comment until now. Whatever possessed you to think "Against All Things Ending" was a good, punchy title? It reminds me of business-speak which uses words and phrases in ways that are ironically less clear than those they are intended to 'improve' upon. It seems to me the average reader will look at this title on the shelf, the words will make no sense and have no immediate impact, and their eye will move promptly along to the next book. Your ear for language is very fine so I am mightily puzzled by this.
|
Did I not say that I'm contractually bound to supply a title that my editors like? Your criticisms of "Against All Things Ending" are identical to their criticisms of "Should Pass Utterly". What can I do except shrug? For the record, my editors are excited about the new title, as are some readers who have posted messages for the Gradual Interview. (03/15/2007) |
Joshua Arnold: People are always comparing you and your work to Tolkien (a hazard of writing fantasy, I suppose). Has anyone ever compared your work to Faulkner's? Obviously there's a gap there in genre, but I see more common ground there than with Tolkien. When I started reading The Hamlet, your work immediately jumped into my mind. There's something in the tone of both your prose, something in the composition, and especially in the descriptions--I read it and thought, "this could be a Donaldson piece." Also, The Sound and the Fury reminds me of the Gap (probably the 3rd person limited POV).
Who knows? Maybe FR will receive a review of "Comparable to Faulkner at his best" and then we can all try to figure out exactly what that even means. <grin>
|
To my knowledge, no one (else) has ever compared my work to Faulkner's. But I'm not surprised by your reaction. I was definitely influenced by his books, the "Snopes" trilogy in particular--especially while I was writing the first "Chronicles". (Joseph Conrad should be fairly obvious as well. The Henry James influence may be a bit more obscure. <grin>) (03/15/2007) |
Raymond Luxury yacht: In a recent answer to a question, you joked about mind altering substances. If it's not too personal to ask, have you ever experimented with such things? If so, did you do any of your writing under the influence, or come up with ideas or inspiration? Random question, I know.
|
Apart from alcohol, no. But I've been alcohol-free for over a decade now. And I've never EVER written "under the influence". Nor have I ever come up with any good ideas that way. The only thing in my life that I've consistently kept "clean" is my writing. (03/15/2007) |
Andrew Calverley: Hi Stephen, I'm a first time question-asker but a long time fan! I love your work, and I don't think I've ever read a more compelling page-turner than the final book of The Gap Series (though all 8 books of David Feintuch's Seafort Saga come very close, and I recommend them highly).
I have a couple of questions:
1) In ROTE, and in previous books (from memory), you mentioned that the Ravers were created by the malice of men when they were destroying the One Forest. Likewise, your main protagonist, Lord Foul, is often referred to as Despite (or the Despiser) and uses despair as his tool. Is it a coincidence that these characters are embodiments of negative emotions (malice and despite/despair)? If so, who's despair created the Despiser?
2) Are you a mountain lover? You sure sound like one from the descriptions in your books (esp. the Chapter "Hints" in ROTE).
Can't wait for Fatal Revenant!
Andrew
|
1) In the "cosmology" of the Land, the Despiser can be considered an eternal being--sort of the "evil twin" of the Creator (where Despite rather than destruction is the necessary opposite of creation). In at least one of the "creation myths" of the Land, the Despiser was busy planting "banes" in the Earth at the moment when the Creator sealed the Arch of Time; so Lord Foul was (inadvertently?) imprisoned. Thus being trapped could be considered the source of the Despiser's despair. However, the active malice of the banes functions--in a manner of speaking--independently of LF. Those banes (via leakage from the roots of Mount Thunder into the Great Swamp and Sarangrave Flat) provided the energy, the magic, that gave life to the Ravers (I mean a form of "spiritual" life separate from the careless destructiveness of humankind: think of the emotions and actions of people as the raw materials, and the banes' outflow as the kindling spark). In short, you'll have to look pretty hard to find "coincidence" in any of this. 2) Of course I love mountains. I actually feel a more, well, engaged love for the sea. The sea seems to have more moods, and <ahem> heights sometimes scare me. But I'm glad every day that I live within sight of mountains. (03/21/2007) |
Bob Benoit: Greetings Stephen - Just another avid fan waiting (not so) patiently for Fatal Revenant.
My question concerns Hile Troy. I've searched through the GI and read several of your answers that indicate you created Hile as a counterpoint to Convenant. And I remember reading in the Foreword to Gilden Fire that you deleted that from TIW in part because it shifted the POV away from Covenant, something you already were nervous about with Hile Troy. My question is this: Did you feel the need to create another character from Covenant's world, and then eventually link that with the need to create an anti-Covenant, or were the two "needs" unrelated? Did you ever consider the option that the Warmark character could have been from The Land? It almost certainly wouldn't have worked as well (in my opinion) - Hile's character was one of the reasons that TIW was so good - but did you ever consider it? Best wishes to you and thanks for all of your time and works.
|
From my perspective, the two needs you mention were the same. In a sense, everything in the Land is an "anti-Covenant". I needed a more pertinent foil or antithesis, one that shared Covenant's inherent assumptions about what constitutes "reality". I could only get such a character from Covenant's world. (In addition, I wanted to undermine Covenant's confidence in his Unbelief--without shattering it completely. At that point in the story, Covenant himself might have shattered if he hadn't been able to "rationalize" Troy's presence as part of his own dream/delusion. But if I hadn't undermined his confidence, he would have been less inclined to change.) (03/21/2007) |
Jim Morin: In a recent GI thread, a reader compared the titles "Against All things Ending" and "Should Pass Utterly."
I know that the book's title is not up for a vote(other than by your editors) but since this is a forum for opinions as well as questions, I can't resist pitching in my own two cents.
If I was browsing and saw the title "Against All Things Ending" WITHOUT seeing your name next to it, I would skip right past the book. When I read it slowly and ask myself, "What does this mean?" I draw a blank. (And not for the first or last time in my life) And, if I have to work that hard to understand the title, then I would assume that the whole book is going to be a chore.<grin>
"Should Pass Utterly" sounds a bit Biblical, but has gravitas.
Of course, my grandfather always said about opinions ( language cleaned up by me): "Opinions are like buttocks. Everyone's got one, and they're all full of crap!"
Looking forward to "Fatal Revenant."
Now THERE'S a title!!
|
And speaking of opinions.... I, too, thought that "Should Pass Utterly" had gravitas. Until someone told me that it probably referred to a bowel movement. (Picture me with a grimace pretending it's a grin.) (03/28/2007) |
Tim Robinson: Mr. Donaldson:
Thank you for your thorough response to my somewhat lengthy question regarding "purity". You mistook one of my words though. When I used the phrase "familiarity with the obscene" I was not referring to awareness. I am familiar with, or aware of the fact that some people use animals for sexual gratification and that others shoot themselves in the head. The familiarity I wrote of has to do with dwelling on or experiencing and either of the above choices is obviously unhealthy. The choices for purity I referred to were the ones by which I become aware of options and the wisdom and experience by which I filter those options. To be pure is to be unalloyed and unadulterated. Limitation of influences can aid in this paradigm. Some things just can't be scraped off once they stick and an author not guided by conscience or some outside restriction could include in a very compelling story imagery which indelibly affects the reader. You wrote that the choice of your college career was about fear: I am talking about stupidity. If my chosen belief system states that certain choices are wrong or worse, heinous, then doing those things surpasses simple stupidity and offends against the shape of my own conscience. If I happen upon these things in the course of real life, well then I must just deal with them and in my occupation as a professional firefighter, I encounter both people and situations that can try me but unexpected in a fictitious setting and from an author whom I trust it can just feel like a cheap shot. Its not just you. I keep encountering it in modern literature.
|
Thanks. I think I understand your point better now. But I get the feeling (perhaps unwarrented) that there's something about my position you may not have considered. As a writer, I have no way of knowing what's going to "stick" with any given reader. In fact, I have no way of knowing if *anything* is going to stick. Apart from the feedback of my personal readers--and my editors--I have nothing to guide me except my own reactions, my artistic ethic, and my sense of what is *fitting* for a particular story ("decorum" in this context is actually a sub-set of artistic ethic). Unless I want to puree my work until it can offend (or interest) no one, I have no real choice except to trust my, well, for convenience let's call it my "conscience". And conscience, I need hardly point out, is neither uniform nor universal. If my personal conscience carried any weight with humankind in general, no one would consider terrorism a valid response to the inequities of life. I wish I had a more satisfying response for you; but I'm afraid that I'll simply have to continue trusting my own judgment. (03/28/2007) |
Reed Byers: Concerning the suggestion for a "Foods of the Land" cookbook -- I want to see the cooking instructions in such a book. :)
Step 1: Prepare your mind; hold peace in your heart as you begin to chant and summon the Earthpower within you.
Step 2: Thrust both fists into the graveling pit...
|
You're off to a great start! Now all you need is 297 more pages. And pictures. <grin> After all, the food has to *look* good as well. (03/28/2007) |
greg: Love your work!....Is "health sense" an idea you imagined; or does it relate to your own experience.I know that,for me,the intensity and quality of impressions of the outside world is determined by how conscious I am...i:e less conscious-dull impressions; more conscious-vivid impressions carrying much information.Particularly in relation to the natural world.A great annalogy is the difference between the percipience of "health sense" and the effect of "Kevins dirt".
|
I suppose one could draw a parallel between health-sense and intuition. Or between health-sense and degree of awareness, as you do. But when I came up the original idea, I was simply trying to imagine the opposite of suffering from leprosy. Leprosy kills nerves, produces numbness and often blindness: ergo life in the Land should have the opposite quality. Of course, the concept and uses of--and the emphasis upon--health-sense modulate as the story of the Chronicles develops through its various phases. But the original notion felt to me more like an exercise in logic than a leap of imagination (or intuition). (04/04/2007) |
Charles W. Adams: Since everyone seems to be throwing their opinion around regarding the title change, I'll do the same, and add a question.
I found that I understood the new title better than the former title. And frankly I agree with the higher powers that the new title will likely sell more books than the old. That isn't to say I *like* the new title better than the old, I found the old title to be more mysterious (which I prefered). But I can definitely agree with the opinion regarding "Against All Things Ending" and the relationship to volume of sales.
Now the question. I know the passage from where "The Final Dark" comes. I know from where "Should Pass Utterly" comes. Is there a passage from where "Against All Things Ending" comes? If so, can you describe where we can find it?
Thanks!
|
Hmm. I suppose I should reiterate that my intended title for the last volume of The Last Chronicles is The Last Dark, not The Final Dark. Against All Things Ending is not a quote from the Chronicles--or from any other source that Im aware of. At least not a *conscious* quote. As Ive often said, my unconscious mind works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform (I think Ive got *that* quote right <rueful smile>). (04/04/2007) |
Matthew Yenkala: Regarding the "Shall Pass Utterly"/"Should Pass Utterly" debate, if an author isn't allowed to misquote themselves, who is???
(As a side note, I shall leave aside the "bowel movement" angle, though if there are any doctors in that subject in your fan base, perhaps THEY could use the discarded title for THEIR book? I know, I know...bad...but not as bad as "Shall Pass UDDERLY"....)
|
Which brings to mind various alternative titles for Lord Fouls Bane. Lord Banes Fowl was actually used at a WorldCon masquerade. I would have preferred Lord Fanes Bowel. (04/04/2007) |
kevin: Mr.Donaldson, what classic poet would you compare your poetry too? im writing a paper for advanced placement english in which i have to compare a modern poet with a classic, and as your poetry is by far my favorite contemporary poetry, i thought that i would ask for your opinion. i would really appreciate it if you could get back to me somehow. thank you very much,
Kevin
|
Good God! I wouldnt compare my poetry to *any* classic poet. As far as Im concerned, I dont write poetry at all: I write verse (which I consider a kind of middle ground between prose and poetry). Oh, I like to think that occasionally--a line or two here, perhaps an entire stanza there--my verse rises to the level of poetry. But I may be deluding myself. I cant read Hopkins, or Blake, or Yeats, or Meredith, or Donne, or (of course) Shakespeare, and still believe that *I* write poetry. (04/04/2007) |
Tom Lavoie: Hi Mr. Donaldson
Unbelievable-my birthday and the US release date of Fatal Revenant coincide: October 9th (I'll be 49). Since there is a 3 year delay between books, will it be possible to schedule the final two release dates for October 9th?<grin>
Thank you
Tom
|
Your wish is my command. (And if you think that my publishers are listening to either of us, I have a nice bridge Id like to sell you, only one previous owner who only drove it on weekends. <grin>) (04/04/2007) |
Robert Montgomery: One thing i missed while reading 'Runes of Earth' was the Woodhelven, i hope i spelled it right. Why the focus on the haruchai and will the woodhelvenin be brought in during later books?
thank you for your time
|
1) The Haruchai. Please dont take this the wrong way; but this is one of those situations where the answer cant be explained unless its already obvious. Why have I written so much about Giants? Or about Ranyhyn? Well, how could I not? 2) Woodhelvens and the Woodhelvennin. This is a very different issue. Wood doesnt last the way stone does; the Sunbane was *very* destructive to life in any form that reproduces itself; and all of the old lore was lost as the Clave slowly corrupted the Council. So who remains capable of growing or fashioning a Woodhelven? After everything thats happened, how could Woodhelvennin still exist? (04/04/2007) |
Brian Matthews: What are your happiest and funniest memories as a professional writer?
BTW, I like the new title Against All Things Ending.
|
Ive been blessed with a number of extraordinary experiences. Of course, I have to mention Heatherly and Julies Fantasy Bedtime Hour, my one true claim on immortality. And years ago, at a variety of conventions, there was The Real and Steve Show: Despair and Whimsy in Fantasy in its various avatars, the most hilarious of which was as a game show, Whimsy, Despair, or Draw. (Incidentally, thats Real Musgrave the incomparable artist, for those of you who are foolhardy enough to admit that you dont know who Real is. <grin>) But Ill concentrate on one ineffable moment at an sf/f convention mumblemumble years ago. With three or four other writers, I was on a liars panel with Philip Jose Farmer. The original idea, I suppose, was that we would make various statements about each other, and the audience would try to decide which statements were lies. But since we all claimed that everything said about us was true, no matter how outrageous the assertion may have been, the panel quickly degenerated. At one point, I was asked to tell a lie about Phil Farmer. Well, Ive never been very quick-witted in such situations, so I fell back on the familiar trick of stealing an old joke. I said, Im sorry. I simply cant tell you any lies about Phil. What I *can* do is tell you a little-known truth. No matter what you may have heard, Philip Jose Farmer has never made love to any man, woman, or childwho wasnt alive. Or wasnt *recently* alive. And without missing a beat (I swear Im not making this up), Phil immediately reached into his shirt pocket, pulled out a thermometer, and said, Yes! Thats why I carry *this*! (For the record: I have no idea why Phil carried a thermometer in his pocket in those days. I can only assume that he was telling the truth.) (04/04/2007) |
Charles W. Adams: This is more of a business question. Other than possible personal gratification or disappointment (hopefully not), do our pre-orders of Fatal Revenant have any impact for you?
P.S. My order is placed :-)
|
The crucial point is this: pre-orders from Amazon count for bestseller lists. In fact, all pre-orders are included as first-day sales. As Ive explained elsewhere in this interview, being a bestseller measures the immediate speed with which a book sells, not the ultimate quantity of sales. Therefore one might be inclined to consider ultimate quantity more important than immediate speed. However, bestsellerdom has an undeniable perceptual power. On an intangible level, a book which touches, say, #14 on the NY Times list is considered to be an entire order of magnitude more successful than a book which touches #16. And on a tangible level, bookstores will stock more copies of bestsellers, and will stock those copies longer, than any book which does not achieve bestsellerdom. The results are akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more copies a bookstore stocks, and the longer those copies are stocked, the greater the likelihood (duh) that some significant percentage of those copies will actually sell. Which has a direct bearing on ultimate quantity. In practice, being a bestseller tends to be self-perpetuating. Sadly, *not* being a bestseller *also* tends to be self-perpetuating. Hence the (otherwise irrational) emphasis that publishers--and reviewers--and bookstores--place on bestsellers. When my agent first began trying to find a publisher for The Runes of the Earth, I was horrified to learn that most US publishers considered me a has-been simply because nothing that Ive written since White Gold Wielder has been on the NY Times bestseller list. Enough pre-orders for Fatal Revenant could give my professional career a real boost. (04/04/2007) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have another Raver question for you. I read with interest several of your replies to others regarding these three malicious beings. But one thing always puzzles me - why do they serve Lord Foul? In one of your recent answers, you imply Foul's natural ability to make others do what he wants, plus the Ravers' own similar outlook on the world, is part of the answer.
Don't the Ravers, however, realize that once the Arch of Time is destroyed (Foul's ultimate aim), they themselves will either be destroyed or cast out into the void? I doubt the Creator would have a sympathetic attitude toward his great enemy's three main servants!
In other words, if Foul wins, their fun is over. Or do they think that far ahead?
Thanks again for all your writing and the GI.
|
I'm tempted to say that Bad Guys always have Henchmen, and the Henchmen never seem to have any particular *reason* for, well, henching. But a better answer would be, What makes you think the Ravers have a choice? Do you imagine that they have the power to defy Lord Foul's will (assuming that they want to)? And an even better answer would be, What makes you think "their fun is over" if the Arch of Time falls? Do you assume that the Creator is THE supreme being, and that he rules EVERYthing outside Time? If so, why does Lord Foul want to escape at all? Isn't he better off inside Time (where he can pretty much do what he wants) instead of outside Time (where the Creator can presumably squash him like a bug)? It seems likely to me that the Ravers believe they'll be able to ride Lord Foul's coat-tails into godhood if/when the Arch falls. (04/04/2007) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
Do you know of "The Signed Page", www.signedpage.com, and would you participate in something like that?
|
I have no objection. But I don't see the need. Autographs are readily available on my web site. (04/05/2007) |
Brian, UK: I hope you're getting as excited about the release of Fatal Revenant as I am (or doesn't it affect you like that anymore)
You have said several times that you have difficulty in coming up with initial ideas for stories. In your education you must have been set assignments where you had to create a story from someone else's idea. Have you ever been tempted to do that using a pseudonym to earn some "easy" money - understandable since you need to earn a living like the rest of us. Or have you already done so (you aren't JK Rowling are you :-) - actually King Stephen would be more appropriate)
I have recently re-read the Narnia books for the first time since I was a child (I'm now 46) and was struck by how many influences there were for the TC books, particularly in The Silver Chair. Obviously there are earlier examples in literature which have influenced all writers. In Narnia when someone enters then returns they return to their original age. What would happen to a child summoned to the Land who returns after growing up in the Land? If this is a potential spoiler, please ignore and save it for the remaining books.
|
1) Yes, I'm very eager to see how "Fatal Revenant" will be received. I gave it my all (to coin a phrase). And I defy anyone to predict the "arc" of the story--or to fault the logic of the arc once it has been revealed. (What, hubris? Me? Surely you jest!) Plus it's always very gratifying to see my work appear as a book; a tangible object independent of my imagination (and typing). Publication makes my work "real" in a whole new way. 2) If anything, I've always found other people's ideas even more difficult to work with than my own. For a writer like me, there *are* no easy ways to make money. An attempt at pseudonymous hack-work might well be arduous enough to kill me. 3) In "Covenant," preserving the physical continuity of the "real world" has always been an important dimension of what I'm trying to do. Hence the difference in the rate at which time passes in the two worlds. Hence also the fact that no one gets to *stay* in the Land without dying in the "real world" (although I suppose that some form of permanent coma might be a viable alternative). (04/05/2007) |
denny: Mr. Donaldson,
[heavily pruned with denny's permission]
Why were 'Gryphons' (Griffins ??) introduced to the Land via your pen ? I always thought they felt a little out of place, these beasts from Greece (as it were), taken from a mythology that didn't really mesh well with the Land's rich fabric .. any comments or thoughts on Gryphons (a 'geeky' question I know, but a lot of the good stuff has already been covered hehe)
|
Actually, I agree with you--retrospectively. By the time I was well into "The Second Chronicles," I had already begun to feel that "griffins" were a, well, let's call them a tactical error. The rationalization, of course, is this: if Covenant is dreaming, than anything he knows can serve as an antecedent or source for something in the Land. But rationalizations don't matter when the results don't *feel* right. And like you, I now find that griffins don't feel right for my story. I look back on them as a failure of imagination. Sadly, I don't have the option of correcting miscalculations which occurred that long ago. So I'm going to fall back on the tried and true gambit of Blaming Someone Else. <grin> This is all Lester's fault. He was my editor: he should have been perceptive enough to realize that griffins didn't belong in the same company as ur-viles, Cavewights, and the like. But seriously: I just screwed up. The interesting question is: why don't Giants suffer from the same flaw? After all, like griffins they arise from the mythologies of our world. The answer, I think, is that I reinvented Giants thoroughly enough to make them fit, whereas I didn't reinvent griffins at all. (04/05/2007) |
Marian Sherwood: I've often wondered about how it came to be that you attended The College of Wooster. Today I read on the GI that you chose your college because it was the school your parents attended. You also indicated it turned out to be a good choice for you. How did it come to be that your parents enrolled there? Have your children also picked small, selective, liberal arts colleges? Did you intentionally influence their college choices? If you could start over, would you still choose The College of Wooster for yourself?
Your books are far and away my favorites. For many months, the GI has been wonderful lunchtime reading for me. Thank you!
|
(Not that any of this is germane to the GI. But I'm in an expansive mood....) I don't know all of the reasons my parents chose Wooster. (Proximity was certainly a factor in my mother's case.) One was this: in those days, Wooster was a Presbyterian college that offered many forms of financial aid for the children of preachers and missionaries--and both of my parents were both. Fortunately Wooster was perfect for me (at least in part because the college had changed considerably since my parents attended). If I had to do it over again, I would make exactly the same choice. I pushed my children toward "small, selective, liberal arts colleges," but only because I believed that they would not thrive in large universities. I did not push them toward The College of Wooster. I've never felt the slightest desire to have my children follow in my footsteps. I just want them to discover their true potential--and to be happy doing so. (04/05/2007) |
Marcus Huculak: First of all, thanks for making this gradual interview available--I've found answers here to questions I didn't even know I had.
My question pertains to translation; Have the First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant ever been translated into Ukrainian, and if so--who is the publisher? I'm currently studying the language, and I consider reading for pleasure an important part of the learning process. My command and affection for the English language is in no small part due to a love of reading acquired at an early age. (In fact, if this question is to be published, is there a link to a site listing the translations of your work and the publishers? I'm aware that relatively few people will have an interest in Ukrainian, but may have the same question about another language)
|
I'm unaware of any translations into Ukrainian. Or of any "centralized" source of information about which books have been translated into which languages. For any author--or even for any publisher. The web being what it is these days, I'd be surprised if such a source doesn't exist somewhere. But if it does exist, I don't know how to find it. (04/06/2007) |
Susan: I cannot find any of the Thomas Covenant Chronicles in hardback and I was wondering if they were published in hardback. My husband and I just love your books and they are the only ones my husband will read over and over.
Thank You,
Susan
|
As far as I know, there are no currently available hardcover editions of any of the "Chronicles". You may want to try used booksellers, of which there are many good ones. (04/06/2007) |
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.
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I was wondering if, at a later time, will you be releasing any unpublished material like you did with Gilden Fire? I was hoping for the complete unpublished material you have to omit from the story so that your fans can see all the work together. I know I would be at the bookstore...LOL
Thanks again for a great story!
Perry Bell
Reno Nevada
|
Aint gonna happen. Ive said it before, and Ill probably say it again. Words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, even entire scenes end up in my wastebasket because thats where they belong. The story is *better* without them. Oh, sure, editors sometimes push me to prune more than I want. But thats a misleading way to phrase the issue. The real problem is that editors sometimes push me to prune *differently* than I want. When that happens, I usually find some way to squirm away from what they want and accomplish what I want. Gilden-Fire is/was a *very* specialized situation. If I had known that that scene would be so widely publishing (in direct violation of my contract with its publisher), I would never have agreed to its publication at all. It *belongs* in the wastebasket. I dug it out, well, to gratify my ego, and because I honestly believed that no more than 1000 copies would ever be printed. But leaving the the specific circumstances of Gilden-Fire aside: Ive never repeated the narrative mistakes which led to the existence of that scene. As a result, theres nothing comparable in my wastebasket. The complete unpublished material of, say, The Runes of the Earth would have all the same scenes and characters of the published version; but it would have longer and less vivid descriptions, less convincing characters, less comprehensible dialogue, and much much MUCH more repetition. *I* say: everytime I rewrite, for whatever reason, you should count your blessings. (04/08/2007) |
Andrew A: If Hile Troy was from the "real" world, did he die there only a few days ago if he has been in the land for 5 years? Or is the passage of time different for each character who enters the Land from the "real" world?
|
Hile Troy has been discussed in some detail elsewhere in this interview. If he had lived, the ratio of time between his "real" life and his life in the Land would have been the same as Covenant's. But he died in the "real world" mere moments after he was summoned to the Land. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to stay in the Land after his summoner died. (04/09/2007) |
Pastor Theo Obrastoff: I have loved your world, the Land, and characters for many years. I mean this with the utmost admiration, but as a writer who seems to harbor a certain animosity towards Christianity, I treasure you writings as some of the most Christian writings I have ever experienced.
|
I think I understand the, well, let's call it the discrepancy to which you refer. Certainly it's true that I "harbor a certain animosity towards Christianity." But when I say that, I'm using the word "Christianity" in a rather specialized and even ideopathic sense. First, I'm referring to the bureaucracy of any organized religion--and to the theological distortions which are inherent in any bureaucracy. (In my view--just an opinion--bureaucracies are always about self-perpetuation, which means that they're always about authority and control, which means that they always misuse their putative beliefs.) Second, I'm referring to the judgmental, abusive, and even murderous forms which organized religions often take when they practice evangelism. (The attack on the World Trade Center was a form of evangelism. So were the Crusades.) As the son of Christian missionaries, I have Christianity "bred in the bone," as it were. And I also have intimate experience with a number of the evils which are practiced in the name of Christianity. This accounts, I think, for the discrepancy you've observed. (04/11/2007) |
Theo Obrastoff: Dear SRD,
Concerning the on-going question of whether or not "the Land" is really real (IMHO):
If the Land is only something in TC then it stopped having significance when he pased away, didn't it?
I mean, we can say that we care about the Land because we care about the character TC.
But if "the Land" has no reality either in of Itself or within a character we love--then where is the motivation to care about it at all?
Blah blah blah. =-) Your thots?
|
Gee. Doesn't Linden Avery count at all? Sure, you could argue that she "inherited" the Land from Covenant in one form or another (shared delusion or dream, tangible experience, whatever). But she's still "real". In every sense that matters, the Land becomes a reflection of her in the way that it is a reflection of Covenant. (04/11/2007) |
sonke johnsen: Your books are wonderful. I love how the characters deal with problems they simply cannot fix (Covenant's leprosy, Linden's parents, Saltheart's dead kin, the lords' inability to defeat Foul). I could never match this interest in how we deal with the essential unfairnesses of life with that smiling, young face on the back of the older editions of the Covenant books. So first, did anything in particular lead you to think about these things? I always assumed it was your time in India, though I know that life can be unfair anywhere. Second, did you choose that picture? Thanks!
|
Yes, I chose that picture. It was the only one I had handy, and I couldn't afford a professional photographer. I can't help the fact that (until I hit my 40s) I was cursed with a face that looked decades younger than my actual years. (10 years after I got my MA, people were still asking me, "Where do you go to high school?") I've already said more than I probably should have about my years in India. The short version: I've always written about the things I know best, which are pain, abuse, alienation, and the quest for healing (or redemption). (04/11/2007) |
Tim Piper: I'm still amazed that the GI exists. Your love of writing shows in how you deal with our letters.
I read the news about the movie rights for the GAP cycle. While it's way too soon to start salivating, there are questions to ponder.
What aspects of the story would you consider critical, beyond the Morn-Angus-Nick triangle?
By critical, I mean damaging to the storyline, in a Frodo-picks-Gollum-over-Sam way.
A toast to a quiet October afternoon in 2013, curled up with The Last Dark.
|
If one were so inclined, one could break the entire story down into triangles: Warden/Morn/Angus, Warden/Hashi/Min, Morn/Davies/Angus, Warden/Holt/Norna, Koina/Cleatus/Holt, Marc/Milos/Angus, Marc/Milos/Warden, Nick/Sorus/Angus, Mikka/Vector/Morn, Mikka/Sib/Nick, Mikka/Sib/Sorus, etc.. But I'm really not the right person to ask which of these characters or relationships is critical to a movie version of the story. I wouldn't have put them in if I didn't think they were all critical. However, I think I can safely say that the entire story will collapse without the Amnion. <grin> (04/12/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I was sitting thinking one day about all the clues we have for the direction that the Last Chronicles is taking us: Runes (some big clues there), this Interview, Fatal Revenant teaser trailer, the leaked FR synopsis, new Covenant 9 title, etc. I was feeling kinda Harry Potterish and on a whim gave it a shot. Well, you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that:
STEPHENDONALDSON: Anagram for - LAND NEEDS PHOTONS
At first I was stymied by this, WHAT DID IT MEAN?! Photons = Light particles. And then it hit me! Of course, Kevin's Dirt is blocking the sun, so the Land needs it's photons back and the key to the Last Chronicles is deciphering Kevin's Dirt and removing it as the scurge it is, thus restoring the Lands great need for photons. I slept well that night. I'm sure you'll want to post this is the spoilers section - wouldn't want to ruin it for everyone.
|
I'm in awe! Now why didn't *I* think of that? <grin> (04/12/2007) |
kamelda: I heard you mention something of Chesterton's on a program my husband watched (he bought me the books a few years back, and I've read through the first three. I wanted to shout at Covenant at the end 'it's not that easy!' - I don't think you can escape the question of belief or unbelief, or somehow win where those who don't escape the question stumble, by the exercise of a contextless individual will? But I love them very much despite the painfulness of them -and will reread them, and read them to my children). I was wondering if you'd read Chesterton's poem called "The Ballad of the White Horse" and if these lines from Books I & II (public domain) had any influence on Foamfollower's character and the end of the first trilogy? (Though I assume Chesterton got the idea of 'causeless joy' as something peculiar to giants from something else you may have read.)
|
[I cut a substantial quote from Chesterton's poetry to save space] In fact, I'd never read any of Chesterton's poetry until the lines you quoted; so "The Ballad of the White Horse" could not have had any influence on my Giants in general, or on Foamfollower in particular. But I have to say that I don't think there's anything "easy" about Covenant's response to the belief/unbelief dilemma at the end of TPTP. Simply holding mutually exclusive concepts in the mind simultaneously is (in my limited experience) very difficult: affirming (or reconciling) both of those concepts requires a real confrontation with the abyss. Judging by the Chesterton passage you quoted, he would have approved Tertullian's statement of faith: Credo qua impossibila est ("I believe because it is impossible"). Covenant's position might be similarly phrased: "I believe that it is vitally important even though I know that it doesn't exist." Chesterton obviously didn't think that his faith was easy: I don't think that Covenant's is. Of course, "hard-headed materialists" scoff. So, curiously, do "true believers". Both are convinced that one has to, well, pick a side (preferrably theirs). I choose to disagree. (04/12/2007) |
Marcus Huculak: Greetings,
My question is in reaction to a statement you've repeated several times in this Gradual Interview: "Anyone who can be discouraged from being a writer, should be." Do you really mean that as is, or merely that anyone who can be discouraged from being a -professional- writer should be? I consider writing, like any other creative act, to be of immense benefit to the writer. Although I'd never attempt to publish anything I write (Indeed, I'd be utterly MORTIFIED if anyone other than I read what I write), that is a consequence of a) my complete lack of technical ability, and b) the intensely personal nature of the writing in question. ("The heart cherishes secrets not worth keeping," y'know)
Writing is an enabler of personal growth, even if the story is never finished. (Mine seldom are--the act of creation is, in my estimation, a journey rather than a destination, so if I am in 'danger' of being unable to stop before reaching a conclusion, I'll often apply the "rm -rf projects/*" ending).
Alright, so maybe that's more of a mini-essay than a question, but I think it's important to underline the value of creation for its own sake, as opposed to creation in order to entertain others. Not that there isn't validity to writing to entertain--I buy books to be entertained--but it's certainly not the only purpose to creativity.
|
You make a very good point. And I agree with you completely. In fact, I was speaking of "being a writer" in the public (published) rather than in the personal (creative) sense. (A bit of sloppy communication on my part; the result, no doubt, of having spent dozens or even hundreds of hours talking to people who want to be published.) I can say with perfect certainty that writing has been good/constructive/theraputic for me in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with being published. Indeed, I believe that the single greatest benefit of being published (with enough success to live off the income) is that it enables me to commit myself to writing more completely than I could otherwise. Saying that, I don't mean to under-state the value of having readers. I treasure the validation of being read. (You might want to consider it. Foamfollower notwithstanding, exposing our deepest secrets to the light of day can have some unexpected rewards.) But writing was good for me long before I ever had any readers; and it would still be good for me if I could no longer get published. Thank you for posting your thoughts. (04/12/2007) |
damien kennedy western queensland australia: Steve,
I know you are a busy man, however this thing is bugging me. The Haruchai communicate through some form of telepathy. In 'The Runes of the Earth', Stave needs to travel from the Verge of Wandering to inform his kin of his discoveries. How far can the Haruchai be apart from each other before distance disconnects them of their telepathic abilities? I would also comment on Kevin's Dirt. It applies to our world for me.
Thanks again Steve,
Damien Kennedy
|
I'm afraid that I can't give you a satisfactory answer. I don't write the kind of fantasy that can be readily quantified. (The top speed of a Ranyhyn is X mph. A Giant like Foamfollower can lift Y pounds. The Haruchai are Z strong compared to the Giants. How many foot-pounds of force can Mhoram exert with his staff?) Clearly there *is* a significant distance-limit to the mental communication of the Haruchai. But what's their actual range? A hundred yards? A quarter of a mile? A mile? More? I just don't think in those terms. (Critics have pointed out--to my chagrin--that I also don't think effectively in those terms when I'm writing science fiction. <sigh>) (Incidentally, this is why I work from an explicit map when I'm working on the "Chronicles". I *do* want the distances to make sense.) But if you'd like a rough guestimate: the mental range of the Haruchai is probably less than a stone's throw for a Giant. (How's that for a non-answer?) btw, your thoughts on Kevin's Dirt make sense to me. (04/12/2007) |
Stephen: A question about things-of-which-you-have-no-control (and possibly no-idea, but what the heck? :-)
Why don't UK and US publishers publish on the same day?
|
Because publishers publish a whole bunch of books; and they already have prior commitments when they pick publication dates for almost any specific book. Given the ease with which books can be purchased internationally these days, I'm sure that Gollancz *wanted* to release "Fatal Revenant" on the same day as Putnam's. But sometimes publishers just don't have that option. (04/12/2007) |
Slim: Hopes of a Gap film? And you may be involved? The very thought makes me tingle all over! :)
|
In that case, I despair for your sex life. (Of course, I mean that in the *nicest* possible way. <grin>) (04/12/2007) |
Scott: Regarding the Sandgorgon, Nom; after rending the raver and gaining the power to communicate, was Nom able to pass this along to other Sandgorgons? I realize you may not be able or *willing* to answer at this time, so a couple of follow-up questions which might be safer.
Sandgorgons are formed from the violent sand storms, therefore can we presume they are incapable of reproduction? How does a Sandgorgon typically die (i.e. Is there a *possiblity* that Nom still exists)? Hopefully these will escape the spoiler catagory.
Until next time, may the Land be your home and the Earthpower your strength. (I'd love to see a Prequel someday about the original Lords).
|
I'm sorry. You're asking me to create details that I don't need for my story; and as I've said many times, I don't do that. In addition, I think it's a plus that there are things we don't know about the world of the story. For me, at least, this helps create the sensation that the world is bigger than the confines of the story. But based on what you already know, you can safely make some assumptions. Sandgorgons aren't really comparable to the Elohim. And they weren't consciously made by magic (Demondim, ur-viles). They were formed by storms--and storms eventually blow themselves out. That's only natural. So it seems reasonable to me that the specific energies which created individual Sandgorgons would eventually expend themselves. Ergo individual Sandgorgons do perish, even if they aren't slain. More than that I can't tell you. (04/13/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I see in the "Appearances" section that you will be attending the World Fantasy Convention Nov. 1-4, 2007 in Saratoga Springs, NY. This is shortly after the release of "Fatal Revenant". When I went to the WFC web site for this year's convention (http://www.lastsfa.org/wfc2007/) I saw that the theme was:
"Ghosts and Revenants: Memory, History and Folklore"
Coincidence? I've never been to a WFC event, besides giving out awards, what else happens? Also, I see that you actually won a WFC award for "Reave the Just" as best collection - congratulations, it is well deserved. Poking around a little more I was surprised to see that the "First Chronicles" lost in 1978 to Fritz Leiber's "Our Lady of Darkness". Hmmm...now, I will be honest and say I've never read "Our Lady of Darkness", actually never even heard of it, so I can't really pass judgement. If I can find a copy I may just see what the judges were so impressed by. Have you read it? I would find it hard to believe that it is better than the "First Chronicles", but I guess that's just my opinion. Or are these awards more like the Academy Awards where one's best work is sometimes not recognized and then an award is given later to "make up for it" (like Martin Scorsese this year). Was 1978 Fritz's Scorsese year?
|
Coincidence. The organizers of the WFC choose their themes years in advance, based on their own interests and locations. The WFC is mainly a "professional" convention: unlike most sf/f cons, it exists primarily for writers, artists, agents, editors, publishers, etc.. It has some "fan" programming (panels, readings, an art show), but mostly the pros spend their time wheeling and dealing, or just plain schmoozing. The World Fantasy Awards have many similarities to the Academy Awards. The year that Charles de Lint and I shared the award for "best collection," we were both being recognized more for a body of work than for a specific book. (04/13/2007) |
Drew (drew): Hello.
I was wondering, are there any offical plans for a 30th anniversary cellebration of the First Chronicles?
Other than the release of the next book obvisously.
I was currious since there is a different publisher publishing the Final Chronicles...are they able to promote a 30th Anniversary, or would if have to be DelRey?
|
As far as I know, "Fatal Revenant" will be the only "celebration" of the 30th anniversary of the original "Chronicles". But it's still way too early in the process for my publishers to have made decisions about things like that. And the situation is complicated by the fact that "The Last Chronicles" has a different publisher (in both the US and the UK) than the first six books. Del Rey and HarperCollins may feel that celebrating the first six books can only benefit Putnam's and Gollancz. Or not. Conversely, Putnam's and Gollancz may feel that celebrating their mere two "Covenant" books will primarily benefit Del Rey and HarperCollins. Or not. We'll all have to wait and see. (04/13/2007) |
Stephen Trimble: The Gap books have been optioned? That's great, right? I hope it means some remuneration for you.
For one thing, it means we can start speculating about a cast for the movie again, right? *grin*
Angus: Paul Giamatti
Nick: Christian Bale
Morn: Kirsten Dunst
Warden: Gary Oldman
Holt: Christopher Plummer
|
Have fun with it. Personally, I can't see Paul Giamatti as Angus. And I actively dislike Kirsten Dunst. But Famke Jansen (sp?) as Sorus? That works for me. (04/13/2007) |
Adam: I am a big fan and have read most everything you have written. From this web site, I see that it appears unlikely that a Thomas Covenant movie will be made. Perhaps it would be more feasible as a T.V. series? I could see it on the Sci-Fi channel. Has anyone considered that?
Also, has anyone considered making a video game based on Thomas Covenant? I do not know if that is something that would please or displease you, or whether you still own the rights to a video game version of the Covenant characters. Obviously, if one was made, it would sell better if it had the publicity associated with a movie, but it could still sell well.
Just curious.
|
The producers who wanted to make a "Covenant" film (or films) pursued every conceivable variation, including tv/cable movies/mini-series/series. The Sci-Fi channel was among the dozens of companies that rejected the project. "Covenant" games have been discussed off and on ever since the PC/internet revolution took hold. As far as I know, no "authorized" games have ever been produced. ("Authorized" by Del Rey/Ballantine, that is: I don't hold those rights.) However, I suspect that a number of "personal use" games have been created over the years. Perhaps some still exist. (04/13/2007) |
Mickie Turner: I truly was not going to ask a question and I researched your previous comments regarding lack of progression in the Land. Life for the people of the Land has changed but not developed. There has been no Industrial Revolution in the Land.
[some pruning here to save space]
In the past, the people of the Land had an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the Land. Stone or wood lore had to be learned, but the history of the events since the creator set the Arch of Time seemed almost to be a gift of Earthpower. For the most part, only the Haruchai retain the knowledge and that knowledge is tainted by the Haurchai's disdain for the errors made by mortals and their inherent weaknesses.
This seems the ultimate in Despair!
I guess my question is whether the people of the Land have developed any compensations to the crippling loss of Earthpower and Lore?
Do they till have a strong sense of community and their place within it or is Liand the only renegade Stonedownor who questions the arbitrary authority of the Masters and seeks to know more about life, the universe and everthing?
|
I've been over this in one form or another. I won't repeat what I've already said. But I will observe that the Middle Ages in our "reality" lasted for a thousand years without any obvious forms of progress. And if it weren't for various outside invaders, India might well have had 3000+ years of essentially static culture. As far as I can tell (just spinning this off the top of my head), there are only two requirements for a society that tends to preclude progress. 1) Ordinary survival has to be significantly labor-intensive. Without leisure (in other words, without more energy than they need to survive), people don't get creative very often. 2) There has to be some form of "authority" that actively seeks to promote the status quo. In our history, that authority has usually been based on religion, or on some other version of a caste system. But it's not hard to imagine other forms of authority (e.g. the Haruchai) that strive to achieve the same ends. When those two requirements are satisfied, progress usually grinds to a halt. Of course, people always have their compensations. Some find numbness in endless labor. Some find validation in the ruling authority (religion is especially good at this). Some develop strength of community (at times, this has been carried to amazing extremes). And some (the "renegades") get creative in spite of everything: they think outside the boundaries of survival, community, and authority. In a place the size of the Land, it is inconceivable that Liand is the only renegade. (Stave is a renegade himself.) But the story I'm trying to tell doesn't allow me the luxury of getting know very many of the Land's ordinary inhabitants. Thus endeth today's lecture. <rueful smile> (04/13/2007) |
Ed from Phoenix: Hello Steve,
[pruned to save space]
Of all the amazing things that great writers of epic stories accomplish, the ability to write solid, believable, internally consistent characters that are so different from one's own personality amazes me the most. As a reader, I feel I can identify believable, consistent behavior from a personality type very different from my own, but if I were to try to write it over the course of an epic story? You might as well serve me up a tossed amanibhavam salad now; I would be finished.
I understand that your subconscious plays a big part in your inspiration for stories. But what about the "nuts and bolts" dialog and interactions of characters that fill in the spaces between major plot points? Do those character interactions, thoughts, words etc. flow seamlessly from that same story inspiration, or do you find yourself having to do a lot of conscious analyzing of what a character's proper actions/reactions should be based on who they are?
I hope these questions make some sense and that I 'm not repeating an earlier question from the GI I just don't remember.
Look forward to October!
Thanks,
Ed
|
There are three things I want to say about this. First, this is a version of the oft-repeated "How do you do what you do?" question. And the answer is that I have no earthly idea. If I could explain how talent works, or how imagination works, or how the unconscious mind works, I would be...well, a whole lot wiser than I am now. <rueful smile> This is one reason why I firmly believe that a human being is greater than the sum of his/her parts. There appears to be something in all of us that has the potential to "go beyond," in one form or another. And I've never heard a rational materialist explain this potential in a way that sounds rationally or materialistically convincing. Second, I've been fascinated by human psychology my whole life. I mean empirically rather than theoretically fascinated. I've always wanted to know why specific people do what they do. I've always wanted to know why *I* do what I do. So I've been paying close attention for decades, looking for patterns and (for lack of better term) logic that I can understand. Third, when I'm doing original writing (my first draft), I pretty much "feel" my way through the story. I trust my instincts, my intution, my unconscious mind, and I just forge ahead. But when I'm rewriting (second draft onward), I become very analytical. That's when I try consciously to draw on everything I've ever learned. And I've discovered that there's a kind of synergy between these two facets of my creative process. The harder I work when I'm rewriting, the better my original writing later becomes. If I could tell you more than that, I would. (04/16/2007) |
Michael: Mr. Donaldson,
I'm in a creative writing class and my professor is giving me hell over the distinction between literary/genre fiction. She's basically told us in no uncertain terms that genre fiction of any kind neither gets nor deserves serious appreciation by the academic community. This might not be so bad if she didn't seem bent on reinforcing this bias by foisting it onto the class. After looking at various short story competitions that have a "no genre fiction" rule, I'm quite upset. Did you encounter this bias when you were an undergraduate and if so, how did it affect your early years before you became established?
In Consternation and Fury,
Michael
|
The blind prejudice of people who put themselves forward as discerning intellectuals makes me crazy. Any genuinely discerning intellectual knows two things: 1) the oldest and most enduring forms of literature on the planet are all fantasy; and 2) the only valid test of art is *time*. Work that continues to speak endures. Everything else slips away. That's why we continue to read Shakespeare and Tolkien rather than, say, Galsworthy and Eric Segal (sp?). In the meantime, to pre-judge work on any basis other than intelligence, skill, imagination, and emotional resonance is anti-intellectual folly. While I was in college (mid-60s), Tolkien was dismissed as "adolescent wish-fulfillment". Even respected sf writers at that time asserted that LOTR would be utterly forgotten in 10 years. Classes on "the modern epic" *ended* with Tennyson. Meanwhile I was required to study Bernard Malamud as an outstanding example of "literary fiction". But I defy you to find a scholar today who is still studying Malamud. In fact, I'll be astonished if you can find a Malamud book that's still in print. Tolkien, in contrast, remains a vital part of modern literary life--and many scholars are hard at work on the subject. I wrote "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" for many reasons, one of which was to find my own answer to the people who dismissed LOTR as adolescent wish-fulfillment. (04/16/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
The Haruchai remember everything. They have also witnessed the past and I am certain heard much concerning earthpower and the former lords use of it. Could Stave teach Linden anything concerning earthpower and the lords abilities (i.e. 7 words)?
Thanks for everything you do.
Perry Bell
|
Well, you have to keep in mind that the Haruchai didn't venture into the Land until sometime during Kevin's High Lordship. That places a certain limit on what the Haruchai could have heard/witnessed--and understood. And then there's that peculiar Haruchai pride (arrogance?), which places a different kind of limit on their recollections. Did they ever bother to *listen* when the Lords exerted their lore? That's an open question. And then there's the general nature of magic in "The Chronicles". No matter how power is evoked or deployed in practice, the ability to use it is a function of the identity/character/strength of its wielder. Stave might conceivably be able to tell Linden some of the things that the Lords were able to do, but he couldn't teach her *how* they did those things. And on a purely practical level, how do we know what forms of lore the Lords ever used within sight or hearing of the Haruchai? We know that Kevin sent them out of harm's way before the final crisis of his war with the Despiser; but that's about all we know. (Of course, the new Lords are a different issue. But the knowlege available to them was only a small portion of Kevin's lore.) In short, don't expect the author to pull any "deus ex machina" rabbits out of his hat--or out of Stave. <grin> (04/16/2007) |
Ted: I never was clear on this point, but what ws the story behind Hile Troy? Was he really from this world? If so, why was it when TC called the DOD he got a negative response? I humbly apologize if this question has been answered before, but I have truly searched as thoroughly as possible through the archives and can't find the answer.
|
It's important that Covenant is unable to confirm Hile Troy's existence as a "real" person. (And why in the world would the DOD *ever* confirm that someone was a member of one of their secret think-tanks? The Freedom of Information Act takes a long time to kick in.) But it's a safe "working assumption" that Troy did indeed come from Covenant's world--as long as you don't try to draw too many conclusions from that assumption. (04/16/2007) |
Farm Ur-Ted: Stephen,
I just finished the Gap series, which I loved. I've got two quick questions for you.
1. Who do you think is the hottest babe in the series? Be honest. Personally, I really dug Lane Harbinger. If the movies are ever made, I'm hoping Ally Sheedy gets the part. I picture the character kind of like a grown-up version of Sheedy's character in The Breakfast Club.
2. At the end of TDAGD, did Angus kill Holt? Or did Angus give Holt a zone implant and make Holt become his personal butler?
Thanks and good health.
|
1) Well, as long as we're playing this game: my personal vote goes to Koina Hannish. 2) Gee. Are those my only choices? How about selling Holt to the Amnion? How about torturing him just for the hell of it? or to extract information that might not be contained in Holt's files? Personally, I suspect that Angus has developed something of a revulsion for zone implants. (04/16/2007) |
dlbpharmd: In 2nd Chronicles, Linden's health sense surpasses the Land sight of the Haruchai, but in ROTE (and again in the cruelly truncated preview chapter of FR) the opposite is true. Is there a reason for this difference?
|
The obstacles to health-sense have changed. The Sunbane *fed* on Haruchai to a significant extent: it was, in a manner of speaking, tuned to them. And Lord Foul actively sought to make Linden as vulnerable as possible. Kevin's Dirt is an entirely different form of hindrance: it obscures rather than corrupts Earthpower. Naturally Earthpowerful beings (the Haruchai, the Ranyhyn) "pierce the veil" more easily than ordinary humans can. (04/18/2007) |
Scott: Thank you for being so generous in both the GI and your "book" writings over the years. I can not begin to sum up what your writing has meant to me.
My question: When "Runes" came out, you had hand signed a thousand (?) copies that were eventually sold to the public; will you be doing the same for "Fatal"? If so, how can an average member of the public get his/her hands on one? I have heard/read comments from people that just found a signed copy in their bookstore. Is it luck of the draw? Can we (your loyal GI readers) request one that is signed by you(perhaps from the publisher)? You do offer bookplates (very kind again), but I would really like to have a book hand signed by you (to go with my hand-signed Alan Paton "Cry the Beloved Country" in a place of honor in my home).
Do you even know anything about what happens to those books after they leave your hand?
Thanks in advance and eagerly awaiting all your future work.
|
Before "Runes" was published, I autographed closer to 7500 US "tip-in" sheets which were then bound into finished copies of the book. (So just in case you were wondering: no, my publisher did not send me 7500 *books* to sign. They sent me 7500 pieces of paper. The idea that I "hand signed" the actual books is something of an illusion.) How these books were later distributed, I have no idea. I can only hope that they weren't sent to the same cities I visited on my book tour(s). Of course, when I *do* visit bookstores, I don't just autograph books for people who request that in person: I also sign "store stock" so that the stores can continue to sell autographed copies after I leave. Still, "luck of the draw" is as good an explanation as any. At this stage in the publishing process, my publishers have hardly begun to think about how they want to market "Fatal Revenant". I probably won't know for months whether they'll want to send me on the road--and/or to have me sign more tip-in sheets. (04/18/2007) |
Glenn Sisson: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I have always been amazed at the kind attentiveness you pay to your readers. I remember being astonished to receive two letters from you, back in the eighties, after I had written you. I was a teenager then; now an old geezer; forever a fan. I just began reading "The Runes of the Earth", and also, just visited your website for the first time. I'm delighted with what I've read so far;thrilled that there will be three more tomes in the Covenant saga.
I'm also very intrigued by this GI feature. I just had a suspicion of a possible revelation, perhaps to occur in this saga. I know you can't reveal whether or not my thinking is way off, or dead-on, but, I present it anyway, for the sake of speculatory fun amongst my fellow fans, and perhaps to give you a chuckle:
Imagine it turning out that, after all these books, and eons of Land-time, that, in some way, the "old man"(or "Creator"), IS, in fact...Thomas Covenant! I know. It's ludicrous. Just a crazy thought. Take care, sir, and thank you for an enormous amount of enjoyment you've given me!!
|
Hmm. Sounds a bit "Harry Potter-ish" to me. <grin> Or, reaching a little further back in time, Alfred Bester-ish ("The Stars My Desination"). (04/18/2007) |
John: Mr. Donaldson,
I really flubbed a question I asked which you answered regarding the website www.signedpage.com.
Often, or at least sometimes, that web site offers not just editions of books signed by the author but by the cover artist as well. How possible would such a thing be for FR? I think it would be nice to own a copy signed by both you and the artist.
Thanks!
|
I really have no idea. My publisher would have to decide that it's worth the cost to fly both of us to the location of The Signed Page, provide us with accomodations, and fly us home. I don't know how--or even why--publishers make such decisions, so I can't predict what they'll do. (04/19/2007) |
Patrick: I think Giamatti would make a great Angus. I see Gary Oldman as more of a Hashi Lebwohl, though...
And thank you for sharing all of your great stories!
|
This seems like as good a time as any to observe that you might have more fun discussing your ideas on kevinswatch.com. My interest in the subject is pretty limited (although I must confess that I hope they can cast Jessica Alba in the movie as SOMEone <grin>). (04/19/2007) |
peter minister: why are you posting the first chapter of fatal revenant......this is unbearable. Im a starving man and you let me sniff the appetiser to a meal not served for six months. I do have a comment of sorts. After reading the chronicals many times over the years, one thing I notice is how my own personal perspective changes towards the characters and stories. Since having children of my own instances and elements in the book hit so hard on an emotional level that the books "keep on giving".
|
Personally, I dislike being a "tease." But I've been receiving requests for years now. And my editor(s) pushed me to do this--as well as to include a countdown. (In fact, this web site wouldn't exist at all if my editors hadn't pushed me into it.) To refuse to help my publishers market "Fatal Revenant" seems like a form of professional suicide. So I decided to, well, grin and bear it. I hope you can do the same. (04/23/2007) |
Ray: Is there a connection between the Descartes' Meditations and your writing process?? I won't give too much detail, because I'm sure you are familiar, but as I read through his 1st and 2nd Meditation I couldn't help but think of Covenant and Foul.
|
In fact, I haven't read the "Meditations"--or anything written by Descartes. But his ideas have become part of our literary culture. I must have encountered them through the filter of other writers. (04/23/2007) |
jerry mcfarland: Not a question, just a cool picture that reminded me of THE ONE TREE
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=69868&b=vg2&st=0&la=808&ph=10&sid=13270&u=13270
|
I agree: this *is* cool. (04/23/2007) |
Raymond Luxury Yacht: How was Kevin able to become so powerful and have so much personal lore and knowledge? Later lords spent lifetimes trying to understand a small fraction of what he knew and was capable of doing. Was Kevin basically a genius, or does the answer go deeper than that?
Looking forward to the next book btw. If I could only read one, I would pick yours over the new Erikson book, and that's saying a lot.
|
In addition to what he learned on his own, Kevin inherited the accumulated lore of Loric and Damelon, both of whom added their own discoveries to what they inherited from Berek (who had his own distinctive sources of knowledge). In addition, I think we can assume that other Lords from Berek's time to Kevin's made contributions to the Council's store of knowledge. The mere fact that Kevin codified and then hid his lore doesn't imply that he acquired it all by himself. (04/23/2007) |
Vincent: I've been reading back over WGW to see if I might be able to gather an inkling of what you may have up your literary sleeve, and I have a guess to toss out:
-Nom didn't rend Sheol, it was possessed by him and, being that Nom was such an earth-powerful creature, Linden couldn't feel his presence. Sheol hid the fact that he was in control because, like all toadies, he yearned to overthrow his master, and didn't want Foul to get wind of his new power before he could figure out how to harness it.
So my guess is: The Scurge = Sheol
Do I get a signed copy of Fatal Revenant if I guess correctly? *hopeful grin*
|
Nice try. I like to think that in theory anyone who wants to can estimate where this story is going, but that in practice no one can foresee how I intend to achieve my eventual aims. I'm sure I'll hear about it if what I do along the way doesn't make sense. <grin> (04/26/2007) |
NF from AU: Are you ever frustrated by the fantasy genre?
I ask this with respect, as part of my favourite memories of reading will always begin with your Convenant books, and out of general interest. I ask this because, many years ago, I wanted to write fantasy, and believed that it would be enough. Part of this came from looking up to your writing (as well as others, particularly C.S. Lewis). Now I write something along the lines of realism, where the protagonist must challenge public definitions of reality to find authenticity. I wouldn't call it realism, but the fictional mode is obviously based in this particular world and history.
Your general subject is universal, the complexity of human character, and your setting contains many trajectories of human imagination, which is why your books are fascinating and picturesque, and stand above genre in their relevance. Can you state what you love most about sci-fi and fantasy, which lets you write in those forms with satisfaction of the result, over pursuing other genre?
Best, and, always, with gratitude,
NF from Down Under.
|
In most respects, your question doesn't make sense to me. The ideas that I get for stories usually imply the form (or genre, if you prefer) they require in order to be told; and if the ideas *don't* imply the form, they remain static in my imagination until I find the right form for them. In a very real way, form enables storytelling. So what is there to get frustrated *about*? The mystery writer Ross MacDonald was once asked why he wrote mysteries instead of, say, "serious" literature. Or so I've heard. He replied that the mystery form was what made writing *possible* for him. Well, it's certainly true for me that fantasy is what makes writing possible. (In fact, I wouldn't be able to write either sf or mysteries if I didn't first write fantasy.) My mind and imagination are what they are: I didn't choose them. And I don't choose my ideas. I often get frustrated with my ability (or inability) to carry out my ideas. And I absolutely get frustrated with the disdain many people feel toward "genre writing." But I can't think of a reason to feel anything except gratitude for the forms my ideas take. Without those forms, I wouldn't be able to write at all. Trying, however, to consider your question in a purely abstract, intellectual sense--well, I still can't think of a reason to feel frustrated. As an intellectual (in some sense a trained student of literature), I consider fantasy to be the "purest" form of storytelling. By its very nature (except in the hands of bad writers), it addresses more directly than any other form THE BIG QUESTION: what does being human mean? What is the significance (if any) of being who and what we are? In my (possibly self-serving) view, it's impossible to address that question directly without taking into account the dramatic discrepancy between our inner and outer "realities"; between, say, the ability to dream and the necessity of living in the mundane world; between what we're capable of loving and what we're capable of demonstrating. (In purely practical terms, human beings are *very* poorly suited to live in the mundane world--a fact which seems to lead most intellectuals into either cynicism or despair.) As I see it, this discrepancy is the natural subject-matter of fantasy. Even fantasy writers who don't acknowledge the discrepancy overtly write about it incessantly. In contrast, other forms (of every kind) require writers to approach THE BIG QUESTION more obliquely. More oblique approaches, I hasten to add, have their own virtues and rewards. If they didn't, I wouldn't love Conrad and James and Faulkner (and Meredith and Scott--Paul and Walter--and...) as much as I do. But I'm inclined by both nature and experience to write about the things that cause me the most trouble when I try to fit myself into my actual life. (05/03/2007) |
Captain Maybe: It was very interesting to see Jeremiah as a fully able character in the preview of chapter one. It made me think of Davies Hyland (Jr). Both characters suddenly come out of nowhere with fully formed minds (though Davies borrowed his, of course), and each is the child of the two main protagonists (Jeremiah is Covenant's son in as much as Covenant is Linden's partner). Does Jeremiah represent a way for you to redress the failings you feel you made with Davies? Or given that the idea of Jeremiah was presumably in your mind for the duration of the Gap series, was Davies a way of practicing for writing Jeremiah (a la Queen, I mean King Joyse and Warden Dios)?
|
A couple of things. First, you're asking questions that involve looking at my work in retrospect. But of course I don't *write* it in retrospect: I write looking forward. And I only think about the story I'm working on at the moment. I don't "carry forward" issues from work I've already completed (at least not consciously), or plan future stories based on the story I'm writing now. Sure, I can argue as well as anyone that King Joyse was a "warm-up" for Warden Dios. But to do so devalues King Joyse as himself--and falsifies how I thought and felt about Dios when I was working on the GAP books. Retrospect reveals--and distorts--many things. Second, the more you, well, get to know Jeremiah, the less you'll want to compare him to Davies Hyland. Which is about all I'm willing to say on *that* subject. <rueful smile> (05/05/2007) |
Bob Benoit: Dear Stephen -
I once asked you a question concerning the "Lysol in the Circle K" reference that you had made in regards to your ideas, and I read it again recently when read the afterword to The Real Story. (I really enjoyed that Afterword, especially your summar of Wagner's story.)
So I have two questions: 1) Do you know of any novelization or dramatization of the Rhinegold story? 2) Obviously Wagner's story had a direct impact on The Gap books, but it would seem that there are some connections to the Covenant books as well. To what extent (consciously and unconsciously) is that true?
Thanks again for your time.
BB
|
1) Aside from the original source of Wagner's story ("The Elder Eddas"?), I'm not aware of any "novelization or dramatization of the Rhinegold story". Which doesn't mean much, considering that I read very slowly, and have a tendency to be rather isolated. 2) I think I've discussed Wagner's effect on my work in general elsewhere in the GI. But briefly. Of course, there's my use of the "lietmotif," on which I've relied more and more as the years go by. Of course, there's the *lush* nature of the "Covenant" prose (and Wagner's music is nothing if not lush). But in addition, there's the "operatic" quality of the dialogue, especially in the first six books. My characters (at least in those books) don't really have conversations with each other: they're more inclined to make speeches to each other. Well, arias connected by comparatively small amounts of recitative are normal in opera; but Wagner carried the approach further than most other composers (so far, in fact, that virtually everything can be seen as a form of aria). Of these three influences (if you want to call them that), the first was/is the most conscious and the third was/is the most unconscious. (05/05/2007) |
duchess: A recurring symbol in Mordant's Need is the call of horns in the distance. As a music lover, I have often wondered if you were thinking of any particular piece of music or any particular musical group (such as the Canadian Brass)as you wrote those scenes in the book?
|
No, I was thinking more along the lines of hunting-horns heard from a distance. Which is appropriate to the story, considering that most of the characters are hunting for their own identities. (05/05/2007) |
Jeff: When this question was asked.How was Kevin able to become so powerful andLater lords spent lifetimes trying to understand a small fraction of what he knew and was capable of doing.
Was it not the oath of peace that kept the new lords from learing Kevins lore?
I have wondered also who was your favorite character that you have written about. I am torn between saltheart bannor and mhoram
|
Certainly the efforts of the new Lords to relearn Kevin's Lore from scratch were inhibited by the Oath of Peace (or by their interpretation of the Oath of Peace): the text says so explicitly. But it's also conceivable that the Old Lords had some advantages in their acquisition of lore that the new Lords lacked. And then--pure speculation here--it's not unimaginable that Kevin's "curriculum" for his future "students" wasn't well designed (he was, after all, working under difficult conditions). Just a couple of ideas, for what they're worth.... My "favorites" change from day to day, mood to mood, context to context, even minute to minute. At the moment, I'm feeling especially fond of Hashi Lebwohl. (05/06/2007) |
Dan: Hi Steve-
This is a simple question(s) that may have been touched on before (I've read the whole interview but it's been a while). I read the first 2 chronicles in the early eighties and am re-reading them now in anticipation FR in October and I am more engrossed now in this story than I was before! It brings back the same frustration (with TC)and fascination that I remember as a young adult. My question is out of the countless letters and emails over the years have you identified what it is about your story/characters that captivates us the readers and makes us care so much and crave more? I was also wondering what it feels like to know how profoundly you've affected so many readers lives? I know that I drew strength and even courage back then and still now I do from the Chronicles, and that it can't help but transfer into my life. Thanks for this interview, it is great on many levels.
ps. pre-ordering FR now and excited about the GAP movie option!
|
Since you described your questions as "simple," I'm going to try to answer them simply (although they are of course anything *but* simple <sigh>). Based on my mail, the GI, and conversations with readers, I get the impression that people are drawn back to "The Chronicles" by one (or both) of two things: an attraction to the Land, with all of its magicks, beauties, and dangers; and/or a strong identification with Thomas Covenant, whose sense of alienation, struggles with despair, and striving to find wholeness/love/meaning seem universal to those readers. For some, the Land provides an escape--an escape which is made especially attractive or gripping because it is genuinely endangered. For others, Thomas Covenant suggests a kind of hope (if *he* can find a way, perhaps finding a way really is possible). It's very gratifying to hear that my work has meant so much to so many people. But I distrust my own sense of gratification. Two reasons. First, it's based on ego; and ego interferes with the kind of work I want to do. Second, when I'm told that my work has affected a reader's life, I suspect that there is an inadvertent but profound illogic at work. People change their own lives: I don't do it for them. My work may (or may not) serve as a catalyst or (I hate to use this term) role model for change; but the *credit* for the change belongs to the person who does the changing, not to me. Under the right circumstances, ANYTHING can be a catalyst or role model. (Someday when I'm feeling mellow, and I have *lots* of free time, I'll describe how "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" changed my life. <grin>) Therefore I do everything in my power to avoid taking my own sense of gratification seriously. (05/07/2007) |
John: What is your favourite cover art for Lord Foul's Bane?
|
The first British cover from Fontana. Hands down. Indeed, Fontana did beautiful work for all of their original editions of the first six "Covenant" books. (05/07/2007) |
Tink: You have been mentioned in this blog and a discussion was raised. I thought it would be a thrill if you would be so kind as to drop in with an answer to this question for us. Thank you, thank you.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=802
Comment #50 (April 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am)
tednugentkicksass says: I'm
reading the second chronicles of Thomas Covenant right now and I came upon this gem. what the hell does "unambergrised" mean? I can't think of a better place to ask. I know what ambergris is but what the hell does this mean?
|
In a (perhaps doomed) effort to preserve my own sanity, I don't contribute to--or even visit--blogs. Lifeistooshort etc.. But "unambergrised". A great word, which (if memory serves) I stole from Gerard Manley Hopkins. Think of it like this. Long ago, ambergris (noun) was sometimes used to prepare bodies for funerals; more literally, to counteract the stink of an unburied body until an appropriate funeral (a show of respect and love) could be arranged. Inventing a verb from the noun, "to ambergris" denotes "to prepare a body for a funeral." By implication, therefore, the verb connotes treating something deceased or lost with love and respect. From there, it isn't hard to invent an adjective from the verb: e.g. "Men wept over her ambergrised corpse." And from *there*, it's a small step to the adjective "unambergrised," which means--drumroll, please--the opposite of "ambergrised". Which in turn brings us, through a series of connotations, to the unintended accuracy of asking, "What the hell does 'unambergrised' mean?"--"hell" having suddenly become appropriate to the discussion (via "treating something deceased or lost with contempt and/or disregard"). (I hear carping in the background, but I choose to ignore it. <grin>) (05/07/2007) |
Matthew Verdier: Hello Mr. Donaldson. The Chronicles have been my favorite series of books since I was a teenager and I still reread the series about once a year to this day. The emotional ranges explored in the books is tremendous, and for all the wonders we have in nature and science in the real world I am a little saddened that we have no giants to cherish. A world with out huge people with salt yearnings, loquacious demeanors and gentle hearts is similar to one that lacks a color of the rainbow in my opinion.
I also am an Ex Lego Afficianado, and was surprised and pleased to see the references to Lego in Runes. I was a little disappointed that it never occured to me to build a replica of Revelstone during all my Lego years. If you are curious, I have pictures of my models at http://www.mattandsusieq.com/mjvlego. I did win Cool Lego Site of the Week on three occasions back when I was still building if that can at all sway you to spend a few minutes perusing an old hobby of mine. I have spent so many hours enjoying your creations that I have a desire to share some of my lesser creations with you. But, hey no pressure! ;)
Hmm, Lets see, praise for your great work, statement of its impact on me, shameless plug of my website...I guess there was supposed to be a question in here somewhere. Let me see..... oh, hey, I know!
(tongue planted firmly in check) Imagine Joan Covenant (Lets face it, who picks the rings? All of this was her fault) had picked out not a White Gold set of rings but a Rose Gold or even Green Gold set of rings to marry our favorite Leper and the possible impacts this decision it would have had on Thomas during his time in the Land. If White Gold controls wild magic and Yellow Gold can be used for certain magical expressions ala Kaseryn, what are the possible uses of Green Gold and Pink Gold? Is it sort of like other colors of Kryptonite and Kryptonians? Would Green Gold kill TC and Red Gold make him loose his inhibitions?
Seriously, thank you for all you have written.
"Stone and Sea!"
|
All seriousness aside: your question assumes that the Land exists independent of Covenant (or Linden); *and* that it pre-dates him (or her). But you can't base your thinking on hypotheses which violate the known facts of the case. ("How different would the story be if everything on which it's based were different?" Gee, I dunno.) Even your notion that Joan picked white gold contradicts my experience, since I picked all of *my* wedding rings. Really, you'll have to try harder than THAT if you want me to think you're joking. (05/07/2007) |
Daniel Wolf: Mr Donaldson.
I had a look at the list of your publications that appears on this site. It said that the first three Covenant books were all published in the same year. I was very suprised. I had always assumed that they would have been released over three or five years. So did you have all three written before Lord Fouls Bane was published? I'm guessing, yes. Could you please explain these events? I imagine that as a young writer, you would have been very happy after all those rejections. Was there so much demand for the first novel that the other two were on the shelf as soon as possible? I mean three in a year,and now only one every three years. Has the publishing process changed so much. 2013 Hurrah!
Dan
|
(I think I've already been over this. If so, the answer is buried SOMEwhere in the bowels of the GI.) Speaking of hardcovers: yes, I had all three books written (and rewritten) before I ever found a publisher. With one exception (which I'll explain shortly), the three volumes of the first "Covenant" trilogy weren't just "all published in the same year": they were all published on the same day. Once Lester del Rey decided to publish LFB et al, his wife (and nominal boss), Judy-Lynn, read them--and promptly concluded that they would be hard to sell. ("They aren't books you can just laugh your way through over the weekend," or words to that effect.) So she came up with the brilliant tactic of persuading a "literary" hardcover house (Holt, Rinehart & Winston) to publish the trilogy before it came out in paperback--and to release all three books on the same day. This unprecedented publishing gambit attracted a vast amount of attention, primarily from reviewers (literary hardcover, all on the same day, wow, this must really be something special). As a result, the paperbacks (which began appearing less than a year later) sold by the truckload. (To her discredit, Judy-Lynn later refused to let HR&W publish "The Second Chronicles". But since Holt--in its present incarnation--is still getting royalties from the first three paperbacks, the company has never complained. Nonetheless I've always thought that retaining Holt might have enabled "Covenant" to remain in the mainstream, instead of being consigned to a much-maligned "genre".) The exception? Before she came up with her "Holt" idea, Judy-Lynn sold the bookclub rights for LFB (but not the subsequent books) to the Science Fiction Book Club. When the SFBC learned that Holt was going to release the whole trilogy on the same day in October, they rushed LFB into print almost immediately; so the true first edition of that book came out in April rather than October of 1977. Still the same year, of course, just not the same day. Yes, publishing has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Among many other changes, "genre" publishing has taken over the world--as has disdain for genre publishing. But I've changed as well. It simply isn't possible for me to write as quickly (not to mention obsessively) as I once did. (05/07/2007) |
John: I was re-reading the questions and answers about C.S. Lewis. Although as an adult you got bored with the Narnia books, I wonder what you think of Lewis' other fiction: the Ransom (Space) trilogy, Till We Have Faces; The Great Divorce and Screwtape Letters would probably fit this category as well.
In regard to Chronicles of Narnia being too preachy: Coming at it from the perspective of being a preacher, they seem to me to be a creative way of telling the Story. But I can understand how readers who are not looking for that kind of retelling could be disappointed or disillusioned. Although, as you mention, many people have been turned off by Lewis' content, by some accounts a lot of Narnia fans didn't pick up on the biblical allusions and were surprised to discover that Lewis was a Christian writer.
Thanks for the gradual interview--it's always interesting. Looking foward to Fatal Revnant.
|
When I speak of other writers (e.g. C. S. Lewis), I'm just expressing my opinions. And opinions (by definition) are personal, idiosyncratic, and of limited application. I hope that I don't claim any particular "authority" for my views. If I do, I shouldn't. My opinions are just my opinions, nothing more. Over the course of my life, I've been bludgeoned with too much (judgmental, demeaning, even abusive) preaching. The preacher who delivered my mother's eulogy used the occasion to lash the mourners with fire and brimstone. As a result, I dislike being preached at--even when I agree with the preacher. But that's just me: I'm probably hypersensitive on the subject. As an adolescent, I was bored by Lewis' "space" trilogy. In contrast, I liked both "The Great Divorce" and "The Screwtape Letters". (For the latter two, Lewis didn't pretend that he had a story to tell: he simply used fictional tools to describe various aspects of his beliefs.) However, I haven't re-read any of those books since. Still, it's obvious that elements of Lewis' theology continue to influence me (although they've been through any number of sea-changes). Among the various theological perspectives with which I was bludgeoned during my "formative" years, Lewis' was the only one that struck me as being even remotely *humane*. I now believe (just my opinion) that any religion or theology which isn't first and foremost *humane* doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. (05/08/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
This is another one of those "how do you do what you do questions", kind of. My question is in relation to your descriptions of rooms, hallways, etc. Do you "test" your descriptions?
I have heard some authors rearrange thier homes to "fit" the descriptions they give by testing them. Is this something you practice or is it something you are able to accomplish mentally?
Thanks again for everything you do,
Perry Bell
Reno Nevada
|
I do it all in my head. As I've said often, I *see* with words. The more vividly (or at least accurately) I deploy words, the more precisely I'm able to see what the words describe. Using physical objects to "test" what I see is only one of many things (like using "real" settings for my stories) I virtually never do: I don't need to (or can't) because in my case "seeing" by necessity follows rather than precedes description. (05/08/2007) |
Mike S: A couple of other things I forgot earlier...
First, I know that there won't be a Covenant movie, but if there was, did you ever have a preference for who would play Thomas? Ever since I saw the first episode of "House", I always thought you could put Hugh Laurie in a robe, give him a staff, otherwise keep him exactly the way he is (unshaven, rumpled, and grumpy), and you'd have a perfect actor for TC. What do you think, hypothetically of course...
Also, I've always been intrigued by the idea in the first chronicles that the new Lords were always limited in their understanding of Kevins Lore by their lack of passion. Did this idea come from your martial arts background? Having studied Judo and other arts for a while, I've always been amazed by the difference in practicioners who internalize their art (call it Chi or Ki, if you will), and those who learn the external forms but never rely on the internal committment to the art. "Commit to the throw in your mind before moving a muscle" was a common command from my sensei in the dojo. Seems to be the same with the new Lords. Until they "intenalized" the Lore, committed to it, they would always be limited to the very base abilities the Lore offered.
Thoughts?
|
I've lost interest in playing Cast the Movie, perhaps because I'm convinced that a "Covenant" movie will never happen, perhaps because I've developed a poor memory for the names of actors, perhaps because US-trained actors (aiming at movie or tv rather than stage roles) don't *project* the dialogue the way I want them to, perhaps because I've been assured that if a "Covenant" movie is ever made it will use a no-name (i.e. cheap) cast in order to save money for special effects. Having seen Hugh Laurie since the last time his name was mentioned, I think he plays "House" well (or as well as the scripts allow), but I can't *hear* him as Covenant. Keep in mind that I wrote the first six "Covenant" books long before I started studying the martial arts. But what I've learned since seems consistent with what happened to the Lords in relation to Kevin's Lore and the Oath of Peace. To save myself time and effort, I'm not going to describe my entire martial arts philosophy. But I've observed in myself the same problem the Lords faced. Learning (as distinct from using, especially under extreme circumstances) a martial art (or Kevin's Lore) requires the student to separate emotion from action. I can't learn the skills, or use them effectively, if I'm congested with the emotions I would naturally feel in circumstances that demand those skills. But separating emotion from action--without falsifying either one--is HARD: it takes a great deal of training and experience. ("Commit to the throw in your mind before moving a muscle" is very easy to *say*, very difficult to *do*.) So I fall repeatedly into the (perfectly understandable) error of *suppressing* rather than separating emotion for the sake of my training. Yet emotion is an essential part of who I am and why I do what I do: suppressing it weakens me. Well, as I see it, the Oath of Peace was intended to describe separating emotion from action; choosing actions which are appropriate to the situation rather than to the emotions arising from that situation. But over time, separating modulated into suppressing. Which weakened the Lords by limiting their ability to go beyond what they had already learned. Of course, this is pretty much what you just said. Denying who you are limits your ability to commit to what you're doing. (05/09/2007) |
Dawn, England: Was the Ill Earth stone a reference to the Emerald Tablets of Hermes, maybe a reference to dealing with knowledge we would't know how to handle if such things were ever uncovered?
|
Since I had never heard of "the Emerald Tablets of Hermes" until I read your message, I doubt that they had much influence on my thinking. <rueful smile> The theme of "knowledge we would't know how to handle if such things were ever uncovered" is certainly germane to the "Chronicles," but I had Kevin's Lore (and later applications of power/knowledge) in mind, not the Illearth Stone. (05/10/2007) |
Jeff: Hi Steve, a question, but first a request: Not everyone is reading the Fatal Revenant Chapter 1 preview. Many people are waiting for the book. I know the GI question I just started to read didn't give away *that* much that I wouldn't have guessed, but I still didn't want to know it. Please keep putting FR questions/comments in spoilers? Many thanks!
Now to my question (another one about names). Where did you get "Linden Avery" from? Almost all of your major characters' names have some meaning (implied or overt). But hers just seems to be a "normal" name. Is this an instance where the name just came into your head -- like Angus/Morn, although those both have implications -- or is there more to it?
As always, many thanks, and looking forward to October!
jb
|
First, sorry about the "spoiler". My mistake. I'll try to be more careful in future. Linden Avery. Well, if you think of the "linden" or "lime" tree (with its heart-shaped leaves and fragrant yellow blossoms) and an "aviary" (not as a "cage" but as "a place rich with birds"), you'll be on the right track. Both can be seen as references to the beauties of the natural world, which would certainly fit my intentions for the character. (05/10/2007) |
Ted Nunes: Firstly, having a female lead character, are there any special challenges (AND advantages) to working with a publisher (editor?) who is a (presumably-younger) woman? (heh-heh...that'd you'd be willing to cop to publicly here.)
Secondly, I see where you're finding frustration (and your publisher finding expense) in getting an accurate map illustrated. I'd be beyond happy to do it for you for nothing. (I bet I'm not the first to make this offer, but what the hey?) Being a rabid fan (and a professional artist BTW--I can actually draw you a map), I can't imagine how/why anyone would disregard your instructions and wishes; other than ignorance, apathy, or incompetence. At the very least, I--and I'm sure everyone visiting this site--would love to see that doodle of the Land you work from.
Thanks for everything!
|
Well, lessee. The editor who discovered me, Lester del Rey, was (duh) male--and unalterably opposed to the whole idea of a female lead character in a story like "The Second Chronicles" (although he didn't object to Terisa Morgan in "Mordant's Need"). His stated position was (and I swear I'm not making this up), "You can't have a 'Tarzan' book with Jane as the main character." If the president of Ballantine Books had backed him up, I would have been out on the street (metaphorically) with "The One Tree," even though "The Wounded Land" was already in print. The original editor of "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" (a woman) took violent objection to Queenie Drayton's medical problems. If she had had her way, Ballantine would have kicked me out then and there, instead of when I started work on the GAP books. When my agent went looking for a publisher for "The Last Chronicles," the sf/f editor at Ballantine (a woman) wasn't interested, apparently because she prefers fantasy that feels more like science fiction. My point--if I have one--is that women are (double duh) people too. They come in all varieties. Working with an editor who happens to be a woman is a function of personality rather than of gender. Or of age. In my experience. Thanks for your map offer. Fortunately my publishers have finally achieved a map that pleases me for "Fatal Revenant". I consider it a real breakthrough. (05/10/2007) |
Jason : Hi and thanks! Quickly, do you know if any of the Covenant international versions (English) are longer (less edited?)than the US versions? I know other books sometimes end up like that, so I was just wondering if any of yours were. I'm asking becuase I'm stuck in the UK for a few months and am considering picking up a complete 1st and 2nd Chronicals. WOOHOO! New cover art and possibly more pages!!
Jason
P.S. Watch out for alien abductions; you're too close to Roswell. We'll all flip out if you dont get the 3rd Chronicals finished.
|
Apart from "Anglicization" (is that a real word?), which I've discussed earlier, all English language versions of my books are pretty much exactly the same. All of my publishers everywhere start from the identical text. The UK editions always *look* longer because the paper is thicker--and the font is often slightly larger. Why is the paper thicker? Because it's cheaper--which means that the ink is more likely to "bleed through"--which necessitates marginally thicker pages. (05/10/2007) |
John Blackburn: I was wondering, why did you nedd to postulate "Gap drive" in the Gap books? Most of the action takes place on space stations and asteriods, but these are available in our solar system. In a way, you could have stuck to conventional rocket power and told the same story. Most writers who postulate hyperdrive do so so they can have lots of exotic, romantic earth-like planets and/or a galactic empire, eg Jack Vance's Gaean Reach, Isaac Asimov's Foundation or even Star Wars. Such works often become more like fantasy with spaceships added (science-fantasy?). Yet Gap has a Arthur C Clarke hard science feel. Did you consider this issue in detail?
In recent news, an Earth-like planet has been discovered as close as Libra (20 light years), so scientists postulate millions of earth-like planets. Given gap drive wouldn't humanity have found some habitable planets? Or is it too early for this?
Just a little "criticism", hope you don't mind! In Forbidden Knowledge, (I think) Captains Fancy and an Amnion ship are on collision course at speeds a and b and you say their closing speed is a+b. This is not true owing to relativity, the closing speed will be less than a+b. In particular if a=b=c (c: speed of light) then closing speed is c (not 2 * c).
Thanks for your great work, good luck with FR!
|
Some of what I want to say here may not be perfectly clear. <sigh> You've touched on one or two issues which are so, well, axiomatic for me, so inherent to the kind of stories I want to tell, that I find them difficult to explain. First, yes, I did want the GAP books to have a certain "hard science feel". Think of it as a kind of ballast or anchor. I wanted to avoid the "fantasy feel" which (I think) weakens many space operas ("sword-and-spaceship" doesn't work for me). In addition, I know that fantasy comes more naturally to me than sf; and I wanted to push myself out of my, well, let's call it my comfort zone. I was sure that my story wouldn't *work* unless it FELT like sf. But I only wanted a hard science "feel": the story isn't *about* hard science. So the fact that humankind might plausibly have colonized some congenial planets, instead of concentrating on space stations, doesn't trouble me. (And I won't even mention the *control* issues which motivate organizations like the UMC. Space stations--being both more vulnerable and smaller--are easier to *rule* than inhabited planets. So why would the UMC want to find habitable planets?) Nor does the fact that my version of future medical technology doesn't really take nanotech into account. I invented what I needed to tell my story. I didn't (and don't) worry about the fact that our future (if we have one) may hold very different possibilities. Now. Why did I need the "Gap drive"? The crudest answer is that I needed "Gap sickness". But there are other answers as well. One pertains to my desire to compress time in storytelling. If you counted the days from the beginning of "A Dark and Hungry God Arises" to the end of "This Day All Gods Day," you probably wouldn't come up with more than a week. The stories in my mystery novels hardly extend to 72 hours. And a number of readers have observed that the events of "The Last Chronicles" occupy many fewer days than those of the previous "Covenant" books. Well, I want the kind of emotional continuity and concentration that I can only get in relatively compressed timeframes. During the course of an ordinary day in an ordinary life, any ordinary person thinks and feels MANY different things. As a result, skipping ahead, say, two weeks in the life of one of my characters gives me the sensation that I'm writing about a completely different person. I want to weave my emotional threads *intact*, and that is much easier to do if I work within a tight temporal continuum. In this respect, the story I'm trying to tell, the effects I'm trying to create, etc., would all fall apart if travel occurred at space-normal speeds. It seems essential to who I am and what I'm doing that my characters get where they're going quickly. (For this reason alone, "Forbidden Knowledge" was much more difficult for me to write than the subsequent installments.) Another reason for presupposing a Gap drive is that I think the story absolutely requires a certain *vastness* (which could work against the compression I've just described). Frankly, I don't think it's plausible that a species like the Amnion could exist a mere 10-30 years of space-normal travel away from Earth. If they did, I suspect that they would have discovered Earth and destroyed humankind long before we could develop defenses against them. The alternative is to insist that their evolutionary track is roughly the same as ours in both time and technology--and I find *that* more difficult to believe than the notion of a Gap drive. No, I'm convinced that Amnion space and Earth have to be pretty damn far away from each other for my story to make sense. In addition, putting my characters through decades of space-normal travel would require me to visualize the MANY technological and political changes which would inevitably occur during those years. (Hell, Holt Fasner himself might actually *die*.) From that perspective as well, the Gap drive is a preferrable storytelling device. You are far from the first--and you certainly won't be the last--to observe that I don't really understand general relativity (not to mention quantum mechanics, or the mathematics--and therefore the effects--of acceleration). I've already discussed (at some length) my view of "criticism" within the context of this interview: I won't repeat myself here. But if you feel you really have to criticize my work, you should get in line. Dozens of other people have already told me the same things over and over and over.... (05/14/2007) |
Hesham: Dear Mr Donaldson,
My take on much of your writing is really about the human spirit and our capabilities as individuals, knowingly and unknowingly. Do you believe as individuals we can make a difference even in this day and age? Although perhaps individuals can begin processes to make a differnce, you still require the pull of the many to make it work. Even Thomas with all the power he poses could not have done it without the help of many who ultimately gave their lives for him.
It seems to me the age we currently live in our leaders are not what they used to be. Although they are the figure heads there are many machinations behind them that actually control the processes. In our human past perhaps an individual can make change, I just don't believe it's possible in the world we live in now. I would love to know your views.
Best regards
Hesham
|
I find it difficult to get my mind around the idea that individuals *can't* make a difference. On what we might call a macro level, our current leadership has certainly changed the world (for the worse <sigh>, in my opinion). Martin Luther King leaps to mind as a different kind of example. And on a micro level, I know too many people who have absolutely changed *my* life. Such influences ripple outward in unquantifiable ways. (Chaos theory seems relevant here.) That said, it's obviously true that "No man is an island, entire unto himself." (John Donne, if memory serves.) I often think that none of us really live except in relation to other people. You're quite right that Covenant could not have achieved his victories without the aid, support, and self-sacrifice of other people. As someone once wrote, "Two is more than one and one." Another paradox.... (05/16/2007) |
Captain Maybe: What do you, Stephen Donaldson, call a series of four books: a quartet? a quadrilogy? a series of four books?
|
I call it a tetralogy. For whatever that's worth. (*Five* books, on the other hand, I gleefully refer to as a "Pentateuch." <grin>) (05/16/2007) |
J.L. Slipak: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
My question is one I've been struggling with for some time and hopefully, you'll be able to shed some insight on this for me. It is: it has been suggested, that my writing style is considered "masculine" and that I should write under a pen name since I'm a woman. Not entirely sure if I should. What are your thoughts regarding writers who write under a pen name for one genre and then under another pen name for a different genre?
|
The only thing I'm confident of in a situation like this is that there *is* no "right" answer. We all just give it our best shot (in one form or another) and take our chances. On a practical level, modern publishing is dominated by women. I can't speak for fields other than sf/f; but here for every writer like C. J. (Caroline Joyce) Cherryh there are a dozen writers like Patricia A. McKillip, Barbara Hambley, Robin Hobb, Melanie Rawn, Anne McCaffrey, Susan Matthews, Janny Wurts, Sherri S. Tepper, Octavia Butler, etc., etc.. (I don't mention J. K. Rowling because I don't know what the J. K. stands for. However, she's British, and the UK has a strong tradition of writers--of both genders--who use initials instead of full names.) I have no idea what constitutes a "masculine" writing style, but I don't doubt that some of the writers I've just named would qualify. My point is simply that sf/f (and horror, and mysteries, and...) is wide open for women of every description. I'm sure that there are many reasons why some writers choose pen names. The reason with which I'm personally familiar is that some publishers insist on a change of names to go with a change of genres for the sake of marketting. Crudely put, the argument goes like this: "You can't sell cars and microwaves, and call them both Buick. People will get confused. Similarly, you can't sell fantasies and mysteries and call them both (say) Tepper. The people who buy books don't browse entire bookstores. They only browse the genres they happen to like. If they find a Tepper mystery among Tepper fantasies, they'll resent the intrusion--or even feel cheated." My opinion? In an ideal world, no one would worry about such things. Publishers certainly wouldn't treat authors like brand names. But this is not an ideal world, and it really doesn't care what I think. (05/16/2007) |
Anonymous: In a recent response to who is you favorite character, you answered; "My "favorites" change from day to day, mood to mood, context to context, even minute to minute. At the moment, I'm feeling especially fond of Hashi Lebwohl."
==============================================
Hashi happens to be my favorite character and I was wondering why (after all this time) your thoughts would be centered on him of late? Just curious!
|
<sigh> I see it's Embarrass the Author Time again. But you couldn't have known, so you're forgiven. One of my guilty pleasures is that I watch TV shows like "NCIS". (This is a guilty pleasure because it isn't exactly a productive use of my time.) David McCallum plays Dr Mallard; and watching him (probably the best actor in the cast), I was recently struck by the idea that he might make a good Hashi Lebwohl. I think he has the necessary "range". And he has a gift for seeming simultaneously befuddled and insightful. So Hashi has been on my mind. (05/17/2007) |
Kevin (yes, my name): I'm writing in response to the last few 'queries' because I also have been asked 'why do you write what you do' and 'why "waste" your time on fantasy' instead of doing something "real".
I have been a 'gamesmaster' for over 25 years. I've created a continent,nations,cities, societies, and so on, solely for the pleasure of myself and my friends. To you I owe the perfect description of what I do and why I do it.
"I own the true Giantish exhilaration which needs neither victory nor success in order to feel satisfaction."
Any written work of any kind, is in fact,
fantasy. It is merely the writer's words put on page, regardless of the source or subject. The elitist attitude of some 'academics' towards literary subject material is deplorable at best.
The 'BIG QUESTIONS' which involve us all can only be answered in one place.
The depths of our own human hearts.
|
Well said! And thank you. (05/17/2007) |
Captain Maybe: Apart from Wagner and the Ring, who/what are your favourite composers/pieces of music?
(By the way, a search for 'composer' revealed three instances of Newman's composition/inspiration quote. I suppose it's inevitable you'll repeat yourself once or twice in three years of answering questions.)
|
Everything changes. Years ago, I probably would have said Verdi ("Rigoletto") and Beethoven (the piano sonatas in particular). Now I'm more likely to gratitate toward Donizetti ("Anna Bolena," although he composed a number of gems) and Liszt (the "Trancendental Etudes," especially #11, "Harmonies du soir"). What, I've only quoted Newman three times? Count my public Q&A sessions, and it's probably more like three *hundred*. (05/22/2007) |
Nathan Eddy: Mr. Donaldson,
Im confused about lore vs. Law as it applies to Demondim-spawn (Waynhim and ur-viles). On page 413 of Runes, you wrote, For that reason," [Esmer] explained, "the Staff of Law is inimical to them. Though Waynhim serve the Land, and have always done so, their service stands outside the bounds of Law. Their lore is in itself a violation of Law. The fact of their service does not alter their nature.
If the lore of Waynhim is a violation of Law, then the ur-viles shouldn't be an exception, even when they are working to serve Law, as the Waynhim do. So the lore which they used to create Vain should be a violation of Law, too. I'm still a little confused how the addition of Findail and wild magic can transform a *violation* of Law into the *Staff* of Law.
If the fact of their service does not alter their nature, then what altered the nature of the ur-viles lore?
|
Gee, I've always assumed that Vain was indeed a violation of Law. But asking me how he could be transformed into something completely different is rather like asking me how magic "works". In books like mine, that kind of question leads in circles. But consider that chemistry is rife with similar transformations. The human body can hardly survive without chemicals which are inherently toxic (homocysteine leaps to mind)--until interactions with other chemicals transform them into beneficial substances. Or consider the profound artificiality of written storytelling: an artificiality so extreme that it can be (and in fact has been) considered a violation of Law. Yet somehow arbitrary black squiggles on paper are transformed by the reader's intelligence and imagination into something as organic as thought itself. And if that isn't enough, remember that the One Tree (and/or the Worm of the World's End) played a part in Vain's transformation. The ur-viles and Waynhim certainly exist as violations of Law; but that doesn't render them incapable of understanding and serving Law--as the Waynhim have demonstrated since the beginning of "The Chronicles". (05/22/2007) |
Peter "Creator" Purcell: Steve,
I think you need another reader. One who can help you reconcile Creation myths. So you never are bothered again by such questions! I offer the following, as evidence of my awesome literary talents!
and then ....
in the vault of the heavens
there was nothing
and the Creator
was lonely
so he called into being ...
the cosmic bottle ....
of tequilla!!
and he drank!
and it was good
and as he drank
the cosmic worm ...
slid thru his blessed teeth!
PTTTTTTEWWWW!!!!
spit!
do not swallow the worm
and it writhed
and theron formed the earth!!
whatchya think?
Hopefully good for at least a chuckle!! I look forward to seeing you in NM!!
|
To quote the great Stan Lee, "'Nuff said." (05/22/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I understand that you (and other writers) are paid through royalties, or the advance of those royalties, on the sales of your books. The royalty is such and such a percentage of the book price. How often are these royalties paid (monthly, quarterly, yearly)? Because it seems to me it would make budgeting for the "big" expenses in ones life (car, house, kid's college, divorce (sorry), etc.) a nightmare. Now, I'm sure for some writers who make LOTS of money it's not a problem (J.K. Rowling, Stephen King) but for most wouldn't you need some idea of how much of a royalty payment you are getting on such and such a date in order to plan accordingly? And since it's all based on book sales, how can you know how much you are going to sell in any given period? Or does the publishing industry have this all down to a fine science.
|
But first--for no particular reason, except that I'm in the mood--a few comments about the current state of the Gradual Interview. Regular readers may remember the time when I was 250+ questions behind in my answers. I'm now less than 30 questions behind. This is the result of two changes. First, fewer questions are being asked. (Well, duh, Steve. You've already answered 1500+. How many new ones are still possible?) Second, the nature of the messages posted for me has shifted. The proportion of messages which are too personal to be made public is now much higher than it once was. In those cases, when I've been given a return e-mail address, I usually give a personal reply. (Those of you who have received such replies know what they're like.) Naturally those messages--and their replies--do not appear in the GI. My point--if I have one--is that I write more replies than I appear to write. Sometimes many more. Now. Your question. Unfortunately, this gets complicated. Publishers operate on 6-month accounting cycles. They pay royalties twice a year. But. After closing their books on a particular cycle, they hang onto the money for 5 more months before they cut a check. With a hypothetical January-through-June cycle, if a book sells in January, the author gets paid in December. Why do they hang onto the money? Self-protection. Any publisher knows exactly how many books have been sold to bookstores--and has no idea how many of those books have actually been sold to readers. (Computers are slowly changing this problem--the key word being "slowly".) But bookstores can always return unsold books to the publisher for full credit. As a result, it's perfectly possible for a publisher to sell 100,000 books to bookstores--and 9 or 11 months later receive 90,000 of those books back in returns. So the publisher hangs onto the author's money as long as possible ("exclusion against returns") in order to avoid paying for books that didn't actually sell. (Incidentally, this is why bestseller lists are compiled from bookstores rather than from publishers. Such lists attempt to reflect books actually sold to readers. Unfortunately, bookstores have been known to report "stock on hand" rather than actual sales--which sort of defeats the whole purpose of bestseller lists.) In theory, therefore, the author receives two checks a year--and has absolutely no idea how large (or small) those checks will be. Well, this is clearly an impossible situation for most writers. Most of us simply cannot function financially under these conditions. Even publishers recognize that. Hence the "advance on royalties"--and the primary function of most agents. The publisher gives the author some up-front money (thereby increasing the publisher's risk and decreasing the author's) to--one hopes--live on. Then the publisher does not give the author any more money until the author's royalties have paid the publisher back for the advance. For obvious reasons, the publisher wants to pay the smallest advance possible--and the author wants to receive the largest advance possible. (This is where agents come in: they fight for authors more effectively than authors can fight for themselves. They know the publishers--and the market--much better than most authors do.) The smaller the advance, the smaller the publisher's risk. The larger the advance, the more easily the author can budget--and live--on his/her income. In this one aspect of the business, the best interests of the publisher and the author conflict. (Which is another good reason for the existence of agents. They spare the publisher and the author the potentially crippling necessity of fighting with each other directly.) On virtually every other subject, the best interests of the publisher and the author are nominally the same, even though the publisher and the author may have radically different interpretations of their own best interests. It gets very confusing. (And I haven't even mentioned book distributers, who facilitate the delivery of books to bookstores--and whose corporate agendas effectively prevent publishers from getting accurate information from bookstores.) Life would be simpler if "the publishing industry [had] this all down to a fine science." But no one does. (05/30/2007) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Just wondering: do the croyel seek out people like Kasreyn, or do people like Kasreyn seek out the croyel?
Can't wait for FR!
Marc Dalesandro
|
The croyel are creatures of opportunity: they'll take whatever form of dark hunger (hunger for slaughter, hunger for power, hunger for longevity. etc.) they can get. They do sometimes find their own victims (e.g. the arghuleh). But it is possible to seek them out, as Kasreyn probably did (although the croyel may have found him before he found it). (06/08/2007) |
Bill Chandler: Mr. Donaldson: (I'm still too much in awe to break away from the formalities; please forgive me...) I am currently re-reading "Mirror Of Her Dreams", having recently re-read the "Gap" sequence, and having *FINALLY* found the Axbrewder stories. I was only able to read the first two, though; the library (alone) has the 4th book, but I couldn't find "Man Who Tried to Get Away" anywhere. (Damn them...) So on to Mordant until I can get the other two Axbrewders in order...and Mordant's Need is just as good this time around.
Anyway, I was honored to receive a personal reply in reference to time travel in "Runes"--thank you.
Onward, though: I've been an avid reader, mainly in sf/fantasy, all my life. Mysteries have never been my cup of tea, with the exception of Kinky Friedman, and now your work. The first two Axbrewder stories were just impossible to put down--the style of writing is so immediate with the use of the first-person narrative (which I also enjoyed in some of the stories in "Daughter of Regals). I find Friedman's work keeps me laughing along with the storytelling, and I noted a bit of humor in the "Man Who..." stories, as well. This whole ramblefest will come to the point...the humor in those stories is certainly appropriate for the genre, but do you ever have ideas running toward more generally humorous work? Some comments in the GI certainly hint (to me, at least) that this would make some more great reading. (And I hope I'm not rehashing here...I haven't seen anything on this subject in the GI, but I certainly could have missed something...)
Thanks again for ALL your works...looking forward to FR!
Bill (they call me verbose) Chandler
|
I write the stories (and characters) that come to me. "Brew" is a character with an active sense of humor (albeit a rather sour and ironic one), so he can be funny sometimes. (There's a passage in "The Man Who Fought Alone" that still makes *me* laugh.) But I can't "do" humor deliberately when I'm working: the humor (like the pillow fight in "Mordant's Need") has to emerge from my story sort of on its own. In other kinds of writing (e.g. comments about fellow writers for convention program books), I'm sometimes struck by bolts of humor. When that happens, what I write can be pretty funny. But I can't *summon* those bolts: they just happen. It's strange. Like Brew, I have a fairly active sense of humor. Yet it rarely comes into play when I'm storytelling. And I can't *make* it come into play. (06/08/2007) |
Charles W. Adams: You gleefully refered to a series of five books as a Pentateuch. How about expanding the final chronicles to five books so that we all can use "Pentateuch"? ;-)
On a slightly more serious matter: Why do you answer some of the criticisms (of you or your writings) offered through the GI?
|
(Just so you know: I don't change the structure of my stories once they've taken shape in my mind. I couldn't force "The Last Chronicles" to be five books even if I wanted to--which I don't.) As I've observed on other occasions, unsolicited criticism exists to serve the ego of the critic: it does not benefit the recipient. The same can be said of responding to unsolicited criticism: the response serves the ego of the responder. As a general rule, I know better than to play ego games where my work is concerned (and I hope I know better than to play ego games where my *life* is concerned). But <sigh> I do HAVE an ego. And sometimes my ego just gets tired of taking punches without punching back. This isn't usually a rational thing to do (although it can be under the right circumstances), but there are times when it just feels necessary. (06/08/2007) |
j: Is there any way that you can post the poems/songs from all of the chronicles here somewhere on your site?
I don't have the books, nor do I have easy access to them in order to find all of the poems/songs from the chronicles.
|
You didn't provide an e-mail address, so I can't respond directly. However, I'll ask my webmaster what he thinks of your idea. Personally, I don't have time to tackle the task: since the first six books don't exist in any authorized or accurate e-format, I couldn't post them without retyping them all--which for me would be a big job. But my webmaster may have an alternative to suggest. Or: have you mentioned your desires on kevinswatch.com? I suspect that one or more of the Watch members may have their own e-versions of the "Chronicles," in which case they might be able to make the poems/songs available with comparative ease. (06/08/2007) |
RLY: A while ago you suggested the Malazan Book o thee Fallen series by Steven Erikson. Thanks for that, iy is amazing, and my "top shelf" of fantasy now includes Erkson and you side by side. Were you aware that the seventh Erikson book is out, and do you plan on reading it? I've heard some authors (maybe you?) prefer not to read while involved with a project of their own,, for fear of subliminal contamination. Is this a concern for you? I'm looking forward to your new book, and feeling spoiled to get new ones from my two favorite authors in one year.
|
I've already read Erikson's 7th, "Reaper's Gale." Way way back when I was working on the first "Covenant" trilogy, I refused to read any other fantasy, but not because I feared "subliminal contamination." Rather I feared that the book would be good (in which case I would feel intimidated) or bad (in which case I would feel depressed because that book got published while mine was being rejected). So naturally--if slowly--my fears evaporated once I joined the ranks of the published. Now I don't have any qualms about reading any particular genre while I'm working (or even while I'm not working). I'm probably too set in my ways to be "contaminated," subliminally or otherwise. Reading bad fantasy just irritates me, but reading good fantasy energizes me. (06/08/2007) |
A Nony Mouse: First, let me thank you for recommending Patricia A. McKillip. I just finished reading "Song for the Basilisk" and I loved it; I've just begun "The Book of Atrix Wolfe" as I write this. I probably never would have read her work if you had not mentioned her name. I now rank her right up there with you and Steven Erikson.
My questions concern the time period in which the Gap Sequence takes place. You are, as many SF writers seem to be, deliberately vague within the narrative about the future-era setting of the story. I suppose it is hard to get it in without sounding corny and/or trite. ("The year was 2525, and yes, mankind was still alive," etc.) Is this why you were non-specific about the year (Standard Earth Year that is) or is there another reason? I had thought that the story takes place about 150 years from *now*, so about 160 years from when you wrote the books. Is this about right or did you have another time period in mind?
Speaking of recommendations, my own recommendation for you, if you ever have the time, inclination, or desire, is "The Wolf's Hour" by Robert McCammon, an all-time favorite of mine. Excellent example of how there are no good/bad ideas, only good/bad writers. The idea seems ridiculous at first glance, but the writer turns it into gold.
|
I'm glad you like McKillip and Erikson. Clearly you have good taste. <grin> ("Good taste" being defined as "taste that agrees with mine.") Yes, I was deliberately vague about *when* in the future the GAP story might take place. "Sounding corny and/or trite" is a problem, of course. But my real concern involved a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) issue of plausibility. As soon as I name a time (e.g. "150 years from *now*"), I've transmuted a speculation into a prediction. Well, I think I can get away with *speculating* that humankind may one day discover a means to travel faster than light; but if I come right out and *predict* that this will happen, a whole lot of people will dismiss me as a raving loon (perhaps with good reason). Sometimes I call this the "1984" problem. Despite the on-going relevance of its themes, "1984" has become an anachronism simply because Orwell specified a year. I didn't want that to happen to the GAP books. Some writers solve such problems by casting their stories so far into the future that s/he can plausibly reinvent all of the sciences (Herbert's "Dune" leaps to mind). I chose not to do that because I wanted to evolve my "reality" directly out of humankind's present political, economic, and ecological straits. In other words, having to reinvent EVerything didn't suit my storytelling purposes. Nevertheless I needed *some* temporal distance to make my story credible. Thanks for mentioning "The Wolf's Hour". I'll add it to my last (which means--sadly--that I'll probably get to it sometime in the next decade). (06/09/2007) |
Peter Moore: Hi Stephen
firstly I am a massive fan and have been a fan of your boks and style of writing ever since LFB and I am also glad to see you are completing the Covenant series.
I have to say that my favourite character - for all his flaws - has to be Angus, and it interested me to read that Angus most represented you at the time. Do you often place yourself in the characters you write about - to give the sense of realism - or is it just a gift you have to make the characters that little bit more special.
I am reading Runes now and cannot wait for Fatal revenant to be released.
Keep up the good work and thank you once again for providing me with such pleasure.
Peter
|
I've discussed this in the GI. Angus in particular, and "The Real Story" in general, represent a dramatic departure from my more normal approach to storytelling. With those exceptions (and the martial arts tournament in "The Man Who Fought Alone"), I don't draw characters--or settings, or situations--from life. At least on a conscious level, nothing that I write is based on personal experience. The sensation that "I'm making it all up" is essential to my creative process. From my perspective, my best characters are the ones who are the most entirely imaginary. (06/10/2007) |
Paul S.: More observations than any question. I just finished the last "The Man Who..." book. Really enjoyed them. I'm not generally a mystery reader primarily because I don't care about figuring out "whodunnit" - so what I thought was great about your stories is that there was a story and characters and depth that "seemingly" could have existed as a story in itself without an actual mystery and still be good. Of course the mystery is there but it feels secondary to the personal struggles of Brew/Ginny -- while certainly providing context and structure to allow self discovery in the story about the relationship between Brew and Ginny.
Something else I noticed after reading all of your stories and all of this GI is that these books reveal much about you, personally; more directly anyway than other stories you've written: your views on mystery novels could have been cut/paste from TMWTTGA into the GI as could your opinions on martial arts from TMWFA.
So, my question: Have you ever been to a mystery camp (a la TMWTTGA)? If so, what'd you think?
|
No, I've never been to a mystery camp. As I've said elsewhere, I virtually never base what I'm writing about on what I've experienced. Still, it's true that the autobiographical subtext of what I write runs a bit closer to the surface in my mystery novels than it does elsewhere. One comparatively trivial example: if you heard me speaking for any period of time, you might realize that mine is the ideal "voice" for reading Axbrewder's narration aloud. But don't be misled. "Autobiography" in my work is always more subterreanean than it appears to be. Sure, I used one character in "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" as a personal "mouthpiece". But the same is *not* true in "The Man Who Fought Alone": there my personal views and experiences are refracted through a variety of characters rather than expressed directly. (06/10/2007) |
Mr. Moore: Ok, I'm not trying to bring up a worn-out subject, but I want to talk about visualization a bit.
You have said that you don't visualize any parts of the stories that you write, that your mind works strictly with and from language, words. I accept this even though I don't fully understand it. (And you do seem to have some contradictory statements in the GI on this, but I'm not here to poke holes...)
I teach sixth grade and was trained to teach visualization as an explicit reading strategy, something a reader can do to help him/her understand. "Seeing" the setting and thereby more fully comprehending the context of the story, its characters and their decisions...like that. My questions, then, are these: How were you taught about visualization at any stage in your educational career? What is your opinion on teaching visualization as an explicit reading strategy to students of any age?
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
I guess I haven't been clear. I don't remember ever saying that I don't "visualize". But surely I've said (more than once) that "I see with words." I mean that I only see things *because* I have described them. For me, "visualization" is a comparatively pale after-effect of language. Certainly the *impact* of what I write (and read) lies in the language, not in the images which the words may or may not evoke. When I read, images are only flickers in the background of my attention: the foreground is all words. My point, which I've tried to make more than once, is that I do not *see* the story like a movie (or even a static series of images) in my head and then try to transcribe it into words. I only see it as an effect rather than a cause of writing it. (Incidentally, I suspect that this accounts for the rather idiosyncratic effectiveness of my stories. Because I'm concentrating on the sound and feel of the language instead of on literal images, I give my readers plenty of room in which to participate in the creative process. I'm not trying to describe what I see: I'm trying to evoke what I feel--or what my POV character feels. Of course, setting and image are crucial to what anyone feels. But my "aliteral" approach to such things leaves the reader free to do his/her own visualization.) Of course, it does sometimes (rarely) happen that words will spark images which go beyond the immediate words. In those cases, the images naturally inspire more words. But that sure doesn't happen often. No, I was never taught "visualization at any stage in [my] educational career." Since my ability to read pre-dates my earliest memories (as far as I can tell, I was *born* able to read <wry smile>), I wouldn't know how to go about teaching any one to read--except by reading to them aloud, as my parents did faithfully with me, and as I did with my children. Teaching reading in the 6th grade sounds to me like an impossible job. (06/14/2007) |
Alan Lantz: Mr Donaldson,
I'm glad to see you extending the Covenant series of books. Given the complexity of the characters and the universe in which they reside, do you find it much harder to write these latest editions and stay true to the universe which you have created?
|
Staying "true to the universe" in terms of how it acts and feels, and why it matters, hasn't been difficult at all. Keeping track of Every Single Little Detail in the previous books (or even in the previous chapter <sigh>) has been very difficult. It's "internal consistency" on the micro rather than the macro level that threatens to drive me buggy. A sad consequence of the fact that I didn't/couldn't start with a "story Bible" a la Tolkien. (06/14/2007) |
Fatma El Sakhawy: In " The Djinn Who Watches Over the Accursed" Fetim was an irresponsible sinful character who cared only for his pleasures, but still had some feelings towards his mankind. However, at the end he was a heartless man who not only cared for his own pleasures, but also manipulated his miserable situation to torture and destroy humans.What does this development imply and does it symbolizes our world nowadays?
|
If you'll forgive my saying so, this strikes me as an unusual interpretation of "The Djinn Who Watches Over the Accursed". The way I read the story: callow, self-centered Fetim is cursed; gradually during the course of the story he comes to understand that his inescapable curse brings harm to the people around him, even good people; so in an (extremely painful) attempt to make something good out of his curse, he starts using it to destroy sadistic tyrants and torturers. His *final* victims in the story are not the victims of his selfishness: they are victims of his efforts to make a righteous use of his curse. Or so it seems to me. (06/16/2007) |
Matthew Verdier: Hello again Mr. Donaldson.
I was amused by your response to my previous "question". I really didn't take that question seriously or expect an answer to it. I just wanted to say hi and sorta have a virtual hand shake if you will. Not many authors do this for their fans and it means a lot to me, and obviously to others.
Also, in thinking about your answer, in effect not trying to give away if the land is real or not in your eyes, I thought about that issue a bit more. By the time I finished reading the first six books, I personally had come to the conclusion the Land is real. I understand my decision to believe this has no bearing on anyone else, your intents(if any) when you wrote the books and I understand the paradox of believing both is important to Covenant as a character.
My thinking is that Hile Troy, Linden and the old man indicate to me that the Land is real (the irony of that- debating the "reality" of a fictional place). Troy being able to see in the Land should not be possible without it being real. He had no intellectual referent to imagine the sense of sight in a delusion. Linden being able to use health sense in the "real" world at the end of TOT. The old man not being involved in some way with the Land is too big of a coincidence; that a crazy old man shows up just before each of the delusions Covenant and Linden experience. I personally don't buy into shared unconsciousness. Common archetypes in dreams is one thing, multiple people dreaming the same dream with the scope of the Land is beyond what I am willing to believe. These are my reasons for believing in the reality of the land, and I know that doesn't mean everyone will (or should).
Hmm, again, those aren't questions, but statements of what I believe.
Here is a real question. Over the years, apparently I had misread the books and assumed that Berek had white gold of his own. Did I misread that into the books? Did he not?
Thanks again!
Matt
|
I accept your reasoning for what it is: your reasoning. As you clearly understand--and accept--other people may think differently. As far as I'm concerned, this is as it should be: we all have to make up our own minds about the meaning of, well, practically everything. From my perspective (which is only relevant because it tends to be reflected in Covenant and Linden), the important thing about the whole "Is the Land real/unreal?" question is that it doesn't really matter. I like to think that my story--and my characters--have moved beyond such considerations. (Which is why the issue disappears from the text so early in "The Second Chronicles".) Boy, I sure don't *think* Berek had white gold of his own. If he did, and I've simply forgotten about it, I'm in big trouble. <rueful smile> If you find any textual evidence, please let me know. (06/21/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hi Stephen,
I was wondering, have you made any plans for the next book you will write (Man Who for instance) after the TC series is complete?
Thank you,
Perry Bell
Reno Nevada
|
The short answer is no. I've never tried to plan my writing life beyond the story I happen to be working on at the moment. That said, I do have some possibilities in mind for another "The Man Who..." book. But at this stage they aren't, well, real enough to support a story. (06/21/2007) |
Mr. Moore: Ok, I just scoured the GI for an answer to my question, or a clue to it, but found none (quite surprisingly). My question concerns translation to the Land.
In the First Chronicles, Covenant (and Hile Troy, I guess, for that matter) was summoned to the Land by way of a tool, i.e. the Staff of Law. Triock and Foamfollower didn't have the Staff in TPTP, but they still used a tool (orcrest by Triock and incantations of some kind by Foamfollower--yes?) In the Second Chronicles, summons happens...how? I never found a real answer to this. There was the fire, and the ritual (guided or caused by either Foul or a raver...), and when Covenant and Linden arrived on Kevin's Watch, no summoner was there to greet them, in contrast to all summons in the First Chronicles. So now the questions:
Does these changes or differences in being summoned to the Land have anything to do with the breaking of laws in the Land? How connected is a summons to the Land with white gold? How essential is a tool of power for a summons to the Land?
(There's something here, I just know it...)
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
From my perspective, the question of "tools" is secondary. As I've said before, in "The Chronicles" power ultimately comes from the living will and heart of the being who wields it, not from the means by which that power is wielded. Sure, particular tools are designed for specific purposes. It's difficult to drive nails with a chisel. But it isn't the hammer that drives the nail: it's the man or woman using the hammer. In this sense (if in no other: I'm not sure how far I'm prepared to follow this line of reasoning today), the Staff of Law and white gold and the Illearth Stone and orcrest etc. etc. are comparable to mundane tools. (Although a nail-gun might be a better analogy, since nail-guns run on electricity, and electricity can be compared to Earthpower without too much strain....) It's true that no tool is specified when Lord Foul summons Covenant (and--perhaps inadvertently--Linden) to the Land. But the circumstances aren't really comparable. In "The Second Chronicles" (and "The Last"), LF had, in a manner of speaking, help on *this* side; the "real world" side. The pain and malice of people in Covenant's/Linden's world helped LF perform the summons. Perhaps that obviates the need for an appropriate tool. Perhaps those people were themselves the tool. Or perhaps the fact that LF is an immortal being implies that he isn't constrained (by mortal limitations) in the same way that Drool and Atiaran and Elena and Mhoram and Triock and Foamfollower were. In any case, as Atiaran demonstrated with Hile Troy, there is no *necessary* relationship between being summoned to the Land and white gold. (06/25/2007) |
Peter Hunt: Mr Donaldson,
in a previous answer, you mentioned that you liked the Fontana cover illustrations for the First Chronicles. They are also my favourite; the front covers somehow evoke the tone of each book without necessarily reproducing a specific scene from them.
I thought I'd also mention, though, that if you put the three volumes face down, the back illustrations combine to form a single wonderful panorama of the Land as seen (I think) from the summit of Melenkurion Skyweir.
Best regards,
Peter
|
You're quite right. This is just another example how well I was published 30 years ago--and how much things have changed since at Fontana (now HarperCollins) and DEL REY/Ballantine. (06/26/2007) |
Peter B.: Hi Steve.
Just wondering if you've seen the cover art for Fatal Revenant yet and what you think of it. Any chance we'll all get a sneak peek anytime soon?
Take care.
-Peter
|
Yes, I've seen the cover art for "Fatal Revenant". Both UK and US. I have mixed feelings about both (feelings which it would be premature to discuss here), but they are *extremely* well done. My webmaster will be posting them as soon as we receive finalized versions from my publishers. But I have no way of knowing when that will happen. (06/26/2007) |
Scott: This may be a better question for your webmaster.... or you may not wish to share, but- how many hits does this site recieve in a day, or a month- or however you are measuring?
Just curious to see how many of us are out here.
|
This site averages just about 70,000 hits a month. Unfortunately, the software we use to compile statistics doesn't distinguish between "new" and "repeat" hits. For all I know, one person visits this site 70,000 times a month. If so, he/she must be *very* lonely. <grin> (06/26/2007) |
Anonymous: I would like to hear your thoughts on how metanarrative--those stories or schema that function to order and explain human experience--operates in your Covenant work. In modernity, confidence in metanarratives started to deteriorate. In socalled postmodernity, confidence in metanarratives is almost completely lacking.
Tolkein, writing in high modernity, famously invented Middle Earth to serve as a myth for Britain. In the Lord of the Rings, the characters' lives are governed by the metanarrative of the First Age, the tales of Numenor, etc.
So my question has two parts. First, how does the metanarratives of the Old Lords, especially Berek Halfhand, function for the characters in the Chronicles?
Second, given that every story becomes a story in which the reader lives, at least for a while, for your modern readers, did you have any hopes about how your work might help people make sense of their lives in modern/postmodern times? On this note, I would just let you know that as a teenager in the late 70s, I was sick onto death with cancer, and your stories helped me make sense of my experiences--they taught me the importance of not giving in to despair or despite.
Thanks.
|
I've been procrastinating because I don't really know how to respond. (I keep waiting for inspiration to strike, but alas....) Perhaps the problem is that I'm not comfortable with terms like "metanarrative," "modernity," "high modernity," and "postmodernity": I'm not sure that I actually understand them. If metanarratives are indeed "those stories or schema that function to order and explain human experience," then I don't see how it's even *possible* to lose "confidence" in them. I've never met--and I never expect to meet--a human being who doesn't use "stories or schema...to order and explain" his/her experience. It seems transparently obvious to me that none of us (including the people who have lost "confidence" in metanarratives) can think or even live without using some form of patterned storytelling to make sense (or nonsense, if we prefer) out of what happens to/in us. (Indeed, I suspect that virtually all of what we commonly refer to as "thought" is a form of storytelling. I'm not even sure that a distinction can be made between "story" and "mind".) It seems to me, therefore, that the whole concept of losing confidence in metanarratives is patently absurd--if for no other reason than because simply making a statement like, say, "Metanarratives have no relevance to modern--or postmodern--life," is itself a metanarrative act. On the other hand, it's possible that my confusion arises from my inclination to think of "metanarrative" as a *process*, whereas other people use the word to refer to the *content* of specific "stories or schema". In which case-- (Unlikely as it may sound, I'm actually trying *not* to be abstruse here. <sigh>) --we probably need to start by making a distinction between (what I choose to call) devised and inherent metanarratives. In my terms, a devised metanarrative would be a learned or inherited "story or schema" intended to explain human experience. An *answer*. The theology promulgated by modern jihadists--or by modern Presbyterians--would be an example of a devised metanarrative. In contrast, an inherent metanarrative would be the underlying question which prompts the devised answer. A question like, "How is it possible to go on living in a world which seems to be falling apart around me?" On that basis, I can see how one might lose confidence in the answers; but I don't see how one can lose confidence in the validity of the questions. (OK, so maybe I've completely missed the point of "metanarrative" as a concept. *I* don't know. Someone else will have to make that determination.) So, taking your second question first: as I've insisted on occasions too numerous to count, I'm not a polemicist. I don't *have* answers (except to the extent that I believe storytelling itself can be an answer). All I have are questions--and characters who struggle to find their own (extremely personal) answers to those questions. As part of my creative ethic, I strive to reject all *devised* metanarratives. So no, I had no hopes (or illusions) about writing stories which "might help people make sense of their lives in modern/postmodern times". I'm not wise (or perhaps stupid) enough to tell other people how to make sense of their lives. Rather I hoped to create authentic characters who struggled with valid questions--and who found viable (if entirely personal) answers for themselves (instead of accepting someone else's answers). If a reader, a real person, finds an answer in what I've done, I neither take nor deserve credit for that. Since "every story becomes a story in which the reader lives," whatever the reader gleans from the story belongs to him/her. Similarly, if the reader refuses to glean anything from the story (loses confidence in inherent metanarrative, metanarrative as process or question rather than as devised answer), that's his/her problem, not mine. But "how [do] the metanarratives of the Old Lords, especially Berek Halfhand, function for the characters in the Chronicles?" I want to say: Gosh, I'd tell you if I knew. <sigh> Here again, you appear to be thinking of me as a polemicist rather as a storyteller. The relevance of the questions that, say, Berek faces (e.g. "How is it possible to go on living in a world which seems to be falling apart around me?") to the questions that Covenant and Linden face seems pretty obvious. On the other hand, the relevance of Berek's *answers* to Covenant's and Linden's questions seems fairly obscure. The whole point of telling stories like "The Chronicles" is that characters like Covenant and Linden have to find their own answers. Repeatedly. And no one else's answers will suffice. On every level, the metanarrative within "The Chronicles" (if it exists at all: I'm still not sure I understand what we're talking about) is inherent rather than devised. (06/28/2007) |
Matt Vomacka: A short time ago, some guy named Bob Benoit asked whether there were any novelizations or dramatizations of the Rhinegold story. There was, in fact, a TV miniseries released on sci-fi called "Dark Kingdom: The Dragon King," which was based on either the Volsung Saga (story which Wagner's operas are based on) or the actual operas. I can't actually remember which. Also, I think there's a novelized, english version of the saga called the Volsunga Saga by Wallace Morris or something like that.
Personally, I thought the sci-fi thing was pretty crappy, and I haven't read the novel.
|
For the information of those who are interested. (Could it be "William Morris" rather than Wallace?) (06/29/2007) |
Don: Your comment the other night about "needing the ring more than Tolkien" has really had me thinking about Covenant and Joan and their relationship. Just as the state of the Land was mirrored in Covenant in First Chronicles, Joan's physical state reflected the plight of the Land in 2nd and now Last Chronicles. Is Joan connected to the Land simply because she and Covenant were married, or is there some deeper reason?
|
Well of *course* there's "some deeper reason". <grin> But I hope you don't expect me to tell you what it is. I mean, aside from obvious things like: she has a white gold ring (the "mate" to Covenant's); and her "betrayal" of her marriage vows has left her vulnerable to the insidious seductions of Despite. However, I will say that if you're willing to stretch a point or three, you could conceivably think of her as Covenant's thematic doppleganger. (How come there's never an umlaut around when you need one?) (07/02/2007) |
Fatma El Sakhawy: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
I am an Muslim Arab egyptian Lady. I liked most of your stories in your book Reave the Just and other tales. especially the " The Djinn Who Watches Over the Accursed" and " the Woman who loved Pigs". In the first mentioned above I was wondering why your setting was in a place where Muslims reside? The story is full of lust, evilness and brutality.Is this your view of the Muslim world or it is just a setting that you chose because it fits the mood you wanted to convey which is a mood of mystery, mysticism and supernatural effects.
Thank you and waiting for your comment.
Mrs. Fatma El Sakhawy
|
Thanks for asking. "The Djinn Who Watches Over the Accursed" was inspired by its title. I encountered that phrase years (by which I mean decades <sigh>) ago in a translation of "The Arabian Nights," and it stuck with me. So naturally the resulting story required an Arabian (but not necessarily Muslim) setting and ambience. But the story does not in any sense reflect my "view of the Muslim world". As I keep saying, I'm not a polemicist: I don't write stories to reflect my views (positive or negative) about anything. I write stories in an effort to do them justice, not in an attempt to promote any of my (often half-baked) opinions. (07/02/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't believe you've talked about this or that it is answered in the text but does the way a Sandgorgon answers a summons (by speaking it's name) similar in nature to the way that Ranyhyn can show up as soon as they are called? (If I remember correctly, Nom showed up pretty quick after Covenant spoke his name). Also, in summoning a Sandgorgon does INTENT factor into it, since it seems, especially with a name like "Nom", that it could accidentally be spoken (by a child, for example)?
|
I'm reluctant to compare the two (Sandgorgons and Ranyhyn). On one side of the issue, I'm not confident that Nom would have been able to answer Covenant in WGW if Covenant hadn't first mastered the creature in TOT. After all, the primary purpose of Sandgorgons Doom is to keep the monsters in, not to let them out. And Kasreyn created Sandgorgons Doom. Is he powerful enough to cast a spell that would work planet-wide? On the other side, the Ranyhyn answer because they *choose* to do so. They've already selected their riders: they don't respond to just any old whistle. In contrast, the Sandgorgons answer because they're *compelled* to do so. That sounds like a very different kind of magic to me. (07/02/2007) |
RLY: Which would you rather have, if you had to choose between the two:
A. A book that is reviewed well, but is not appreciated by fans (and therefore has luckluster sales)
OR
B. A book appreciated by fans that sells well, but reviewers and critics do not like.
|
This one's a no-brainer (B)--but not for what may appear to be the obvious reason ("I want to be rich and famous"). No, the reason is that reviewers and critics aren't relevant to what I do. At their best, reviews and criticism exist to inform and educate readers, not to gratify (or denigrate) writers. At their worst, reviewers and critics (like the worst writers) are only interested in their own egos. Of course, I have an ego myself: I hate getting bad reviews. But I know better than to take such things seriously. As a storyteller, *my* relationship is with my readers, not with reviewers and critics. (07/02/2007) |
Robert K Murnick: Sir,
I read 'Lord Foul's Bane" at the tender age of 12. Now, nearly 30 years later, I've completed it again, and am surprised at how much my pre-teenage mind didn't catch from the first novel. (E.g., when Covenant thinks "What do you do for an encore Foul, rape children? my 12 year-old mind hadn't seen Lena (a 16 year old, practically an adult to a 12 year old) as a child. I also hadn't caught your nod to Tolkien's Gollum in the Kiril Threndor" chapter.) But now, many things are becoming clear. One observation I made as a 12 year old was that most characters born in the Land ("Atiaran", "Trell", "Mhoram", etc...) had names that were unheard of in the Western world. One exception was Kevin - why did Donaldson give his great tragic patriarch a real Gaelic name? I saw a small connection for the Western name exceptions of Lena and Elena - these are women for whom Covenant forms or has a bond with (albeit in a vile way) on an instinctive level. But what could explain the use of "Kevin"? It was beyond me as a 12 year old.
But at last I've finally figured it out!
You based him on the "Cousin Kevin" character from The Who's "Tommy", didn't you? Oh, it's so obvious now. ("Cousin Kevin" lyrics link: http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Cousin-Kevin-lyrics-The-Who/798D15D045B6C23048256977002D1A3D) The parallels are legion - just look:
Kevin Landwaster Cousin Kevin
1) Causes big trouble Causes big trouble
for handicapped for handicapped
Thomas Covenant. Tommy.
2) Hides 7 Wards of Hides for 7 days (a
Knowledge, requiring week), requiring Tommy
an inordinate amount to search for that
of seeking time. long, an inordinate
amount of seeking
time.
3) His actions Shuts Tommy outside to
eventually force catch cold in the rain
Thomas Covenant to so he'd die.
walk for days in the
cold rain
(Treachers
Gorge), paralyzing
him like the rigor
of death.
4) His actions Sticks pins in Tommy's
eventually bring fingers, causing pain.
Thomas Covenant to
the Land, where the
nerves in his fingers
are restored, so that
they can feel pain.
5) His actions Pushes Tommy down from
eventually cause the top of the stairs.
Thomas Covenant to be
pushed down into a
crevice by an ur-vile
("Kiril Threndor").
And of course it doesn't end there - Thomas Covenant fathered a son called Roger, just as The Who's "Tommy" fathered lead singer Roger Daltrey's Hollywood debut! I've figured you out! Ha ha ha ha ha! I of course, won't be surprised when we learn in "The Last Dark" that Lord Foul is actually Uncle Ernie! Think on that, and be dismayed!
|
I'm posting this because you obviously put so much thought into it. But since my familiarity with "Tommy" pretty much begins and ends with the information that a band called The Who did actually exist at some point in recent decades, I would be reluctant--personally--to draw any conclusions based on the evidence you cite. (07/03/2007) |
Jason D. Wittman: Mr. Donaldson,
First question: have you ever contemplated having your books adapted into operas? In my opinion, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are not Hollywood-friendly (no offense), and the results of some movie adaptations can be frightening (witness the SciFi Channel Miniseries "Earthsea," in which Snidely Whiplash somehow became king of the Kargad Lands). I think the Chronicles would work much better as an opera. (I think the same of LOTR, though the libretto would have to be written in Elvish in order to prevent the Nazgul from singing "Kill the hobb-it, Kill the Hobb-it, Kill the HOBB-it" to Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyries.") Would you be open to this, assuming an appropriate level of talent?
And now my second question: you've often spoken of binary inspirations (unbelief and leprosy for the Chronicles, Angus Thermopyle and Richard Wagner for the Gap Series). Was there a similar inspiration for the Mordant's Need duology? (I've searched through the GI, and found nothing regarding this.)
Keep Writing!
Jason
|
I'm not sure how to answer. "Have you ever contemplated having your books adapted into operas?" This seems to imply that it's somehow up to me; that I could *choose* to have my books adapted into operas if I so desired. But as far as I can tell, it *isn't* up to me: I don't hold the rights (my publisher does); and I can't compose music. But would I object if a composer wanted to make an opera out of, say, the "Covenant" books? Keeping in mind that I don't hold the rights: no, I wouldn't object. I don't believe in stifling other people's creativity. (I *do* believe that someone who wants to earn money by making use of my work should pay me--and my publisher--for the opportunity. But that's a very different issue.) In the abstract, however, I suspect that a "Covenant" opera is not a viable concept. Opera is a *slow* form of storytelling: singing--and musical stage setting--take up so much time that the story itself has to be as "short and sweet" as possible. Like LOTR, the "Covenant" books contain too many characters, too many events, too many settings, too many different kinds of conflict: an opera that did justice to even one volume would have to be dozens of hours long. "Mordant's Need" did not have the same kind of binary inspiration that I've described for "Covenant" and the GAP books. But there is more than one kind of implicit duality in the lines from "Silverlock" that inspired the story; so if you tilt your head to the left and squint real hard...you can almost see something binary. (07/03/2007) |
Andrew Roy: Dear Stephen,
Throughout these gradual interview posts, I've noted many criticisms of your work. I admire the way you handle criticisms and assure you I'm not criticizing, but admiring your work.
So, Fatal Revenant's countdown for release is on and I couldn't be happier. Two more after that and I complete a fantastic journey that I had started in my youth.
My question is this: What comes next? I've followed Thomas Covenant on all his journeys, watched the demise of Holt Fasner in my mind's eye and enjoyed many other great tales that you've woven throughout the years.
My hope is that you'll revisit the fabulous universe that you created for the Gap series - a place where Angus Thermopyle runs free. I fear that you won't revisit that realm as you often reference it as being *out of your comfort zone*. Stephen, I feel it was some of your best work.
As a side question, Hile Troy's fate was a bit of a foreshadowing of Covenant's own - both realised in essence that they were dead back 'in the real world' and took an stand and defeated Foul. One of the principle differences is perhaps that Hile Troy was still technically 'alive' if we believe his origins. (I always pictured him in a coma after escaping the burning building.)
Knowing that you've written that his origins are enigmatic (no proof that Hile Troy is from 'the real world'), was Troy's fate meant as foreshadowing?
|
As I keep saying, I don't plan my writing life ahead. I concentrate on the story at hand and let the future take care of itself. But at this point I certainly don't have ideas that might follow on from--or precede--the GAP books. It's a little difficult to argue that "Troy's fate was meant as foreshadowing" of Covenant's since when I wrote the first "Covenant" books I had no intention of continuing the story in any form. The whole idea of foreshadowing is to hint at what will happen later--and I had no idea that ANYthing was going to happen. Still, I take it as a compliment that the themes of the "Covenant" books are consistent enough to suggest the foreshadowing you describe. (07/09/2007) |
Kevin: Mr Donaldson,
In The One Tree, when the Quest first encounters the Elohim, Daphin greets them with the lines, "You are the Sun-Sage. / You are not."
I cannot help but believe that this is very significant, by the simple fact of its inclusion in your story. The Elohim, whose "vision does not lie", were somehow misinformed, and surprised at finding themselves so; they had to do some quick thinking to put a plan together. But I cannot figure out what overarching purpose this detail in the story serves, what subsequent events in the narrative depend on it.
I've come to conclude that must be be a clue to the Elohim's character, that it is representative of something that they lack. (And which Covenant and Linden ultimately do not.)
Am I on the write track? Can you elaborate on this point?
|
First things first. The statment, "You are the Sun-Sage," is addressed to Linden. "You are not" is addressed to Covenant. Of *course* this is significant. Everything the Elohim do from this point in the story on revolves around the fact that the Sun-Sage and the white gold wielder are not the same person (who from their perspective should be Linden). If I haven't made that plain in the course of the story, I've done my job pretty badly. The question, as I see it, is not, "Why do the Elohim care which one of them is the Sun-Sage?" but rather, "Why didn't they already know?" Being so, well, Elohim and all. And I reply that the Elohim *could* have known, but that they're often too self-absorbed to pay much attention to events/characters/etc. in the larger world. If you really believe that you are "equal to all things," how much time are you actually going to spend studying the details? Hence the fact that the Elohim can be taken by surprise--on some subjects. (07/09/2007) |
Todd: Hi Steve,
Looking forward to October!
I recently heard a Pulitzer prize winning author say that every sentence they write is difficult, and if they didn't feel compelled to write they would do be doing something else with their lives as opposed to this (my words) sadistic torture.
Do you ever have that experience when writing? Do find yourself struggling with certain passages? Are some easier than others? Say, Covenant talking to his dead vs. Lord Mhoram's Victory. If you do find yourself struggling or floundering, how do you get past it?
And if you didn't feel compelled to tell stories, what do you imagine you would be doing?
As always,
Thanks
|
I would never call writing "sadistic torture". But I do find it arduous. I'm not a fluent writer. Prose seldom flows for me until I've spent a certain amount of time lashing the words along. Especially at the beginning(s). The beginning of a book. The beginning of the day. The beginning--or re-beginning--of work after a significant interruption or vacation. Part of the problem is that the "muscles" (mental, emotional, imaginative) I use to write get out of shape easily--and resist getting back into shape. And part of the problem (as I've explained elsewhere) is that decision-making is much more complex and ambiguous at the beginning than it is later on. Inevitably some passages are easier to write than others. Often this seems to be more a function of biorhythms than of content: in every area of my life, some days I'm better at what I'm doing than others. But once I'm well into a story, the, well, let's call it the adrenalin level of what I'm describing is sometimes reflected in the fluency with which I describe it. Other times not. (Although I do seem to consistently enjoy writing arguments. <rueful smile>) My response to "struggling or floundering" depends on what's causing the problem. Broadly speaking, however, I believe that it's better to write ANYthing than to abandon the struggle. I like to say that every day I give myself permission to write badly. If what I write *is* bad, I can revise until I get it right. But if I let myself stop just because writing is hard, I risk enduring paralysis. Since I don't distinguish between storytelling and thought (therefore writing stories down is just a more concentrated or sustained form of thought), I imagine that the only viable alternative to storytelling is death. (07/11/2007) |
David Wiles: Steve;Do you find it difficult to contemplate the ending of a story? As you have stated throughout the GI, each of your characters are a part of your imagination. With so much coming from within on such a grand scale, it must be like letting go on a loved one. Do you ever look back and say I wish it could have been different for that protagonist? I am reminded of Pieten or Trell. Thanks, David
|
No. I have the opposite problem. Because my stories tend to be so *long*--and because the ending is my *reason* for telling the story--I find it difficult not to RUSH as I near the ending. In addition, ending a book involves a whole lot less "letting go" than you might think. First there's rewriting. Followed (usually) by more rewriting. Then there's editorial feedback and more rewriting. Then there's copyediting. And proofreading. And jacket copy. And book tours. In practice, books never seem to end: they just dribble away by ever more mundane and mechanical stages. Even after I've completed all of the work on an entire epic, I often have to wait for years to get that feeling of "letting go"--and by then it can only be a relief. As I've said before, there is one character who--in my personal opinion--deserved a better author than he/she got: Morn Hyland's son, Davies. But do I ever wish that the story could have been different for any of its characters? Never. That would imply that I wish I had written a different story--but the ending of the story (how everything turns out for everyone) is why I told the story in the first place. To regret the workings of my own imagination would be a form of suicide. (07/11/2007) |
Robert Cordo: Stephen,
Will there be any hardback special editions (US & UK) of "Fatal Revenant" as was done for "Runes.."?
E.g., I have the slipcase, signed, numbered UK "Runes..".
Thank you!
|
Gollancz released a "collector's limited edition" of "The Runes of the Earth" in the UK. All of their efforts with/for "Runes" were highly successful; so I assume that they will also produce a collector's limited edition of "Fatal Revenant". There was no collector's edition of "Runes" in the US, limited or otherwise. I don't expect to see anything of the sort for any of "The Last Chronicles". At least not from Putnams: they aren't making enough money to justify the added expense. (07/11/2007) |
John Gauker: Hello again Mr Donaldson. I am including a link to an artical that you and your readers may find interesting. I am currently re-reading the Gap series and it made me think of the Amnion and they way you created their technology.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4SHVMBW02V3FNQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/06/28/nlife128.xml
Were you aware of any type of this research when you wrote the Gap series?
|
This is fascinating stuff. But of course I was completely unaware of it when I wrote the GAP books 10+ years ago. (07/12/2007) |
Russell Smith: Hi Stephen,
I was interested to read your various postings about the publishing process. Particularly that pre-order figure in first day sales. My copy of Fatal Revenant is now on pre-order.
I imagine internet pre-orders are more prevalent than they may have been through book stores (I am guessing here), mostly because it is so easy. Do you, or your publishers, get access to pre sales figures in the same way they do post publication sales.
Looking forward to Fatal Revenant. I have so far resisted the temptation to read the teaser posted on your front page.
Regards,
Russell Smith
|
Like you, I suspect that Internet pre-orders have become much more common than pre-orders through bookstores. But I don't know whether or not my publishers have access to any pre-order information. *I* certainly don't. For reasons that I've tried to explain elsewhere ("returns" etc.), publishers are reluctant to give out concrete information about sales until long after a book has been published. (07/12/2007) |
Kevin OFlaherty: Mr. Donaldson.
I must say I'm impressed. I recently completed my (first) read of the GAP sequence. This non-stop angstfest is definitely the best story I've read lately (possibly ever), so I decided to have a look at what such a great writer was up to next. While googling your name I never imagined finding such a wonderful thing as the GI.
My question is a follow up on the comments you've made that you try to mentally *become* your POV characters while writing. Do you ever find that your characters rebel, or take over? Considering you write toward an ending, do you ever find the characters "want" to go someplace else? Or are their actions predetermined because of their roles in the story?
Thank you, and good luck with all things!
/Kevin
PS. Years ago, when I'd just discovered fantasy, I was given the first chronicles of TC (guess why). They didn't really take, mostly because I think much was lost in the translation to Swedish. What did take, however, was the need to regularly check my fingertips for feeling: "Okay, so my nerves haven't decayed. I'm not leprous. Whew!" This is not a nice thing to do to a young impressionable hypocondriac! I'm just glad I won't catch gap sickness. <grin>
|
Surely I've been over this? Or perhaps not. I have as much trouble searching the GI as anyone else. <sigh> I have (often?) had characters who were originally intended as "background" (necessary to facilitate a particular scene, but unimportant in the larger story) step forward--in a manner of speaking--and demand that I pay more attention to them. (In the GAP books, Liete Corregio would be an example of this.) In that sense, my characters do sometimes "rebel". But "rebel" isn't really the right word because they never (and I do mean never) strive "to go someplace else" or "take over". Rather they step forward and demand my attention because they have something positive to contribute to the ending toward which I write. I can't explain this: it's an unconscious function of my imagination. I can only tell you that all of my various minds (conscious, unconscious, subconscious, preconscious, whatever) consistently work together toward a common goal. At least where storytelling is concerned. <rueful smile> (Incidentally, I like "angstfest". That describes the GAP books pretty well. Some of my friends think it describes my *life*.) (07/12/2007) |
Fatma El Sakhawy : Hello again Mr Donaldson,
In your selection of " Reave The Unjust And Others", I have realized that you appreciate wommen's characters. In most selections in this book, I have seen that the roles women have played were more positive and constructive. they are good decision makers, take difficult decisive steps are more consciencious. Is this true? If yes,Why and if no, how then do you perceieve them and what do you think are their worst qualities.
Thank You,
Fatma
|
It would be difficult to deny that I'm drawn to "strong" female characters--and that, taken as a group, my women are (much?) less often "destructive" than my men. But why this is true--ah, well, I can only speculate. (After all, I don't tell my imagination what to do. I just do what it tells *me* to do.) Maybe it's because I grew up in a missionary culture which explicitly considered women morally superior to men? Maybe it's because I was raised in a house full of sisters? Maybe it's because I've been told until I'm ready to scream that men are incapable of understanding women, so naturally I want to prove that's not true? Maybe I find it easier to believe in strong women because I know too many weak men? All of the above? None? This is only one of several reasons why I believe that the characteristics and convictions of the writer are (or should be) irrelevant to storytelling. The human imagination is a mystery. Therefore trying to understand how (or why) a particular imagination works isn't a very useful basis on which to read or interpret a story produced by that imagination. (07/12/2007) |
Robert: Have any of your books gone out already signed to stores, like a random signature sitting in a Wal-Mart store?
|
Yep. After all, I signed 7500 tip-in sheets for "The Runes of the Earth". Those books had to go SOMEwhere. They could easily have turned up in rather random locations--not excluding remainder bins. (07/12/2007) |
Matt: Three random questions, for fun:
1. Amok mentions in the Illearth War that he had visited the Elohim and "ridden Sandgorgons". The mention of these exotic-sounding adventures give Amok flavor, but at that point in the writing process, did you already have in the back of your mind an idea of what Elohim and Sandgorgons were like? (The logical followup: what about trading apothegms with the Great Desert, and teasing brave what's his name in his grave?)
2. Mirror of her dreams/Man rides through: 4 books, each precisely 13 chapters, 52 in all. Like a deck of cards. Coincidence?
3. Chaos and order: Nick's last word(s) were "Morn--God--". Can we read anything into this, in light of all the god references/ring-cycle references? Is Morn a god or a mortal? Similarly, my literal mind has always thought that Angus was the "dark and hungry god" from book three...but if on this day, all gods die, why ain't angus among the casualty list? (By the way, it's cool that Warden Dios=Guardian God)
Thanks for your time!
Keep up the good work!
|
Well, since they're just for fun.... 1) No. As I keep saying, while I was working on the first "Covenant" trilogy, I had no intention of writing any more "Chronicles". And--as I also keep saying--I'm an efficient writer in the sense that I only invent what I need. Everything you mention about Amok was intended to shed light on the character--and to suggest the presence of a larger world beyond the Land. At the time, I didn't go beyond what I actually wrote. (Later, of course, what I had written proved to be very useful. But that's a different issue.) 2) Pure coincidence. I strive for symmetry when I can. And I do like to work in four movement structures (although I can't explain why). But I had no intention of making "Mordant's Need" resemble a deck of cards. Card games aren't germane to the story. If I had been thinking of, say, bridge instead of "hop-board," the whole story would have been very different. 3) You can't take these "God" references too literally. They are intentional. They are intended to have significance. But they are more easily understood in reference to my source materials, which include an entire pantheon of gods: Wotan, Donner, Fricka (recognize anything yet?), Freia, Loge, the Norns--not to mention Fafner. (It's not an accident that Fafner's possession of the Rhinegold makes him effectively a god.) So sure, Morn belongs in the GAP pantheon of gods. As do Dios, Fasner, Donner, Lebwohl, Angus, Norna, etc.. If you think in those terms, you may have an easier time with the titles. (07/13/2007) |
Charles W. Adams: You have stated previously that the idea for the 3rd chronicles came at the same time you came up with the idea for the second chronicles (at least, that's what I understood). Also, you have said that you work backwords, that you have to see the end and then work towards that end.
Did you have to come up with the ending for the 3rd chronicles in order for you to "get to" the ending of the 2nd chronicles? Or were they separate enough such that you could write the 2nd without knowing much of the 3rd (except for the ending)?
Thanks.
|
In this specific case, the ending for "The Second Chronicles" came first. But that inspiration led me *immediately* to the ending of "The Last Chronicles": a rush rather like an avalanche of ideas. Or a syllogism. I didn't experience a pause between "if this" and "then that". If you see what I mean. Certainly my knowledge of "The Last Chronicles" was sufficient to let me build all of the loopholes and loose ends that I would eventually need into "The Second Chronicles". (07/25/2007) |
Nathan Eddy: Mr. Donaldson,
In a couple writers quides, Ive read that an author seeking publication should be able to sum up his book with a sentence or two. An aspiring novelist should have a pitch version handy that can be given easily in a conversation with agents or editors at a writers conference, for instance. This makes sense to me for marketing and networking purposes, but also as an exercise for a writer to sharpen his focus while creating a long and complicated work.
Just for fun . . . how would you describe the Chronicles in one sentence per book? (Feel free to include those not published. In fact, I encourage you to do so!)
In the process of creating your first drafts, do you use summaries or outlines to help you retain your focus on your larger narrative goals? Or is knowing the end enough? At the very least, do you have a one-sentence mantra you remember to keep you on the path? I want to know how you keep that laser of yours aimed at the conclusion (the one you used to describe sentences in the Gap Cycle).
Besides keeping an eye on the goal, I assume a writer has to keep an eye on where hes already been, too. While writing, do you create (for example) separate Word files to record what the text has explicitly revealed thus far on specific, developing topics? Or do you just rely on rereads and revision to catch instances of over-repetition and underdevelopment?
|
It's implicit in some of my other responses, I think, that I'm suspicious of anything that purports to tell a writer how to go about writing and/or getting published. For example: "an author seeking publication should be able to sum up his book with a sentence or two." This sounds like egregious nonsense to me. I've never done such a thing myself--and never will (I won't even supply my publishers with outlines). In fact, I don't think I've ever known a published author who has ever done such a thing. (I could be wrong, of course: of the, say, 150 professional writers I've met, I've only had real conversations with maybe 50-60.) Nor have I ever met an editor whose interest could be seriously engaged (or discouraged) by nothing more than a sentence or two. Instinctively I believe that any novel that *can* be summed up in a sentence or two isn't worth reading. Such mechanistic, simplistic thinking seems more characteristic of Hollywood than of publishing. And yet--and yet-- "It takes all kinds." Surely there are good and intelligent writers out there who actually *can* summarize their books in a sentence or two. The fact that I don't know who they are doesn't mean that they don't exist. And maybe some editors and/or agents listen to such sentences. Again, the fact that I don't know who they are etc.. My underlying point, however, is that "how-to" advice tends to be either useless or damaging, not because the advice is intended as such, but rather because creative imaginations are such ideosyncratic entities that they only thrive when they aren't being told what to do or how to do it. In my own (*very* ideosyncratic) experience, the only valuable advice is either wildly generalized (e.g. "the only way to write a book is to sit down and actually write it") or almost stupidly mundane (e.g. "no editor wants to read a handwritten manuscript"). Everything else has to be figured out on a case-by-case basis by the individual(s) involved. Maybe for you being able to sum up your book in a sentence or two is a good idea. *I* don't know--and the writers' guides you've read don't know either. In this context, I'm reluctant to say anything about how I go about writing books--or dealing with publishers. Now that I've explained the "how-to" fallacy, I don't want to make the same mistake myself. <rueful smile> But the "creative process" and "writing & publishing process" categories of the Gradual Interview already contain my answers to all of your other questions. But Just For Fun: The Runes of the Earth: "This is impossible." Fatal Revenant: "You thought *that* was impossible? Just take a look at *this*!" Against All Things Ending: "I'll never be a good enough writer to carry this off." The Last Dark: "God send that my readers won't be *too* disappointed." <grin> (07/25/2007) |
Jerry Erbe: WOW...I just want to go on record as saying that the questions posed recently by "Anonymous" regarding metanarrative's etc., had me more confused then I had ever hoped to be, that is, until I read your answer, upon which I realized how very little I understand about the world of literature. I often wonder if most readers are like me and just READ THE STORY AND THE WORDS ON THE PAGE and enjoy it for what it is? A STORY! But perhaps I'm the opposite of Anonymous and could be classified as a simpleton. However, having said ALL that, I believe you've educated the readers of the GI enough to understand that everyone's view and opinion of your work, regardless of how it may differ from others, is valid, and for that I thank you! Hope all is well in your world (Hows that Spaceport coming along?)
|
I actually feel more kinship with "Anonymous" than my response may have revealed. True, he/she was using terminology with which I'm unfamiliar. And true, I'm very tired of the kind of narrow-mindedness which often seems to afflict academic intellectuals (people who really ought to be able to distinguish between "reason" and "prejudice"). But like "Anonymous," I feel compelled to try to extract as much meaning as possible from what I read. We may use different words, and those words may reflect different modes of thought, but I suspect that our motivations are very similar. When I read, I'm always hoping that I'll find a good story. At least on the surface, that's what I want most. But in practice the process of looking for a good story (reading) cannot be separated from the quality of the writing, first because the writing is the door into the story (and you usually have to read a lot of the writing before you find out whether the story is any good or not), and second because every facet of a good story becomes more effective when it's well written. So I always have to consider the writing before I get far enough along to consider the story. Then, if I find a good story that's well written, the next thing I look for is, well, I'm going to call it "concentration" or "design," although it could be called by any number of other names (e.g. metanarrative?). Putting the issue very crudely: does the story sprawl, or does it focus? Does every element of the story contribute to its final effect? Or do some elements of the story distract me from or vitiate the final effect? Well, obviously, what I'm always hoping to find when I read is a good story that's well written and has intense concentration. (In this respect, my priorities when I read reflect my priorities when I write.) Which is the same thing *you* want, right? You may not have thought about your reading in these terms, but you understand what I'm talking about. (Otherwise you wouldn't be posting comments in the GI. <grin>) If you're with me so far, however, we only have to take one more step to understand what "Anonymous" is going on about. If I find a good story that well written and has intense concentration, then the *next* thing I want as a reader is to get the full benefit of everything the writer has offered me. Which is exactly what "Anonymous" is trying to do. His/her questions only *sound* confusing because there are so MANY possible approaches "to get the full benefit etc.." Some readers try to get the full benefit by understanding who the writer is as a person; or by understanding the time and culture which formed the writer. Others try to get the full benefit by searching for patterns within a particular story, or within the language of a particular story, or within the writer's whole body of work, or within literature in general. There are historical approaches, psychological approaches, thematic approaches, symbolic approaches, rhetorical approaches. The list goes on. But as far as I'm concerned, the *point* is always the same: to get as much as possible out of a story that I loved reading. Is that WAY more than you wanted to hear on the subject? <rueful smile> Too bad: I'm not about to hit the delete key at this point. <grin> (07/25/2007) |
Cagliostro: Dear Stephen,
As you have wandered into the wonderful world of answering fan questions, I'd like you to see what someone else who went through this had to say. I thank you for your attempts to answer the unanswerable, so I send this merely for your amusement, unless you want to post this as a deterrent to certain questions. It's from Douglas Adams. Enjoy!
-------------------
Subject: What kind of Apple Mac did Arthur Dent have?
Posted by Rick Tanner
I don't even know when he bought the machine, but it definately says in So Long and Thanks for all the Fish that he bought an Apple. Was it a snazzy little all in one number, or a hideous boxy thing?
Posted by Douglas Adams
I never know how to answer questions like this.
I hate to sound curmudgeonly, and I really don't mean to, but I am genuinely mystified as to what it is that people mean. I will try to explain why I'm so mystified, and if it sounds as if I am stating the very, very obvious then it's truly because I don't know what else to do.
The book is a work of fiction. It's a sequence of words arranged to unfold a story in a reader's mind. There is no such actual, real person as Arthur Dent. He has no existence outside the sequence of words designed to create an idea of this imaginary person in people's minds. There is no objective real world I am describing, or which I can enter, and pick up his computer, look at it and tell you what model it is, or turn it over and read off its serial number for you. It doesn't exist.
At the time I was writing the book I wrote that he had an Apple computer because writing those words helped to unfold the story I had to tell. If it had helped the story to say that it was a particular model, running a particular version of the system software then I would have done, but in fact I think it would have been a rather dull extension to the story and would have held up the narrative rather than furthered it. So I didn't put anything like into the story. With the result that the information doesn't exist. It's not that I chose not to reveal it - it actually, really and truly doesn't exist.
So what you're doing if you ask me what sort of computer Arthur Dent had is 'please would you make up a story for me which has to do with what sort of computer Arthur had'. So I have to start thinking in a story kind of a way. 'One day, Arthur Dent woke up and went and sat at his computer...' which makes me then ask myself - what did he want to do at his computer? Was he writing a letter to somebody? Was he going to play a game? The question of what what kind of computer it was still isn't asking to be part of the story. A story about how he chose his computer and why he chose the one he did would probably be very dull.
So you see the problem? "What kind of Apple Mac did Arthur Dent have?" is a completely unanswerable question. I like to think he's the kind of person who would have an Apple Mac, but at the same time it's a fairly meaningless statement, and to try and specify which model he had... it can't be done. He doesn't exist.
|
I'm posting this because a) I think it's worth reading for its own sake, b) it sheds some fascinating light on Douglas Adams, c) I actually found it rather moving, and d) as "Cagliostro" has recognized, it answers certain kinds of questions better than I have. (07/25/2007) |
Anonymous: Steve,
Do you have any rituals upon completion of a book? I know that though you have completed FR you still have several more to write,so in a sense you have not finnished... yet this must still be seen as some sort of end. Yes? One famous author whos books I can not remember - and yes, I am just that lazy to look it up on the internet - had the habbit of firing off a revolver and drinking a good bottle of liquor, I think. An unsettling combination to be sure. What do you do? A dance in front of the computer? Should pedestrains be weary of stray bullets coming from the Donaldson household upon completion of a novel? Might we hear one of your neighbors say with some sense of bewilderment, "Was that *Steve* running naked down the street? No, cant be!" Or something else entirely....?
Just Curious :)
|
No, no "book completion" rituals. As I think I've said elsewhere, books never actually seem to be completed--at least in my experience. They just slowly plod off into the distance. Doubtless I would be psychologically healthier if I had some sort of "ah HA" or "at LAST" ritual to achieve a sense of (inevitably artificial) closure. But instead I just start typing in my current revisions so that I can send a clean text to my personal readers. (07/25/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: When you first announced the new title for the third book of the Last Chronicles: "Against All Things Ending", something about it was familiar to me, but I couldn't quite place it. It's only been months later and quite by accident that I remembered what it was. It's similar to a line from Tolkien's "The Return of the King". At the end after Frodo and Sam (with help from Gollem) have destroyed the ring they believe they are going to die as Mt. Doom erupts. Frodo says something like: "...here at the end of all things...". It was even used in the movie, I believe. This is probably just a coincidence, but did that reference have anything to do with the new title?
|
If you looked hard enough, you could probably find dozens of examples of the phrase, "the end of all things." In any case, I certainly can't pretend that I haven't been influenced by LOTR. In fact, I considered calling Covenant 9 "Against the End of All Things". <sigh> All I can say in my own defense is that it wasn't a *conscious* influence. (07/25/2007) |
Der Stuttgarter: Well I've read through several hours of GI track, and with the recent announcment of the movie rights, I think it's time to re-invigorate the cast list parlo(u)r game.
A few I've had in my mind since FK.
Angus - Randal "Tex" Cobbs (if ever someone looked like a toad bloated with malice it's this guy.)
Hashi - John Lithgow (Just quirky enough to add something realy great to that part)
Koina - Julia Roberts
Holt - Lance Henricksen
Dolph - Charles S. Dutton Nick - I really like the suggestion Tom Cruise as he's generally considered gorgeous, and I hate him.
At first I was really excited about the rights being sold, now I'm getting scared; the story just won't be the same without some of those great Kodak moments between Milos and Angus.
Angus is the greatest fictional character I've ever read. My wife was pregnant at the time I was reading one or two of the GAP books, and I had convinced her to name the kid "Joshua." Probably best for everyone's psyche that she gave birth to a girl.
And the question: Do you have any mental music for the GAP sound track? I always heard "Policy of Truth" by DePeche Mode when envisioning either C&O or Dark and Hung as a film.
(obligatory fawning and flowery praise omitted to allow time savings for moderator. note that while not enumerated, it exists.)
|
I am deliberately refusing to play this game. Pure self protection: I don't want to get my hopes up; and even if GAP films are made (always unlikely at this stage), they can't really, well, tell the truth about the story. But don't let me stop you.... btw, I never hear sound tracks for my stories. I only hear voices and narration. (07/27/2007) |
Paul Higginbotham: Steve, I am also a writer but why do you have characters using the same $25 words as the narrator? For example, in the Runes of the Earth, on page 130 and others, the character uses the word puissant yet you, as the narrator use it too. It is distracting. However, I have read all your books and I always look forward to the next one.
|
Because as far as I'm concerned the language *is* the world. The language that I use to describe my characters and their setting has to be appropriate to who and what they are; so it follows logically that the characters themselves would use the same--or very similar--language. Under the right circumstances, a discrepancy between, say, the narration and the dialogue can be a powerful tool. As it happens, however, that tool doesn't suit my purposes. (07/27/2007) |
Thomas Cardin: Hello Steve! You have got to be the most brutal and vicious author I have read and I LOVE every word you write <big gracious smile>. Thank you for telling your stories to us and going through all the hard work involved in doing so.
With ROTE still fresh in my mind I can see that every intelligent question I have to ask MUST wait to be answered as the story continues to unfold.
Sure, I want to know how Covenant is currently experiencing "things" while integrated with the Arch of Time. He is certainly aware of LH soon after she returns to the Land, and he knows how to possess Anele when the poor old man is standing on the right kind of ground. It all just leads me to wonder what else he is aware of in the Land and through time. I assume he is still experiencing time in a linear fashion but I can see where the potential is there for him to experience things very differently, especially since he mentions being in two places at once. I am sure this is something you will clue us in on in due course if it is integral to the story.
On another note, I am greatly disturbed by Esmer, I don't like him, nope not a bit. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. We have plenty of embodiments of Earthpower, Esmer seems to be the first being to embody Wild Magic. Certainly LH can't do Wild Magic while he is near so he has "something" to do with the forces involved. His duality of being sure seems to be more trouble to our heroes than its worth. Don't get me wrong, he is a wonderfully chaotic plot device, but I sure hope someone is around when he shows up again that can put a bullet in his head. If he is already so full of despair that there has got to be ravers waiting in line to possess him <ok one raver, the second is busy with Joan, my god he has to be pissed at Foul for that kind of ---- detail and the third is currently presumed dead>.
So if Foul has gotten a lot smarter with old age, there must be some restriction on him from manipulating Esmer to "take an axe to the Land lines" and free him.
Thank you in advance for your time spent reading this.
|
You're right: this all falls under the heading of RAFO. I can only promise that I will do my utmost to make this story as satisfying as possible. (07/27/2007) |
Paul S.: My question is about the Words of Power -- was your intention to hint that there may in fact be an entire "language of power" that might exist (of which perhaps the old lords had only discovered/translated 7)? Perhaps the "words of power" are actually the native language of something more powerful (like Lord Foul and The Creator)?
However, since you've said that you are both not a linguist and only invent what you need for the story... maybe the answer is simply that you liked the number seven and those seven words were all you needed for the story you were telling?
Thanks for the time!
Paul S.
|
It's true that I'm human. Therefore I make mistakes. Accidents happen. Nonetheless it strains credulity to think that I announced (over and over again) that there are 7 Words--and then only bothered to invent 6 because 7 was too much work. No, I consider it far more likely that the author is positively begging his readers to draw inferences. Of course, one has to be cautious in these situations. I've observed on more than one occasion in this interview that "hinting at more than is actually revealed" is one of my many world-building techniques. But still.... (07/27/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
Are you slated for the best seller list yet? My pre-order is in. :)
Anyway, I was wondering, is there a reason Linden seems so much, how shall I say, weaker (?) than she was at the end of the second chronicles? It seems like she isn't dogged by the past as much, but she seems very dependant on others. Just curious.
Thank you for all you do,
Perry Bell
Reno, Nevada.
|
Interesting. Other readers have had the opposite reaction. In fact, one described Linden as "large and in charge." Another went so far as to express disapproval because Linden acts "too much like a man." Covenant himself never took a step in the Land that wasn't dependent on someone else. The only difference that is obvious to me is this: Linden is *very* aware of--and frustrated by--her dependence on other people. (Other differences may be more obvious to readers who are not as intimately involved with Linden as I am.) Her obsessive desire to DO SOMETHING about Jeremiah's plight makes it difficult for her to accept her imposed reliance upon other people's needs, agendas, knowledge, guidance, whatever. I hope I don't have to point out that "dependence" is thematically germane to "The Last Chronicles"--and in fact to *all* of the "Chronicles". <grin> (07/27/2007) |
Fatma El Sakhawy : Hi Mr. Stephen R. Donaldson,
Thank you very much for your answers to 2 of my three questions. Again, your stories triggered a lot of feelings and thoughts inside of me. I do thank you for that as well. I hope that I could find your novels in Egypt, but unfortunately I haven't found them until now.
My question is : In " The Woman Who loved Pigs" ,the end was so bewidering to me. I saw that the woman's choice was rational , but difficult. She chose her freedom and dignity and refused fake love. However, was it really fake love? didn't that love teach her to choose at the end her path in life? I find that it is difficult to go back to that kind of life she used to live and that if she really had the ability to choose that end, she could have kept that love ; It is very difficult to live without love. These are only some of the thoughts and feelings this story triggered in me. Again, I would like to know why you did choose that end ? I think that woman chose the difficult path and she didn't acheive her freedom because she is the slave of her own weaknesses.
Thank You,
Fatma El Sakhawy
|
I admit that the ending of "The Woman Who Loved Pigs" is deliberately ambiguous, although I did not intend it to be obscure. Fern has been given a precious gift, but she has also been unscrupulously manipulated. The warlock who transformed her has a history of sacrificing other people to his own desires, but in the process of transforming her he may have learned to care for Fern. The warlock's life is forfeit for crimes he actually did commit. Did Fern "rescue" him by the only means available to her? Did she "imprison" him because he had taught her to be as unscrupulous as he was? Is he safe at last, or is everyone else now safe from him? Did she love him, or did she only love the mind and magic that he had given her? The story asks the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusions; conclusions which will of necessity be based on his/her perception of Fern's character. One thing is clear (at least to me). Fern did not "go back to the kind of life she used to live." Instead she is pretending to live her former life in order to protect the secret of what she has gained. That secret may be the warlock's life, or the warlock's love, or the warlock's power; but whatever it is, the warlock's enemies (Prince Chorl etc.) will almost certainly take it from her if they know she has it. I suppose you could argue that Fern has become a kind of "slave". If so, however, I suspect that she is enslaved by her strengths rather than by her weaknesses. This probably doesn't shed any light. But it is the nature of this story to be ambiguous. I couldn't have written it any other way. (07/27/2007) |
Paul: Will the audiobook version of book 2 of the last chronicles of thomas covenant be released at the same time as the hardcover? And will scott brick read it? Can I buy it from audible.com?
|
Several readers have asked about an audio version of "Fatal Revenant". I'm in an unfamiliar position here. The editor who bought "The Last Chronicles" for Putnams no longer works there, so the editorial responsibilities for dealing with me were transferred to Susan Allison at Berkeley/Ace. That's been a very good thing--as far as it goes. The problem is that she doesn't actually work for the company publishing "Fatal Revenant," so she isn't automatically involved in Putnams' decisions about, say, whether or not to release an audio version. The result is that she often can't answer practical questions like this one easily. In addition, she doesn't have ready access to important details like, How well did the audio version of "The Runes of the Earth" sell? And if she doesn't know, I don't know. I'll pass this question on to her. When she's able to get an answer for me--which might take a while--I'll post the information in the "news" section of this site. Sorry I can't do better. Life is full of strange quirks. (07/31/2007) |
elsie: Dear Mr. Donaldson -
Is there any possibility that the First Chronicles may be reissued in large print editions? If no such plans currently exist, would there be any (fruitful) point to contacting a specific publisher to strongly suggest (i.e. wheedling, whining, begging, cajoling, incessantly nagging, and generally making a persistent pest and specific nuisance of myself) that the series be made available in a large print format?
Many thanks...
elsie
|
Sadly, I have no control over such things. And I suspect that you don't either. They are determined by sales (i.e. money). Publishers who are raking in pots of money on a particular book, and who are made aware of an audience for large print editions, don't hesitate to respond. In all other cases, they look for ways to reduce rather than increase their expenses. So unless someone can convince DEL REY/Ballantine that large print editions of "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" are a sure bet.... <sigh> (08/02/2007) |
Stephen: This rejection-story might amuse you:
A british author (whose novel was rejected by a string of publishers), submitted Jane Austen's novels (under different names and titles) to publishers and agents to see if *they* would get rejected too! Only one in eighteen noticed, and all rejected, including the agent and publisher of Harry Potter. From the BBC : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6906799.stm
Best wishes!
|
I had heard this story. Like you, I found it amusing. But it's also rather pointless, don't you think? Jane Austen was writing in a very different time for very different readers. I'm not at all surprised that modern publishers weren't excited by what they read. Although it is rather depressing that they didn't RECOGNIZE it.... <sigh> (08/02/2007) |
John Taff: Just a heads-up. Amazon has the cover of Fatal Revenant up. Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Revenant-Stephen-R-Donaldson/dp/0399154469/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0946046-7148040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185208162&sr=8-1
Looks great!
John
|
For readers who want an advance look. *Eventually* Putnams will send me cover proofs, and then I can ask my webmaster to post the cover on this site. (08/02/2007) |
Michael (NOT from Albuquerque) G: I was checking for new posts, since there haven't been any for a few days, but then I realized- "OF COURSE there are no new posts, Steve was at Borders at midnight last Saturday to get his new Harry Potter book!" We can't expect any new posts from you until you find out if Harry survives, how to pronounce "Hermione", and why anyone would name their child "Hermione" to begin with. Can't wait for the review.
|
Well, duh! How could I miss it? But *wait*! I haven't actually read the SECOND Harry Potter book yet. Or the third. Or the--well, how many ever there are. So why I am I still standing here in line? (08/02/2007) |
Anonymous: I seem to remember in previous responses also that the author has no real input on cover art for their book. ROTE cover was beautiful, a sweeping vista that (for me) evoked the image of the Land. If what I have seen for cover art of FR is accurate, the change in style is pretty dramatic. Does the Publisher not see a need for consistency in cover art by theme or artist? Or are you able to explain their rationale?
|
First (although you didn't ask this), yes, I've been away from the GI for a while, proofreading frantically. But now I'm back. I think? Now. The issue of the US cover for "Fatal Revenant" has been coming up more and more. It's true that I have "no real input on cover art." Publishers ask my opinion (mostly out of courtesy), but they trust their own judgment. That said: Putnams wanted a packaging change for FR because, frankly, ROTE hasn't sold very well. In addition, some people (like my editor and agent) feel that the ROTE cover isn't distinctive enough. As a result, everyone involved in the project has been looking for new approaches. On its own terms, this is a Good Thing. It means that Putnams believes in the books; believes that they deserve to sell better; and is trying hard to make that happen. I personally think that "consistency in cover art" is a plus. Now that Putnams has decided to make a change for FR, I hope that Ace will commission a new (consistent) cover for the mass market paperback of ROTE. But when I ask questions about things like that, I don't get answers. <sigh> If I knew more than that about what's going on, I would tell you. (08/13/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: OK, the cover art to "Fatal Revenant" has been up on Amazon.com for quite some time (at least the US cover). So, would I get an answer if I asked who the guy on the cover is, or is it just a generalizaton of a cool looking old wizard to give the cover a good "fantasy" look? I like it, although it is much different than all the other Chronicles covers, which makes sense since it was done by a new artist, but change is good.
|
From my perspective, this is a real lose/lose question. There is no answer that I could possibly give you that wouldn't be a spoiler of some kind. I'm afraid that you'll just have to RAFO. (08/13/2007) |
steve sp: could you please change it back to Should Pass Utterly? that was so much better.
|
Sorry. No can do. "Should Pass Utterly" is a good title--if you've read the previous "Covenant" books often enough, or recently enough, to get the reference. Otherwise it conveys very little. Or so I'm told by virtually everyone who doesn't, well, get the reference. (Is it a question? An assertion? To what does it refer? And where should the emphasis fall? On "should"? "Pass"? "Utterly"?) As a gratuitous exercise in mental gymnastics, you might try analyzing the difference between, say, "Against All Things Ending" and "All Things Ending". In any case, editors always have the last word on titles. That's just one of the facts of a writer's life. (08/13/2007) |
Vincent: Fantasy, mystery, horror and Sci-Fi are all fiction, but there is a standard as to the 'reality quotient' in each genre respectively. I lost track of that a while ago while writting my horror novel and find more and more that what I am writing seems more like Fantasy. I got so bored with all the detailing needed to write a novel that is as bound by reality as horror can be, at least the horror/suspence novel I wanted to write when I started.
Have you ever written something that, when you were halfway into it, you decided wasn't going where you wanted it too, and suddenly you didn't want to write it anymore? If so do you just toss it aside thinking maybe later you can scavange it into something else and start something new, or do you dig in your heels and push yourself to pull it together one way or another?
|
I can't think of anything useful to say about what you've called the "reality quotient" of various genres. As far as I'm concerned, there's an extremely flexible continuum between fiction which attempts to mirror consensus reality exactly ("slice of life realism") and fiction which attempts to reinvent virtually every aspect of consensus reality (sometimes including language itself). At one extreme, I think of writers like Zola and Dreiser. At the other--well, the only name that occurs to me (as being sufficiently extreme) is Butor, who once (or so I'm told) wrote a "novel" where the reader was expected to shuffle the pages before reading them. (Perhaps I should content myself with a surrealist like Beckett.) Everything else--including fantasy, s/f, horror, mystery, romance, "magic realism," western, historical, even most mainstream--falls somewhere in between. Exactly *where* in between depends on what a particular writer is trying to accomplish in a particular story. In other words, I'm afraid that this is a situation in which you'll have to find your own path. After all, all of the best writers are "sui generis": each of them occupies a niche entirely his/her own. As to your second question: since the ending of a story is my reason for telling it, and all of my energies are focused on reaching that ending as honestly and effectively as possible, my stories never go off on directions of their own, and I never lose interest in writing them. The only exception (and it doesn't really fit your questions) is "The Real Story," which I originally wrote as a standalone novella several years before I began work on the GAP books. I put it away after I'd written it (and revised it a few times) because I knew that it didn't "work," but I couldn't figure out why. As soon as I did figure out what the problem was, I went back to it. BUT (and I've already said this many times) what I do and how I work are irrelevant to what you do and how you work. Only bad things can happen to you if you strive to emulate some other writer's methodologies. (OK, I admit that imitating another writer--AS AN EXERCISE--can be very educational. That's not a bad thing. But the results can never be anything more than an exercise.) Here, as in virtually every aspect of writing, each individual has to find his/her own path. (08/13/2007) |
Roy Miyamoto: Stephen,
In reading your latest news report regarding the length of the proofs you have received from both the US and UK publishers, how will the 150 page length difference affect the final product offered in the US and UK? Will the readers in the US be shortchanged?
Thanks.
|
I swear to you that the US and UK texts are as identical as human diligence can make them. The difference in physical size is the result of differing fonts, page sizes, lines per page; things like that. (08/13/2007) |
Mark M: The Gap series for me is one of the best things I have ever read - I could not believe that you could write a better series than TC - thank you! After reading this interview, it is clear that there is some disappointment over how the Gap series is received by fans and also in terms of sales.
My question is: a lot of people seem to read the first 1-2 books and then switch off (mainly due to the brutality that Morn suffers). They then of course miss the rest of this great story.
I appreciate that this is the story you wanted to tell, however do you sometimes think if Morns treatment was only hinted at, that more fans would have continued reading and discovered how good this series is? From a commercial point of view, would you have changed anything in retrospect?
It's a bit of a 'what if' question but I always thought you deserved much more recognition for the Gap series.
|
I'm certainly proud of the GAP books--perhaps inordinately so as a form of over-compensation. <grin> But I knew going in that the story would be a difficult "sell" from a commercial point of view. I decided to peel off the layers (in "The Real Story") until the full brutality of the characters and context was revealed (which doesn't actually happen until "A Dark and Hungry God Arises") because, well, if you don't know just how bad things have been for people like Morn and Angus and Nick, you can't really measure Morn's courage, or Angus' transformation, or Nick's tragedy. In particular, if I want to write convincingly about people who rise above themselves under extreme circumstances, I have to tell the truth about those circumstances (both past and present). "Hinting" won't cut it: describing something that happened "off stage" won't cut it. Only the truth carries any moral weight. Sure, I wish more people trusted me enough to stick with me through the first half of my story. I believe that the people who *do* stick with me won't regret it. (You're a good example.) But I wouldn't back down from the position I took in the GAP books. (Not even in retrospect. <grin>) The integrity of the stories I'm trying to tell is worth a lot more to me than commercial success is. (08/18/2007) |
Andrew, Rio, Brazil: Dr. Donalson,
Many ideas are, of course, "recycled" in literature over the years, sometimes with new, imaginative twists, sometimes just blatantly repeating episodes from previous works. In recent years I've noticed more than a few examples of scenes, in both cinema films and TV series, that remind me (very much) of moments in your Covenant novels.
Have you ever noticed any items that you felt were strongly inspired by (or shamelessly copied from) your work? If so, how do you feel when this happens, flattered, offended..."ruefully amused"?!
(And, if you're feeling indiscreet, maybe you'd cite an example or two?...No, probably not).
My thanks for your creativity and dedication to your craft.
|
Maybe I'm a uniquely uncritical audience. (Ha!) Or maybe I'm so focused on how stories are put together than I don't notice material which may have been borrowed or even stolen from, say, me. Whatever the explanation, I virtually never *see* "items...that were strongly inspired by (or shamelessly copied from) [my] work." Those "items" may well exist; but if they do, *I* sure missed 'em. (It's rather embarrassing to admit that I never noticed the similarity between Erikson's "L'Oric" and my "Loric" until a reader pointed it out to me. <rueful sigh> However, I choose to regard this as an indication of Erikson's excellence rather than a sign of my inattention. He's simply so good that he renders such connections or comparisons meaningless.) (08/18/2007) |
Brian Matthews: Mr. Donaldson,
You once responded to a question of mine stating you thought your writing for the Second Chronicles was "uneven." Now that you are half way through the Third Chronicles, how would you describe writing in this series so far? And specifically your opinion of your writing for FR. Thanks again.
|
I may be the worst possible judge of my own writing. (Or not. Only time will tell.) But here's how I choose to look at it. "The Runes of the Earth" is the launch platorm. In "Fatal Revenant," the ICBM really takes off. Now the only question is whether or not I can keep up with what I've launched. <rueful smile> Later I'll worry about whether or not my missile is going to hit its target. (08/19/2007) |
steve sp: Mr. Donaldson,
I have a question that I think has not been asked before. I've recently finished reading a book by linguist Steven Pinker called The Language Instinct in which he talks about the development of language and speech. One of the points Pinker made was that languages constantly evolve and/or become extinct over the generations, as can be seen by the fact that no one currently speaks Old English or Latin. My question is: did you ever consider this fact when writing the Chronicles? Peoples of the Land have spoken the same language for 7000+ years, and on top of that don't seem to have changed anything about their speech (eg pronunciation, etc.). Of course this is a small curiosity that doesn;t really affect the quality of your work. Just something that i found interesting.
--steve
|
I'm tempted by a variety of responses. I want to refer you to what I now call "the Douglas Adams Fallacy" (thanks to a reader of the GI, I was able to quote Adams extensively a few weeks ago: the "fallacy" is one that he describes, not one that he commits). Or I could fall back on the irreducible fact that I'm not a linguist. I have neither the skills nor the knowledge to address the issue you raise. But here's my real answer: since everything about the Land has *some* kind of organic relationship with Covenant's mind, and with Linden's--and since neither Covenant nor Linden has spent thousands of years progressing in his/her use of language--of COURSE the people of the Land still talk the way they did millennia ago. Whether or not you accept the proposition that the Land is an extension of Covenant's and Linden's minds is beside the point. No one can deny that Covenant and Linden have *some* kind of fundamental and essential relevance to the "reality" of the Land. Parts of the story can be told from "Land-based" perspectives--e.g. from Mhoram's--only because the relationship between those perspectives and Covenant's/Linden's has already been established. (08/22/2007) |
Richard: Hi Stephen,
I was just thinking of a introduction by Moorcock in one of his novels were he cites an author friend of his being approached by a 'literary writer' and being accused that 97% of SF and fantasy is **** (censored for the constitutionally weak) to which he replied absolutely, but then 97% of all fiction is **** (further self censorship).
I was wondering what you thought of this? Admittedly there is no context to describe exactly what good writing is. Possibly it is the line between truly bad writers (of which there sadly far too many published) and then the finer distinction of writers who have genuine literary merits, whose use of language transcends mere words on a page and those authors whose use of language is more perfunctory but who could be considered crude but effective plot-weavers (modern examples being such popular figures as JK Rowling or Dan Brown)
|
As far as I know, Moorcock's assertion isn't original--but it is certainly apt. Empirically if not scientifically, we're surrounded by evidence that he's right. I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion of particular writers. And I'm not wise enough to define true excellence ("art"): only the test of time winnows "the best" from "the merely good". But back in the days when I taught writing (lo! these many years ago), I liked to say that "Bad is objective: good is subjective." Put another way: it is easy to demonstrate that writer X's work is bad--and there's no escaping the fact that it *is* bad, regardless of whether or not writer X sells a lot of books. It is much more difficult to demonstrate that writer Y's work is good (again regardless of whether or not writer Y sells a lot of books). And it is virtually impossible to demonstrate that writer Z's work is excellent. The farther away we get from the realm of the objectively bad, the more we enter the domain of "I like this, but I don't like that." Some people consider my books to be the rancid by-products of a diseased mind. Well, fine: everyone is entitled to his/her likes and dislikes. But can these unspecified people *demonstrate* that my books are objectively bad? Personally, I doubt it. In my (admittedly limited) experience, the people who consider my books to be the rancid etc. use vehement adjectives, rhetorical "straw men," and unsupported generalizations to defend their views because they can't actually find the objective evidence they want in the text. Please understand that I'm not claiming for myself the stature of "excellence" (or even the stature of "merely good"): I'm simply observing that people who dislike my work intensely appear to do so for reasons which are subjective rather than objective. (08/22/2007) |
John: Steve,
It may interest you -- and distress you -- to know (if you already did not) I have already seen a copy of an uncorrected proof of FR for sale one ebay. At this moment it is selling for $500 U.S. dollars... I am sure there will be more to follow, sadly.
|
All I can say is: I pity the fool who gets sucked in by that kind of nonsense. (Just my opinion, folks.) (08/22/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Chris Daly: Salutations Mr. Donaldson,
At the end of the Second Chronicles Linden remakes the Staff of Law and Heals the land. If this is correct then all Laws broken after High Lord Elena broke the Law of Death.
My question is this, is time a part of Law? if so how is it possible to bend time in the Last Chronicles and not break the established Laws all over again?
Thank you and fervently waiting on FR.
|
I think I understand why these issues are confusing. Here's an analogy that may be useful. Consider the whole Law as a skeleton supporting the flesh of life (all life, including the fact that existence is even possible). The skeleton is composed of many different bones (manifestations of Law), each of which serves a separate function, none of which is fully functional without all the others. Like broken bones, broken Laws can be healed--and like healed bones, they're never the same afterward. For one thing, the "joins" are harder; therefore more brittle. And as anyone who has suffered a bone bruise knows, once a bone has been damaged, it is much more easily re-damaged. Obviously I don't want to carry this analogy too far (Law of Time=skull, Laws of Life and Death=spine, etc. <grin>). I don't mean it literally. I just mean it as a way to think about what happens in "The Chronicles". (08/28/2007) |
Anonymous: During your writing process, do you ever find that you absolutely loathe what you write -- that you find it abhorrent, awkward, trite? (I am finding it difficult to write due to these feelings.) If you do encounter this feeling -- even to a lesser degree -- how do you work around it? I'm hoping good old fashioned cognitive dissonance isn't the answer. ;)
Also, I've noticed that you have a very implicit anti-academic (note: not anti-intellectual) bent in your responses throughout the GI -- that you tend to deflect any suggestion that you employ a literary process above and beyond the strictly functional, and that you believe that the focused delivery of one's imagination trumps any "meta" type delivery of narrative or any appeal to the larger literary discussion. I'm not sure I believe you when you claim that. Are you sure that you simply aren't deferring the question, and that if academic literary qualities could be more easily discovered in your books, you wouldn't reject the conceit? I am emphatically *not* saying that your works don't have literary merit (litotic oxymoron aside!), BTW; I'm simply pointing out that you *seem* uncomfortable with the idea that they might have higher literary intentions because they might elicit comparisons to, say, Joyce or something. Or do you just have a dislike for trumped up critics and the tyranny of their, er, argot? ;) Hey! I'm just asking!
|
I've been procrastinating with your questions because they're so complex and I can't think how to answer them efficiently. But here goes. Simpler issues first. I'm long past the stage where I "absolutely loathe" what I've written. In this regard, there are two important parts to my process. 1) As I've often said, every day when I go in to work I give myself permission to write badly. Indeed, I *expect* what I write to be bad. (My Mommy didn't raise any self-confident children.) So there's no surprise here--and no reason to get down on myself. One great blessing of the writing process is rewriting. I'm deeply comforted by the knowledge that I can rewrite as often and as hard as necessary to produce good results. 2) I separate as completely as possible the creative and critical aspects of my writing process. I write an entire book at a time without (hardly ever) worrying about whether I've written it well. I only fully engage the critical side of my mind when I have the entire short story or book on paper. In other words, I don't spend my time second-guessing myself while I write. Instead I just plow ahead, come good or ill. That's the only way I can create something that feels *alive* to me. (Of course, things do sometimes go badly wrong during the creative stage. Under those circumstances, I have no choice except to engage my critical faculties in order to identify and correct the problem. But I only do that when things go *badly* wrong--i.e. when the story starts to feel utterly dead rather than alive. Otherwise I just keep going--and trust my abilities as a rewriter.) But how to explain my attitudes toward academic literary analysis and (more generally defined) literary merit? I am fundamentally pro-academia in all of its critical and analytical functions. I learned all of my aesthetic standards--the criteria of literary merit to which I aspire--by studying great literature in college and graduate school. My apparent anti-academic bias is reactive. I've simply encountered too much scorn for what I do from academics (even from the specific professors who taught me my own standards). And my many academic friends who do not automatically despise sf/f have to deal with the scorn of their colleagues on a daily basis. Hence my perception that the study of literature in academia has become a very closed-minded activity. Despite Henry James' dictum that every creative person *must* be left free to choose his/her own subject matter, and that the subject matter itself can never be a valid object of literary criticism, many times many academics dismiss what I do for no other reason than because I choose to use metaphors of magic and monsters. (As a result, we never get to the much more interesting question of whether or not literature can be emotionally "hot" rather than "cool" and still achieve high literary merit.) As for literary merit itself, I have the highest conceivable aspirations. I strive for greatness, nothing less. Everything I do is an "appeal to the larger literary discussion." But come on: do you seriously expect me to attribute greatness to myself? Do you seriously expect me to compare myself to, say, Joyce (although Conrad would be more apt)? I'm not that egotistical. More importantly, however, I'm not that ignorant. I know with real clarity that *time* is the only valid measure of greatness--and time won't even *start* to pass judgment on my work for another 50 or 100 years. So what conceivably purpose would it serve if I went around claiming literary merit for myself (as Eric Segal famously--and foolishly--did after publishing "Love Story")? Since I don't know what time is going to decide, if I want to stay sane I'd better stay humble. (08/29/2007) |
Sean Farrell: Hi Mr Donaldson
I'm one of the lucky few about to embark on my ARC of Fatal Revenant (my Orion rep has really had enough of me now, I think...). Anyway, very excited of course and have been re-reading Runes for the third time in preparation.
The question - every time I read the second and final Chronicles it pains me on a visceral level that the inhabitants of the Land are BURNING the wood! I understand why of course but I wondered- it was such an incredibly effective and beautiful innovation in the First Chronicles NOT to burn the wood - do YOU miss it?
|
My essential motivation for writing is the story (and by extension the characters). If I haven't already made this clear, I don't write for the various pleasures of world-building (many though they may be). I get excited when I think of details that will help my story (like burning wood in "The Second Chronicles"): I know that I'm making a poignant change, and I hope that my readers will recognize it as such; but I don't grieve over it--and I certainly don't miss it. Instead I'm glad that I thought of it. Characters, on the other hand.... <sigh> (08/29/2007) |
Bob Benoit: Dear Stephen - A two part question:
1) I had an idea to make a gift of an "audiobook" of The Illearth War for my girlfriend's birthday (she spends a lot of time in her car and just finished LFB.) Do you and/or your publisher have legal and/or moral objections to me making this? It would be just a gift for her - I'm not sure anyone else would be able to stand listening to me anyway.
2) While re-reading TIW (for at least the 10th time) in advance of this project, I read an interesting passage that made me wonder. When Hile Troy describes himself to Covenant (and/or the reader) he says that he uses words or language as his way of excelling at his job. This strikes me as somewhat similar to the way I've heard you describe yourself in the GI - as someone who uses language to create emotions and the like in your writing. Is this similarity just a coincidence or did your own persona play a part in your construction of Hile Troy? (I've heard you say in the past that you don't use your own life experiences directly in your writings, but I thought this might be different.
Thanks for your continued efforts in the GI.
|
As far as I'm concerned, any genuinely "personal" use that you make of a book you own is your own affair: it's no one else's business. If, on the other hand, you wanted to *sell* your audiobook--or even hand it out indiscriminately on street corners--my publisher(s) and I would have good reason to object. But as long as you aren't going down that road.... I see your point about Hile Troy. And it's true that I "milk" myself constantly for what I need in order to devise and understand my characters. But this is something that I'm only aware of in retrospect. I do not *consciously* use myself or my experiences in my writings, directly or otherwise. So I can't honestly say that any similarity between the ways in which Troy and I rely on language is a coincidence. On the other hand, I *can* honestly say that it "just happened." If that makes any sense. (08/29/2007) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson!
In my reading of Erikson's Malazan series, I've come across a character of his named L'oric. You, of course, have a character named Loric Vilesilencer, the maker of the Krill. Since Erikson and yourself enjoy each other's work, I was wondering if this is an homage.
Another question: have you ever come up with a name for a character that pleases you, only to have to abandon it once someone (an editor?) told you another author had already used it?
As always, thanks for the GI. Can't wait for FR!
|
I'm embarrassed to admit that I never noticed the similarity between L'Oric and Loric until you pointed it out. If you want to know whether Erikson intended his (much later) use of the name as "an homage," you'll have to ask him. *I* certainly won't. I do my level best not to care about such things. And no, I've never had to ditch a name I like--well, for any reason whatsoever. Not even "Kevin" or "Elena," which must have been used dozens of times before I got to them. What would be the point? If I can't make the name my own in the way I use it (as Erikson clearly makes L'Oric his own, which is why it didn't call inappropriate attention to itself), I probably don't deserve to be published in the first place. (08/29/2007) |
Mark Harris in Japan: Stephen,
The recent questions concerning the cover of FR made me go to Amazon.com (yes, I pre-ordered my copy some time ago) to check it out (my guess is it's a picture of a Forestal, not to go too far out on a limb [no pun intended]). While there, I decided to look at the "Book Description." Here's what I found:
[text edited to remove spoilers]
Assuming you were part of the process of coming up with (if not the very author of) that description, is it a difficult tightrope act putting it together? Obviously you want to tell enough to get people to buy the book, but not too much which might give anyone the "milk" for free. In a perfect world, I suppose you would rather put nothing beyond that it picks up where the last book left off.
I think this description does a pretty good job of walking the tightrope. In any case, it seems to give away less than the one (erroneously, prematurely) posted on Amazon.co.uk last year.
Looking forward to Fatal Revenant! Stay healthy and happy!
Mark
|
No, I did not write the jacket copy for "Fatal Revenant" myself: my editor(s) did. But yes, it *is* a difficult balancing act--and yes, I did as much as I could to help my editor(s) walk the tightrope. On the one hand, I hate giving away ANYthing about what I've written. And on the other, I always read the jacket copy myself before I start reading a book: I want at least a *few* hints about what I'm getting into. So I try to help my editor(s) compromise between my desires as the author and the desires I would feel if I were the reader. (08/29/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Allen: Would you say you are a more popular writer in England than you are in America?
|
There's no question about it. In England, I don't just reach a higher proportion of readers, I reach a higher total number of readers. That's significant, considering that England has roughly 1/5 as many people as the US. (09/04/2007) |
Tom: I have a question within a question, I suppose. Do you read books for enjoyment while you are in the process of writing? Particularly books of the same genre for which you are writing? I have written on and off ever since I discovered fantasy as a young child, and I have always, without fail, been inspired to write stories whenever I am actually *reading* a good story.
It's almost like when you are watching TV and you see a good beer commercial and you immediately want a beer. The problem, however, is that I like epic fantasy (as your essay so well discussed). Those books take awhile to finish, and I often have put off my writing until I finish (and hear is the crux of the matter) for fear of being too influenced in my writing by what I am reading.
Going down that road further, I now have say 30 years of wonderful stories tucked into my memory and subconsciousness. These things cannot be avoided and it is very hard to not be influenced by them unless one actively seeks to avoid them as a writer. These two things concern me so much that I have thrown literally hundreds of pages of my writing in the garbage because I was not satisfied with their "originality" - even though anyone would be hard pressed to write something that is truly 100% original (see also: music).
For me it has always been the wonder of a great story, the feeling of actually being there that has pumped my creative juices, and I have always been wary of that trigger. I wonder what your thoughts were on the subject and if you experienced similar things. I also wonder if I should press on with my ideas even when caught up in reading, if that is in fact when I am often most motivated to write.
Looking forward to FR and thanks so much for GI, it's really great.
Tom
|
To answer your last question first: yes, you should press on with your own ideas regardless of what you're reading. If reading gets your creative juices flowing, *use* that. You can always revise later if you feel that what you've written has been unduly influenced by what you've read. Yes, I do read books for pleasure (and inspiration, and reassurance, and education) while I'm writing. When I was a "young" writer (the first "Covenant" trilogy), I stayed away from reading in the genre I was writing--but not because I was afraid of being influenced by what I read. (Being influenced by what I read is one of the many ways in which I try to improve my skills as a writer.) No, I was afraid of feeling depressed (if what I read in fantasy was bad) or intimidated (if what I read in fantasy was good). During those years, I read widely in many other forms, including sf (and Renaissance poetry), but I avoided fantasy. But then I got over it. Writing my first books helped me to internalize the knowledge that creativity is not a competition. Therefore (in my case) it doesn't matter what other writers have done: it only matters what I do. (Feel free to substitute your name for mine whenever you're ready. <grin>) And it doesn't matter whether I milk, say, Tolkien and Peake for all they're worth, as long as what I have when I'm done is honest Donaldson rather than ersatz Tolkien or Peake. Does this address your concerns? (09/05/2007) |
Duane P. Dawson: Hello, Stephen! I really love your Covenant books, especially the first chronicles, and have read all of your fantasy and scifi stuff, though only two books out of four so far of your "the man who" series. I was always sympathetic to Thomas Covenant even after he raped Lena, you tried to get me unsympathetic, but I was anyway. I knew he would come through at the end.
I didn't have to do a search through the GI to see if my question has been asked because I've read everything now. (I have a lot of time on my hands.)
My question is about the genecide of the unhomed. I don't know why they just sat there and let themselves be killed. In the book you said something about they became what they hated, so they let themselves die. I don't see that they became what they hated. It wasn't their fault that the ravers took over the triplets. I'm still angry at them for not fighting or running away from danger. Is it because of the prophecy about the triplets?
I'm looking forward to Fatal Revenant, I'm sure you'll do a good job with that and the two remaining books after that.
|
(I deleted your second question, not because I'm unwilling to answer it, but because it veers into spoiler territory. It simplifies my life if you--and other readers--post spoiler and non-spoiler questions separately.) I'm not sure I can give you a satisfactory answer about the passivity of the Unhomed when they are confronted with the knowledge that they are too weak to resist possession by Ravers. My problem is that the explanation is SO obvious to me, SO fundamental to my perception of the Giants--and perhaps also to my perception of myself--that I don't know how to put it into words. But let me try this approach: I've had dreams in which I appeared--to myself--as the most terrifying kind of homicidal maniac. Well, the fact that these were only dreams has served as a motivator: I've spent decades working hard to NOT become that person. But if that version of myself ever took on flesh and became real.... I do honestly believe that I would rather be dead. The Unhomed decided that they would rather be dead than risk becoming the playthings or embodiments of Ravers. That's a rather extreme moral judgment, I admit. But I can totally relate to it. And after all, pretty much everything in the "Covenant" books is extreme. (09/05/2007) |
Pamela Knight: Is there any chance that The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Trilogies will be published in audio - like at audible.com. It seems you are missing great market share by not being part of this technology. I love audio books and just had these books recommended to me, but I cannot find them in audio format.
|
As I've said on many occasions, I have no control over such things. And sadly, my books don't sell well enough to justify the expense to my publishers. I believe that the "Covenant" books *are* available through the Library of Congress Books On Tape program. But they aren't for sale, and I have no idea how you would get your hands on them. (09/05/2007) |
Jason D. Wittman: Hello again, Mr. Donaldson.
This may interest some people: a team of Canadian computer programmers have solved the game of checkers (known as "hop-board" in "Mordant's Need") and composed a checkers program that can achieve at least a tie against any opponent. People can play against this program at www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook. I wonder what King Joyse (or--gasp!--Adept Havelock) would think of this. :-D
I have a question regarding Lord Foul. I just finished re-reading the GAP series, and this led me to compare Lord Foul's character to that of Holt Fasner. Both are masters of monomaniacal manipulation, but each has a different objective: Holt Fasner wants to live forever, whereas Lord Foul is already immortal, but wants to be freed from the Arch of Time. All his machinations, all the harm he inflicts on the Land's inhabitants, are done toward that end.
Here's what I was wondering: Lord Foul must not only be motivated by desire for freedom, but by hatred of the Creator who imprisoned him--he wants revenge. If that is the case, would the harm he inflicts on the Land's inhabitants be a form of *vicarious* revenge against the Creator (who must love his creations, otherwise why would he lift a finger to help them)? If that's true, wouldn't he do what he does to inflict pain as much as to gain freedom? This would seem to indicate that he doesn't just see the Land's inhabitants as tools to be used--he sees them as the Creator's children, and, as such, to be hated. That would mean (I think) that he places value on the Land's inhabitants as sentient beings. And if he is capable of placing such value on beings he hates (here is my point) might he not be capable of love toward other beings?
I apologize if this is a bit rambling. But it does bring to mind another question: what would Holt Fasner do in Lord Foul's place? "Hmm, I get to live forever, and all I have to do is stay in this Arch of Time thing? Hey, no problem!"
Regards,
Jason D. Wittman
|
Much of your analysis makes sense to me. Certainly your point about "*vicarious* revenge against the Creator" does. But I see a couple of issues. First, the Despiser is an explicitly archetypal character. Despite is his nature. For such a character to enjoy and even feed off of the pain of other beings is a far cry from experiencing anything which might (even remotely) be called love. If he loved anything (except himself), he wouldn't be the Despiser anymore. And I suspect that even his self-love looks suspiciously like contempt. Second, the hunger that drives Holt Fasner isn't static. It's like a black hole: it can't be satisfied--just as Despite can't be satisfied. Put Fasner in Lord Foul's place, and it won't be long before he realizes that he wants MORE. Seen from that perspective, Fasner is simply a human version of "the Despiser" archetype. (09/05/2007) |
Anonymous: I have two interests that I can't read enough about 1) the motivations for people who climb Mt. Everest and the torments they experience in doing so 2) How do authors write / plot / construct their books. I have no intention in doing either, but rather respect the people who do.
Question: I am reading a book by Stephen King named "On Writing" written in the late 90's and rather surprised at the number of intersections between this book and some of the previous responses you have made regarding your own writing style & methods. For example, he also wrote about that the genesis of two distinct ideas that converge, and help him form the basic plot for his books. I believe that closely echoes what you have written here before. He also went on about many of your same thoughts on grammer, reading, music (though he writes to Hard Rock music like AC/DC), etc... Have you ever spoken to him before or from your experience with other authors are these thoughts more universal truths?
|
In my limited and (admittedly) self-defined experience, when writers get together as individuals (rather than as public figures), they don't talk about how or even why they write. Paradoxically, that's too private for private conversation. Instead they talk about Life in a way that may include reading but virtually never includes writing. In the grand total of maybe 10 minutes that I've spent with Stephen King, the kinds of subjects that he discussed in "On Writing" never came up. As "public figures," however--in books, for example, or on panel discussions--writers talk about writing all the time. From such occasions, I've gleaned that writers (and artists) in general seem to require some form of self-devised isolation. They need to close out the external world somehow. And the "hows" almost always involve the use or manipulation of sound: as an aural barrier against distraction, perhaps, or as an aid to concentration/self-hypnosis. But other than that, the only "universal truths" I've gleaned are a) if you don't sit down and actually write, you aren't writing (duh), and b) every writer is unique (who'da thunk it?). Pick a subject (where do you get your ideas? or, how do you develop them? or some such), and every writer on the panel reveals an approach that wouldn't work for anyone else. (09/05/2007) |
John: Steve,
I have looked through the G.I. but have not really found an answer to a a few questions, or I have missed such answers if already given...
When the Creator trapped Lord Foul within the Arch of Time, did the Creator violate the nature of Lord Foul? Foul is what he is, how could the Creator have been surprised by what Foul did? Not to say that I think Foul should be considered innocent, but how can you blame a rock for being a rock?
The Covenant books are in one very real way, I think, a story regarding confronting the consequences of our actions. Covenant raped Lene.. has he really confronted his action? The Creator trapped Foul with his creation... a place I do not think Foul belongs. So another question: has the Creator confronted the consequences of his action, or can he not, as he *needs* to protect the integrity of his creation?
Thanks!!!
|
Did the Creator trap Lord Foul deliberately? As I recall, the available "creation myths" are ambiguous or conflicting on that point. But please keep in mind that Lord Foul is a thinking, feeling, and acting being, not a rock. <grin> It seems pointless to hold a rock responsible for whatever it is--or isn't. But beings that think and choose are always responsible for their own actions, regardless of how good their excuses are, or of how legitimate their complaints may be. You're right in observing that "confronting the consequences of our actions" is one of the major themes of "The Chronicles" as a whole. But in view of the fact that significant portions of TIW and TPTP involve rubbing Covenant's nose in the consequences of what he did to Lena--and that the outcome (for Covenant) is a complete commitment to saving the Land--I think I'm justified in claiming that Covenant has indeed confronted the consequences of the action we're talking about. Has the Creator confronted the consequences of his actions? Think of it this way (just an analogy, so don't take it too literally): the Creator is like a parent who both loves and respects his child. With the best will in the world, no parent can avoid causing pain and even damage to the child. Nor can the parent see inside the child well enough to recognize *all* the pain and damage that arrives from other sources. The parent may well identify much of that pain and damage, and respond to it lovingly. The parent may do everything in his/her power to confront the consequences of his/her actions. But deep inside, the child remains invisible to the parent (as we all are to each other). The parent simply can't know everything there is to know about the consequences of his/her actions--and is pretty much fighting blind when it comes to the consequences for the child of other people's actions. The result? The best parents in the world raise children who have been damaged, and who are intimately familiar with pain. At a certain point, the parent has no choice except to just let the child grow up (i.e. cope with the child's own pain/damage)--if the child can. And at that point, the whole notion of "confronting the consequences" ceases to have much meaning. Well, obviously this analogy carries a lot of weight for me. But leaving that aside, I think it suggests a valid point about the Creator's relationship with his creation (including all the consequences of everyone's actions). (09/07/2007) |
Marc Dalesandro: Mr. Donaldson,
I have to object to something you recently wrote on the GI. You said the new covers for the original trilogy of Covenant books were "the worst example" of a type of "trick" because they feature Covenant's ring prominently.
I'm assuming you mean because the One Ring from Tolkien looks similar, you think the publisher is attempting to deceive people into purchasing the books because of an implied tie-in to LOTR.
I have to say, I believe you are not giving yourself and your own work the place they deserve. Tolkien does not own the concept of a magical ring. There have been magical rings before Tolkien, and many after. Furthermore, YOUR books probably contain the second-most recognized "ring" in the entire fantasy genre.
If ANYONE besides JRR Tolkien deserves to have a ring on the cover of his/her books, and have that ring be displayed prominently, it's you. You've earned the right, through several decades of great storytelling, to put that ring up there.
Yes, perhaps the publisher *was* trying to fool people somehow. But that hardly matters. The White Gold is one of the key concepts of your entire Covenant mythos, a mythos first published 30 years ago. You've added whole concepts to the fantasy genre. I don't think you need worry about comparisons to Tolkien by readers or anyone else.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: the thought that you would look at the cover of one of your books and think "they made it look like Tolkien's ring" bothers me. It's not Tolkien's ring on your covers - it's yours.
Marc
|
Gee, doesn't the fact that it's a *yellow* gold ring on the covers count? <rueful smile> As I think I've said before, I believe that I need the ring more than Tolkien did. I certainly have the right to use a ring if I want. And I like to think that my work has its own stature. But none of that has anything to do with the realities of the marketplace. One of those realities is: many times many more people have seen the LOTR movies than have ever read Tolkien's books--or mine. So put yourself in the place of a person who has seen and loved the movies, who knows nothing about Tolkien or Donaldson, and who happens to be browsing in a bookstore. What message do the DEL REY/Ballantine covers convey to that person? I think the message is, "If you liked LOTR, and you don't have anything better to do, here's a pale imitation to help pass the time." I think those covers are cheap--and deliberately misleading. In saying that, I'm not denying myself whatever stature I may deserve: I'm criticizing DEL REY/Ballantine. (09/07/2007) |
Dave : Steve,
A recent GI reader wrote in to make you aware of a copy of Fatal Revenant that was on ebay. You said "I pity the fool that falls for that kind of nonsense". Curiosity got the best of me and I noticed there are several Advanced Reading Copies (ARC) on there. How many of these "ARCs" go out? Do they only go to reviewers? In your opinion, how do they end up on ebay?
Thanks.
|
Others know more about this than I do. It is my unconfirmed impression that publishers tend to produce between 500 and 1000 ARCs for review and other promotional purposes. But I could easily be wrong about those numbers. How they end up on eBay is simple: the people who receive ARCs free (often reviewers, but book buyers and distributers, and sometimes even bookstore managers, can get copies) want to make money without having to work for it; or they give the ARCs to their friends, relatives, acquaintances, who in turn want to make money without having to work for it. In fact, there's a entire business enterprise out there that revolves around obtaining free ARCs and selling them for as much money as possible. This is, obviously, a flagrant distortion of the purpose for which ARCs are intended. But there's probably no cure for the problem. Greed makes cynics of everyone it touches. Still, I remind myself that a comparatively small percentage of all possible ARCs are sold. Most people who get them don't accept them--or seek them out--for personal gain. (09/10/2007) |
Daniel H. Carroll: I was aware from the "git-go" that you had been a conscientious objector and admired your integrity in your declaration. But I couldn't help noticing that that your stories are full of heroes who find their heroism in acts of horrific violence. And what makes things more curious is that, especially in Covenant, that your stories seem to reinforce that innocence isn't enough. There is no salvation in just being pure and apart. And the question is what am I not seeing between your pacifist side and your art that is so raw and violent?
Well, that's it for me. Apart from my drooling praise (no pun intended), I did have a serious question in there about SRD the CO and SRD the artist. Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks!
|
[message edited to save space] Storytelling serves many purposes, one of which is to confront those aspects of ourselves--or of humanity in general--that disturb or frighten or confound us. Certainly one of my many reasons for writing is to explore my aspirations toward who I want to be, and to face my fear of who I do not want to be. In addition, it seems inescapable that "exaggeration"--viewing complex themes and emotions in their most extreme forms--is a fundamental and inherent part of how my imagination works. One of Stephen King's answers to the question, Why do you write about such horrible things? is, What makes you think I have a choice? That response makes sense to me. I couldn't write the kind of subtle and oblique "drawing-room morality tales" that, say, Henry James handled so well if my life depended on it. As for the notion that "There is no salvation in just being pure and apart": how could it be otherwise? The mere concept of "being pure and apart" seems inhuman to me--not to mention inhumane. (09/12/2007) |
Dave Evans (UK): Hi,
sorry, one more comment that is probably not particularly interesting - just a comment on changing "Vacation" to "Holiday" for Brit readers.
I am *well aware* that you are American, no doubt speak like an American, think like an American. But somehow the word "Vacation" or "trunk" (of car - we call it the boot, I think it's that way round anyway, the bit at the back where you put your suitcases!) - generally when I read your books I read the characters as being similar to myself in tone and inflection.
Sorry, I'm not able to put anything concisely today - what I'm saying is, I think it probably does help some/many readers that certain very american words are replaced with the brit equivalent (for the same reason that father christmas in Narnia is just wrong). I couldn't be certain, but I think it's probably true in my case, anyway.
Now I will leave you in peace.
Thanks again.
|
You make a valid point, of course: one which I often overlook. I'm the kind of writer who wants his readers to be able to immerse themselves in the story. That immersion becomes more difficult to achieve when the usage of certain words is inadvertently jarring. (*Deliberate* jarring is an entirely different issue.) (09/12/2007) |
Emilio Bueso: The spanish translation of your books seems to be out of print since 1992. Any plans to reissue The Chronicles in Spain?
|
There are no current plans to issue--or reissue--any of the "Covenant" books in Spanish. (09/12/2007) |
lonomon: what's the deal with Jeremiah's red car?
|
Please! That would be telling. (09/12/2007) |
Michael: Dear Sir, I notice your animosity towards Christianity, as have some other people who wrote you through your gradual interview. I was interested to know if your parents as missionaries were likeminded with you or was it in retaliation to your upbringing that you have taken the opposite tack to them? Your tales of Thomas are absorbing to a certain extent but would seem to advocate a Yin/Yang philosophy as opposed to Christianity, with which I am sure you are conversant from what little I have read of your upbringing. I have heard that the author Phillip Pullman is antagonistic to God and Christianity too, and from my somewhat long question, you have probably gathered that I would be what you would probably call a judgemental Christian. I won't argue over you about Islam and Christianity but mind you the crusades can't be justified from the Bible and before Mohammed the Middle East was not muslim, so for it to extend to where it had by the time of the crusades, I would think some sort of long extended martial display had happened. Oh well, time for bed. Yours sincerely, Michael ps. I am sure your parents expressed to you that Jesus died for our sins and if we neglect so great a salvation when we die we won't go to heaven but to hell. I am sure this has probably completely turned you off and is illustrative of your contention about judgemental Christianity, but when we die we will all stand before the judgement seat of God (and not man's government). Also the devil and his angels will be thrown into the lake of fire and is a created being not a co-equal or other facet of God, it was only the Lucifer's pride which caused him to think he could overthrow God. Sorry, you have heard it all, I am sure but this is my two cents worth.
|
I wish I could give you a satisfactory response, although I'm sure that we'll never see eye-to-eye on these subjects. But keep in mind that people are often formed as well as informed by up-bringing and life experience. I internalized early the idea that "Faith without works is dead." And since pretty much all of the most abusive and even cruel people I've ever known personally are Christians, I drew the obvious conclusion. (To be fair, I should admit that I have also known some truly wonderful human beings who are Christians.) As for standing before the judgment seat of God: I like the idea that C. S. Lewis expressed in the final Narnia book, "The Last Battle". In simple terms, Lewis suggested that anyone who looks into God's eyes and likes what he/she sees goes to Heaven: everyone else stays where they are. That strikes me as a uniquely humane and gentle interpretation of Christian theology. (09/12/2007) |
Anonymous: Mr Donaldson
Just a quick one. I went to a bookshop and they told me Fatal Revenant is available for sale here(in Tasmania)on October 1st. I was wondering if you had arranged this for me personally. (insane grimace)
Also how many people have already read it? Friends, family, persistant well wishers?
Over and out.Dan
|
I don't control the distribution of ARCs (also known as bound proofs), so I have no idea how many people have already read "Fatal Revenant". Lots. But yes, I did in fact send an advance copy of the book to Tasmania just for you. <grin> (09/12/2007) |
Mark: Hmmmm...I guess this is more of a comment than a question. I just started reading the Thomas Covenant series, and I have to say that I am a bit dismayed at some of the things that you have been saying on this website. Well, actually just one of the things. In the last portion of the gradual interview section you said, "No one can deny that Covenant and Linden have *some* kind of fundamental and essential relevance to the 'reality' of the Land." It is a bit unclear what exactly you mean by this, especially since you said that whether or not all of this is in his head is irrelevant. Also, a couple months back you said that it does not matter whether the Land is real or not. I think it does. If it did not matter, then it would also necessarily not matter, nor do I think that it would have been important enough for you to take the time to let us know, that Covenant and Linden have some kind of fundamental and essential relevance to the 'reality' of the Land. But moving past all of that...you have said before that the whole Covenant series, as well as the Covenant character himself, was inspired by people who do not take fantasy seriously, or at least that's what it said in this article:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=5&id=39095
As an aside, this is the article that got me interested in the Covenant series. I had never heard of it before I read that article. I thought that it was a good idea, and I also thought that for sure the Land would be a real place that exists regardless of Covenant's or anybody else's state of mind. After all, if you are going to use the Covenant character's disbelief of the Land as a metaphor for snooty critics who don't take fantasy seriously, then it would have to be the case that the Land is a real place. If the Land was not a real place that existed regardless of Covenant, then Covenant's disbelief of the Land was right all along, thereby metaphorically reinforcing the attitudes of the snooty critics that you set out to undermine. Not to mention on a more superficial level, as the producers of the Lost TV show said (and I'm paraphrasing here) - it would be a real cop-out if it was all a dream. As far as Lord Foul's Bane goes, I like what I've been reading so far, but given what you have been writing on the website about the truth of the Land, and even about the truth in general, I may not be reading it much longer...
|
This is a difficult question to answer. You appear to be reading the "Covenant" books on the (possibly mistaken) assumption that you already know what they mean. And you appear to have taken my after-the-fact comments about the "reality" of the Land out of context. I guess I have four comments. 1) I don't accept your (apparent) assertion that the *importance* of the Land is dependent on its "reality". Throughout our history, we human beings have assigned importance to any number of things that have no demonstrable reality. This, to a significant extent, is what the "Covenant" books are about. 2) All of my comments about the Land's "reality" were intended for discussion by people who have already read the books, not to encourage--or discourage--new readers. Interpreting my intent in "The Chronicles" after reading part of "Lord Foul's Bane" is like deciding what the previous sentence means after reading only the words, "All of my comments." 3) Perception always defines reality. That's a fact of life as well as of fiction. Even if you and I were standing side by side, we would see different worlds. And since Covenant and Linden are the primary "windows" through which we view the Land, the Land's reality is necessarily defined by their perception of it. 4) If you find yourself doubting that the "Covenant" books are worth reading, please stop. We all have different needs and tastes, just as we all have different perceptions. Life is too short to spend it reading books that don't suit you. I promise I won't take it personally. <grin> (09/15/2007) |
Talia: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I have been thinking about the meaning of Thomas Covenant. We know Thomas is an allusion to Doubting Thomas. And Covenant means promise. You have also pointed out the double-reference to the Covenant of Grace and of Law. Now the meaning of Thomas is twin. And it seems pretty clear you are exploring the theme of twin in the Second and Last Chronicles. In the GI you have recognized both the Creator and Joan as doppelgngers of Covenant. And we have pairs: Covenant/Creator; Covenant/Foul, Creator/Despiser, and Covenant/Jeremiah.
First: When you initially wrote the original Chronicles, did you intend to explore this theme? The contrasts between Berek (Law) and Covenant (Grace) would suggest this (and there are other suggestions such as Covenant/Bannor). Yet I cant help thinking that this isnt really (or at least not fully) taken up until the Second and Last Chronicles.
Second: Does the exploration of twinship also apply to Linden? Or is this specifically about Covenant? Linden will no doubt be impacted in terms of her relationship with Covenant. And there are pairs: Linden/Joan and Linden/Elena. Yet there is a difference between the regular literary use of character parallel and foil and the deliberate exploration of twinship.
Last: Would you be willing to briefly reflect upon the theme of twin (if you havent done that in answering the other questions)? I know your work isnt philosophical exposition; it provides readers the opportunity to explore these themes on our own by showing us characters interacting under specific circumstances. Still. I dont doubt you have something to say; and I was hoping you would share a little bit in a way that furthers rather than hinders your project of inviting us to explore more fully this theme on our own as the story unfolds.
Thank you for this gradual interview. It is a wonderful gift to us, your readers.
Talia
|
Serendipity sometimes comes to the rescue when mere human planning and intelligence prove inadequate. I had no idea that "Thomas" meant "twin" until you told me. So "twinship" per se has never been a *conscious* theme in the "Covenant" books. Nevertheless the details to which you refer are obviously legitimate. And it's really a pretty small step from "twinship" to "duality," which in turn is only a small step away from "paradox"--and *now* we're definitely in the realm of conscious themes: themes, by the way, with which I'm far from finished. Keeping that in mind: It's obvious that the first "Chronicles" are heavily concerned with paradox. Consider the paradox/duality/contrast between the "covenants" of Law and Grace. If you think of Law as the rigid rules which govern Covenant's survival as a leper, and Grace as the forgiveness/friendship/acceptance that he is given in the Land, you'll see what I mean. "The Second Chronicles" are more complex, in part because they can be interpreted as a stage in a journey that doesn't culminate until "The Last Chronicles." But even there, Covenant has become both the man who most wants to save the Land and the man who is best able to destroy it. And Linden is both the woman who most needs love (and healing: in this, she is analogous to the Land) and the woman who is most likely to violate those who love her. In this context, I'm inclined to think of characters like Joan and Elena as foils rather twins. It's the inherent paradox of Linden's nature (and of Covenant's) that concerns me. Your last question is more difficult. I'm a person who "reflects on themes" by writing stories, not by considering themes in the abstract, independent of the needs and passions of my particular characters. But one could argue that the simple fact that I write such stories is a reflection of my own essential twinship/paradox. Why would I do this, if I weren't--pardon the cliche--a square peg in a round hole; if I didn't contain within me realities or identities wildly divergent from the ones which I demonstrably occupy? And can't the same (while I'm on the subject) be said of most human beings? Most people may not write and publish stories; but most people do experience profound discrepancies between their inner and outer realities--and they usually cope with those discrepancies by telling themselves stories (whether or not they're conscious of doing so). Hence my conviction that storytelling is one of the most necessary--and humane--human activities. It's how most of us determine the meaning of our lives. (09/18/2007) |
Dave Evans (UK): Hi,
I have just finished reading the entire GI - wow. That's a lot of questions.
Anyway, I had a few points/thoughts, both about the GI and about your books!
1. How about putting a FAQ - frequently asked questions - list at the top of any search of the GI. Perhaps your top 10-15 most asked questions - to save you writing as well as "us" reading. Just a thought.
2. About "Should Pass Utterly" - I know it's been done to death, but who on earth do your publishers think is likely to buy the third book of a third series with no history at all? Now, I'm not saying book titles are good or bad, yours or others, but surely a study of sf/f buyers would reveal that the fraction of people buying books partway through a series solely because of the title is miniscule... I'm reading (well, will read) the Final Chronicles because of who *you* are, not because the book is called "Linden Avery Gets Cross" or "Aliantha in the Spring" - it's you, and the series, I'm buying. Surely in genres like this, that is understood?
Now, story questions - rather than rants ;)
I was very interested with the discussion on Laws. I got the impression that you are saying "if a law is broken, it cannot be unbroken" - would you envisage a replacement law "growing naturally" - to have similar effect if not the same underlying structure (rather like the staff of Law, I guess), or if it really is "now you can see dead people in Andelain. Full Stop."
I'd rather like to ask the question "Why did Berek make the staff of Law in the first place?" - but I suspect the answer would be "because I needed a staff of Law, and someone had to make it" - it just seems curious to me that someone initially taught by the Earthpower would do something so violent to the One Tree - and it doesn't seem to have done the Old Lords much good (well, aside from them being very powerful - having a sturdy tool through which to focus their power).
I had always thought the 7th word of power had something to do with the Power of Command, but... I guess not. Though, you said in one question about the Haruchai (maybe) not listening to the Old Lords - clearly Bannor (iirc) listened enough with respect to this Power.
Finally (sorry this is long, but hey I started reading your books before the GI existed, so I'm allowed a couple of months credit - right?!?) - I really loved the "hard" sci fi of the Gap Series. I know, the characters are the story, but the technology is fascinating and gripping for me, too - poor old Punisher with the knackered spin. In fact, after finishing the Second Chronicles last week, I think I will start the Gap series this very evening.
Good luck - I suspect you are more appreciated than you know (yes, ok, by complete strangers like me - odd and weird no doubt, but true nonetheless).
|
FAQ. I'm still waiting for some poor suck, er, I mean brave soul to volunteer for the job of creating a FAQ (contact my webmaster if you actually want to make this your life's work <grin>). I don't have either the time or the energy. God willing, I'm only going to discuss the title for Covenant 9 one more time: then I'm done. Granted that my editors think "Against All Things Ending" is a much better title than "Should Pass Utterly," their reasoning isn't as vacant as you make it sound. They're hoping for something like this: a) a bookstore browser spots an interesting cover; b) the cover lead the browser to an intriguing title; c) so the browser reads the jacket copy, which makes the book sound pretty good; d) but the browser can't fail to notice that this is Book Three of "The Last Chronicles"; e) so the browser locates "Runes" and "Fatal Revenant" on the shelves and buys all three books. Admittedly, bookstore browsing has become less common than it once was--and the Internet facilitates targetted buying more than browsing. Nonetheless it seems to me that my editors' hopes are neither irrational nor implausible. After all, most of the success of the first six "Covenant" book came *outside* the sf/f genre. On the subject of broken Laws, I refer you to a recent answer (sometime during the past month). But no one has ever asked me why Berek made his Staff in the first place. Well, why wouldn't he? How else can he keep his promise (the one he made on Mount Thunder) to the Land? After all, the Land is obviously under attack. The King was inspired by a malign spirit. The King was aided by an unnatural and malific shadow from the east. And meanwhile the forests are being destroyed left and right. Why wouldn't Berek want some kind of appropriate instrument/weapon to help him defend health and beauty? Meanwhile, sorry, but all questions about the Seven Words fall under the heading of, Aw, come on, how can I say anything about that, anything at all, without committing SOME kind of spoiler? Even if I were to say, Sometimes important things get lost, life is like that, deal with it--*that* would tell you something I might not want you to know about the future of the story. On the other hand, I'm gratified that you enjoyed the GAP books. Taken as a whole, I still consider them my best work so far--although I believe that "Fatal Revenant" has raised the bar. (09/18/2007) |
Michael Middleton: Just as several others are, I too am curious about the stories of Berek, and Kevin, and others. But I read your responses to the same question (which you have repeated several times <smirk>).
And then I realized that I believe I agree with you, as much as I hate to admit it, being a reader hungry for The Land's lore. But I think about it in my fantasy world. The history is the setup for what's happening in the "now". It's irrelevant. I personally enjoy thinking about that kind of history (I'm thinking of choosing to be a History Major in University), but I can understand your distaste for it.
But this may sound like the same question, but I hope you understand the difference:
Do you -personally- have a general idea for how these events took place, deeper than what you've written? This isn't asking if you'll write more, as that's not what I want to know. I want to know if I'm like you in that I have an idea of what goes on in my own world, but with little or no intention of producing it. Now, please don't take this as a "Write moar Thomas Covenant plz." I want this to be more of a question about you as a writer.
Thank you for your time, I truly appreciate it! You're nearly a hero to me. You saved me from illiteracy!
|
[message edited to save space] My knee-jerk reaction is to say--as I've often said before--that I only create what I need. But closer self-examination reveals that this assertion isn't quite true. There *are* a few situations (that I'll never identify for anyone) in which what I've created rests on one or more automatic assumptions that I've taken for granted without looking at them very closely. Put another way: on rare occasions, when someone asks me a specific question about the "Chronicles," I realize that I actually know more on that subject than I wrote down. In those cases, either my subconscious did more groundwork than I realized at the time, or it (my subconscious) has continued to chew on the subject during the intervening years. So why won't I give any examples? Because surprisingly often that little bit of extra information turns out to be very useful for the work I have ahead of me. (09/19/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Did you see the study released recently on the reading habits of Americans? Some study findings:
* One in four Americans read no books last year
* More women are avid readers than men
* Southerners read more than rest of country
* Democrats, liberals read slightly more books than GOP, conservatives
Of all these, the first one strikes me as appalling. 25% of Americans didn't read a single book last year! I guess my question to you is, as someone who makes their living on the premise that people like to read books, do you find this surprising (it surprised me), what do you think we as a society should do to "improve" this statistic, or are we beyond help?
|
Actually, I'm surprised that 75% of us read at least one book last year. And I don't actually believe it. Other studies I've seen suggest the opposite: 75% of Americans did NOT read as much as one book last year. If you want to talk two or more books a year, we're down to 5-10% of the adult population. Can this abject situation be corrected? Only if we want to--and I see no sign that we do. The US has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual society (just look around you), and I suspect that the problem is getting worse. Here in NM (picking an example at random <rueful smile>), many of us are *proud* of how little we spend on education. Meanwhile the literate--never mind the open-minded--among us are viewed with increasing suspicion. Just my opinion, of course. (09/19/2007) |
Charles Adams: I reviewed your book tour schedule, and I look forward to meeting you when you make your appearance in Denver.
I must say, that schedule looks brutal! Everyday you'll be on a plane flying off to someplace different. You had mentioned that you "unfortunately" agreed to the book tours.
Is it just the schedule and physical/mental demands of a book tour which you dislike? Do you have concerns meeting fans?
Last question: What is the proper etiquette (or what makes you most comfortable) when fan meets author?
|
No, "meeting fans" is not--in itself--a source of concern. What I dislike most about book tours--apart from the sensory overload of being in a different city and sleeping in a different bed every day (which is a big deal for those of us with ADD)--is that they're so *draining*. I'm actually pretty good at standing in front of an audience and doing Q&A; but being good at it doesn't help me. Nor does being appreciated for doing it. How to explain this? Someone once told me that the difference between an extrovert and an introvert is that an extrovert feeds off the energy of others (applause, laughter, smiles of appreciation, whatever) while an introvert cannot. Well, I'm an introvert (although I work hard to hide the fact). I've had audiences in the palm of my hand, I've had standing ovations, I've had people fall out of their chairs laughing--and there's no emotional *food* in it for me. It doesn't replenish what it takes out of me. No matter how successful I am in public, I always feel exhausted afterward--not to mention vaguely suicidal. (And of course my US book tours usually are *not* successful: that does make the problem worse.) As for etiquette: when I ask for questions, I'm serious. Please. If you have a question, ask it. (Remember, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid peo--, er, I mean, stupid answers. <grin>) But not while I'm signing books. Slapping down autographs is the most dehumanizing part of the process (not to mention the fact that I'm already exhausted), and I want to get it *over* with. In addition, there are usually other people in line who shouldn't have to wait while, say, you ask a question. As a matter of policy, I'm willing to sign as many books as you want. I'll stay there signing until everyone is satisfied. But if there's a line, I ask people to limit themselves to three at a time (as a courtesy to the rest of the line): then you can go back to the end of the line for the next three, and so on. As for pictures, I endure them (usually with a deer-in-the-headlights gape), but I don't encourage them. (09/19/2007) |
Jonathan Hirsch: Has anyone in Hollywood optioned Mordant's Need? Have you considered shopping it around to screenwriters?
|
No one has ever expressed any interest in the film rights to "Mordant's Need". And I (apparently) can't emphasize enough how little control I have over such things. Neither I nor the people who represent me (like my agent, or his Hollywood sub-agent, or the subsidiary rights departments of my publishers) have the power to "shop" anything "around". That isn't how the system works--at least in my admittedly-limited experience. (09/20/2007) |
Joey: Ok this is stupid but I can't resist. Every time I hear Ziggy Stardust I think of Covenant... and I quote:
"Making love with his ego Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band."
Now obviously Bowie travelled back in time to 1972 after having heard of your Leper Messiah a few years later.
So my question... did he use a caesure? Or is that a RAFO too?? :)
|
Bowie has *always* used caesures. I thought everyone knew that. (09/20/2007) |
Tracy G.: Mr. Donaldson,
I wanted to let you know I just finished reading the first book in the final Thomas Covenant series and was very pleased. To what do you attribute the "poor sales" that you mention in the gradual interview? I know I wasn't aware that this book had even been published until I spotted it in a (gasp) discount book sale (new, hardcover, for only $5.00!, what a deal). Do you feel that the book has been under-promoted? Admittedly, I have recently been far to overworked to do much reading at all, but publicity for a new Covenant book would surely have caught my attention at once, had there been much at all. I have already read the first two chapters of Final Revenant published here, and eagerly await the release of the book itself.
Tracy
|
I think you've already identified one explanation. 80% or so of the people who made the first six "Covenant" books so successful don't realize that I'm still alive, writing, and publishing. (You'd be amazed how many people I meet who call themselves my "biggest fans," and yet are completely unaware that I've published 14 other books.) The original "Covenant" audience (if I may call it that) was composed almost entirely of non-genre readers. But since 1983 my publishers have promoted my books exclusively to genre readers. Why? you may well ask. Because--and I say this without any implied criticism--they honestly don't know how to do anything else. And nor do I--apart from the complex issue of packaging. More than once, I've begged my US publishers for non-genre-specific packaging (cover art, etc.). But their experience tells them that fantasy with non-genre-specific packaging and promotion sells *less* well than books packaged and promoted exclusively for genre readers. And I sure don't have any other suggestions. So what *can* my publishers do? I suspect that the US success of the first six "Covenant" books resulted, at least in part, from two, well, let's call them conditions that simply don't exist today. Judy-Lynn del Rey was a promotional genius--and she's been dead for 20 years. And back in those days, the VAST audience of LOTR was almost literally starving for other books to read. Today anyone who is even casually willing to read a fantasy novel has hundreds of books to choose from. And since most of those books are pretty bad, casual willingness evaporates quickly. (09/20/2007) |
David: Mr Donaldson...
I have searched your GI database concerning a chapter in The Power that Preserves, Lord Mhoram's Victory. As I read and wont quote the chapter, but as I understand it, Mhoram understood the need of the lore/Earthpower when he was wielding the Krill of Loric fighting the Raver, it involved passion and emotion, right?. Now, was this the secret to unlocking the lore that Kevin left? Did this coincide with unlocking the lore of the Wards and Could Covenant have understood the Ward's where the Old Lords could not? Where any of the old lord's transposed into the Land like Covenant, Linden and Hile Troy?
Please feel free to answer what you will, I keep trying to understand the lore and Earthpower and how Kevin used the lore as he had hidden away the 7 Ward's and the power they contained. I feel that the lore and the power to use it involved emotion and passion, which the Lords around Mhoram's time either didn't understand or were afraid to use fearing the desecration of the land a second time.
|
Was Mhoram's recognition that an *appropriate* commitment of emotion/passion was vital to his ability to wield power important? (Give me enough time, and I'll think of an even more awkward way to phrase that question. <sigh>) Yes, absolutely. The Oath of Peace had the unintended negative effect of making people think that they needed to swallow their emotions. But emotion is crucial to *any* form of real power. (*Appropriate* is the tricky part.) But was Mhoram's recognition the key to unlocking Kevin's Lore? In part, sure. (See above.) However, as any student of the martial arts can tell you, emotion alone isn't enough. (In fact, emotion alone is usually destructive--which is one of at least two reasons why Covenant could not have understood the Wards. Another, of course, is that he could not have *read* them. They were in a language he didn't know.) Even emotion and knowledge together aren't enough. There's also the small matter of rigorous training; endless repetition to get it right. Plus *appropriate* *commitment*, two separate and complex issues, neither of which can be equated with emotion, knowledge, or training. <whew> Considering all that--and the fact that they didn't have a teacher who already understood the subject--I'm not surprised that the new Lords didn't make more progress with Kevin's Lore. I'm impressed that they made as much progress as they did. (09/20/2007) |
Richard: Leading on from a recent GI question as to your schism in popularity between UK and US, I was wondering if you had any thoughts as to why this might be.
I must admit, with one singular exception in Washington, on the times I have been in the US and gone book hunting in the hope of finding novels difficult to find at home in the UK, I have always been surprised, if not more than a little dismayed, at the manner in which, certainly on those shelves where novels which would be considered of a 'genre' would reside, were filled with novels that I would consider generic, which is of course a world apart from novels which can be said to exist within a genre. The UK is not always any better but I wasn't sure if any paucity of range in bookstores might have an effect on sales.
|
I've never been able to come up with more than two explanations. 1) The UK is not as fundamentally opposed to the very notion of education (and by extension, literacy) as the US is. 2) UK publishers--and readers--are not as firmly welded (wedded?) to the underlying assumptions of genre publishing. If I may say so without any implied criticism of individuals who happen to read books or work in publishing, those underlying (and almost entirely unexamined) assumptions are profoundly cynical. (Incidentally, this hypothesis--IF TRUE--supports my perception that US culture places a surprisingly low value on education.) (09/23/2007) |
Bob Benoit: Stephen - Did you struggle with the idea that the Healer in TPTP actually burned wood as part of her healing process, in light of the fact that for the most part in the 1st chronicles the inhabitants of the Land were able to use wood without consuming it? Would it have been possible for the Healer to use the wood as part of the healing process without consuming it?
Thanks again for your time and efforts.
|
1) I'm a storyteller. I don't "struggle" with ideas that help me tell my stories as well as I can. I'm grateful for those ideas. 2) The ability to bring fire out of wood without consuming the wood was always a specialized application of magical (lillianrill) lore. And "lore" by its very nature is simply too vast for everyone to be able to master all of it. Just because *some* people could use wood without consuming it doesn't mean *everyone* could. (09/23/2007) |
Andy Schenk, Germany: Hello Stephen,
30 something days left for the last chronicles to appear in the States.
As I read all the Thomas Covenant Books in german, published by Heyne, I wonder when the last chronicles will be published in Germany. Not that I am unable to read the origin, but translations differ in some ways (Names of locations, rivers) and it would be quite hard to switch. At the same time your written language is very complex and needs concentration. Are translation efforts going parallel with your writing? Any idea of a publishing date to enjoy the final part?
Thanx a lot for your answers and still my opinion is: the zyklus of T.C. is the best written fantasy together with Tolkien and Tad Williams Otherland.
So to say goodbye, Andy
|
I'm sorry: I don't know when Heyne will release "Fatal Revenant" in German ("The Runes of the Earth" appeared some time ago). I never know such things because no one ever tells me. But I can assure you that translations are *not* composed "parallel" with my writing. For reasons which seem obvious to me, foreign publishers wait until I have achieved a finished and polished text before they begin their own efforts. If they didn't, the cost of translation would go up because the translator would be forced to, well, back-track in order to find and incorporate my changes. As a result, translated editions appear after--sometimes long after--the original texts are published. (09/24/2007) |
ahmet kurt(aku) tr.: Hi Mr Donaldson,
no one dont really know the sense of the live.or?
But we are here and now.
Ok what i want to ask you is not this Question,not about the live but about the Death.
First i will say(pray) as a fan of you and of your work that you shall live for a long time.
Ok my Question is only this:You are in the mid of the LCoTC,what if you are dead before the story is telling to the end?
Have you a Plan B? (sorry for one more Q)
LONG LIVE FOR SRD
|
Do I have a Plan B in case something happens to me before I finish "The Last Chronicles"? This question has come up several times this month. I've answered it more than once in the GI. But that was some time ago. For those of you who can't figure out how to locate the answer (I would be one <sigh>)--and for those of you who don't believe I'm going to live forever (such skepticism!)--and also because I have something new to say on the subject--I'll tackle it again. The short answer is: no, I don't have a Plan B. Of course, I'll feel bad if I don't actually finish the story--unless I'm, you know, DEAD, in which case who knows what I'll feel? But I don't have a Plan B kind of mind. And I refuse to live my life in fear that something terrible is going to happen to me. However, I've given the matter more thought over the past year or two; and I've evolved something that sort of resembles a Plan B. IF I'm faced with dying--and IF I get some months of advance notice--and IF whatever I'm facing leaves me with my mind intact for a while--I *may* (and I need to emphasize *may* because many things could change between now and, well, whenever) turn the problem over to my children. In their distinctive fashions, they are both fine writers. I'll give them whatever work I've completed; I'll give them all of my notes; I'll explain my notes as best I can; I'll tell them as much as I can about my intentions for the remaining story; and I'll give them the option of completing the story for me--if they feel so inclined. (I will *not* give anyone *else* permission to finish my work. If my children decide not to do it, it won't get done.) Of course, if I get struck by lightning, or a truck, or a drive-by, all bets are off. Meanwhile, let me assure you that I'm in good health. (09/26/2007) |
Mr. Moore: So, I have a couple "just out of curiosity" questions. They deal with something that's been discussed briefly in this interview already, namely that of "borrowing or stealing" from other authors. In your original response to this issue, you quoted TS Eliot: "Bad writers borrow. Good writers steal." I have to agree. You also mentioned that if you were reading something and suspected the author of "borrowing", you would toss the book immediately aside.
I have just completed reading the Harry Potter saga. Admittedly, I avoided this for years due to the fact that it was so popular--usually a sign that the thing is not for me. But after moving to Uzbekistan, and having a very unforseen and unwanted traumatic experience, I just needed some comfort reading. (Besides, the books are in my classroom library, and since it's my goal to have read everything in that library so as to better direct my students to books they might find interesting, I figured "what the hell...") Anyway,
without giving specific details (don't want to ruin it for you if you ever do read these books), there were at least three parts of the final installment that immediately struck me as unoriginally Rowling's borrowed from Donaldson (your Covenant works). For me, it is clear that she has not only read your works, but has ganked certain details and placed them ineffectively into her own writing. She shoehorned them in for what I found to be no good reason. So my questions:
1. If you had read these books and had a similar reaction to these details as I had, what might you say to Rowling about it if anything (if given the chance)?
2. Have you ever singled out specific details or aspects of another writer's work to re-craft in your own writing? If so, what or from whom? Or do your "thefts" come without conscious choice?
As always,
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
I usually avoid subjects like this. But today I'm in the mood to blunder ahead. So-- 1) Not having read Potters 2-7, I really can't comment. But let me observe that there may well be no new ideas anywhere. One could argue that no writer ever does anything except polish up old ideas until they look shiny. So it's perfectly possible that Rowling has written something that *sounds* Donaldsonian for her own good and sufficient reasons. Maybe she made those ideas work, maybe she didn't: I wouldn't know. But keep in mind that people are forever accusing me of taking all kinds of things from Tolkien. If you're willing to cut me some slack, maybe you could do the same for her. 2) My own (conscious) thefts have all been matters of storytelling technique: design, style, timing, whatever I happen to need. To my eye, at least, the links between my work and Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and William Faulkner are pretty obvious. But I'm not privy to the secret counsels of my unconscious mind: I just take what it gives me and say Thank You. (09/26/2007) |
Annie Wood: How did Lord Foul get ahold of fanatics in Thomas Covenant's world? I remember reading how they "invoked" Foul by putting their hands in the bonfire, but don't remember if it was stated how he was able to communicate with them in the first place.
I have enjoyed reading all of the books about Thomas Covenant, (many times over), and am thrilled that there are more to come. I have already read the first book in the Last Chronicles Of Thomas Covenent and can hardly wait for the next one to become available.
Thanks!
Annie Wood
|
I suppose you could say that "like responds to like": those fanatics were already Despiser-surrogates of a sort, so they were easily influenced. Or I suppose you could say that the barriers between realities are breaking down, thanks to LF's original abuse of Drool and the Staff of Law. Or I suppose you could say that some things are better left to the reader's imagination. <rueful smile> (09/27/2007) |
William G. Smith: Steve,
I am excited to read FR, but I will have to wait 3 years for the next installment... Can you come to Columbus, Ohio on your book tour?
A big fan, I am starting on the GAP series now.
Bill
|
It probably bears repeating that I don't choose where I go on book tours. My publishers pay the expenses, so they make the decisions. Naturally one hopes that their choice of venues reflects a larger promotional strategy; but one never knows.... <sigh> (09/28/2007) |
Michael Prince: I've looked and have not found this question asked elsewhere in the GI. But in looking over other questions in the GI, I wondered what might Lord Foul choose if he were confronted with the possibility of actual death.
I realize that his goal is to beat the Creator by breaking free from the Arch of Time. Or is it to break free by overcoming the Creator. Or is that the same thing? Nevermind. That is not my question.
Anyway, I also know Foul is evil and therefore perpetual. So really this is purely a hypothetical question... about a fictional world, I know. But now that the question exists in my mind, and this opportunity to ask you exists, I'll ask. I figure the worst is that you'll tell me not to bother with such a silly notion.
So, hypothetically, if the Despiser was faced with the possibility of actual destruction, death, which would in a way be freedom from the Arch of Time, would he accept it or fight against it? Is that even an answerable question?
(And by the way, since I'm here, I'll add my thanks to those of the vast multitude for the books you have written. Your books, the Chronicles in particular, make my world seem just that much wider.)
|
We've entered a realm of rather abstruse theological speculation. After all, what do *we* know about how gods think or feel? But I'm inclined to believe that benign beings generally are more likely than malign beings to accept the possibility (the necessity?) of their own ending. Benign beings can accomodate the notion that The Greater Good may require their dissolution: malign beings cannot see any Greater Good than themselves. If any of that is true, the Despiser could never acquiesce in his own destruction: the Creator might conceivably do so. (What? Did you think it was an *accident* that no one appeared to warn Linden before she entered the Land for "The Last Chronicles"? <malign grin>) (09/28/2007) |
Chris: Stephen, you have referred to sales numbers a few times on the GI. You referred to WGW as being one of the top 10 best sellers of the year it was released and you also referred to the lower sales of The Gap Cycle, Mirror etc. Do you know, or know how to find out what those actual sales are? There is an entire cottage industry around tracking things like move 'sales', record sales, etc. We like to track things, I guess...
I guess I am curious about what it actually takes to be a best seller. You previously described this by saying 'it depends'. A book could sell a lot of copies in one week, make the best seller list and then drop off the planet. Another could have slow and steady sales for years, I guess, and never make a best seller list. How many copies (within a 'best guess') has RotE sold? How about WGW? Or books from the GAP cycle. Does the industry track these things? I'm guessing someone knows, so you can be paid. But that doesn't mean it is public information...
Thanks for your time!
|
Publishers *do* keep track of sales figures. How else could they know whether or not they owe the author any royalties? or whether they themselves are making a profit? But *how* they keep track resists easy interpretation, especially by a layman (me). (I've discussed this elsewhere in the GI.) Typically years pass before I'm given numbers I can rely upon--assuming that I'm able to extract any meaning at all from my royalty statements. But I can tell you that WGW sold around 200,000 copies in hardcover, and has sold well over 1,000,000 copies over all. (I'm only talking about US sales here.) So far, TROTE has sold approximately 65,000 hardcovers and about the same number of trade paperbacks. The GAP books? Maybe 30,000 hardcovers each. 150,000 total copies each. The numbers--to coin a phrase--speak for themselves. (09/28/2007) |
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.
Jim Melvin: Did the original Covenant series become an instant hit? Or did it take months -- or even longer -- to catch on?
|
The first three "Covenant" books became substantially successful as soon as they were all available in paperback. But none of the "Chronicles" appeared on non-genre-specific bestseller lists until "The One Tree," which in hardcover out-sold "The Wounded Land" (in hardcover) nearly 5-1. (09/28/2007) |
Richard: Hi Steve,
One thing that has struck me since reading the Runes of the Earth and then pieces the GI and noticing cover design, etc., that one big difference between US and UK editions is that the US edition appears to be very heavily 'fantasised', whilst the UK edition, in rather more elegant and ambiguous black and gold, stands out as a cover that intrigues. I guess, being a UK citizen, I do wonder why such designs are used more globally. it has, for want of a better term 'fantasy' overtones and yet at the very same time is not bogged down in generic images. I noticed the same, coincidentally, with The Gap covers when I bought the US edition of the final novel when it was yet to arrive in the UK.
Thanks, Richard
|
I agree with you about my US and UK covers in recent years (decades?)--although the UK mass market paperback of "Runes" is pretty drab, as is the UK omnibus of "Mordant's Need". But every US publisher I've posed this question to has the same answer: "UK-style cover art just doesn't *sell* in the US." And I can't argue. After all, the Ballantine editions of the first six "Covenant" books all started out with cover art that I personally loathe (just my opinion)--and my first huge US bestseller, "The One Tree," had the worst cover of all. (09/29/2007) |
Curtis R. Heath: Long before Mr. Eastwood blurred the black hatted villians and the white hatted heros, you created entire worlds full of heros with dark secrets and villains with 'spasms' of honor and integrity. However, my question is not about the absolutely ingenious characters that you have created. (enough flattery) What was the inspiration for the way you use mirrors in Mordant's Need? In over 40 years of reading for the pure pleasure of it, your works have proved to be intensely gratifying. Thank you.
|
Of course, much of the original inspiration came from the lines I quoted from "Silverlock". But I was also influenced--this should come as no surprise--by "Through the Looking Glass". And by Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions" (is it the character Kilgore Trout who refers to mirrors as "leaks" into other worlds?). (09/29/2007) |
Matthew S Brucato: Mr Donaldson,
Thanks for your books and your wonderful gradual interview. On to my question.
Other fantasy novelists have ventured into other creative avenues such as Roger Zelazny (RIP) creating Chronomaster ( A PC game from the 90's). Have you ever thought about broadening your horizons into video games. With the slow decline of interest in novels from this new generation it seems that video games are their main means of gaining creative and imaginative input. Do you play video games yourself? IF so what types?
Again thanks for the great stories. Looking forward to FR.
MSB
|
No, I've never considered "broadening" my creative efforts. I am a person who "digs deep" rather than one who "spreads wide"--if you see what I mean. And I certainly don't have time to learn the mechanics (never mind the underlying strategies) of any new form of storytelling. And no, I don't play video games. I guess I satisfy that part of my nature by writing. (10/01/2007) |
Dave: Dear Stephen,
I've been a fan since I read LFB when I was all of 8 years old back in the 70's. Platitudes are easy to dish out, but anyway you've been by far my favourite author in any genre, not just Fantasy / SF. Obviously I'm mad with impatience for the next installment of Covenant, so a couple of questions - (i) In LFB I seem to remember that TC refers to Joan as a "breaker of horses" - I'm pretty sure this is going to hit spoiler territory, but does this in any way entail her interaction with the Ranyhyn in The Last Chronicles? (ii) - how come us Brits always have to wait an extra week for the release of your books? Every extra DAY is like a life sentence! :-)
|
i) Please. There's absolutely nothing I can say about this that isn't a spoiler of *some* kind. ii) Publishers plan their schedules far in advance. My UK publisher could easily have nailed down some other book for October 9 long before D&A of "Fatal Revenant" (putting a book on the schedule *before* D&A is just plain foolish), which after all is being published rather quickly. (Not as quickly as "The Runes of the Earth"--six months--but more quickly than the usual 12-18 months.) But leaving such considerations aside, my UK publisher may have decided to wait a week in order to avoid competing with my US publisher for my "book tour" time. Publishers naturally want the tour to coincide with publication as closely as possible; but even they realize that I can't be in two places at once. (10/01/2007) |
Captain Maybe: Thinking about it, this seems like an incredibly finicky question, but ... why choose 'last' instead of 'final' for the title of The Last Chronicles?
If I had to choose between the two I'd go for 'final' - rhythmically and phonetically it seems to me to fit better with the word 'chronicles'. What qualities does 'last' have for you over 'final'?
|
You say "finicky": I say "subjective," ("Let's call the whole thing off"--if you'll forgive an obscure--not to mentioned strained--joke). But here's how it looks to me. I understand your point about the rhythm of "final". To my mind, however, "last" asserts that there will not be any more "chronicles," whereas "final" suggests that there may not be any more of ANYthing. In other words, "final" sounds more, well, *final* than "last" does. As I say, subjective.... (10/03/2007) |
Stephen L Wonders: Although I own plenty (15) of your books 'on dead tree', I haven't purchased a bound book in about seven years.
I do purchase about twenty per year, however, as e-books. I bought Runes that way, as well Brooks' entire Shannara series to date and everything King has published since Riding the Bullet. (yes, I'm a geek, both professionally and privately, completely unabashedly. <smirk>)
I'm hopeful that the impending release of your latest work to 'traditional' bookstores will be quickly followed by a downloadable e-book. I understand that you have no control over such things, but I prefer not to wait more than a day or so more than the Barnes&Noble crowd. Pass that on to your publisher if they don't 'get it' yet. :)
** Edit above at your discretion for GI**
Do you have any thoughts on bit-based books that you'd be willing to share?
|
According to my editor, releasing books in downloadable e-formats has become "standard practice"--at least for Putnams/Ace. I don't know what the release date will be, but I'm confident that "Fatal Revenant" will be available from sites like ereader.com. I can't read books on a computer screen--on or *any* screen--myself, so I'm stuck with "dead tree" versions (a fact which causes me some discomfort, since I love trees <sigh>). (10/03/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I was wondering about the attitude of the haruchai. It seems to me like they have either decided to act holier than tou or just plain arrogant (which can be interpreted as the same thing I suppose). What I guess I dont understand is, was there any one thing that made them become jerks?
Also, they remember everything, including her good and bad deeds, but after everything she has been through, why are the haruchai so disrespectful towards Linden?
Thanks,
Perry Bell
|
Since I both like and respect the Haruchai, I find it difficult to think of them as "jerks". In fact, I'm not even confident that "arrogant" is the right word for them. But they do hold themselves to inhumanly high standards. And they do hunger to prove themselves equal to huge challenges, the bigger the better. Sometimes they appear to place more value on the attempt than they do on whether or not the attempt succeeds. At other times, they judge entirely on the basis of success. One way to look at this discrepancy is that when they fail and remain true to themselves, they accept the consequences, but when they fail and do NOT remain true to themselves (Korik, Sill, and Doar with the Illearth Stone v Ravers and Lord Foul; Brinn and Cail v merewives), they judge harshly. (From the view-point of the Masters, Stave falls into this latter category.) Occasionally, however, I think about the Haruchai from a completely different perspective. One thing has always troubled me about the Elves in LOTR: why haven't they died of boredom? They can live forever, they know virtually everything, and their lives are almost entirely static; so why haven't they collapsed from sheer ennui? OK, OK: maybe there's an explanation hidden away somewhere in their background or nature. That's not my point. My point is that the shared racial memories of the Haruchai pose a similar problem. Individual Haruchai don't live as long as Elves; but since they all know pretty much everything that any Haruchai has ever known, why aren't they bored stupid? Well, because they're driven to take on huge challenges, driven to push themselves past their known limits, driven to *strive*. There's nothing static about the way they look at life. Hence their present role in the story--and the passion (which may seem like arrogance) with which they fill that role. As for their attitude toward Linden: she undermines the *meaning* of what they're currently striving for. If that didn't anger them--if they were so complacent in their convictions that they couldn't be angered--they really would be arrogant. (10/03/2007) |
Mark: Gee, thanks for answering my comment. I did not think that you were going to. I just wanted to tell you that the things that you said in your response made sense (though I think that #3 was inaccurate - perception does not necessarily define reality...it may be our only window into that reality, but it is still possible that there is an underlying reality that exists regardless of our perception, and we may even be able to learn that reality someday...I think that one philosopher who I don't remember called it "the view from nowhere"). I also was thinking about it on my own after I wrote the question, and I guess I can see that it would still at least be possible to argue that even if the Land is not real, there could still be a message in the books that would undermine the critics that think that fantasy is not worthwhile.
I think it's great that you respond to questions and comments on your website like this. Not everybody would.
|
It seems inherently reasonable that some form of "underlying reality" exists, even if that reality can only be discerned by "the view from nowhere". But everything I've read and heard about modern physics in recent years supports the notion that "perception defines reality". I can't actually wrap my mind around this in a "macro" sense; but on a "micro" level, I can't deny that my own reality is entirely defined by my perception of it. Meanwhile, one of my several answers to "critics" who automatically dismiss fantasy from serious consideration is to point out the obvious fact that ALL literature is fantasy. By definition, literature is an act of imagination: if the writer didn't invent it, it wouldn't exist on the page. It follows, therefore, with the pleasing inevitability of a syllogism, that the people who dismiss fantasy do so out of fear, rather than for any valid critical reason. (10/04/2007) |
Dave P.: So.... 14 days left to publication of book #2. How's work on book #3 coming. (Sorry, no pressure.)
|
Verrrrrrry slowly. Too many (inevitable) interruptions. The time between D&A and publication is always complicated, even under the best of circumstances (which these are not). (10/04/2007) |
Robert Blackwell: Hello Stephen,
Perhaps you've never thought on this particular detail, but I'll take a chance and ask anyway: Would a visitor from our world to the Land be able to recognize the planets, stars and constellations in the night sky there?
I first started reading "Lord Foul's Bane" on a camping trip as a 13-year-old, and, after sundown, as my fired-up imagination chewed over what I had read, I looked up at our stars for hours and wondered if they were the same, and I hoped (at least a little) to see a red moon...
Thanks for providing this gradual interview, and I'm so looking forward to "Fatal Revenant."
|
If the geography and continents are all different, and the moon can actually shine red for an extended period of time, why wouldn't the star constellations also be different? (10/04/2007) |
BAX: Hello Stephen,
Huge fan and have been for many years. I have a couple questions which I would like to ask. The Haruchai are an ancient race and gave up sleep to server the higher calling. Brinn Cail etc.. what real life race would you equate them too? Also I have noticed that not any earth-born animals have made the crossing. Is that by desin or by exclusion? I could see where a faithful black lab might change the chemistry in an encounter with the elohim. Also death or near death or infirmity of the mind seems to be a central requirment to join the "Land", is that by design or a subtle inferance to the creator's persona? As a huge fan I have followed the giants in your world and have to ask if you have ever listened to "home by the sea" by Genisis and pictured Foamfollwer and his kin in that song? (I certainly do). Also do you draw parallels between the rhanynn of your world with the horses of LOTR? They both seem to take on lordly roles. I thank you very much for answering these and understand if you cant due to your schedule.
-bax
|
You managed to squeeze several questions into a small space. <grin> But since I never base what I create for my stories on real people, real places, real situations, etc., some of your queries are self-answering. The obvious exception is the Ranyhyn--but I got away with that (in a manner of speaking) because I personally dislike horses (having had many bad experiences with them), so creating "lordly" horses did not seem "real" to me. However, I suppose I was influenced in a certain (negative) way by Tolkien's horses. He never explained how his horses could run so far so fast so long without collapsing. That detail probably pushed me in the direction of creating more overtly "magical" horses. Since I virtually never listen to contemporary music, I've never heard of Genisis, or heard "home by the sea". (10/05/2007) |
John Blackburn: Following from the information that you are more successful here in the UK than in the US, I was wondering, when you come here to do the book tour (mentioned recently in GA), why not arrange to be interviewed on UK television? There are plenty of art shows on British TV where your work would fit right in. There is a long running arts program called the South Bank Show on ITV, where they interview people from a wide range of art/lit genres. They interviewed Philip Pullman a while ago. Why not ask your agent to contact them? You are important enough to be on TV! and your fans would certainly appreciate such an interview. Frankly some of the structured interviews on this site are not as good as they should be -- not your fault, but because the interviewers did not seem to know your work. It would be great to see a professional interview. A TV appearance would increase your sales dramatically especially among original fans of the Chronicals who are (still!) not aware of the Last Chronicals. Publicity for these has been near-zero in the UK.
Just a thought, thanks for your great work!
|
A nice idea, but impractical. My UK publicist is a professional: he's already working his brain down to the white meat: if he could get me on UK television, he would. The last thing he needs from me is some backseat driving. (I certainly wouldn't let *him* tell me how to do *my* job.) (10/05/2007) |
Anonymous: Steve,
I am learning to read/speak Russian and by chance have come across Mordant's Need in Russian. I am curious to know (if you know!) when these books were published in Russian, and how well they sell in Russia? I suspect they are not well marketed, and the sells might reflect as such...
Keep those fingers typing!!
|
Russia, like other countries from the former USSR, has had a curious history in relation to the rest of the publishing world. For much of the 20th century, Russian publishers simply *took* the books they wanted: no rights, no royalties (or payment of any kind), no acknowledgment. Then Russia signed on to the international copyright agreements that guide publishing in (most) other countries. Since then, the situation has improved somewhat. These days, Russian publishers do pay advances so that they can publish foreign books "legally". But they supply no accounting, and never pay any royalties. "Mordant's Need," it seems, was released in Russia during the Bad Old Days. This is the first I've heard of its publication there. Recourse? You must be joking. Impenetrable bureaucracy has been a staple of Russian society for centuries. (10/05/2007) |
Andrew (drew): Mr Donaldson sir,
Here is one of those anoying fan type questions, that is not really pertanant to the Covenant stories, but I'm going to ask anyways. I wasn't going to ask until I read a answer from you a week ago, saying that you did have SOME ideas in your head that you never put into the stories. If you don't have an answer, you could always just make one up on the spot...I'll never know the difference!!
The question regards Damelon, Loric and Kevin: When were they born? They all had long lives, so was Kevin actually alive during his great grandfather's time? Or did Berek (et al.) wait until they were older (much older-closer to retirement) before they decided to settle down and start families.
My own personal opinion (Probebly WAY off base)is that Damelon, Loric and Kevin weren't actually Berek's, Damelon's and Loric's genetic children, but more like prodege's who were more or less adopted.
What do you think?
|
Long life was an effect of devotion to Earthpower and Law. Of the old High Lords, Berek was the only one to spend a significant part of his adulthood as an "ordinary" man. Ergo he fathered Damelon comparatively early in his life--and Damelon didn't become High Lord until comparatively late. But Damelon and Loric were in no particularly hurry: they started their families (much) later in life. It's conceivable that Loric knew his grandfather, and that Kevin knew his. But I wouldn't want to bet on it. (10/05/2007) |
Mike S.: My brother is an aspiring author, and a one-time avid reader of science fiction and fantasy. When I said I might like to take up the pen myself, he made a comment I thought I'd ask you about. He said that once he started taking classes on writing, dealing with editors and publishers, etc. it took most of the joy out of reading for him. Instead of simply enjoying a well-written tale, he now often finds himself thinking "that was an odd way to do that", or "I wonder how his editor ever let that through", etc... He calls it his permanent "Sol Stein filter", and it makes it harder for him to simply read for the fun of reading.
So my question is this: Are you an avid reader? If so, do you find that your vocation as an author has affected your enjoyment of reading at all, whether it be positively or negatively?
Thanks,
Mike
PS: Have you thought of writing any "writing" books of your own?
|
Well, "most of the joy"? I wouldn't want to say that. It's true that my intensive and painstaking study of literature has made me harder to satisfy. I'm no longer truly able to read uncritically. So I suppose you could say that I'm no longer truly able to "lose myself" in books. But it's also true that my "joy" when I *am* satisfied is greatly enhanced. The sheer delight of observing a master at work is not to be underestimated--even when I can't stop thinking things like, "I wonder why he did it *that* way?" or, "Wouldn't it read better if she did it *this* way?" I'm sure there are (a few) exceptions; but in general I'm confident of two things: you can't really be a writer if you aren't an avid reader; and you can't really be a writer if you prefer not to *think*. I'm a storyteller. I don't want to do anything else. If you held a gun to my head and said, "Write a book about writing," I think I would ask you to just shoot me. Never mind the fact that everything I might say on the subject would be *wrong* since--as I've stated many times--there *are* no *right* answers: every writer, like every writing process, is unique. (10/05/2007) |
Matthew Verdier: I'm rereading Runes to prepare for Revenant in a couple of weeks. I noticed that several characters comment that Vitrim created by the Ur-Viles doesn't taste good. However I don't recall the Vitrim created by the Waynihm in TWL or WGW being described as tasting bad. Does Ur-Vile Vitrim taste unpleasant because "evil" creatures made it and Waynihm Vitrim taste better because "good" creatures made it or am I just making more of this than is necessary?
|
You're right: in "The Second Chronicles," vitrim is described in milder terms. But I didn't intend the stronger language of "The Last Chronicles" as a comment on the ur-viles--although it makes sense that their darker lore would produce less palatable results. Rather I was thinking about the greater discernment of health-sense (restored--if in temporary bursts--in "The Last Chronicles," mostly absent--with the obvious exception of Linden--in "The Second Chronicles"). (10/06/2007) |
Anonymous: "The One Tree" outselling "The Wounded Land" by 5 to 1 seems pretty unexplainable!
Question: Are books purchased schools and libraries included in the overall sales numbers for a book and are authors compensated in the same manner for these type of sales?
|
Actually, the explanation is pretty simple. A lot of people who waited for the paperback of "The Wounded Land" got excited after they read it--and couldn't/didn't wait for the paperback of "The One Tree". Hence the huge increase in hardcover sales. (10/07/2007) |
REED STEPHENS: What do you think you are doing taking credit for my detective novels? It is an outrage. I am left with no choice but to notify El Senor. I wouldn't like to be you when he finds out. R S
|
Bring it. You--and el Senor--have no idea with whom you are messing around. (10/08/2007) |
Bernard: Mr. Donaldson:
As to the upcoming release of Fatal Revenant, how do you spend your anticipatory days? Certainly you want the book to be successful and appreciated but you are closing in on another milestone for yourself and the readers alike. Can you describe your inner machinations as to gradations of anxiety, excitement, achievement and possible dread? I'm sure there is no despair inside you as the book approaches public release. <rueful grin>
Thank you for enriching my intellect.
|
How do I spend my days? Working on the GI, mainly. Or so it seems. At this stage, I can't concentrate well enough to make much progress on AATE. My dominant emotion is dread, but that has more to do with book tours than with the release of "Fatal Revenant". Despair comes later. <grin> (10/08/2007) |
Phill Skelton: Hi again,
[message pruned to save space]
The 'What has gone before" section is interesting in that it puts a somewhat different angle on some events from the previous chronicles. It says that the Elohim put covenant into his coma-type thingumie to prevent him carrying out Vain's purpose, and not, as they say claim, because he is too dangerous since he isn't the sun sage. I don't recall anything in the second chronicles that suggests that at all (although it does fit: Covenant after all destroys the banefire - essentially undoing the sunbane - despite not being the sunsage, so it can't have been *that* important that the ring wielder and sun sage were the same person). It also doesn't make sense to me in one way. They are worried that the sun sage and ring wielder are not the same person. But it is only when they are the same person that Vain's purpose can be accomplished. Covenant doesn't have the guiding earth-sight to enable him to make the new Staff of Law (I assume), so Findail is only doomed when Linden takes the ring herself. Yet the Elohim are trying to make her take the ring, since Covevant is too dangerous to the arch of time. Is this a case of changing your conceptualisation of the past in the 'what has gone before' bit to set something up for the story, or has your idea of the Elohim's motives and goals been fixed and I've just misunderstood (and given how much I seem to have missed in the first few chapters of ROTE above, that seems quite likely). It seemed to me before that the wielder-sage discrepancy created a dilemma (or paradox) for the Elohim (seems like a suitable theme to crop up in a Covenant book somehow) in that they need the wielder to defeat the Despiser, but also must oppose him since he can destroy the arch. The solution is to have the ring in the sun sage's hands, so she can see well enough to use the power without threatening the arch. But they don't want *that* because it will make Vain's purpose achievable. (Shame that they get the worst of all possible worlds. Covenant beats Foul and saves the arch despite not being the sun sage, and Findail is still screwed). So, yeah, getting back to the question. Have you 'tweaked' the Elohim's motivations to fit in with what you are doing next, or have you always understood their actions before as being directed against Vain rather than for the good of the land (or at least trying to do both at the same time)?
|
<sigh> I suppose I should admit up front--if I haven't done so already--that I hate writing things like "What Has Gone Before" (which is why my editors did the job for me throughout the first two "Covenant" trilogies). So I don't really try to be thorough--or even textually exact. My goal is to provide the reader with what he/she needs to know for the up-coming book, not to write an "ideal" (or even approximately ideal) synopsis of the previous books. That said: you make a perfectly valid point about the Elohim/Findail/Appointment/Vain/Linden/Covenant/white gold/etc.. However, the explanation I gave in WHGB is also valid. One does not contradict the other. Or so it seems to me. I think you'll find that both explanations "work". Just keep in mind that trying to squeeze such long stories down into such a short space requires any number of compromises. (10/08/2007) |
Paul Mitchell: I was wondering if it is you or your publisher that decides that a chapter list should be included in the TC books? I always flip past this page as I don't want to get any intimation of what is coming ahead of time (not that I would do a particularly good job of predicting the content from the title). It seems to me that the chapter list is slightly at odds with the 'read on and find out' approach you normally take here, which makes me think it is a publisher-thing rather than an SRD-thing. Right or wrong?!
Another quickie: I saw your mention of Plan B...handing over the reins to your children should things go awry and it turns out that you are not immortal. Do you think their writing skills are nature or nurture related (or a bit of both)? Is there a genetic basis for certain skill sets (whether writing, art, sport) or is it more the childhood environment and transfer of 'skills' from parent to child?
Thanks very much!
Paul
|
I like chapter lists ("tables of contents") myself, so I always provide them--when I'm writing a book in which the chapters *have* titles. (Otherwise there's no point.) Sure, a table of contents can be seen as a "spoiler". But it can also be seen as a "tease". Or as an "appetizer". On a much more mundane level, however, Lester del Rey would have insisted on chapter titles and a table of contents if I had neglected to supply them: he considered such things important to the success of fantasy novels. I'm not wise enough to figure out the (hugely) complex interrelationship between nature and nuture, talent and desire. I'm inclined to think that talent can be nutured, but cannot be created by nurture--and that desire can *only* be the result of nuture rather than of nature. However, that's pure speculation. And I may think differently tomorrow. (10/08/2007) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have an observation, and a question. I'd welcome any comments you may have.
Recently on the GI you answered a question about how Lord Foul could influence the fanatics in Runes of the Earth. You said "The barriers between realities are breaking down, thanks to LF's original abuse of Drool and the Staff of Law."
The fact that something from the First Chronicles so deeply affects the Third is very satisfying. It makes re-reading the First Chronicles even more fun, because when the reader gets to these parts, it seems something truly momentous is happening. A lot of what happens in most fantasy novels is dishearteningly "throwaway".
Now, a question: what, exactly, did Gibbon see as the outcome of his confrontation with Covenant? Even if the wild magic had run out of control and destroyed the Arch of Time (as Foul no doubt intended) would not Gibbon be destroyed as well? I would think the one thing a failed Covenant would do, even as the Arch fell, would be utterly destroy Gibbon.
|
The issue you raise about Gibbon sounds familiar. Surely I've discussed this before? In any case.... As I see it, Lord Foul has long since subsumed the individual identities of the Ravers. They are no longer distinct "characters" with their own agendas: they are "minions" pure and simple. So they don't ask questions like, Gee, what happens to *me* if you win? Long ago, of course, LF may have made any number of "promises" (e.g. I'll take you with me when I escape Time) to seduce the Ravers. If so, those promises ceased to have any meaning (or even any necessity) centuries before Our Story begins. (10/08/2007) |
Bernie Miller: Any Regrets? As odious as this question may appear, do you have any regrets writing TC as such a 'human' or 'conflicted' person? From a writing perspective, his personality characteristics and unwavering leprosotic stoicism have obviously aided the storyline yet disenfranchised potential readers. Thomas Covenant, the literary character has (my opinion and anecdotal observation only) limited wider surface area readership. I have encountered a number of people (yes I live in the US where everybody wants the swashbuckler to save the damsel in distress ending) who have only read LFB or the first trilogy and then walked away with a bitter taste in their mouths. They have retorted to my astonishment by stating that no one could read a book whereby the hero is such a 'prozac downer'. Now do not get me wrong, I have read and reread the TC Chronicles directly because of his functional imperfections. Personally, I could care less as your TC books largely played as the primary catalyst for my personal intellectual quest. Yet I wonder whether the crafting of your main character has in some way lessened sales. As far as I'm concerned, you should have twice the profits of both King and Rawley. I'm sure this observation is of limited importance to you but your fans truly want you regaled.
Thank you,
B.
|
Judging by what sells these days (and not just in sf/f), it seems likely that the kinds of characters I write about (significantly?) reduce sales. And there's no doubt that my ego and I would be better off if my books were more widely read. But *regret*? What would be the point? I can't change who I am, or how my imagination works. Nor do I want to: I would be bored blind if I tried to write, well, let's call them "simpler" stories. (10/08/2007) |
Allen: Nine days until Fatal Revenant. The Wait is becoming terrible. I've not yet reached the writhing in agony on the floor stage yet but my limbs are twitching.
This question concerns Esmer, my favorite of your new creations. My oh my what a curious critter he is. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to share something about the inspirations behind his personality. Or would that fall under the spoiler category? Please don't say yes. Bearing in mind that I'm a suffering individual until your dread book comes out.
Ah well. Thank you for your consideration.
Allen
|
Hmm. A non-spoiler comment about Esmer? Well, there's this: as I've gotten older, I've become increasingly aware of the manifold ways in which human beings in general, and I in particular, are internally conflicted. More and more, I find it axiomatic (never mind transparent) that human beings work against themselves much (most?) of the time. They suffer from opposing desires, opposing fears, opposing comprehensions. So why not write about a character who *personifies* internal conflict? And where else could I write about such a character, if not in a fantasy novel? Especially a fantasy novel that has always been about *paradox*? (10/08/2007) |
Anonymous: Greetings Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for the opportunity via the GI to express my appreciation for the wonderful characters and stories you have created. Discovering LFB thirty years ago as a young buck in his early twenties, I have continued to enjoy your writing throughout the years.
Questions and speculations concerning the Last Chronicles I have by the score. For the sake of brevity, and your sanity, I ask your indulgence with a profound revelation concerning LF's true nature and reason for being.
In TROTE, LF was *helping* Linden find hurtloam when he said, "Men commonly find their fates graven within the rock, but yours is written in water." The last part of that quote bears a striking resemblance to the poet John Keats self-authored epitaph on his tombstone, "Here lies one whose name was writ in water."
Since you have (at least in my mind) LF paraphrasing Keats, I humbly request your enlightenment concerning LF's true nature.
Is LF, like Keats in his lifetime, really an angst-ridden and under appreciated...poet?!?
<grin>
With best regards,
Michael Loftus
|
Sure, Lord Foul was helping Linden--for his own oblique purposes (if she's, well, let's call it "restricted" by the Masters, she won't be of any obvious use to him). But his paraphrase of Keats is intended as a put-down. "Your actions are too trivial, too ephemeral, to have any lasting meaning." Which may be what Keats meant about himself. In any case, the paraphrase was definitely unconscious on my part. I've spent too much time studying Keats to pretend that I've never read his epitaph before. But I had (consciously) forgotten all about it when I wrote "The Runes of the Earth". I did not intend to imply that LF is a kind of "lost Keats". (10/09/2007) |
Christopher:
Hi Stephen,
This is a followup question to a question/response posted 5/07/07, about Thomas having a green gold, rose gold, etc.ring and how it would have affected him in the Land if he had one. Maybe you answered it, and I wasnt clear, but for me it begs the question: So (strictly within the story) does that mean white gold is only relevant in the Land because that coincidentally happens to be the type of wedding ring he happens to have? So if he had a platinum ring, for instance, instead of white gold, then platinum, (or whatever substance) would have had the same effect in the Land as white gold "currently" does, because the Land has this "organic connection" to him?
To put it another way: those rings were chosen years before TC enters the Land, so does that particular choice of Tom and/or Joan allow for him to have power in the Land, or was there some other power (like the old man) which "helped" them settle on that particular material, or does it really not make a difference, and Thomas would have ended up doing what he did no matter what?
Thanks for taking the time to answer all these questions (it seems you have written another book just through these responses). I hope I'm not just asking something that has been hashed before. Best of luck!
|
Probably the best answer is the extended quotation from Douglas Adams which appears, oh, a couple of months ago in the GI. But my instinctive reaction is: ???? You appear to be looking for some way to distinguish between the Land's "reality" and Covenant's "reality". But there isn't a way to do that. It's all fiction: I made it all up. And I made it all up at the same time. No part of it is any more or less "real" than any other part of it. And since I'm always striving to create an organic whole rather than a clutter of independent (and ultimately gratuitous) parts, I wouldn't waste my time trying to create a fantasy world and a protagonist that didn't *belong* to each other in every conceivable way. Asking me if one part of the story *would* have been different if another part of the story *had* been different is like asking me why I didn't write a completely different story. I have no answer. I believe that the internal logic of "The Chronicles" is consistent. What else is there to say on the subject? (10/09/2007) |
Jim: Hi,
I just want to iterate, like everyone else, I absolutely love your books, all of them. Of course, I came to your work through the Covenant series which is the best fantasy series in the history of ever, in my opinion. I got tired of all the puny good guy goes up against invincible bad guy with no chance of winning but somehow finds a miraculous way to win in the end fantasy series, and then I read Covenant. I loved the fact that it was unpredictable and the hero wasnt really all that good. And when the attempt to gain part of the One Tree to make a new Staff of Law failed, I cheered. At last, a fantasy series where everything doesnt always work out for the good guys!
So I love your work.
My question is, I have seen in a couple of places where you talk about innocence and purity as being inhuman, but more than that, you talk about innocence and, especially, purity in negative terms. Not only is it unattainable, but it is undesirable as well. You said, in one of the structured interviews, that Purity leads to innocence, to naivet, to stupidity. This was in response to your comment on Siegfried being too stupid to live, which also made me think of Parsifal. Did Parsifal influence your thoughts on this? I was thinking that Wagner makes Parsifal a fool in the opera, and it seems, if I recall correctly (I havent seen it or listened to it for a while now), that his foolishness was necessary in order to regain the Spear. But then I seem to recall he lost his foolishness, but I dont remember whether this was necessary before he could regain the Spear or whether it happened after he regained the Spear. I think he lost his foolishness after regaining the Spear, and maybe losing his foolishness was necessary before he could heal, what was his name, Amfortas? But I dont know. Just wondering.
And also, why cant innocence be desirable? I am not denying that innocence often does lead to stupidity, but is this a necessary consequence? Is it not possible to be innocent (or maybe pure is better) and wise at the same time? Mhoram seems to fit this for me. And of course, there would be Christ who many consider to be a counter-example. I just dont see the necessary relation between innocence and stupidity, and I would even go so far as to say that innocence and stupidity are diametrically opposed. One cannot be innocent/pure if one is stupid. Then it isnt purity; its ignorance. But I dont know. Interested in your ideas. This one has struck me for quite a while now.
Thats enough rambling. Thanks again for the opportunity to talk with you. I absolutely love your books.
Jim
|
I'm not sure we can discuss this unless someone is willing to hazard a defintion of "innocence"--or of "purity". I'm aware that my thinking on the subject is skewed by my childhood immersion in judgmental theology. "Original sin" is only one of the many distortions that I was programmed to accept without question. Since then, I've learned to think in ways that would doubtless horrify my parents (or at least my mother); but the templates underlying the beliefs I was raised to share still influence me. So I find it difficult to think of things like innocence or purity as being either viable or desirable. Hence my rather assertive comments on the subject in other contexts. But I could be wrong. If you have definitions in mind that don't rely on some specific belief system.... (10/10/2007) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: You've mentioned throughout the interview that you limit your use of the Internet. I was wondering, what primary sources do you read/watch for news and current events?
|
Newspapers, mainly. Occasional scraps of broadcast news. (10/10/2007) |
Doc: Mr. Donaldson,
About 20 years ago your story "What Makes Us Human" was published as part of an Anthology ( I belive it was called "Berserker Base" ).
1) How did this collaboration come about? Did Mr.Saberhagen request that other Authors write stories in His " Berserker Universe"? How were the Authors chosen?
2) Would you ever consider "opening up" one of Your "Universes" to other Authors?
|
1) The late and lamented Fred Saberhagen was entirely responsible. He approached an assortment of his friends and colleagues (how he picked them, I have no idea; but he and I--and Roger Zelazny, now that I think about it--were friends at the time) and asked them to write "Berserker" stories. The only requirement was that the Berserkers had to fit Fred's description of them. (You may have noticed that the word "Berserker" never occurs in my contribution.) The writers were not asked to consult with Fred, or with each other. The gimmick of "Berserker Base" was that Fred would then take the resulting stories--over which he had exerted no control whatsoever--and somehow weave them into a simulacrum of a novel. As a result, "Berserker Base" was not a "collaboration" in the usual sense of the term. 2) Nope. (10/10/2007) |
A Nony Mouse: "Fatal Revenant" is almost here! Then we can begin counting down the days to "Against All Things Ending"!
I had some questions regarding your taste in other author's works. I noticed your favorable comments about David Drake's "Lord of the Isles" on the book's back cover. Have you continued to read and enjoy the rest of that series?
Also, you've said in past GI answers you enjoy and/or admire the work of Terry Pratchett and Fred Saberhagen. I love Pratchett myself and have more recently discovered and enjoyed Saberhagen thanks to you.
They are both highly prolific authors; do you have a particular favorite book by either of them out of the many to choose from?
Speaking of Fred Saberhagen, I was very sorry to hear about his recent passing. He definitely left behind a great legacy with the Berserker novels and his other works.
I really am looking forward to "Fatal Revenant" and seeing what you will pull out of your hat of literary genius this time.
|
As I've said on any number of occasions, I'm a very slow reader. There's no way that I could keep up with all of David Drake's books, or Terry Pratchett's, or Fred Saberhagen's. But I'll take this opportunity to mention one of Pratchett's novels, "Reaper Man," and two of Saberhagen's, "The Holmes-Dracula File" and "A Matter of Taste". (10/10/2007) |
Lynne: Hi Steve --
I *know* you can't do anything about where you go on your book tours, and I would hate to make them longer for you (thereby pulling you away from getting started on the next book).
But honestly, does Putnam believe that nobody east of the Rockies reads fantasy fiction? All your US tour dates are in the West. Same thing happened for the "Fatal Revenant" tour.
To whom at Putnam do we complain? Maybe we can convince them to reroute things for the Book 9 tour, at least....
Thanks!
|
As soon as I say this, you'll find that you aren't surprised. It's all about money. I live in the West myself, so sending me on Western tours is cheaper than sending me anywhere else. In fact, I haven't been east of Colorado and New Mexico on tour since 1980. (10/10/2007) |
Richard: Hi Steve,
I just read your comments from last year about ebooks being the way of the future, and I was sitting down just moments ago to read the first chapter of Fatal Revenant (coincidentally, the spell-check on Firefox does not recognise "revenant" - sigh) having finished re-reading RotE in preparation for it. Only, upon opening up the PDF I found it to be impossible to read; somehow I lost the connection to what was on screen. Words were words and signified little else. I suspect that this was for numerous reasons: a) it reminds me horribly of being at work and stuck in front of a computer staring at Word files and PDFs by the gallon; b) it lacks any form of personal warmth; c) I just want to be slumped somewhere pleasant (not in some stiff backed chair) when I read, I wish to feel at ease.
Anyway, to reach a semblance of 'the point,' I was wondering if you'd had any further thoughts as to where the future of bookselling is to go? Only I cannot imagine that it will ever change all that much, as reading, browsing novels, the feel of bound paper is infinitely more intimate than, say, buying and owning CDs or DVDs.
And, to segue inelegantly into a second (sorry!) question. I've seen quite a lot in the GI about the influence of music and literature on your work but I was wondering if cinema and/or(the better end of)TV has influenced you at all. Only, sometimes I have been spurred on to write, whether it is some casual nuance of a scene or something more encompassing (i.e. the overarching effect of a certain film) by the visual arts (and I guess in saying the visual arts, to be more complete, I would include the infuence of painting, sculpture, etc.)
Thank you again for your time.
|
Like you, I'm stuck with books. I can't *read* in any other form. I write at a computer: I've learned to rewrite at a computer: but I can only *read* books. (btw, I'm even worse when it comes to audio books. I can't absorb stories AT ALL that way.) I like to pretend that I can't read e-books because computer screens (even laptops) are too bulky to carry around conveniently, and with all other displays the print is too small for my failing eyesight. But the truth is that I'm just not willing to learn how to change on this point. I have no particular insights on how technology will affect the delivery of text from writers to readers. However, my agent--who pays much more attention to these things than I do--believes that e-books will never be more than a "niche" market. The future, in his view, belongs to "print on demand," books that aren't manufactured at all until someone places an order. The publisher will simply program an entirely computerized (and doubtless web-based) printing process and then wait for someone to place an order. Each individual order will be met by the printing of one book. This will keep publishing alive as a business by eliminating vast amounts of overhead and waste. My question--if my agent is right--is: where and how are people going to *browse*? Personally, I find the web far too unwieldly for browsing. As for your second question: I don't doubt that movies and tv have exerted some subliminal influence on me; but I'm not conscious of it--much. As I keep saying, I'm not a visual person: what reaches me is what the characters *say* (plus the sound of their specific voices). But dialogue is becoming increasingly irrelevant to movies and tv; and once words are eliminated, I'm no longer influenced. (10/14/2007) |
John: Hello
I just wanted to respond to all those people who say that your books are taking too long to come out. I want to give some different points of view about that, if I may.
1. It takes time to absorb your books properly. Im obsessed with your books, and have been for the last 20 years, and every time I reread them, they mean something different. If your books come out too fast, I wont be able to take advantage of the time it takes to absorb a good book, because I wont be able to stop myself buying the next book! I think 3 years between books is enough time for me to think about the whole thing before delving into the next one (Im not being sarcastic).
2. Once the next 6 or 7 years are gone, I wont be able to look forward to any more good books coming out. This means in 6 or 7 years, there may not be a good book around! Not only that, but at least now, we are having the almost unprecedented privilege of talking with you and thinking about your answers in the context of the meaning of the books (or however we choose to do so). Whats going to happen when youre not around anymore?
3. Patience is a virtue :)
|
Thanks! I'm a little worried about your mental and emotional well-being. <broad grin> But I'm glad that at least *one* reader isn't vexed with me for taking so long. (10/14/2007) |
Stephen L Wonders: Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you for answering my previous question regarding e-books. I carry about seven books with me everywhere I go, in a device smaller than a pack of cigarettes. I'm never bored, yet unencumbered. :)
I do purchase 95% of my books through ereader.com (formerly palmpress.com, formerly peanutpress.com, I can't believe my account - and my e-bookshelf - has survived all their permutations, but I'm grateful. I re-downloaded and am re-reading The Runes of the Earth in anticipation of the next).
I notice however that offerings from Stephen R. Donaldson there are limited. Runes, of course, but only two of the 'The Man Who' series. But no earlier works.
I would (re)purchase The Gap Cycle from ereader.com in an instant, just for the pleasure of delving headfirst into its entire opera one book after the other in succession with no painful waiting in between.
I believe the same could be said for the First and Second Chronicles. Especially if offered as bundles, featured 'new' titles, recently re-released, etc. Your following is still HUGE, I presume, but this is a market where your past work, regardless of its uniqueness at the time versus today, could have just as great an impact my daughter's generation as it did on me. I read Lord Foul's Bane when I was not much older than she is now.
I understand that I may be in the minority as an early e-book adopter. However, I'm also certain that the bit-to-pulp ratio will stedily increase. I'd love to include the (First) Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever on my daughter's required reading list when I give her that first e-book capable portable device.
- Steve
|
First, let me say that the absence of the other two "The Man Who..." books from ereader.com is sheer sloppiness on the part of their publisher. My agent is trying to correct the problem, and he'll probably succeed. But moving backward in time: my contract with the publishers of the GAP books gives them the "electronic" rights: they could do e-books legally. But their publishing methologies in the early and mid 90s did not automatically generate e-versions of the text. Therefore they would have to Spend Money in order to create e-books. And they've already lost so much money on the GAP books that they aren't willing to spend more. In fact, I'm lucky that they keep those books in print at all. Meanwhile, back in the days of the first six "Covenant" books (and "Mordant's Need"), no one thought about e-books. Therefore those rights aren't covered by my contracts. Therefore--in theory--those rights belong to me. So one might think that *I* could release those books in e-formats myself. But no: this falls under the "competing editions" clause of my contracts. Those publishers cannot do e-books themselves because they don't own the rights; and *I* cannot release e-books because I'm not allowed to compete. As it happens, DEL REY/Ballantine *might* be willing to publish e-versions of the "Covenant" books. But they are decidedly NOT willing to Spend Money to obtain the rights. And my agent and I, as a matter of professional principle, are not willing to give rights away free. Impasse. Sadly, the issues I've just described will never be resolved unless virtually all of my books experience a MASSIVE increase in popularity. (10/14/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: So, I was glancing at my book shelf and noticed something I hadn't noticed or thought about before. Each of your "Man Who" books has gotten longer with each volume, with "The Man Who Fought Alone" at 461 pages (for my hardcover version). Now, not to get ahead of ourselves, and I have no idea if you have even an inkling of the plot for the next "Man Who" book, but can we expect a 600+ page mystery "epic" to finish the series?
|
I can't tell you what to expect from a "The Man Who..." book which may never exist. But I can (sort of) explain the steadily increasing length. When I began with "The Man Who Killed His Brother," I was striving to emulate what I perceived to be the stylistic conventions of the genre. Good discipline for me as a writer who always strives to improve his skills. But with each new book in the series, I've become less and less interested in the conventions of the genre, and more and more interested in trusting my instincts as a storyteller. Put another way: each new book in the series is less a "mystery" novel and more a "Donaldson" novel. This hasn't increased my readership at all <sigh>, but it has increased my personal satisfaction. (10/14/2007) |
Brian Herbst: If white gold is not available in the Land, I assume someone else from "our" world or somewhere else had to appear in the Land before Covenant for the knowledge and legends of white gold and its wild magic to exist. If Covenant was indeed the first, then the internet debates about the Land existing only in Joan's mind seem possible, especially since striking her head/mind with her wedding band created the time traveling tornadoes. So.. where did the Land's knowledge of white gold originate?
|
Ah, yes. You "assume". And "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me." Or, as I prefer to put it, "When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of u and umption." (I *wish* that were original, but it isn't. It's from a Geena Davis/Samuel L. Jackson movie, the title of which escapes me at the moment.) If we can do so without reference to what I choose to call the Douglas Adams Fallacy, let's discuss this when I've finished "The Last Chronicles". (10/14/2007) |
Firus Mazlan: Hi Mr Donaldson..
Do you have any plans to write more sci-fi stories in the future (not necessarily in the GAP world)?
Now that the question is out of the way (this *is* the GI after all), I'd like to mention that I thought Mordant's Need was your best work (the first paragraph in A Man Rides Through is pure class, btw), until the GAP series where you more or less outdid yourself. I can't imagine how "die-hard" fans could miss these (not so) little gems entirely.
As to the Last Chronicles, I also found myself in the same boat as Tracy G (September GI). I had no idea that there was a new Covenant novel out until early this year! My first sight of it was in softcover, and I'm a bookstore prowler so you can imagine my surprise since I know all hardcover fantasy titles by their first names, and saw no such thing bearing the name TROTE. Now, being in Malaysia, maybe this is not so critical a situation, but I must say that I am quite disappointed with your publisher. You mentioned that they could not avoid marketing "to the genre", but I think even in this they have not done a very good job, considering the plethora of bad writing that are using up all the shelf-space waiting for some unfortunate victim to pick up. Unles I'm blaming the wrong people here?
Here's to many more years of Covenant and friends!
|
As I've often said, I have no plans to write *anything* after "The Last Chronicles". I don't mean that I intend to quit writing: quite the opposite. I mean that I've never tried to plan my writing life ahead of the story I happen to be working on at the moment; and I don't intend to start now. Like almost every writer I know personally, I'm inclined to think that my books aren't promoted very well. Naturally I should be a household name in every civilized country. Isn't that The Way Life Is Supposed To Be? <grin> But honesty compels me to admit that if I were Putnams/Ace, or Forge/Tor, or Bantam/Spectra, or Ballantine/Del Rey, I wouldn't be able to do any better. I have absolutely no idea how to promote books effectively (especially in a society that secretly hates intelligence)--and I suspect that my publishers share my dilemma. If, say, my editor at Bantam/Spectra, or my editor at Putnams/Ace, could make my books better known by sheer force of will, they would do so in a heartbeat. They *believe* in what I'm doing. But lacking that power, they do what they know how to do, and then (metaphorically) throw up their hands. As I would in their place. There is, of course, the problem of "market over-saturation"--but who do we blame? Editors who choose to publish junk? Or readers who make bestsellers out of junk? As long as junk continues to sell better than intelligent and imaginative storytelling, we really can't blame publishers for doing what they do. (10/14/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I just finished reading "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales". I read it once a long time ago, so I didn't remember any of the stories very well. I think my favorite was "Mythological Beast". In the intro you say it has "a theme I happen to feel strongly about". I thought the whole "1984" aspect was great and how society had changed due to fear. Are you sure you didn't write this after 9/11 and use a caesure to go back to 1978 and publish it as a warning? Hope this question finds you perfectly safe and perfectly sane...
|
I remember being perfectly sane once: I think it was in 1543. But of course no one is ever been perfectly safe. <grin> (For those of you unfamiliar with the reference, the idea of being perfectly safe and perfectly sane is sort of a mantra in "Mythological Beast".) (10/15/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Dr Andrew Josey: I was 14 when 'LFB' came out. My father was a strict Fundamentalist preacher and I was only able to read your books because they had 'comparable to Tolkien' on the back cover, and he didn't realise they might contain 'adult themes'... To say your work had a profound effect on me is an understatement.
The Chronicles seemed full of an almost pagan 'nature magick' whilst acknowledging a 'Biblical theology'- an understanding of the possible reedeeming nature of suffering and loss.
But I always concentrated on the 'witchcraft' elements of the Land; the healing in stone and earth and wood. The title 'The Illearth War' still seems so potent as an allegory of what this planet is suffering now - and I have never been able to separate your work from what is actually happening in 'The Real' (as I can do with other fantasy). I think you are a truly great and gifted writer who is deeply tuned into the Zeitgeist. I just wondered what you thought of 'nature magick/Wicca/paganism?'
I teach in a High School and I try (with the librarian, who is also a fan) to promote your work to the kids - as we consider them to be as worthy of their interest as Phillip Pullmann or old J.K.R.
Thanks for your time.
|
Although I can easily relate to your personal journey, I find questions like yours difficult to answer. And I also find it difficult to explain *why*. But it seems to me to be an important part of what I call my "creative ethic" that I need to withhold my personal allegiance from any particular point of view--or set of beliefs. As I've said from time to time in this interview, I see myself as the "servant" of the story ideas that choose me to write them. As such, I need to be as, well, *flexible* as possible in my thinking, so that I can "serve" each character and story as I think they deserve. So when people ask me what *I* believe, I'm at a loss. When I reply that "I believe storytelling should be done as selflessly as humanly possible," or, "I believe the world can only become a better place through selfless storytelling," my answers don't convey much in the way of useful information. <sigh> I wish I had a better answer. (10/15/2007) |
Terry: My husband has been reading your books for years. I have never seen him read any author beside you. He just loves the books. I cant talk to him when a new book is released. He just finished the new book in 1 1/2 days.. Now he is going to be grumpy until 2010.. Help me!! I wish these books can be released sooner....
|
You don't wish it any more than *I* do. <sigh> Now if I wrote by Divine Inspiration instead of by Divine Intervention.... <rueful smile> Sadly, I resemble Linden in at least one respect: sheer inadequacy to the task slows me down. (10/18/2007) |
Anonymous: Steve,
I have more of a comment rather than a question. I have been reading Fatal Revenant this week and something occured to me. Your introducing of profanity into Covenant is similar to Foul introducing the Sunbane in the second series. You have utterly corrupted what was quite a legendary place. (The Land DOES exist in our minds). So, you have actually BECOME a living embodiment of Lord Foul. Ironic, isn't it? Becoming the very thing you loathe. I want you to know that I have been hard at work with a white-out pen making Fatal Revenant a "proper" Covenant novel. Don't bother responding to my submission either. I am not interested in your fancy explanations. It just is what it is. Base disappointment after 20 years of waiting.
|
I'm entranced by the self-righteousness of this message. And I can't help noticing that the people who post such comments never sign their names--or risk leaving an e-mail address. I suspect that there's a link between self-righteousness and cowardice. And yet this person keeps reading...! (10/18/2007) |
Anonymous: Will you be in Portland OR any time, other than Oct 12th, this year or possibly for your next tour? Our wedding anniversary is on the 13th and we're normally not in the area then. It would be great to attend one of your book events.
Thanks for the depth of entertainment you've created with the TC series. Quite enjoyable!
|
I guess it bears repeating that I don't choose where my publishers send me--or when. It's their money: they have the right decide how to spend it. (10/18/2007) |
Marshall: Not really a question, but...
The movie with the "u and umption" quote is "The Long Kiss Goodnight". A pretty good movie that is full of some pretty good lines like that, though it ultimately stops short of being a great movie.
Good luck with the book tour. I'll be looking forward to reading the book, and maybe some day I'll actually ask a question in the GI that I've been so enjoying...
Onward -
- Marshall
|
Thank you. And thanks to the other readers who posted this information. You're right, of course. How could I have forgotten? (btw, this seems like as good a place as any to mention that I'll be away from the GI for at least a couple of weeks. My time in England will probably not let me answer questions.) (10/18/2007) |
Andrew: I have a comment and two questions, which are not related.
The first is thank you for the GI. Among other things, it kept me coming to your website, which is how I found out about the publication of Runes and Fatal Revenant.
The second question comes from my reaction to learning the sad news of Robert Jordan's death last month. On the one hand, I suppose that it is possible to see other writers as competitors, on the other hand to the extent that the genre itself expands and succeeds (which its seems to me is happening), the wider the potential audience is for your work. How do you see this?
My last question is a reaction to Michael Drout's (Chair of English Dept at Wheaton College) criticism of the First Chronicles in his course on the Modern Scholar. (He does, by the way encourage the student to read the First Chronicles, to read WA Senior's study, and to visit your web site.) But he also criticizes the First Chronicles for a lack "linguistic consistency."
I am troubled by this because I disagree with the premise, i.e. that good fantasy literature requires the use of words of consistent linguistic heritage in order to create a strong secondary world. I frankly do not believe that most readers notice, except perhaps in extreme cases. How do you see that issue? And, as a follow up, how does it feel for your work to be put into context of literary history when it is not even done yet?
Thank you,
Andrew
|
I do firmly believe that writing is not a competition. But *publishing* seems unavoidably competitive, in part because editors simply don't have time to give equal attention to every possible writer, and in part because shelf space in bookstores is severely limited (of course, Internet outlets like Amazon have theoretically unlimited "shelf space," but they are less able than bookstores to *feature* particular books, and they're pretty useless for browsing). In that respect, the sheer glut of titles hurts the accessibility of any individual title. Back in the days when I was massively popular, there were very few other books on the fantasy shelves. Now many readers are completely unaware that I'm still alive: my work seems to drown in the flood of other books. On top of that, it's possible to argue that a plethora of choices *inhibits* rather than encourages readers. Having too many choices certainly has that effect on me. In my personal opinion, Drout is out of his mind. He's assuming that there can be only one valid model for a "sub-creation" (Tolkien's linguistic expertise)--*and* that everyone who tries to create a fantasy world MUST have the same goals and priorities that Tolkien did. Such assumptions are patently false. Different writers create different "realities" for different reasons--and those reasons *demand* different methologies. In addition, it seems to me that the multi-racial nature of my cast of characters more than justifies any lack of "linguistic consistency." (10/18/2007) |
Bizzaster: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
As so many others before me have expressed, I would like to thank you for bringing us all of your wonderful stories. I think this GI is great and this is my first time submitting.
My question is in regards to the Appointment of Findail in the Second Chronicles. Earlier in the GI, you mentioned that the ideal situation for the Elohim would have been for Linden to possess White Gold. [The Elohims] true desire is that Linden should have and use Covenant's ring. They believe that because of her nature, her health-sense, and her commitment to healing, she could stop Lord Foul (and the Sunbane) without risking the Arch--and without bothering them. In another response, you went on to say, So for [the Elohim], plan A was that Linden has the ring, therefore doesn't need a Staff of Law; she beats the shit out of Lord Foul, and no one else has to worry about it. Does this mean that Linden could have fought and defeated the Sunbane without using the Staff of Law? My impression was that the Staff was a necessary tool in allowing Linden to redeem the Land- that the corrupted Earthpower was absorbed by her and then funneled through the Staff to find its rightful order.
Another question is in regards to the Creator. (I know youve sworn off Creator questions, butplease?) It seems to me that it was foolish of him to offer Covenant a place in the Land after defeating Lord Foul. As the Creator, should he not have foreseen the possible need for Covenant in the far future when Lord Foul returned? Covenant himself admits that Lord Foul is not gone, simply diminished, Ive beaten the Despiser- this time. The Land is safe- for now. Essentially, my question is whether the Creator truly thought that he was finished with Covenant. If Covenant had chosen to end his days in the Land, would the Creator have selected an entirely new individual to meet the current threat to the Land? (Linden seemed to have been chosen to complement Covenant, but would have been unable to conquer the experience alone) Does the Creator, like the Elohim, appoint an individual to meet the doom of the age and simply counted on having to select a new hero if danger arose in the Land again? (This might be spoiler material) Has he done so before? Also, why wasnt Linden given the choice to end her days helping Sunder and Hollian? Did the Creator anticipate her to return to the Land?
Finally (Sorry for packing in the questions, feel free to answer all or none!), in the GI you mentioned that Lord Foul did not come to the Land until the Lords were powerful enough to be of use to him, which is why the Lords had no knowledge of him. Yet, the story of Kelenbhrabanal seems to place Lord Foul in the Land and heckling the Ranyhyn far before the Lords came into being. I imagine the Ranyhyn had to have told the Ramen about the Render when they enlisted their help as tenders. Would not the Ramen, or the Ranyhyn through the Ramen, have warned the Old Lords that Fangthane existed and was a source of Despite and malice in the Land (or had been in the Land). Even if they did not readily recognize Lord Foul when he appeared, shouldnt they have at least been aware of his existence? Also, of what use was the Ranyhyn to Lord Foul? Was his actions towards them a simple exercise in despite (like Llaura and Pietten) or were their unique abilities (revealed in ROTE) a direct threat/aid in his struggle?
Thanks again for the GI and keep up the good work!
|
I'm going to keep this short because I'm supposed to be packing. <sigh> 1) You appear to assume that the Elohim care equally about defeating Lord Foul and quenching/repairing the Sunbane. I'm not sure that such assumptions are warrented. 2) Come on. The Creator in this story is supposed to be a humane guy. We know this because he does things like offer Covenant a life in the Land--and because he doesn't *Appoint* anybody (he doesn't deprive people like Covenant, or the people of the Land, of their right to make their own choices). He didn't pick Covenant: Lord Foul did. If Covenant is enabled to live out his life in the Land (complete with white gold), LF would eventually have to come up with entirely new strategies, strategies in which the Creator might have no "say" at all--and I would be writing an utterly different story. The Creator certainly wouldn't go around *Appointing* new champions. 3) You appear to underestimate the importance of the Ranyhyn. You also appear to be making some very broad assumptions about time-lines (e.g. that the Ranyhyn and Ramen were present in the Land early in the history of the High Lords) as well as about the nature of the communication between the Ranyhyn and the Ramen. It's significant, after all, that the Ramen have never participated in a horserite. (10/19/2007) |
Luke: Ah, Mr. Donaldson it occurs to me that 3 years was more than well worth the wait for Fatal Revenant!
I truly enjoyed every page and look forward to the story continuing. No matter what, I'm sure others members of Kevin's Watch(myself included) will tell you that you are indeed giving us the greatest you have to give. The best part is knowing that there is more to come. In short, Thank You for marching on with your stories.
With that said here's a small question:
I see that the number of pages in your draft of FR was cut over time from over 1000+ pages to 590.
Was that reduction just a result of having to "trim the fat" or did you perhaps dig too deep and need to put some things back in your pocket until the next book?
I'm sure most of us rabid fans would attribute a cut that large due to a decision to omit the long tale of "Baghoon the Unbearable" <large grin> but then again I'm sure we're way off the mark, with the best intentions of course! ;)
|
First: I'm back. (Well, duh, Steve. We can see that.) After my UK book tour, I took some R&R. But now I can resume this rather ideosyncratic correspondence. Second, in my absence a large number of messages were posted to congratulate me on both the content and the success of "Fatal Revenant". I'm not going to respond to each of those messages individually--if I do, I'll be a month late(r) getting back to "Against All Things Ending"--but I want to thank you one and all. I'm very lucky to have such readers. You help sustain me both personally and professionally. Now: your question. I've been over this before, but it probably bears repeating. My final 1000+ page manuscript was NOT cut for publication. All manuscripts shrink in size (but not in word-count) when they become books: books simply have more words per line, and more lines per page. And font size makes a big difference. 590 pages from Putnams becomes 730+ pages from Gollancz because Gollancz has chosen a larger font. The actual words--including typos and internal inconsistencies <sigh>--are identical to my final manuscript. (11/08/2007) |
Jim: So, does that mean Wagner/Parsifal had no influence on your views regarding innocence? <frown>
For the sake of discussion, I would define innocence/purity as freedom from, untainted/untouched by (searching for a word that works), lacking, etc. evil. That was what I was thinking anyway. And I understand Original Sin renders this unattainable, but unattainability and undesirability are not the same thing. At least they dont seem so to me. The definition of evil remains to be discussed, but I believe I have seen you discuss this before, and I find your definition reasonably suitable to this context. Or perhaps not? Not manipulating others is innocence...hmmm...doesnt seem adequate somehow. Or perhaps (maybe even likely) I misunderstood/misremember your comments on evil.
I would really love to see you discuss this, if you feel so moved, as I am a very curious. It is a somewhat annoying reflection of my philosophical training and disposition (as is the rambling stream-of-consciousness form of my writingsorry).
Anyway, thanks.
|
Sure, Wagner influenced me. But not Parsifal. I was never able to get into that opera, though I tried mightily. We seem to have entered the world of Entirely Personal Opinions here. I certainly don't know any more on the subject than you do. But in my EPO, purity and innocence are undesirable as well as unattainable. The whole notion of "purity" seems rather, well, anti-human to me, since--in my view--qualities like discrepancy, internal conflict, and multiplicity of motivation lie at the core of being human. (Just look at what happens to the Haruchai.) For myself, I decline to believe that striving to undo the essence of who I am is A Good Thing. As for innocence (if it can be distinguished from purity).... Here's how I look at it. Desiring innocence is like desiring perfection: the only possible outcomes of that quest are either despair or complete paralysis. If I had held off publishing "Fatal Revenant"--or any story--until I believed it was perfect, it would never have seen print. As a writer, I believe that my only sane path is to strive, not for perfection, but for excellence. And I reason similarly about innocence. Despair leads to suicide, and paralysis might as well be impotence. Still, I'm reminded of a comment that my 9th grade English teacher wrote in the margin of my rather dyspeptic paper on James Fennimore Cooper: "Better minds than yours have thought differently." <rueful smile> (11/08/2007) |
Collegiate Cassi: I just finished reading FR and am so sad that the third one isn't out yet (a mere two days later) that I have started the series over again, and with it a question sprung to mind.
Throughout the first chronicles the Lords are always bemoaning the fact that they do not have access to all Seven of Kevins Lores, and at the end of the first trilogy this plotline is virtually dropped- it has made me curious. Did the Lords ever discover the rest of Kevin's Lore and then lose the knowledge once again before the Second Chronicles? Or is Kevin's Lore still lost?
I love the books, by the way, and have been a fan since my father shoved Lord Foul's Bane under my nose when I was 12.
Good luck on the next book, I can't wait!
|
These are matters of speculation. I'm just guessing--and I haven't gone back to check the text. But I think it's likely that Mhoram and the Lords who followed him may have re-discovered one or more of the lost Wards before the Council was corrupted to become the Clave. The gap between the first trilogy and the second allows plenty of leeway for such developments. And certainly the Rede of the Clave can be interpreted as hinting at lore which the Lords of Mhoram's time were not known to possess. (11/08/2007) |
Stephen: Two things, and I'll keep them as brief as I must. One's a question, and one's a rather bizarre form of gratitude (you may just smile at this one, I still am).
Firstly, with respect to the nature of Lord Foul and the Creator: I know that the ancient myths described in the books give little in the way of concrete information as to the most specific nature of their relationship, how would you compare or contrast between the "real world" nature of the Judeo-Christian God/Devil? Most modern Christian sects, for example, refer to the Devil, while as an adversary of God's commands to mortals, as being also a part of his plan? Did the Creator plan for Foul's presence in the Land, as part of some greater scheme, say, or am I reading waaaaaay too much into the whole thing? I'd love to hear whatever you might have to say.
[messaged pruned to protect the innocent]
Thank you.
|
It's difficult to think about Reality As We Know It without duality: things like light/dark and up/down are so profoundly embedded in human experience that I (if no one else) can't escape them. According to the Judeo-Christian model (as I understand it), before there was duality, there was God, who then created--oh, just to pick a random example--EVIL (a poor choice, in my view; but of course I wasn't consulted). That kind of cosmology just doesn't make sense to me. If God is "Good," then his decision to create Evil opens a Pandora's Box of theological inconsistencies and confusions. So in my own creative efforts, I prefer to stick with what I know: duality. Creator/Despiser. This implies several things, one of which is that each sort of defines the other ("up" is nonsense without "down"), so there's no hierarchy between them; and another of which is that neither can be accurately called omniscient. This, I freely admit, is a rather anthropomorphic way to look at concepts which are *supposed* to surpass human comprehension. But I'm just writing stories here, not creating tangible universes. I pretty much have to work with ideas that I'm able to handle. Will there ever come a time when I can stop answering "Creator" questions? (11/09/2007) |
Captain Maybe: You've mentioned umpteen times that you're a slow reader. Obviously this limits the amount of books you can read in any given period of time. And equally obviously longer books take longer to read (usually, anyway).
Do you find it ironic that you work in a genre where massive tomes (and series of massive tomes) are the norm, thus limiting the amount of literature in your field that you can actually read? Do you ever wish that fantasy writers would create easily digestible, 200-400 page standalone volumes?
|
Well, it's certainly ironic that someone who reads--AND writes--as slowly as I do feels compelled to produce such vast stories. But I cannot wish it were otherwise. As a reader: when I've made the effort to adjust to a fascinating new reality (and characters), I prefer to stay there for a while. And as a writer: I'm stuck with the talents I have, and I simply couldn't do what I do if I didn't do it slowly. (Which, sadly, seems to be true of my *entire* life, not just my writing/reading life. Which in turn is even more ironic than it sounds, since on a cerebral level I'm actually pretty quick.) (11/09/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Siobhan: Hello Mr. Donaldson -
I am halfway through Fatal Revenant. I have no clue where this is going or how it's going to get there. The book took a few chapters to go wheels up, but it's flying now.
I've already resorted to the dictionary seven or eight times, which is par for the course with your books. It's a rare pleasure to stumble over words I have never seen before, and Fatal Revenant does not disappoint.
The questions I have: how do you find unusual words, and when you find them, do you cache them away until you find a use for them? Do you look for ways to fit them into a particular scene? Do you hit a sentence and go looking for the right word, or does the right word demand a scene?
Thank you for Fatal Revenant,
Siobhan
|
I think I've discussed "unusual words" earlier in this interview. The short answer is that I read other people's books, make notes of words I like, look them up, and create a "personal" dictionary which I re-read from time to time to refresh my memory. *Very* rarely, a word demands a scene. Much more often, the nature of a scene sends me scrambling to my personal dictionary. (11/10/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Zack Handlen: [message cut to save space]
Anyway. I'd forgotten the blood magic which haunts The Wounded Land, and it got me to thinking about the nature of service. Shedding blood to interact with nature is a clear perversion of the Land Covenant once knew, a sort of cruel parody; it reduces the rich rewards of devotion to obscene vampirism. This question of service seems to be a crucial one for much of your writing. Most importantly, how can one best serve an ideal? The Bloodguard's answer is total devotion, which in the end is undone because it denies their own existence as individuals; Elena and Hile Troy offer their own sort of devotion, facing Despair by refusing their own propensity for it and pushing themselves into a position where, as Troy notes, any sort of failure becomes a betrayal.
Neither of those answers work. But Mhoram succeeds in mastering himself by realizing that personal responsibility can only go so far--he recognizes his limitations and accepts them. Despair does not always need to be capitalized; by realizing that his inherent fidelity is sufficient, that the doom of the Land is not his fault, he loses that suicidal streak that haunts Troy and Elena even at their most triumphant.
Covenant has the most interesting response; he maintains the paradox that the Land is both unreal and important (and really, how could any fiction reader deny this), and he is able to keep himself whole by not giving the Land everything in him. He is a leper, and lepers can't believe in anything--they always have to hold back enough to guard for sharp edges.
My question is, while Foul is clearly the driving negative force in the Land, could it be that these exigencies (I've been waiting a week to use that word) are also caused in part by the nature of the Land itself? Fantasy worlds are often amazingly beautiful, but the Land goes a step further and makes its inhabitants active participants in its well-being. We see it in the Health sense that so extravagantly tortures Linden in the second chronicles; but there's also the impossible demands being placed on individuals who lack the resources to meet them. People like Atarian, who already considered herself a failure before Covenant ever darkened her door; or Kevin Landwaster himself.
I think--and this is sort of a personal thing--that boundaries are the issue here. The Land makes it difficult to hold back that little piece of ourselves that everyone needs to maintain perspective; the part that allows you to fight for a cause without losing yourself in it. As someone who often forgets the social barriers that keep us sane, I can definitely relate to that.
Thanks for your time, and I'm very excited about the new book.
|
Please don't take this the wrong way; but from my perspective, your carefully-reasoned analysis doesn't actually lead to a question. Put another way, my view of the story doesn't leave room for doubt that "these exigencies...are...caused...by the nature of the Land itself". As I've tried to explain on a number of occasions, I see fantasy in general, and my work in particular, as a "journey inward" for the character(s)--which is why I keep insisting that the "reality" of the Land can't be separated from Covenant's and Linden's perception of it. But even readers who reject my view of the story surely recognize that Lord Foul is only *one* of the forces at work in the Land, and that therefore Despite is an expression (albeit only one expression) of the complex nature of the Land, rather than the other way around. Meanwhile I take it as given that journeys inward always involve the breaking down of boundaries. On a much more pragmatic level: when I first began my work on "The Chronicles," I envisioned the Land explicitly as the opposite of Covenant's initial emotional/psychological/spiritual condition. Seen that way, the Land is as much an arena for LF's "psychodrama" as it is for Covenant's--which in turn confirms your perception that the extreme dilemmas faced by the characters are as much inherent to the Land as they are caused by LF. Does any of that make sense? I can't tell: I'm still fuddled by jetlag. (11/12/2007) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
First, I'd like to say the error on pg. 588 (Caer-Caveral) was huge to make on the proof readers part. Still, I enjoyed reading FR thoroughly.I cannot wait until 2010!
I did notice something unusual though, in the second half of FR, some sentences were printed in bold print. Was that intentional? Sometimes it relayed some minor detail, other times not so much. Just curious.
I have searched the GI for the names of the last 2 Chronicals you will be doing. I know I seen them here before, so, can I get the names again please?
Thanks for everything!
Perry Bell
Reno, Nevada
|
Textual errors. The situation is worse than you think. Each of my editors went over the book three times. Two copyeditors went over the book twice each. Two proofreaders went over the book twice each. *I* went over the book at least 8 times. And we ALL missed the mistake on p. 588 (Putnams) every time. All I can say is that despite our best efforts to read mechanically, we must have gotten caught up the story and just seen what we expected to see. If my publishers have accurately reproduced my intentions, bold print is used in the second half of "Fatal Revenant" only for situations of extreme emphasis. I haven't yet gone over the actual text, so I don't know what you mean by "some minor detail". The remaining installments of "The Last Chronicles" will be called "Against All Things Ending" and "The Last Dark". (11/12/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Matt Vomacka: Well, I've discovered the truth. TC and Lord Mhoram are obviously Jews. TC chooses to save a child even though it will prevent him from aiding the land, and Lord Mhoram gives something along the lines of grieved support for this decision.
"In Judaism, life is valued above almost all else. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from a single person, thus taking a single life is like destroying an entire world, and saving a single life is like saving an entire world."
I was suspicious for a while but Lord "Mormon's" lack of a kippah made me suspicious. Now I know the truth, and that Fantasy Bedtime Hour's interpretation of your books isn't entirely flawless or reliable.
|
Wait a minute! You're serious? "Fantasy Bedtime Hour's interpretation...isn't entirely flawless or reliable"? Holy c*ap, Batman! I'm in trouble now. I've already written Lord Mormon, Atrium, and Bloodguard Bob into AATE. (11/12/2007) |
Todd Madson: Greetings Stephen - first time questioner, long-time reader (dating back to 1978-1979 approx).
My question: I'm sitting here looking at my freshly purchased copy of "Fatal Revenant" and pondering your feelings in the aftermath of the release of a tome like this. As a creative type myself (music) when I finish a project I generally employ a creative pause and then continue on with other similar work.
I have a feeling that in your case with additional volumes to write there's no vacation for Stephen Donaldson - or do you allow yourself some time to gather your energy for the next volume?
There has to be some satisfaction holding that professionally bound volume (the cover looks
great in person) though - also the lovely smell
of freshly published books can be a heady experience. Do you find that employing a
creative pause can help or hinder your work
by keeping mindful of it or does stepping away
from it for a while help the process of writing?
Thanks for tolerating my question and exposing me to a vocabulary that includes words such as "unhermeneuticable."
-T
|
<sigh> In my case, so many things militate against what one might consider the "normal" pleasures (not to mention the pauses) of writing a book like "Fatal Revenant" and having it published. (Of course, I *do* take vacations. Don't let me give you the impression that my nose is eternally to the grindstone. But my vacations are virtually never timed to the rhythms or sequences of my work.) 1) I was raised from the cradle by people who considered it a sin to find satisfaction in one's own work. That nonsense is bred in my bones. 2) I still have two books to write, each of which will be more difficult than anything I've ever done before. 3) The publication process always contains significant pauses (e.g. between final submission and D&A; or between D&A and copyediting); but during thoses pauses, the clock is ticking on my deadline for the next book. 4) And I know from painful experience that at least six months between D&A and publication will be consumed by publication chores--while the clock continues to tick on the next deadline--after which will come book tours. 5) Meanwhile I'm engaged in a grinding struggle both with and against copyeditors and proofreaders to try to make the book as "right" as humanly possible. 6) And with publication looms feedback from readers who will be quick to point out all of my screw-ups. (Dont misunderstand me. I'm grateful for the information. All I'm saying is that its imminence doesn't conduce to relaxation or satisfaction.) 7) In addition, my US publisher has chosen a font that's too small for me to read with anything like comfort. It's a hard thing to look at your own book and realize that if it had been written by someone else you wouldn't buy it because the print is too small. 8) And then there's...oh, never mind. You get the idea. In my case, things like satisfaction usually come years after the completion of a big project. But leaving all of that aside. In general, I've found that pauses don't benefit my work (except in the sense that they help keep me alive <rueful smile>). Interruptions of any kind increase the likelihood that I'll drop one or more of the balls I'm trying to juggle. (11/14/2007) |
Janis Van Court: Dear Mr. Donaldson.
In the Thomas Covenant novels, you have used the word "analystic" to describe the nouns "sleep", "air", and "potency" (of a liquor). This is a new word to me, and I've been unable to find it in any dictionaries. Can you tell me what it might mean?
Sincerely,
Janis Van Court
|
It's an obscure word that literally means, "pertaining to analysis; determining the basic components". But to make matters worse, I've used the word in an obscure sense, as a reference to things to heal (by restoring the integrity of basic components). In retrospect, that may be a little too much obscurity, even for me. <grin> (11/14/2007) |
Norene McW: I've always wondered if artists/actors/writers come to hate the very things that have made them famous.
Do you ever wish that you had never "met" Thomas Covenant in your imagination (or that part of your personality that is TC)?
Your other writings veer sharply between genres and you hardly recognize that this is the same author. In looking at your prior email responses this seems intentional on your part. If you had never written TC would you be satisfied as a writer to stand on these other bodies of work?
Unfortunately that's my two question limit...Thank you for sharing your gift of writing about the extraordinary.
|
I'm sorry: I simply can't imagine how I would feel if I were a completely different person than I am now. My work is an essential part of my identity. I don't "hate" any of it: I love it. And in a very real sense, Thomas Covenant's stories are the foundation on which I've built everything else that I've ever done. If everything "Covenant" were forgotten, I wouldn't be ashamed to stand on my other work: far from it. But asking me if I would "be satisfied as a writer" is like asking me if I would be satisfied to be someone else. I don't think--or feel--in that way. (11/14/2007) |
Sandra: Next book , When? I don't like the way you left me hanging! It comes close to how I felt waiting 10 years for Stephen King to finish "The Dark Tower" series. So when does the last book of "The Last Chronicals Of Thomas Covenant" get released?
Sandra
|
<sigh> I've been over and over this. My contract allows me three years per book; and I anticipate needing every minute of that time. I know that the wait is cruel (although cruelty is decidedly not my intent). But I can state with complete conviction that you wouldn't like what you got if I worked faster than I do. (11/14/2007) |
Vincent: Hello Steven,
Thanks for posting that person's rant about you having profanity in your novels now. I got quite a laugh out of it. I'd sure be worried if I were you, fanatics like that tend to bring high powered rifles to book signings. *laughing* Do you feel like asking them to stop reading your novels when they say things like that? If it's that offensive they should add it to the pile with the rest of the books they are burning. I hope you don't get much of that, you desearve a bit more respect than that. People are entitled to their opinions, but that's ridiculous. I bet they are actually going through and whiting out anything they feel is profane. I chuckle everytime I think about it.
|
The nice thing about virtually every signing I do is that the locations don't provide any kind of clear yet covert "line of sight" for a sniper. In practice, anyone who wants to clean up my vocabulary with a high-powered rifle will have to carry his/her weapon past several dozen witnesses--and perhaps even look me in the eye. Of course, a truly homicidal reader would find a way to surmount such difficulties. But still: the biggest disadvantage, from a critic's point of view, of just shooting me is that I won't know why the lights went out. Surely a person who wants to teach me a lesson would try to ensure that I know what the lesson actually is. (11/15/2007) |
Anonymous: I love your Thomas Covenant books, but why is Linden now the main star of the books? Aren't these the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? I love Covenant far more than Linden. Don't get me wrong, she's an interesting character, but Covenant is the best thing in the series. Is he coming back? Is he going to once again be the focal point of the chronicles soon?
|
There are some general guidelines about point of view. (Exceptions exist, of course, but they're rare.) 1) Stories should be told from the POV of the person who has the most at stake. 2) Stories should be told from the POV of the person who serves as the best surrogate for the reader, either because the character needs to know the same things the reader needs to know, or because the character can tell the reader the things the reader needs to know. 3) Stories should be told from the POV of someone who *survives* the story. By all three standards, Linden's role as a POV character is, has been, and will continue to be essential. If that doesn't work for you, you probably wish I were writing a different story. But that isn't one of my choices--and *this* story can only be told the way I'm telling it. Nevertheless I promise you--as I've been promising everyone since I started on "The Runes of the Earth"--that this story isn't called "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" gratuitously. The title isn't a trick, or a marketing ploy: it has substance. Give me time, and I'll prove it to you. (11/15/2007) |
Todd Burger: Hi Steve,
Any thoughts on Fatal Revenant debuting at #12 on the NY Times bestseller list?
|
It's gratifying to the ol' ego, of course. But it would have done me more professional good if the book had stayed on the list longer. As I've explained elsewhere, any single bestseller list measures speed of sales, not ultimate quantity. For quantity, you have to *stay* on the list(s) for a while. As a result, my editor is pleased, but my standing with my publisher hasn't improved much. (Don't get me wrong: I'm pleased too. I'm just trying to be realistic here.) (11/15/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Terry Hornsby: You've discussed the issue of Covenant's greater popularity in the UK than in the US, but I wonder if much of it is to do with the culture of the two countries. The great British Empire collapsed many generations ago, leaving a national guilt about what we did as a nation to get where we were (at our "height") and are. The country is fast becoming over-populated, with notions of cultural identity being lost to immigration policies that haven't done enough to address the cultural integration. People here feel hopeless, education standards are falling, a sense of respect, of personal ethics & etiquette being lost is prevalent.
In the US, the corporate empire of American finance and commerce has only relatively recently been hit, by Vietnam, by 9/11, by stock market crashes. Americans are the biggest consumers of oil and don't seem to pay the real environmental cost of their consumption. Education is very jingoistic, but also positive, with a certain amount of respect and etiquette buoyed by a constructive, supportive "you can do anything" approach. In a sense, Americans haven't yet faced the truth or the consequences of their current situation in the world (with exceptions. "Three Days of the Condor" I thought very prescient).
Covenant comes with a very British outlook, already defeated, struggling to master his own regret, bitterness and sense of failure. The British are still trying to get to grips with how to handle this sense of loss. Americans haven't got to that stage yet.
I am generalising wildly, but I do feel that the palatability of Covenant in the UK has much to do with this cultural identification.
But do you?
|
I'm not qualified to comment on your insights, except to say that they're interesting and thoughtful--and, perhaps, to express doubt that education in the US is actually "positive, with a certain amount of respect and etiquette buoyed by a constructive, supportive 'you can do anything' approach." But I'm posting your message as a matter of general interest. And I should add--for whatever it's worth--that I've always been drawn more to British than to American literature. As for "generalising wildly," I couldn't get through the day without it. <grin> (11/19/2007) |
Richard: Hi Stephen, I know, recently you said you were saying no more about swearing, profanity, bad language, etc. - whatever you want to call it - but I thought I would comment - rather than ask a question - after a recent attack of considerable vehemence appeared in these pages, that sometimes writing is in fact unnatural without swearing. I can't comment as to how much you're interested in making characters, speech, etc. natural; but from a common or garden point of view: people do it, and when you read books or watch movies where people either swear to Tarantino-esque excess or else prudishly refuse to do so in any shape or form as it appears to be 'immoral' (or whatever) that it renders, in part, the text stilted. Thus, as you say, we should as artists use the tools provided to us, in part because it's what artists should do and also in part because it is natural do to so.
This, I think, is the same for almost anything, swearing is one side small piece of the equation. It's about balance and that is why I will now say no more, in the hope that others follow my lead and ask, or comment, about something more interesting.
|
Naturally I agree with you. (11/19/2007) |
Dawn W.: Good evening,
I've enjoyed your books for many years, and I am excited to read Fatal Revenant, as the Thomas Covenant series is one of my all time favorites.
I am wondering when or if Fatal Revenant will be available on audio book (cd or mp3)? I have been unable to find any information on this format.
Any insight would be appreciated!
Keep up the good work! :-)
|
Scott Brick (the man who did the audio version of "The Runes of the Earth") has a contract with Putnams to produce an unabridged audio version of "Fatal Revenant". But it won't be on CD--or in any physical form. Instead it should be available for download sometime soon from places like www.ereader.com. As soon as I hear something definite, I'll post "news". Brick is also trying to negotiate with Ballantine for the audio rights to the first six "Covenant" books. But Ballantine--as is their wont--is making the process as difficult as possible. Negotiations may yet collapse. Again, I'll post "news" when I have something to report. (11/19/2007) |
D. Bauer: Out of curiousity, I read your "background" to your latest novel and noticed (with a snort of disgust) that you put down Covenant's rape of of Lena as an act of sexuality. So you are still saying that the brutalization of women is nothing but rampant male hormones? Honestly, why don't you get a little honest with yourself?
I actually did finish the novel before I threw it in the trash to see if it was possible for a brutal rapist to redeem himself. Answer, no it wasn't since you as an author did not see any need to since it was nothing more than the natural thing for a man to do. After all he was feeling horny.
|
On the surface, there's really no reason to respond to this message. The person who posted it isn't likely to come looking for an answer. And emotions this intense usually aren't, well, open to discussion. Nevertheless I think it's worth saying a few things, even if they never reach "D. Bauer". To begin: this view of Covenant's crime is--obviously, I think--based on an incomplete reading of the text. "The novel" suggests that the reader did not go past "Lord Foul's Bane." But the consequences of what Covenant has done, and the effect of those consequences on him, don't become prominent until the second and third books. So I'm torn between my feeling that any reader has the right to throw the book in the trash for any reason, and my feeling that this reader hasn't been fair to me. That said, I can't deny that this reader has raised a couple of valid points. 1) I hope we all know by now that rape is a crime of rage, not a crime of lust. It is the act of a predator, not the reaction of a man who has been "enticed" (however we choose to define enticement). And I knew this back when I was writing LFB. In that sense, I was indeed dishonest in my portrayal of the rape of Lena. All I can say in my own defense is that my attention was focused pretty much exclusively on Covenant's Unbelief; on his crime, not as an act of rage, but rather as a denial of Lena's fundamental reality. In an (admittedly abstract) way, I was thinking of Covenant's crime as *worse*, more profound, than a physical violation. 2) There is also another form of authorial dishonesty involved (although a less judgmental reader might consider it a failure of insight rather than a failure of honesty). With all the thought I put into Covenant's plight at the beginning of LFB, I never considered one of the most *obvious* emotional reactions that he might naturally experience: intense anger at Joan for abandoning him. I was concentrating so hard on the ways in which he had been victimized that I neglected an important part of his humanity: the visceral and driving rage that virtually anyone would feel in his situation. Well, that rage is present in the story anyway. It expresses itself in Covenant's rejection of the Land; in the *manner* of that rejection; and in his rape of Lena. But it might have been more honest (or insightful) if I had acknowledged his rage more directly while I was writing. (And here I do mean *I*, not Covenant. *His* emotions have been driven underground. He isn't aware of them: hence their power to control him. But I as his creator could have perceived--and described--him more honestly/insightfully/accurately than I actually did.) <sigh> I wish I were perfect. But I wasn't. I'm not. And I won't be. That an imperfect man therefore produces imperfect work should come as no surprise to anyone. (11/20/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Iain Brown: I have always been a classical science fiction fan having grown up on Asimov, Clark, Heinlein etc. I never seemed to be able to get into fantasy until I came across LFB and have read all of the Covenant novels since. It wasn't until after I completed the first chronicles that I was able to make my way through the whole of LOTR. I think I needed that connection of a someone from our own world making the transfer to pull me along after them. Was that a conscious part of the story format to introduce readers of other genres to fantasy and has that happened a lot in your readership. I have to admit I haven't ever gotten round to reading the Gap series so hopefully their re-issue will allow me fill that omission.
|
I had/have many reasons for taking a person from "our" world into my fantasy world. One was to provide a "way in": for myself; for readers who weren't familiar/comfortable with fantasy; for readers who weren't inclined to take fantasy seriously. (As I've said elsewhere, the intellectual world of college and graduate school that formed the foundation for my personal sense of what literature *is* sneered at fantasy.) But I wasn't thinking specifically of sf readers. In fact, at that time I only knew one (other than myself). So I had no preconceptions about what sf readers might or might not need in order to enjoy fantasy. Has my methodology helped other readers? I have no idea. As a rule, the people who write to me don't say anything about it. (11/28/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Mr. Moore: Steve,
I recall something from a conversation between Covenant and Foamfollower about purity of service. This issue seems to flow through all of the Chronicles; seems connected to the redemptive potential of inadequacy.
If memory serves, (for I havent access to the text for clarification) Foamfollowers take was that purity lies in the one who serves it, in that case Thomas Covenant. This viewpoint is almost diametrically opposed to the way the Haruchai view the same issue, namely that purity lies in that which is served.
I know my question enters a larger context than just Foamfollowers view vs. Haruchai view. The question is about the nature of your message of purity, maybe even your definition of it. Insofar as this issue is played out in the first Chronicles by way of the extraordinary actions of both giant and Haruchai, I wonder how much the essential (objective?) nature of something like purity of service is dependent on the inherent outlook of differentiated beings.
Im not asking who was more pure in their service, giant or Haruchai, Covenant or Lords. I am asking if, in your opinion, the thing served is better off being served purely. Does the purity of the thing served have anything to do with the purity of service? Must there be an element of purity (whether in the server or the thing served, or both) for service to even be possible? How is purity connected to inadequacy? Have I so misremembered this that I have wasted two minutes of your berprecious time???
Though I recall the issue from an interaction between two characters in the first trilogy, I am seeing it on a grand scale with all your characters and their actions. Though I know you have said that you dont set out to write about issues, but rather about characters and the emotions/thoughts/motivations that drive them to do the things that they do, I still wonder why this issue seems so prevalent throughout this majestic epic of yours, and why it seems to be so prevalent in daily life with normal mortals
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
Hmm. If I remember LFB accurately, Foamfollower's discussion with Covenant (in Manhome) didn't have anything to do with "purity". At least not directly. It was about *hope*. Foamfollower's position, as I recall, was that hope derives from the worth/importance/mystery/selflessness of the thing served, not from the adequacy (or lack thereof) of the one who serves. I'll stand by that. ("Anything worth doing is worth doing badly."--G. K. Chesterton) People like the Haruchai may at times equate adequacy with purity: like the Ramen, the Giants do not. As I've said elsewhere, I doubt that such a thing as purity exists (although it can certainly be imagined, which may explain why people feel the desire to write--or read--fantasy stories). And even if it does exist, I'm not convinced that it's worth striving for. "I...wonder why this issue seems so prevalent throughout this majestic epic of yours, and why it seems to be so prevalent in daily life with normal mortals" Haven't you answered your own question here? What else am I writing about, if not "normal mortals" and "daily life"? Fantasy is just my way of approaching my subject matter (at least in the "Chronicles"). And btw: *TWO minutes*? You underestimate yourself. <grin> I couldn't *read* your message in two minutes, never mind try to answer it. (11/28/2007) |
Marc: Hi Stephen,
Long-time fan, read most everything you've ever written. Haven't gotten FR yet as I'm re-reading ROTE in preparation.
My question is actually on the Gap series (which I think is your best work), so feel free to skip it if you're hip-deep in ROTE/FR questions.
The... "redemption" of Angus has always seemed somewhat diminished to me because of Hashi's and Warden's intervention. All of the characters that participated in the good/evil, weak/strong, victim/victimizer, etc. cycle did so pretty much on their own terms and because of their own experiences. At least is seems so to me. Angus, however, had a little help. I recognize that without that "help" that Angus would likely have been beyond redemption thus potentially throwing the story out-of-whack, however - it still bothers me. My question is simply this: does it bother you?
P.S. Despite my question, Angus is my favorite of all your characters. How sick is that?
|
No, it doesn't bother me that Angus needed help (although in his case I think the significant help came from Morn: all Warden/Hashi did was turn off a control mechanism which he could not have overcome by force of will. They restored his *ability* to choose, they didn't determine *what* he chose). Who in the story *didn't* need help? Morn certainly did. Davies did. Vector, Mikka, Warden himself: even Min and Hashi to some extent. What is a story, after all, if it isn't about the effects people have on each other? And can't those effects be described as *help*, at least some of the time? (11/28/2007) |
Andy Hamilton: What's a quellvisk?
|
Interesting question. Maybe someday we'll all find out. Or maybe we won't. As I've said in other contexts, unexplained incidental details are a common tactic for world-building. A way to imply that the world is larger than the books that contain it. (12/03/2007) |
Peter Bejmuk: I noticed that in FR you make *frequently* make reference to "a stone's throw" to describe distances, include a variant of a Giant's throwing of a stone.
What exactly is your definition of a stone's throw and a Giant's stone throw?
|
I use terms like "a stone's throw" precisely because they are not exact. (A lesson I learned re-reading the earliest "Covenant" books.) For me, they convey far more *imaginative" information than any literal description (e.g. 37 feet). Plus they avoid obvious and unnecessary questions like, What, you can only throw a stone 37 feet? What're you, some kinda 98 lb weakling? So how far can *you* throw a stone? That's how far I had in mind. To estimate a stone's throw for a Giant, multiply your throw by about 8. (Twice as tall, twice as broad, twice as thick equals roughly 8 times the muscle mass.) (12/03/2007) |
John Thorpe: I have a question about the "geography" of health sense. Is it based on the Land or the whole of the Land's Earth?
Gain or losing health sense is a profound experience that you detailed several times so I assume it wouldn't be left out when it happens.
In the first chronicles, health-sense seems to be a special quality of the Land. But Haruchai and Giants have health sense. They both describe their arrival in the Land but don't mention gaining health-sense. Would the Unhomed want to go home if it meant losing it?
In the 2nd chronicles, Sunbane disables health-sense in the Land. I don't recall any description of the Giants losing or gaining it. I always assumed the Brathair did not have it.
In ROTE, the Ramen do have it, just south of the Land.
It would make sense that the Land and surrounding areas granted health-sense and the Sunbane and Dirt "miss" these edges. I just can't figure out the Giant's homeland.
|
As I see it, Earthpower is everywhere. It's not simply like life: it *is* life. But geographically this form of energy--I can't think of a better way to put this--flows closer to the surface in the Land than anywhere else. Which is why both the dangers and the beauties of the whole world tend to concentrate there. But still: Earthpower (which enables health-sense) is everywhere. There is Earthpower in the very nature of the Haruchai, as there is in the essence of the Giants. (And in the Sandgorgons, who wouldn't care about health-sense if they had it, and in the Elohim, whose perceptions have gone way beyond ordinary health-sense, and....) Just because the Land--in a manner of speaking--lies closer to the water-table than other parts of the Earth doesn't mean that water, and the benefits of water, are unavailable elsewhere. Does that help? (12/05/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Thomas Cardin: I am a little over halfway through Fatal Revenant. I am trying to read it slowly, savoring it, but it is damn hard for me to put down.
[messaged edited to remove spoilers]
I am stunned by how you incorporate...emotions into your works. You have the most "no holds barred" approach to it that I have ever found. You dare the reader not to get too attached to any character because they may die on the next page. Then some other character you never suspected even existed will appear and take the story in a whole new direction. I refer to it as cruel and vicious story telling but damn if I don't just eat it all up and ask for more.
I have a "how do you write what you write" question which you can ignore if you wish. The important part of this post for me is to share with you my thanks for creating such an engrossing tale.
While you are writing, do you deliberately build up this turmoil for the reader as you backtrack from the story's conclusion? I mean do you look for places and ways to intentionally yank us around as you plot out your books?
Thank you for your efforts and congratulations on a new york times best seller!
|
Thanks for your message! I'm grateful for your good opinion. Unfortunately, I seem to have misled some people when I talk about planning my stories backward. That has to do with structure in the broadest terms. When I write, I write forward, and I do everything in my power to experience the story as my characters--and my readers--do. Put another way, planning is about knowing where I'm going: writing is about understanding what trying to reach that destination means. As for yanking you around, that is never my intention. My goal is to create a story that seems unpredictable as you read it (for the obvious reason that predictable stories are boring), but that seems inevitable after you've read it. If possible, I want you to be able to look back and say, "Of course: that makes perfect sense." Well, I may or may not achieve my aim; but my aim is at the opposite end of the storytelling spectrum from yanking you around. That said: of course I do "deliberately build up...turmoil." After all, turmoil is what my characters are experiencing, and I want you to be able to share their experience as fully as possible. But I work on such things while I'm writing forward, not while I'm planning backward. (12/05/2007) |
Jeremy Gans: Hi Stephen, What governs your decision to end a particular book in one of your series at a particular point (e.g. ending Runes when it did, rather than, say a chapter or two earlier or later, or even a whole extra part?) I know that you wanted the 2nd Chronicles to be four books, so do you have an inclination towards four parters (given the 3rd Chronicles and also the Gap sans prologue?)
[I'll come clean: It's not entirely curiosity on my part. My reaction to the proposed four-part 2nd Chronicles until your editor changed it) was unease: my feeling was that a break at the Soothtell and the Elohim-escape would have left the reader hanging - not in suspense, but in frustration that so little was explained. Perhaps it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I felt that about the ending of Runes and (tentatively) wonder if ending the first book at the end of the first part of Revenant might not have overcome the sense some felt that too little happened in Runes. Maybe the same could be said of the Gap, which many dropped - unfortunately - after Forbidden Knowledge. Mind you, I don't think the break between books matters all that much to the overall product, which is terrfic. Perhaps it's just a necessary flaw in an otherwise perfect work, like a magician without white gold. Nom! (There. I said it!)]
Cheers,
Jeremy
|
This is a difficult question to answer because your perspective (as the reader) is so different than mine (as the writer). The real key to understanding my decisions is to recognize that I intend my story to be read as a whole, not as a widely-separated series of chunks. The fact that the story is *published* as a widely-separated series of chunks is unavoidable (I need to eat--which means I need to get paid--which means my publishers have to have something to publish), but TEMPORARY. (That's the crucial point.) Already the ending of "The Runes of the Earth" has a very different effect than it did three years ago, for the obvious reason that *now* my readers can go straight on to "Fatal Revenant". Well, eventually my readers will be able to go straight from the beginning of TROTE to the end of "The Last Dark," and *then* the places where I've chosen to separate the volumes a) will make sense, and b) won't seem so frustrating. Once you grasp the unavoidable-but-temporary nature of the issue: what's *wrong* with the places where I wanted to divide the volumes when I planned "The Second Chronicles" as a tetralogy? Sure, stopping the first book after the soothtell in Revelstone would have been more of a cliff-hanger than the present ending of "The Wounded Land". But why is that a bad thing? In a pure world, none of these books would be published until the whole story was ready to be released (which is what happened with the first trilogy). Of course, this *isn't* a pure world--but I don't see why I should allow that fact to control the pacing, the design, the aesthetic integrity of what I'm trying to accomplish. Meanwhile, I defy anyone who knows the story (obviously I'm on pretty safe ground here, at least for two more books <grin>) to find *better* places to divide the books than the ones I've chosen. Secondary considerations. 1) Publishers care strongly about length. They want enough, but not too much. (This was a significant factor in Lester del Rey's demand for a trilogy.) From their perspective, ending TROTE earlier would have made the book too short--and would have left the reader feeling that the story had no purpose. Ending the book later by any significant amount would have made the book too long. My publishers were very happy with TROTE just the way it is. 2) I'm not in control of my preference for four-part structures. It seems bred in the bone. If you doubt me, look at the rhymed songs/poems in all of the "Chronicles" and notice the extent to which they are increasingly dominated by iambic tetrameter. He*l, I don't WANT to write everything in four-beats-to-the-line: that's just what comes to me. (12/05/2007) |
Ed Robillard: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
First of all, I would like to thank you for writing such excellent stories.
I have a question and a comment.
[question removed to avoid spoilers]
My comment is on the Elohim. It seems to me that the Elohim are not to be blamed for being so self-absorbed, mainly because that is part of their nature. Many characters are accusatory towards the Elohim for not doing more to help when bad or troubling things happen. However, I think that there are good reasons why the Elohim have to be *impelled* to provide aid, unless there is no other alternative (as with the Colossus). That is, I think that if the Elohim were to be more... proactive, or maybe interventionalist, that people would never be challenged, never have a chance to succeed in the face of terrible odds, they would never grow, but would become stagnent and dependant. So, I think they tend to get a bum rap from many of the characters in the story, who don't understand things as well as they think they do.
I hope I haven't rambled on too much. Again thank you for your great stories and I hope you have many more in the future.
Take care,
Ed
|
Hmm. I'm of two minds about this. (Or perhaps three, considering that many of the characters do not, in fact, "understand things as well as they think they do." <grin>) On one side, I'm in favor of anything that involves a more empathetic understanding of my characters. (Despite my best efforts, they need more empathy than I know how to give them.) On the other, I oppose anything that involves absolving, say, the Elohim of responsibility for their own actions. Or inactions. ("Sure, I let him drown. I'm self-absorbed: that's my nature. I was made this way. What happened to him isn't my fault.") As far as I'm concerned, every being capable of thought is responsible for the meaning of his/her/its own life. From that perspective, self-absorption isn't just a personality quirk: it's a choice. (I say that knowing that *I'm* pretty damn self-absorbed. Which is probably why I think some empathy is appropriate. <rueful smile>) (12/14/2007) |
Andrew (drew): HI Mr Donaldson. An easy question for you: How many copies (if any!!) of your published books do you own? Do you have a copy of each different cover for every book? Do you have any of the translated copies of your works?
|
My publishers are supposed to send me multiple copies of every book in every new edition (or repackaging) in every language. My US and UK publishers are faithful about this (perhaps because I deal with them directly): foreign language publishers are sporadic at best. So I have a random assortment of my books in languages other than English. (12/18/2007) |
Joey: "As a result, my editor is pleased, but my standing with my publisher hasn't improved much."
Hmmm.... maybe if they ADVERTISED you a bit better it might be a different story - I can't even tell you how many people I've mentioned the Last Chronicles to who read the original novels decades ago and had NO IDEA there were new books even three years after ROTE was released.
Needless to say that they _all_ rush to the bookstore to buy the single copy in stock (sigh).
|
As far as I can tell, my publishers don't know *how* to advertise my books--or anyone else's, for the most part. I can think of two explanations. 1) The reading of fiction is demonstrably dying out. As a result, an ad in a "literary" outlet (e.g. NY Times Book Review) reaches only elitists: an ad in a "popular" outlet (e.g. People magazine) reaches only people who never read books. And since TV and radio people virtually never read at all, neither do their audiences. 2) The pressures placed on the people who work in publishing (editors, publicists, marketing execs, etc.) by their mega-corp owners leave those people very little time to actually think about what they're doing. They're effectively prevented from "thinking outside the box" (as a rule, they have neither the time nor the energy to be imaginative), so they usually publish by rote. Fantasy novels are *only* packaged as fantasy, and are *only* advertised in fantasy outlets (Locus, F&SF, Asimov's): an inherently self-defeating approach which is imposed from above. The kind of elan that Judy-Lynn del Rey brought to the promotion of fantasy and sf back in the late 70s and early 80s is usually stamped out early and hard by the mega-corps today. (12/18/2007) |
Anonymous: Love the site. Thanks for the effort it is truly appreciated. Could you please comment on the sales of Fatal Revenant versus The Runes of the Earth. I saw you made it to #12 on opening week and hope this means the Publisher will print paperback edition of Revenant at a later date in order to inspire more purchases for "Against".
|
I've discussed these matters elsewhere in this interview. Briefly: in the short term, bestseller lists are a measure of the *speed* rather than the *quantity* of sales. In just one week, it's perfectly possible for FR to appear on more bestsellers lists than TROTE, and yet to sell fewer copies overall. Therefore it would take a lot more than one week on the NY Times list to make my publishers change their strategies. And in the long term--well, there's no brief way to explain this, so I'll simply state that publishers can't begin to estimate exactly how many copies they've sold until 12-18 months after publication. So any benefits that may result from the (hypothetical) success of FR won't actually kick in until we get to AATE. (12/18/2007) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Do you read/subscribe to Locus magazine? The reason I ask was I was wondering if you think it worth the cost (it's kinda pricey for a magazine $60/year). Have you ever been on the cover?
|
Personally I don't subscribe to Locus (although I've been on the cover at least a couple of times, and I'm well acquainted with the publisher). It's an "insider's" magazine intended for writers, artists, editors, and other people involved in sf/f publishing (possibly including booksellers). I have very little interest in who's doing what to whom on any given day, and I doubt that an "outside" would gain much by reading it--although the reviews are often informative. (12/18/2007) |
Susan: Robert: Have any of your books gone out already signed to stores, like a random signature sitting in a Wal-Mart store?
Yep. After all, I signed 7500 tip-in sheets for "The Runes of the Earth". Those books had to go SOMEwhere. They could easily have turned up in rather random locations--not excluding remainder bins. (07/12/2007)
Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I just bought two "signed by the author!" copies of "The Runes of the Earth", but the signatures are significantly different, and two different pens were used. I assume that my signature would change from day to day if I had to signed 7500 of anything! Did yours? (I also assume that more than one pen was used!!) I plan to keep one copy and give one as a gift.... I just wanted to know how likely it was that, despite the differences, both signatures are indeed yours.
Thank you!
|
<sigh> Well, what would *you* do if you had to sign your name 7500+ times in just a few days, and you hated such mechanical chores? Of course I used a variety of pens. And of course I experimented with signing my name in different ways. In any case, it's highly unlikely that some "rogue" in the industry is signing my name for me. (12/18/2007) |
JB: With all the FR questions and comments I'm sure you're beseiged with right now, I thought I'd comment on something completely different and (I think) quite cool. But first a question: Do you ski?
I ask because Deer Valley in Utah opened a new chairlift this year, called "Lady Morgan." So, no big deal right? Except... one of the new runs is called "Argus" !! It appears that someone there is a fan of yours ;-) Sadly there are no other runs called "Artagel," "Skyweir," or "White Gold" (a perfect moniker for snow).
And yes, Fatal Revenant rocks, great stuff!!
|
Yes, I used to ski--until I separated my shoulder in a bad fall. And I often took my kids to Deer Valley for our annual ski trip. But regarding the names you mention: that's a cool coincidence, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to draw conclusions. Life is certainly unpredictable enough for such things to be coincidences. (12/18/2007) |
Mikael: Mr. Donaldson, considering your poetic use of language and what you modestly call the "verse" in your books, can you honestly say that you have never considered a book of poems? I'm under the impression that such a book would be quite extraordinary.
|
Yes, I can honestly say that I've never considered a book of poems. I'm a storyteller, not a poet. And every poem (or verse) of which I have any record is already posted on this site. If you leave out the "Covenant" stuff, most of which would convey little when taken out of context, there is hardly enough left to make a pamphlet. (12/18/2007) |
KonfusedofKettering: Hi Stephen
Hope you enjoyed you book tour in the UK, well as much as yopu could anyway given what you have said about book tours Previously.
Can I take you to task on your reply toBizzaster in last months GI. You said
"Come on. The Creator in this story is supposed to be a humane guy. We know this because he does things like offer Covenant a life in the Land--and because he doesn't *Appoint* anybody (he doesn't deprive people like Covenant, or the people of the Land, of their right to make their own choices). He didn't pick Covenant: Lord Foul did. If Covenant is enabled to live out his life in the Land (complete with white gold), LF would eventually have to come up with entirely new strategies, strategies in which the Creator might have no "say" at all--and I would be writing an utterly different story. The Creator certainly wouldn't go around *Appointing* new champions."
I quickly scanned through the First chronicles to refresh my memory. In his various encounters with the creator at the start of LFB we don't see anything that would ammount to an appointment but on Kevins watch LF tells Covenant that his enemy chose him to meet this Doom. Foul to my memory has never been a liar as far as his opponents are concerned, his dishonesty is more in what he omits than what he reveals and he has no power over his intended victims if he is not credible. So one tends to believe him on this point.
At the end of TPTP the creator admits that he chose Covenant but otherwise left hime free to choose his own path. Covenant certainly isn't appointed in the way the Elohim appoint there own where by the apoointed must meed the need of their appointment or pay the consequences so in failing to stop Vane's purpose Findail must pay teh price by becoming part of the new staff of law.
Does the creators chosing of Covenant count as inhumane. I don't think you can fully reconcile it as a humane act but the creator is in a deparate position here. He is in his own way making a similar kind of bargain as Covenant does several times in the story except he's trying to balance his reponsibilities to Covenant and to the people and creatures of his creation. Covenant's bargains are to avoid any responsability to the land.
May I take it taht this lapse was due to an urgent need to pack.
|
Clearly, I don't see this as a "lapse" in the same way that you do. And if there *is* a lapse involved, it probably has more to do with my phrasing in the GI than in the point I was trying to make about the Creator's nature. I grant that using words like "choose" and "chose" to describe the actions of both the Creator and the Despiser encourages--or at least permits--confusion. But leaving the specific word aside, I don't see how you can claim that there is any meaningful similarity between the Despiser's (or the Elohim's) actions and the Creator's. They are profoundly different on a moral level. Nor do I see how you can discount the differences between the Despiser's and the Creator's subsequent actions (or inactions). The Creator chooses Covenant in the sense that any affirmation represents a voluntary leap of faith. How is that not a humane act? (12/19/2007) |
Peter Bejmuk: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
I'm about 3/4 of the way through FR and absolutely love it. When the character on the cover appeared in the text, I noticed that some of the details were off (the flowers, for instance). You've mentioned that artists often don't get the details right (at least he wasn't wearing a chain-mail bikini like one of your foreign book covers *grin*), and that you have little control over what appears on the covers. However, I love the cover as it represents a great scene in the book.
My question is, if you could choose the scene/moment to be on the cover of each of your books, which scenes would you choose? In your opinion, which scenes best represent each book?
I'm not refering to what would be the most interesting to look at, or the most "artistically bestselling". I guess what I'm asking is which scene in each of your books do you consider the most representative of each?
Kind of a loaded question here. Sorry =C)
|
You can "load" questions like this as much as you want because I can't answer them. Perhaps because I'm not a visual person, I have absolutely no opinion as to "which scenes best represent each book". In general, I don't like cover art "scenes" at all. On anyone's books. I certainly prefer the US FR cover to the US TROTE cover. But the "Covenant" covers that I like best are the orginal Fontana/Goodfellow paintings. I thought they were appropriately evocative instead of reductively literal. (12/19/2007) |
Steve Vickery: Hi Steve
Is Lord Foul branching out?
http://despair.com/viewall.html
Cheers
Steve
|
It's true that Despite is a multi-national equal opportunity employer. Nonetheless I think this site is hysterical. I *so* want to start giving people things like this for xmas. <broad grin> (12/19/2007) |
Jerry Erbe: Hello Mr. Donaldson!
I hope this finds you well and writing feverishly! :)
As you've pointed out on numerous occasions in the GI, Americans do not read nearly enough and I would argue that this has led to a decline in our ability to speak correctly. With that in mind, I have a vivid memory of a lesson I learned in Elementary School some 35 or 40 years ago regarding the word "often." I distinctly remember being instructed that the "t" in often is silent! To this very day, whenever I hear someone pronounce the word as ofTen, chills run down my spine and I can't help but wonder if that person knows they are saying the work incorrectly. I personally believe that it has only become acceptable to pronounce the "t" because the public at large now SEEMS to think that THAT is the way the word is supposed to be spoken. I value your opinion as one who is educated in writing and language and hope that you agree with me on. Would you care to weigh in on this lofty and important question? :)
Are there words you hear used or spoken incorrectly on occasion that really get under your skin? How about the word, "Oriented?" If I hear the word pronounced as "orientATED" one more time I swear I'm going to snap!.
Please us this opportunity to vent your frustration as I'm SURE there must be many facets of the English language, both written and spoken that shake you to the very core when you encounter them being used improperly.
As always, thank you for your stories, they are truly wonderful.
|
I understand your frustration. Sometimes I share it. But it probably doesn't do us any good to invest too much emotional energy in such things. Language is, and has always been, in a constant state of modulation. If you doubt me, read some Shakespeare. And I suspect that every generation ever has found cause to complain about the corruption of "correct" usage. (12/20/2007) |
Richard: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I apologize if this question has been asked (although I did some searching) or if it is answered in the books themselves and I just dont remember the answer, however, . . . were all of the lords (and presumably those that taught them) who were around at the time of High Lord Kevin, killed prior to or during the ritual of desecration? In the first Chronicles, the lords present at the time TC came to the land, were studying the lore from the first and (after its discovery) second wards set aside by Kevin before the ritual, however, if any of the other lords or their teachers/instructors (or anyone else who studied such matters) had survived the ritual (and we know Kevin attempted to save those that he could) they would have been around to teach all of the lore, not just the portions found in the first two wards. Similarly, any unfettered ones of that earlier age would presumably know all or most of such lore and may have been available to pass it along. In other words, why did the new lords have to start with the first ward?
I love the series and can't wait for the next book (please write it quickly).
|
Please. I had to start the story SOMEwhere. And since I'm not a story-bible, plan-the-whole-world-and-its-entire-history-before-I-start guy, I had to make some assumptions in order to begin. So just accept the idea that the Lords of Covenant's time had no access to the lore of their predecessors except by means of the Wards ("the facts as given"), and work backward from there. You'll probably have to assume that everyone who shared Kevin's knowledge died either in the pre-Ritual war or during the Ritual itself. Or else you'll have to assume that the survivors gradually lost their knowledge. A thousand years is a long time. Our own history is full of examples of knowledge that gets lost in much shorter spans of time. Reversion to a kind of barbarism seems likely under such primitive and arduous conditions. In addition, you might assume that the Old Lords never established a system to disseminate and promote knowledge comparable to the Loresraat. Why would they? From Berek, they inherited a comparatively full body of knowledge that they didn't have to earn. There was a direct lineage from one High Lord to the next. That Council only lasted for four "generations". And in general societies have never been very good at planning for their own transcience. Such assumptions certainly seem plausible to me. (12/20/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
ROBERT: MR. DONALDSON, THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES ON LIFE... YOU ARE THE "TRUE" MASTER OF THE LAND. I USE YOUR IDEAS AND THOUGHTS QUITE A BIT IN MY SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS. YOUR THOUGHTS ON LAW AND GRACE ARE VERY PERCEPTIVE AS IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON PURE SERVICE VS. PURITY OF WHAT IS SERVED. THE QUESTION I HAVE IN MIND..... WHY IS WILD MAGIC SO HARD MORALLY TO USE ? I KNOW IT THE "MAGIC THAT DESTROYS PEACE", I GUESS WHAT I AM TRYING TO ASK IS... WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE IT A MORAL DILEMMA JUST FOR THIS POWER AND NOT OTHERS. EVEN THE SELFISH USE OF EARTHPOWER IS EASY BUT THE UNSELFISH USE OF WHITE GOLD IS A HEART RENDING USE OF POWER (AS WHEN LINDEN HEALS STAVE IN ROtE). THANKS AGAIN FOR SHARING YOUR TALENTS AND TIME WITH ALL.
|
Actually, I think that *any* use of power is a moral dilemma--as is any refusal to use power. It is certainly true in "The Chronicles" that wild magic is not the *only* power which poses moral difficulties. The Power of Command is fraught with potential ruin. And as Elena demonstrates in "The Power that Preserves," even the Staff of Law can be used for evil. Still, it seems only reasonable that some powers are inherently more forceful and less easily governed than others. Deciding to use your hands to strangle someone involves a moral dilemma: so does deciding to use your hands to type in the codes that launch a nuclear strike. But within that general framework, there's a dramatic difference between the two dilemmas. "Differences in degree become differences in kind." (Karl Marx) Meanwhile, I'm uncomfortable with your assertion that "even the selfish use of Earthpower is easy". I don't think that the text of "The Chronicles" supports your position. From my perspective, there's nothing easy about it. No expenditure of energy is easy, even when that energy is the natural vitality of our own bodies. (12/20/2007) |
Andy Pastuszak: First I wanted to let you know that I am most unhappy with the lack of an audiobook for Fatal Revenant. I'm trying to find the time to read it in paper form...
Now for my question...
Amazon today introduced the Kindle, which looks like it may become the iPod of the eBook world. How do royalties on Kindle versions of your book work? I saw your book in Kindle format for $9.99, a substantial savings over the printed version. I don't want to support the Kindle, if authors don't get their fair share of profits from eBook sales.
|
If you've been following my "news," you now know that there will be an audiobook of "Fatal Revenant". Look for it in places like audible.com in January. E-books earn royalties in the same way, and at the same percentage, that physical books do. But since books for Kindle are cheaper than most physical books, the author naturally earns fewer pennies from each sale. (12/20/2007) |
Paul Mitchell: Hi Stephen
First of all thanks for Fatal Revenant...must we really wait 3 years for the next installment?!
Thought that you (and others here) might find the site below interesting given your love of language and less-than-common words. In a nutshell, it gives you a word and you have to select from four possible definitions. For every correct answer, 10 grains of rice are donated for distribution by the United Nations World Food Program (WFP). To quote from the site's FAQ -
"The rice is paid for by the advertisers whose names you see on the bottom of your vocabulary screen. This is regular advertising for these companies, but it is also something more. Through their advertising at FreeRice, these companies support both learning (free vocabulary for everyone) and reducing hunger (free rice for the hungry). We commend these companies for their participation at FreeRice."
10 grains per word might not seem like much, but if enough people get enough words correct then it will all help. And just think of the improvement in language skills too!
http://www.freerice.com/index.php
Hope this is of interest!
Paul
|
For the Gradual Interview readership at large. I hope FreeRice proves to be worth the effort. It's certainly a worthy concept. (12/20/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Aussie Bob: Hi Stephen,
I've always been a little curious about Covenants Dead in Andelain and the gifts. I know that Mhoram was an oracle but how could he have forseen the coming events so precisely that he knew the tools Covenant would need to make a new staff, including making sure Covenant ended up with the Elohim. Surely this smacks of Creator involvement. And who gave the gifts to the dead in the first place? I've never been able to work out why the ur-viles would make Vain, whose sole purpose seemed to be to restore lore to the land then hand him to a dead Giant. BTW Live long and prosper
|
I have no intention of trying to "explain" magic. I'm trying to write about something that transcends rationality, and the more I try to define it, the less likely I am to accomplish my aim. But within that framework, it seems fitting (and perhaps even inevitable) to me that the Dead--being pure spirit unconstrained by flesh or death, and therefore perhaps unconstrained by time as well--might have all kinds of ways of "knowing" things which are denied (by nature and Law) to the living. Isn't that part of most human mythologies about the dead? Meanwhile, the only *tangible* gift supplied by the Dead (Vain) must surely have been provided by the ur-viles. None of this "smacks of Creator involvement" to me. As for why the ur-viles made Vain in the first place, I think that the explanations given in "The Second Chronicles" suffice. However, more may well be revealed in "The Last Chronicles". (12/22/2007) |
Bob Benoit: Dear Stephen - I have two questions:
In this process of re-reading Chaos and Order, it seemed that the description of the GCES Meeting Hall was very similar to that of The Close in the Covenant novels. Was that a conscious effort or just a coincidence? Also - you used the word guttergang, which made me think of Orson Scott Card's Ender series - in particular Ender's Shadow. Now that's a very minor connection, but it occured to me that it would be very easy for one author to come closer to another author's "universe" - e.g. if you were to use "buggers" in the same paragraph as "guttergang." My question is: at what point does that type of reference start to infringe on intellectual property/copyrights? Other authors (Heinlein in "Number Of The Beast", King in his Dark Tower series) have made pretty specific references to other stories (Wizard of OZ, etc.) At what point would they need permission? Would be philosphically ok with another author mentioning something specific about one of your stories in his? I've always thought it was pretty cool when it was done well, by Assimov, Heinlein, etc.
Thanks.
Bob
|
1) No, I wasn't thinking of the Close when I described the GCES hall. That just seemed like the natural shape for such a place. And I personally dislike meeting halls where everyone sits *below* the podium: that arrangement gives the person at the podium an artificial "superiority" which I've tried to avoid. 2) The issue of "intellectual property/copyrights" has so many possible ramifications that it can't readily be discussed without reference to specific cases (which are various and virtually innumerable). I'm not going to try to slog through every implication I can think of. So I'll just say a) when author K makes no attempt to *disguise* his/her reference to author L, no real infringement has occurred, b) not having read the Card books you mention, I don't see how anyone could claim that I've infringed on them, and c) anything that exists in "the public domain" (i.e. the copyright has expired) is fair game, legally if not morally. Oh, and to be clear I should mention that infringement is *not* the same thing as plagiarism. Plagiarism can be hard to prove; but the legal and moral issues are much more clear-cut. (12/26/2007) |
DrGonzo: Hi, this mail is in response to D. Bauer's mail and your response. i think you mis-interprated his comment, it seems this person has read your books as they state they read the background to yor latest novel, fatal revenant, this is the one they threw in the trash. the comment that is made about your retelling of the rape gives the impresion that this person had read your earlier work. the quote from the mail is: 'I read your "background" to your latest novel and noticed (with a snort of disgust) that you put down Covenant's rape of of Lena as an act of sexuality' notice the word 'latest' and the familiarity with which covenant's actions are refered to. it seems this person was aware of covenants action in LFB and is more disgusted with your recent account of it.
i know there aint a question in here but i did feel the need to comment <sly grin>
DrGonzo
|
A number of readers have posted thoughtful responses to "D. Bauer's" original message and my reply: all much appreciated. Simply to save time, I won't comment on every response. I've chosen this one because it was the first to make an important point in "D. Bauer's" defense. You're right. An attentive reading of the original message makes it clear that "D. Bauer" has read (at least) "Lord Foul's Bane" and "What Has Gone Before" from either "The Runes of the Earth" or "Fatal Revenant". And now that I've taken another look at WHGB myself, I do see the justice of "D. Bauer's" accusation. If my publishers cooperate, the incriminating (and misleading) phrase in WHGB will be changed for subsequent editions--at least for FR (I'll see what I can do for TROTE, but I'm not optimistic). (12/28/2007) |
Hasan Choudhury: Hello,
About a year ago your site contained a time table for the publications dates of the Last Chronicles. Its not there now, is there a change? I was quite disheartened to discover that publications dates ranged out to 2014 I think.
Regards
Hasan Chudhury
|
This question keeps coming up. If nothing goes wrong (ha!), "Against All Things Ending" is planned for 2010, and "The Last Dark" for 2013. I've explained why I need that much time so often that I can't bear to repeat myself. (12/28/2007) |
Farm Ur-Ted: Stephen,
Have you ever sat down in your seat on an airplane (or at the dentist's office, etc.), glanced at the person next to you and noticed that they were reading one of your books? What did you do? Did you hold a newspaper or magazine up close to your face, and hope the person didn't recognize you? Or did you maybe talk to them (if this has never happened, then imagine what you would do if it did)? I ask because I read a lot on planes and in waiting rooms, and I often wonder what it would be like to look up and see the author sitting across from me.
Thanks!
|
Nothing like this has ever happened to me. If I did, I would do my level best to ignore the situation. But I doubt that I would succeed. <sigh> The ego can be an unruly beast sometimes. (12/28/2007) |
Jonathan Apps: Hey there,
Was wondering why it was that Findail didn't tell Covenant "for ****'s sake stay on the boat - you'll break the Arch"
Looking forward to reading FR - cheers!
Jonathan
|
Because then I would have been writing a different story? Because Findail was "bound" (in a manner of speaking) by both his Appointment and Vain's nature? Because he hoped that if he let the situation get bad enough, Linden would feel compelled to claim Covenant's ring? Because for the Elohim *doing* something, anything, is absolutely the last resort? Take your pick. (12/28/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Michael from Santa Fe: I have a question about Elena's marrowmeld. Obviously a very important little piece of sculpture. One thing I've always been confused about or am just missing is how does the sculpture give Mhoram the knowledge to perform the Ritual of Desecration? I understand how it leads him to realize it is the Oath of Peace (and the passion/absolutism of Covenant and Bannor's faces in the sculpture) that is holding the Lords back from complete understanding of Kevin's Lore but how does that give him the knowledge to know HOW to perform the Ritual? I guess the same confusion arises in understanding how Trell would also know HOW to do it. Is it just the understanding that unbridled passion and a certain high degree of Lore knowledge is enough to destroy that which you love?
|
OK, I haven't gone back to check the text here, so I'm relying on my (fallible) memory. But the way I remember it, we need to distinguish between the ability to commit an act of desecration and the ability to perform THE Ritual of Desecration. Sure, the insight Mhoram gains from Elena's sculpture leads him to understand how restricting passion limits access to power. The key, he learns, is to find the point of balance between DISpassion (the Oath of Peace; the absolutism of the Haruchai) and passion (Covenant). But access to power is only one step along the road of Kevin's Lore; a road which--presumably--leads to an understanding of THE Ritual of Desecration. In the meantime, however, anyone with passion (e.g. Trell) has it within him/her to commit desecrations: acts of destruction aimed at whatever he/she loves. In other words, Trell's kind of desecration can be done by anyone who has passion without balance. THE Ritual of Desecration, on the other hand, does damage of a much higher magnitude. Remember that it required Kevin and Lord Foul working together. As a *concept*, this is something that Mhoram could have understood without having the actual knowledge required by the Ritual. (12/29/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Mark: I was reading your response to Ms. D. Bauer (and I'm almost certain it was a Ms.) and I read that you wrote "I hope we all know by now that rape is a crime of rage, not a crime of lust." Sorry, I did not know that by now. I don't want to sound too insulting, but just how exactly do you know this? Have you given every rapist who ever lived a lie detector test? I'll certainly acknowledge that rage is one of the possible reasons that someone would rape, and that may have been the primary reason that Covenant raped Lena, but there are other possible reasons why people might rape. Some men rape simply because they want to have sex and don't particularly care about what the woman wants. Sometimes it really might be that simple. Hey, lack of care can many times cause just as much harm as intentionally trying to harm others. Other men might do it because they are hardwired to do so, like these scientists are trying to point out in this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s93527.htm
Human nature can be ugly sometimes. Now, these guys might not be right, and even if they are that does not make rape moral, but it is a legitimate possibility that there are men who are hardwired, nonetheless. I thought it was pretty arrogant of you to say that you know that the only possible reasons why a man might rape have to do with rage. I can understand that angry feminists, like Ms. D. Bauer, might want to cling to such beliefs, as it is in their interest to do so (there would be less of a possibility of having any sympathy for rapists if it is always motivated by rage), but I have to say it was pretty disappointing to see such a smart guy as yourself taken in by the propaganda. The right way to handle this situation, as well as any situation, is by applying reason and not jumping to conclusions before you have adequate reasoning to back up your claims. The wrong way to handle the situation is to believe in a statement simply because it makes some people feel better and serves a political agenda.
|
OK, it's true. Occasionally I do get carried away. I've even been known to over-state my position from time to time. <sigh> Even a flaming humanist like me has to admit that sociopathy exists. Psychopathy exists. Chemical and neurological derangements of all kinds exist. Nevertheless I feel constrained to point out a couple of things. 1) I've looked at the web site you mentioned. It's impossible for the reader of such a "news report" to evaluate the science behind the claim that there can be a biological basis for rape. But suppose I accept that claim: suppose I accept the assertion that some men may be "hardwired" for rape. How does that contradict my statement that rape is a crime of rage? There appears to be an apples/oranges problem here. To state that a given man is "hardwired" for rape does not in any way describe the emotions that accompany the act of rape: the statement merely *excuses* the man's actions by claiming that he had no choice. It's been pretty well documented that for some men arousal and rage are inextricably linked: they cannot become aroused unless they are enraged. But so far I've seen no documentation to indicate that men who rape do *not* feel rage. 2) You've taken my statement pretty far out of context. I wasn't talking about sociopaths, or psychopaths, or men with other profound personality disorders: I was talking about Thomas Covenant. And I was talking about a specific act of rape, not a general inclination to commit rape. (12/31/2007) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Terry Hornsby: Most high fantasies are about the conflict between chaos and order. Moorcock spelled it out in his multiverse stories by having them as personified forces. Comparisons can be made in physics - the absolute of anything is stasis and stagnation. The human condition is to strive towards perfection, but absolute, universal states make a very dull earth (see PK Dick).
If there is such a thing as purity it is death. What makes people and the world interesting are the differences between us. Difference can only occur where there is struggle and strife, because it is what we have to fight for that makes us care (or hate).
The Land can never be the wonderful place that it aspires to be without instruments of conflict. True perfection in this case is the willingness to accept imperfection as part of the beauty of something.
Splinters of this philosophy seem inherent in Covenant's makeup, hints of this dichotomy, this duality, pervade the Chronicles and I wonder if readers picking up on themes of purity are mistaking the goal for the path, that for everyone's sake it should be a goal we can & should only attain in death - that (to run perilously into cliche) it's the journey that counts.
Here then, is a conundrum. If this is true, to defeat Lord Foul is to kill the Land, but to be defeated by him is also to kill the Land.
Will your escape clause be to have conflict sundered down to lesser beings, thus maintaining the status quo? (it's a philosophical question, I know that to answer it would give the game away).
|
"Here then, is a conundrum. If this is true, to defeat Lord Foul is to kill the Land, but to be defeated by him is also to kill the Land." Well, sure. But that's what we have storytellers for: to resolve--or at least elucidate--these conundrums. Ideally in a manner which "rings true" (unavoidable pun there), feels satisfying, and sheds some light on our own conundrums. (01/01/2008) |
Jim Melvin: Dear Steve:
Recently, I unwittingly became enmeshed in a debate at Absolute Write, one of the largest online gatherings of writers. I contended that the greatest of the great -- the Faulkners, Hemingways, Updikes, and yes, Donaldsons -- purposely incorporate literary devices into their work. In other words, symbolism, metaphor, foreshadowing, etc., are all very carefully, ingeniously, and excruciatingly woven into the narrative -- in great number and detail. I believed this to be common knowledge. But almost all of the writers at AW disagreed with me, contending that writers -- even the genius types -- do this only on a subconscious level. I thought they were crazy. They thought I was crazy. Any reaction?
|
Am I allowed to declare that you're *all* crazy? <grin> But seriously: in my opinion (for what it's worth), you are all "right". Every writer is a different case. In each case, some things happen deliberately and some happen unconsciously. And in each case (and perhaps in each story), the mix is different. In addition, it's perfectly possible for any given writer to deploy any or all of the devices you mention *both* deliberately and unconsciously. Personally, I use "symbolism, metaphor, foreshadowing, etc." with care and attention, deliberately--and yet similar things also happen in my work without my conscious awareness. (01/01/2008) |
Chris Daly: Sir,
After rereading your Covenant series for the unimaginable time. I found a spot in WGW that I need to question.
After Linden runs away from the group in Andelain (after her confrontation with Kevin, then Covenant). She is running towards the edge of Andelain and realizes that the Sunbane has breached the boundry of Andelain and turns back to warn the group. The First, Pitchwife, and Covenant are warned in time to find rock (for the Giants), but Sunder and Hollian are further in and do not get the warning. Were they protected by Earthpower? After Sunder kills Caer-Caveral and Hollian is brought back to life we read that they are empowered by the Earthpower. Was that their saving grace from the Sunbane.
Thank you for reading this and Thank You for all that you have done. Your books have been aprt of my life for over 25 years of my life.
I faithfully wait for the last 2 Covenant books and hope that the next six years go by swiftly enough.
|
This may be a problem in visualization. (The text may not be clear enough?) The Sunbane doesn't breach the "physical" borders of Andelain: it breaches the protective boundary (rather like a shield over the whole region) created and preserved by Caer-Caveral. And it doesn't break through *everywhere*: it appears in isolated spots here and there among the Hills. The Giants need rock because they're near one of those spots. Sunder and Hollian are not (plus there's the whole Earthpower thing you mentioned). And compared to the size of the whole area, the spots are small and few--at least at first. It takes time to erode the Forestal's magicks. Linden and Covenant confront LF long before the Sunbane has time to destroy *all* safety and beauty in Andelain. (01/02/2008) |
Gregory : I suppose this is less of a question and more of a comment. In one of your posts, you stated that in your understanding of the Judeo-Christian model, first there is God, and then God created evil. If I may dare to represent one of those Christian sects, I would say that yes, God exists first, but He does not create evil - certainly not *moral* evil. He did create beings with a true free will, so we might say He created the *possibility* for there to be evil. Anyway, if dualism is true, then writing fantasy is pointless. If there are two eternal principles, who is to say which is "good" and which is "bad"? And if the villain can never be definitively defeated, the struggle is stoic, vain, and hopeless.
|
I don't want to turn the Gradual Interview into a theological debate. And I certainly don't want to set myself up as an advocate for "dualism"--although obviously dualism (which I prefer to call paradox) is a constant theme in the "Covenant" books. Other stories have other themes, as they should. But (just expressing my personal opinions, and intending no offense to anyone) I don't agree that "...if dualism is true, then writing fantasy is pointless." I don't see how any form of storytelling can be pointless if it has the power to bring disparate people together in thoughtful discourse. And "If there are two eternal principles, who is to say which is "good" and which is "bad"?" Surely that's *my* job. And *your* job. Isn't it our supreme task as human beings to identify and affirm the meaning of our own lives? Nor can I accept your assertion that "...if the villain can never be definitively defeated, the struggle is stoic, vain, and hopeless." You appear to be saying that any being or effort that cannot attain perfection is wasted--unless we accept your specific conception of God. That simply doesn't seem true to me. I've experienced too much love, generosity, and, yes, Grace from people who reject the very notion of God/gods/divinity in any form. I cannot reject the value of such things on the mere supposition that evil "can never be definitively defeated". Just my opinions.... (01/02/2008) |
Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
Congratulations on another New York Times bestseller. My question is about your sales figures.
You've mentioned many times in the GI that you are not as popular as you were during the 2nd Chronicles. But the Final Chronicles seems to be building in momentum. Is it satisfying to you to see FR reach the bestseller list? Do you think this portents even greater heights for the final two books?
Perhaps this is the start of a long-overdue renaissance in your popularity?
|
Naturally I'm eager for a "renaissance". Naturally I hope that some momentum is building. But a little perspective. (Have I discussed this already?) When "White Gold Wielder" was on the NY Times bestseller list, it sold 190,000+ hardcovers. When "Fatal Revenant" was on the same list, it sold 60,000+ hardcovers. I hasten to add that much of this has nothing whatever to do with me or my "popularity". Books in general sell only fractions of what they sold 20 years ago. I remember the days when a John le Carre bestseller meant 450,000 hardcovers. Today a John le Carre bestseller probably means 100,000-125,000 hardcovers. And the same decline is true for both trade paperbacks and mass market paperbacks. I don't know why this is true (although I have plenty of theories). But it *is* true. We live in a world that reads less than it once did. (01/02/2008) |
Tom: I have a Gap-related question about internal spin (I did my best to find this in the GI subject search). I was wondering to what extent did you conceptualize the mechanics of internal spin, specifically, how does it work when a pressurized compartment "spins" inside the hull? Is it actually spinning around, meaning that things like windows are useless? I imagine that irregular ship shapes (i.e. anything other than an orb) would also be problematic if the inner compartment(s) is/are spinning. I know you explain to an extent in the books somewhere, and I confess that I'm only 140 pages into Chaos and Order so if there is further elaboration on this please just tell me to read on.
Btw, I really love the Gap books. Your revival of the Covenant series has provided me with a bonus dividend in that, in my desperate need to fill the sublimely agonizing space between book releases, I have finally discovered your other works. Of course, I can't thank you enough for continuing the Covenant series, and I look forward to the next three years of anticipation.
|
I never imagined *any* of the ships or stations in the GAP books having "windows" (or the equivalent). As far as I was concerned, any perception of what was "outside" came from various types of scanning equipment (including visual). Instead I imagined a cylinder (ship) or torus (station--or human station, anyway) with an inner hull rotating within an outer, "fixed" hull. Of course, if the ship is too small (Trumpet) or unwieldy (Bright Beauty) for such a design, the people aboard have to do without g. Why not have the whole thing rotate? I can think of advantages to both approaches. I decided on stations that rotated internally to facilitate docking ships. And I decided on ships that rotated internally to avoid the computational difficulties of constantly shifting scan, communications, weapons, thrust, etc.. But I admit that I didn't try to work out every conceivable implication of these concepts. And for the most part I left the Amnion to solve their own problems. <rueful smile> Throughout those books, I did my best to avoid ideas like "artifical gravity" because, well, because I figured the "gap" itself was already asking a lot of the reader's credulity. (01/11/2008) |
kamelda: Hi Mr. Donaldson, I had asked a question a few months ago (April 2007) and only today saw the answer. I had a further question about what you said -- I do believe that belief as a commitment holds us to often paradoxical hopes and ideas (I'm hesitant about affirming absolute mutual exclusivity - I would say there's a difference between opposing 'faith and sight' and 'faith and reason' -the process of reason: paradox falls into the former, while flat contradiction would fall more in the latter as all systems are ultimately faith based: it seems I must leap at the most basic level of my experience into a sheer void of 'sight' to assume a correspondence between inner and outer reality). But for instance, I couldn't believe that the test of 'reality' is for something to be 'important' and at the same hold that the test for reality is that the same thing be unimportant, or importance is irrelevant to it? Or that it is valid to hold two mutually exclusive things in the mind as truth, and equally valid to hold only one of them against the other as the same truth. That kind of 'mutual exclusivity' simply can't be held in the mind at all, the mind being what it is, or we couldn't make even the basic leap to the validity of sense perception; evento the validity of a thought that would deny sense perception. I guess what I found 'too easy' was not Covenant's effort, but that ultimately his effort seemed to resolve this kind of difficulty by escaping it, making it less 'important' than the exercise of his will to hold it out of being an insurmountable difficulty. Whereas it seems -irreconcilable with reason, not just sight, to deny the difficulty; or to simply make it more important to exercise the will in the void of it unresolved: the very exercise of the will is an inescapable affirmation of necessary exclusivity; choosing to act in one way commits me to a rejection of other actions. I don't think the ethics of belief can hinge on 'believe in yourself'? Am I misunderstanding?
|
I'm sorry. I haven't been able to follow your reasoning. Doubtless you're thinking more clearly than I am. <rueful smile> And I probably haven't explained my position (as it pertains to the first "Covenant" trilogy) very well. But surely we can agree that human beings DO assign emotional, spiritual, or psychological importance to things (events, objects, beings, ideas, whatever) which are not tangibly or demonstrably "real"; and that therefore no mundane definition of what is "real" can serve as an accurate measure of what human beings consider important. Indeed, what human beings consider important guides their actions far more than tangible, demonstrable "reality" does. So surely we can also agree that "the ethics of belief" are always and inevitably a matter of personal choice. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assume that anyone who doesn't think the same way I do is automatically *wrong*--which is not a very functional stance for a writer to take. I'm sorry I can't be clearer. (01/11/2008) |
Claire Thomas: I first read the first 6 books in this series when I was 14 and had to stay in bed for a fortnight with chicken pox. I'm now 40 and have just read Fatal Revenant in a week. I painted a picture of one of the book covers of the giants ship for my age 16 exams and much as I loved Lord of the Rings I have always maintained that this series is far superior in many ways. Does it annoy you that Tolkein has got all the glory and fame and movies for his work - good as it is - and yet your work is at least equal and more exciting but remains relatively unknown?
|
I'm sure I've said before that I do get tired of being compared to Tolkien. If my work is any good, it pretty much has to be unique (in the best sense of the word), so such comparisons are meaningless at best, and invidious at worst. But does Tolkien's "success" *annoy* me? How could it? I firmly believe that what I do would have been impossible if Tolkien hadn't come first; if he hadn't, in a manner of speaking, shown me the way (not to mention showing publishers that fantasy is worth publishing). I owe him too great a debt to feel, well, *slighted* because he gets more acclaim than I do. (01/18/2008) |
Tony: Hi Steve,
Firstly, I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed hearing you speak at Waterstones in Reading recently (I was the one at the front who asked why you wrote about sieges so frequently). You very humbly said you didn't understand why people wanted to come to see you - I certainly came along because you've certainly provided me with a lot of pleasure over the years and I wanted to 'pay my respects'. Anyway, I found it to be a very special evening, so thank you.
However, the real reason for typing is that despite getting to ask you three questions I completely forgot to ask you the one that I've always want to know the answer to! For someone who writes so eloquently, taking care to use precise and evocative language, why did you call your main villain something so 'crude' (sorry if that's the wrong word - but my own vocabulary is letting me down!) as 'Lord Foul the Despiser'?
Hope you don't take this question as insulting as it's not meant to be. It's just that it's always struck me as odd (and let's not get to 'Lord Kevin' as I'm assuming that name doesn't have the connotations in the US that it has in the UK!).
Thanks again,
Tony.
PS FR is fantastic - hated getting to the end of it!
|
I'm glad you enjoyed hearing me speak. The kindness of my audiences helps me survive book tours. I've discussed the "rationale" (if there is one) behind the name, Lord Foul the Despiser, elsewhere in this interview. But briefly. Way back then, I was young, enthusiastic, and naive. I wanted to announce right from the start that my intentions were explicitly archetypal. And, frankly, I had no real expectation of ever getting published; so I had nothing to lose. Fortunately--or unfortunately, depending on your point of view--my editor at the time, Lester del Rey, *liked* my overt ambitions. As a result, he missed his chance to suggest that I might do well to be a bit less obvious. And now--well, there's no changing the past. (01/18/2008) |
Graham Ames: Mr. Donaldson --
I was a bit shocked to see your response earlier today which so quickly dismissed advertising for books. I have only three magazine subscriptions (think of the trees!), The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and Newsweek. Both TNY and TAM carry regular advertising for books, as their readership is obviously a reading population. Surely I am not the only person who read your books as a teenager (and still reads them) and who has grown up to also subscribe to "literate" magazines. And surely these are not the only two examples. And does one mention the myriad of fantasy/role-playing/genre magazines which exist? I'm sure there are many other creative avenues to explore.
Most of these ads are not full-page 4-color wow spots. Many of them are small, inexpensive, and I personally have purchased at LEAST one book a year based on first hearing of it through an ad in either of the magazines I get. They are effective, and reach a broad national audience of people who actually READ.
Perhaps the problem in ineffective advertising of books such as yours lies not with the available market but lack of imagination and willpower on behalf of those charged with promoting your books.
|
Here's my question. How many of the books you've seen advertised in TNY and TAM (never mind purchased) were sf/f? There is a perception among both the people who publish sf/f and the people who publish TNY and TAM that their readerships do *not* overlap. This perception is reinforced by the way "literate" magazines like TNY and TAM either ignore or sneer at sf/f. Sure, I'd love to see my books advertised that way. But *you* try convincing my publishers that it wouldn't be a waste of money. My publishers *do* advertise in genre magazines. However, their experience echoes mine: "gamers" are often not readers. Go to any sf/f convention, check out the people in the gaming (and Anime, and costuming, and...) rooms, and see how many of them attend *any* of the programming that's aimed at readers. Here, again, there doesn't appear to be any overlap. (01/19/2008) |
Andrew: I have two comments, rather than questions.
You mentioned that your publishers do not know how to advertise your books. The answer is "online bookstores". They should be buying "shelf space" on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. By "shelf space", I am referring to all the books featured throughout these website. For example, if you go to the SF/Fantasy section on Amazon, you will see a dozen or so featured books. I am sure these are paid placement advertisements.
Other than advertising, I think the major reason for slower-than-expected sales thus far is that with 4 books in the series -- at three years per book -- it takes 12 years for the entire series to be released. I know readers who loved the first and second chronicles, but they do not want to start reading the Last chronicles until the last book is closer to being released.
|
And while we're on the subject of advertising: my publishers *do* advertise in online bookstores such as Amazon. But there is SO much competition for the available space (which jacks up the prices) that the typical online ad appears and disappears in less than a week. (Of course, if a book establishes itself firmly as a bestseller, more ad space follows. But this is usually a case of ads trailing after success rather than of ads inspiring success.) Meanwhile, I certainly empathize with readers who don't want to plunge into "The Last Chronicles" until the story is complete. As I've said before, in an ideal world I wouldn't even *publish* the story until it was complete. Alas, this is not an ideal world, and I have to eat while I write. (01/19/2008) |
Zippy: Mr Donaldson,
I read your response to the question, "...were all of the lords (and presumably those that taught them) who were around at the time of High Lord Kevin, killed prior to or during the ritual of desecration?". I thought that Kevin sent all the other lords to a meeting with Foul (or his allies) before the Ritual and they were all killed. You gave a different answer. Am I mistaken?
|
I don't remember specifying that *all* of the other Lords were sent into LF's trap. However, I haven't checked the text. Certainly you're right, at least to a degree. I suspect that my other explanation is also right, to a degree. (01/19/2008) |
Tim: in your "news" section you said regarding e-books,
[....Ballantine doesn't hold the e-rights to "Covenant": I do. But I can't release my own e-books (under the "competing editions" clause of the contracts). Ballantine is willing to do e-books--but they want me to give them the rights free. Impasse.]
Question: Why not offer to open up the "competing editions" clause for renegotiation offering a cut of e-book proceeds to the contract holder? Seems like a win/win. (of course, maybe the contract holder is an unreasonably greedy bastard and you can't get a "win" out of it...thus your declaration of impasse...in which case we all lose)
I already own the paperbacks but would likely repurchase as e-books if reasonably priced...so it would be $$ that wouldn't otherwise be seen.
|
The short answer is: the conglomerates that own most US publishers refuse to do business that way. No "sharing" allowed. Individual publishers (e.g. Ballantine) may very well wish that they could engage in transactions like the one you describe; but the conglomorates forbid it. (01/19/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Daniel Wolf: Hello Mr Donaldson
I have, over the years developed my own theories about The Land and its occupants. I claim no uniqueness here,I'm sure that other people do it too. There are enigmas that I like thinking about. I like drawing parreles between Covenants experiences(and Linden's) in their real world and the Land. I realise these ideas contradict each other,but that isnt the point. I dont think they contradict the material I have available. I have an infrequent desire for Lord Foul to be Sherriff Lynton in another guise. (Please be kind its only an idea)
Also I have some guesswork as to the origins of the Land. Could Covenant be mad with grief, amputated to bits, drugged up and still in the Lepresarium- possibly writing- and ITS ALL A DREAM,Or one of his own novels-Linden, Haven Farm,The Land, His whole life?
My other pet theories include - that The Land exists in a microverse- possibly in between the atoms of a White gold ring or in a persons body or mind.
Also-the Creator made it all from human feelings floating around the atmosphere. That he harnessed all the love and anger and sorrow around him and built it with his thoughts.
This is not intented to undermine you or replace your efforts (cheesey smile)it just helps to pass the time. And I enjoy it. I have lots more.
Now the Question- After the next two books will I know for sure what is what? Do you intend to explain what The Land is? Where it comes from? I trust you as an author but I also like not knowing everything. On the other hand you are the only person who might know for sure.
Your answer itself might burn my theories down. Fair enough, I am wandering in your territory. I expect you will tell me to be patient but these musings stimulate my imagination and in a way I would be upset to be given all the answers. I consider what you haven't written to be an important part of the story too.
Ps What does RAFO mean? It's messing with my head.
|
In the context of your question, I'm pretty sure that the answer is No. I've always believed that in the writing of fantasy, there are things that are much more effective if they are *not* explained (e.g. "How does magic work?"). To enter a fantasy story requires a particular kind of "suspension of disbelief". Internal consistency (the rational relationship between non- or a-rational elements) eases--and helps preserve--that suspension of disbelief. But any attempt to account for what is within the story that is based on ideas, perceptions, realities, or rationales which exist *outside* the story tends to undermine that suspension of disbelief. To pick a crude example: if I started talking about Earthpower in terms of the flow of electrons in a magnetic field, something profound would be lost. So: I have no intention of trying to justify what is within the story by *attaching* it to "external" ideas ("it's all a dream," "it's a microverse," etc.). Or putting the whole thing another way: I'm not going to go anywhere that my characters don't go. Their integrity is too important to me. Covenant and Linden don't think in terms of "microverses," so why would I? Covenant has moved beyond his whole it's-all-a-dream hangup, so why would I go back there? Meanwhile: much earlier in the GI, *I* had to ask what RAFO means; so I'm happy to be able to tell you that it means "read and find out". (01/21/2008) |
Kevin (Wayfriend): Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Your writing style has changed, and the time interval between Chronicles makes this very apparent.
I have noticed new kinds of story elements in the Final Chronicles, that I have seen previously in your mysteries. And also some from the Gap, although they are not as easy to see. I am probably am not saying that with the right words, but I hope you know what I mean.
I also have noticed that there are certain types of elements that you no longer seem to use. (And that makes me a little sad.)
How do *you* feel about your new writing style? Is it fitting the Final Chronicles well? Does it help you, or does it make it more challenging? Has it been evolving? Have there been surprises?
|
This would be easier to discuss if I knew specifically what you're referring to. Of course, time, age, and experience have imposed some changes on me. Other changes I've chosen because I consider them beneficial or necessary--or simply appropriate. And *others* have concealed themselves entirely from my notice. But until I know what you have in mind, I don't know what else to say on the subject. (01/22/2008) |
Stephen Glenn: Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, but to clear up some confusion in my mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the Elohim. The confusion comes from the assumption that they are "equal to all things" and thus apparently all-powerful. However, if an all-powerful race exists on the side of the protagonists, then the villains have no chance (and would presumedly know it). So the question is: Why are the Elohim not reliable as such an automatic stopgap against all things evil? Is it because they are so aloof and self-absorbed that they really might allow the Arch to be destroyed simply through inaction? If not, then they could supposedly just snap their fingers and stop the Worm of the World's End whenever anyone did something to threaten it. The stories seem to imply that this is not the case.(I note that they didn't do this in The One Tree). My assumption (and we know what they say about assumptions) is that they are not, in fact, all-powerful or "equal to all things" after all. This attitude, I assume, is really indicative of their arrogance instead of their actual abilities. If Jeremiah Jason really can entrap them, then they cannot defeat every conceivable plot against them. Am I correct?
Thanks so much for your wonderful stories. They're fully equal to the very best of any other fantasy fiction writer (including Tolkein).
|
If you'll forgive an old joke: there's less to this than meets the eye. Just because the Elohim *call* themselves "equal to all things" doesn't for a minute mean that they actually *are* "equal to all things". Esmer discusses this point explicitly in "The Last Chronicles". Permit me a lame analogy (since I'm stuck in this airport for the foreseeable future, and by now I'm rather punchy). "Ordinary" beings and events look to the Elohim the way ants look to me. They're tiny. And I can kill them by the thousands. Easily. Which then makes it easy for me to forget that they have me outnumbered many billions to one, and that they are going to *be* here long after I--and every conceivable remnant of my DNA--have ceased to exist. Therefore (may we have the moral, please) it behooves me to be humble. Anytime a being or beings forget to be humble, it/they set it/themselves up to be humbled. (01/22/2008) |
Tim S: Hi Steve,
First of all i just want to say that I am a huge fan of your Covenant stories and you are a great story teller.
I'm not too sure if my question has been asked but I couldn't find anything on it.
I was reading peoples ideas of what they thought on a fan site called Kevins watch (you probably know of it) and one guy had this idea that Covenants two amputated fingers represent Joan and Roger being cut out of his life.
This was very interesting to me and I was just wondering if you had that thought yourself when coming up with your ideas or if it is pure co-incedence and someones clever interpretation?
Thanks,
Tim S
|
Just because a writer doesn't think of something does not mean that a reader who does is wrong. Let me see: can I phrase that more awkwardly? The ratio of conscious to unconscious content tends to be on the high side (in favor of conscious) in my work; but there is still plenty of unconscious content. So no, I did not have Roger and Joan in mind when I decided to amputate two of Covenant's fingers. But it's an interesting idea nonetheless. I would tip my hat--if I had one--to the person who came up with it. (01/22/2008) |
Raymond Luxury Yacht: This may fall under RAFO, but I was curious about the Ritual of Desecration. We know this did an amazing amount of destruction, enough to severely set back the civilization and culture of the land, but physically how did the Ritual manifest itself? Flaming balls of fire? Earthquakes? Plague? I'm just wondering what it would have looked like to be there for it.
|
This isn't a RAFO. It's an IOIWIN (I only invent what I need). I've never needed to know what a Ritual of Desecration looks like (in any sense), so I've never turned my imagination to the subject. But just on a whim--since I'm obviously in that kind of mood--I might suggest the type of withering you would get if a skurj 900 miles wide burrowed quickly from one end of the Land to the other. (01/22/2008) |
Thomas Worthington: It's 1:15am and I can't sleep! I'm part way into Fatal Revenant and something's bugging me. Imagine you're walking in the hills - you enjoy the views, the trees, the lakes, the whole experience of the environment. But, you have to have a backpack. Now, the backpack's not going to stop you going, and it's not going to ruin the week or however long you have, but wouldn't be great to do without it? Everything would be just that bit easier. That's how I feel about Linden and the Land - Linden is the deadweight that I have to carry about to get one final look at the wonderful Land. But, Christ on a bike, I really wish I could do it without her!
When you were drawing together the ideas for the Last Chronicles, did you give much thought to the effect of changing the primary focus from one character to another? Did the danger of losing some readers, for whom T.C. was someone that they had come to identify with, ever factor into your plans or did you never give it a thought? Not that you're losing this one, I hasten to add.
|
Reactions like yours are a constant source of bafflement to me. Over the past, now, 30 years, I've spent HUNDREDS of hours listening to people whine about what a jerk Covenant is, what a self-pitying little bitch he is, what an unpleasant and even reprehensible individual he is--and now that my readers can finally take a break from him, what do I get? Why, what a jerk Linden is, what a self-pitying little bitch she is, what an unpleasant and even reprehensible individual she is, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE MORE COVENANT? (Of course, you didn't actually say those things yourself; but lots of other people have, and you implied the same.) There's an underlying message here that's much more profound than it sounds. But in the meantime, guess what? I am who I am. I write about the characters I write about because they need me to write about them. Or because they're the only characters I *can* write about. If you don't "get" that after 30 years, I can't help wondering why you're still here. (01/22/2008) |
Ed Porter: Mr. Donaldson,
Something about the Land's geography has puzzled me over the many years I have been reading TCTC. The Soulease and Black River merge due west of Mount Thunder, and pour into Treacher's Gorge. However, water would be unlikely to flow in the direcion of a mountain, this creating a paradox of lowering elevation for the water to flow and increasing elevation for the mountain itself. Is there a literary reason for this?
Regards,
Ed
|
I really don't see the problem. Water flows downhill (in this case, west to east) until it hits an obstacle (in this case, a mountain). Then it pools until gravity--or sheer mass--leads it to a path around the obstacle. But in this case the mountain is huge, and the downhill tilt is significant, so water does it what does: it accumulates until gravity or mass discovers a path. For a while, there's a pool that becomes a large lake. However, before gravity finds a path around the mountain, mass finds a flaw in the ground under the lake; a crack opens into a chasm; and all that water pours down into the crevices under the mountain. Where once again it accumulates until it finds an exit: in this case, at the foot of Landsdrop. As long as the shape of the terrain in the west sort of funnels the water toward the mountain, and the flaws in the underlying rock reveal themselves before the water can run elsewhere, I don't see any paradox (any violation of the natural order). (01/22/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Kurt Alberty: Dr. Donaldson,
Have you or your people ever looked into having the first six Covenant books published by a smaller publishing house as limited editions? Subterranean Press (http://www.subterraneanpress.com/), B.E. Trice (through http://www.gardendistrictbookshop.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp), and Charnel House (http://www.charnelhouse.com/index.html) are all excellent examples of small publishers that could make lovely hardcover editions of these books that they could sell at a premium to your hardcore fans who would gladly shell out the big bucks for them. Please consider this option. I've managed to get hardcover versions of all of these and even had you sign them over the years, but I'd still like something nicer. These books deserve it.
Thanks,
Kurt
|
Neither my "people" nor I have any say in the matter. The rights are held by DEL REY/Ballantine, and DEL REY/Ballantine has shown no interest in giving "Covenant" anything more than the most rudimentary support. If they don't ignore ideas like yours, they erect so many barriers that nothing happens. (01/28/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Kamal : Mr. Donaldson,
Every time I explain the premise of the Thomas Covenant books to someone who has never read them, I invariable come around to using the "Fundamental Question of Ethics" (which may or may not have been what that paper the ochre robed man gives Covenant is actually called). The question posed in the paper, to the effect of "Do our actions in dreams lend any testament to our character or have any significance to us in reality?". That question has continued to fascinate me throughout the years, but my question now is this: It appears that less and less from the first series to the second and now in third, that Fundamental Question has less and less stature, have you concluded that it has been answered and agreed upon by the concerned characters? Or do you feel it still has a role to play?
|
I've tried to explain things like this before, but apparently I can't make myself clear. I'm a very linear thinker. I couldn't get to where I am now in "The Chronicles" if I hadn't first been to the previous places in the story. For me, what has gone before (in the full sense of the story, not in the artificial sense of the synopsis) is a "given": everything that comes after it is predicated on it. Look at it this way. The first trilogy, and more particularly "Lord Foul's Bane," and even more particularly the "Fundamental Question of Ethics," is the foundation upon which the entire rest of the edifice is being constructed. When all of the people who comprise my imagination are hard at work on the 5th or 8th floor of the building, they don't spend their time *talking* about the foundation: their attention is focused on what they're doing *now*. Which is very different than what they were doing when they were laying the foundation. But that doesn't make the foundation irrelevant or unimportant. In fact, the *meaning* (if you'll allow me to confuse my imagery in this fashion) of what the workers are doing on the 5th or 8th floor is entirely dependent on the foundation. Nonetheless the attention of the story *now" is not on the foundation: it's on what can be built from that foundation. As far as I'm concerned, neither the story nor the characters have "outgrown" the Fundamental Question. Nor have they resolved it, moved beyond it, or simply forgotten about it. No, they are STANDING on it. Take it away, and everything else collapses. Or so it seems to me. (02/06/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: OK, this question is kinda strange but I'm positive it hasn't been asked yet. In most fantasy/sf bodily functions are ignored as part of the story (actually in most fiction they are ignored). Now, I certainly understand WHY they are not put in the story. I mean Covenant's mad dash to Revelstone in The Wounded Land just wouldn't have had the same impact if we had a bunch of "After he stopped to take a piss...". Etc. I think most readers can assume this "stuff" is done without having the author provide details (thank you). BUT, one thing that does bother me, or at least suspends my belief sometimes in the story, is when they are ignored, when they possibly should be an issue. For example, if someone is tied up for days in a dungeon or something and no mention is made that that character should now smell like...something unpleasant. So, my question, do most authors just choose to ignore this completely because it's not necessary for the story or just an unpleasant topic to put into their story?
|
As usual, every case is different. First, every individual writer has his/her personal sense of, well, decorum. Second, every story has its specific needs and requirements: needs and requirements which the writer ignores at his/her peril. (That peril, as you've indicated, is that the necessary "suspension of disbelief" is weakened.) One less, well, let's call it one less squeamish example: some critics ridiculed "Lord Foul's Bane" because they felt the book didn't pay enough attention to the practical details of living in the Land (e.g. where and how do people get their food? water? clothes?). Well, to the extent that I'm guilty of that mistake, it *is* a mistake: it undermines the credibility of what I'm trying to make real. The same reasoning applies to the example you're curious about. Writers who, consciously or unconsciously, *sanitize* the cruder, bloodier, or simply more unpleasant aspects of their story pay a price for doing so--but IF, and only IF, those aspects are necessary to the story. In practice, on a case by case basis, you can arrive at your own conclusions. (02/06/2008) |
A.J. Hines: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Ive been reading the GI for a few weeks now, and have finally caught up on most of it. I have been a fan of yours since my father found my first copy of LFB for me in seventh grade. (Being my first mature fantasy novel, I nearly put it down at the start, but am very glad I didnt.)
Ive read most of your books, with the exception of the mysteries, which I hope to get to soon. Though I loved the Covenant books and the Gap series, Mordants Need is still my favorite. When I read it in my early twenties, I identified greatly with Geraden. (Thankfully in the past ten years Ive outgrown most of my clumsiness!) My fiance is currently finishing up A Man Rides Through, and managed to find me near-pristine first editions of both books for Christmas. (They will be a perfect place for the bookplates that you sent me a few weeks ago. Thank you very much!)
Rather than submit another question about the nature of The Lands Creator or bug you to hurry up and finish the Last Chronicles, (*grin*) I thought that I would repeat a question that I saw in a long message from 2004 that you didnt get to. I know that you yourself dont play computer or video games, but what is your opinion of them as a storytelling medium?
Thank you again for writing such wonderful, entertaining and thought-provoking stories.
Sincerely,
A.J. Hines
|
Since I don't play computer or video or role-playing games, I'm not qualified to evaluate their potential as vehicles for storytelling. But my hunch is that their possibilities are pretty limited. Not because the storytelling mechanisms themselves are limited in their functionality (although they are, at least at present), but because the imagination of the creator is (I think) fundamentally hampered by the need to allow the *player* to determine the outcome and meaning of the story. I suspect (just my opinion) that the game creator's need to accommodate a multiplicity of story-paths precludes real emotional depth. (02/06/2008) |
Todd: Stephen,
I really enjoyed watching the streaming videos of your Elohimfest appearance, and on Fantasy Bed-time Hour. Simply put, I found you to be a surprisingly funny guy. I loved (about the ring), "I needed it more than HE did!".
Anyway, I had a few writer-ish questions.
1) When you think back on a scene from one of your books, does an image of the scene pop into your mind's eye? Do you have fuzzy kind of not-too-concrete ideas of what each character looks like or do you see an exact image of them as they are to you? Or does a little reality set in (many times as I think back on books I have read I also subconsciously think of things that were going on in my life when I was reading that particular book or series).
I bet nobody else has told you that they picture either Bruce Dern or Harry Dean-Stanton as Covenant, but that's the picture that keeps popping into my head.
2) Do you remember the first time you were in a bookstore and you saw your books on the shelf? I bet that was a big rush. Kind of a big "I HAVE MADE IT!" feeling.
Thanks again and hope you have some happy holidays!
|
1) I've spent so much time in the GI discussing the fact that I'm a verbal rather than a visual person (and writer), I really don't have the heart to repeat it all. Suffice it to say that I usually remember *how* something was described rather than *what* was described. 2) After 47 rejections for "Lord Foul's Bane," seeing my books in bookstores was a shattering experience: in a good way, but shattering nonetheless. My entire reality was torn apart and made into something new; and I spent years adjusting to the change. (02/09/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Michael Babylon: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
I adore your books and have since I read Lord Foul's Bane in ninth grade, about 1979--had to get that out of the way.
I am an English teacher. Some of my students have been reading LFB for a book report, part of which requires them to find vocabulary. We have found a word that defies all attempts to find it in any dictionary: runnulet, about 2/3 down page 15.
It is easy to tell from context that it is a synonym of rivulet or runnel, but I am dying to know where you found such a word, or did you coin it yourself?
It's a simplistic question, but I'm on a quest here.
Thanks for your time--and MUST we wait SIX years for the end of your latest series??? I'm dying here!
MB
|
<sigh> Well, I always *thought* "runnulet" was a real word. But like you, I can't find any evidence that it exists anywhere outside my imagination. Sometimes writers do such things. And sometimes it's a good idea. (Other times not.) In this case, since the neologism is not an impediment to communication.... (02/09/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Andrew Calverley: Hi!
Firstly, a quick question about the quote from the Washington Post on the back of most of your books - "Comparable with Tolkein at his best".
Are you comparable to Tolkein when Tolkein was at his best? Or at your best, are you comparable to Tolkein? Whose best are we talking about here? It's a bit ambiguous.
I am a communications officer for a government department. While it would not entirely be accurate to say that "I write for a living" (I'm also involved in events management etc), a large part of my job is writing, specifically converting complex ideas and messages into plain English. Therefore, I assume that my vocabularly is at worst "average".
With the utmost respect, I find it difficult to comprehend some of the words you use, and I'm stunned that your characters have no problems with this. Near the beginning of FR, I think it is Stave who uses the word "opprobrium" in an answer to Linden. Yet Linden doesn't ask what it means. In a single paragraph on page 607, you use the words crepuscular, rill, risible, louring and plash. Of those, most people would understand "rill" trough its context and assume that plash is a typo for splash (though it is not). But *most* people have no idea of the other words you used. In addition, there were five or six other words in FR that I had never heard before and had to look up (I wish I had have recorded them now...). Is there a reason that you choose to write this way? I ask this with absolute respect, I think you are a master wordsmith and a fantastic storyteller. But if you write in a way that is difficult for your audience to understand, how does that help you or your story?
Thanks, Andrew
|
(I have no idea what the Washington Post meant. Personally, I've always suspected that the quote was intended to be ambiguous.) I've discussed the "Covenant" vocabulary elsewhere in this interview, but it's been a while. If you've read any of my other books, you know that this kind of language is a stylistic choice, not a personal compulsion: I'm perfectly capable of writing what Judy Blume once called "low diction fiction". In the broadest possible terms, and not referring to any specific example, what I'm trying to communicate is, well, let's call it a sense of the exotic. I want this world to feel beautiful and strange, inherently magical; and since language is my life, it's my best tool to convey what I intend. Familiar words lose their mystery through sheer, well, familiarity. But of course, as you've observed, there's an unavoidable problem. The more unfamiliar the words, and the more crucial the context in which I use them, the more "difficult" my prose becomes. What is intended as an enhancement to communication becomes an impediment instead. So in practice my use (any use) of language is a complex balancing act. And what constitutes an effective balance shifts from moment to moment, situation to situation, character to character. Your reaction, like that of many other readers, demonstrates that I don't always succeed at finding the "right" balance (an impossible challenge, since the "right" balance shifts with the reader as well as with the story, but an important challenge nonetheless). But please be assured that I *do* try. The fact that "crepuscular, rill, risible, louring and plash" are all familiar to *me* only makes the task of finding the right balance for the reader harder. As for why Linden (and Covenant) always understand the rhetoric of the people they encounter in the Land <sigh>: that gets us into the whole question of the fundamental relationship between "mind" and "reality"; and I've struggled to explain my views on that subject so often that I don't have the heart to try again today. (02/13/2008) |
Curt from Ft Worth: A few things to consider and either address or ignore, as you wish. Although I'm obvously hoping for the former.
1. The Elohim (or Insequent) can easily prevent an attack on Time by going back even further before. Think of Marty McFly returning to 1955 for the second time to take back the sports book from Biff. Or the Starship Enterprise going back to the 21st Century to stop The Borg from interfering with First Contact. If Roger was to attempt the life of young Damelon, who's to say he wouldn't arrive to find him well-guarded ?
2. When writing Mordant's Need, did you ever give any thought to an Imager creating a mirror that showed The Land ? Like maybe Gilbur translating Ur-Viles or Kresh ? While that may sound corny at first, we'd have loved it.
|
1) Your idea fails the Occam's razor test. In other words, it's too complicated. As a people, the Elohim exist at every (known) moment of the Land's history. Therefore they already exist prior to any malign (or benign) adventure backward in time. And they would always act to preserve the Arch of Time. So they don't need to go leaping around through the ages: they are already present (as a people: not necessarily as specific individuals) wherever the danger might occur. 2) Absolutely not. I feel an active abhorrence for the idea of mingling the realities of my stories. I'm not sure I can explain why; but it probably has something to do with the sheer scale of the *explanations* I would be forced to devise. Or maybe it involves the obvious fact that Covenant and Linden and the Land could never exist in the "reality" of Terisa Morgan's mind. Just as she and mirrors and Imagers could never exist for Covenant and Linden. (02/13/2008) |
Alan: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I have the following issue with the last series.
I think the biggest issue is that after re-reading TWl and TC discovers how LF did not die at the end of the first chrons was because the staff had been destroyed. LF was able to shelter at the only power able to preserve him, earthpower. TC pays for this knowledge with his own blood. At the end of WGW we have a new living staff of law (provided by the wisdom of the dead in andelain). TC even says to linden that she has to heal the land otherwise the sunbane will bring LF back. So we have a new living staff of law, remember what vain said to the elohim (together we will redeem the earth) and no sunbane. To my mind the only 2 powers that LF could hope to save him are gone.
Maybe you could clear this issue up for me.
best regards
Alan
|
I disagree. The "2 *obvious* powers that LF could hope to save him are gone." But evil as a concept, a fundamental principle, can never be destroyed. And there are other dark forces in the Earth that LF could draw on--for lack of a better term--to resuscitate him. My point in both the first and second trilogies is that the victories over LF are *real*: they are not (as the Elohim want Linden to believe) illusions. (02/13/2008) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I was wondering if you based 'the necessity of freedom' on things you learned in India growing up in regards to arranged marriages, etc. If not, was there any particular event in life you based it on?
Looking forward to 2010!
Perry Bell
Reno Nevada
|
I didn't learn anything that inspired "the necessity of freedom" in India per se. The missionaries did everything possible to prevent their children from learning ANYthing about the country; and I remained effectively ignorant about India itself until I studied the subject in college (in the US). However, "the necessity of freedom" may well be a reaction *against* the particular beliefs of my parents. My parents were Presbyterian: they believed in "predestination," which makes a joke out of the whole notion of free will. I found that belief offensive as soon as I was old enough to understand it. There can be no true morality without free will. Indeed, "predestination" makes a joke out of religion itself. (02/13/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Matthew Clegg: I just finished FR and continue to scratch my head. Is it on purpose or does it just happen that Linden has never actually made a good decision in any of the TC2 or FCOTC books? Her only saving grace has been the inolvement of others. If it wasn't so scary that one character could be that wrong about everything this might actually be comical.
Any chance of back stories being printed in the future? Each of these groups (Elohim, Giants, Bloodguard, Insiquents) could have their own books brining them to meet up where these take off. I remember you did something similar with the Bloodguard in a short story.
|
Step back! Them's fightin' words. How do you propose to demonstrate that ANY of Linden's decisions in "The Last Chronicles" has been wrong? I'll grant you some errors in judgment in "The Second Chronicles," but even there your assertion doesn't hold up. Who decided to rouse Covenant from the stasis imposed by the Elohim? In "The Last Chronicles," however: well, let's just say that I'm looking forward to your efforts to back up your statements with hard evidence. (02/17/2008) |
Anthony Buren: In Gilden-Fire you write about the two Haruchai clans. I have several questions about the Ho-Aru and Nimishi. Are the two clans mentioned in any other stories beside Gilden Fire? You let us know that the clans once fought against each other but later formed a bound. Was this simply a truce? Did Ho-Aru ever marry Nimishi? 20,000 years later do Stave, Chlyme and others still consider themselves either Ho-Aru or Nimishi? Thank you and write fast.
|
In my view, these clan distinctions vanished a long time ago. They were only mentioned once, in "Gilden-Fire"--which was intended to be an out-take, so I don't consider it part of the official Covenant "text". (02/20/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't get it - Ace has no plans to ever release a mass market paperback of Runes (and I assume then, Fatal Revenant or any of the other Last Chronicles books)? They do realize some people ONLY by the smaller books because they are cheaper? As for poor sales being the reason, they release MMPB of books I know didn't sell as well as Runes. Your right, I may never understand the publishing industry!
|
Well, "ever".... It isn't realistic to assume that Ace will *never* release "Runes"--or any of "The Last Chronicles"--in mass market paperback. Ace simply has no *present* plans to do so. As far as it goes, I don't consider this a good decision. But it isn't my decision to make. And speaking of books that you "know didn't sell as well as Runes," sure, vast numbers of them have appeared as MMPBs. But how many of those titles appeared first as hardcovers and then as trade paperbacks? I'm confident that quite a few never saw hardcover or trade paperback publication at all. And of the remainder, a large majority went straight from hardcover to MMPB, without passing through the trade paperback format. What Ace is doing with "The Last Chronicles" represents something of a departure from conventional publishing. For good or ill. (02/20/2008) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: I am still trying to forgive Stephen King for the way he ended "The Dark Tower" series.
Can you comfort your "gentle readers" that "The Last Chronicles" will not suffer a similar fate?
|
This is a huge spoiler, but I can't resist. I would rather be dead than leave my readers (and myself) feeling the way I felt when I finished "The Dark Tower". (02/20/2008) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I have always wondered, where did you get the idea for The Fundamental Question of Ethics in LFB?
Also, I applaud Lindens choice when she realizes she cannot meet the lands needs alone. That made me like her as a character far more.
Thanks, and anxiously awaiting 2010!
Perry Bell
Reno NV
|
As far as I know, "The Fundamental Question of Ethics" was something that I just made up. It seemed to me to be a) a logical extension or expression of the story's inherent themes, and b) a necessary introduction to those themes (a way to get the ball rolling, in a manner of speaking). (02/27/2008) |
Scott: Mr Donaldson
I was very excited to see the "Runes of the Earth," and after reading it was pleasantly surprised to discover the Gap series. After reading that I started re-reading the 1st and 2nd Covenant series, and was shocked at how much foreshadowing I missed the first time around. Of course, it helps that I know what is coming this time around...
I have 2 questions about the Convenant series:
1. I am intrigued by the implied Eathpower / air / sun connection. In "Ilearth War," Hile Troy's vision appears to be dependent upon the sun; clouds, rain and nightfall render him effectively blind. In the 2nd Chronicles, Linden comes to realize that the Sunbane isn't due to the sun itself, but the corrupted Earthpower emanating up from the ground acting as a filter or catalyst that the sun interacts with. And in the Final Chronicles so far, Kevin's Dirt is something in the air which hinders the ability to sense/use Earthpower.
Is there something I should see here about the nature of Earthpower, or am I reading too much into this? Given the multiple levels of your books, I suspect the former, but can't rule out the latter.
2. Kastenessen (with Foul's help) was able to break free of his Appointment. I am curious, are other Appointed aware? For example, the Colossus of the Fall? Or Findail - is he still self-aware, potentially able to break out of the new Staff of Law if he so chose, or is he permanently merged with Vain due to the influence of white gold/wild magic? To what extent does being Appointed negate one's identity and existence-completely? Or is being forever aware of oneself and the cost of the task part of the Appointment?
Thanks for the great books, and for taking the time to answer questions about them. Even if it does potentially delay the next Covenant book. I really enjoyed "Fatal Revenant," and can't wait to see how much more misery Linden and the Land (and I) will have to endure in the next book.
|
1. Broadly speaking, I think of Earthpower as the fundamental energy of life. It is inherent to every living aspect of the world. (And since, in a story like this, even "inert" matter is alive in some sense....) But, like energy in our world, its form and function vary dramatically from one context to another, one being to another, one use to another. Of course, the sun is the most overt expression of that life: hence its usefulness as source for Troy's sight; and as an (apparent) source for the Sunbane--although the perverse nature of the energy which the sun (in this case) reflects or boosts is defined by the malice of Lord Foul and his servants. However, it seems safe to assume that *any* manifestation of life/energy can be perverted, given enough malice and will. Because the energy for Kevin's Dirt is drawn from different sources for different purposes than the Sunbane, it naturally manifests itself differently. Is any of this clear? 2. In my view, "being forever aware" is not a necessary quality of Appointment. Remember, first, that Kastenessen was being punished: the other Appointed Elohim (at least the ones we know about) were not. Requiring, say, Findail to remain "aware" when his identity has been effaced in the Staff of Law seems both unreasonable and gratuitously cruel. (02/27/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Tim Koupe: Please forgive my morbid tendency.
Since the Last Chronicles will take another 7 or so years to complete, it suddenly dawned on me that you could perish before then. And while I should be more reverent to *you*, if such a terrible thing were to happen, I think I would be more despondent about the unfinished story. (After all, I'm emotionally attached to your art, not your self)
So, my question is, do you have a contingency plan in place so your adoring fans can get the closure we need for the story in the event of your untimely, and presumably unjust demise? And if not, could you get that going please? (Just kidding of course...kind of..)
|
This has come up before.... I'm sorry. I'm working without a net here myself, and I'm afraid you'll have to do the same. I really don't mean to keep my readers in suspense like this. But if I'm going to live, I have to eat, which means I have to do things like sell books to publishers when I get them written; and once a publisher buys a book, I can't very well expect them not to publish it. But I love life, so I pay close attention to my own well-being. That's the only reassurance I can offer you. (02/29/2008) |
Anthony Buren: Is the Worm a part of the Earth or is the Earth simply built upon the Worm? More to the point can you command the Worm by drinking the Blood of the Earth? If so why wouldn't Linden or the Elohim simply command the Worm never to rouse?
|
I could tell you that the Worm is an inherent part of the Earth's creation--which it is. But I find it more useful to think of such things in symbolic terms. Consider the Worm as a symbol of Death. If you had the Power the Command, would you use it to command Death to simply "stop happening"? If you did, the outcome might surpass your worst nightmares. Disasters of astonishing magnitude result from messing with The Way Life Works. Witness the horrors that have arisen because individuals decided that the Laws of Life and Death shouldn't apply--"just this once." Damelon was wise to do everything in his power to keep people away from the EarthBlood. (03/05/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
J West: Dear Steve,
First I want to thank you for your great stories, and also for the time you spend on the GI. Also, my best friend's mother attended your book signing in Albuquerque and purchased a signed copy of FR, which she sent to me here in chilly Illinois. Very nice!
Now to my question, I just saw this list of Top 50 British writers since 1945 at the Times web site(http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3127837.ece), which was posted Jan 5, 2008. I notice there are a number of fantasy writers on the list, including Tolkien, Lewis, Peake, and more. It would shock me to see that many fantasy writers on an American writers list. Do you have any idea as to why the British literati seem more accepting of fantasy in general? Thank you again.
|
I'm posting this more as a matter of general interest than because I have an answer. I'm confident that you're right: any list of significant US writers compiled by our present "intellectual establishment" would include no fantasy (or science fiction) writers--apart from Ray Bradbury, and (perhaps) Kurt Vonnegut. But why this is true, I can only speculate. One theory is that "real life" in the US has always contained too much that is new and strange and horrible (exploring a continent, slaughtering its inhabitants, becoming a global embodiment of self-righteousness: the list goes on). In context, it's no surprise that many thinking people are inclined to cynicism, irony, despair, black comedy, etc.. (And surely it's no accident that Bradbury and Vonnegut regularly match that template.) Indeed, thinking people here often find comfort in cynicism etc., just as unthinking people find comfort in self-righteousness. But fantasy and science fiction (considered in the broadest possible terms) have two qualities that don't fit in this dark picture: they imply hope (by not being afraid of the new and strange and horrible); and they preach accepting responsibility for the consequences of your own actions (which is not an attitude that anyone would consider characteristic of the US). Just a theory. (03/05/2008) |
Rick T: Mr. Donaldson
I thoroughly enjoyed all of your books to date (I just finished Fatal Revenant last week)! While Im awed and entertained (I mean that in no light sense) by the Gap series, challenged by the Man Who and creatively inspired by your short stories I hold a special place in my heart for TC Chronicles because of who I was (a teenager) when I first came across them, how they changed me as a person and on a more basic level, simply because Lord Fouls Bane was the first book that taught me the appreciation and joy of reading.
Thank you!
With that said, Ive only recently started reading the GI and its with much respect for your craft and process as well as some shame and embarrassment that I bring forward the following item that nagged at me throughout the second (and now third) Chronicles and ask for your thoughts or comments.
When Covenant was first translated to the Land he persisted in his Unbelief through the majority of the trilogy this seems appropriate to me. I understand that its necessary for the story that Linden also become personally vested in the plight of the Land and as the reader we can see the consistency of events between Lindens POV and Covenants (or any of the other POVs for that matter) but were supposed to be using our imagination as readers. Linden didnt have as much experience with Covenant beforehand, doesnt have our advantages as readers and (so far as we know) does not have any interaction with Covenant in the real world after her experiences in the land to confirm them.
Can you offer my overly analytical side any solace or in the very least assuage my fears that some cheap literary trick awaits (eg. Linden wakes up in the hospital to find out that she just dreamt up the whole thing)!
Thank you again,
|
It's only natural that Linden doesn't share Covenant's (earlier) obsession with reality/unreality, even though she lacks his cumulative experience in the Land. She's a different person with different issues--and a different story. Meanwhile, I can assure you that I would rather shoot myself straight in the head than end "The Last Chronicles" with some kind of "cheap trick," literary or otherwise. (03/05/2008) |
Anonymous: Have you ever considered making, or having someone make for you, a page on myspace? It could be an effective advertising tool, for free. It seems like a good way to spread the word to old fans and fans yet to come.
If you didn't have the time or inclination, I'm sure someone who reads this GI or is on Kevin's Watch would be more than happy to take care of it for you.
|
What would be the point? I can't imagine what a myspace page would accomplish that isn't already covered by my web site and the Gradual Interview. Unless you think I would be willing to supply EVEN MORE content? Heaven forfend! Life is too short as it is. (03/05/2008) |
Mr. Moore: Steve,
I almost hate to bother you with such a trifle, but this is really bothering me at the moment. I swear to The Maker that I read this in The Illearth War recently upon a re-read, but for the life of me I can't find where I think I read it.
Does the gem of the krill originate from a piece of the One Stone? I'm almost certain mention was made of a One Stone (I remember being shocked to read it due to certain events from Fatal Revenant), but I can't find it. Maybe this reference was in connection to the orcrest that was given to Covenant in that same book? But it seems that the orcrest is the rock equivalent of the lomillialor, a descendant of the One Tree, not a piece of the original like the Staff of Law.
Can you confirm or deny this for me?
Hail,
Mr. Moore
|
Trees grow, mutate, have descendants. Rocks melt, fuse, get torn apart and recombined. I would hate to limit my narrative options by saying, "Yes, the gem of the krill is a piece of the One Stone [Rock, whatever: One of Something]." But surely it's fair to say that the krill's gem--and orcrest--are descended in some sense from the archetypal concept of *stone*. Like lomillialor, they express or exemplify ideas and powers larger than themselves. (03/12/2008) |
Ben Chambers: I've been pondering lately on the Ur-Viles, how they serve Linden in the Final Chronicles, and how they "turned against" the Despiser by creating Vain. But on my most recent reading of the Second Chronicles, I can't seem to find anything that explicitly states they turned against Foul. The text only says that Foul exposed them to the Sunbane, and we assume it's for creating Vain.
Mainly, I'm wondering how they could have so drastically reinturpreted their Wierd. Or, to put it another way, if their Wierd now requires them to serve Linden, how could they have so drastically misinterpreted it before, that they would serve Lord Foul?
Along with this, and probably in firm spoiler territory (terra firma spoila?), is whether or not we should trust their current intentions. Perhaps they still serve Foul's aims, and seek to accomplish them through assisting Linden to achieve the ruin of the world?
And wrapped up in the middle of all this is Vain. The Elohim seem diametrically opposed to Vain. In a recent answer in the GI, you even stated that Vain wasn't a creation of Law, but was outside Law, just as the lore of the Ur-Viles (his creators) was outside Law. But you also said that his transformation was, in part, effected by his experience at the One Tree. So, my logical query after that is, What would Vain's transformation have been like, if he hadn't been "wounded" at the One Tree? How would the final Staff have been different, and was that more in line with what the Ur-Viles wanted at the time? Would we (through Linden) have been better off, or worse, if that were the case?
I'm sorry to ramble so much, but all of these thoughts are tied up for me, so it's hard to separate just one portion of them! I also understand if you can't answer anything (RAFO - Read And Find Out - is a tortuous answer when I can't read anything new for three more years!), but I'd appreciate any thoughts you could spare on this topic.
|
Is it plausible that the ur-viles have reinterpreted their Weird? First, change is the very definition of life. Second, any living and thinking being is capable of conscious change. Third, any living, thinking being that is able to acquire new knowledge is capable of choices which may be radically different than its previous choices. (I speak from personal experience.) And the ur-viles aren't stupid. After a certain number of millennia trudging around the landscape getting slaughtered at LF's behest, some of them might well have noticed that they were on a self-destructive path. I consider it highly plausible that they are capable of reinterpreting their Weird. But have they actually done so? What do the poor things have to do to earn your trust? "What would Vain's transformation have been like, if he hadn't been "wounded" at the One Tree? How would the final Staff have been different, and was that more in line with what the Ur-Viles wanted at the time? Would we (through Linden) have been better off, or worse, if that were the case?" I'm sorry. This is unanswerable because it takes us outside the bounds of the actual story. (See the long statement by Douglas Adams quoted here months and months ago.) If I were telling a completely different story, what would all the differences be? I have no earthly idea. You're certainly free to speculate as much as you want about what the ur-viles may or may not have been trying to achieve when they created Vain. But I can't help you. (03/12/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Ossie: From the Q&A under from the author on the website:
When I wrote the original "Covenant" trilogy, I had no intention of pursuing either the characters or the setting further. The story seemed complete to me as it stood. But my editor at that time was Lester del Rey, and he was the King of Sequels. As soon as I finished working on The Power that Preserves, he began to push for more "Covenant." Ignoring my protests, he tried to prod me by sending me ideas for a second trilogy....Finally he succeeded at sending me an idea so bad that before I could stop myself I thought, "No, that's terrible, what I really ought to do is--" And there, almost involuntarily, I conceived the stories for both "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles."
The scope and complexity of the story has arguably now become far greater than the original trilogy, and from comments you have made, we aint seen nothing yet. (This evolving of the story, rather than just creating another series of Covenant adventures in the Land, is one of the main reasons this series has always resonated so strongly with me: both the Chronicles & Second Chronicles had already been released before I discovered them). My question is: do you think that, even if Lester del Rey hadnt been pushing, you would eventually have decided to expand on the first Chronicles anyway? (I realise this is almost one of those do you think you would do this if you were a different writer/person questions you love so much *grin*). At the time you were satisfied with the original trilogy, but youve described how stories come to you & stay sitting on your internal bookshelf until they are ready to be written, & one of the reasons the Last Chronicles took so long to start, & is happening now, is that all the other stories that came to you to be written in the meantime had been written, & the internal bookshelf was finally bare apart from this one project you had been putting off for so long. Given what the Covenant universe has become, and the fertile pool of ideas for continuing the story that obviously existed somewhere in your mind, it seems weird to think that none of it would have happened at all if not for LdRs encouragement?
|
I'm sorry. I've never been able to distinguish between my ideas and their inception. To use an obvious analogy: how would I distinguish between my son's (or my daughter's) birth and conception? No matter how you look at it, you don't get the former without the latter. So I have absolutely no way to guess what might or might not have happened if Lester del Rey hadn't provoked me. (03/19/2008) |
Thomas Worthington: Well, I have to say that when I got as far as the answer where you said how much you love Linden I thought I might be in for a bit of a flaming, and I certainly got it!
YOU may have "spent HUNDREDS of hours listening to people whine about what a jerk Covenant is" but it sure wasn't from me! Similarly for the complaints about Linden - I just don't engage with her, I certainly don't agree with any of the common statements you mentioned in your reply (what on earth is supposed to be reprehensible about her!?).
But I do positively LIKE Covenant - I've always identified with and understood his attitude to the Land and its people and with how he dealt with them and ultimately came to terms with his situation.
To answer *your* question (" can't help wondering why you're still here.") the answer is that I really like the books and the story and the setting and the writing - I even quite enjoy looking all the new words up in the dictionary. I'm just missing TC and finding Linden a poor substitute - the backpack analogy was a very accurate depiction of my feelings about her. That's hardly reason to chuck everything else out.
|
This takes me back years, to the days when circumstances compelled me to explain why *criticism* ("constructive" or otherwise) doesn't belong in the Gradual Interview. Briefly: I didn't ask for it, and it cannot possibly help me; so it exists only to serve the ego of the critic. Your insistence on telling me that reading about Linden is like lugging around a backpack is the same thing in a different guise. What do you hope to gain by telling me? You can't believe that you're doing me good (that would be absurd)--and this subject cannot be emotionally neutral--so you must be trying to do me harm. For some reason. It's amazing to me how often people use "telling the truth" to someone else as an excuse for not being honest about their own motives for doing so. (03/19/2008) |
Andrew Olivier: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever (first chronicles) will remain my favorite story, or one of my top three, for the rest of my life.
When Thomas Covenant came upon his first Waynhim, the murdered one in 'Lord Foul's Bane', he soon realized that it was a natural part of the life of the Land, yet the new Staff of Law is inimical to the Waynhim.
I think there might be an inconsistency in that and would very much like to hear your view.
|
It's all in how you look at it. You could, with perfect justice, call that an inconsistency. I could, with equal justice, counter that Covenant is *very* new to health-sense, so he hardly knows what it means--and he's never laid eyes on the Staff of Law (or heard about the existence of Law? maybe? I can't remember), so he has no way of recognizing that the slain Waynhim isn't *really* natural. Or we could just shrug, admit that we're both human <rueful smile>, and go on with our lives. Here's the truth. The way I think about every aspect of this subject ("Law," "natural," "health-sense," etc.) has changed significantly over the years. No sudden radical shifts, but a gradual modulation as my characters and I study the issues more and more deeply. One very obvious example: look at the role health-sense plays in the first trilogy, and compare it to "The Last Chronicles". Well, the fact that I push as hard as I do to "go further" has one unfortunate (but perhaps inevitable) consequence: it produces inconsistencies like this one (or like the fact that nothing in the first six books hints at the existence of the Insequent). Naturally I wish I were capable of perfect consistency. But that would require that I foresaw everything that would ever happen--to my story, or to me--before I even started on LFB. So I'm forced to shrug yet again, and move on. (03/19/2008) |
John Arsenault: My library of favorite books includes "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant", "The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" and the first two books of "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant".
Recently I purchased a Kindle (ebook reader) from Amazon.com and the ebook versions of "The Runes Of Earth" and "Fatal Revenant". Having these books in this format makes it so much easier to have my favorites when traveling.
Will "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" and "The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" series be available in this ebook format in the near future? I hope so!
Thanks for listening,
John
|
The earlier "Covenant" books may become available in e-formats...someday. As I've said before in this interview, my publisher and I are at a contractual impasse. And the situation is deteriorating as publishers become increasingly punative in their treatment of authors. (By "publishers" I don't mean editors: I mean the multinational conglomorates that own the publishers.) Nevertheless my agent and I are still trying to a find a way. Maybe someday we'll succeed. And maybe someday Scott Brick will succeed at releasing his audio version of "Fatal Revenant". Who knows? (03/19/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Nate in Atlanta: Stephen,
I've been reading the Thomas Covenant series since the early 80s, and have long been bugged by one issue: The main characters, Thomas and Linden, go for days, weeks -- months even! -- without changing their clothes.
Don't they start to stink? Or does The Land possess even greater powers than we know about?
Thanks,
Nate
|
Well, of *course* they start to stink. But this is obviously not a subject on which I've focused much narrative attention. Why? Because it takes up too much storytelling space. And because, well, where does it end? Do you want to know *every* time a character takes a leak, or is every *other* time enough? However, my characters *do* either change or wash their clothes--when they can. (Not so much the people of the Land, I admit: we seldom hear that one of them has done something to get cleaned up.) I could cite examples; but I hardly think they're necessary. (03/19/2008) |
kamelda: Mr. Donaldson, thanks for your kind reply to my very confusing question (I had a hard time following it on rereading: I'm sorry). I've tried to think of how to say what I mean more precisely but unfortunately I'm not a very precise person. I'll take the concrete example of the last part your response: having a functional stance as a writer is more important than committing to truth, if truth is narrow and objective. (I hope that is not misinterpreting what you said.) This is then a value assessment, a belief about what is real, what really matters. It is impossible that you should also be able at the same time to think it more important to know a narrow and objective truth than to have a functional stance as a writer. The mind cannot hold to both things at once: it's against reason -- A cannot be A and ~A. (Whereas it may be sometimes against 'sense' in the natural meaning of the word to believe in God but it is not a contradiction in reason. Indeed even a belief in 'sense' requires faith). The will can't hold to both things at the same time: it chooses always one thing and rejects all others. Whatever broad beliefs a person holds to the very organ that chooses broadness, chooses exclusively: at some point even 'broadmindedness' must refuse to accept something like narrowmindedness to remain broad. At that point of rejection it has itself become narrow (I know you could say all of this better than me, having read and enjoyed Chesterton). Narrowness and exclusivity can't be got away from by making ethics a personal matter: ultimately everyone still believes that reality -however they define it- is one thing and not any other, and the reality they believe this about is shared by others. If this has any correspondence to the way things are and isn't simply a meaningless subjective process, then reality really is one thing: and some people are mistaken about it. The ending seemed to downplay that aspect of things, to make the dilemma of what we choose less important than an effort that can only (if I've explained at all) reinforce the dilemma; and that seems too easy.
I understand -- I think well -- what you are saying about a functional stance in writing. But I don't know that history is with you. Most of our classics have been written by people with pretty narrow belief commitments? I think this not only gave them something to say to others but insight into situations, characters, etc. I think you also believe that for anyone being cruel is not equally as valid as being compassionate, loving your children and nurturing them not equally as valid as abusing them; giving up hope and effort not as valid as fighting for something hoped for even if not believed. This strengthens your work and makes it more significant: it commits you to an objective problem of evil; an objective good that is narrowed by what contradicts it. Also is not it something of a narrow belief about what reality is like to think that a functional stance as a writer matters more than committing to right/wrong truth? Is it not a belief about what matters a belief about what is true? And yet you write stupendously. Indeed I think you're the best living author I've read.
Ultimately I would disagree about the value of truth: I'm sure that is why I find anything less than a commitment to lose all and find it as a solution to a problem about reality 'too easy': but I don't mean to turn your discussion into something it isn't meant to be (I didn't honestly mean to dwell on that part of my first question). Thanks for your patience and the opportunity to ask you some questions. I hope I explained myself better and am sorry for being imprecise, lengthy --& if I've misunderstood. (& I'm still interested in tracking down why people seem independently to conceive of giants as specially joyful. Even the jolly green giant...)
|
This has been a rather thorny discussion. <rueful smile> For some reason, we've had trouble finding ways to understand each other. And yet I've had the impression that if we could just clarify our thoughts in ways that make sense to each other, we would find ourselves more in agreement than not. Now you've given me some further clues to comprehension; and I think (?) maybe (?) I've identified the point where our wires get crossed (if you'll forgive the metaphor). As I recall, you originally felt that Covenant's "solution" to his conundrum (the impossibility of believing the Land is real vs the impossibility of believing the Land is not real) was "too easy". If I understand you, you've argued that simply deciding "the conundrum doesn't matter" doesn't resolve anything because it doesn't risk anything (which is why it's too easy). Is that a fair (if over-simplified) statement of your position? Then you observe that, while as writers I (and others) may make equal commitments to the viewpoints/beliefs of opposing characters, the very fact that we do so affirms a "value" which is not comparable to Covenant's "real/unreal" paradox. In this, your position (I repeat: if I understand it) is unassailable. I simply cannot simultaneously treat my characters with dignity AND dismiss them as fools and charlatans. Again, is this a fair statement of your position? Well, if I'm right so far, then I've identified the point at which our miscommunication occurs. Covenant's story doesn't stop when he recognizes the nature of his "real/unreal" conundrum. Nor does it stop when he (and I) conclude that "the conundrum doesn't matter". No, those positions merely clear the way for, or enable, exactly what you're looking for: "a commitment to lose all and [perhaps] find it". Covenant's final confrontation with LF in "The Power that Preserves" *does* represent an absolute commitment--with absolutely everything at stake (for himself as well as for the Land). But that commitment is not, "Yes, the Land is real," or "No, the Land is not real." His commitment might be (crudely) paraphrased as, "I don't care whether the Land is real or not. It has become desperately important to me. In fact, it *is* me whether it exists objectively or not. And I've done terrible harm to it--as I have to myself. So I'm willing to sacrifice everything and anything, including my life, in an effort to counter that harm with affirmation." Or, putting the whole issue another way: how Covenant chooses to understand his dilemma merely reflects how he thinks. How he *acts* in response to that dilemma reflects the scale of his commitment. And I think that his willingness to risk everything counters your argument that his resolution is too easy. Or, putting it even more crudely: if I'm willing to risk everything for my beliefs, you can conclude that I'm crazy, stupid, misguided, or even evil, but you can NOT conclude that what I'm doing is "too easy". (03/21/2008) |
george ellis: I find it interesting (and not a little frustrating) how unsure and insecure your two main heroes have been. while so many of the characters around them demonstrate only complete faith and 100% belief in their various abilities and contributions and fortitude (e.g., the Haruchai, the giants, etc.), Linden Avery and Covenant before her always doubt both the puissance of their various talismans or of their own resolve. I mean, seriously, the Haruchai? I do not understand why Linden must continually experience trepidation with respect to these fools. Hasn't she only recently returned from rending an entire mountain (Melekurion Skyweir)? I don't know, but it seems that if I knew I possessed the power to rend the world's greatest mountain on behalf of my efforts to save my son's life, then I cannnot imagine how I would ever doubt my ability to push aside (without hurting anything more than their infinite pride) a few Haruchai. Seriously? I don't know, her self-doubt seems out of all proportion to the power she wields. I just cannot imagine having an entire world to save and continuing to credit (with forbearance) the meddlesome, irksome, judgments of these self-styled masters of naught. I guess, ultimately, I believe that she's mentally weaker than she has any reason to be. And I find some amount of chauvinism in this with respect to her. Covenant's doubts arose from other sources and, therefore, seems more explicable.
|
The short answer is that I write about characters I can understand; and since I'm riddled with self-doubt myself.... But "mentally weaker than she has any reason to be"? Surely you jest. Self-doubt and mental weakness are *not* the same thing--unless self-doubt becomes paralysis. And Linden is obviously *not* paralyzed. In fact, she has fought bigger battles, and wielded more power, than Covenant ever did (or else the Worm would have been roused). That doesn't sound like mental weakness--or chauvenism--to me. But power does not breed confidence. *Success* (in the personal sense) breeds confidence. Experience breeds confidence. And Linden (in "The Last Chronicles") has not had either the kind of success or the kind of experience that would counteract her instinctive self-doubt. (03/21/2008) |
Michael Parada: Hello Mr. Donaldson - No question really. I just wanted to pass on this recent article from the NY Times addressing genre writing. It touches on some things you've mentioned here in the Gradual Interview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/weekinreview/03mcgrath.html
Thanks so much for ALL your work. I can't wait for the Chronicles to continue.
Michael.
|
I'm posting this as a matter of general interest. It underscores at least some of the absurdity which prompts most distinctions between "literary," "mainstream" fiction and "genre" literatures. (03/21/2008) |
W.Springer: Hello Sai Donaldson, I have written before mostly just saying how much i loved the books and I'm also the same person who read each of your Covenant Chronicles books into Mp3 format for my own use of course...and now im writing because I have been working on something for a little while now..just when i have extra time ;) anyway its a new version or a revamped version of the land.. a mixture of three or more computer programs. Vue d'esprit - Bryce for the landscape and alot of Photoshop to connect it all together. here is the link where you can view it..you may have to copy/paste it
http://mysite.verizon.net/reswzwrs/billytiffbackgrounds/
there are two other images on that page that were land inspired also, I hope you have time to check it out, the map of the land most of all, and thank you again because your creativity inspires creativity. and if you don't like the map dont be afraid to tell me. Take care and best wishes
W.Springer
|
Thank you for sharing this. The way things look to you is not the way things look to me--but that's not important. What I like best in your efforts is your ability to make these places look alive. (03/22/2008) |
Kevin (Wayfriend): Mr. Donaldson,
Discussions of the Final Chronicles often involve wondering if a character (okay, Linden :grin:) is making a mistake at one point or another. Which can then lead to discussions about what kinds of mistakes an author (okay, you :grin:) might choose for a character to make. A story that ends in "Oops, I goofed," doesn't seem very appealing, but neither is one where characters perfectly come to the correct decisions.
Can you share any thoughts you have on what guides your story development in this respect? How do you decide when a character needs to be right, and when their being wrong serves the story? How is it tied to giving them respect as you create them?
|
We could have a truly excruciating discussion here that begins by trying to define things like "mistake" and expands to include mistakes made by authors as well as mistakes made by characters. But I am *so* not in the mood.... <rueful smile> Instead I'll just say: If you accept the notion that "The ends do not justify the means," then you also have to accept that "The ends cannot be used to evaluate the means." And yet somehow I suspect that every "mistake" attributed to, say, Linden involves judging her actions by their outcomes. As it happens, there are no words adequate to describe how completely I do *not* think in such terms while I'm working. From my perspective, none of my characters has *ever* made a mistake. How can I say that? 1) Because if they didn't do what they do, there wouldn't be a story. And 2) because if they didn't do what they do, they wouldn't be who they are--which would mean that *I*, rather than my characters, have screwed up. If you want to argue that an action can be called a mistake when it produces a terrible outcome, then simple logic requires you to argue also that the ends justify the means. But if people like Covenant and Linden believed that the ends justify the means, you could have kissed the Land goodby a long time ago. (03/22/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Allen Stroud: Hi Stephen, my second question - some time since I last posted.
Are you aware Russell T. Davies is using your Seven Words in the second Season of Torchwood? In Episode 7/13 the character Owen "dies" and is then possessed by an alien entity that turns his eyes black. Then he speaks the seven words. Sent a shiver up my spine when I heard it.
|
Considering that I had never even heard of Torchwood before this, Im surprised to find so many messages posted about the episode, Dead Man Walking. In the interest of making some progress on AATE occasionally <sigh>, Im not going to respond to every message. But my view of the quote in question is: if it isnt a) an homage or b) an in-joke, then its just stupid. I suggest that we all simply enjoy it for whatever we think it is. Unless the makers of Torchwood know something I dont? <muffled gasp> (03/23/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Alan: Thank you for the response to my question.
So it now looks like we have 'real' and 'illusional' defeats of Foul.
So if the defeats of Foul are real and we know that the only power able to preseve him is earth power itself, then is Foul now an 'illusion'?
thanks
Alan
|
Im embarrassed to admit that I dont remember the response you mention. I cant answer your question because I dont recall the context of my previous remarks. (03/23/2008) |
Catcher: Hi Steve,
I write music (contemporary classical) as a hobby, and find it interesting to compare what you periodically say in the GI about the craft of writing with my (limited) experience with the craft of musical composition.
You have said that you listen to opera, often while writing. Have you ever tried or considered writing music? Do you think some of your abilities and skills as a writer are transferable to musical composition?
I usually credit what you say about writing to some significant extent apply to musical composition. Like: having a routine and a separate place/isolation helps to be productive; every writer works differently so "how-to" advice is useless; get over being intimidated by other authors since creativity is not a competition. Am I making a big mistake here? :-)
The one big doubt I have is how far your process for plotting is viable for writing music. If I'm not mistaken, you have said that your process is to know the key points about the entire story, especially the ending (almost: "from which you work backwards"), before starting writing. I don't write music that way, and wonder if there are composers who do/if I should try :-). Usually, I start with a form (fast-slow-fast; major-minor-major; etc.) and then brainstorm either a melodic theme or some interesting harmony. And then let that seed take the music where it wants to go, under the constraint of the chosen form. So before I start writing, I don't really know what the piece is going to sound like.
Regards,
Catcher
|
When I was young (high school and college), I tried my hand at a variety of creativities, including comic books and opera. But I soon discovered that I lacked the necessary gifts. Ive always believed that there are no right or wrong ways to approach being creative: there are only the ways that work for you and the ways that dont work for you. Things like the need to establish a routine, or to devise some kind of isolation from sources of distraction, appear to be fairly universal--although how individuals put those concepts into practice varies dramatically (I know writers who find isolation from sources of distraction in very loud bars). In contrast, things like how I go about planning my stories dont appear to be even remotely universal. I know writers who plan nothing except the first sentence. When theyre satisfied with the first sentence, they start to plan the second. And so on until they reach the end of whatever it is. I know writers who write the various scenes of a story in random order, often starting with the conclusion and then moving on to whatever happens to interest them next. I know of a writer who only wrote outlines: he started with a one paragraph outline, expanded it to a one page outline, expanded that to two pages, then to four, then to sixteen, still writing only outlines, until his outline became indistinguishable from a finished book. And those are only fiction writers. Include non-fiction, poetry, painting, sculpture, pottery, drama, weaving, and--if I may be so bold--music, and it quickly becomes obvious that were talking about a question to which there cannot be any right answers. There are only individual answers; and every individual has to find them for him/herself. (03/23/2008) |
Matthew Yenkala: OK, this question has, I'm sure, never been asked this forum. It's waaaaaaaaaaaay outside the text, and I don't expect a serious answer, since it would require you to "invent" something you (probably) don't need. But I'm going to ask it anyway, to see what sort of, ahem, droll and pithy reply you come up with! (Yes, I'm placing that pressure on you!)
Ready? (drumroll!)
What was Kevin's Watch called...
BEFORE Kevin, um, "watched" there?
That's it.
Pith away!
|
I suspect Kevins predecessors called it, I wonder when that leaning rock way up there is going to fall down." (03/23/2008) |
A Fine Messiah: Messiah Figures Berek, Barack: Coincidence?
|
OK. If I stretch a bit, I guess I can see Berek as a messianic figure. But do you mean Barack Obama or Barack the husband in Die Frau ohne Schatten? [note to self: check German spelling] If the former, he hasnt really had a chance to do anything messianic yet. Assuming he has that in him. If the latter, he doesnt really fit the role. (03/23/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Anonymous: February 8, 2008
Steven R. Donaldson
Internet Website
Dear Mr. Steven R. Donaldson:
Hi, my name is Kristopher Nelson, and I am a huge fan of your books. I just thought I aught to send a letter congratulating you on your amazing work, and to say that your books have greatly influenced my own writing. I particularly love your books, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant: The Unbeliever. Even though I hate Thomas more times than not, you have made him so believable and have breathed so much life into him and the world around him, that it captivated me until the end of the story. And even then I was thirsting for more!
I am not sure if this is actually the right spot to be posting this kind of letter, in truth the instructions werent real clear on that, but I had to tell you how much I appreciated your writings and that I am looking forward to your next book. Heres hoping that it is just as amazing as the others.
Your Fan,
Kristopher Nelson
|
This seems like an opportunity to make a procedural point about the Gradual Interview. When I post an answer to your message, your e-mail address is automatically suppressed: a small courtesy intended to protect your privacy. But when you first leave a message for me, if you dont include your e-mail address, you prevent me from sending you a personal response instead of a public one. And I think its obvious that your message was never really intended for a public forum. So please give me your e-mail address--unless you want to take the chance that I might feel forced to delete your message unanswered. (03/23/2008) |
Gary Schwartz: I'm a big fan. I read LFB in 7th grade, nearly 30 years ago, and I've since read everything you've published - I think.
You mentioned on July 3, 2007 that you do not hold the rights to grant composers permission to set the Chronicles. I am a composer and I am interested in setting your poem "My heart has rooms" from WGW. I have two questions:
1) Would you mind if I set your poem to music?
2) Would you tell me to whom to send my request for permission?
|
1) I dont mind at all. In fact, Im flattered. 2) If I were you, I wouldnt bother asking permission. The rights are held by Ballantine Books; and they are notoriously unresponsive in cases like yours. As long as you give full and appropriate credit for the poem, any sensible publisher will view your efforts as free advertising. And even a stupid publisher couldnt try to punish you because a) you have *my* permission, and b) you can defend yourself under the fair use clause of my contract (as long as you give due credit). Now if you wanted to set *all* the Covenant poems--or the whole story--or everything I ever wrote <grin>--you would probably need formal permission. Something that extensive wouldnt be considered fair use. (03/23/2008) |
Charlie Clark: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
just finished reading Fatal Revenant which I much enjoyed although I'm *still* struggling to empathise with Linden Avery's motivation. Like many others I've searched for audio versions of the first two series as a way of "catching up" on what I read over twenty years ago with my copies of the books back in England. You note correctly that there have been no audio book publications of the whole series. However, it might be worth noting that the National Library Service has indeed made recordings of all books of the first two series. I think access to the books is restricted but nevertheless maybe a helpful resource:
http://www.loc.gov/cgi-bin/zgate.nls?ACTION=INIT&FORM_HOST_PORT=/prod/www/data/nls/catalog/index.html,z3950.loc.gov,7490&CI=054433
Suffice it to say a couple of the recordings have found their way onto the internet.
Looking forward to the next installment!
Charlie Clark
|
Another general interest message. I have nothing new to offer. But if Scott Brick is ever able to carry out his original intentions, readings of all the Covenant books will eventually be available in unabridged commercial versions. Im keeping my fingers crossed. (03/23/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Lindsay: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
This is pretty self-serving, but a couple readers have recently mentioned the vocabulary in TCTC, and I just so happen to have a website that lists and defines "ten-dollar words" used in TCTC (www.gdiproductions.net/srdamd). Tragically, the word list lacks an entry for "X" and "Z." Anyway, I hope its existence is amenable to you--and if it isn't I will modify or remove it.
Best,
Lindsay
|
I don't think it's "self-serving": I think it's fun. I hope your site will be of interest to readers of the Gradual Interview. (03/24/2008) |
dlbpharmd: How old is Anele? Does the Earthpower within him extend his life as it did Kevin's?
|
Yes, Anele's heritage of Earthpower does extend his life--as it did that of his parents. I haven't tried to assign him an exact age; but the logic of the story suggests that he must be over 100. Perhaps well over. (03/24/2008) |
Emo. Leper: Mister Donaldson:
Thank you very much for responding to my inquiry. My question is this: How were the original Forestals, such as (I assume) Caerroil Wildwood, created? Did the Mind of the One Forest create them from nothing, or were they created similiarly to how Caerroil Wildwood created Caer-Caveral -- from Hile Troy, a human?
In advance, many thanks, not only for answering this question, but for writing such an excellent series of books.
|
It seems likely--not to mention fitting--that the One Forest used humans as the "raw materials" for Forestals. After all, it was humans who damaged the Forest so badly that it needed defenders. (03/24/2008) |
Anonymous: Hello Mr Donaldson.
I just read another Gradual Interview question relating to the completion of your current work should you expire. Again I was offended by this rudeness towards you. Knowing what I know of martial arts, (I've dabbled a little,)and also knowing the long years you have trained at them, I would expect you have spent quite some time doing push ups, sit ups and a lot of other fitness related activities. Perhaps some video footage,of you punching through a cinder block or some equivelant, attached to this site might answer all enquiries concerning your vigour.
Daniel Wolf
|
I don't think of it as rudeness. I consider it a fairly natural anxiety about the uncertainties of life. After all, we've lost a number of valuable members of the sf/f community in recent years: David Gemmell, Charles L. Grant, Jack Williamson, Fred Saberhagen, now Arthur C. Clarke, and others. It's not surprising that readers are feeling vulnerable to mortality. As I am myself. But I'm still healthy enough to be a punching bag for martial arts students a third my age. <grin> (03/24/2008) |
Mike Brown: Mr. Donaldson,
I did have a question that I could not locate on the GI: Do you, or have you considered, offering your books (autographed) through yourself or a surrogate? I would think it would increase sales and revenue considerably if you stocked up a few thousand copies of your various titles and, for a premium, offered signed editions on your website. Perhaps even buying up those copies that didn't sell at retail rather than letting them languish in the $ bin and recycling them with autographs. For those of us who are unlikely to meet you personally, this would be a great service. I have a friend who does this but his books are relatively small runs by a private publisher and maybe that makes a difference on your ability (contractually) to do something like this. Thank you for time and for this forum which is truly fascinating. Mike
|
On more than one occasion, people have urged me to do this (usually people who stand to profit by it). I resist on general principles. First, I don't think anyone should have to pay a "premium" for an autographed book. Second, I'm not willing to make the various efforts involved (shipping books back and forth with a dealer in autographs; or traveling to the dealer so that I don't have to ship books back and forth; or going into the bookselling business myself--which would be a huge hassle because I'd have to file a bunch of paperwork with the state and pay gross receipts tax) on "spec". Third, my autograph is already available for free. And fourth--well, I don't actually understand why people want autographs in the first place. I never have. (03/26/2008) |
Jon Dahl: Stephen,
Its an honor for me to write to you. I hope that you read this and that I can be an encouragement to you.
I'm almost 40 now(scary) and am proud to say that your books were a big part of my reading while in Junior and Senior High(as were LeGuin, Tolkien and too much D&D).
I recently commissioned in the Army National Guard and need to finish my Bachelor's Degree and wondered about any suggestions you might have about schooling. I was going to finish a Business Administration degree would schooling help me with the basics of writing or would you recommend just starting to write? I sometimes feel my life experience isn't enough or too self-centered to use. I used to have a good imagination, I'd like to use it again.
Bless you and thank you for the excellent storytelling. Excellent climax in Fatal Revenant, you did surprise me again!
|
If you want to write, I strongly recommend *studying* writing--as well as actually writing. "Schooling" isn't inherently necessary (you can study on your own), although most people find the imposed structure as well as the guidance of schooling helpful. But I don't see how anyone who isn't a student of writing can hope to be any good at writing. But "I sometimes feel my life experience isn't enough or too self-centered to use"??? "Vanity, vanity, all is vanith, saith the preacher: there is nothing new under the sun." Except you. No writer has anything to offer his/her readers, except him/herself. If your "life experience" is inadequate, to "too self-centered," what was it *for*? (03/26/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Michael from Santa Fe: I have a question about a very minor thing that happens at the end of White Gold Wielder. Before Covenant and Linden enter Kiril Threndor and the final confrontation with Foul, they encounter the Ravers. One of them unbuttons (or starts to unbutton) Linden's shirt. If I remember correctly, I believe they are trying to provoke Covenant to unleash the white gold and break the Arch? I have always assumed that by unbuttoning her shirt they were going to sexually assault her in front of Covenant, correct? But they also could have provoked him just as easily by beating her I would think. So, my real question, if I'm on the right track with the above, was the fact that the Ravers were going to assault her in that way a mockery of his own crimes?
|
I doubt that the Raver "could have provoked" Covenant "just as easily by beating" Linden. Sexual threats are pretty much always more intimate and, well, primal than ordinary physical punishment. And of course (as you observe) the provocation of a sexual assault is exacerbated for Covenant by the fact that he has committed a similar crime himself. Threatening Linden with rape seems well-calculated to set Covenant off. (03/26/2008) |
Brad Glen: Hi Stephen,
Hope you are well, I have a question for you if you will please indulge me, and I am afraid it is on a topic that you have no doubt been questioned on many times since the release of Lord Foul's Bane. Yes, it concerns Covenant's rape of Lena (I can almost hear you sighing in resignation. Bear with me!)
On my morning commute today, I happened to notice the woman opposite me was reading the collected First Chronicles. She had obviously read up to and beyond the point in question, and I was almost burning to ask her how, as a woman, she felt about this (of course I dont wish to imply that a male would find the act any less deplorable, but seldom are we, thankfully, the victims, and therefore perhaps lack a sense of...reality about it?). This being England of course, I chose not to be so impolite as to interrupt her, but it made me think. Is there a common reaction that your female readers have to this particular act, and if so, what form does it take? It is, after all, an extraordinarily sensitive subject. Clearly you have many female readers that have read the passage and gone on to enjoy your books none-the-less. I for one, however, know of one female reader that chose not to read on past the point of the attack. Although I regretted her decision, I cannot judge her for it - it was not that the attack was in the text; merely from that point on, she found Covenant repulsive. Has this been a common reaction?
Thanks Stephen, best wishes to you and yours.
Brad Glen
London,UK
|
I have no data that would enable me to offer you a meaningful answer. Both male and female readers have informed me that they threw "Lord Foul's Bane" away after the rape. Both male and female readers have informed me that they "got past" the rape, and were very glad that they did so. And some male and female readers have read all six of the previous books, even though they found Covenant "repulsive" throughout. But this is sporadic, anecdotal evidence: it has no statistical validity (the "sampling" is too small and random to suggest "trends" of any kind). I have no idea what constitutes "a common reaction," either for men or for women. Certainly the readers who post questions and messages on this site do not comprise a valid statistical sampling in any useful sense. The evidence here is unnaturally weighted in favor of readers who like what I do. (03/26/2008) |
Matthew Black: Hi Mr Donaldson,
Firstly, thank you so much for your wonderful books. Having finished Fatal Revenant, I've restarted the entire epic again with Lord Foul's Bane. One scene that struck me especially on this reading was when Covenant re-read his first bestseller and manuscript after returning home from hospital, and was so appalled he immediately burnt them. Such a harrowing experience when you stop to think about it.
Running the risk of assuming you can interpret a piece of fiction as solely a reflection of the author's personal experiences (which is really not my intent), I was wondering whether in this instance that powerful image was inspired by an experience that you had endured with your own writing? I would be fascinated to know whether this was the case, but realise this might be something personal to you if so, and completely understand if you prefer not to answer.
I've waffled entirely too long, so I'll conclude by wishing you good luck with your future writing and all the best in all things.
Thanks again,
Matthew
|
The scene you describe was a piece of imaginative projection. I've never done anything like that myself, but I've imagined it with intense horror. At some point during the first draft of "Lord Foul's Bane"--in reaction, if memory serves, to a comment made by a friend of mine--I realized that I had only one copy of what I was writing (not even a carbon); and the house I was living in was a tinderbox (compare Covenant's home on Haven Farm). The thought of what might happen nearly made me pass out. After which I began my obsessive practice of having backups everywhere. Clearly something deep within me was utterly appalled at the idea that my work might be destroyed. Of course, I knew the famous story about Carlisle (although I've now forgotten all the details): if I remember rightly, his dog knocked over a table, spilling his (only) manuscript into his fireplace; and ten years of work went up in flames. That may have played a role in inspiring my horror. But my horror was--in a manner of speaking--vindicated years later when a computer malfunction deleted five new pages of one of my mystery novels. I was so upset I almost stepped in front of a truck. And no--since you sort of asked--I'm not going to mention my childhood. Although I enjoy blaming my parents as much as the next man. <grin> Anyway, my point--if I have one--is that I put on Covenant terrors that I've never been able to face directly in my own life. Hence the "harrowing" resonance of that scene. (03/26/2008) |
Robert Murnick: Hello Sir,
How powerful is hurtloam? I think that it can't regenerate a severed body part or cure blindness, but healing leprosy is certainly a testament to it's abilities. Suppose someone with diabetes or terminal cancer or AIDS was translated to the Land. Would hurtloam render them clean?
|
We've stepped way outside the text again. And we're violating the vague-but-essential relationship between Covenant and the Land. But sure, it sounds plausible to assume that hurtloam could heal the illnesses you cite. If such ailments ever occur in a magical reality like the one I've devised. (03/26/2008) |
Josh: Hi Steve,
I apologize if any question of this sort has been asked already, but I searched the current Gradual Interview database for a bit and couldn't come up with anything that satisfied me. Thanks in advance for answering my question.
Undoubtedly, my reading of your work (or any work) is filtered through my own perspective at the time. Presently, I am very concerned with belief systems around the world, why such beliefs/ideas/philosophies exist, and their consequences. Obviously, that's extremely broad. I say it only to help you understand where part of my mind is when I'm reading your books--to help you identify what MY filter is.
As such, I tend to find numerous interactions in your books that are centered around conflicting beliefs. Oh, assuredly they are. (I couldn't resist. I actually considered writing this whole post in the entertaining language of the Mahdoubt.) Often times, large groups in Chronicles tend to operate under a system of beliefs that reason would deem fallacious. Just to give give a couple examples, I have the people of the land during the time of the Clave and the Haruchai in mind (as well as most people of the land while the Haruchai are the Masters of the land).
The Haruchai operate with a naive absolutist mentality. That is, they have established a clear set of rules and values with which to govern ALL of their actions in every scenario. They are rigid and inflexible in these beliefs. Inevitably, they encounter situations where one of their rules dictate they act in a certain way while another dictates they act in quite the opposite way. Contradiction and ensues. They don't see the folly of this mentality, however, (at least not yet in my reading), and they continue to try to abide by their system of rules. They instead seem to resolve to establish a hierarchy of rules (ie. rule A overrules rule B if they come into conflict). This is observed when they choose to give their loyalty to Covenant over Linden when they appear to oppose each other (this is a bad example, but I think you get the idea).
The people of the land during the time of the Clave and the Masters appear to blindly follow orders without question (something nearly of us have been asked to do while growing up in our respective cultures). A spurious belief system ensues. I see this as analogous to the West's colonization of Africa (I lived in Cameroon for 6 months: more of my filtered perspective), where people of [insert colonizer's religion here] were sent any given number of locations to establish an education system for the children where they would additionally be taught the colonizer's religion. It goes beyond just religion, of course, to everyday ethics or political ideology etc. The result is, after a few generations, the indigenous peoples of the colonized territory end up "blindly" sharing their colonizer's beliefs.
I don't mean to suggest that you had the colonization of Africa in mind when you wrote the Second Chronicles. I am simply wondering if you were consciously establishing a parallel to things such as this that you noted in the real world. I am interested in understanding your thought processes involved in the creation of your world and its people. How did things chronologically play out? For example, did you just have the Haruchai available and did you want to sort of turn them into semi-villains for the Last Chronicles, and, therefor, did you look for some way in which to do that? Or did you plan to include a belief system conflict such as this in your work, and then decide to use the Haruchai for this, since they had characteristics that were susceptible to such a system? Was it neither? A little of both? I'm just interested, as I often am when I read great author's works.
Your stories are just so full of psychology, fantasy, philosophy, and so many other elements, each of which is amazingly entertaining to follow by itself. When they're all woven together into one tale, it becomes endless entertainment and a non-stop thinking exercise. The Covenant series is definitely my favorite of all time, whatever my perspective.
Again, thanks in advance for your response,
Josh
|
I've been putting off responding to your thoughtful message because, well, because it's had me stumped. Now, however, I think I've figured out what my problem is. It appears to me--and I could be wrong--that beneath the surface your question is about *polemics* (which for purposes of discussion I'll define as "the advocacy or criticism of one or more belief systems": an admittedly idiosyncratic definition which nonetheless serves to help me think). But I'm not a polemicist: I'm a storyteller. In other words, I don't set out to write about themes or issues: I set out to write stories. Along the way, I do try to discover and explore the themes and issues that seem to me to be inherent in those stories. But I strive--hard--to never ever EVER impose my own agendas or "filters" on my stories. Of course, my goal in writing is impossible. Not to mention self-contradictory. I can't turn off who I am ("filters" and all) when I write. And if I could, what would be the point? Ultimately *I* (the whole package of intelligence, imagination, stories, sympathies, passions, filters, beliefs, etc.) am all I have to offer my readers. Nevertheless the way I think about my work is important to me. In itself, it's a filter: a belief about the significance and requirements of creative integrity. Like the Land's Creator, my policy is one of, well, non-interference. <rueful smile> That said, however.... Your observations about systems of belief in "The Chronicles" are certainly apt. (I might argue with your assertion that "The people of the land during the time of the Clave and the Masters appear to blindly follow orders without question.... A spurious belief system ensues." I'm not inclined to criticize people who follow a belief system that obviously *works*: it keeps them alive--and it kills them when they don't follow it. For the villagers, anyway, the belief system is demonstrably *not* spurious: it accurately predicts the real experience of real individuals. Sure, the Clave's teachings *are* spurious: the Clave is lying about the intended purpose of those teachings. But the people in, say, Mithil Stonedown couldn't possibly know that. And they couldn't do anything about it if they did know it.) My point is simply that I didn't set out to write a story about systems of belief. Instead I created characters--and then tried to follow the "logic" of their personal realities to their natural conclusions. The fact that the story clearly *is* about systems of belief is a symptom of who I am rather than a statement about my intentions. Could that be any less clear? I hope not. <grin> I'm trying to be as murky as I can. So "who I am" in this context--my pertinent filter--involves what I choose to call "imperialism". My life has taught me a deep repugnance for imperialism in all of its guises, physical, racial, commercial, religious, political, whatever. I can't ignore that: it's bred in the bone. And in the specific case of "The Chronicles," I don't *want* to ignore it: it fits the story (which is, after all, about a man who--for his own survival--tries to reject one system of belief in favor of another). Here's another way to say pretty much the same thing: your reading of the story is accurate, but it does not accurately reflect my reasons for telling the story. Which you probably already knew. <sigh> (04/02/2008) |
Ben Chambers: I'm currently reading "The Man Who" series for the first time, and I'm in the middle of "The Man Who Tried to Get Away."
I have to say, having your "authentic" detectives thrown in the middle of a Mystery Camp, where other characters (even a mystery author!) preach about the relevance and meaning of mystery novels, is pure genius! How did you ever come up with the idea for this?
Have you ever had a negative reaction from "typical" mystery readers about the ideas you put forth about how mystery novels apply to us? (Specifically, the difference between an intellectual mystery and an emotional one, and how the process of examination in a mystery novel is really about examining ourselves). I've never been a mystery buff (Doyle ruined it with me, as all of Sherlock Holmes's solutions seemed to be cheap tricks or "deus ex machina"s from the author), but I thoroughly enjoy this series for the authentic emotions of its characters.
I didn't mean to ramble this much, but thank you for your time.
|
Ah HA! A reaction to my mystery novels. *This* doesn't happen very often. Unfortunately, I can't tell you where or how I get my ideas. The various functions of my mind and imagination are as much a--drumroll, please--mystery to me as they are to you. The idea of a mystery camp is not new, of course--although I like to think that I pushed it farther than it usually goes. But how did I decide to include a team of mystery writers? All I can tell you is that their presence seemed like a natural extension of my basic concept. As it happens, "'typical' mystery readers" have passed judgment on my books, and their verdict is nigh universal: the books don't sell. To comfort myself, I observe that I probably don't publish these books often enough to interest "'typical' mystery readers" (who as a group tend to be devoted fans: they commonly don't get interested in a detective--or detectives--until the body of work reaches a certain mass). But that may simply be a form of whistling in the dark. (04/02/2008) |
John Kaminar: thanks for doing the gradual interview. it's so interesting to read all the questions and answers.
to my shame, i never finished the Gap series. i started it several times, but just never plugged through the second volume. well, i've recently finished it, and was quite impressed. question is about Morn, and her Gap Sickness. It seems to me that the sickness is very similar to TC's leprosy. Both maladies completely change the lives of the heroes. was this a conscious choice?
also... why do you put Morn and others of your characters through such hell?? i spent most of the Gap books dreading what you would do to her next! don't take this the wrong way, but i'm still not sure the final payoff was enough for the dread i felt at each new terror unleashed on Morn. i did however enjoy the switch of roles of Angus and Nick... very skilled writing there.
thanks!
|
Illness in the Works of Stephen R. Donaldson. What can I tell you? This is another of those "bred in the bone" subjects I was talking about a little while ago. I grew up in a medical family--and I "failed" a number of my family's stated expectations by not becoming a doctor. So I guess I'm compensating for that failure. <rueful smile> On a more constructive note: I have always found physical limitations--and strengths--to be a fertile source of metaphors for the emotional, psychological, and spiritual conditions I want to write about. Those metaphors are EVERYwhere in my stories. But "why do you put Morn and others of your characters through such hell?" I don't mean this to sound flippant (although it will <sigh>), but what *else* am I going to do? Pat them on the back for several hundred pages? Sorry: I'm actually quite serious here. None of us ever know who we are--never mind who we want to be--until we're tested. If we don't go through hell--in one form or another--we never find out what we're made of; and so we can never choose to become the people we want to be. Sure, going through hell exacts a terrible price. And many people can't pay it. (Nick Succorso leaps to mind.) But the people who do-- Ah, those are the people who are really worth reading about. If for no other reason than because it's actually possible to learn something from them. I know (to my cost--in the best sense of the term) that people like Morn Hyland and Angus Thermopyle, Thomas Covenant and Linden Avery, have taught me invaluable lessons. Without them, I wouldn't even come close to being who I want to be. (04/02/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Douglas: I'm fascinated with the "laws" that are such a big part of the land. They remind me of the writing of the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who basically said that God existed in the form of universal laws that govern nature. Einstein put it this way.
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly."
I'm wondering if this concept has had an influence on your writing in any way?
|
Well, "influence".... I don't know how to answer that. I've never read Spinoza; and I wasn't familiar with this Einstein quote. But that doesn't mean their ideas didn't influence me. After all, lots and lots of other people *did* (and do) read Spinoza (and Einstein). Those people may have been influenced by their reading; and I have surely read--and been affected by--some of them. I just don't know it because the interconnections are both oblique and unlabeled. (04/09/2008) |
Monumental Guilt Beyond the Ken of Human Understanding: Does Lord Foul like sushi? Okay, has he ever possessed someone, ate sushi during the possession and decided that he in fact liked it? Are there any sushi chefs in the Land? Why not?
|
Lord Foul, being the DESPISER, *despises* sushi. There are no sushi chefs in the Land. In a distant region of the Earth, however, an obscure people worship sushi. Sushi chefs are the high priests of that religion. Sadly, they are too self-absorbed to have any effect on the outcome of larger events. (04/09/2008) |
Stutty: Ah Stephen, while having the GI does help the time between books pass, I must say I read it sometimes with pity or perhaps wonder that you manage endure the same damn question over and over without going over the edge. We thank you.
Haven't asked one in awhile so here we go.
1) How's AATE coming along? (obviously I'm hoping this question not bad juju like telling and actor "good luck.")
2) I must admin I'm near obsessed with knowning what suggestions Lester del Rey had for the Covenant story. Spaceships perhaps? LF was actually J.R. Ewing? Covenant at a Pink Floyd concert?
Oh, and please remember the standing invite to our villiage cabbage festival.
stutt
|
1) I never know how books are coming along until after I finish working on them (and "working on them" includes all the rewrites). Since I identify so closely with my characters, my experience in writing about them is intensely subjective. During that process, I have no *perspective* on the book as something that someone else might read. 2) Sorry to disappoint. For my own creative, mental, and even moral well-being, I "deleted" those memories as fast and thoroughly as I could. It's conceivable that Lester's suggestions remain hidden somewhere in one of my file cabinets--but I ain't about to go looking for them. (04/09/2008) |
Dan Trueblood: Where does it come from? I mean really, where does it truly come from? I aint talking about the Land, or Mordant, or Giants, or Gap engines; Im talking about your razor sharp, deep cutting sarcastic wit. I read the GI every month and there always seems to be someone out there asking the same question you answered a thousand times before. I mean to tell you, my heart races and my vision gets blurry in anticipation of your answer to these questions. Look, Im out here once a month laughing my balls off and I got to know: Does it come naturally or do you have to work hard at it? Dude, my wife does not allow me to read the GI toward the end of the week because Saturday night is a fool-around night and I need those bad boys in place for optimum performance. Well, regardless of my suffering manhood, I hope next month there can be one more question about the Creator. Keep up the wonderfully good work and just where did I put that testicular adhesive?
|
Wit, it seems, is in the mind of the beholder. If you were to poll GI readers, you would find--I suspect--very few who have actually been castrated by my wit. Or even merely maimed in less prestigious ways by my steel-trap-type analytical mind. (04/10/2008) |
Jack T: Hello Mr. Donaldson.
I have been a fan of your writing since I first found the Thomas Covenant Chronicles in the early '80's .
I enjoyed both chronicles very much .
I recently found the third chronicles, and read both books in about 10 days.
I now hunger for the final book, as im sure do most fans . My question is, what is the timetable for the final book?
Best wishes and God Bless !
Regards,
Jack T. Massachusettts, USA.
|
I guess its time for yet another report on the publication schedule for The Last Chronicles. Ive been over this a number of times, but apparently my answers arent easy to find using the Gradual Interview search feature. So Im going to lay this out in a format that I hope will facilitate searches. The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Book One, The Runes of the Earth, published October 2004. The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Book Two, Fatal Revenant, published October 2007. The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Book Three, Against All Things Ending, expected publication 2010. The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Book Four, The Last Dark, expected publication 2013. The long lag between books is painful for all of us--although I suspect it may be more painful for me than it is for you, since I have to actually *write* the ^##%&#@ things. But I need every minute of those three years. What Im trying to accomplish here is demonstraby impossible. (If it were *possible,* I wouldnt have to answer so many questions about it.) I cant simply coast my way through it. (04/10/2008) |
Dave Mcdonald: thank you for the stimulation!!! enjoying my second reading of the Chronicles(1st reading was in the late 70"s ,80's) I am following strong with the maps .In The Wounded Land Thomas enter Andelain from the banks of the Mithil river I thought the black river border the heart of the land ???(this coming from a man now 50 whom you have helped to become an avid reader by not stepping over word I didnot understand and look them up
getting ready for the last Chronicles and other tales I have missed
|
Ive never tried to provide meticulously explicit maps for the Covenant books. There just isnt room for all the names and labels I might want to put in. But Ive always assumed that when the Black and Mithil Rivers meet, the resulting river is also called the Mithil, not the Black (simply because the reasons for its name are no longer apparent). So the river that Covenant crosses into Andelain in The Wounded Land *is* the Mithil. (04/10/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Has it all been worth it?
|
Huh? Define it. And all. And worth. And it again. Gimme some *context,* man. I need to know what were talking about here. (04/10/2008) |
Don: A couple months ago, you answered a question regarding having one of the Imagers in Mordant's Need open a mirror on The Land, saying you would never make such a connection, in part because you couldn't imagine how The Land could fit within Terisa's mind, or how the world of Mordant could be contained by Covenant or Linden.
So here's an odd question that preciptates from that:
Do Covenant/Linden and Terisa come from the same Earth? I'm not asking if you have a multi-verse going on here, but do you imagine that it's possible that if Terisa Morgan (or, more likely, her father) went to her world's equivalent of Covenant's farm or Linden's hospital, she would find the same buildings? Or even--in the case of going to the hospital--Linden herself?
(I suspect this question is either abject stupidity or sheer brilliance, and I haven't the faculties to tell which.)
|
I dont know whether its stupid or brilliant either--but it does go WAY outside the text. You might want to do a GI search on Douglas Adams and read what he had to say about questions that stray outside the text. Certainly *I* do not imagine any possible congruence between the reality (by which I mean the story) that includes Linden and the reality (story) that includes Terisa. (04/10/2008) |
fiona: more of a plea really. when you have finally got poor old tom out of your system could you see your way to writing another sci fi book. i thought the gap series was absolutely wonderful. I was in floods of tears at the end when Angus flew off into the great blue yonder. thank you for taking the time to read this and all the other [far more interesting] questions- all written it seems by men.
|
Sometimes I find myself feeling proudest of the books which have received the least attention. So I'm especially grateful for your good opinion of the GAP books. But as I've said before, I don't choose my ideas (not consciously, anyway): my ideas choose me. At present, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether I'll ever write any more s/f. Apart from "The Last Chronicles," no ideas have chosen me yet. A rough estimate of the March GI questions/comments suggests that at least 75% of them were posted by men. I wish more women read my books. But then, I wish more EVERYBODY read my books. <rueful smile> Pure ego, of course: I should know better. (04/10/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
murray kester: have you ever been approached about or considered turning the chronicles of thomas covenant into a video game? I think it would make a great rpg.
|
I would never consider turning "Covenant" into a video game myself: not because I have anything against video games, but because I don't know how, don't have time to learn, and don't really enjoy such games myself. As for being approached: there's no point in approaching *me* because I don't hold the rights. Ballantine Books does. To the best of my knowledge, Ballantine has ignored every approach so far. (04/10/2008) |
Bill Weldon: Stephen,
Just wanted to say that I the you have out done yourself with the first 2 books and am looking forward to the final 2 books to see how you pull everything together. That being said, I also though your essay on martial arts training was a fantastic read, and it has helped me continue on with reaching one of my goals which is getting my black belt, which I will be testing for the end of this month. I also shared it with my Tae Kwon Do instructors including our Senior Grand Master 7th Degree Black belt who is one of the founders of our organization.
The question I have is has the discipline that you need to train in martial arts helped you with your writing both in keeping on track as well as continuing to press ahead even when you feel things bogging down.
Thanks again,
Bill Weldon
|
A bit of chronology is pertinent. I didn't start studying the martial arts until 10+ years after the publication of the first "Covenant" trilogy. So in the obvious sense, the discipline (and self-knowledge) that I learned as a writer helped me as a student of the martial arts, rather than the other way around. But in a less obvious sense, my training in the martial arts has been very helpful in my writing life. (I would never admit this to anyone--he said, admitting it freely--but in the privacy of my own thoughts, I've been slowly developing an attitude toward writing that I call "the writer as warrior".) My life today is FAR more complicated and stressful than it was 20 years ago (when it was in turn far more complicated and stressful than it had been 10 years previously); and now I find that the "outlet" of basics, kata, and sparring, learning and teaching, does a lot to help keep me sane. And in a (perhaps) even less obvious sense: for me, at least, if for no one else, studying the martial arts is ultimately about learning to face my fears; and I do believe that without my years of martial study I would never have become, well, *brave* enough to write "The Last Chronicles". (04/11/2008) |
Ross: Mr. Donaldson,
I've been reading this GI since the beginning, and though I've contributed a couple of questions, for the most part I have simply enjoyed reading your responses to others' questions. Personally, I have very few questions regarding your novels. But reading the different perspectives presented here gives me a much greater depth of appreciation for your works. For that I'm completely grateful to you and everyone who has contributed to this interview.
Which brings me to my point. I'm a writer whose original inspiration to write came in large part from reading The Chronicles when I was 13 (I was one of those way-too-young-to-read-Donaldson types -- but trust me, there was no harm done to my psyche). And reading this GI has revealed that you have incredible insight into the writing craft itself. Is there any chance that you would ever consider writing a book on the subject of writing?
My second question has to do with the GI itself. Honestly, I'm beginning to think that this may be one of your most important works. As an old-time fan, I can remember a time when finding any scrap of Donaldson info (or the motherlode -- an interview!) was cause for celebration. Now we have your very presence on the Web, and we can even ask you questions! This is absolutely invaluable for a fan. But really, when do you find time to keep this interview up? I certainly appreciate the effort, but man -- there are four years of questions here now, probably enough copy to fill a book (Hey, there's an idea...).
|
I cannot imagine myself *ever* "writing a book on the subject of writing". I have virtually no interest in non-fiction myself; so why would I write a book that didn't interest *me*? And writing is simply too difficult to spend the effort on anything except what I love: stories. On the other hand, I do think I've been sort of "tricked" into writing the moral equivalent of a book in the GI. Certainly there is more than enough content here to fill a book--if someone were willing to undertake the (massive) job of editing it (eliminate repetition, organize by theme, create an index, that sort of thing). I have no intention of tackling that ordeal myself. It would bore me stupid. But secretly I hope that someday some enterprising young scholar (and publisher) will see fit to make something out of the raw materials of the GI. (04/12/2008) |
Seth L Goldner: Greetings to one of my favorite authors going back to the late 70's! I have enjoyed the psychological complexities, nuances, and development of your characters from the Thomas Covenant Chronicals and couldn't have been happier when I learned there would be a 3rd series. (Bannor and especially Saltheart stand out in particular. Man do I miss those guys!) Oh right, my question: Your incredibly complex vocabulary from the Chronicles-is it a result of careful research, "thesauras poised" as it were, or do you have a natural command of the English language? I always considered myself to have an above average vocabulary but there is hardly a page that didn't require a trip to the dictionary to fully understand your meaning. I have to admit to having taken in much of it by context & inference. This is not a complaint; rather an admiring observation of your writing style. Thank you for entertaining my question and enduring, hopefully, my incorporated "fan" mail.
|
Ive talked about vocabulary in the Covenant books before--and doubtless will again. I hasten to say that I do not use a thesaurus. Nor is there anything careful about my research. I simply love words, partly for their sound, and partly for their power to enable thought. So when I read, I make lists of unfamiliar words. And when my lists reach a certain mass, I indulge in word orgies, looking up sounds and meanings without regard to their potential relevance or usefulness. You might say that Im trying to furnish my mind with the raw materials necessary for what I want to write by mining other peoples vocabularies. On some level, however, I do acquire the raw materials for their own sake; and I value them whether or not they ever serve my purposes. (04/14/2008) |
John: My question involves the relationship between your writing and your physical activities and training (martial arts). I do my share of working out, weightlifting, etc. and have learned the value of cycling my intensity.
Do you cycle your intensity with respect to writing as well? I have to imagine that writing the Covenant novels is quite strenuous on the mind (perhaps too much of an assumption on my part).
Do you take breaks and write material that could be conceived as being "lighter" or "less intense" than your main work? Perhaps something not for publication, but something only for the sake of giving yourself a break without entirely forgoing writing altogether?
|
Its true that the strenuousness of *how* I write ebbs and flows according to the intensity of *what* Im writing. But this variation isnt something that I plan or premeditate in order to pace myself or develop my, well, my strength. Instead I go with whatever my story requires from me on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, week-by-week basis, in much the same way that I do whatever my sensei or sigung tells me to do whenever Im in the dojo. I suppose you could consider working on the Gradual Interview a form of cycling my intensity. Rather like riding my exercycle between visits to the dojo. But keep in mind that I never take time away from my story in order to work on the GI. I only use time that I could not have used for more intense, more essential writing. (04/14/2008) |
Nate: As many others have said before, thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to these questions.
My question relates to the use of the color green in the Thomas Covenant Chronicles. Even before it became a buzzword in the environmental movement, green was almost universally associated with life, nature and health. Yet in The Land this color often goes hand in hand with corruption, banes and evil. The obvious examples that spring to mind are the Illearth Stone and the Skest.
Why did you make this creative choice? Is your use of green an example of simple irony? Are there deep thematic elements at work that I am too dense to recognize? Perhaps you dont look good in green and bear a longstanding grudge against it.
Whatever the reason, it works wonderfully. In particular, your descriptions of the stone and the green Sunbane aura have always made my skin crawl.
|
Im sorry: I cant explain it. This is another how does [my] imagination work question, and I dont know the answer. Somewhere in the back of my head is the nagging impression that I once saw something malevolent that happened to be green. The crocodile in Peter Pan? When I was 9 years old, and had never seen a movie before? Honestly, I dont remember. But as I recall, I made the Illearth Stone green simply because that seemed like the right color at the time. (04/14/2008) |
Beth: Mr. Donaldson,
I actually first have a comment that I need to get off my chest, then my question. This is my first visit to this website. In reading previous postings in the GI, some people seem to question your characters, specifically Convenant and Linden. In my opinion(humble as it is...grin), your creation of these people and ability to make them real to me is nothing less than genious.
Now quickly, my question for you. You mentioned that your belief in freedom of choice stems from your parents belief in predestination. In some way, do you see your parents beliefs manifest in some of the other characters?
Thank you,
Beth
|
You may be misquoting me somewhat. As I recall, I said that my emphasis on the necessity of freedom *may* be a reaction against my parents belief in predestination. In practice, my parents were comparatively humane in how they applied their religious beliefs. But the missionaries in general were not. They were absolutists down to the ground: You either agree with me in every detail, or you are going to roast in the fires of Hell eternally. And you can certainly see absolutism in several of the characters and races in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Not to mention the willingness to damn absolutely everyone else for the sake of one beings beliefs or desires. But I wouldnt want you to take these ideas out of context. I write this kind of fantasy in part because it permits--and even encourages--exaggeration (i.e. dramatizing passions and beliefs in *pure* forms, so that they can be looked at and studied outside their real manifestations in conflicted and self-contradictory human beings). The importance of absolute characters like Hile Troy, and the Haruchai, and the Ranyhyn, and the Ravers, and Lord Foul lies *within* the story, not in any desire I might feel to criticize missionaries. (Read my many messages on the subject of polemics.) I hope that makes sense. (04/14/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I find that as I approach the end of a book, I read more quickly. As things get more exciting, I want to know what happens and so my reading speed increases, not through any conscious mechanism but it just seems to happen. I was wondering, does your writing speed increase during more intense sequences or as you approach the end, or is it pretty much the same throughout, or does it just depend on how the writing is going that given day?
|
Of course, there are many factors that influence my productivity on any given day: interruptions, biorhythms, illness, insomnia, general worry, that sort of thing. But it's generally true that I write more quickly when I can "see" what's immediately ahead of me clearly than I do when I'm feeling my way, wrestling with uncertainty in one form or another. In this context, various things impact how clearly I "see". Sometimes events are plain but characters are not: on other occasions, the problem is reversed. Sometimes I flounder trying to describe effectively a specific character, setting, conflict, or sequence of actions. Generally again, however, I do tend to "see" more clearly as I get closer to the end of a book (if for no other reason than because fewer decisions remain to be made)--or to a scene that I find particularly exciting for personal reasons (reasons which are not always the same as the reasons that make a scene exciting for a reader). (04/14/2008) |
Jason D. Wittman: Hello again, Mr. Donaldson,
I was reading through the Gap series recently, and I came across the ancillary documentation regarding Juanita Estevez and her invention of the gap drive. In it, you describe her as "a private individual with a strongly developed instinct for self-protection." You also have some of her colleagues insist that she is "a major loon." I'm curious to know if you meant to imply that the one leads to the other. I know the answer might involve delving further into her character than you had intended to, but the question has been bugging me, and I thought there'd be no harm in asking.
Also, I know you never mix your universes (The Land and the Gap universe, for example), but it occurs to me that Lord Foul would just about salivate at the thought of manipulating Angus Thermopyle. After all, Angus has been at the mercy of his inner Despiser for quite some time -- although his welding, which could be viewed as a technological Raver, might leave him more experientially equipped to deal with Herem, Jehannum, and Sheol. Just a comment.
Hope all is well.
Jason
|
No, I didn't mean to imply that Juanita Estevez' instinct for privacy led her to be considered crazy. I intended to suggest that jealous colleagues often prefer to consider someone crazy when that someone achieves a breakthrough which has eluded everyone else. And in Dr Estevez' case, the jealousy of her colleagues was exacerbated by the fact that she didn't understand the principles behind her own achievement (not to mention the fact that her ignorance made her experiments potentially lethal). Doubtless LF would have enjoyed Angus' pain at being manipulated. But Angus' particular (enhanced) abilities would probably not have been of much use to LF's larger purposes. (04/14/2008) |
Peter B.: Once upon a time in the G.I. (sorry, I couldn't find the exact posting amidst all that content!) you made reference to the idea that the Last Chronicles, at least in part, was going to show Lord Foul's side of things, and give a window into the reasons for acting the way he does. Is that still your intent or did I misinterpret your words?
All the best, and thanks again for your wonderful work.
|
<sigh> Your message underscores the folly of ever saying ANYthing about my intentions for upcoming work. No, I haven't changed my mind about what I'm doing--or will do--in this story. But that doesn't mean I plan "to show Lord Foul's side of things," or "give a window into the reasons for acting the way he does". I don't want to commit myself to anything that explicit. (04/14/2008) |
Robert: Mr. Donaldson,
Thanks again for simply being who you are... that you answer questions with honesty, integrity, humour, and the right amount sarcasm when necessary. You have alot more patience than I would have under the same situation.
I just read an answer about your time in India as a missionary child, about calvinism, and the blinding of your eyes to the people you were there to help. I know you are "well adjusted" but I can't help feeling sad for you --- not the feel sorry for you as I am sure there were good as well as bad like any life but just sad that the experience was less than it could have been.
Thanks again for all you do.... you have been a very good influence on my life and yes... religious studies. We don't always agree but you have insights alot of christian authors don't. If you do respond in person or in GI... one question if I may.... are there in your stories any absolute truths or stedfast beliefs? By example... do the Lords, Elohim, ect. have any concrete absolutes in their existence or is it more a personal belief that leads them to do the things they do?
You probably know what I mean.... a bible of sorts? I hope this finds you well and again, thanks for everything.
|
I don't really know how to answer your question. No, there is no codified text ("bible") that reveals absolute truths--unless you think of "The Chronicles" themselves as a bible. <rueful smile> Nonetheless the characters do have access to what might be considered absolute truths. Earthpower is one. Law is another. The necessity of freedom is another. It is absolutely true that the Creator cannot reach through the Arch of Time to alter his creation without destroying its integrity. There are other examples. Still, I feel constrained to point out that one of the constant themes of "The Chronicles" is that "absolutes mislead". Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "the interpretation of absolutes misleads"--interpretation being inherently fallible. (04/14/2008) |
Dale Cebula: Mr Donaldson,
HUGE fun of your work...I started reading Covenant in about the 8th grade, and I'm 37 now! I have a few silly questions for you.
Do any regular people live (or ever lived) in the Lower Land? I know the Giants did before they were all slain, but are there any villages in this part of the world? The names of the regions suggest that no right thinking person would do so, but where the "Spoiled Plains" always spoiled?
Have any of the "regular" people in the Land ever done anything wicked or hateful? Kevin, Elena, etc made big errors, but they do not do things out of sin or greed or whatever. I believe this to be due to the connection to Earthpower, and also has something to do with this being a story about Covenant and Linden and not necessarily about the folk of the Land. Just curious.
Finally, can you think of a reason why Foul did not just "dive" into the earthpower prior to Berek forging the Staff of Law. It seems that the reason he did so prior to TWL is because the STaff was gone. Again, that would make for a silly story in the first trilogy, but anyway.
PS--I am a medieval history major and I have to take issue with some GI comments you made about the Middle Ages lacking progress. Or is that just my vanity?!?! LOL
|
Please keep in mind that I'm working without a net (i.e. a story "bible") here. As I've said many times before, in general I only invent what I need. But with that proviso.... Starting from the "known" (the text), we can make some deductions based on, say, the history of the One Forest. The One Forest was decimated by *people*--an act which in sheer scale could be considered a desecration--and they had to come from SOMEwhere. Since they didn't intrude through Doom's Retreat (that happened later, and when it did, the Upper Land was already inhabited--if sparsely, perhaps), and since the various mountain ranges naturally discourage migration, it seems likely that these people arrived from the sea, or along the coasts. Therefore the Lower Land must once have been inhabited by humankind. (I think we can assume that the Spoiled Plains weren't "spoiled" until after LF established himself in Ridjeck Thome.) And these people must have been capable of considerable darkness or malice, since they eventually gave rise to the Ravers. However, even back then the Sarangrave and Lifeswallower must have been toxic. The Defiles Course derives its poisons, at least in part, from the banes buried under Mount Thunder; and those banes--according to the text--were there from the Earth's very beginning. As a result, much of the Lower Land would have been comparatively unwelcoming. So it seems natural that people would slowly move toward the Upper Land, hacking and burning as they migrated. Does that answer your question? As for LF's use of Earthpower to bring himself back after his defeat in the first trilogy: why would he do such a thing if he didn't have to? Being the Despiser and all, he can't possibly *enjoy* things like Earthpower. (I like to picture him puking at the taste of aliantha.) As "a medieval history major," you would certainly know more about the Middle Ages than I do. But surely they haven't been called "the dark ages" for nothing? (04/23/2008) |
Scott: Mr. Donaldson,
An absurd suggestion that will hopefully strike you as amusing (as that is my intent).
I've been doing some thinking, always a dangerous thing :). Years ago a friend of mine and I developed a fanciful theory about the time of the end of the world. We were fascinated by the various theories that different cultures and religions have about the end of our planet (at least as we know it). Anyway...We developed a theory based on the (at the time) numerous compiliation cds being offered on late night television. We posited that when the makers of the CDs caught up to present day, the end was nigh. (If you recall, the titles were Greatest Hits of the 70s, then 80s, then 90-92, then 91-93, and so on). The series of CDs caught up to present day and by 1996 there was a greatest hits of 1996 released before the end of 1996. And the world continues. So much for our theory. However, I hasten to point out that it has fared just as well as other theories on this subject have. :)
My point, in relation to your work is: I notice the GI is up to 1966 answered questions. Some quick thinking suggests that you'll hit 2008 answered questions by May of this year, thus bringing your GI and our calendar year into alignment. Given the power of the GI and the alignment that is about to occur, do you fear or hope for any visible change in the world on that glorious day? ;)
All the best for continued good health on your part, and a desire for the world to not end before we finish your series.
Scott
|
Hmm. It seems likely that I'll hit 2007 messages answered in May of 2008--or shortly thereafter. (Although this count doesn't include the many messages I've answered privately.) At that point, as I see it, only mumblemumble things can happen. The GI will grind to a halt. Or I'll grind to a halt. Or the world will grind to a halt. Or my readers will spontaneously agree to submit only one question a year. Or we'll all have to reset our watches by the Maya calendar, which (I'm told) predicts the end of the world in 2012. Just a year before the publication of "The Last Dark". Which would be fitting, don't you agree? Certainly I hope for visible changes on the Glorious Day of Alignment (assuming that private responses haven't already cast that day long into the past). The change I would most like to see is, as ever: LIFE GETS SIMPLER. Er, excuse me, I mean, WORLD PEACE. Although I'd settle, with my usual congeniality, for tougher sentences for repeat offenders (just to show that I'm not *entirely* ignorant of pop culture). (04/23/2008) |
Raymond Luxury Yacht: Would you agree that we seem to be going through a sort of Golden Age (or at least Silver) of fantasy right now? It seems that more than ever, there is actually a significant quantity of quality writing out there.
In your mind, do the Masters use the same style of martial arts that you practice?
Did you get a chance to enjoy Seattle when you were here for your book tour a while ago, or was your experience limited to airport, hotel, bookstore, with no time for tourism? Do you typically make an effort to see the places you are touring, or is it just a grind of getting your business done?
Have you ever had an author whose work you didn't like claim you as an inspiration? How did that make you feel?
Random questions, but hopefully easy and quick to answer.
|
OK, quick and easy. I don't know that a "Golden Age" *is*. Certainly there is more fantasy published every year now than during any other phase of my life. But Sturgeon's (?) Law still holds: 90% of everything is junk. More books published means that *finding* the good 10% is harder. The martial art of the Haruchai is entirely their own. Doubtless it has many features in common with any number of our codified "empty hand" arts. I never get to do any sightseeing--or even enjoying--while I'm on book tours. Airport, hotel, bookstore: there isn't time for anything else. "Have you ever had an author whose work you didn't like claim you as an inspiration?" Not to my knowledge. Hence my lack of identifiable emotion on the subject. (04/23/2008) |
James Douglas: hello Mr Donaldson. Regarding this post, I am r
writing it on a 3.5 inch ipod touch screen, so i will very prrobably make a few mistakes in spelling.
First I must express my gratitude for answering the questions in the GI. And next that I read in your answers an author of enormous integrity. In a harder time of my life, your books were a great source of comfort and wisdom to me. Molded to to be the reader and aspiring writer that I am now. The way you write about damagedbcharacters really has made me realize my love for books with real "grey" characters. I cannot read books with black and white characters. I cannot express how important I find this is to any story.
Next, in love all your books, I have read all except the short stories. (my liking leans toward long books with rom for character rogression) my favourite are by far the gap series. The complexity of characters andthe speed in which everything changes made me read every page with avidness that is hard to catch. Truly a great set if books.
Which brings us to Fatal Revenant. I tend to have an eye for detail and theorizing... The smallest detail can unveil the biggest things. So... To my questions...
2) *What* is kastenessen's lover? She is described as a "mortal lover". Aside from the Elohim, all creatures seem to be mortal, though some live longer and others. I have a... Not strong enough to be called a theory; but I assumed she may be a giant. And that is why the merewives spare giant males. However, say that is true, if the merewives seek retribution, who better than to attack the very species that their mother was and father assumed. Like I say, not strong enough to be a theory.
4) Why is the Raver giving Esmer advice and not Foul?
7) I talked earlier of my love for stories with "grey" and real characters; do you recommend any authors and stories that fit this?
Lastly, thankyou for your years of answering questions ax decades of amazing writing... The Gap, Thomas Covenant Chronicles, your mystery novels and Mordants Need... Thank god for the day I went through my mothers book shelve on a whim and found Lord Foul's Bane.
|
Despite the laborious manner in which you wrote your message, and the thought you put into it, I've deleted a number of your questions. Let me explain. As soon as you ask questions like, "Whatever happened to X?" or "Will Y take place later in the story?" or "Is Z relevant to what's coming?" you place me in an impossible position. Any affirmative or negative response is a spoiler. And if I refuse to answer at all, that's another kind of spoiler. I think I've demonstrated that I'm willing to talk about books that have already been published; but I do dearly wish that my readers would stop asking me to reveal my intentions for the upcoming installments in "The Last Chronicles." That said.... 2) Your speculations about Kastenessen's mortal lover are interesting. I can't say that I've ever thought about her in those terms. And I probably never will. I'm content with my original assumption that Giantish men are defended from the merewives by their gift of tongues. (It's often difficult to seduce someone who understands what you're *really* saying.) 4) LF is in hiding. Esmer doesn't even know where he is. This is consistent with the Despiser's new strategy as he has deployed it throughout the story so far. Doubtless he has read "Desecration Through Manipulation," a sort of self-help book for people who want to feel superior and do harm while remaining safe from the humiliating defeats they've suffered in the past. 7) The "reading" and "general literature" sections of this site offer various suggestions. It's generally true that few sf/f writers are as interested in tormented characters as I am. But for shades of grey, you need look no further than Joseph Conrad, Ford Madox Ford, George Meredith, William Faulkner, or Henry James. Not to mention Tim Powers. And there are some prominent "grey" characters in Steven Erikson's "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen". (04/30/2008) |
Anonymous: The use of the Seven Words is indeed an homage. Russell T. Davies, the creator of Torchwood and the head writer for the new Doctor Who is a huge fan of the Covenant books. He reads them all once a year, every year. Just thought i'd clear it up for you.
|
Wow! I'm impressed a) that a busy man like Davies would do such a thing, and b) that you know what he does. Thanks! (04/30/2008) |
J C Bronsted: In your estimation, if, as you've quoted in the interview, making an assumption does in fact make an "ass" out of one or several people, would the same then be true of making a presumption?
I presume this question might interest you.
<grin>
|
It's true that pretty much all of us go wildly astray when we make assumptions (or presumptions). And yet, how is it possible to live without them? We're never *not* in the position of having to make decisions based on incomplete information. So we fill in the gaps as best we can. The trick, I think, is to recognize our assumptions when we make them--and then to not make the mistake of thinking that our assumptions are facts. Oh, wait a minute. You were just kidding.... (04/30/2008) |
Ethan: Having been a fan of yours and obviously reading your work over the years, I find that Im drawn to the Gap books the most. I think part of that comes from the particular style their written in. They have a dark, realistic feel takes them beyond the realm of space opera or even conventional science fiction. It really reminds me of the works of Arthur C. Clarke, which brings me to my question: are you a fan of Clarkes? And by any chance did you ever get to meet him before his passing a month ago?
I know you dont choose your ideas, they chose you, well heres hoping another science fiction idea chooses you after the Final Chronicles are completed.
|
No, I never met Arthur C. Clarke. And I was never a fan, although I read some of his stories with interest. I won't quote the review which explained most succinctly *why* I never became a fan. But I must say that I'm surprised by the comparison. If anyone could be considered "the Dean of Hard Science Fiction," it was Clarke. By his standard, I've written (very) soft sf. (04/30/2008) |
John: I believe it's been a year since Fully Loaded Pictures purchased a 12-month renewable option to develop films based on the GAP novels. I was curious if they had decided to renew the option or if there has been any other news regarding the subject.
|
Fully Loaded Pictures' option on the GAP books was effectively extended by the writers' strike. There's a legal term for it, which I can't spell. Force majeur? Is that close? It's the moral equivalent of an Act of God. (04/30/2008) |
Drew(drew): Easy one today.
When you wrote the Second Chronicles, you were planning it to be four books...what was the other title?
|
I don't remember. Doubtless the answer exists somewhere in my files, but I'm not going to spend an hour trying to dig it out. But I can tell you this: *none* of the present titles is my original title. If memory serves (which it often doesn't, so don't quote me), I planned the story with four one-word titles, of which the first was "Sunbane". (Were they all words that started with "s"? I *think* so.) I came up with the present titles when Lester del Rey informed me that he was going to publish the story as a trilogy--and that none of my one-word titles was acceptable. (04/30/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Paul: Dear Mr Donaldson
Your commitment to the GI is genuinely astounding - more writing on top of your existing commitment! We're not worthy!
I would be interested to know whether you feel the GI process must have an innevitable influence on the development, writing and rewriting of AATE and TLD. If our conscious (and sub-conscious) decisions are based on the sum of our experiences then every question you answer is likely to influence some element of your writing - although not major plot lines as no doubt these are comprehensively set out.
I'd be wasting your time if I were to ask you to speculate on the sub-conscious impact: you will no doubt read this question choose to answer it or choose not to answer it then almost instantly forget it. However, have you ever answered a GI question and in phrasing the answer had a Eureka moment (on any scale) which has overtly influenced your writing or re-writing? The GI highights the hugely positive impact your writing has had - it would be nice to think you had been repaid in some small measure through your readers' collective submission.
Finally - a question about the Insequent - have they already featured in either of the first two COTC as named main characters?
Your writing is amazing - many thanks for the memories.
Regards
Paul
|
Yes, I think that the Gradual Interview has an inevitable effect on what I put into--and what I leave out of--"The Last Chronicles". (Consider the possibility that, because of the GI, I may well know more about the "Covenant" readership and its desires/expectations/doubts/curiosities than any writer before me has ever known about his/her readers.) And yes, as you say, much of the effect is un- or subconscious: I couldn't define it even if I wanted to--which I mostly don't. But occasionally the effect *is* conscious: a question that refers to a story thread which I might otherwise have neglected to tie off, perhaps, or a comment that suggests a possibility which I might not have thought of without prompting. However, I am *not* (possibly ever) going to give you any specific examples. To do so would be--at best--a spoiler, and--at worst--positively embarrassing. ("What? You mean to tell us that Linden's murder by Liand was *not* part of your original design? Quel dolor!" If you see what I mean.) As far as I know, the Insequent played no part in the first six "Covenant" books. P.S. I've just (May 15) been informed that it should be "Quelle douleur!" Or perhaps "Que dolor!" <grin> (05/14/2008) |
Terry Hornsby: JK Rowling is currently in court, attempting to protect her work from profiteers. What would your reaction be if someone published an unauthorised encyclopedia/bible/call-it-what-you-will, of your work?
|
My personal reaction might well be, "The more fool you." But I suspect that the reaction of my publishers would be far more, well, aggressive. And events might well compel me to denounce the profiteers--if for no other reason than to avoid confusing my more loyal readers. (05/14/2008) |
Robert K. Murnick: Hello Sir,
I'm afraid that I hold with Twain's notion that (paraphrasing here) ever since the first primordial particle struck the second, all that has followed since has been determined. Many people find this idea disheartening. But when I add that realizing the determined future before it occurs is (excluding simple examples like the action of physical laws, etc...) for the most part beyond our grasp, it implies the existence of the ILLUSION of free will. I believe in predetermination, but because we are in fact part of the system (and the system is magnitudes above us), it is better for us to behave as if we had free will.
I am curious what you think of this and if this differs from the notion of predestination you were taught by your parents. As always, Thank you so much for all your magnificent stories!
Rob Murnick
|
My opinions on theology carry no more weight than anyone else's. And I've been trying to avoid turning the Gradual Interview into a theological discussion (for many reasons, one of which is that it could easily degenerate into a flame war). But predetermination as you describe it sounds to me like a distinction without a difference, since it implies that the illusion of free will is effectively identical to *actual* free will. Predestination, in the view of my parents, was much more personal: God-the-puppeteer is busily pulling everyone's strings at every moment. Admittedly, most modern Presbyterians might react in horror to a definition that literal; but my parents thought that way (or *thought* that they thought that way, since they still believed in "sin," even though "sin" and "predestination" are mutually exclusive concepts). (05/20/2008) |
Joey: Re-reading Fatal Revenant and the blinding of Mahrtiir struck me. You've spoken of the influence of Wagner's Ring Cycle on your works but does that extend to Norse mythology as well? Because the one-eyed Stave as Odin and the blind Mahrtiir as Hod would be a very interesting (if as yet premature perhaps) parallel... maybe Liand as Baldr? Esmer as Loki, lol?
Worth a shot I figure. Thanks for your time.
|
My knowledge of Norse mythology is not as extensive, or as deeply engrained, as my knowledge of Wagner. And I am not making any conscious attempt to draw on either for "The Last Chronicles". But none of us ever gets away from the stuff that's bred into us. Those things become inherent to how we think. So I can't pretend that you won't find parallels between "The Last Chronicles" and some aspects of Norse mythology. But I would caution you against drawing conclusions on that basis. (05/20/2008) |
Michael Middleton: 1) You've mentioned that you "compose at the keyboard" even though you dislike the feel of most keyboards. I was curious if you use the standard "QWERTY" keyboard layout, as you used to use a typewriter, or if you decided to change to the Dvorak alternate keyboard layout. If you've never heard of it, in short it's a keyboard layout designed to increase keyboarding efficiency with a "more logical" arrangement of letters (for example, the vowels are on the left-hand home row while the four most common consonants are on the right-hand home row). I'd figure as a writer you'd want to give yourself the most comfortable configuration possible, but I could perfectly understand "sticking with what works/why fix something that's not broken?".
2) When you finish the Last Chronicles, what's the first thing you'll want to do? I'd probably sprawl out onto the couch and wriggle myself on the comfy pillows of accomplishment, or take a nice well-deserved nap.
|
1) Yes, I use a QWERTY keyboard. That's what I learned on in middle school; and after using it for nearly 50 years, I couldn't change if I wanted to (which I don't: I have enough problems already). 2) The first thing I always want to do after finishing one of my epics is slit my wrists. <rueful smile> But I get over that--at least in part because the whole concept of "finishing" a book is misleading. (Do you mean finishing the first draft? Ah, but there's all that rewriting to be done. Or do you mean finishing the rewriting? Ah, but there's all that proofreading to be done. Etc..) In my experience, writing a book never actually *ends*: it just dribbles away, gradually taking up less and less time, until finally--without any particular moment of completion or vindication--it's just gone. (05/20/2008) |
Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
Just 2 easy questions this time. :)
1.Do you object to anyone recommending your writings on their myspace page?
2.This one is a little premature I am sure, but, when will you have a trailer posted for "Against All Things Ending"?
Thanks,
Perry Bell
Reno Nevada
|
1. Of course not. I need all the free advertising I can get. <grin> 2. My webmaster and I don't start talking about trailers until after D&A ("delivery and acceptance" of a finished manuscript). "Premature" would be a pretty polite way to describe it if we tried anything sooner. (05/20/2008) |
Jake R.: Dear Mr. Donaldson
I was recently reading the GI and stumbled across the section were a fan made a website dedicated to your vocabulary words. I plan on using it to learn some new words. What I wanted to know is how you develop your vocabulary, since you don't have an authors website to learn from.
Keeping with the vocab theme, I noticed on the website that many of the vocab words have come from Fatal Revenant. Is there a specific reason for that or can that be attributed to a growing wisdom as the years pass? Im sure there must be a difference between the present day and when you wrote Lord Fouls Bane.
Lastly, I would like your advice on something. I have a friend who feels that using words that most people dont know the meaning of is something one shouldnt do. Basically dumb it down for everyone else. And Im not talking about exceptionally difficult words. (Like yours) <jovial smile> I disagree with my friend and I was wondering what kind of retort you would make to someone who feels that we need to dumb down our language. This is coming from an Americans perspective by the way, cause Im sure that makes a difference as far as a matter of speech is concerned.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to waste your time with my trivial pursuits and arguments. Thanks for your time and effort both in your literature and dedication to your fans.
Sincerely, Jake R.
|
I've covered some of this elsewhere in the GI--possibly a number of years ago. The short answer to your first question is that I pay attention to what I read; I make word lists; and periodically I treat myself to "word orgies" during which I look up the words on my lists and write down the definitions. I would be surprised to learn that "Fatal Revenant" contains more unfamiliar words than, say, "The Wounded Land." But it could be true. In FR in particular, and "The Last Chronicles" in general, I'm trying to "make real" concepts and beings that defy any mundane description. I need exotic language to convey what I have in mind. I have so many responses to your friend who prefers familiar language that I can't remember them all at any one time. But I'll limit myself to this one: words are the tools of thought. Experience tells me that neither I nor anyone else can think about ideas, emotions, insights, beliefs, or even sensations for which we have no language. And the more precise the language at our disposal, the more accurately we can think about those ideas/emotions/insights/beliefs/sensations. Believe it or not, the "exceptionally difficult words" in my books express what I mean more accurately than "simple" words could. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe I'm just trying to justify a failure of skill. Some very highly regarded writers would agree with that assessment. But I'm not convinced. (05/21/2008) |
lonomon: I saw recently that Marvel is adapting books to be made into comic series. Most notably, one of your favorite authors (wink), Orson Scott Card's "Ender" books.
Would you be opposed to a comic series of the Covenant chronicles or the Gap cycle? Or, are the books too cerebral for that medium?
Thanks
|
As a matter of personal philosophy, I decline to prejudge or "oppose" anyone else's creativity. Real artists are capable of some astonishing achievements. But comics, like movies, are an "outside in" medium: they show the outside and suggest the inside. My books are predominently "inside out": I live inside the heads of my characters, and every aspect of what's outside starts there. I don't see how what I write could be accurately communicated in any "outside in" form. (05/21/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
peter minister: Grrr and damnation. It seems that Scott Blicks distributers do not want us Brits to buy his audio books. It amazes me that this is the case as there are sooooo many british fans of your books.
|
In fairness to Scott Brick and his distributers: this is not their fault. It's a consequence of the fact that my books are contracted separately in the US and Great Britain (which includes most of the non-US English speaking world--except Canada). These contracts divide the world stringently, for the obvious reason that the publishers don't want to have to compete with each other. So: Brick's contracts with Putnams (for "Fatal Revenant") and Ballantine (for "Lord Foul's Bane" etc.) cannot allow him to sell his work outside the markets covered by those contracts. Before he can make his work available to the rest of the English-speaking world, he'll need separate contracts with Gollancz and HarperCollins. Gollancz may eventually cooperate: remind me to look into that. HarperCollins almost certainly will not. For reasons known only to them, they refuse to cooperate with anything that benefits either me or my readers. Do I need to point out that it's pretty easy to get around these restrictions? (Oops! Did I say that out loud? I wasn't supposed to. <rueful grin>) (05/23/2008) |
Jim: I hadn't seen this question/observation posted in the Gradual Interview archives, but I found a list of 'Recreational Media' aboard the International Space Station (the 'ISS').
Apparently, "The Man Who Killed His Brother" is available In Space.
Do 'They' tell you these things before a book launch?
A PDF of the FOIA-released list is available here: http://www.governmentattic.org/docs/ISS_Media_2008.pdf
|
No, no one ever tells me about these things (apart from you, of course <grin>). But I saw an interview with Shannon Lucid in Ad Astra where she mentioned The Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through, and I couldve sworn in the photo I could see a copy of Lord Fouls Bane on the bookshelf behind her. (05/23/2008) |
Reed Byers: I have always been one of the Donaldson fans that frustrated you the most -- upon discovering, reading, and falling in love with your Covenant books ages ago, I couldn't seem to make myself pick up any of your other works.
Mostly, I guess I was afraid that nothing else you did could be as powerful, as beautiful, as the Covenant books -- and I felt that somehow, reading a "lesser" Donaldson work would detract from Covenant in some way. I can't explain WHY I felt this way. As you've pointed out several times elsewhere in the GI, you've certainly earned a little more trust than that from your readers.
In any case, I'm writing to tell you that, due entirely to the GI (and to the two times I have now been present at one of your highly entertaining and informative book signings), this has now changed. It is unfortunate that the books are no longer in print, so I could buy them new and thereby contribute a few pennies to your coffers... but I managed to locate and purchase a nearly-new complete hardcover set of the GAP series on eBay, and as of yesterday, I have finished the last book.
*WOW* You have every right to be as proud of these books as you are.
I guess my first GAP question for you is: how did you manage to keep track of what everyone knew (or thought they knew) during the course of this series? Did you have maintain some sort of timeline chart, showing what each character knew and when they knew it? I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like to keep THAT many balls in the air at the same time...
I must say that over the course of the books, I started to see more and more of Linden in Morn (especially when Morn starts insisting on a "better answer"). And if you squint a bit and turn your head sideways, you can even make out some Covenant in Angus... :)
I suppose that, now that I've finally broken out of the "Donaldson = Covenant ONLY" mindset, I'll have to start making up for lost time, and hunt down the Mirror books next. Gotta have SOMETHING else to read while waiting for the next Covenant... :)
|
Thanks! Im posting this complete because, well, it gratifies my ego. And also because it offers a new (to me) explanation for the fact that 90% of Covenant readers will not read anything else Ive written. As you can perhaps imagine, I need all the explanations I can get. But Im afraid I dont have a really satisfying answer for your question. To a large extent, this is a How do you do what you do? question; and the underlying truth is that I have no earthly idea. I was born with a certain amount of talent and intelligence; and Ive trained those strengths as strenuously as I know how: a statement which is perfectly true, but which doesnt *explain* anything. On a more practical level, all I can tell you is that I use a LOT of notes. And that the narrative challenge isnt quite as daunting as you might think. Especially in a story like the GAP sequence (although the same may be true in every story, to one extent or another), what a character knows (or thinks he/she knows), and when s/he knows it, is a function of (among other things) setting: *where* a character is, and when, has a significant effect on what that character can know. For example: sure, everyone aboard Captains Fancy may have secrets; but they also all share a common body of experiences and even perceptions (most of them wouldnt be part of Nicks crew if they didnt see things Nicks way). In practice, writing from multiple POVs is more a question of understanding how different people think and less a question of understanding what they think about because much of what they think about is determined by their specific circumstances. (05/23/2008) |
Dave: Hi Steve,
First off, I'd just like to thank you (very belatedly!) for coming over to the UK at the end of last year to do the book tour - the signing was much appreciated! Now, I know you've said that general questions regarding the Insequent (I can sense you groaning already) are RAFO, however, you did answer another question saying that physically the Insequent are mortal. Is this mortal as in, they live, grow old and die or in some other sense (not really sure what other definitions there are, but there you go). My confusion arises from the assertion that the Vizard attempted to thwart the Harrow a couple of hundred years before the "present" of the narrative, however he is alive and kicking way before the time of Kevin when the Haruchai first met him. Now, we know the Mahdoubt can travel through time, but I thought that the individual knowledge/lore of each Insequent precluded learning that of the others, hence I'm assuming that the Vizard didn't leap through time. Or are the insequent another long lived race, like the Giants but on a bigger scale? Hopefully this is something you can comment on and not RAFO - since you've currently got 31 questions pending the last thing I want is to take up more of your valuable time!
Cheers.
|
Its pretty generally true in the Covenant books that power confers longevity. Characters like the Haruchai and the Giants and Anele, who are all in some sense inherently magical, live considerably longer than what we might consider normal for mortal beings. And characters like the Lords and the Insequent, who devote their lives to the study and use of magic, experience similar effects. I dont want to fall into the trap of trying to quantify this aspect of the story. But Ive been writing under the assumption that much of what the Insequent know about each other (speaking of specific individuals) is a result of over-lapping lives: *very* few of them actually move through time; and they *all* live, grow old, and die; but some of them live lives so extended that their experience of each other lasts for centuries. (05/23/2008) |
Vince Gregory: Vince Gregory, Mexborough, England.
Hi Mr Donaldson,
I wrote to you some time ago asking if you would consider introducing us to one or more female Haruchai sometime during the last chronicles. My question originated from my own imagined wonderings through the Land, something I find myself doing on quite a regular basis. After reading the chronicles many times, the world you have created has become very real to me, and a truly magical and fascinating place to muse over.
So to my question. Apologies if you have covered this previously. I just wondered if you ever wander imaginatively in the land outside of the narrative, going beyond what is necessary to develop your tale, or whether you confine yourself (consciously or unconsciously) only to matters central to the storyline? For example, even though you have no intention of introducing female Haruchai to the chronicles, have you ever considered them? Do you have a picture in your mind of what they are like?
Im sure many fans like me are curious about things that happen outside the storyline (of course you could argue that absolutely nothing happens outside the storyline because its a story!). I would just like to know if you are similarly curious, or if you have a professional detachment that precludes such wanderings.
Keep up the astonishingly beautiful work
Kind regards
Vince.
|
Ive answered this so often Ive run out of ways to explain it. I only invent what I need for the specific story Im telling. (The only exception I can think of is the novella Daughter of Regals: writing that story, I found that I had way more background than the story inself required; so I did a lot of cutting when I revised.) This is both a conscious and an unconscious aspect of my creative process. I dont wander imaginatively in [insert name of world here] because (consciously) Im just not interested--for me, the world is chiefly a reflection of the characters whose story Im telling, and Im only interested in the characters and their story--and because (unconsciously) I probably *cant*: the story is so essential to my imagination that if I were to wander away from the story my imagination would simply stop working. This latter point, I feel constrained to add, is pure speculation. The whole point of the unconscious mind is that its UNconscious. If I actually knew what its doing, or why, it wouldnt be what it is--and both my work and my life would be much more drab than they are right now. (05/23/2008) |
laozi: Good day, Mr. Donaldson.
As an amateur musician and writer I will often listen to and read my completed works, after the effort of creating them has passed, for the sheer enjoyment of it. Part of why I create, and enjoy, them is that there is nothing *quite* else like them out there, and they suit my tastes and desires to a 'T', however narcissistic that may be.
As a professional writer, is it the same with you? Will you go back and read one of your books days, months or years later, just for the enjoyment, despite the time and energy involved in the creation of it?
|
Is in the same for me? No. By the time I get done writing, and rewriting, and REwriting, and proofreading, and re-proofreading, and RE-proofreading (and possibly promoting) a story, I'm a) tired of it, and b) focused on moving on to new work. Plus I'm a very slow reader, and there are a LOT of other books out there. Of course, I re-read the first six "Covenant" books when I was preparing for "The Last Chronicles". I re-read the previous mystery novels whenever I prepare to write a new one. But no, I've never read my own work "just for the enjoyment". (05/23/2008) |
iQuestor (Bob): Mr. Donaldson,
No question today, just a comment -- I just finished Scott Brick's Audio version of Lord Foul's Bane. He did an AMAZING job, I just really enjoyed his tone, inflection, and passion. Its apparent he loves the series and isn't just reading it for a job. I am excited to know he is doing the Illearth War to be released in November. We at the Watch are excited.
For 20 years I have been trying to get people I care about (ok, anyone who would listen) to read the Chrons. I am hoping that Scott's audio versions will allow me to introduce the series to people who aren't avid readers. Yes, I know I am a giant geek, but I am excited. And I dont have an Axe. I promise. :)
|
I'm posting this for the information of readers who may be wondering whether or not to invest in Scott Brick's work. (05/23/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Based on past experience, once you have an idea for a short story, how long does it take you to write one? A day, for a short one? A week? Months? How much rewriting goes into a short story compared to a novel?
|
Writing is writing. I write at about the same pace no matter what I'm working on. And I do about the same amount of rewriting for everything. If you assume I can write 3-4 pages a day, and rewrite 6-8 pages a day, and I only do two rewrites.... Well, you do the math. (Of course, I'm talking about manuscript pages, which are considerably shorter than published pages.) When I was younger, I did everything faster (alas). (05/28/2008) |
Rob Smith: Hi Stephen,
In a recent response on the current "Golden Age" of fantasy writing you stated something to the effect that as 90% is always dross finding the 10% thats good is harder...
Oh dear! My statistician gene has leapt forward and, joining with my pedantic gene, insisted I point out that your argument is mathematically unsound.
If the percentage of quality stuff is still 10% then statistically you will still read 9 tomes of crud before you get to a nugget of fantasy goodness. However, if your objective is to read ALL the good stuff, the Golden Age does means it's going to take a damned sight longer...
On a positive note the Golden Age (if that's what it is) should be good news for my favourite author (err...that would be you by the way). The new readers will start with the normal overpromoted dross and, frustrated, then turn to their bookseller saying - "..so where's the good stuff?" The cream always rises to the surface eventually my friend.
Now - what are you doing wasting time reading this rubbish? - Get back to work!
|
Which--if you'll pardon my saying so--is why statistics are an unreliable guide to life. If I see a shelf of 10 books, only one is good, and I can pick only one, I have 1 chance in 10 of picking the good one. If, in contrast, I see a shelf of 100 books, only ten are good, and I can pick only one, I have 10 chances in 100 of picking a good one. Statistically, these odds may be indentical. Experientially, they are very different. In practice, my chances in the second case are more like 1 in 100. And it gets worse. I can probably read the cover copy of 10 books, looking for some kind of guidance before I make my choice; but there's no way in life that I can stand there and read the cover copy of 100 books. Didn't Twain say something about statistics...? (05/28/2008) |
Todd: Stephen,
Hello again, and thank you again for all of your wonderful work, past and present.
Something a little more flippant:
In the upcoming presidential election, who would Covenant vote for, and any insight as to why?
How about Linden and Lord Foul?
|
Covenant, in a fit of pique, might well vote for Ralph Nader. Lord Foul doubtless would urge the current administration to declare martial law and suspend elections. Linden, bless her, might actually try to make an informed decision. (05/28/2008) |
Dale Cebula: Stephen,
I have a question and a comment.
I have been considering the nature of the ravers and I next considered the Elohim and the merewives. The elohim strike as the type of things that really don't care too much about anything but reflecting upon themselves (or Creation, etc). They think of other beings under them, but, under extremes, may actually do something about the world. While there (in)action may cause confusion and a certain amount of hatred from others, they do appear to respect the free will of other things. Again, so long as they are not harmed or the continuation of the planet isn't harmed.
The Ravers are simply hate filled monsters who see their vision of how things ought to be not only desired but necessary. Even their names (the Hindu ones) show that they think of themselves as enlightened and they feel compelled to compel others to do their will. This brings me to the merewives. While not necessarily as evil and hateful as the Ravers, the merewives use their "magic" to force non-Giant males to pursue them. The merewives appear to be immortal, and they are the children of the elohim (or at least of ONE elohim :)). Thus my question is this: Are the Ravers connected to the elohim? Perhaps in a manner that the merewives are connected to the elohim? The world is not as they see fit or desire, but unlike the elohim, they do not show any restraint in their contempt.
Sorry for the lenght! My comment is regarding a response wherein you called the Middle Ages the "dark ages". ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHGHGH! is about the best response I could come up with (LOL). Just as the clave (and the Lords for that matter) understand history through their own lens, so do us regular people in the "real" world construct history according to what we usually want to believe as opposed to what the truth is (I am also guilty of this!:))
pax
I can't wait for the next book!
|
We're talking about a fantasy novel here: EVERYTHING is connected. But I mean that thematically, emotionally, spiritually, not literally. *I* certainly have never intended any literal connection (or even similarity) between the Ravers and the Elohim. (05/28/2008) |
Anonymous: Stephen, I must ask how did you start writing storys? And how do make your storys so interesting?
|
I've said pretty much all I can say about how or why I do what I do. Look in categories like "creative process," "writing & publishing process," and "personal topics". If what you want to know isn't there, I have no answer. (05/28/2008) |
Trevor Mobbs: Long-time fan, first-time investigator of the official website, mildly gobsmacked that you would do such a thing as answer our questions, so here I go and dive in...
Like many people (it seems) I first encountered your books as a teenage boy, about 14 years old. All the volumes of the Chronicles were in my high school library. I've come to the conclusion that the librarians had never actually read them, before slotting them in with all the other fantasy and science fiction books.
How difficult do you find it to break the mindset that fantasy (and science fiction for that matter) is a genre primarily directed at and for teenage boys (including perhaps the ones that didn't quite 'grow up')? Do you encounter this attitude in your dealings with publishers, reviewers and other book professionals? Or is it just high school librarians who think that all fantasy is much the same?
Another facet of the same question really: is it difficult to get people to look past the surface features of a book (a fantasy plot/setting, or a sci-fi one) and have them recognise more than that?
End ramble.
|
Personally, I've never had any difficulty breaking out of the "mindset" you describe. My sense of--alienation is a bit too strong, but I can't think of a better word at the moment--from the intellectual climates of college and graduate school didn't cause me to question the worth of my own response to sf/f: it simply inspired me to dig more deeply into my perception of what sf/f are "good for"--and to try harder to emulate the strengths/skills/insights I learned to admire in mainstream literature. But in other ways, I encounter prejudice everywhere: the number of literate people who sneer reflexively at sf/f is much greater (at least in my experience) than the number willing to consider the possibility that sf/f might demonstrate artistic seriousness. Publishers don't sneer: they only care how many copies they sell. But reviewers, librarians, teachers, scholars, academics and intellectuals of every description.... Of course, the notion that sf/f don't or can't have literary merit is aesthetic nonsense: as I often have occasion to observe, all the oldest and most endurings forms of literature in all languages on this planet are fantasy. In addition, any writer who somehow acquires the label "literature" can write as much fantasy or sf as he/she wants without being sneered at. And yet: as far as I know, I've never persuaded ANYone that sf/f can serve the same high purposes, and meet the same needs, as more "realistic" (i.e. mimetic) fiction. (05/28/2008) |
Sam Wilcock: Hi Steve,
I have wondered if you have found it more challenging to write from a woman's point of view. I have dabbled in writing (very little for my own purposes) and have found it more difficult to write from that POV. The times that I have shared those writings with women I will get comments like a woman would not think/act/etc like that.
So do you specifically "seek" out a woman to review your works. Or in the beginning of your writing did you "seek" out women to review and now you are more 'confident' (for lack of a better word) that you do not specifically need that type of review.
I have long admired your ability to switch POV's so effectively and I know how incredibly difficult it is to switch the different mind sets to write from those POV's
Keep up the great works!
Sam.
|
For reasons I can't explain, I don't find it "challenging to write from a woman's point of view." Maybe it's because I was raised in a house full of sisters. <rueful smile> Or maybe it's because I decided decades ago that women are people--"just like us" <grin>--and writing about them pretty much has to be the same as writing about men. (If it isn't, there's something wrong with our ability to empathize with the human beings around us.) Or more accurately: writing about a specific woman has to be the same as writing about a specific man. They're all individuals, not genders; and if we can't see them as such, we're stuck. And yet (he admitted sadly), I do have one problem writing about women. Quick, name a female villain anywhere in the Complete Works of Donaldson. I had to think about that for a while myself before I came up with any examples. (And no, I don't mean Infelice--who isn't a villain--or the merewives--who aren't individuals--or Elena--who is just misguided.) Thanks, no doubt, to my upbringing ("Women are inherently Pure: Men are inherently Sinful"), I find it difficult to overcome my impulse to make all women "good guys". (05/28/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
kamelda: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Thank you again for your patient reply-- I'm sorry that I require so much patience; especially considering other things you are doing it's very good of you to be so kind. After explaining to my husband about five times what it is that I have been trying to say, he understood and told me how I could hopefully explain myself more clearly.
I can try to illustrate with these three quotes, which I think demonstrate three different levels of confronting a dilemma about reality/unreality.
1. You said, in your response: 'Covenant's final confrontation with LF in "The Power that Preserves" *does* represent an absolute commitment--with absolutely everything at stake (for himself as well as for the Land). But that commitment is not, "Yes, the Land is real," or "No, the Land is not real." His commitment might be (crudely) paraphrased as, "I don't care whether the Land is real or not. It has become desperately important to me. In fact, it *is* me whether it exists objectively or not. And I've done terrible harm to it--as I have to myself. So I'm willing to sacrifice everything and anything, including my life, in an effort to counter that harm with affirmation."'
2. Puddleglum says, in The Silver Chair: "All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."
3. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: "...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied."
Covenant's answer involves real heroism: there are times when the only heroic thing to do is to lay aside an immobilizing dilemma about reality and act to save the things that are worth fighting for -- to risk all, even finding out that something isn't real (I think Puddleglum's answer is similar but goes a step further in that he is not saying the dilemma doesn't matter; but that even if what he loves is unreal, it is the only thing that could be loved and he will go on loving it). It is certainly not Covenant's heroism or his personal risk that I find too easy, but making his provisional answer into an ultimate answer (and of course, since that is only the end of the First Chronicles that may not have been your intention at all: it was simply my reflex response). For on the ultimate level Paul is right: it is inconsistent to hold that the dilemma doesn't matter: if the very molecules are not affected by the goodness we believe in, our faith is in vain. If hope is severed from reality and we have only its fleeting illusion, whatever the heroism of our affirmations, we are the most miserable people that could be.
As for Covenant's heroism, I can only sincerely admire it.
|
I'm not exactly a fan of the Apostle Paul. James is more my style ("Faith without works is dead"). But still: I realize now what has gone wrong with our discussion of Covenant's "solution" to the dilemma of the Land's reality/unreality. YOU TRICKED ME! (In the nicest possible way, of course. <grin>) Here in the GI, I've spent mumbletymumble years (not to mention pages) proclaiming that I'm not a polemicist. But way back when, you described Covenant's "solution" as "too easy"--and what did I do? Without even realizing I was doing it, I turned into a rampant polemicist, arguing with you like a man who believes he has some kind of Answer to the Big Questions. So I've expended (part of) the past six weeks asking myself why I allowed you to trick me--er, I mean, why I tricked myself--like that. The explanation, I think, has to do with the fact that I actually live my life according to the standards of Covenant's "solution". More than *he* does, really. So when you used the words "too easy," I became defensive, not on Covenant's behalf, but on my own. In the context of my (inner) life, Paul's comments quoted above are just plain silly: they miss the whole point of religion. BUT.... But.... But what I think--or even believe--on the subject is pretty much irrelevant. Irrelevant to the GI, as well as irrelevant both to my purposes in writing about these characters, and to the quests my characters undertake for their own reasons, driven by their own needs. I don't write in order to give my readers answers: I write in an effort to encourage my readers to think about questions. And by that measure, your contributions to the GI demonstrate that I've succeeded. In spades. With chocolate frosting. (Mixed metaphor there, but who cares?) Nothing more needs to be said. Certainly there was no need for me to get defensive. <rueful smile> So what I should have said in response to your first message ("too easy") was not rant rant rant, but rather THANK YOU! Am I too late? (06/11/2008) |
Anonymous: Hi Steve,
No question here! But knowing your enjoyment of Wagner, I thought you might be amused by this "summary" of the Ring Cycle (it was sourced as coming from one of The Met's Opera Quizzes in which people were challenged to summarize operas as New York Post headlines):
"Gold returned to rightful owners after daring underwater theft. Ten dead."
Best
|
I like it! Somewhere on the web, there is--or was--a site that gave down-and-dirty two-sentence summaries of a number of novels, including both of the original "Covenant" trilogies. That also was a lot of fun. (06/11/2008) |
Ted O'Connor: I'm going to start with the compliments and then move to my simple question - feel free to edit, etc.
[OK. Message pruned to save space.]
I wanted you to know that I have gotten so much joy from those books, and I really feel like my life has been improved from having read them. Not for any other reason than I have been exposed to another thing of beauty and that I am thereby improved for having witnessed it. Thank you for sharing your stories with me.
OK so now on to the question. I am reading Gilden-Fire - another fruitful internet search! - and I read where the Haruchai meet Kevin for the first time. He is able to understand their language from the Staff of Law. So, why can't Linden understand the ur-viles or waynhim while holding the Staff? At first I thought it was because those creatures are not natural, as you have mentioned before, but then I remembered that the Search giants could understand the jheherrin.
|
Hmm. First I have to state--again--that "Gilden-Fire" is not part of the Official Covenant Text (what we English majors like to call "the canon"). For reasons too complicated to repeat, I took it out of my wastebasket. Therefore only confusion will result if you read the rest of "The Chronicles" on the basis of "Gilden-Fire". I haven't looked at it since it was published; and I've made no effort to include it in my (doomed) quest for internal consistency. With that in mind: The Giantish "gift of tongues" is explained in "The Second Chronicles". And with the excision of "Gilden-Fire," the issue of what language the Haruchai originally spoke (when they spoke aloud) disappeared from the text, never (if memory serves) to return. It isn't an issue I actually *want* to deal with, so I was relieved when I first cut it from TIW. If we leave "Gilden-Fire" out of consideration, I don't think the text gives us any reason to believe the Staff of Law can confer a gift of tongues. In any case, that was Berek's Staff, not Linden's. And even if her Staff *can* confer a gift of tongues, Linden doesn't have all the lore that enabled the Lords to use Earthpower with more subtlety and complexity than she can manage. (06/11/2008) |
MRK: Mr. Donaldson,
Apologies for some much belated kudos on Fatal Revenant. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have up your sleeve for "Against All Things Ending".
I was just reading your wikipedia entry, specifically the sub-entry on "Mordant's Need" (which neglects to mention that one of the main themes of the story is gender dynamics; I keep meaning to add that). It suggests that the castle of Orison may have been inspired by Peake's Gormenghast. Having recently read "Titus Groan", I can understand this notion, if simply in terms of scale and appearance, since the two castles have different thematic meanings. Was this one of those "unconscious influences" or did you actively think of Gormenghast at the time of designing your own mammoth castle? (Revelstone also, retroactively, puts me in mind of Gormenghast, but again only in terms of scale).
Also, have you, redundant as it may be, read any of the Doctor Who novelizations? (one of my early introductions to the Whoniverse was reading Terrance Dicks' adaptation of "The Caves of Androzani" as an adolescent.)
thanks,
MRK
|
(This is what I get for never reading wikipedia. All things considered, that's probably good.) Yes, the castle of Gormenghast was an "unconscious influence" on both Orison and Revelstone. "What a minute," you protest. "If it's 'unconscious,' how do you know it exists at all?" Well, because I read Peake's trilogy before I ever imagined the first "Covenant" books. And by the time I wrote "Mordant's Need," I had read Peake's trilogy twice. I wasn't *thinking* of Gormenghast when I created my own Big Castles (to my mind, Gormenghast is entirely different). Nevertheless Peake's writing must have influenced me *somehow*, if for no other reason than because I liked it so much. Meanwhile: I don't read novelizations at all, including those for Doctor Who. (06/11/2008) |
dhydronyc: Question?
more of a challenge--am I gonna get put on the spoilers?
As you have been going through the history ofthe land, there is 1 character that is necessary, and was not put in the ending of fatal revenant.
high lord mhoram
a basic part of the second trilogy was the
"na mhoram" and if that is to mean he was the secondary character against despite you should "na" leave him out
by the way, what style of martial arts have you studied, if I may.
Tae Kwon Do is what I studied ?[if you feel like answering a personal question]
|
I think I've answered this question, although in a different form. Of *course* Mhoram is absolutely essential to the overall story of the Land. Broadly speaking, however, when people like, say, Linden enter Andelain, they tend to evoke the Dead who are most appropriate or necessary to them. Even Covenant didn't evoke EVERYONE. That would be a disaster--not to mention impossible to write. And since Linden never met Mhoram.... I study Shotokan--although I've had the benefit of exposure to a *wide* variety of other martial arts, including Tae Kwon Do. Incidentally, your question leads me to wonder if you've ever read "The Man Who Fought Alone". (06/18/2008) |
J C Bronsted: What is archetypal evil?
The most common example of archetypal evil Ive come across is Sauron. Tolkien himself denied that Saurons evil was archetypal (in Letters). Saurons evil was a will to domination and usurpation of God, a desire to be worshiped. His means were to this end and not out of blind evil (evil purely for evils sake).
Lord Foul seems closer to the mark, of course, and Im fairly certain you designed him with an archetypal ideal in mind. His evil is spiteful, hate and evil because he can. But does he harbor a hope* that destroying the world will free him? Does this give purpose to his evil? Has he shifted from being an archetype in the First Chronicles to something else in the latter?
I think Im caught up on archetypal evil being purposeless, and any time reason can be ascribed to evil action (regardless of its self-serving nature), it seems to me it then strays from an archetype.
Thank you for this forum and your incredible attendance to it.
*if hope can be ascribed to anything the Despiser might feel.
|
I certainly had something "archetypal" in mind when I imagined Lord Foul. But if your definition of "archetypal evil" implies motiveless evil-for-its-own-sake, LF doesn't qualify (although he surely does get off on other people's pain). Neither, for that matter, does Satan in "Paradise Lost". Even Iago had a reason or two for tearing down Othello. Restricting myself exclusively to my own work, the only character I can think of who might fit your definition is Master Eremis in "Mordant's Need". And even his evil might be considered contextual. He loves sowing chaos "because he can". But if his world had already degenerated to chaos, he might equally enjoy imposing order. In any case, from the beginning of LFB it was always my intention that LF had reasons for what he was doing. If that disqualifies him as "archetypal evil," so be it. (06/18/2008) |
John: It is now six months since the release of Fatal Revenant. Hopefully you are well rested and charged up for the monumental task ahead.
Reading the Non-blog of another epic fantasy author (GRRM), it appears that he does not write his novels sequentially. The Song of Ice and Fire is a POV narrative like the Gap books. Mr. Martin appears got follow a character along a line then, moves on to another. He also seems to flit around the characters as well.
When writing the Gap books did you write each characters story line in its entirety then go back to the beginning and write the next?
When writing the original daft of a novel do you normally go from beginning to end or write certain parts that are more clear in your head and fill in the details sound them later?
|
No, I did not "write each character's story line in its entirety then go back to the beginning" in the GAP books. (Or anywhere else, for that matter.) Where POV is concerned, I write with two distinct but inseparable priorities: to experience the story as the characters experience it; and to experience the story as the reader experiences it. So I always write from beginning to end; I change POV when the story requires it; and I NEVER skip ahead. In fact, I couldn't write any other way. Part of what I'm doing when I write is discovering how the characters serve as catalysts for each other; and that I can't do without exploring their story lines simultaneously (or as simultaneously as a linear narrative permits). (06/18/2008) |
Teresa: This is not at question, but a thank you to Stephen. When I first encounterd Thomas Covenant I felt repelled, but soon I was caught. The chronocles have followed me growing up, together with Mordants need. To discover that you are working to complete the chronicle gave me great satisfaction. Sadly the latest books has not yet been translated (to Swedish) but in return I have come to appriciate reading the books in the original language. I must say you are my favourite writer, of all. Again, thank you for bringing your stories into my life.
|
This seems like as good a time as any to make a couple of points of about the Gradual Interview. First, I know I've been away for a while. For a variety of reasons (including two deaths in the family), one of which is that I've been proofreading Orion's upcoming edition of the GAP books, a task which has pretty much sucked up every spare moment. I hope to be back to what I laughingly call "normal" next week. Second, when one (not to mention "Teresa" by name <grin>) posts a question or comment without leaving an email address, one precludes the possibility of a personal reply--which would have been appropriate in this case. My site suppresses email addresses automatically whenever I make a question or comment "public". And when I send a personal reply, the site then deletes the email address to which I sent it. That should obviate most privacy concerns. (07/02/2008) |
Craig: Hi Stephen,
A question not about your works...rather a question about your life. I do understand a "celebrities" (good grief...how do you feel about THAT?) reluctance to talk about their personal lives given the number of "number one fans" out there and, well, just a wish to keep something of themselves for themselves, but I would like to ask one hopefully not too personal question.
When you do take a holiday/vacation, what sort of things do you do? Do you go rough and camp, luxuriate in five star hotels, stay in the US or go abroad. Do you have a "favorite" get away place (without of course revealing a getaway place!)
At this point I will make a shameless plug and say 'Go to New Zealand for a few days or so, you may find "the Land" transmogrified."
Thanks
Craig
|
I really have no intention of using the GI to reveal or discuss my personal life (although of course I give out hints all the time <sigh>, some inadvertent, some not). If memory serves, I've explained my reasons elsewhere. But I can tell you--without bending any of my rules for myself--that I live in a desert, so to "get away" I like water. Rivers are good: oceans are better. And having been poor almost to the level of real poverty for 30+ years of my life, I got "roughing it" out of my system a long time ago. (07/05/2008) |
Phill Skelton: you wrote:
"Somewhere on the web, there is--or was--a site that gave down-and-dirty two-sentence summaries of a number of novels, including both of the original "Covenant" trilogies. That also was a lot of fun."
http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/ might be the site you are referring to (although it might not, there are probably other similar ones out there). But their abridged "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" is one of their best efforts regardless.
|
For the general enjoyment of readers who are interested. (07/05/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Terry Hornsby: I've been reading the past comments on cover art and totally agree with you about those wonderful Fontana/Goodfellow covers - I love the way the books join together to make a panoramic painting and think the scenes are beautifully painted and apt. It was these covers that drew me to your books and I miss them dreadfully on the latest series. I wish the publishers will bring out matching editions with covers like these.
The impact of covers on the serious consideration given to fantasy/sf works is double-edged. Many high-brow readers would not read the Covenant books for the same reason I did. Some of the best British covers (in my opinion) are lurid. For example, I loved the Coronet covers for Vance's Demon Princes series, the early Arrow covers for Bradley's Darkover series & the earlier covers for Tubb's Dumarest potboilers, which I read in my teens. Such covers limit the readership, but also promote the readership.
Putting that aside, I wondered whether the Land obeyed any rules of conservation of energy. For example, the world of LoTR does - the more magic is used, the quicker the decay, with Sauron's powers much diminished with the war of the ring than with his first war and even then, only slight in comparison to Melkor.
The Land's Laws suggest there is a finite source for such power, which begs the question: Are Lord Foul's powers diminishing? Are everyone's? Can the Land ever recover, earthpower being so omnipresent within it, when it is being used up so wantonly?
|
You're right. "The impact of covers...is double-edged." "Genre" covers appeal immediately to "genre" readers--and usually cause "non-genre" readers to turn aside at once. But there's no guarantee that "non-genre" covers will appeal immediately to "non-genre" readers. Hence the difficulties that publishers have figuring out how to advertise and promote books like mine. Usually publishers decide to just target "genre" readers--and then pray that word-of-mouth will interest other readers. From my perspective, it's clear that the Land *does* obey "rules of conservation of energy"--in the same sense that *our* reality does. Sure, the sun is burning out--but it ain't burning out anytime soon. Individuals, however, inevitably become weak if their energies are not restored. So if you think of Earthpower as comparable to sunlight.... "Can the Land ever recover...when [Earthpower] is being used up so wantonly?" Well, can *we* ever recover from the way we use up our planet (which is, after all, the mechanism that converts sunlight to useful energy)? In both cases, time will tell. (07/05/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: What is your favorite food? When you finally finish the Last Chronicles, after slitting your wrists, will you go out for a nice meal? You would certainly deserve it, just try not to get any blood on the white linen tableclothes...
|
<sigh> I spent all of my formative years choking down awful food, not because I needed it to live (although I did), but because I was punished if I didn't eat it. As a result, even today I take little or no comfort or pleasure in food. (Surely you've noticed the absence of *feasts* from my stories?) Slitting my wrists, on the other hand, is something I can relate to. <rueful smile> One of the worst moments of my childhood was when I realized that what was happening (e.g. eating that meal) was *not* going to kill me. (07/13/2008) |
Clay: Mr. Donaldson, I've wondered this for some time: Would it be considered, by you or your publishers, copyright infringement to use one of your personal coinages in a work of published fiction? I was thinking, specifically, "gallow-fells", which I consider to be a truly evocative and original word. Thanks for your time in reading this, and I look forward to seeing your response.
|
In order for issues like "copyright infringement" or "plagiarism" to arise, a certain...*length* is usually required. If you took a paragraph or creative concept (or, in extreme cases, a sentence) out of one of my stories and claimed it as your own, that would be plagiarism. If you took, say, an entire page (with or without attribution) without obtaining permission from the rights holder, that would be copyright infringement. But "neologisms" occur everywhere all the time, and no one ever gets in trouble for using them. (Except the original author. <sigh>) A reader might encounter a coinage like "gallow-fells" in your work and think, "Hey, he stole that from Donaldson." But there would be no other negative consequences. One can always debate specific exceptions. A writer today who described a magical lake and called it "Glimmermere" could conceivably be accused of plagiarism (although personally I wouldn't bother). But now we're talking about a name that refers to a very specific creative invention. In contrast, a writer today who decided to name one of his/her characters "Glimmermere" should not be accused of anything, except possibly--and this is the worst-case scenario--a failure of imagination. (07/13/2008) |
Blind.Mystic: Mr. Donaldson:
I have no real question to ask because I pretty much read the entire gradual interview and any question I have is either something you wouldn't want to give away or you have yet to formulate it. My comment is thus: Had you been born during the time of the greek golden age or the roman empire and you had conceived of the covenant story, Judith Hamilton would be having a field day with your stories and characters. I can see it now... the chronicles of Thomascus Covenantecles... or something. All cheap wit aside, your Covenant stories are both gorgeously written and of an epic form you never see in modern literature. They are filled with the human condition on a both positive and negative aspect and they give insight to solutions any person could take to heart and live by. As annoyed and frustrated I am with the publishing schedule, I understand. I noticed you said you occasionally let things from this interview effect the story line of the books, so if there was a cyber suggestion box for me to drop comments and ideas in, please give thought to the possibility of linden and covenant somehow ending up in a place where they could share their lives. I'm not talking about a sugar coated happy ending... but at least a compromise and solution to covenant's and Linden's personal isolation. It's probably dorky to you that someone could care so much for characters, but after a person gets over covenant's constant grouchiness and Linden's constant self doubt, they're both good people who deserve a little glory... and you write them so effectively and with such subtle reality they are as good as real. The sad thing is, most people in reality are nowhere nearly as full of desire and depth as your characters. This includes your Mordant and Gap series as well. I'm not saying these things to get autographed copies or a messy nose... you really write your characters with such depth and humanity a reader can almost think they're reading a biography.
Also, if you don't mind, consider the possibility of having the ending lose its ambiguity concerning the reality of The Land. I truly applaud you for a comment you made regarding the cheesy, cruddy and crappy ending of the Dark Tower series. The ending of that near epic was so useless the pages wouldn't make decent toilet paper.
Now, I understand if my suggestions don't make the cutting room floor and from the dislike of the DT series you displayed I'm sure the ending will be worth the wait. I won't be disappointed if it doesn't turn out crystal clear and at least a little less gloomy than the others. I only ask to give it some thought.
Keep keepin' on,
Blind Mystic
|
Thank you! I've been especially fortunate in my readers. But I feel constrained to say that I don't take "suggestions" from the Gradual Interview literally. I have my own intentions, which have been clear to me for a very long time. The effects that the GI have had on the story have been subtle--and rather oblique. Often I don't even recognize them until after they've already happened. The most common: questions or observations that inspire me to think of better ways to weave the entire "Chronicles" into a coherent whole. (07/16/2008) |
K. P. Rooney: Hello Mr Donaldson. I'm enjoying Fatal Revenant at the moment, but I have a question on the Second Chronicles, if you'd be willing.
Can you say anything about how you got your inspiration for the *mechanics* of the Sunbane - a sun that changes its appearance (and the environment) every few days - which has always seemed to me one of the most startling devices in your books. I was delighted by your ability to make every single sunrise - I never counted them (!) - a consistently varied (and terrifying) narrative experience. I first read your book to a soundtrack consisting of Haydn's The Seasons - strangely appropriate given its representations of sunrise and hostile weather!
A quick supplementary question - what's your favourite recorded version of Wagner's Ring?
Thanks for your time, and best wishes for the writing of your next two books!
|
The Sunbane (and its mechanics), like the Land itself, never *felt* like an "inspiration" to me. From my entirely subjective perspective, I was simply following the logic of my original conception. If Lord Foul decides to attack the natural order (the structure of Law) instead of the defenders of that order, what form--I asked myself--would or could the attack take? As I say, my answer to that question felt like an exercise in logic rather than a burst of inspiration. Of course, I'm well aware that how I feel about my ideas and what those ideas actually *are* are two very different things. Logic schmogic. Where could the Sunbane and its mechanics possibly have come from, if not from my imagination? I'm only talking about the *sensations* aroused by ideas. Saltheart Foamfollower's personality *felt* like a stroke of genius (if you'll pardon the word): the Sunbane simply felt, well, reasonable. In other words, the "inspiration" here was the idea for an attack on the natural order, not the application of that idea (the Sunbane). As for where *that* "inspiration" came from: alas, it too felt like a logical extension of what I had created in the first trilogy. It made the story new without altering the underlying structure of my intentions. btw, of the *many* recordings of Wagner's "Ring" I've heard, overall I prefer Solti's. Although there's a special intensity to Karl Bohm's reading that I haven't heard matched anywhere else. Sadly, Bohm's cast is a bit uneven, and the sound quality is less than ideal. (07/16/2008) |
Vince Gregory (Yorkshire, England): Hi Stephen
Many thanks for the Gradual Interview. At times it makes fascinating reading, and it certainly helps to bridge the gap between books. I'm pretty sure this question MUST have been asked before but I'm afraid I can't find it so sincere apologies if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.
I would love to be able to converse with the great Tolkien and the equally great (in my view at any rate) Frank Herbert via their own Gradual Interviews, and wondered who you would Email in your spare time (ha ha!)if only you had the chance?
p.s. I know you have fairly cruel streak, and I've never quite forgiven you for the fate you bestowed on the Giants of Seareach so I hope you don't do anything horrible to Covenant now you've resurrected the poor bugger!
|
I wouldn't email anyone, alive or dead. At times, I'm mildly interested in how other writers think about their work--so when writers like Conrad or Sir Walter Scott write prefaces to their novels, I read them. But I'm much more concerned with how *I* think about *my* work: how else am I going to write True Donaldson instead of Ersatz Tolkien? The example of how other writers think about their work simply doesn't seem pertinent to me. And it can be intimidating. That said: when I have a personal relationship with another writer, I do occasionally discuss narrative problems with him/her. But the conversation is always very abstract (sometimes too abstract to be useful). I don't discuss my narrative problems in concrete terms, and I don't refer to anyone else's work when I do it. What, a CRUEL streak? You shock me. I have to wonder what you think stories like mine are *for*? If I'm not writing about pain--in one form or another--I don't have anything to write about at all. Pain, I often think, is the only true test of character. And it is the only thing that we all have in common. (07/16/2008) |
Brent: Mr. Donaldson, I have read you since I was about 12 (and I am 39!!!), Thomas Covenant was the first fanasy character I met after JRRT. He was quite different than what I had met in Middle Earth and I must admit I had to reread The Chronicles when I was older to fully grasp everything in them.
Anyway, my question is actually about the Gap Series, which I find to be your best work. One thing that strikes me in that series as a bit implausible is the idea of capital punishment for humanity. Given the fact that most Western societies have outlawed capital punishment now (heck some of them won't even extradite criminals who face that possible outcome to countries that still practice it), do you think that the premise that Angus could have been executed for his crimes was perhaps not realistic?? Or did you forsee humanity going back to a less civilized criminal justice system in the future? Or is this something that you didn't think about when writing that series?
Keep up the great work.
|
In the GAP books, I was imagining a future in which self-interested corporations, rather than society as a whole, were the arbiters of "justice". In view of how dehumanizing corporations (especially *large* corporations) tend to be, I consider the premise you question to be eminently plausible. After all, certain illegal human activities serve the Amnion; and the Amnion threaten the very existence of humankind. Not to mention the existence of the corporations--and their profits. Personally I oppose capital punishment. But there's a good argument to be made in its favor. Surely death is less "cruel and unusual" than, say, permanent incarceration. I think it was Joseph Conrad who once wrote, "There are many worse things you can do to a man than kill him." (07/16/2008) |
Stephen Collings: Hi Stephen.
Thanks for your kind reply to my "Time Travel" ideas.
I am curious about something that you might like to answer:
Did you ever consider, or want to call the Second Chronicles, "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and (Dr.) Linden Avery"? (or even vica versa!?) (or any title at all which mentions them both!)
I ask because (a) it would have been truer, and I like the idea, and(b) with you now not calling the third chronicles, "The Third Chronicles", suggests an aversion to numerically-titled sequels.
Now, I think I recall that your editor Lester Del Ray didn't like the idea of a female protagonist at all (!), so I am already guessing that it would have been a NO-GO with him! Also I think that "Second Chronicles" *is* a good title in this case, because I think we were all very happy to have a second helping!
But I am asking whether you thought about "putting Linden up there", and whether you would have liked it, and whether you thought it might appeal successfully to your readers, and to the browsing public. I do see one problem in that, for me, in Britain, both "Linden" and "Avery" are unfamiliar to me as names. (But she could have had different names.) And I am curious, if your answer is "yes" "I wanted Linden in the title!" , as to what might "The Last Chronicles" would now be called! :-)
Also, I'd like to ask you about the dropping of "Unbeliever", and about Covenant's, er, outlook on the Land, at the beginning of 2C. I mean he tell's Linden it's a dream (and it look that way, as they're both laying unconcious out in the woods) but also he's experienced Joan's raw, raving condition, and he thinks it is Foul, yes (?), so I guess he must now think it must all also be more than *just* a dream. I understand that the real/unreal question is not so important to him after the climax of the Power that Preserves, but I wonder how he felt about it all having a greater reality than he once thought. As we see this through Linden's eyes, we don't get any insight into this. Could you elucidate Covenant's thoughts and reactions to this?
Thank you again for your enticing tales.
|
I wish I had something interesting to say about all this. Sadly, I don't. 1) No, I never considered putting Linden Avery's name in the title of "The Second Chronicles". 2) Lester would certainly have vetoed the idea. 3) In retrospect, I have no regrets. Both thematically and personally, Covenant has always been central to my intentions. In some respects (and please don't take this as IN ANY WAY reducing Linden's vital significance), Linden's function in the story is as a "way in": a window through which to view Covenant's struggles; and a means by which to extend, elaborate on, and develop those struggles. I also never considered putting her name in the title of "The Last Chronicles." Nor do I regret not doing so. 4) "The Unbeliever" was dropped from the title of "The Second Chronicles" for the reason you mention ("unbelief" has ceased to be a central theme), and also because "The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" seemed too long even to me--never mind to Lester. 5) This last story is not called "The Third Chronicles," not because I object to using numbers, but rather because I consider it absolutely essential to emphasize that this is indeed THE LAST. After this, there ain't no more. (07/16/2008) |
Ian Lyall: Any chance you might finish ALL of the chronicles of covenant by....say....october 2008?
kindest regards
Ian Lyall
|
Well, let's see. If lightning strikes me dead, say, tomorrow, "The Last Chronicles" will be effectively FINISHED. <grin> Complete, no: finished, yes. Eventually, no doubt, my publishers would release what I've written so far on "Against All Things Ending"--and after that you'll all be free to imagine your own conclusions. Always leave 'em wanting more. [insert something that signifies malicious humor here.] (07/16/2008) |
Iain: A few questions back you challenged us (the readers of the GI) to think (quickly!) of a female villain in your works.
Sorus Chatelaine? Maybe Saddith?
|
Hmm. Saddith is pretty amoral, I admit; but I mostly felt sorry for her. She certainly didn't *mean* any harm: she sure enjoyed her power over men; but I don't recall that she felt any malice--or saw any hurt in what she did. (Master Eremis, in contrast, knew all about the consequences of his actions.) And Sorus Chatelaine switched sides before the end, so I don't think of her as one of the Bad Guys. Just my personal opinions. (07/16/2008) |
Chris Bonn: Not a question, just a point of interest for you. Of which you already might be aware. Author Terry Brooks, on his website, answers five questions a month from his readers and posts the questions and answers.
Imagine how your life, and the GI, might have been different if you had limited yourself to five questions a month!
Anyway, the following reader 'question' and Terry's response were posted as one of his five May 2008 questions. I've copied the text from www.terrybrooks.net for you:
Joseph Jones writes: Hello Terry. In a revised version of The Gunslinger, the first book in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, he wrote an introduction to share some of his thoughts about his work. In it, he made reference to the the sources for his inspiration of the story. He lauded heavy praise onto JRR Tolkien for his work (the basis, or origins for modern fanatasy standards), but proceeded to mention Stephen Donaldson (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant: Unbeliever) and Terry Brooks (Shannara) as 'fathers' of modern fantasypeople who have upheld fantasy standards and sold it to a wide audience. I just wondered how you felt about such comments? Do you feel a shared writers connection with the others?
Terry Brooks replies: I didn't know about King's comments, Joseph. But they are certainly appreciated. Stephen Donaldson and I broke into publishing at about the same time, both with Del Rey, both raised up under Lester del Rey's none-too-gentle hand and marketed with uncanny instincts by Judy-Lynn del Rey. So I share a lot of history with Stephen. But I think all of us as writers share a community with each other, a sort of been there, understand it knowledge of the business. All of us who write fantasy grew up in the shadow of J.R.R. Tolkien and then tried to find our own way. We all took different paths, but we all owe a debt to writers who went before and contemporaries who inspire us.
If I were you, I would find it gratuitously satisfying to have one of history's most prolific and read authors (King) explicitly cite my work as inspiration for his own seminal work.
I don't have a copy of the version of King's 'Gunslinger' that includes the introduction referenced by Brook's reader, but I will be looking for it on my next bookstore trip.
To your knowledge, have any other authors explictly cited you or your work as inspiration?
|
(Speaking of five questions.... So I had this fantasy that I was going to get "caught up"--whatever that means--on the Gradual Interview. So naturally the city decided to replace a sewer line. So naturally the trenching equipment cut the broadband cable. So naturally the cable company declined to repair the cable until the city was done trenching. So naturally I've spent 10+ days without Internet access. (So it goes. Naturally.) But to resume my pretense of actually answering people's questions.... I was aware that Stephen King has made gracious--and possibly gratuitous--reference to my books in more than one context. Of course, I'm (quick, a "gr" word) grateful. But I feel constrained to point out that King's work can easily stand on its own merits. And if anyone else has ever cited me or my work "as inspiration," I'm not aware of it. (07/30/2008) |
Anonymous: What progress and ETA can you please suggest for "Against All Things Ending"?
|
Is it that time again already? I do so wish people would occasionally look for answers elsewhere on this site. For example, if you go to "publications" and click on "Fatal Revenant," you'll find an estimated publication schedule for the rest of "The Last Chronicles" as well. And there are other sources. Meanwhile I post progress reports under "news"--when I have progress to report. (07/30/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
DM: Hey, long time reader, first time questioner. Obviously a fan or I wouldn't be here, but I'll skip the parts where I praise you for your work (I have nothing new to say that hasn't already been said, anyway).
Okay, my question. Reading the GI, I've noticed that you are reluctant to answer personal questions regarding religous belief. That's understandable, I'm much the same. Rather than put you on the spot, though, I want to ask something that *hopefully* isn't too personal.
Let's say you're at a book signing, doing your usual thing, when a random reader comes up and asks, in front of a large crowd, "So, what religion do you believe in?" (Or insert alternate awkward question as appropriate.)
What answer would you give? Do you decline politely, or explain the same thing as in the GI (not relevant to the books). Again, I understand if you would rather not answer this. I'm just curious.
One more question (much more light hearted)... ever had any adoring female fans come up and... ahem... make friendly 'offers', like some sort of literary groupies? (Yes, I know that sort of treatment is typically reserved for movie and rock stars, but I've always wondered if it might occur in the literary world also)
In conclusion, thank you in advance for your time and work and best of luck for the future... both yours and Covenant's.
Regards, DM
|
In public, I find, readers are usually very polite. (Which sure makes talking to them easier.) They seldom ask me "impertinent" questions. When they do, I usually try--also being polite--to avoid the question by discussing *why* I don't consider it pertinent. This only fails when I'm "off my game" for some reason (low biorhythms, perhaps, or extreme fatigue). Sadly--or perhaps happily, who can say?--I appear to have no "literary groupies". I can't speak for other writers, of course. (07/30/2008) |
Marcus James: Mr Donaldson,
I first read your Covenant series when I was about 12, and then again several years ago. I've only just started reading the first book of the new series and it's given me an urge to re-read the first two once again. It's also reminded me of questions, which concern the use of wild magic, I had when I read the first two Chronicles both of those times.
Every time, throughout both Chronicles, Covenant uses wild magic, there's always a catalyst; a Lord's staff, the Illearth Stone, the poisonous venom (these are the ones that come to mind). In The Power That Preserves you write that Covenant knows how to use wild magic, or at least, you hint at it. In the Second Chronicles again, he seemingly knows how to use the white gold, but it's only ever used (as far as I remember) when there's another driving force there.
When Linden gets transported to the Land in the Third Chronicles she uses wild magic to heal herself of her gunshot wound (not knowing how she did it and without the aid of any catalyst either). Now, like I said, I've only just started the Third Chronicles so perhaps my question will be answered later in the series but I'd still like to know as it's been bugging me for years... How does wild magic actually work? From Linden's use of it, it doesn't need any other power present to activate it, but seemingly Covenant always does when he uses it. Or perhaps Covenant's unwillingless to use it throughout his time in the Land is the reason he only ever activated it in the present of another power. Does it work differently for different users (if I remember rightly wild magic is the antithesis of Law)?
Thanks for reading this, and thank you for the many hours I spent as a 12 year old in the Land (I probably learned more vocabulary from your books than I ever did at school).
|
It's generally true in "The Chronicles" that power is about character. It's an expression of character. Or identity. Or the nature of the individual. Covenant's need for a catalyst or trigger arises from who he is: his reluctance to use power (which could be interpreted to mean "accept responsibility") is profound; so profound that it inhibits him. Linden is a very different person. Like Hile Troy, she's more inclined to assume too much responsibility than to accept too little. So what she needs in order to raise wild magic is not an external trigger, but rather an internal focus. (08/06/2008) |
Stephen L Wonders: I have to disagree with your assertion that you have no 'literary groupies'. The entire Fantasy Bedtime Hour run was exactly that, and with (apparently) scantily-clad women, in bed, discussing the finer minutae of your first work.
Or am I just a doh tard? :)
|
I stand--or perhaps lie down--corrected. (08/06/2008) |
STEVE M: Prefatorily, I thank you for your correspondence with me (and others) through this site over the past few years. You are my favorite author. What you have written over the past decades has had a profound influence on me. I have read various queries and responses in the GI regarding advice to aspiring writers and this is along those lines. Recently, I heard John Grisham respond to a somewhat generic question about how to write a novel and gave a simple yet cogent and very informative response. Commit yourself to a page a day and in one year you have a novel. So much for the preface, now to the meat. I am an attorney and my practice (especially the way I do it) is very literary. In college, I wanted to write as a career. Fears of a life of poverty and obscurity caused me to sell out and pick the career that delivered the $. The rationale was that at least I would have a career and along the way I could write THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. Well, its been almost twenty years and I still havent gotten around to that GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. I still pretty much lead a life of poverty and obscurity. Notwithstanding, I can write a killer appellate brief and the most kick-ass Memorandum of Law you will ever see. In any event, life experience has been engaging, to say the least. I have been thinking a lot about things and have been making notes and I think I am ready to write that novel. Of course I make the general pathetic request for any tips you might have but from a more practical business perspective I ask the following; what is the best way to a) get the attention of a halfway decent agent; b) getting an appointment with that agent and c) getting the damn thing published? I had a writing professor in college who said say that if you have the guts, call some bigwig at William Morris and tell the secretary, Im returning his call.
|
Almost everything I can say on such subjects is already in the Gradual Interview (under "creative process" and "writing & publishing process"). But I'll add this. Taking your questions in reverse order: the best (most effective) way to get published is to get a good agent; and the best way to get a good agent is a) *find* one, and b) contact the agency to find out what that agent's submissions policies/procedures are. b) used to be comparatively easy through such publications as "Writer's Digest" and "Literary Marketplace". Maybe it still is: I'm not up on it. a) may also be easy, if you just take the time to find out who represents the writers you most admire. But above all I urge you to remember that agents are human beings, just like editors--and even writers. So DO NOT try any approach that would not work on *you* if you were in the agent's shoes. If *I* were said "bigwig at William Morris," I wouldn't agree to represent you: I'd have you whacked by my good buddies the mumblemumble brothers. (08/10/2008) |
Meredith: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I'm sure this is one of those 'get-a-life' questions, but I am interested in questions concerning words and language, so here goes.
After reading FR I started over with the 1st Chronicles, and when Mhoram is trying to explain the "insufficiency" of the New Lords (concerning the Lore) to Covenant, he states that "We translate the speech of the Old Lords..." That jumped out at me because Berek and Linden had no problems conversing... can you say anything about WHY translation is needed, or is it simply that the New Lords don't read much? :)
With undying appreciation,
Meredith DeVoe (deer of the dawn)
|
I grant you that the text is misleading. Poor word choice on my part. What I meant/mean is that the lore has its own language, a "grammer" unique to its particular application of magic. It requires translation because it wasn't written in, well, the "common speech". Now, if I felt like defending myself today, I could say that Mhoram could not have been aware of this distinction: having no direct knowledge of the Old Lords himself, he could have believed that Kevin's Wards were written in Kevin's common speech. But that sounds a bit like sophistry. After all, through the Bloodguard Mhoram *does* have access to direct knowledge of the Old Lords. So I'll stick with my first answer: poor word choice. (08/10/2008) |
Raymond Luxury Yacht: Over on the Steven Erikson forums, we're having a discussion comparing the reaction to Covenant raping Elena in your book versus Karsa raping many people in Erikson's book House of Chains. (If you aren't up to date on your Erikson, Karsa is a barbarian character who leaves his tribe, etc.)
The discussion is centered around this question: Why are people more accepting of Karsa's actions than they are of Covenant's? I've heard of many people who could never get over the fact the TC raped someone, to the point of quitting reading, but those same people are not as upset when Karsa does so.
The main theory others have put forward about this is that Karsa is a barbarian whose culture does not have the same stigma about rape, so it's more acceptable. On the other hand Covenant come from our world, where rape is thoroughly condemned. This raised the question of how much does a person's culture excuse them for inhuman acts.
Another posted reason is that Karsa changes as a character, eventually regretting his past brutality and pays for his past crimes. I don't think this is a good reason, as TC does the same thing.
I was wondering if you had anything to add to this discussion. Can a person's culture excuse them from doing terrible things? Do you have any theories about why people are accepting of one but not the other? If you have read House of Chains, do you have an opinion about who has done the worse deed?
Thanks for your time. Do you mind if I post your answer on the Erikson forums? If you want to look at the actual discussion, here's the link.
http://malazanworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10967
|
"Why are people more accepting of Karsa's actions than they are of Covenant's?" Gee, could it possibly be that everything about the stories, settings, characters, narrative methodologies, and authorial intentions is different? Erikson and I would be pretty crappy writers if we couldn't elicit very different reactions for very different characters, situations, and purposes. Of the many differences (not criticisms, differences: I'm a huge Erikson fan) I could cite, I'll just mention a couple. First, consider the victims. Covenant's victim, Lena, is a far more fully developed character than any or all of Karsa's victims (most of whom, as I recall, don't even have names). Of *course* her fate generates more outrage than that of Karsa's victims. Second, the nature of the relationship which Erikson builds between his characters and his readers is fundamentally different than the one I strive to create. For lack of a better term, I'm going to call the relationship he devises "objective": the relationship I'm aiming for is "subjective". He tells us a great deal about his characters' thoughts, but very little about their emotions: I positively wallow in my characters' emotions. And Erikson is a builder. He constructs his stories in chunks (even when he's focusing on a single character) with lots and lots of gaps (gaps of time, gaps of emotion, etc.). In contrast, I'm a weaver (at least in "The Chronicles"). Well, differences in method produce differences in effect. Erikson offers his readers a less "personal" relationship with his characters than I do. (Again, this is an observation, not a criticism. The worth or worthlessness of things like "objective" and "subjective" depend entirely on what you do with them--and I like what Erikson does with "objective".) Sure, post this elsewhere if you want. I don't know why anyone should care about my opinions. But they're public here, so why not public on the Erikson forums as well? (08/10/2008) |
Todd Lindstrom: Searching for the term royalty in the GI - I note the absence of any discussion on royalties that you get from audio or electronic (PDF/Kindle) versions of your books. I for one bought Scott Bricks version of FR and greatly enjoyed it. Did you (or will you) get a piece of that or does Scott Brick get the majority of my money in this case. thank you. TODDL
|
Since Brick's readings are formally "licensed" by my publishers (otherwise he'd be sued for copyright infringement), my publishers get a piece of the action. And if they get a piece of his action, I get a piece of their action. The size of my piece is specified in my original contract with my publishers (which covers every eventuality they can think of); but I haven't bothered to look it up. (08/10/2008) |
Shelley: I am still hoping to see a sequel to The Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through
Any hope of that?
Thanks
Shelley
|
Again. I can't write unless I have an idea for a story. I don't decide to write a story and then create an idea. I have to wait until an idea comes. And so far, I have no ideas for sequels--or prequels--for *any* of my books, including "Mordant's Need" (with the possible exception of my mystery novels). If I ever do get the kind of idea you want, of course, everything changes. But at present, the answer to your question is, No. (08/13/2008) |
Eric D: Dear Stephen - Thank you for bring these stories out for us to share. I've been reading the Covenant Chronicals since I was 9 years old and now at almost 40 I still get something new each time I read them. Also just because of the great dialog here in the GI, I am hunting down my old GAP copies and rereading those as well as your other books. More SRD!
I have a pretty basic question at the moment - I just finished the second chronicles and I noticed that Thomas did not find any hurtloam in Andelain. I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation why it isn't there but because there wasn't any mention of it I noticed its absence. My thought was that with Andelain being a bastion of law and earthpower that hurtloam would be present and that Thomas might seek it out and then discover why it was missing or why it had retreated from Andelain as well as the rest of the Land.
Thank you Stephen for your time on these questions - they really are great food for thought!
|
I guess I think about these things less literally than you do. I suspect that people would find all the hurtloam they needed in Andelain--if they ever needed it. But in my mind, anyway, the whole place is so entirely *healing* that the need for hurtloam never comes up. (Shall I mention the Wraiths here?) Certainly the need hasn't come up so far--at least in the context of the story. (08/13/2008) |
A. Buonarroti: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series is the very first fantasy I read when I was in high school. Many years later, I am working on an MFA in fiction with an emphasis on fantasy. As you may imagine, I get no end of grief from faculty and other students about how I am "wasting my talent writing genre." I have a very different view of fantasy and its function in our modern lives, so now in my "essay semester" I'm writing about this issue.
Because it was through your books that I first stumbled onto fantasy literature, I wonder about your opinion on this. While it's true that there is a lot of "escapist" fantasy, that is, fantasy that is for sheer entertainment, there is plenty of fantasy that seems to me to be parallel to, and as "literary" as magical realism. I think these literatures often share as a motivating influence oppression, either the oppression of the writer or the writer's observance of the oppression of others. And what I mean by oppression here is the subjugation of a person or group of people to another.
Do you think that any of your fantasy work is motivated by oppression, either oppression you've experienced or that you've witnessed? (Obviously, Covenant could easily be classified as someone who has experienced oppression, but did your writing about him arise out of your own experience or witnessing of oppression?)
I posit that fantasy and science fiction are serving the function of religion and myth at a time in history when actual religion has a less important role in many people's daily lives. In our culture we are no longer able to have blind faith as in times past. (Some would say that we're no longer able to believe in an all powerful deity or deities, though I'm sure many would argue with that.) Do you see a possible spiritual interpretation of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? Can you see a way in which your fantasy novels provide an answer to the longing for the presence of a powerful force to which we can turn when all worldly aid has failed? (And by this, I don't mean that people would treat the books as sacred text or assume the mythology, but that in reading them, they would feel the satisfaction of that longing even if only for the duration of the reading.)
Last question: How important was it to you when you began your writing life that your work be considered literature and how important is it to you now?
Thanks for considering my questions.
Adrianna Buonarroti
|
You'll find a better-organized response to your questions in my essay, "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World," downloadable from this site. I'll just add a few comments. In my view, the whole idea that "genre" writing CANNOT be literature represents a serious breakdown of cognitive function on the part of people who believe it. In fact, anyone who espouses such an idea has surrendered his/her intellectual credibility. Do I need to point out--to writers, of all people--that in his day Shakespeare (like Dickens) was considered too *popular* to stand among the greats? ("Ben Jonson: now there was a real writer," forsooth!) Or that all the oldest and most enduring forms literature in every culture on the planet are fantasy? Sheesh! You appear to use the word "oppression" in a personal sense that doesn't connect to my sense of my own work. I think, for example, of oppressions like slavery; and I haven't written about such themes. Now if you substitute the word "abuse," I'm all over *that* action.... <rueful smile> On the other hand, "religious" themes are omnipresent in my work. In particular, "The Chronicles" are rife with "spiritual interpretations"--and deliberately so. I once heard the writer S. P. Somtow state, "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry." I agree (although I admit that we could debate the use of the word "only"). Meanwhile, I have *always* aspired to the stature of "literature". Future generations will determine whether or not I've succeeded; but God knows that I've given it my best shot. (08/13/2008) |
Sharon: Found it hard to do an effective search on this topic. Too many hits on the keywords. Apologies if this is a rerun.
Do you see The Land more as a place than as an entity/character? Or the opposite? Or equal measures of both? Supposing it is at least part independent character...is it hard to represent the "will" of something so near and yet so far? Would it be so subtly implied in the desires and actions of certain other characters as to be nearly imperceptible? Would the implication be a conscious representation of the will of the Land (as a character)on your part, or more just something necessary for the advancement of the story? Supposing again the Land is at least part entity/character, from your omnipotent point of view, are you more conscious of that fact than many of the other characters? Just curious. Don't need to respond to the specific questions. Rambling welcome. Thanks.
|
I don't think there's much room for argument on this point. "The Land" is definitely an "entity/character" in the story. It's not an accident that the very *stones* possess sentience; or that the Old Lords made a virtual religion out of service to the Land. That said: while I'm working, I don't assign a set of concrete thoughts or intentions to the Land. It's not a character in the sense that it makes decisions and takes action. So "living entity" might be a better description than "character". Nevertheless I'm very conscious of it *as* a living entity. (08/13/2008) |
Mark: Hi. I have more of a comment than a question. You said in one of your responses (don't ask me which one) that you do not know what Lester Del Rey meant when he decided to name the first Covenant book "Lord Foul's Bane." At first I thought that it was pretty intellectually incurious of you to not want to know this sort of thing, but then after reading some of your responses in this gradual interview, it didn't seem that you and Lester were the best of friends, so it makes a lot more sense that you could have come this far without ever knowing what the title meant. Just looking at the events of the first trilogy, I think it makes the most sense to suppose that Lord Foul's Bane would be the Staff of Law. A good part of the book concerned the Quest to find the Staff of Law, and I do believe that I remember that in "The Power That Preserves" one of the characters said that the reason that Foul possessed Elena and made her wield the Staff of Law in the way that he wanted was because Foul would never try to touch the Staff of Law himself for fear of ending up like Drool Rockworm. I know I can't know for sure, but given the information that we have to work with, I think this explanation fits the best of any. Just my two cents.
|
I can't speak for Lester; and he isn't here to defend himself. But if I had to guess.... He might say that the "bane" in "Lord Foul's Bane" has a double meaning. It refers to both the curse or doom which LF intends for the Land and the curse or doom which Covenant represents for LF. (08/13/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: In the news section you stated:
"To my vast astonishment, the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland, has just announced a desire to offer me an honorary degree, Doctor of Letters, in June 2009. I sure hope nothing goes wrong!"
Hey! My ancestors are Scots! Are you insinuating that things go wrong in Scotland??!! Well, I never...
|
Are you kidding? Things are already going wrong. The University of St. Andrews *still* hasn't received any of my letters accepting their invitation. And when I send e-mails, I get replies asking me to bid on cabinet-making jobs. As Dave Barry used to say, I swear I'm not making this up. (08/13/2008) |
John: For some reason I didn't seem to have a hard time coming up with a female villain of yours - Sue Rasmussen, but as far as I can tell she is one of the very few in your works. And I wonder if its telling to note that she is a 'henchman' of the main villian, Sternway.
|
Well, bless you! Can you believe that *I* forgot about Sue myself? <rueful smile> (For those readers who don't recognize the reference: "The Man Who Fought Alone," the 4th of my mystery novels.) (08/15/2008) |
BookMaiden: As far as I can see, the audio version of Fatal Revenant has only been relased to Audible.com, or is available as a Kindle book at Amazon. As a librarian who orders audiobooks for a mid-size library outside of Seattle, we are waiting for an audiobook version to come out. Is this happening??? Our library users are desperate for the 2nd in the series. Thanks!
|
I'm saddened and frustrated by the absence of a "physical" audiobook for "Fatal Revenant"--or for *any* of my books except "The Runes of the Earth". (In this context, I don't count the Books on Tape program from the Library of Congress.) There are two related problems. First, the "Runes" audiobook sold poorly: too poorly to justify the cost of manufacture. Hence Putnams' (and Orion's) decisions not to continue. Second, "Fatal Revenant" (and now "Lord Foul's Bane") exist as "virtual" audiobooks only because Scott Brick, the reader of "Runes," decided that the project was worth continuing on his own; so he acquired the rights from Putnams (and Ballantine). Not an easy thing to do, under the circumstances. I don't know the details of his contract: he may not have the right to produce physical audiobooks. But that's not really germane. The important point is that he is a private individual launching his own business; and he simply doesn't have the up-front money to manufacture (and warehouse, and ship) physical audiobooks which may never sell. Naturally I wish that my books were more popular: I have as much ego as anyone else. But I concentrate on being grateful for Scott Brick's efforts, and on wishing him every possible success. (08/15/2008) |
Ryan: I've read the Thomas Covenant Chronicles as an almost fanatical fan, happily, but have never found an answer to this: What happened in between Covenant's exit from the Land, and his return? I know about the Corruption, but was there anything that really happened you never put in the books? I've always wondered what had started the Corruption, how the Ravers could even possibly do such a thing, even over time? Despite the end of danger, at first they pratically worshippers for Earthpower.
|
"Was there anything that really happened?" Thousands of things happened. TENS of thousands. Leaving every other conceivable subject aside: the patient manipulation required to corrupt the Council of Lords would have taken many centuries (which is one reason I decided to have so much time pass in the Land between stories). But the stories of those events simply don't interest me. And I certainly don't *need* them in order to carry out my intentions. As I've (often) said before, I only invent what I need. (08/15/2008) |
Ethan : Dear soon to be Doctor Donaldson.
I was thinking recently about the way space travel is presented in the Gap cycle. Its very nuts and bolts. The human element is very clear in the way you describe how ships fly and work. I always got the impression that there was a lot of reality in the world compared to other science fiction. However, in popular science fiction today, on T.V and in movies, and in books too, space travel is often depicted in the space opera mode. Sort of like pirates and swashbuckling in space. The whole nuts and bolts science fiction seems to have lost its appeal. Trying to explain something in sci-fi is now just a bunch of technobabel followed by a simply analogy. I guess my question is, have you, being on the inside noticed a push by publishers to get more of the Star Wars style space adventure and less of the more down to earth nuts and bolts style?
If so, do you think that might change anytime soon?
|
Since my background in science is effectively nil, I'm pleased that you found my descriptions of space travel realistic. I credit a fortuitious visit to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, where I was given the opportunity to climb around in a mock-up of a space station, sit in the cockpit of a training module, and hear explanations on a wide variety of subjects. "Hard" (nuts and bolts) SF typically attracts a smaller audience than space opera--or fantasy. With the general decline in US publishing, hard SF has been suffering. But then, so has everything else. Meanwhile, publishers still love a good story. The hardest AND most enjoyable SF I've read recently is by Chris Moriarty. Check out "Spin State" and (slightly less enjoyable, but still terrific) "Spin Control". (09/06/2008) |
DrPaul: Dear Stephen,
A counterfactual question. If Covenant, or the First, or Cail had acceded to Honninscrave's last wish and killed him whilst he contained samadhi Sheol, would the Raver have been rent, as it was by Nom in the actual narrative? If so, what would have become of the shreds of the Raver? Would a cloud of spiteful little Raverlettes have drifted around Revelstone to infect and corrupt its post-Clave inhabitants?
A more general question about the Ravers and their relationship to Lord Foul. It's clear that LF holds an underlying contempt for his servants/chattel/dupes (as evidenced by his wholesale expending of their lives in pursuit of his strategies), and it seems logical to conclude that this contempt extends to the Ravers. Have the Ravers worked this out for themselves? If so, would they be capable of deciding, on the basis of rational self-interest, to disobey LF's orders if following them placed them in a situation where they ran the risk of rending or some other threat to their existence?
|
Since your first question falls WAY outside the text, my answer is pure speculation. But I suspect that Covenant or the First or Cail would simply have been possessed in turn by the Raver; and the whole dilemma would continue. Nom is a very different *kind* of being than the characters you cite. One of the attractions--and potential weaknesses--of fantasy is that it allows the storyteller to write about "pure" characters, characters without the usual mix of conflicting thoughts and emotions. Archetypal characters. The Ranyhyn, for example; or the Sandgorgons; or the Bloodguard and Saltheart Foamfollower early in the first trilogy. Well, I've always thought of the Ravers as "pure" minions: thinking beings so completely subsumed by Lord Foul that they no longer have any independent reality. And while we're on the subject: what have the Ravers *ever* done that could be justified by "rational self-interest"? (09/06/2008) |
Robert Bush: How long did you think about the land, before you wrote the first word of the actual story.
|
3 1/2 months of intensive, full-time concentration. I was young, undistracted, and excited to the point of ecstasy. (09/06/2008) |
Suzanne Gillies: Hi Stephen,
I've always wanted to ask you how you mentally prepare for writing The Chronicles. Not only before, but during and after. From the first word of every book the emotions that come to my mind are dread, and an extreme sadness. I wonder what you must go through to complete your works and I wanted to thank you for all your enduring hours of emotions put forth in each chapter. I also am an artist (musician and actress) and wrote a journal of my life spanning 10 years. I honestly haven't read it since I wrote the last chapter as I don't want to bring back all of those memories. I just wanted to thank you for sharing with us all of your talent and for some reason I wonder if you really have become Thomas, in a sense? How can you not be after all these years.
Thank you,
Suzanne
|
How I "mentally prepare" is one of those how-do-you-do-what-you-do questions that I can never answer. All I can tell you is that pressure builds up inside me until I simply have to get going on the story. But what is the "pressure"? It feels like anxiety. Maybe I'm afraid that I'll cease to exist if I don't do the work I was born to do? I suppose that's possible. It's certainly true that writing these books (*any* books) takes a great deal out of me. But the draining effect is counterbalanced by an obscure form of excitement (it sure wouldn't *look* like excitement to an outside observer), and by a--I'm not sure what to call it--a sense of "fitness"; of doing what I'm supposed to do with my life. Have I "become Thomas" in the process? Not a chance. I've written too many other books--and too many other points of view--for any one character to dominate my identity. (09/08/2008) |
Ryan Harkins: I have a quick question about how you approach the revision process. Of the authors I've read who comment about writing, most advise separating the writing and revising process, and only one (the late James Rigney) saying he revised as he wrote.
I've found that I'm not the type of writer who can revise as I write--I tend to be a faster destroyer than creator--but once I pound out a first draft, I flounder trying to revise. Part of the problem is that I see a passage that needs reworking, but in order to rework it, I'll have to also make substantial changes to the next X paragraphs, pages, chapters, so on, and the task of such tweaking is daunting. I think part of the problem is the worry of breaking the draft I have in front of me.
As an attempted solution, I'm trying a method in which I retype the whole story and incorporate the changes as I type. In some places, I'm writing the whole scene completely anew, and others I'm just copying off the old draft.
So specifically, how exactly do you revise? I found an old post from 2004 stating that you only type the manuscript once and then just type in the changes, but then I'm curious as to how you tally your daily page count (I believe you said something like 3-4 pages/day on first draft, 5-6 on a revision).
Anyway, thank you for such great stories, and thanks for the GI. If not for it, and all the questions that piqued my curiosity, I would never have attempted the GAP series or the Man Who mysteries, and I loved them.
|
As I've often said, there are no right answers to such questions. Every writer has to find his/her own path. I know writers who revise as they go. I can't do that because all that second-guessing would paralyse me; and I'm absolutely dependent on a sense of forward momentum. I also know writers who simply retype the entire book whenever they feel something needs to change. I can't do that because I'm such a ^@$^&#% slow--not to mention inaccurate--typist. So I put the whole book on paper, and then I work my way back through it sentence by sentence until I reach the end again. Of course, problems often have snowball effects, so a change in one place necessitates dozens of changes elsewhere. And the reverse is often true: a problem that appears on, say, page 521 may be incurable without changes to 411, 386, 305, and 253 (a sort of reverse engineering). But I say (speaking purely and solely for myself): so what? Such challenges--if I may be permitted to mix my metaphors--are just part of the cost of doing business. I simply take notes on my changes, and work backward as well as forward as needed, until I reach the end of both my notes and the book. I'm not sure why tallying a daily page count matters, except as an attempt to convince ourselves that we're actually making progress. Knowing how many pages I've written in a day is easy (especially when you consider that I print out hardcopy obsessively). Knowing how many pages I've revised in a day is easy because I have the hardcopy right in front of me. (I used to do all my revisions longhand on paper. But now I flip back and forth almost randomly between looking at paper and looking at the computer screen. Some problems are more easily solved one way, some the other.) (09/08/2008) |
Anonymous: Mr. Donaldson,
A recent post to the G.I. questioned the use of capital punishment in your Gap books, noting that many nations have currently outlawed the practice. You noted that the Gap universe is governed by corporations, not societies, thus capital punishment is still allowed, as corporations look out for what is in their interest. The poster to the G.I. also suggest that executions are less civilized, to which I would ask, who defines the term civilized, and how and why do *they* get to define it? A rhetorical statement/question on my part.
It should be noted that even though many nations have outlawed capital punishment many who do still support it in certain circumstances, namely the execution of war criminals. Does Angus fall under this category for his actions in dealing with the Amnion? I would think so.
You wrote I think it was Joseph Conrad who once wrote, There are worse things you can do to a man than kill him. I think it was in the movie Unforgiven where Clint Eastwoods character says killing a man is the worst thing you can do to someone because you take away everything hes ever had, and everything he ever will have (I paraphrase, because I cant exactly remember the line). After having delt with people who are incarcerated for the remainder of their natural lives, one thing left to them, however unrealistic, is their ability to dream. And hope.
Sorry, no questions here, just a few random comments.
|
I don't have anything to add. We all have to come to our own conclusions about such things. But I believe they're worth thinking about. (09/08/2008) |
John: Stephen,
You posted in the "news" section, "the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland, has just announced a desire to offer me an honorary degree, Doctor of Letters, in June 2009. I sure hope nothing goes wrong!"
First of all, congrats!
Second, how exactly does this happen? What I mean is the details. Does one person at the university decide to submit a person for this award? Do universities usually do this? Is such an honorary degree decided upon by the faculty of a specific department? Just curious as to how this process might work... specifically in your case (but please don't take this to mean I question the validity of what is being bestowed upon you or whether or not you deserve it)!
Thanks.
|
First, thanks! And second, I have no earthly idea. The whole concept leaves me feeling completely flummoxed. The letter says that the "Senate" (whatever that is) of the University of St. Andrews "unanimously agreed". But what does that actually *mean*? I assume that someone must have put my name forward--and then done some exhaustive lobbying. But I have no actual facts. None. (09/08/2008) |
Luke Macnamara: I must apologise if this question, or similar, has been posed previously - I have only just found this site and have been gradually working my way through it.
1) You say in one of your responses (7/12/08) that the Last chronicles are called the LAST chronicles of thomas covenant because you are not writing any more in the series ever again. However, I have seen where authors have, later on, written additional books in a series and called them things like preludes or whatever....
Will there be any chance that this might happen with the chronicles or are you absolutely adamant that the LAST chronicles of thomas covenant will be the ABSOLUTE LAST chronicles - Why must this be so - its a great epic/saga that should go on - its entertaining - and just a darn great read - why don't you want to do more? I, and I am sure I am not alone would love it if you did do more books in the series.
It puzzles me why things must end, eventually everything must end, I know that, but if they don't have to presently then they should last as long as they can if they are good shouldn't they?
|
Yes, "The Last Chronicles" will be the ABSOLUTE LAST. Why should this be so? I can offer several answers. 1) *Everything* ends. Why should stories be any different? 2) I'm approaching the end of my story. If I don't have more story, what can I possibly write? 3) Aren't 10 books *enough*? How much more can people stand to read about the same setting and (approximately) the same characters? Take your pick. Or read elsewhere in the Gradual Interview for more information about how my imagination works. (09/10/2008) |
Charles K Moak: Mr. Donaldson,
I heard recently that the option that had been taken out on the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant had expired and, not being renewed, the entire idea of a film has dissipated and returned to creative limbo. I would like to offer my condolences for that lost project. It is most certainly the studio's loss.
However, I am somewhat relieved because I have always hoped that once I have finished film school, a passion that has fueled my entire life, I would have the chance to be a part of bringing your amazing series to life onscreen. This may not be a question that you will be able to answer for me, but how exactly does the option process work? I would love to get an idea of how to get started in this direction.
Thank you,
Charles Moak.
|
I'm not exactly an authority on the subject. But in general someone who wants an option approaches the rights-holder (author, agent, publisher) and offers money to purchase the option for a specified period of time (6 months, 12, 18, whatever). (Remember that an option only gives, say, you the legal right to pursue making a movie; and it precludes the rights-holder from doing business with anyone else during the period of the option.) If an agreement is reached about money and time, an *extremely* intensive negotiation begins because the option contract also covers every conceivable outcome, ranging from "Can the option be renewed at the end of the specified time?" to "Does the option include rights to more than one book?" to "How much does the rights-holder get paid if a film *is* made?" to "Who controls the script?" to "Who gets the money and has the final say on merchandising rights?" When all of that has been worked out, contracts are signed, money changes hands--and then, 99 times out of 100, the option purchaser is up a creek because no one wants to *pay* for making the movie. Not my idea of fun. (09/10/2008) |
Nathan Eddy: Mr. Donaldson,
Earlier in the GI, you said:
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.
(11/09/2004)
At the halfway point in our journey through The Last Chronicles, are there any of those seeds you can specify for us without giving away too much for the next two books? Im sure that the end of The One Tree contains quite a few, for both the Haruchai and for the Theomach. Would you mind pointing out a few more that have already paid off, in your eyes? Some that have already produced the fruit which you intended? Or do these seeds still have some potential growth left that youd rather not give away?
Thanks!
Nathan R. Eddy (Malik23)
|
Hmm. I'm willing to say this much: the breaking of the Law of Life, and the resurrection of Hollian, were absolutely critical to both "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles". And the fact that Linden's Staff is not informed by the lore of the Old Lords is no accident. (09/10/2008) |
dlbpharmd (Don): "I appear to have no "literary groupies"."
Hey, wait just a minute here....whattaya mean, "no literary groupies?" As a proud member of KevinsWatch, I ask you - what are we? Chopped liver? We buy all of your books and even buy the audio versions, we analyze your writing down to the most minute detail, we kill more time talking about your work than we do working at our jobs! I think that qualifies us a groupies! What do you expect? Do you want a throng of rabid fans to wait at the door to try to rip your clothes off? I'm sure we can find people to do that, and that's not even talking about the women of the Watch! And no one's waiting for you to throw your underwear at us, because we all know it would just end up on eBay like your ARCs have. So I say, be grateful for what you have!
|
You are not the first to correct me on this point. Perhaps I mis-stated the facts: when I wrote "groupies," I should have instead written "gropies". (09/10/2008) |
Torbjrn Andersson: You mentioned that you have been "proofreading Orion's upcoming edition of the GAP books". I'm curious... does it mean you are fixing inconsistencies (which I imagine are almost unavoidable in a story of that size) in the old release, or does it mean making sure they haven't accidentally misplaced parts of it?
I know you've mentioned (and I have seen for myself) that you sometimes change things between the hardback and paperback releases, but do you also change things between different editions of the book?
(If this ever gets into the gradual interview, feel free to skip the rest. You shouldn't have to defend yourself against nitpicking in public.
In fact, maybe I shouldn't even have written this in the first place.)
Apart from a section that was removed from "This Day All Gods Die" between the hardback and paperback, I had two minor "*what* did it just say?!" moments while reading the books, though only one of them was big enough to briefly jolt me out of the story.
(Nitpicks follow. Skip to the last paragraph, if you don't want to see them.)
One was in "This Day All Gods Die", in one of the Koina chapters. She has reached Suka Bator for the emergency session, but she is still fretting over whether or not to carry out Warden's orders. It says that "Then she might find herself praying for Punisher to fire down ruin on the island. Death would be easier to face than her culpability for a disaster of such magnitude."
Was she thinking of Calm Horizons? (If I remember the sequence of events correctly, Punisher still hasn't arrived yet.)
The other, much smaller, one was in "Chaos and Order". Early in the book, Mikka uses Trumpet's forward lasers to try and cut an asteroid out of the way. Later in the book, Morn is studying Trumpet's weaponry: "Trumpet wasn't equipped with lasers. They were problematic in any case: vulnerable to EM distortion, as well as to the jolts and line-fluctuations of the ships powering them."
(End of nitpicks.)
But whether or not these are inconsistencies, I'm impressed that anything this big can be brought into semblance of order at all. I helped proofread a technical manual once, and I absolutely couldn't believe how many things I missed the first time through it. Clearly, the brain often sees what it expects to see, not what's actually on the page. Thankfully, I wasn't the only proofreader.
|
I won't be surprised to learn that you've identified legitimate inconsistencies in the GAP books. But that's not what I was working on when I went over Orion's text. Orion produced their text by scanning a previous edition of the book and then using OCR software to generate print. Well, most OCR software sucks; so the process introduced MASSES of typos. And the "previous edition" scanned was itself not accurate. I almost went crazy just trying to make Orion's text approximately readable. And I shudder to think what may have happened to Orion's "Mordant's Need," which I was *not* given a chance to proofread. (09/10/2008) |
Tim Koupe: I was reading a review of the Gap Cycle after reading the series myself, curiously searching for a Ring Cycle comparison piece since I'm not
familiar with Wagner at all, and I ran into this comment:
_______________________________________________
Orson Scott Card has commented on the fact that SF is often criticised for having cardboard characters: he says that these critics have missed
the point. According to Card, novels are primarily "about" one of four things: milieu, ideas, character or events. One of those four elements will be dominant, and everything else in the work will be subordinate to the service of that element.
Applying Card's taxonomy, then, Donaldson's body of work is primarily concerned with ideas (although a case could be made also that the
Chronicles are milieu novels, and Card himself is of this opinion. Still, what would he know.)
_________________________________________________
I guess I'm just a little stunned. I thought it was clear your dominant element would be "character". But then after a little more thought, I must admit "ideas" is plausible since you seem to like your characters wrestling philosophical ideas.
So, my question is...if this 1-of-4 element theory has standing, what dominant element do *you* think drives the Gap Cycle (and Covenant for
that matter)? Do you even consciously review these kinds of fundamentals when you work?
And for an easier, lighter question: Why are your characters always "baring their teeth"? Are you spending a bit much time with man's best friend?
FYI - Here's the link to that particular review, if for some reason you're curious (Personally, I found he didn't have much of a grip on POV, nor an appreciation for the oddities of human behavior):
http://www.reviewsbygavrielle.com/gap.shtml
|
My opinions might be more germane if I actually agreed with Card. But I think he takes a reductive view of literature in general, and of sf in particular. In my view, great stories are "about" milieu *and* ideas *and* character *and* events. (By "events," I assume he means plot or action.) Of course, all writers are human, even great ones: therefore they all have limitations: therefore they usually aren't equally brilliant at all four elements. Dickens isn't the first name that comes to mind when I think of a novelist of ideas. McKillip isn't the first name that comes to mind when I think of a novelist of events. Yet Dickens' novels are full of ideas (and milieu, and character, and events), just as McKillip's novels are full of events (and milieu and yougettheidea). To the extent that "The Chronicles" are (primarily) milieu novels, or that the GAP books are (primarily) idea novels, I've fallen below my aspirations. "Baring their teeth," huh? I guess I've seen too many real people grimace, especially when they want to smile and can't. Or maybe I've spent too much time sparring: those mouthpieces make EVeryone appear bare his/her teeth. But if you think the baring of teeth recurs excessively (?) in my works, try counting the number of times my characters drop to their knees. <sigh> (09/10/2008) |
Erik: The other day I was in a book store and picked up "The Riddle-Master of Hed" trilogy written by Patricia McKillip which had been re-released in one book. I had read them many years ago and remembered liking them. Your mention of her on the GI had triggered a memory. Much to my surprise, she had written "For all those who waited, and especially for Steve Donaldson, who always called at the right time." Was this in the original set of books that was written in the late 70's or was this added when the Riddle-master series was re-released. Anything else you care to share on the subject? Thanks again or taking the time to submit to the GI.
|
Yes, that dedication was in the original edition of "Harpist in the Wind". Patricia McKillip and I have been friends since 1977. In fact, I like to pretend that I introduced her to the man who became her husband; but it probably isn't true. (09/17/2008) |
Tim Harris: In response to:
> I can't speak for Lester; and he isn't here to
> defend himself. But if I had to guess.... He
> might say that the "bane" in "Lord Foul's Bane"
> has a double meaning. It refers to both the curse
> or doom which LF intends for the Land and the
> curse or doom which Covenant represents for LF.
Interesting! I'd always assumed "Lord Foul's Bane" was the Illearth Stone he was seeking and used to poison the Land throughout the first Chronicles.
|
The advantage of Lester del Rey's title is that it has so many possible meanings. (09/17/2008) |
Bob Benoit: Stephen - I've just started listening to the LFB audiobook (which brings my total "readings" up into double digits at least), and I wondered at one of Foul's comments when he first speaks to Covenant - specifically how Kevin had befriended Fould and made him a member of the Council before Foul came out and opposed him. Did you ever mention (or might it be a part of the two remaining books) what Foul's "name" was at that time? It seems that strange that Kevin would admit someone named "Lord Foul the Despiser" to the Council of Lords. Thanks.
|
Hasn't this come up before? I believe it has, somewhere in the GI. But in any case: I think it's safe to assume that Lord Foul did not call himself "Lord Foul" when he seduced or manipulated his way into Kevin's Council. Even an archetypalist of my deep-dyed hue isn't *that* naive. (09/17/2008) |
Rigel: Recently, we've had a discussion on the Watch concerning the nature of the Fire Lions of Mount Thunder.
Myself, I hold the position (backed by the glossary in the books) that it's just poetic language for the lava flow from the mountain.
Others think they FLs are actual creatures resembling Lions that are made out of either lava or fire.
So first, what exactly *is* the nature of the FLs?
And second, who actually wrote the glossary, and are the descriptions given in it considered "canon"?
|
I'm entirely responsible for the Glossary. But I have always intended it more as a kind of mnemonic device than as any form of real definition. Otherwise it would be ridiculously long--and rife with spoilers, since so many names, characters, etc. change during the course of the stories. With that in mind: "What exactly *is* the nature of the FLs?" Your question is either a "RAFO" or a "Some things are better left to the imagination of the reader" or a "Why do you suppose the people of the Land call them *Fire-Lions*?" The Glossary does use the word "living". (09/17/2008) |
Joe: Hi Steve,
I was wondering what was the inspiration for Linden Avery's character? I realize a good part of Thomas Covenant came out of your background with lepers, and I'm curious as to where Linden came from.
Thanks,
Joe
|
Well, she *is* a doctor--as was my father. And her early approach to illness and death has some points in common with his. More than that I choose not to say. (09/17/2008) |
Will: Hi Steve,
It's been a while since I posted any questions, mostly because I can't think of anything insightful that someone hasn't already asked!
Maybe I am grasping at straw here, but is there any significance to the grass stains on Linden's jeans? They seem to have been mentioned in passing several times in both Runes and Fatal Revenant.
thanks
|
Gosh, I hope so! Otherwise I've been wasting a lot of words on the d*mn things. <rueful smile> (09/28/2008) |
David Welch: Stephen,
thankyou for your work and the great enjoyment and inspiration I have gained from your books.
I have just finished reading Fatal Revenant and found myself thoroughly immersed at the end and desperate for more. However in stark contrast I found I struggled with much of the Runes of the Earth and the first third of Fatal Revenant - I couldn't seem to connect with the narrative the same way I have with the first two series. I believe in taking personal responsibility for my failings!! so I thought over this and realized that it was not until Earthpower began to came alive for Linden (ie with Berek, the words of power, under Skyweir, Andelain etc) that the story (or maybe Linden) came fully alive for me. Apart from committing to re-reading the novels in a new light it brought home to me the "lifelessness" for its residents of the land under "Kevin's Dirt" in a fairly direct manner. I would appreciate any comments you might have. Also, I know you are fairly firm on the subjective experience of writing and reading (and therefore my "revelation" is just that, "mine") but I was wondering how your experience of what you are writing about affects your emotional state and so in turn your writing.
Thanks again and best wishes.
David Welch, Moe South, Australia
|
The whole of "The Last Chronicles" has been, and will continue to be, a difficult balancing act. Certainly in "Runes" (less so in "Fatal Revenant) I wanted to convey what has been lost since "The Second Chronicles". On the other hand, I certainly was *not* trying to convey a sense of "lifelessness". And, speaking solely for myself, the "Covenant" characters have never seemed as real and alive as they do in "The Last Chronicles". So do I think I've succeeded in striking an effective balance? I have no idea. Time will tell. However, one cannot do work like mine for long without being made aware (sometimes forcibly) that some (many?) readers read more for *magic* than they do for character, plot, or setting. In fact, the argument can be (indeed, has been) made that the success of the "Covenant" books rests almost exclusively on their ability to communicate a sense of magic. Hence (so the argument goes) the comparative collapse of my readership for virtually everything else I've ever attempted. Even "Mordant's Need" makes no pretense of according magic the prominence that it has in "Covenant". Well, if there's any truth to that argument: please understand that I'm not putting it down. I'm entranced myself by writers (Patricia A. McKillip leaps to mind) who can effectively convey a sense of magic. Magic is powerful stuff, both thematically and viscerally. And it *matters*, both psychologically and philosophically. Which is why the actions of the Masters in "The Last Chronicles" have such pervasive and dehumanizing consequences. But still.... Again speaking solely for myself, I can't help wishing that more of my readers were able to see the magic in characters who inhabit settings less inherently magical than the Land. None of which answers your question directly. But there's an oblique answer hidden in there somewhere. (09/28/2008) |
Karl: I have been saddened to see you answering fewer questions recently because I enjoy so much from reading your answers. :)
HOWEVER, if that means that you are spending more time writing the next book in the beloved TLCOTC series, then that is an even better truth!
In fact, you have often been called a Fantasy genre writer, but in many ways even the TC series does not fit squarely in that peg. I have always loved certain types of supernatural/psychological horror (though I have always disliked gore and slashers), and in many ways the TC series appeals to me in similar ways as the better books from that genre (such as Peter Straub, some early Anne Rice - who has gone downhill, and some of the more epic and earlier Stephen King works, such as the Stand, the Talisman, Salem's Lot, with its archetypal evil Vampire). It seems not coincidental that my favorite authors are you and Peter Straub (and ironically, Jon Krakauer, who similarly writes about individual human struggle, such as in "Into the Wild" and "Into Thin Air").
What are your thoughts on this? Do you see yourself at least partially crossing into such other genres? A common theme to many of these works is individual struggle, typically on a psychological level. I almost wish there was a separate genre for such works, just so that I could more easily find those that appeal to me.
|
Here, and in your subsequent (deleted) message, you've put me in some pretty good company, for which I'm grateful. God knows I aspire.... In fact, I've never thought of myself as "a Fantasy genre writer"--or as a genre writer of any kind--in any useful sense of the term. Of course, I'm perfectly aware that I write books which can be given, and which may even appear to cry out for, genre labels. Nevertheless I think of myself as a writer in the same sense that Conrad, James, and Faulkner were writers (although I am *not* trying to claim comparable stature for myself). A writer whose inspiration just happens to fall into the oldest and more enduring of all genres (fantasy), or into a much less ancient genre (science fiction), or into an even more recent genre (mystery). Just as Conrad's inspiration tended to fall into categories like sea stories and novels of intrigue; or as both James' and Faulkner's inspirations tended to fall into studies of social and cultural mores. No creative person gets to choose the nature of his/her imagination. We only get to choose how hard we work at what we're given. (Which may explain why the writers you favor tend to write about individual struggles of one kind or another.) Hence my dismay at the automatic disdain which seems to greet *any* story that attracts a genre label. (09/28/2008) |
Peter Hunt: Mr. Donaldson,
I wanted to let you know that Amazon.co.uk are now advertising the Gollancz reprints of the Gap series. They are due out next month, and they have pictures of the new covers.
Search for "stephen donaldson gap sequence" (without the quotes) on their site and you'll see all four volumes.
Yes, four; Gollancz have combined The Real Story and Forbidden Knowledge into a single volume.
Congratulations on your honorary degree, by the way.
Best Regards,
Peter
|
Just a quick follow-up to the news that Orion/Gollancz is reissuing the GAP books. Incidentally, combining "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" in one volume was *my* idea. It wasn't imposed on me by anyone. When "The Real Story" stands alone, it does a poor job of introducing readers to the *scale* of my intentions. (09/28/2008) |
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.
Kevin Munoz: There is an inscription on one of Asclepius' temple-sanitariums (I believe the inscription is from IG 4 but I could be wrong) which was installed by someone who had been healed by the god: his withered hand had been restored. In the inscription the man describes coming to the temple half-heartedly, not really thinking that the god will heal him. He falls asleep in the temple and in the morning his hand is restored. And he writes in his inscription that Asclepius healed him in spite of his unbelief.
I've been wondering for 15 years, ever since I saw the inscription, whether or not this is something you were familiar with. I would imagine not, since it's a fairly obscure inscription, but I thought I'd ask... It gave me chills when I saw it, and recalled Covenant.
|
Sorry. I don't know anything about those temples, or sanitaria, or inscriptions. I've scarcely even heard of Asclepius. So I don't see how I could have been influenced. And it's not like my thematic obsessions don't have plenty of *other* sources.... <wry grin> (10/01/2008) |
Keith Cary: You mentioned some time ago that you and dirt are starting to have more in common. I'm beginning to understand. More and more quickly, I am returning to the dirt the graces that the dirt loaned to me in the beginning. In my perspective, I get to keep and share whatever improvements I made of that gift. Those ideas led to a pair of questions.
Have you observed yourself integrating lessons or morals into your work intentionally or otherwise to carry forward what you have learned during the past decades?
If a young author wanted to fully learn from your experience, avoid errors, and better capitalize on successes, what would you offer for such a foundation? "Be a lawyer"? Hire your agent?
|
I don't doubt that the gradual shift in my (entirely personal) emphases when I'm writing is an effect of what I've learned in life: I've learned X, therefore I'm more inclined to strive for Y. But I'm much more conscious of trying to integrate the "lessons or morals" of my work into my life. For better or worse, I've always imagined what I am *not*. Later (sometimes much later) I try to benefit from the things that my imagination has tried to teach me. But I don't think that there's any way to learn--directly--from someone else's experience. We're all too different. I may (or may not) be able to "get it" when writer X describes his/her experience; but that doesn't make the implied lesson relevant to my own life or work. As I keep saying, relentlessly, we all have to figure it out for ourselves. That's life. Unearned knowledge isn't wisdom: it's merely dangerous. (10/01/2008) |
Bryan Jones: I have read both yours and Robert Jordans books(and many others) and enjoy reading them completely. As a reader I am confused by your denial to read Jordan. When I found out that Jordan was going to pass away without finishing his last book leaving his lagecy unfinished I was saddened. When I found out they were looking for an author to finish his books I was surprised that you were not first on the list. Is there an anamosity between you and Jordan? I think you would be the first and only author that could do justice to the Wheel of Time. Would there be any way for you to be a part of the developement of the last book? It will be a shame for a story to end horribly when I know that you could make the ending book the best it could be.
I am sorry if I offend you by asking this question. I mean no offense. I am trying to understand why the only choice for ending Jordan's saga with the very best author isn't being done. Isn't the story the most important thing?
|
I can't answer a message like this. It's a bit like asking, "Why haven't you stopped beating your wife?" There are so many underlying--and unwarrented--assumptions that no answer is possible. Just one example. Why do you think that I would consider giving up my own work for the sake of someone else's? Does that sound reasonable to you? But I'm posting this because I want to make a more general point. I wouldn't agree to work with someone else's characters, settings, themes, or stories, even if you held a gun to my head. That's what hacks are for. (Don't get me wrong. Being a hack can be a perfectly honorable profession. It simply isn't *my* profession.) Now, if you held a gun to the head of someone I love, I would naturally agree to anything. But I would be lying. Unashamedly. Stalling for time until I could take a whack at you. The very idea of trying to do someone else's work fills me with existential nausea. (10/03/2008) |
Mike Brown: I know that you have written many times that the Gap Series is what you believe is your finest work to date. I agree, but which of your stories would your recommend to the uninitiated? Sort of a SRD primer to turn on a new reader. The first book of the GAP series I think is a bit harsh for many with the cruelty inflicted on Morn by Angus. I have bought up a number of used "Mirror of Her Dreams" off various websites and like to pass those out to friends who might be interested but now I wonder if maybe Mordant's Need is too large and that perhaps I should try to get folks started with copies of your short stories. I'm an epic kind of reader so the short story collections hold less interest to me but maybe I'm not doing justice by giving out a larger bite than many might care to take.
BTW-I finally watched the Fantasy Bedtime Hour episodes with you in them. Takes a brave man to put yourself in the middle of that.
Thank you again for your time,
Mike Brown
|
Whenever someone asks me where to start, I always suggest picking up one of my short collections. And I usually add something like, "You can find out whether you like what I do without making it your life's work." Specifically? Perhaps "Unworthy of the Angel" and "The Killing Stroke," just to get an idea of my, well, for lack of a better term, my range. Of course, I understand wanting the more complete involvement and satisfaction of a novel. But that only works if you *like* the novel. Hence my decision to push shorter works. (10/03/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
MRK: I have another response to the Name a Female Donaldson Villain challenge: how about Queen Damia in "Daughter of Regals"? Does she qualify? Granted she's only one of several in that story.
|
Queen Damia. Of course. How could I have forgotten? (Does the passing of more than 25 years count as an excuse?) (10/03/2008) |
Kuldip Wesson-Caberwal: Hello Mr Donaldson, I nearly have all your books and re-read them with keen excitement quite often, thank you so much for your inventiveness and giving me so much enjoyment. I have been writing a book too for fun mainly,Which i started many years ago. I would be very honored if i could put you in it as a character (cameo appearance)as yourself.I know i don't know your character but will make it up on the lines of 'your a nice guy.'The story is complex but a lot of it is set in Nirvana (which is a place in my book, but same as that 'spiritual' place)where i wish my character to meet you, as you meditate and have reached enlightenment (reason why you are in Nirvana.I hope that makes some sense, and hope for your permission/endorsement. Many thanks, Kuldip, Mid-Wales, UK
|
As far as I know, you don't need my permission to write me (real or otherwise) into a story--as long as the story is clearly a work of fiction (which yours obvious is). Otherwise any form of satire would be impossible. (In contrast, if what you write is demonstrably intended as a personal attack, even if you call it fiction, you have a problem.) And I never want to interfere with other people's creativity. So from my perspective, you have nothing to worry about. (10/03/2008) |
Eric D: Hi, Steve.
I like to think that almost all villains or antagonists have some measure or capacity for redemption. Two individuals who come to mind are the Harrow and Roger. If not redemption or change, do you have plans or thought to explore their drives and motivations more?
I am guessing that you do - at this point I have a lot of faith in your storytelling and attention to detail. My initial impression of Roger was that he was easy to hate and the Harrow seemed shallow (self-absorbed). But this has only whetted my appetite for more time with them.
The greatest journey seems to be reserved for your protagonist(s) but I wondered if you might be considering similar journeys for some of the minor characters?
Thank you for your time and this wonderful realm you have created. It has generated a bounty of food for thought!
-eric
|
(But don't *spoil* anything. <rueful smile>) I've said on any number of occasions that I want my characters to have "dignity": reasons, motivations, a story of their own, the power to make choices. But there are a couple of obstacles that I don't know how to avoid. First, it simply isn't possible--even in a story as large as "The Last Chronicles"--to give all of my characters *equal* dignity. In some cases, I have no choice except to rely on--for lack of a better term--inference to supply whatever dignity is available. The second obstacle is inherent to the *kind* of story I'm telling here (one that confronts archetypes explicitly). This kind of story encourages, even benefits from, the reliance upon some comparatively "pure" characters: characters defined by one or two (very) strong traits rather than by the full complexity of--again for lack of a better term--real people. Take the Giants, for example. I like to think that they have individual differences. But their individual differences are small compared to their similarities as, well, as Giants. They are all clearly recognizable as Giants even when their individual names, descriptions, and experiences have faded. In a different kind of novel, I would see this as a serious weakness. In "The Chronicles," I consider it a strength. It allows me to concentrate my themes in ways that aren't available in other forms of storytelling. (10/11/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
drew: Mr Donaldson,
Recently, you answered a GI question about your writting/rewritting process. You stated that you tend to write out the story first, and then go back and do the rewrites.
I'd like to know about when you wrote the Mordant's Needs novels, which you'd written in four parts. Did you write part one, and then rewrite part one? Or did you write Novel one, and then rewrite Novel one? Or did you write the entire story and then rewrite the entire story.
I'd like to let you know that I've just finished The Mirror of her Dreams, and am getting ready to begin A Man Rides Through, and I'm thoroughly enjoying the entire series...just as much as the Covenant Series' and the Gap series.
Also one more qick question: Do either you or your webmaster proofread and edit the GI questions for speling erors?
|
When I write--and when I rewrite--I work in *books*. I mean in physical volumes, not in structural subdivisions. Although "Mordant's Need" is structured in four units (called "books"), I wrote and rewrote the story in two phases, "The Mirror of Her Dreams" and then "A Man Rides Through". The same is true of "The Chronicles". A majority of the volumes are subdivided; but I worked (and work) on them in the same "chunks" used for publication. All of "The Runes of the Earth" until it's done, then all of "Fatal Revenant" until it's done, then you get the idea. And no, no one proofreads the GI questions for speling erors. I proofread my answers as best I can, but of course I don't catch everthing. (10/11/2008) |
Terry: First...Thanks for the hours of escapism :-)
My question - your characters are always telling stories, interested in one another, searching out truths etc etc so why is it that no one ever inquires of Covenants/Lindens world (the real world)? Hard to imagine one of your giants not wanting to know given their love of a tale.
I searched but could not find this quetion... apologies in advance if it has already been asked/answered.
Kind regards
T
|
I can think of several answers. In no particular order: 1) The other characters (Giants, Lord Mhoram, etc.) *do* want to hear stories. Covenant and Linden just dont want to talk. 2) I dont want to bore the reader by spending pages on things the reader already knows. 3) Since the outer world is considered a reflection or externalization of the inner--an idea to which I cling even though Im clearly in the minority--the other characters dont *need* to know stories about Covenant and Linden. 4) Since pretty much all (or at least a huge majority) of the crucial actions take place outside Covenants and Lindens normal lives, why talk about those lives? These books are already long enough without even more distractions from the main events. (10/19/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Time, or time travelling is a big element of the Last Chronicles. Thinking about this I realized that the people of the Land really don't have many ways that they talk about time, they don't have names for the days of the week, months, holidays, etc. Or at least you decided not to include such references in the story, or I can't remember any. Obviously, this was intentional, was it just that it was unnecessary for the story you wanted to tell? I'll admit that until recently it never even occurred to me that they don't talk about "time" much, the same way they don't talk about "money". You a genius!
|
Well, of course theres the whole unnecessary for the story answer. But in addition, consider the implications if I had done something else. For example: why *exactly* do you suppose we name the days of the week the way we do? Clearly different day names have different meanings; but the underlying organization of those names is not only religious but predominantly Christian. On the seventh day He rested and so on. So what underlying organization could I have devised for the people of the Land--without imposing either a centralized religion (on the Lands history if not on the Lands present) or a centralized government (again, an historical one if not a present one)? No, the whole idea quickly becomes a conceptual morass; and a morass of a kind which violates the spirit of what I was trying to create. Admittedly, naming moons, months, seasons, or years might not have been quite so messy. But why bother? Wheres the benefit to the story? (10/19/2008) |
Paul Bujold: Since Book I of the Chronicles, I have always had to have a vocabulary list which I create by highlighting and then looking up the words that are not familiar. For the Runes of Earth, I laughed and laughed when I looked up 'incondign' and found this:
incondign
adjective
(context, especially, of punishment) inappropriate or disproportionate; be it excessively harsh or lenient.
1977, Stephen R. Donaldson, Lord Foul"s Bane, page 306
:"The hawk was ill, , a thing created by wrong for purposes of wrong " bent away from its birth by a power that dared to warp nature."
Etymology: Adjective derived from the French word condign, meaning wholly worthy or fitting.
Maybe you should create a "Donaldson Dictionary". Your erudition is one of the reasons I read your books, other than the fascinating ideas. I have only found one author that matched your ability to put unusual words into play.
|
Good God! What dictionary are you using? Thats a *whole* lot more immortality than I ever expected to achieve. (10/19/2008) |
Mark: Do you plan to include any Haruchi women in the last 2 books?
Thanks!!
|
OK, you got me. I am completely bumfuzzled by the sheer perseverance of this recurring question. Why in, well, Someones Holy Name (at the moment, I cant think whom to invoke) do you care? Apparently a number of people do (although the GI as posted probably doesnt reflect that fact). But I cant imagine why. And since I cant imagine why. However, please feel free to speculate as much as you want. Broadly speaking, it seems that warrior cultures conform to one of two basic paradigms: 1) the women are warriors as well, indistinguishable in that regard from the men (although they may serve different functions in combat), or 2) the woman are rewards, and as such, their lives have very few features in common with the men. Anyone want to guess which paradigm the Haruchai are more likely to prefer? (10/19/2008) |
Chucklut: Dear Stephen,
Regarding the Seven Wards of Kevin's Lore which he had hidden throughout the land only 3 or 4 of them were actually found during the course of the story. The story intent was that each new ward would reveal itself only after mastery of the previous ward.
However, with Covenant's "awakening" of Lorics Krill, Amok appeared. This is something that Kevin couldn't predict or prepare for.
Considering the long passage of time throughout the land, wouldnt these "lost" wards eventually be found by the curious and lorewise creatures of the land?
|
If youre going to include lorewise creatures, I suppose the (purely speculative) answer is probably yes. But the circumstances of the Council of Lords were never as simple as mere curiosity and diligence or even total dedication might suggest. Once the Lords finished cleaning up after their recent troubles (no easy task in their case, considering what happened to Revelwood), they doubtless resumed their studies. But much had been lost. And it only makes sense that each new Ward would be more difficult to discover than the one before it. And--well, who knows how far they got before the Ravers subtle manipulations began to take effect? But once those manipulations kicked in, the whole situation changed. (After all, why would Lord Foul or any Raver *want* the Lords to regain more of Kevns Lore?) So maybe several Wards *were* found. And maybe the Clave contrived to distort them, or re-lose them outright. As far as Im concerned, well never know. My only real point is, sure, the Lords had plenty of time to go Ward-hunting--but LF (or the Ravers, if LF was still in his version of hibernation) also had plenty of time to think of ways to thwart them. (10/19/2008) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
John Taff: How is progress coming on Against All Things Ending? When might we expect to be able to read a posting of the first chapter, as we did with Fatal Revenant?
And do you take questions like this as flattering in their earnest eagerness? Or do they make you feel stressed and harassed? Just interested!
John
|
I probably shouldnt answer questions like these. They reveal too much about me. But Ive been sitting in this aiport so long Ive forgotten where it is, and my judgment is impaired, so what the he*l. If I were the kind of person who felt flattered by earnest eagerness, my mother probably would have drowned me while I was still a puppy. No, whenever someone asks me about my progress, my reflexive reaction is, Well, theres anOTHer reader Im disappointing. <sigh> I think I covered posting chapters earlier in the GI. I dont have the legal right to make my work public without my publishers permission: after all, I did sign a contract with them--and I did so of my own free will. But I cant reasonably ask my publishers for permission if they havent even seen (never mind approved, in the editorial sense) the material in question. So the next first chapter is still a long ways away. Or its a hard rain gonna fall. Or something like that. (10/19/2008) |
Joe: I have a question that has been nagging at me since I started reading Fatal Revenant. I have searched for this in the GI and have read about your disdain for creator questions or to explain specifics about a fictional universe. However, I decided to ask anyways.
Did the Creator actually create the Earth or just provide the circumstances for its creation?
If the Elohim are to be believed the Worm was around after the Universe but before the Earth. Also it was devouring stars within the Creator's creation. If it was after the Arch of Time had been sealed then the Creator did not make the Earth or the Land, and his only part in the creation of the Earth was creating the Worm. Also, by one of your responses in the GI you said the awakening of the Worm would break the Arch of Time and end the Universe. I do not think this would happen in this scenario if the Worm had been around after time had started. This also does not make sense with one of your explanations in the GI of Foul being inside creation placing Banes(like the Illearth Stone) in the Earth before the Arch was sealed.
If the Worm was around before the sealing of the Arch of Time, and thus able to break it. Then I can see only two ways that the story can play out with the Creator making the Earth.
1) The Creator made the Worm and then the Earth upon that, but that leaves out the Worm eating stars since time had not begun. Also I cannot see the purpose of making something that will inevitably destroy what you have made. Unless it cannot awaken unless some external force wakens it. Since it was said that the Worm is not fully asleep i do not see that as a possibility, even still thats a hell of a risk.
2) The Worm is something akin to the Creator/Foul beings i.e. not created by the Creator. In which case it entered into the creation and was eating stars before time started. Then if the Creator did actually create the Earth he must have known about the Worm in his creation and condoned it by creating the Earth around it. Again why create something that will inevitably destroy what you have made. In this scenario I also could not understand how the Worm could break the Arch where Foul cannot since they are both beings from outside the Arch.
Unless I am missing some vital knowledge, I cannot see how the Creator/Worm stories can possibly work together in the way you have them set up with the current information in the books. Also I cannot see how no one else has asked this question yet, unless I have skipped over something stupidly that explains it.
I hope that you answer, or at least tell me you cannot because it will spoil something to come that addresses this.
Thank you for your time,
Joe
|
I've been wrestling with this question for some time, mainly trying to figure out why I find such questions disturbing (in other words, trying to understand myself). Unfortunately, I can't claim that I've made any real progress. However, a few points are pretty obvious (if not actually *clear* <sigh>). It bothers me not at all that "The Chronicles" contain Creation Myths which appear to contradict each other--or which literally do contradict each other. Creation Myths reflect the people who tell those tales: the tales may or may not reflect any external "reality". In my own thinking, I don't grant the Elohim any more "authority" than anyone else. Their Creation Myth, like their understanding of the world in general, is no more true (or false) than anyone else's. Any Creation *must* contain the means of its own destruction. This seems so obvious to me that I hardly know how to explain it. Life would be impossible without death. My stories would have no power to engage people unless those stories also had the power to alienate people. And it seems inherently impossible for the finite to describe the infinite (hence the way religions always fall back on anthropomorphism, even though anthropomorphism falsifies what it tries to describe). Well, *all* the Creation Myths in "The Chronicles" are anthropomorphic. On some level, therefore, they are all false. And...and...none of this is relevant to my intentions in telling the story. ("I only invent what I need.") On the subjects that appear to confuse you, I haven't tried to provide more coherent information because I have no use for such information in my story. ** Hmm. ** OK, that last sentence may be somewhat misleading. Let me try again. In my view, *meaning* is created internally by each individual in each specific life: any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story). That, among several other reasons, is why the Creator has effectively vanished from "The Last Chronicles": I'm trying to tighten my thematic focus and keep it where it belongs. So when you ask me a question like, "Did the Creator actually create the Earth or just provide the circumstances for its creation?" my reflexive reaction is, WHA---? You've stepped so far outside the story I'm trying to tell that we are no longer speaking the same narrative language. (10/22/2008) |
Blind Mystic: What in the hellfire and bloody damnation are the wraiths? I've read through 8 books of this brilliant story and they are so pervasive, yet so apparently unimportant to the story, I keep forgetting to ask. will they suddenly show their true value to the whole story in this last chronicle? I know... I know... rafo. they seem so significant, but so piss ant weak, they're almost like literary catalysts for action in the book. on a strange humor note, I once thought of a raver standing near them as they trembled and tinkled all over themselves and he bends down and lights a cigarette off of one of them.
|
"What we have here is a failure to communicate." World-building requires small inventions as well as large, minor details and powers as well as major. If Earthpower is really the essence of the Land, then it must express itself in lesser ways as well as greater. But *unimportant*? Break out the cardiac paddles. I think I'm having an infarction. If you asked me to name just one thing that makes the Land worth writing about, I would probably pick the Wraiths. If you asked me to name just one thing from the Land that I would like to actually see in person, I would probably pick the Wraiths. *Unimportant*? I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone else. I can't get there from here. (10/22/2008) |
Tony Still: Hello Mr Donaldson,
I have always wondered what Elena was looking at when she had that faraway gaze or that otherness stare you talk about in the illearth war. I think I just missed the significance of it...I can't imagine it being a RAFO.
Thanks :)
|
What does anyone look at when their attention is absent from their circumstances? Thoughts? Memories? An idea suggested by something seen or heard? I suspect that every human being alive occasionally looks like he or she isn't paying attention. In Elena's case, I don't know because the story isn't written from her point of view. But it probably wouldn't be unreasonable to guess that she's thinking about what she intends to do with the Power of Command--or what she wants from Covenant. Or why. (10/22/2008) |
Jim Melvin: You're not going to pull a Covenant version of Brett Favre once you've finished Book 4, are you?
|
I would rather be dead. In fact, just thinking about what following Favre's example would entail might kill me. <rueful smile> (10/23/2008) |
Nathan Eddy: A few of us are currently dissecting Fatal Revenant on Kevins Watch. Perhaps Im obsessing over a detail, but your cryptic word choices invites detailed speculation. :) On page 167 of Fatal Revenant, you wrote:
A few of [Bereks people] had witnessed the salvific rampage of the Fire-Lions. Nonetheless it was likely that none of them had ever seen Earthpower in thetic fire.
My question concerns the word, thetic in reference to the Staffs manifestation of Earthpower. When I read thetic fire, I immediately thought of Edmund Husserls usage of this term in phenomenology.
. . . the existence-belief is an indispensable part of the perceptual phenomenon: such experiences are essentially *thetic,* i.e., there can be no such thing as a perceptual experience without belief-character. . . (The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/)
In this context, I understand thetic as an essential component of consciousness which is present in all perceptual awareness of the world. It is the act of *positing* existence of that which we perceive, a positing which occurs simultaneously (though often implicitly) in every act of perception. It is the underlying or unspoken belief that what we see actually exists--a phenomenological engagement, rather than an explicit ontological theory.
So, did you intend thetic fire to convey this sense of positing existence? Did you mean by this word that the Staff is the instrument by which she confers reality upon her beliefs? If I understand her relationship to the Staff correctly, she uses it to direct Earthpower according to her will, bringing her intentions into existence, making them real. Contrasted with the White Goldthe fact that Linden has a hard time accessing it and enacting her will through itcan we assume this is the connotation you intended?
Just in case Im way off base, and you had a completely different connotation in mind, I have a simpler question about thetic fire. How does this phrase distinguish Lindens use of the Staff from Fire-Lions in the above quote?
Thanks!
Nathan Eddy (Malik23)
|
There is, in a manner of speaking, less to this than meets the eye--for the simple reason that your understanding of what the word "thetic" can mean is more sophisticated than mine. I'm unacquainted with Husserl's thinking (although I recognize the rhetorical style <grin>), so I wasn't thinking in his terms when I used the word. (A word, by the way, which does occur elsewhere in "The Chronicles".) If I recall correctly (by no means a sure thing--and I'm on the road, so I can't check my sources), my dictionary defines "thetic" (adj.) as "deliberate or intentional," with the added connotation that the intention is inherent or fundamental to the noun being modified. So a phrase like "thetic fire" implies both choice (and after all, choice does define reality--on one level or another) and--for lack of a better word--aptness. Linden's use of Earthpower is both deliberate (she has a purpose, duh, as if you didn't know) and appropriate (her purpose suits the nature of the power she's wielding). Now. It isn't difficult to get from there to where Husserl is. But Husserl's elaboration of the concept isn't necessary in order to understand what I'm trying to say (and imply). And an overdose of Husserl could be misleading--at least in regard to my intentions. For example. Sure, you could say that when Linden uses Earthpower in Berek's camp she's "positing existence." But if you then went on to say that when she's NOT using Earthpower she's NOT "positing existence"--well, the ramifications would almost immediately become too messy to contemplate. In that (admittedly extreme) case, my use of the word "thetic" would lose its "thetic" quality. Meanwhile, back on less abstruse footing.... No one who "witnessed the salvific rampage of the Fire-Lions" *without health-sense* would have any way of knowing whether or not the rampage was "thetic". Are the Fire-Lions sentient? Do they act by choice ("positing existence"), or are they responding instinctively/reflexively/autonomically to someone else's choices? People with health-sense might be able to discern the presence or absence of choice: Berek's people, at that time in their history, could not. By contrast, anyone who even glanced at Linden would see that she was acting deliberately. (10/23/2008) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Did Thomas Covenant and Linden Avery fall in love at first sight?
|
I'm tempted to say, "No, Covenant used a Mac." An oblique reference to an extended quotation from Douglas Adams much earlier in the GI. The real answer is probably more along the lines of, "How would *I* know? It isn't in the text." But I suspect (pure speculation) that the answer is no. Covenant doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who falls in love at first sight. And Linden--well, I doubt that Linden even knows what love *is* when her story begins. (10/23/2008) |
Rick : Dear Stephen,
Recently I came across Mekong Delta, a German progressive thrash metal band that has been around since the mid eighties. I was pleased to find their back catalogue contains two albums that are influenced by The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant. Just wondered if youve come across this before?
For info, the album Visions Fugitives contains a set of six instrumental pieces collectively entitled Suite For Group & Orchestra (despite the thrash metal genre of the band, these pieces are more orchestral) the titles are as follows:
Introduction The Danger In Dreams
Preludium Lord Kevins Lament
Allegro Mhorams Victory
Dance The Corrupt
Fugue Knowledge
Postludium Lenas Daughter
Their album The Principle Of Doubt betrays its clear influence in the title. The album is more progressive thrash metal in style - and incidentally its good quality metal that is intriguing for its variety and complexity (this album is my personal preference of the two).
Just thought you might like to know that youve had this influence over a cult heavy metal band (and a respected one at that). As a fan of both thrash metal and Donaldson, I am enjoying this combination greatly :)
Interestingly the band website contains an interview where the main songwriter talks of influences from Wagner (though it seems he prefers Mussorgsky) through to Donaldson. I think the description he gives of TCOTC is great clearly a guy talking a second language in a metal interview! :)
The interview can be found at: http://www.mekongdelta.eu/readarticle.php?article_id=11
PS The Gap Sequence is without question my favourite story ever. What a stunning climax! Thanks for signing my copies last year in Nottingham, UK its hugely appreciated.
Best Regards,
Rick
|
I'm posting this as a matter of general interest. Personally, I didn't know there was (or is) such a thing as "progressive thrash metal". <rueful smile> (10/23/2008) |
Kelly W. Peavey: Dear Steve,
While I can understand why someone would never feel comfortable trying to create in someone else's world, and certainly why you wouldn't give up your own work to do so; I was taken aback by your description of someone who would, as a hack. "Honorable" or not, the word has a horrible connotation.
There are several authors, perhaps hundreds, who participate in shared worlds of one kind or another, and I guess I never considered them hacks. I'm surprised you would. Here's a bit of info on the "hack" who agreed to finish the story: http://www.brandonsanderson.com/faq/section/3/Wheel-Of-Time-FAQ
Sincerely,
Kelly
|
I'm sorry if the word "hack" gave any offense. I guess some (many?) people see a negative connotation I don't. Maybe I have too many friends who proudly call themselves hacks. Or maybe I'm just too aware that during many periods in human history all the best art was produced by hacks. The idea that artists who work to someone else's specifications for pay are somehow inferior is a comparatively modern notion. Regardless of connotation, however, shared world anthologies are a special case. Typically the writers who participate share in the *creation* as well as the use of their specific imagined world. That hardly fits the definition of "hack" as I understand the word. (10/25/2008) |
John Blackburn: Hi there!
I've now bought the newly issued UK Gap book 1 (Real story + Forbidden Knowledge) and it looks very nice. I completely agree with your decision to put the first 2 books in one volume as they are strongly thematically linked both being set entirely in space ships.
I think the idea of humanity ravenous for minerals seems increasingly prescient. The only stocks going up are mining companies like Rio Tinto, Bilington. And China is buying big chunks of Africa to strip copper, tin etc.
A few questions from the Real Story:
1) What sort of body do you imagine Com Mine is orbitting? Is it orbitting a planet or a star or just free floating? How big do you think Com Mine is? I get the impression pretty large if Alpha and Delta sectors are rigidly separated.
2) Was the whole "supply ship Nick trick" necessary. Nick could have just put station supplies in Bright Beauty while she was docked (assuming Morn read the note and opened the hatches.)
3) Did you think of the Amnion when you wrote the Real Story or is that a theme that came later?
John.
|
Thank you. 1) I didnt actually imagine that Com-Mine Station was orbitting at all--although it could be, I suppose. I was thinking more along the lines of a debris field that had not yet been captured by a gravity well. Certainly the emphasis on internal spin to generate g suggests a certain distance from any other significant source of gravity. 2) Huh? The whole point here is that the supplies were *stolen*. So if Angus and Bright Beauty are securely docked at Com-Mine the whole time, under effectively constant surveillance, when/how did Angus commit the crime of which he is accused? Nick had to stage the crime SOMEwhere to account for the simple *existence* of stolen supplies. (After all, if Com-Mine has no reason to think a crime has been committed, Security has no reason to search Bright Beauty.) How could he have staged that crime--on Com-Mine--in such a way that suspicion would naturally point to Angus? No, as far as I can see, the only way to convince Com-Mine that a non-existent crime has been committed is to stage the crime somewhere beyond the range of station surveillance. 3) Its a bit embarrassing to admit that the idea of the Amnion came later. Remember that some years passed between the original drafts of The Real Story and my realization that the novella implied a much larger story. While I was first writing The Real Story, I naturally assumed that piracy is pretty much meaningless if theres no market for stolen goods. But I didnt think beyond that point until later. (10/27/2008) |
Todd: Hi Steve,
You said here in the GI, back on 1/21/08, "I'm so in love with Linden".
Ever since you wrote that I've wondered how you could be objective when it came to her character. Perhaps you didn't mean that as I took it. But just as parents have difficulty being objective about their children, so do writers if they're overly emotionally invested in their characters. Or so I assume. I've yet to be published, so am hardly an expert.
I'm not trying to add to your aggravation with regard to receiving annoying questions from people who don't like Linden. (I like Linden.) Rather, I'm hoping that you'll take the time to explain what you meant.
|
[question and comments edited to save space] Considering that all of my characters are--in some abstruse sense--me, I suppose I cannot truly be objective about them. Or do anything other than love them. Certainly I give them my loyalty; I look at the world through their eyes; I think the way they do. And yet. Im still the distant puppet-master who created all these characters. I decide their personalities as well as their destinies. In some respects, there is no one who can be as objective about my characters as I am. So when I say that I am so in love with Linden, I do *not* mean that Im blind to her flaws. I do *not* mean that I accept her reasoning simply because its hers. I do *not* mean that I consider her admirable in all her dealings. No. What I mean (or think I mean) is that I understand her deeply, I share her doubts about herself (they resemble mine) as well as her commitments (they also resemble mine), and I feel tremendous respect for the courage and toughness which enable her to hang in there against odds which would assuredly defeat me. What I mean (or think I mean) is that I wish I could *be* her. Or maybe what I mean is that Linden still needs me in a way that I find, well, endearing. OK, OK, I admit it: Im not sure *what* I mean. <sigh> What does ANYone mean when they say theyre in love? And, just by the way, have I ever written about a character with whom I was *not* in love, however briefly? (Yes, of course I have. What kind of fool question is that?) btw, a trivia question for GI experts: can you tell when I'm answering questions in airports, or on airplanes? <sigh> (10/27/2008) |
Aaron Greene: I appreciate the opportunity to revisit the land, throughout my life. It is a fresh view each time I arrive.
As a person who is immersed in Geology as a profession, I often see so many references to scoria, granite, obsidian, etc. in your books. Your references to the "bones of the earth" and other statements make me wonder if you have found geology interesting enough to study? Do you simply take influences from the Southwest environments? Obviously, your settings are fantastical, but do feel you impose realistic geological constraints on your descriptions of the land?
By the way, I had a heck of a time occasionally with the vocabulary in the last book. So much for my knowledge base in your area of expertise... (sarcastic grin, I don't have a wry grin).
|
To my cost, I have no real knowledge of geology. Just a few smatterings of personal research. Im like that, I suppose. I often become interested in subjects solely because they pertain to what I happen to be writing at the moment. When I start writing something else, I become interested in other things. But do I impose realistic geological constraints on my descriptions of the Land? Thats a different kind of question. As Ive said, I dont know enough about geology to impose realistic constraints. On the other hand, I do try hard to impose reasonable constraints. Part of my, well, philosophy of world-building is that within the general framework of my imaginative constructs I need to be as rational, practical, logical, and even mundane as I possibly can. (Not to mention consistent, about which Ive already commented at length.) Hence my smatterings of personal research. I dont really want or need to know everything a real geologist knows; but I would like to know enough to be *reasonable* in my creative efforts. (10/27/2008) |
rob farrow: Dear Mr Donaldson,
I read in one of the earlier posts that you think the Coveneant series is unfilmable. I also read that the main stumbling point was the ring and how this would be considered a "Lord of the Rings" plagarism. I am not so sure this is a valid argument because what else could be used, even if you remove the symbolism of the ring.
I think the main stumbling block must be the rape. In the book we are able to clearly understand the reaons for Covenants loss of control whereas for a film this would require a great deal of acting prowess, something not usually associated with a movie containing cgi. If you think about it, just taking the rape, the subsequent desctruction of Lena's family and the effect it has on Covenant would make a pretty good arthouse film. The rape is just too complex.
I wonder if you have ever considered the possibility of any movie adaptation of the books beginning with the second chronicles? By making a film from Linden's perspective, allowing the audience to identify with her growing love and respect for Covenant, the introduction of the rape becomes if not acceptable, at least defensible. Also, the agrument about the use of a ring becomes even weaker (given that this series has more visual indications that the source of the power is Covenant himself with the ring just being a conduit).
Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Rob Farrow
|
Please. We're talking about the movie biz, remember? This means two things (in the context of your message). 1) What does "a valid argument" have to do with anything? Hollywood rejected the "Covenant" proposal because of the ring. Of course, questions were asked. Is the rape the real stumbling block? Is leprosy? No, Hollywood replied. Over and over again. Who cares about things like that? Not us. We only care that the proposal is an *obvious* LOTR rip-off because of the ring. 2) Whether or not I've ever considered an idea like the one you suggest could hardly be less relevant. I've said it over and over again, and I'll keep saying it until someone believes me: I have absolutely no control over anything that does or doesn't happen in Hollywood. No one listens to me. No one cares what I think. This isn't personal. In Hollywood, money talks: everything else walks. So unless I have a few hundred million dollars to invest.... H*ll, I don't even have the power to say NO to a movie deal. Of any kind. My publisher holds the film rights: I don't. If you really want to see a "Covenant" film, talk to someone who has enough money to make things happen in the movie biz. (10/29/2008) |
Vince: Hi Steve
I have always loved Science Fiction and Fantasy, from my first readings of Asimov and Tolkien through countless others to your wonderful books, but I've only just realised (yes I'm a bit slow) why I love Mordant's Need and the Thomas Covenant books so much more than anything else I've read. Though many writers are adept at creating fantastic worlds in which to base their stories, there is something uniquely fascinating about a character from our own world being translated into a fantastic or magical realm.
Are you able to recommend any other works that follow this format?
I have my fingers crossed that when you have finished The Last (sigh) Chronicles, the next big idea that pops into your head sees 'one of us' embarking on another big adventure (maybe one that doesn't have to suffer quite as much as Covenant to get wherever their journey takes them! mmmmmmm... but then of course the lows amplify the highs and make them all the more delicious)
Take care
Vince
|
Well, there are the obvious antecedents. "Alice in Wonderland." "The Wizard of Oz." "The Chronicles of Narnia." Some Kurt Vonnegut Jr (I think). If my memory hasn't failed me, E. R. R. Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros". A fair number of Tim Powers books ("The Anubis Gates" is one candidate). By some standards, King's "The Dark Tower" saga fits your description. And I'm sure there are others. Perhaps lots of others. I just haven't read them--or I can't remember them at the moment. (10/29/2008) |
Sarah: Mr. Donaldson - I am a HUGE fan. I've read the gradual interview for a few years and always wanted to ask a question - not necessarily for the answer but just so that a writer whose work so strongly affected me would simply know that I exist. (obssesive fan wave)
In a recent post you said "Unearned knowledge isn't wisdom: it's merely dangerous" and it succinctly describes on of the themes of the first chronicles, when the Lords sought out Kevin's lore that had been hidden from them. Was Mhoram equal to the temptation of desecration because he earned the knowledge, he paid the price?
Is this why earthpower is so dangerous? Because it is unearned? Which of course made me think of Kevin's dirt and how the people are now blind to the earth-sight. It seems like a sentiment a Master would say.
This may be a tad "theoretical" but how then, when you receive unearned knowledge, can you earn it? How can Linden earn (or become worthy) of her inante knowlege of the staff of law?
(final obsessive fan wave)
|
"Unearned knowledge isn't wisdom: it's merely dangerous." Hmm. We can make subjects like this as complex as we want. But the simple answer, I think, is that there's more than one way to earn knowledge. Direct study of, say, Kevin's Lore isn't the only way. And there's more than one way to earn wisdom. Direct study of, say, Kevin's Lore isn't the only option. In fact, it may not even be a particularly effective option. 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." Like much of what Musashi had to say, that's pretty da*n cryptic. But I take his statement to mean that the discipline of becoming "the master of one thing" teaches the student what *mastery* itself requires and implies; and that the requirements and implications of mastery are the same regardless of the "one [specific] thing". Further, I infer from Musashi's statement that there really is only one kind of mastery: mastery of the self. Everything else is just a way to get there. Therefore Mhoram is "equal to the temptation of desecration," not because he has mastered Kevin's Lore, but because he has mastered himself. Kevin, in contrast, for all his knowledge and power, never truly became a master because he did *not* master himself. This, I think, reveals the true fallacy of what the Masters have done by trying to suppress all knowledge of Earthpower. Knowledge itself isn't the issue: *mastery* is the issue. But the Masters have chosen to believe (perhaps unknowingly) that no inhabitant of the Land can ever be the master of his/her self: an error of emphasis, if not of intent, which leads to all manner of problems. Not the least of which is the unconscious irony of calling *themselves* Masters. By my understanding of Musashi, if the Masters had truly achieved *mastery* themselves, they would have chosen a very different path. (Why else would LF believe that the Masters serve him, albeit unintentionally?) So sure, Linden can earn her power, even if she can't benefit from the study of Kevin's Lore. All she has to do is...well, you get the idea. (11/03/2008) |
Christian: Hello Stephen:
Nothing new to add.. I just wanted to Thank You for the effort you put into the Gradual Interview. It allows us to fight the mental rumblies until the next installment.
I was wondering if you would know where I can get / purchase a digital version of the great cover art at the back of the First Chronicles (UK version, I believe). When you place the 3 books together, you get a panoramic painting of the Land. I believe the artist is a certain Goodfellow (as I have read in the GI), but am uncertain.
Thanks and Regards,
Christian
|
I have no real answer for you. The company (Fontana) which orginally published the "Covenant" books in the UK has since been absorbed several times by ever larger conglomerates; and the current UK rights holder, HarperCollins, is completely unresponsive. However, you might try to locate a web site or contact information for the artist, Peter Goodfellow. Decades ago, he did brilliant work for "The Chronicles". (11/03/2008) |
Doc: SRD Wrote:
"I wouldn't agree to work with someone else's characters, settings, themes, or stories, even if you held a gun to my head. That's what hacks are for. (Don't get me wrong. Being a hack can be a perfectly honorable profession. It simply isn't *my* profession.) Now, if you held a gun to the head of someone I love, I would naturally agree to anything. But I would be lying. Unashamedly. Stalling for time until I could take a whack at you. The very idea of trying to do someone else's work fills me with existential nausea"
Then why did you write the short story, What Makes Us Human?
|
A good question. I suppose I could rationalize my decision to write that story by saying it was a new experience, and as a matter of personal philosophy I don't believe in prejudging--or automatically rejecting--new experiences. Or I could observe that I took everything except the central concept (Saberhagen's Berserkers) outside the context of anything that Saberhagen had ever written. (In fact, I never even used the word "berserkers".) Or I could attempt a different kind of rationalization by remarking that Fred Saberhagen was a personal friend and I really didn't want to disappoint him. But the real explanation is this: Pure Ego. Fred showed me some of the other stories written for "Berserker Base," and I wanted--meaning no disrespect to anyone--to prove that I could do better. In other words, I wrote "What Makes Us Human" for my own ego gratification, not for Fred's benefit--and certainly not for the story's. (Which I now consider to be an inadequate reason to impose a story on readers.) In my own defense, I can only say a) I was a lot younger then, and had never put myself in that position before, b) in retrospect, I consider "What Makes Us Human" to be my weakest story (for reasons which are obvious to me), and c) the experience taught me to Never Do That Again. (11/03/2008) |
Andrew Calverley: Hello.
Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to pick holes in your story. Such is not my intent, it is amongst my favourite books. Just curious as to where the motivation for naming the Giant-Raver 'Satansfist' came from.
Since "Satan" is a concept/entity that is apparently absent from the Land, it seems unlikely that the Raver is named thus to invoke fear in the Land's inhabitants. And since at no stage in the first trilogy does TC (or Hile Troy)meet Satansfist, it seems unlikely that the Raver is named thus to scare TC.
I'm not the most knowledgable of people when it comes to religion, but isn't "Satan", by that name, endemic only to 'Christianity' and the Bible? There don't seem to be any other Christian references in the Land (for example, they have "the Creator", not "God")
Anyway, I don't want to labour the point. Your intention with naming the Raver this is clearly not lost on the reader. For lack of better words, his name indicates he is there to do the devil's punching. But wouldn't Mhoram be as intimidated by the name Satansfist as he would by Andrewsfist or Stevesfist?
|
Since your question is essentially identical to a subsequent one about my use of the word "christened" in "Fatal Revenant," I'm going to respond to both at once (with apologies to Mark E.). I don't know why readers find this concept so difficult to grasp, despite my many efforts to explain it. But whether or not you choose to believe that the Land is "real" independent of Covenant's and Linden's perception of it, you simply have to accept the fact that I derived *all* of the original content of the Land (including its languages, characters, names, and magicks) from my understanding of Covenant's mind and experiences. 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. So words like "Satansfist" and "christened" (and moksha, turiya, and samadhi, and Sheol, Herem, and Jehannum, and others far too numerous to count) *fit* my intentions because they can be justified by Covenant's (and then Linden's) prior knowledge of such notions. By this standard, there is no substantive difference between a name like Satansfist and one like, say, Mhoram. Readers clearly have strong--and divergent--opinions about the implications of what I'm doing. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes. But it has no real bearing on how *I* think about what I'm doing. *Thematically* the story has left the idea of "unbelief" behind; but that doesn't free me to change the rules I've established for myself in "The Chronicles". (11/03/2008) |
Michael Lerch: Mr Donaldson,,About Your Muse or Muses: Do you have a Muse or Muses? Do you care to talk about your Muse(s),, the Muse encounter or experience? Is there any particular story or character in your art that can be taken as the Muse experience? Is there anything about Muses you would like to share with the Donaldson readers?
The Insequent of the Last Chrons strike me as very Muse like. I have wondered if that was your design.
|
I'm afraid that my instinctive reaction to your question is: huh??? In other words, I don't have a "Muse"; I don't even think about such things; and in fact I'm not entirely sure what a "Muse" is supposed to be. In my (purely personal) experience, ideas can come from anywhere. For me, they're most likely to come from some intersection of language and emotion; but that is by no means predictable or certain. Ultimately, I suppose, all of my ideas come from some place inside me (a place I cleverly call "my imagination"). But what triggers or catalyzes them varies too much to be specified. However, if we agree that "Muse" means "imagination" (which it probably doesn't), I do have one thing to say on the subject. The imagination is a muscle. The more it's exercised, the stronger it gets. People who wait around for some sort of "Muse" to strike live in constant danger of atrophy. (11/12/2008) |
Mark: I've only read the first Covenant trilogy, so my opinion of Covenant may change once I read all of them, (and I will eventually read all of them) but from the first three books I have some issues with the Covenant character. He reminds me of the people involved in the skeptic movement. About five minutes after entering the Land he decides, without any real consideration of all of the possibilities, that it is all a dream and cannot possibly be real. His disbelief holds until the end of the trilogy. However, something very interesting happened after the second time he was transported back to Earth. He tries to verify that Hile Troy (interesting name, by the way - I like it) is real by calling the Department of Defense, I think. If he is so convinced that the Land is all a dream, why would he even bother spending the cash on a phone call? I often wonder, given some of the things that skeptics say, whether they are really as skeptical as their public personas would lead you to believe. It's one thing for someone like James Randi to authorize himself to offer a dopey, unscientific (and just not very well reasoned) challenge for proof of paranormal abilities with a winning pot of a million dollars of someone else's money. (as if anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would submit himself to a test of the paranormal run by the most hardcore skeptic on the planet) However, I don't know that Randi would participate in such a test if his life was on the line. For a while now I have suspected that many, if not most skeptics have a deep-seated fear that we really are going to find good evidence in favor of psychic phenomena or UFOs or one of the million other areas that skeptics think that they are experts in all at the same time, and think that they better fight their opponents to the death or else their faux "rationalist" belief system is going to come crashing down all around them. I guess I have two questions:
1) Is Covenant being honest with himself in the first trilogy when he doggedly refuses to admit that there is at least a small possibility that the Land is real?
2) Did you intend to draw a parallel between the mindset of the Covenant character and the mindset of the skeptic movement?
|
(Note to readers of the Gradual Interview: for reasons which are about to become obvious, I wouldn't be making this message public if "Mark" had given me his email address. I would have preferred to send a personal reply.) "Is Covenant being honest with himself"? "The mindset of the skeptic movement"? Excuse me. What part of the relationship between leprosy and Unbelief did you not understand? Covenant is a "skeptic" because he has been taught (for good reason) that his survival depends on it. That would certainly be a sufficient motivator for *me* if I were in his situation. (11/12/2008) |
Mark Morgon-Shaw: It's been a few years since I posted a question ...
I'm finding Fatal Revenant a tougher book to get through. I keep needing to refer to the glossary to remember who is who and why. So many characters seem to have been introduced.
It's probably just me and the reduction of brain cells since I read the original trilogy but I found them a much easier read, though the subject matter was sometimes tough, what with Lena's story and all.
I think I'm yearning for Covenant's return ( the real one ) as he was the character that made me love the original books so much. I guess I always root for the anti-hero.
I guess my question is will Covenant play a more central part in the final book and is the large array of characters all build up for a big payoff at the end.
Thanks
Mark
|
Boiled down to its essentials, your question appears to be: Are "The Last Chronicles" worth reading? To which I reply: God, I hope so! (I certainly *think* so: otherwise I wouldn't write them.) And I do like to believe that by now I've earned the right to be trusted by my readers. Which, I fully realize, is no guarantee against disappointment. But then, *nothing* in life is a guarantee against disappointment. (11/12/2008) |
Corsair: As a kid I read all kind of adventure related books I could get my hands on. Herg, W.E. Johns, Jules Verne, MacLean and later Tolkien. Tintin and Biggles ruled when I was young. I always dreamt of roaming the world and experience all those places I had read about. Also to become all that which my heroes were. I took off when I was a teenager. Worked as a war photographer, journalist, negotiator and analyst. Got involved in a lot of shady business and intelligence related stuff. Mind games and complex plots with the highest possible stakes followed. I ended up seeing some of those prisons I had seen in movies. All (at least in retrospect) were interesting and rewarding experiences.
Got bored.
Nature, the most powerful of all forces started to attract me. 8000 meter mountains and visits to obscure areas followed. I ended up in those far away places where you and you alone were the determinator of life and death. Tibet's Chang Tang plateau brought me to the absolute limit, mentally and physically and almost killed me. Even so; it was a great experience.
I can temporarily quench the insatiable hunger for adventures of all kinds with litterature and films, but it's only good enough for a couple of months at the time. The Gap Series and Chronicles of Thomas Covenant have been some of the better substitutes for the real thing.
I read somewhere that you haven't drawn much of your writing from personal experiences, so I wonder if you ever have had the need to put your self on test, living through some of the situations for example Covenant had to deal with?
Also, you seem to be fascinated by foreign cultures, landscapes of the kind you don't find outside your door and mysterious tales of the past cultures.
Have you traveled a lot? Visited far away places to attend to a story teller's night of for example nomadic tribes?
And finally:
"""This does not make me "a more gifted writer".(10/05/2005)"""
I disagree.
Regards, Corsair
|
No, I don't share your apparent adrenaline addiction. I put myself to the test every day when I write: that's enough for me. I write what I am not. Some critics have argued that this approach is uniquely characteristic of American writers. Maybe that's true. For myself, I can only say that I face my own fears as best I can--and those fears revolve primarily around conflicts with myself, certainly not with nature, and rarely with other people. Although I grew up in India, that wasn't my choice. As an adult, I don't seek out strange (not to mention dangerous) places or people: my head is already full of them. And it is decidedly *not* the character of my experiences that makes me "a more gifted writer" (if I am one): it's how I think about what I've experienced--and imagined. (11/19/2008) |
Vince Gregory: Vince Gregory
England
Hi Steve
I need to try and explain something to you. I hope you dont 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 cant understand why we care.
You dont 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 cant help being interested. Its 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 youI believe it was you who said, why read something if youre 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 enjoythere must be something wrong with me, right? I mean, I know theres not, but the thought does cross my mind, Why dont I enjoy these books? They must be good, Donaldson likes them!
Secondly, while I was in my 20s 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 dont 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 youre my favorite author, but also because youre 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) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: So.... why Albuquerque?
No offense to native Albuquerque'ians...
|
That's entirely personal--and something of an accident. But I like it. In fact, I've never regretted moving here. (01/07/2009) |
DrGonzo: hello Mr. Donaldson hope you are well and the next novel is coming along at a good pace.
My question is concerning magic and technology.
I know that you have answered questions on the GI about the magic in your texts saying that it should not be explained in too much detail. This is interesting as it differs from the sci-fi idea that nearly everything needs to have some basis in scientific reality (to a degree). This is highlighted in your own novels by the Ancillary Documentation in the gap cycle. These short chapters give explanations to a degree as to how the technologies such as matter cannons and gap drives work, but i'm sure i would be right in thinking that such explanations would never appear in the Covenant novels to explain how the Krill works or how the immortality of the Bloodgaurd actually works.
This is the contrast that my essay is exploring and, tell me if i'm being a little forward in asking this, it would be nice to have the opinion of an author who has delved into both of these genres.
So in a very round about way my question is what is the difference between the magic of the Lords in Covenant and the gap drive in the gap cycle? One is given a larger degree of explanation than the other but both are impossible to our here and now. One, by its place within a certain genre, is given a fairly detailed description while the other is just there as a natural part of evolution, it is part of the land and that is all we as readers need. but, when it comes to sci-fi there is a need to explain thing in far more detail. Is this just a matter of genre?
(I know your a busy man and probable let out a heavy breath when you read this email thinking why me? But if you do find it in your heart to give a response to this could you put it up in the GI as i would need a URL to put in the reference section of my essay as i would be quoting it.)
Thank you for your time either way.
|
"Is this just a matter of genre?" That's backward. Genre doesn't determine matter: matter determines genre. For example, I don't provide "Ancillary Documentation" in the GAP books because I'm writing sf. I provide "Ancillary Documentation" because it's appropriate to my subject-matter; and *that* determines the story's genre. (Have I confused you yet? I'll keep trying.) The simplest distinction between magic and technology (fantasy and sf) is that magic is internal where technology is external. The gap drive depends on an arcane manipulation of the laws of physics: the person *using* the gap drive has absolutely no effect on whether or not the drive works. The "impossible" is external, entirely the result of a physical device. Wild magic, in contrast, is an expression of the person wielding its instrument. Different people can do different things with wild magic, as they can with Earthpower--and with every other form of magic in "The Chronicles". An instrument may be necessary (white gold) or it may not (the Ranyhyn don't use tools), but the magic itself articulates the spirit or passion or imagination or transcendance of the person using the instrument or power. ("You are the white gold.") So magic is internal. Put another way, technology is a means to an end. In one sense or another, magic is not a means: it's an end. In both cases, of course, a person determines the use to which the "impossible" is put. But you could say that in sf the person *chooses* the use, while in fantasy the person *is* the use. Incidentally, that's why magic is better left (mostly) unexplained. The more it's explained, the more it becomes external: the mere presence of an explanation requires the magic to conform to the rules of that explanation; and if it works that way *here* it should work the same way elsewhere, for anyone--just like a technological device. Put still another way: in "The Chronicles," the "impossible" describes my characters; in the GAP books, the "impossible" describes the reality inhabited by my characters. (01/07/2009) |
Anonymous: Here is a vote for the lifting of Kevin's Dirt in AATE. A quality missed has been the the general feel of the land that was prevelant in previous books. From a previous answers to questions in the GI, you mentioned that your use of language to evoke the exocticness of the land and the land as almost a "character". With the loss of earthpower, the foreigness of location is not nearly as strong. I know you don't want to rehash the old story line but I hope books # 9 resolves the dirt. While I'm voting, I will cast a ballot for more of the "dead" & less demonden (sp?). Thanks for the enjoyment and the GI!
|
Tsk tsk. Surely you know by now that I delight in outfoxing people who try to second-guess me. <grin> (01/07/2009) |
Donal Cunningham: I was wondering if you read Neil Gaimans' books and if so,how do you feel about his story telling?Also,have you read any of Dylan Thomas' work.Your use of language to me is fantastically,well....beautiful and makes me think of Thomas' work.So,Dylan Thomas.Yes or no?
|
I've read the "Sandman" books, and really enjoyed them. But I don't know enough about Gaiman's other work to hazard an opinion. Dylan Thomas, of course, I studied extensively in college and grad school. There can hardly be any doubt that his poetry wields an unconscious influence on, say, the prose style that I've chosen for "The Chronicles". (01/07/2009) |
Roy from Torrance CA: Just wanted to let you know that I have recently purchased The Illearth War audio download from Scott Brick. I find myself enjoying your books in a totally different way.
I wanted to ask if you would consider posting the availability of The Illearth War under your news section so that more people will become aware of the opportunity to purchase your fine works.
(No, I do not work for Scott Brick)
Cheers!
|
I'm glad you enjoyed it! And, as I keep saying, Scott Brick intends to release all of the "Covenant" books in due course. Since he's doing this entirely on his own initiative, he deserves all the reward and remuneration he can get. (01/07/2009) |
Anonymous: Of all non-Donaldson SF/fantasy books that I have read, I think of the book "Dune" as the one that most closely aligns with your writing. I also think that it is the best stand alone one-shot SF book ever. Great characters, compelling story, intrigue, events that build to a compelling event or conclusion. Do you agree?
I believe that Herbert's son (?) has continued to write a number of books that precede and follow the original books. While I don't think they measure up quite up to the original, they are decent reading. I don't suspect you have read any of these books based on previous remarks in the GI to your abhorance of this type of book. True?
|
Yes, I loved "Dune". A true classic. I even enjoyed "Dune Messiah"--although "Dune" stands well on its own. But I haven't been able to get into any of the subsequent books. (01/07/2009) |
dlbpharmd: In "Variations on The Fantasy Tradition," W. A. Senior wrote:
"Donaldson sent the manuscript to more than forty publishers before Lester Del Rey finally accepted it on the second submission, insisting, however, on major revisions that led to protracted battles between writer and editor."
Your battles with Del Rey regarding the Second Chronicles are well known and have been discussed here (i.e., the use of Linden as protagonist in TOT, which prompted Del Rey's now famous exclamation "You can't have a Tarzan book with Jane as the main character!") However, I don't believe you've ever discussed here in the GI the "protracted battles" with Del Rey over the First Chronicles. What can you tell us about the revisions to First Chronicles?
|
Actually, I believe I *have* talked about this. Trying to brief.... Our biggest fight was over "The Illearth War". In the first drafts of that book, the whole story of Korik and Hyrim's mission to Seareach was told in one uninterrupted "movement"--from Korik's point of view. Lester objected in the strongest possible terms; and until I understood the substance of his objection, I was devastated. (Being fair to myself: he made himself difficult to understand because he preferred to dictate solutions without explaining what the problems were.) However, once I did understand his objection (he felt that 200+ pages from Korik's POV undermined everything I was trying to do with Covenant's Unbelief), I naturally agreed with him. I didn't accept any of his proposed solutions: to his credit, he did accept mine (no doubt because I demonstrated a grasp on the underlying problem). (01/13/2009) |
Dave Markell: Two quick things:
1) This question has bothered me for decades. In The Illearth War, we learn that Amok was created as the only means by which the Earthblood could be reached--Damelon's Door could not be passed without him. However, Amok is destroyed by proximity to the Earthblood shortly thereafter, meaning no one can ever reach it again. That seems a bit extreme. Making access very difficult is perfectly sensible; making it impossible to be used more than once implies that Amok's creator believed/knew the Land would never be faced by more than one circumstance where the Blood would be the logical solution. And since that "one circumstance" went so very, very wrong, Kevin's foresight in this matter seems rather faulty :-).
2) Speaking of the Earthblood, this link is to a photo of Machapuchare, one of the the highest unclimbed peaks in the world: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Machapuchare.jpg . It's not a perfect likeness, but it does somewhat match my mental image of Melenkurion Skyweir. More views of this incredible mountain can be found here: http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150279/machhapuchare.html .
|
Whoa! This one almost got past me. Too many unwarrented assumptions. First, in my view, Kevin could easily have believed that the Power of Command was something that could/should only be used once. EVER. Keep in mind that he didn't use it *himself*. He thought that his circumstances were bad enough to justify a Ritual of Desecration--and *still* he stayed away from the EarthBlood. He must have foreseen the possibility of something EVEN WORSE: something so bad that it could never happen twice because the world would no longer exist. (Or maybe, just maybe, he knew what the EarthBlood is actually *for*.) In any case, if Kevin--or any of the Lords--had possessed the kind of precise prescience necessary to foresee Elena, none of this story would ever have happened at all. Second, you appear to be forgetting that we don't know what was in Kevin's lost Wards. Maybe if Amok had not arrived (very) prematurely--maybe if the new Lords had been able to relearn Kevin's Lore in its intended sequence--a new Amok-figure could have been created at need to replace the old one. The way events actually played out in "The Illearth War" is so obviously *not* what Kevin intended that we really can't draw conclusions about his intentions on that basis. (01/13/2009) |
Tim Brieger: Mr. Donaldson,
I have been reading the GI for quite a while, and just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts. My introduction to Thomas Covenant was a little rough at first. Being a youth of grade school age, I mistakenly read Wounded Land first, not realizing it was the first book of the Second Chronicles...made it a little confusing until I realized my mistake. Since then I have read, reread and will reread them all again and again, waiting for the final page.
My question deals with the destruction of Kevins Watch. Did you take pause after writing the end of such a monumental focus of the books (in my opinion)? This site starts all three chronicles, and even though Covenant is summoned in other areas, this is our first introduction to the land in LFB, WL and the Last Chronicles. I actually set the book aside after reading of the destruction to take in the enormity (odd word) of the moment. It told me, "wow, this is REALLY it, the end and SD will not be writing anymore TC after this". I know it is an odd question, but just wondering.
Counting the days...
Tim
|
Did I "take pause" after the destruction of Kevin's Watch? No. a) I knew what I was going to do before I did it. b) I knew *why* I was going to do it before I did it. And c) writing something that crucial typically increases rather than interrupts my forward momentum. I gave myself a pat on the back when I first came up with the idea. When I actually wrote it, I just forged ahead. (01/13/2009) |
Anthony: Even though you are working on the penultimate book in the series, have you had a chance to consider what it will be like for readers and (maybe) you to start at page one of Lord Foul's Bane and have the incredible experience of, if they so choose, reading straight through until the very last page of The Last Dark?
|
Well, I *have* thought about it--but not to much purpose, I'm afraid. I can never really put myself in the shoes (so to speak) of my readers: to do so would require me to forget entirely the experience of *writing* the story. Or, putting the problem another way: I'll always know what I *meant*, even if what I wrote doesn't actually *say* that. The poor--or perhaps blessed--reader only knows what I wrote. And then, of course, there's the obvious point that I don't know how *I'm* going to feel when I finish "The Last Dark".... (01/13/2009) |
Bryan Flynn: Stephen, I was recently struck by how often you use fire as a theme in the Chronicles. You present it as both a means of purification, such as the caamora, and Foul's burning out Covenant's venom; and as a means of destruction, such as the Banefire, Kastenessen's threat and Trell's Ritual of Desecration. I can think of many others. Do you see it as a theme in your work or am I reading too much into this?
|
Contradiction and paradox, paradox and contradiction. The more you look at "The Chronicles," the more examples you'll find. How could it be otherwise? (01/20/2009) |
Rob: Hi Mr. Donaldson,
I am an avid fan and as such have poured over the website, including reading W.A. Senior's studies and watching the videos that are posted. You had mentioned in one video that the storytelling is what is most important to you, and as such I am wondering. How accurate is W.A. Senior's study as it relates to the thought process of your work? He talks about patterns of heros and mythos in writing and so forth and I am just wondering if that is really your intent when you write, if you do or don't pay that much attention to that sort of "technical aspect" to your storytelling.
Thanks and looking forward to AATE!
|
As with any critical analysis, Senior's study reflects his way of thinking about reading my books, not my way of thinking about writing them. Of course, I'm educated in his general style of thought (although every critical thinker is different in practice). Similarly, he's, well, educated in *my* general style of thought: we're friends; and he's interviewed me several times. But that doesn't mean I think in his terms--or anything like them--while I write. (He certainly doesn't think in my terms when he reads.) You might consider it this way: it's my job to bury as much gold as I possibly can; it's his job to locate and dig up as much gold as he possibly can. Those are very different activities being performed by very different people. In fact, I pay a HUGE amount of attention to the "technical aspect" of my storytelling. But those words probably don't mean the same thing to me that they do to you. For example: as a storyteller, I have absolutely no interest in such things as "patterns of heros and mythos". It's the critic's job to take note of such things and generalize about them; but good storytelling must by definition be very specific, dealing as it does (almost exclusively) with specific individuals and specific emotions in specific situations. Putting the whole thing another way. The storyteller tries to reach outward (to patterns) by reaching inward (to individuals). The critic does the opposite, starting with patterns and applying them to individuals. (01/28/2009) |
Thelma Atwater: Do you remember being asked this question in the late seventies or early eighties at Monash University, Melbourne,Australia, by my friend,
" Do you have the end of the storyline determined at the beginning or do the characters take control?"
Your response was something to the effect, "They try to take control but I don't let them."
She replied ,"Well you've got it wrong!"
That was on the death of Thomas Covenant both on paper and in your heart and mind.
We are all so happy that,so many years later, he has been resurrected.
|
Sorry. I don't remember the question. That was too long ago. But my answer--as you quote it--was pretty flip. (On the other hand, if she actually said, "Well you've got it wrong!" she was being rather presumptuous.) I must have been very tired. Certainly that Australian tour was the hardest work I've ever done in public. In some sense, of course, my characters *do* try to take control--and I *don't* let them. But that statement misrepresents my (conscious) creative process. A more accurate statement goes like this: a) some characters reveal more life (express themselves more) than I expect; b) I don't know why they do that because they don't fit my plans for the story; c) but I learned to trust them a long time ago, so I give them free rein (after all, if necessary I can always jerk them back when I rewrite); and d) eventually they show me why I need them to be what they've become instead of what I originally thought they would be. In the end, the pieces *do* fit, even though they take me by surprise when they first appear. (01/28/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
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.
Sam Wilcock: You have tried various ways to explain how you go about writing. One thing I haven't noticed is how you handle creative ideas coming at times when it is not handy to act on them. For example you are driving and see something, or hear something on music, and all the sudden a creative idea strikes you. Yet you cannot write down the idea because... well you are driving :D
I have stumbled across this a couple times where I have sworn I would remember my creative ideas and well...it just doesnt happen my mind wanders to other things and forgets.
My assumption is you have a better trained mind then I do with all the different training methods you entertain but thought what the hay I would see if you had any ideas on this subject.
Sam
|
Three things. 1) Sometimes when ideas arrive inconveniently, I chant them to myself like a mantra until I get a chance to write them down. 2) Sometimes I just go ahead and write them down, even if I'm with friends or--gasp!--driving. (Bad Steve! No bisquit!) 3) And sometimes I simply trust to my entirely unproven belief that any idea that lets me forget it probably wasn't worth remembering anyway. (Incidentally, that belief has a corollary: nothing is ever truly lost. If an idea disappears now, it'll probably reappear later, probably in a form I no longer recognize.) (01/28/2009) |
John: Steve,
Two things, first of which a question...
...a question you may not wish to answer, and if you do not, I understand. That being said...
You have stated one reason you waited so long to write the LCOTC was fear. You did not feel you had the ability to accomplish what you wished to write. You have also written, regarding the Second Chronicles, you were "already struggling with The Second Chronicles", and "When [you] go back and reread The Second Chronicles, [you] can see" where you struggled. Then you state that if you had waited to mature as an author The Second Chronicles would have avoided these struggles.
I must confess to a certain morbid curiosity which compels me to ask, but what "struggles" do you see in The Second Chronicles?
Thank you, whether or not you answer.
Now, I believe you have stated you are a fan of Joss Whedon, writer and director of the t.v. shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly. If so you may wish to check out www.drhorrible.com
This is currently an internet only musical/comedy/tragedy movie made by Whedon which is available to watch for free on this web site (it is about 40 minutes long). I actually enjoyed it. And interestingly enough, he developed this because of the writers strike in 'Hollywood' of a year ago.
Just thought you might enjoy it, if you were not already aware of it.
Thank you for your time.
|
There are a number of things in "The Second Chronicles" that leave me groaning for a better author. (There are also many things which please me inordinately.) I'll only mention two. 1) Structurally, part of "The Wounded Land" is a real mess. Between the time when Covenant and Linden part outside Andelain and the time when he rescues her from the Clave, I was simply not a good enough writer to devise a felicitous way of interweaving their separate tales without allowing those tales to undermine each other. This flaw may or may not be apparent to readers in general; but it is painfully obvious to me. 2) Discussing the GAP books, I've described my belief that the story contains one character who deserved a better author: Davies Hyland. I didn't fail him by, say, not giving him enough narrative attention. Instead I failed him by--I can't think of a better way to put this--not understanding him well enough. For some (no doubt deeply personal) reason, I wasn't able to "put myself in his shoes" as honestly or as completely as I did with other characters. Well, something similar happened in the last half of "White Gold Wielder". I simply didn't understand Linden well enough to write that part of the story. She needed a better author, and she didn't get one. (Again, this may or may not be apparent to readers in general--although it was clear to my agent. Still it's painfully obvious to me.) Meanwhile, thanks for mentioning the Joss Whedon site. I'm never going to watch a 40 minute movie on my computer; but I *am* something of a Whedon fan. "Buffy the Musical" (season six) was brilliant. (02/04/2009) |
Phil: Hi
Inspired by the Last Chronicles I'm just reading the Gap for the second time after many years despite reading Covenant many times. I guess I must have found the first time too traumatic - it's magnificent but unremitting. Even though I have a rough recollection where its going its still a hell of an experience. Thank you. My question ? It looks like you took great care to base it all on 'real' science. Even the gap drive if you allow for the theoretical acceptance of wormholes, and it all still stands up but with one fairly obvious deviation - the need to build up velocity for the gap drive. Unless one ditches relativity that is clearly a meaningless concept in this context. Was that an oversight or a deliberate plot device in order to build in narrative delays?
|
You've (almost) put your finger on what I consider to be *the* technological blunder in the GAP cycle. The specific relationship you cite between velocity and distance-crossed-through-the-gap makes intuitive sense to me. Why can't it be true that the faster you go the farther you jump? No, the *real* problem, at least as I see it, has to do with the sheer SCALE of the velocities I describe, especially in "Forbidden Knowledge". To a certain extent, I have trouble understanding general relativity (which would be effectively meaningless in any case at velocities less than, say, 0.1C): to a much larger extent, I--I'm fumbling for a description here--CAN'T DO THE MATH. I can't comprehend the forces involved in the accelerations I specified. I can't estimate the effects of those forces on living tissues. Well, I knew that about myself before "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" ever saw a publisher. So I did what I always want to do in similar situations: I consulted an expert. In this case, an honest-to-spaceship Rocket Scientist, a design engineer for JPL. And he told me that I had nothing to worry about. Everything looked fine to him. Since I trusted him, I can hardly describe my horror when I learned--*after* "Forbidden Knowledge" was published, of course--that I had screwed up. Dramatically. In other words, IT'S NOT MY FAULT! But of course it *is* my fault (he admitted ruefully). I'm the author: there's no one else to blame. However, a close reading of the whole story will reveal that references to *specific* velocities are almost entirely absent from "A Dark and Hungry God Arises," and *are* entirely absent from the last two books. That was the only solution I could come up with for my peculiar problem. <sigh> Today seems to be my day for wallowing in my own flaws. (02/04/2009) |
Sarah: Hello!
You've said previously in the GI that when you came up with the idea for the First Chronicles, you knew how it was going to end, and worked backwards from there. Was it a case of working backwards through main story events until you reached a starting point, or was there greater detail involved in your thinking?
An example: In "The Power That Preserves", Covenant destroys the Staff of Law when he confronts Elena. Was that known to you as you thought out the story (backwards), or was it something that happened as you wrote? If it was the former, did you know that Elena was Covenant's daughter, and therefore that he would rape Lena?
Sorry if this is a difficult question to answer! And thanks for your time. :)
|
Well, I *do* have to reach back three decades.... Where the first "Covenant" trilogy is concerned, the "planning backward" notion applies in most situations. For example, I needed a final war to set up Covenant's confrontation with Lord Foul. I wanted that war to be as destructive (therefore as UNnatural) as possible. That led me to the misuse of Law, which suggested the misuse of the Staff. But of course Covenant couldn't get at Lord Foul without first facing the misuser of the Staff. And the misuser had to be a High Lord. Much better for the High Lord to be someone he knows: someone more than just a good-guy-turned-bad-guy. But not Mhoram, who didn't fit the role. Better for the High Lord to be someone with whom Covenant has a personal relationship. A very personal relationship. Who better than a daughter? But how was she turned into a bad guy? And where did she come from in the first place? You see what I mean. At any rate, that gives you a rough idea of how my planning process worked in those days. (02/04/2009) |
Doug Scott: Dear Stephen,
I've just finished re-reading the Gap Series - a process which due to the insanely gripping nature of the story and a temporary period of unemployment has taken me less than a week.
Anyway, what prompted me to write was a discussion I had with my girlfriend the other night. Desperate to convey to her what gave the series such a maniacal hold on my attention, I described the events of the the first two books to her, letting slip that I had first read them in my early teens.
To my surprise, she suggested immediately that books should be censored in terms of age in a similar manner to films. I countered by pointing out that the two mediums were essentially different, and that the abuse suffered by Morn in the first book was not especially graphic, except for a couple of sentences which spring to mind. I argued that at 12 or 13, limited experience meant that my imagination was not truly equipped to fill in the missing details. Also, that whatever titillation I might have drawn from Morn's predicament, the horror of the situation and Angus' obvious inadequacy was sufficient to prevent me from taking the wrong lesson.
Clearly, I'm right. I certainly don't believe any artist - least of all a novelist - should be hamstrung by modish morality. My question is simply whether you believe that there is any case at all to be answered - is there an age under which children should be barred from reading about terrible sexual violence in literature? I believe in censorship in films, perhaps even to some extent on the internet. Perhaps you don't at all. But how would you answer her? And what, to you, is the essential difference which means that literature is exempt from the strictures imposed on other artforms?
Only if you can be bothered! Look forward to reading the completed Last Chronicles.
Doug Scott
|
This is going to be messy. I'm not sure I'm up to it.... But it looks to me like we're talking about two different things: censorship and--for lack of a better term--parental values. Where the former is concerned, I'm totally against it. No free society can long remain free once it begins to condone censorship. In any form. So it's probably worth mentioning that I don't consider, say, movie ratings to be censorship. Stupidly misapplied, yes: censorship, no. Seen in the best possible light, they represent an attempt by the film biz to help parents make informed decisions about what the parents let their children see. Less optimistically viewed, they represent an attempt to impose "approved societal norms" on individual families. Which is pure hypocrisy. But it's *not* censorship because--with occasional exceptions--it doesn't prevent parents from taking their children to see whatever the parents want. For example, I've seen parents take their 6- and 8-year-olds to see tortureporn like the "Saw" movies. Well, something similar already applies to books. It just isn't called "ratings". It's called "genres" (e.g. "children's books," "young adult"). It's called "categories". Or it's called "sections of the library". To the extent that movies are censored, so are books. We don't need more of, well, whatever it is. But "parental values" are an entirely different matter--and entirely personal to individual parents. Each parent has the responsibility to decide what he/she considers appropriate for his/her children, *regardless* of movie ratings or book categories. So do I think that parents in general should allow their adolescent children to read, say, the GAP books? I have no idea. I only know what *my* values are (and they include not imposing my values on other parents). Well, one of my values is that I don't believe in "forbidding" much of anything (except dangers like running out into the street <rueful smile>). Instead I used tools like discouragement ("You might not want to read that. I have, and you probably won't like it.") and involvement ("Let's watch that movie together when it comes out on VHS or DVD. That way, we can pause it whenever we want and talk about it."). And I simply kept anything that I wasn't already familiar with off the table (in a manner of speaking). The result? My children were exposed to a lot that violated "approved societal norms". They're mature beyond their years. And they didn't read the GAP books until they were in their 20s. In addition, they don't approve of censorship. I say, Mission accomplished. (02/11/2009) |
Richard: Hello Steve,
I wandered into my local (well, almost local) Waterstones this weekend and was perusing the buy two get one free books.
Needless to say I spotted one of yours in there - Fatal Revenant - and it raised a question within me.
Who bears the cost of this? The bookseller, the publishing company or your royalties?
I know I saw a complaint from Alan Bennett concerning Amazon's pricing of his books, using it as an example of how lowering prices is stopping most authors from being paid poorly at best, and at worst forcing them from their vocation because it is not financially viable.
And, regardless of cost, I would be intrigued on your views on the manner.
Thank you,
Richard
|
I can't speak to the specific situation you encountered. It could be anything (e.g. remaindered books). But I can tell you this. Unless/until a book is remaindered, the author gets paid according to the cover price (which the publisher prints on the book). If the cover price is $29.95, and Amazon sells the book for $14.95, the author gets royalties on $29.95. Even if the publisher sells the book to Amazon for $3.95, the author gets royalties on $29.95. (Of course, publishers are always looking for ways to pay the author less, just as bookstores are always looking for ways to pay the publisher less. But it hasn't happened in my contracts yet.) But once a book is remaindered ("We can no longer sell this book at anything like its cover price, so we certainly aren't going to print any more. And we can use our warehouse space more effectively for newer or more profitable books. So let's unload what we still have of *this* book as fast as we can."), the author gets mere pennies of whatever the publisher gets, which is typically a very small fraction of the cover price. Once a hardcover of mine gets remaindered (mass market paperbacks don't get remaindered: they get pulped), I can usually buy it myself for less than 10% of the original price. Incidentally, I suspect that authors are being forced from their vocations because *publishing* is losing its viability, not because booksellers offer discounts. (02/11/2009) |
Bob Athanasidy: I thoroughly enjoy the growth of the Covenant series, having revisited each prior episode with every new novel released. In interviews, you seem to express a recognition of some limitations in your abilities as a story teller or writer, especially in the earlier books, though certainly not as disdainfully as our Covenant had with his earlier writing. While I believe most fans will deny any inadequacy in your writing, to what degree has sympathetic introspection made its way into TC's character development. More importantly,
can a hero be un-flawed?
|
*My* "sympathetic introspection" affects how I write about ALL of my characters. I think it makes them more real. Ideally, it also makes them more profound. But whether or not any of my *specific* characters engage in "sympathetic introspection" is really a function of personality and circumstance. Nick Succorso never engages in introspection, sympathetic or otherwise. Hashi Lebwohl always engages in introspection, and learns to do so sympathetically. Linden Avery--or Thomas Covenant--well, we'll have to see, won't we. "Can a hero be un-flawed?" Can a *person* be un-flawed? I think not. And a hero who isn't a person also isn't a hero: he (or she, or it) is an idea, or an archetype, or a figurehead, or a mouthpiece, or a symbol. Being a hero requires courage; and courage means overcoming fears; and fears imply flaws. Or so it seems to me. (02/11/2009) |
Matt Verdier: In one of the Covenant books you speak about leprosy. I seem to recall that you mention that part of the problem with leprosy was that it had not been sucessfully isolated for study.
I have in the last year read that scientist have been able to study leprosy since the writing of the books and have discovered that Armadillos can carry leprosy. I was further astonished to discover that 1 in 20 armadillos in the wild carry the disease. Humas for the most part are immune to it these days except for a very small percentage of people who have not inherited that immunity.
Hmm, there is not really a question there, just an interesting bit of facts that I'd be curious to know if you have heard about. Hope you are doing well, Matt.
|
Yes, I did know. It's unfortunate in the sense (and ONLY in the sense) that it makes the earlier "Covenant" books anachronistic. But that can't be helped. In one way or another, every book is the product of its time. Just look at the "Axbrewder/Fistoulari" novels. <sigh> (02/11/2009) |
Vinny: As you are writing (and rewriting) your books, do you at any point get feedback from family/friends? If so, at what point do you show them what you've written, and what do you get from their comments.
I ask because as I develop my own writing, I've learned that "too much, too soon" is a problem. It's what turned me away from workshopping and writer's groups - not necessarily because I'm opposed to them, but long form works don't seem to fit in such forums. I'm curious as to whether or not you give anyone a "sneak peek".
On a side note...thank you for recommending the Malazan books. It's taken me until the third book to really get into it, but I'm totally hooked. And I can't help but suspect that you are kicking yourself for not getting to the name "Anomander Rake" before Erikson did. :)
|
I do have two private readers, from whom I get feedback quasi-regularly (in effect, every three chapters). They're my anchor to the "real world" of actual communication. I can trust them to be respectfully honest in their comments, positive or negative ("respectfully" because the opinions of people who sneer at what I do have no value to me: "honest" because anything less wouldn't do me any good). All three of us know that this places them in an impossible position; but we all accept it. What I do NOT do is *talk* to my readers about what they're reading for me, either before they read it or after they finish (until they've read the whole book). As stringently as I can, I avoid the problem of "expectations". So I don't tell them anything about what they're about to read. And when they've read it, I don't explain anything that confuses them. I don't answer any questions about my intentions. Within the contraints of their position, I treat them like people who don't know me and therefore can't learn anything that isn't actually in the text. In other words, we don't ever *discuss* what they've read--until, as I say, they've read the whole book. I write: they read: they send me their comments: I read their comments: and I go on writing. "I go on writing" is probably worth emphasizing. When I get feedback, I don't double back to tackle the problems my readers have brought to my attention. I don't exactly *ignore* those problems; but I don't want to trap myself in premature revisions, thereby losing all forward momentum; so I just let the problems "steep" in the back of my mind until I'm ready to begin rewriting the whole book from the beginning. Do I need to add that I chose these two people very carefully? Or that I explained exactly how I wanted the process to work? Or that they accepted my--for lack of a better term--rules (respect, honesty, authorial silence) without reservation? And do I need to add that all of this is entirely personal? Every writer is different: therefore every writer has different needs. The only thing I can really say about *my* process is that it meets *my* needs. (02/18/2009) |
Dave Ring: It seems to me that severing a branch of the One Tree to create the first Staff of Law may well have been the most perilous action ever taken in the world of the Land, but also essential to the final resolution of your story.
My thoughts lead to questions that may well be *unaffordable* to answer at this time, so I will limit myself to an oblique query. With Caerroil Wildwood’s graving of runes on the new Staff, is the purpose of Vain and the ur-viles accomplished, or far from it?
|
In hindsight, of course, Berek's action does seem almost supremely perilous. But my characters lead linear lives: even when they hop around from age to age, their own lives preserve the ordinary sequences of time. So they can't make their decisions in hindsight. As with all of us, Berek can only be held responsible for doing something that made sense to him at the time. And at the time, what he did sure *looked* like it was worth the risk. Is Vain's purpose accomplished? What purpose do you imagine he could possibly have in his present state? The ur-viles (his creators), as I hope the story makes plain, are entirely another matter. (02/18/2009) |
Michael Weinhardt: You've been asked *many* questions over several years. What is the one question you thought you would have been asked by now, but haven't?
|
You've *got* to be kidding. Do you think I want to make my life in the GI even *more* challenging? (02/18/2009) |
Paul Oakley: Do you consider the Character Thomas Covenant to be your alter-ego in the same way that many people used to say that Seldon was Dr Asimov's alter-ego in the Foundation series?
|
Absolutely not. (Have I discussed this before?) Covenant doesn't ever speak *for* me: *I* speak for him, as I do for all my foreground characters. He isn't *like* me. He isn't even like who I *want* to be (although he has taught me a lot). In one sense, all of my characters are my alter-egos (none more so than Mick "Brew" Axbrewder). But in another, much more useful, sense, I serve as *their* alter-egos. They can only see themselves "through a glass darkly": it's *my* job to see them clearly. Or, putting it in terms with which I'm more comfortable: it's my job to grant them the dignity toward which they can only struggle and flounder. (02/18/2009) |
RoomToGrow: Greetings Stephen,
Huggers to ya's from Cali. :> I suppose I ought to start reading your other works that sit on the shelf and call to me. As it is I have read all that you have published in the Thomas series and so, I have started over once again. I had to buy the paperback of Lord Foul's and noticed the cover has changed completely {quite the bummer really because the picture on the cover always revealed itself towards the end of the story and I always looked forward to finding that part}and I suppose that its supposed to be an image of "the ring"...then I noticed, the ring is not white gold at all but rather yellow gold. Hmmmn, curiouser and curiouser....lol. So then I figured, well, perhaps its an image of the ring when it is alive with power and doin powerful ring stuff and there....thats the reason for the color...yeah its all I could come up with. Anyhows, I really do miss the old covers and the color coded story lines. It really is something to be missed. Everyting changes, I have yet to find something here on our earth that does not. So it is not that much to have to deal with in comparison to life in general. Did you notice the ring on the new cover? anyhow, hope all is well with you and yours. we are all gettin older and I figure older is wiser so why not:> I do have an idea for your creative mind. I know, I can tell from your writing with the Covenant series that you have read the Written Word of God and you do understand its content. I feel as if you would be perfect to translate all that mumbo jumbo peoples dont really find the desire to read through, simplify the history in to something that one can follow and write a story on the true story of man and God. You know what I mean if I didnt say it right anyhow. I think it would be a blessing for you to put your talent and heart into something as powerful and meaningful as that. Really, what else is there>?? You could so do it stephen, write a real story for real people and include all the real details....anyhow, just a thought. ok Im going to let you get back to work...wouldnt want to dely the release of your book we are all waiting for. Huggers Stephen,,,Room
|
I'm painfully aware of the current US covers for the first "Covenant" trilogy. The fact that the ring depicted is *yellow* gold is a shameless attempt to cash in on "The Lord of the Rings" somehow, perhaps by tricking readers into thinking that my work resembles Tolkien's in some (presumably desirable) fashion. If this helps: Ballantine Books now knows that the ploy failed miserably. But if you think I have either the time or the brute *arrogance* to recast "the Written Word of God" in my own image, you are very much mistaken. I could argue that Scripture is an on-going process: it's being written every day. But that's beside the point. "Really, what else is there??" How about an entire universe? Or at least an entire planet full of people who think and believe differently than you do? (02/18/2009) |
James Devine: Hi Stephen
I was amazed to read on the grad interview, that the reason for the long wait (oh so long...) for more Covenent, was down to your fear of being up to the task of closing the circle (I paraphrase, but you get my drift)
As a budding writer, can you tell me how you face down the fear? is it a battle every day, or do you build yourself up to it and then write for extended periods? I have real doubts about my ability and have vowed to make 2009 the year I start (properly...gotta love the false starts) can you grant me any insight?
Your books have been a constant in my reading life since my Aunt lent me her copies of the first trilogy back in 88, I was 14, I discovered Giants, Revelstone,White Gold and Lords, I cannot describe the pleasure I have had from all the reading and re-reading. Thankyou so much, have a great Christmas.
James Devine
Nottingham, UK
|
Every writer is different, as I keep saying. But facing your fears is pretty much always a "one day at a time" process. Those fears come from very deep places inside us, and they aren't relieved by one day of courage. Sometimes they aren't relieved by *decades* of consistent courage. And maybe they aren't *ever* relieved. Maybe that's an essential part of what makes us human. It may even be an essential part of what makes good stories worth reading. (02/19/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Reed Byers: Concerning the recent comments about Richard Dawkins, atheism and Harry Potter, I'm in a good position to clarify a few things -- as an officer in an atheist group, a Dawkins fan, *AND* a huge fan of Harry Potter.
I'll try to keep it short. :)
Yes, Dawkins is a well known atheist, a well-respected thinker, and author of several books.
Does he have an axe to grind? I can't deny it. Many of us do (being one of the most invisible -- and thus most ignored -- minorities). But that doesn't automatically make his points invalid.
I can't presume to speak for him, but I believe his issue isn't with fantasy per se, but with encouraging children to believe in it as if it were true. Whether the fantasy is Harry Potter, Thomas Covenant or, well, religion -- suspension of disbelief for the sake of a good story is one thing, but at the end of the day, you need to be well-grounded enough in reality to understand that magic isn't real.
That's it. That (I believe) is his whole point.
As for me, atheist that I am, I've read all the Harry Potter books several times, and enjoy them thoroughly. Rowling (and Donaldson) have nothing to fear from us... :)
|
[Posted for general information, since reference was made earlier to Dawkins, Potter, and Rowling. Did I have an axe to grind myself? Maybe. <grin>] But let me just say: "well-grounded enough in reality" is one thing; "understand that magic isn't real" is entirely another. That's why I try to keep an open mind about what constitutes "reality". (02/20/2009) |
Paul Morris: Dear Stephen
After struggling with myself, I am re reading the two published 'Last Chronicles' books again. 'Struggling,' because when I read, I am immersed completely in your writing on so many different levels that it is like experiencing one of Bruckner's symphonies. That is, your writing rightly, demands every level of attention, every measure of experience to bring to the story the music of the reading engagement it needs.
My question is that would I be right in thinking that your characterization is such that for example, Anele is really a manifestation of a leitmotif, that of Earth Power, that Liand the leitmotif of Youth, he who will eventually inherit the land from the experience of others... I can almost hear each of the characters musical signature! Is this how you are first plotting the story arc through the characters?
I am glad I have started on the journey again, searching as I am for the seeds of the series conclusion in the start of the story arc. I am so thrilled that you are writing these books and I know that you will keep 'doing what they least expect!' to keep us on our toes. Very best to you and yours at this time of year and wishing you good health and opportunity in the next.Paul
|
This story is explicitly archetypal. That's why so many of the characters are as much icons as individuals. (You might want to take a look at my essay, "Epic Fantasy and the Modern World," which you can download from this site.) To describe Anele as a leitmotif of Earthpower (or, more specifically, of blinded Earthpower) is apt. But be careful about assigning such identities. The longer a character stays in the story, and the larger the role that character plays, the more likely it becomes that the individual will begin to overshadow the icon/leitmotif. Or that the leitmotif will modulate to become a different theme. (I'm thinking of Liand here.) HOWEVER (I hasten to add), this is *not* how I plan stories. I don't (unlike most archetypalists) work from the general to the specific. Instead I imagine the specific and then search for the general within it. The part of my mind that handles concepts/archetypes often works beneath the surface of my conscious intentions. So sure, I started out thinking about a story that concerned Good vs Evil (or, more precisely, Human vs Evil). But developing a story that I could actually tell required me to concentrate my imagination and planning on specific characters in specific situations, not on thematic or iconic considerations. Long-time readers of the GI already know that "The Chronicles" didn't become "a story that I could actually tell" until I began thinking about Covenant as a concrete individual rather than as an icon/concept/leitmotif. (02/20/2009) |
Richard: Hello Steve,
Apologies for firing two questions at you in one day - but I have fired off three in as many years before so I use this as a forgiveness mechanism.
My question is in regard 'genre'.
I have always written since a teen, influenced chiefly by William Gibson, Philip K Dick mixed with a Victorian sensibility (Wilkie Collins, primarily). Anyhow, when I first wrote as a teen I was lucky enough to be encouraged by someone older than me and wise enough to know the difference between dross and not-quite-dross. I certainly wrote 'genre', being a sci-fi fan then. Now I see myself as a lover not of genre but story and so often love a little of everything (I say this widely: literature, music, cinema, art, etc. etc.). Sometimes this may be considered high art or low culture. (though these definitions I would challenge strongly.)
Anyway, I have reached an age when I look around me and genre, a word I used to define myself as a teen, makes little sense because art is art, regardless of the mode it uses and I wonder what you make of the word 'genre'?
PS - this was based on a review of Fatal Revenant that referred to your work as Fantasy rather than literature. Again, I name-check Gibson who worked (now obviously less so, though still so) in 'genre' (and is considered a major author) and Dick who was always 'genre' until death (the great leveler, as James Stewart would drawl drunkenly). Also, in terms music, where 'low' purveyors of generic (especially electronic) music are considered profound and artistic when they leave behind rhythm (for rhythm read: story) and enter the abstract, usually with tedious results.
|
Artistically, as you observe, the word "genre" makes little or no sense. The issue isn't simply that "art is art". "Art" goes further. A necessary part of the definition of "art" is that each work under consideration is "sui generis" (forgive me if I've mis-remembered my Latin): each work is its *own* "genre" because it is uniquely itself; it could not have been created by anyone else; and it cannot be compared to anything else, except in an attempt to enhance understanding. Personally, I've always loathed the fact that my books are hidden away under various "genre" labels. But it's easy to understand why the notion of "genre" exists in general; and why publishers and booksellers (not to mention reviewers and critics) specifically rely on "genre" labels. Even within the general assertion that "art is art," broad distinctions are both possible and useful. They provide clues to the artist's intentions. Think of the clear differences between, say, "secular" and "religious" choral music. And in practical terms, "genre" provides, say, publishers and booksellers with useful clues to the tastes of readers. If every book is filed under "literature," readers with very specific tastes have great (perhaps insuperable) difficulty locating books they want to read. It's an obvious fact that some readers ONLY want to read sf, while other ONLY want to read romances. So naturally publishers and booksellers want to label books: to make *buying* easier for readers with very specific tastes. In addition, as I've mentioned elsewhere, "genre" serves as a kind of "rating system" for books, loosely comparable to the ratings supplied for films: a guide for parents who believe that books with, say, sex, or adult themes, or magic are inappropriate for their children. The problem with all this, of course, occurs when "genre" is transformed from a practical distinction to a value judgment, an indication (almost always pejorative) of worth/merit/artistic seriousness. Enter reviewers and critics, who delight in dismissing entire swaths of literature as "junk" simply because the books carry a genre label. Well, it isn't hard to understand why reviewers and critics act this way. They're drowning in books; and their job description pretty much requires them to pride themselves on their "discrimination". Nonetheless "discrimination" becomes indistinguishable from "brute prejudice" when it reflexively dismisses every book with a genre label. Have I put you to sleep yet? <rueful smile> (02/21/2009) |
Kamal: Good job Steve, keep it up. Also: Since you first started the books has the reality of the Land (within the context of the story) ever wavered in your head? I mean was there ever a time when you thought "Yes this is indeed all a dream in Covenants head" or something like that. I can see that over the course of the books the land has become less questionable to Linden and Tom but that is too be expected after their experiences. Have you ever fluctuated on how fake or real you envisioned the land? Honestly?
Additionally: In Chaucers Canterbury Tales "the Wife of Bathe" has a story that involves a knight raping a young woman by a river out of sheer lust...any connection/inspiration or just coincidence?
Thanks!
|
Has the Land's "reality" ever wavered in my imagination? Impossible to say. I don't think in those terms. The *urgency* of the story must have wavered in my mind to some extent, or I wouldn't have been able to write mumblemumble other books between "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last". But the urgency of the story and the reality of the story's setting are not at all the same thing. In any case, I think in words. Nothing (well, almost nothing) is ever "real" to me until I put it into words. Sorry: I never really read Chaucer (except for those small portions of "The Canterbury Tales" which were imposed on me at gunpoint, me being an English major and all); so it's highly unlikely that Chaucer influenced me on any level. (02/21/2009) |
Rob: The art of Darrell K. Sweet was what initially drew me to pick up Lord Foul's Bane. Upon reading the first few pages, I, like millions of others, were hooked. I always enjoyed the continued use of his artwork on subsequent novels but upon the release of the Third Chronicles, his artwork was sadly missing. Was there a reason for choosing to go with another artist?
|
What can I say? Tastes change. Contemporary music is very different than it was 30 years ago. So are book covers. In addition, Sweet was remarkably open about his contempt for fantasy in general, and for my work in particular. Long ago, I heard him say that if he could earn living with ANY other kind of art, he would never touch fantasy again. I have no say at all where the covers of my books are concerned. (*I* certainly would not have put Gandalf on the cover of "Fatal Revenant".) Still, I'm glad to have an artist now who doesn't sneer at my work. (02/27/2009) |
John: Steve,
Ok, we know you enjoy the "Malazan" books by Erikson, but have you read Ian Cameron Esslemont's Malazan books, and if so do you recommend them?
Thanks.
|
I know *of* those books, but I haven't read them. I'm a slow reader, and life is short. In any case, we all have to pick and choose. (02/27/2009) |
Vader: Hello and Merry Christmas from Germany.
My question might have been asked before (couldn't find anything in search though), it might be answered in the "Last Chronicles" (just re-reading the 2nd Chronicles after 20 years before starting TLC) or it might be completely irrelevant, but anyway ...
The Elohim's "Wrd" can also be read as "Worm" and this "Wrd/Worm" can be seen as part of their nature. When the Nicor of the Deep are said to be "offspring of the Worm of World's End" what is the connection between Elohim and Nicor? Or did I misunderstand the explanation of "Wrd/Worm/Word" as presented in the 2n Chronicles? If not, wouldn't this also let the Nicor be "Offspring of the Word" and would this be a similar conception of "Word" as presented in the Bible Genesis?
A happy, successful and prolific 2009.
|
It always sounds like a cop-out to say so, but I never intended any of this to be taken literally. My stubbornness about equating Worm and Word and Weird and Wuerd (I dont know how to make this software do umlauts) was never meant to imply that those things are all identical. They are all thematically/morally/symbolically/archetypally relevant to each other; conceptually interwoven. But that doesnt mean the physical or practical manifestations of those ideas are interchangeable. So: any relationship of relevance or meaning that exists between the Elohim and the Worm does NOT entail a relationship between the tangible Elohim and any mundane offspring which the Worm may (or may not) have produced in its slumbers. If Word has Biblical resonances, however, thats no accident. (03/03/2009) |
Dale Cebula: Okay, I have a rather silly question but it has always bothered me at some level. In TWL, Covenant follows Vain while inside Revelstone and they arrive at the secret room where the Clave has put all of the lore from Kevin through the New Lords safely away.
Why on earth didn't Foul's Raver just destroy all of that stuff? Why build a secret room wherein future people could discover this stuff and use it against Foul?
Also, I think I asked this question before but something got lost in my asking: In other fantasy works, we often have human beings who forsake the good and decide to work for evil. (I'm thinking of the "Mouth of Sauron" as an example). Leaving aside the ravers (who aren't people) or the unknowing dupes who joined the Clave or even the tortured child (Pietten?) would there ever have existed a person in the Land who would want to join up with Lord Foul for any reason? I really doubt anyone would, but, well you know humans do some really stupid things for some really stupid reasons.
thanks for your works!
Dale
|
Why on earth didn't Foul's Raver just destroy all of that stuff? Because you never know whats going to come in handy? (At one time, LF got a lot of mileage out of the Staff of Law.) Because maintaining the illusion of beneficence is important to the Claves show of moral authority? Because Vain was formed by UR-VILES? (How can any purpose of theirs *not* serve the Despiser?) Because even if Vain does not serve the Despiser, he can sure mess with the Elohim; who can sure mess with Covenant and Linden? Because its no fair asking people like the Clave to justify their decisions when *you* know how those decisions are going to turn out and *they* dont? Because maybe its just inherently TOXIC to a Raver to handle (never mind destroy) all of that stuff? Personally, I think that destroying the contents of the Aumbrie is just too obviously EVIL for an organization that evolved from the Council of Lords, claims moral authority over the Land, and still has true believers (Memla) among its members. As for your other question: I guess person doesnt mean sentient being. In one form or another, the Viles, the Demondim, and the ur-viles all joined up with LF for their own reasons. So did the Cavewights. But where human beings are concerned, many seem eager to do LFs dirty work (e.g. decimate the One Forest, wage war against Berek)--as long as they dont know (or dont care) thats what theyre doing. One possible exception is Kasreyn of the Gyre. (03/03/2009) |
MRK: Recently I was reading up on ancient Greek philosophy, and noticed that the concept of there being, somewhere, one ideal, perfect example of *everything*, one ideal tree, one ideal river, etc, with all subsequent trees, rivers, etc being but shadows/reflections of those ideals, sounded a lot like the basis for magic and power used in "Daughter of Regals". Is there indeed a connection?
Hope you had a Happy Hogswatch.
|
It sure seems obvious, now that you point it out. But it didnt cross my mind while I was actually working on Daughter of Regals. And I cant pretend that I was unaware of Plato, since studying The Republic was mandatory where I went to college. So I guess I have to call this yet another unconscious influence. In this case, I do so with some chagrin because in retrospect your point seems SO obvious. How could I have missed it? <sigh> (03/03/2009) |
Fangthane's Pimp: I was searching through some old answers you posted for an answer to a different question (which I will not ask now because I'm still searching) and I found that you said this:
"That said, I find I *do* want to respond to Card's silly assertion that 'SF and fantasy place setting above character.' Sure, junk SF and fantasy make that mistake."
Jeez. That's a pretty absolute statement. I always thought that fantasy that puts place and setting above character can be good or bad. (ditto for fantasy that puts character above place and setting) I'm interested in why you think that it is necessary for fantasy to put character above place and setting in order to avoid being "junk." Can you think of any instances of non-junk fantasy or science fiction that put setting and place above character? I guess I should probably see if I can find a way to ask Card the exact opposite question...
|
<sigh> I suppose its always a mistake for me to say things as if I really mean them, even though I really *do* mean them. Your question is a good example. The answer is so screamingly self-evident to me that, thatwell, that I cant figure out how to put it into words. Im too busy gasping in shock. But, trying not to tear my hair, or beat my forehead on the table. Maybe this will work. Sure, every story requires characters, settings, and events/conflicts. But the characters are what make the settings and events interesting and meaningful. Without the essential passions of characters, settings rapidly devolve into mere scenery, and events/conflicts soon become empty activity. When character becomes subordinate or subservient to setting or event, the result is reliably trivial. Thats theory. In practice, Ive read plenty of books--historicals and westerns as well as sf and fantasy--that place setting above character; and each and every one of them was junk. Ive also read plenty of books--thrillers and mysteries as well as sf and fantasy--that place events above character; and each and every one of *them* was junk (although it is true that activity is usually more interesting to watch than scenery). Think Im wrong? Show me. Before you try, however, I will admit that in the VERY BEST stories, character, setting, and event (not to mention narrative voice) show a remarkable tendency to become indistinguishable from each other. (03/03/2009) |
Thomas: Hi Stephen,
Don't want to be overlong, but first I've *got* to say how much your stories have meant to me over the years, especially the GAP books. I share your opinion that those are your best work. I've read them countless times, and they still take my breath away. Thank you for that.
On to my question. In one of your responses you say this in regards to the editorial process:
. . . The hard part has been convincing my editor to leave the "feel" of the prose alone. She's a modern woman, much younger than I am, who hasn't read any previous "Covenant" books, and who lacks my background in the study of Conrad, James, and Faulkner. Instinctively she prefers the kind of lean and ambiguous prose which never calls a spade a spade (never mind a ^#$%# shovel), and which certainly never identifies any of the emotions of the characters. Nor does she like the pacing of Covenant-style prose: to use a musical analogy, she would rather jump from key to key without modulations, which, she feels, "bog down the narrative." So my biggest technical challenge in revising "Runes" has been to preserve the stylistic essence of the previous books without outraging her sensibilities.
Well, it seems to me that your editor should be someone with your best interests at heart -- like a midwife of sorts, helping to bring your "baby" into the world. And I certainly feel that, in regards to an epic series like Thomas Covenant, an editor should be somewhat familiar with "what has gone before." No?
Here's what John Irving has to say on the subject:
"A novel is a single voice, made better by an editor who has the author's interests and intentions at heart -- an editor who knows the author's interests and intentions as well as the author knows them. That is a creative relationship."
So, I guess I'm wondering how an editor is assigned. Do you have any choice in the matter? How much editorial advice do you feel compelled to follow when clearly your editor isn't on the same "page" as you are? Do you have the ultimate authority, the power of "final cut," or can an editor overrule you? Clearly you were unhappy with some of Lester Del Rey's *suggestions*, but, it seems at that early point in your career, you had to comply with his wishes. Is that still the case? Do you agree with Irving that the editorial process is a "creative relationship," or do you feel it's more of a one sided relationship -- you're the creator, she's the one who tidies things up a bit? If you could elaborate on the entire process, I would be very curious to know how it all works (or you could point me to a previous entry, if you've already covered this).
Sorry to be so longwinded (I must have Giant's blood in me!), and thank you again for the stories.
Best wishes,
Tom Best
|
Sometimes I really ought to just keep my mouth shut. 1) In todays publishing world, editors arent assigned. They simply have every book in the known universe dumped on their heads. They can hardly be blamed for being hasty--or ill-prepared. 2) The woman who bought TLCOTC for Putnams moved to a different publisher soon after working on Runes. She is no longer involved, so it seems churlish to critique her. But its worse than that because 3) she bought TLCOTC after three other publishers said--in so many words--No, thanks. Donaldson is a has-been. Admittedly, my circumstances made gratitude problematic. But the editor were talking about certainly *deserved* some. Yet its even worse than *that* because 4) she was my editor for all five of the GAP books, and in those days she was *the* ideal editor, a perfect example of John Irvings observation. Back then, I was in author/editor Heaven for the first and only time in my writing life. (Which in fact explains some of my dismay regarding Runes. I was expecting a return to author/editor Heaven: instead I found myself in Purgatory. She had changed *so* much.) I really should not have complained about her in public. My dealings with my current editors are certainly congenial. Their involvement improves the quality of my books. And they dont try to micro-manage my chosen style of prose. But their involvement is necessarily brief: by the time theyve sent me a 2-page letter (Lester del Rey used to send me 20-page letters), theyve fallen a week behind with their other duties. And Im inclined to think that theyre *too* respectful. When theyre really unhappy about something, they dont tell me: they tell my agent. As a result, I wouldnt describe our dealings as creative. In any case, my contract assures that I get the final say about every detail of my text. (I may have to work for it, but I get it.) Lester arrogated that right to himself: no modern editor of my acquaintance would do so. On the other hand, the same contract assures that my publishers have the final say about whether or not the book gets published. I cant afford to forget that fact. (03/03/2009) |
Diane Warde: Mr. Donaldson:
How do you keep yourself motivated to write a story so filled with despair? I am reading the Second Chronicles in which Covenant is so depressed -- and depressing -- that sometimes I can hardly stand it! Even the irrepressible Giants are affected. I hope that Covenant will evolve enough to have some belief in himself by the end of the final chronicles. I seriously don't know why all his companions have not already slit their wrists!
|
Some people wonder why all of my READERS havent already slit their wrists. An editor once expressed the forlorn wish that at least *one* of my characters had a can-do attitude. I asked, Seriously, can you *imagine* a Donaldson character with a can-do attitude? The editor, even more forlornly, admitted, No. Asking me how I keep myself motivated is essentially the same thing as asking me why I write what I write; why I write these kinds of stories and not others; why my mind and imagination work the way they do. But I have no real answer for you. When Ross MacDonald (if memory serves) was asked why he wrote mystery novels instead of serious literature, he replied that the form and requirements of the mystery were what made writing *possible* for him. One of Stephen Kings many answers to the question, why do you write what you do, was, What makes you think I have a choice? Both of those responses make sense to me. Both also seem inadequate; but I cant put my finger on where the inadequacy (if any) lies. Ill just say this: I write what I know. And if what I write discomfits you, maybe--Im only speculating here--thats because I write what *you* know, too. (03/03/2009) |
Mark: I just got finished reading all 2150 entries in the GI after discovering it two weeks ago. There's definitely something wrong with me.
On to my question. Between college, where it seems your work was panned, and the time you started TC, how much work did you put in to improve the quality of your writing? According to a study reported on in the NY Times, a 20yr old virtuoso violinist put in about 10000 hours of practice time. I've read other articles that it generally takes about ten years of concerted effort to master any craft (mastery being the top 1-2% of practitioners). As an accomplished "justenougher", I can say that I've never mastered anything (except maybe work avoidance), but recently I've decided to put in the effort on one of my myriad hobbies to try to become a master at something. So how many stories were sacrificed on the altar of writing practice before you produced the Chronicles?
The NY Times article I referenced is here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E1DC1F3DF932A25753C1A962958260&sec=&pagewanted=all
|
Its difficult to draw valid comparisons between (I know this is a crude oversimplification, but bear with me) physical and mental skills. Assume for the purposes of discussion by analogy that both playing the violin and writing fiction require the exercise of muscles; the training of muscle-memory. Nevertheless playing the violin depends largely on *external* muscles. You can count how many hours a student spends practicing because you can (to a significant degree) see and hear them practice. Not so with writing. Sure, you might conceivably be able to read a given writers practice work; but that work, no matter how substantial, represents only a tiny portion of the effort the writer put into it. In effect, the only thing you can observe in any external sense is the typing. So. What I call my journeyman work certainly totals less than 1000 pages of fiction. It probably totals less than 800 pages. But that does NOT provide a meaningful comparison with the virtuoso violinist you mentioned. In any case, mastery is an elusive concept. In a very real sense, the more you know, the more aware of your own ignorance you become. I suspect that if your goal is to become a master at something, youll never get there. Just my personal opinion, of course: I dont know you. But I strongly suspect that this is one of those subjects where You cant get there from here. You have to go somewhere else and start. Mastery, I believe, is something that happens as if by accident along the way to something else. God knows *Ive* never mastered anything. Putting it another way: mastery is a process, not an objective. Ill be astonished if the virtuoso violinist doesnt agree with me. (03/03/2009) |
Petar Belic: Hi Stephen
I looked at my bookshelf and realised I had not read any of your short stories in some time, and looked forward to re-reading some.
How different is the process of writing a short story as opposed to a novel for you. Do you take a break from novel writing by tackling a short story idea you've had 'on the boil' so to speak? Or must you write it as soon as the idea occurs to you? Finally, have the recent novels given you more enthusiasm for short story writing, or do they simply 'suck up time' you would have otherwise had?
Thanks again for all your effort, I am looking forwards to the next installment of the 'Chronicles!
|
Ive discussed the circumstances under which I write short fiction elsewhere. And Im sure Ive explained before that I have a one-track mind. No matter when or how ideas for stories occur to me, I can only think about and write one at a time; so the others simply have to wait their turn. If one of those ideas for stories happens to take 10 or 12 years, so be it: the others still have to wait their turn. Many years ago, I *once* made the mistake of interrupting a novel (the GAP books) to write a shorter story (The Woman Who Loved Pigs). Doing so did severe damage to the novel, and Ill never make that mistake again. (Meanwhile, thank God for rewriting! Many many MANY hours were required to undo the damage in question; but I believe I finally succeeded.) Other than that: its a curious fact (one which I cannot explain) that I was unable to write an effective short story until after I written a viable novel. But one day after I was done with the first Covenant trilogy, I suddenly thought: Oh, *now* I get it! A short story is just a novel with fewer characters and less background. Sounds silly, I know; but that recognition made shorter fiction possible for me for the first time. Until then, in shorter fiction I had consistently tried (and failed) to write something so fundamentally different than a novel that I couldnt make sense out of it. (03/03/2009) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: Here's something I want to discuss while we're hanging around the water cooler waiting for the next 'Last Chronicles' installment...
Something that's bothered me since WGW is the 'resurrection' of Hollian.
My religious background teaches that resurrection is a permanent reunion of body and spirit; never to be separated again (i.e., will never experience physical death again). Christ comes to mind.
But we learn that Hollian died again, after being brought back to life by the Forestal. This reminds me of the raising of Lazareth. As I understand it, even after coming back to life, Lazareth was still subject to death since he was not "resurrected".
Am I splitting hairs here?
|
If you want to think in Biblical terms (which are not necessarily relevant to "The Chronicles"), the hairs are already split. The New Testament does posit two different *kinds* of resurrection: the Lazarus example, where a dead person is restored to ordinary physical life (including ordinary physical mortality), and the Armaggedon/Judgment Day "final" example, where the redeemed ascend unto Heaven as immortal souls with immortal bodies. Hollian's resurrection obviously follows the Lazarus model. Whether or not anyone in this story will ever follow the other model remains to be seen. (03/04/2009) |
Rober Bush: Mr. Donaldson, Hello!
The more I have read of your GI the angrier I have become. Had I really wasted countless hours for over thirty-five years with my own ideas? Was I that foolish? I felt betrayed.
I have read in your GI that unless I have a resume centered on (publishing)? And are also at least SOME sort of published author, I have very little hope of ever seeing my personal vision in commercial print. No one anywhere would probably ever even give my ideas a first look. At first I came close to burning, and I do honestly mean building a funeral pyre and tearfully standing by weeping while hundreds of pages of notes and histories went up in smoke. This is now past. I have my inner world; its with me every day of my life. I can go there anytime I want and see its wonders. It constantly grows and develops. It is truly the greatest achievement of my life. But I must accept the fact that it will be only mine, visited only by me. It will never have an audience. Must this truly be? Surely that was not what i had intended to type, the words somehow got reversed. Somehow a bold statement of This must surely be! turned into a quiet question oft repeated by many.
I personally feel it will unfortunately remain mine and mine alone.
I thank you for the time and this place.
And I do so hope to see this in the GI.
R.B.
|
I find your message very distressing. It has never been my intention to discourage anyone else's creativity. Quite the contrary. In my view, if you believe in what you're doing, you should do everything in your power to pursue it. Sure, getting something you've written into print is hard. Anyone who says otherwise does you a disservice. But so what? Everything in life that's really worth doing is hard. And as I've said many times, in the GI and elsewhere, "More things are wrought by stubbornness than this world dreams of." In fact, I'm the Poster Boy for people who succeed when the odds are stacked dramatically against them. A massive epic fantasy about despair and LEPROSY? Which was rejected 47 times (including by every fiction publisher then in the US)? How can *that* turn out well? But it did. I like to say that we live in a *possible* world. Everyone can tell you horror stories. On any subject. But good things happen too. As with everything else in life, there are more practical and less practical ways to go about trying to break into publishing. Much of the advice on my site deals with being practical. Being practical is more likely to succeed than being impractical. But there's a side to modern publishing that I probably haven't talked about. Because of the relentless, uncaring pressure for profit that megacorporations put on struggling editors, it is frequently *easier* for a complete unknown to get published than it is for an established "mid-list" author who has consistently not delivered the scale of profit demanded by the megacorps. With a complete unknown, the editor can think, "Ah HA! Here's my chance for a breakout book." But with an established mid-list author, the editor is more likely to think, "I sure like this writer's work, but he/she has already spent 10 years proving that she/he will never produce a breakout book. I have a better chance of appeasing the megacorp with a complete unknown." Here's the cold truth. If you give up, you guarantee failure--and have no one but yourself to blame. If you *don't* give up, you at least keep the door open--and who knows? something good may walk in. (03/04/2009) |
Michael: Hi. did you know or ever meet any of the innocent people at Kent State (Allison Krause, Sandy Scheuer, Jeff Miller, Bill Schroeder and Doug Wrentmore) who were murdered by the National Guard in 1970 while you were there? How did you react to the Grand Jury acquittal of all the National Guardsmen involved in the shootings? Did you read James Michener's book on the subject? What did you think about it.
This is unrelated to the former question but did you ever consider yourself to be a "Hippie" or smoke marijuana at the time, I don't think you ever mentioned the Beatles before. Were you politically active as a student?
|
I have no desire to discuss my personal life, opinions, and experiences in the Gradual Interview. As I've said before, if you include an email address with your message, you will probably get a (brief) personal reply. You may even get an answer to one or more of your questions. But I'm not going to use the GI for such things. (03/04/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
David : Mr. Donaldson:
Today is Jan, 4th and I've just finished
"Final Revenant" Well done Mr. Donaldson.
I felt like Liand when he tells Linden how he
can't comprehend how much knowledge her experiance can contain or even fathom. like him,
I am truly astonished buy your imagination.
I literally flew through your last two books
with ravening hunger. Your writing is even more
effortless to read, the pages turn themselves.
But, Now I am done and I at least have something to look foward to in the future. Thanks again.
If I had one question to ask you it would be,
How did you like Tolkiens LOTR?
|
[Heavily pruned to conserve space and privacy.] Here's another message which would have received a personal reply if you had posted an email address. Naturally I'm grateful for your good opinion. But the Gradual Interview is already absurdly long. And I've already commented at length on LOTR. (03/04/2009) |
Paul Oakley: Hi Steve, I have read the First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and am now reading Fatal Revenant. I really love this series and am wondering if you have considered doing illustrated editions?
Yours Sincerely
Paul
|
As I'm forced to say on so many subjects, it ain't up to me. My publishers own those rights. And from a publisher's perspective, these books just don't sell well enough to justify the expense of illustrated editions. (03/11/2009) |
John Lee: Dear Mr. Donaldson:
I wanted your opinion on the following subject: Lena, and Elena's mental illness.
Both Lena, and Elena, suffered from mental illness. They were both delusional.
In Lena's case, she couldn't deal with having been raped. It overwhelmed her. In her world, rape is unheard of. She became delusional, through no fault of her own. She thought Thomas Covenant actually loved her, and that she would stay young forever.
In Elena's case, she couldn't deal with having a mentally ill and delusional mother. It overwhelmed her. As a child, she became mentally ill, and delusional. She believed that High Lord Kevin, brought back from the dead, would save the Land.
For Lena to have been healed, someone would have had to tell her that it wasn't her fault that she was raped.
For Elena to have been healed, someone would have had to tell her that it wasn't her fault that she had a mentally ill, and delusional mother.
I wanted your opinion on this.
Sincerely,
John Lee
|
Im not sure what to say. I dont think of Lena as delusional (although in some sense she obviously is) because I dont use words like that when I think about her. And I dont think of Elena as delusional at all. I suppose, if we have to label her, we might say she suffers from a neurosis, a kind of perceptual blind-spot which doesnt interfere with her ability to function supremely well in every other area of her life. But its important to remember that most (all?) neuroses are simply survival-skills which have outlived their usefulness. Weaknesses are strengths misapplied, just as strengths are weaknesses appropriately used. At one time in her life (her childhood), Elenas blind-spot enabled her to emerge with far fewer scars than she might otherwise have borne. For that, she and everyone around her ought to be proud of her. Such blind-spots/neuroses only become problems if they arent unlearned when theyre no longer needed. By my reasoning, if Elena fits your definition of delusional, then Im at the top of your list. In any case, the power of hearing that it wasnt her fault doesnt come from the words: it comes from the *hearing*. I doubt that Lena would ever have been able to *hear* what those words mean. Im confident that Elena would have dismissed them as utterly irrelevant. (03/19/2009) |
Worm: What does "fist and faith" mean? Does it mean the Bloodguard have faith in their abilities, or does it have something to so with faith in their Bloodguard vow or some other belief system that adds structure to their lives?
|
????? Some questions are hard to answer because the answers are too obvious. (E.g. Why do you write in words?) Fist because the Haruchai have a martial culture with a strict martial code. The point of combat is to demonstrate ability, commitment, and rectitude, not to kill or otherwise eliminate opposition. Hence the ban on weapons: weapons make killing too easy. (And hence the emphasis in many martial arts on perfection of character rather than on victory or defeat.) Faith as in keeping the faith, remaining faithful to oneself and ones commitments against any and all adversity. Fist and faith: prowess and fidelity. But I cant help feeling that all of this is explained much better in the text. (03/19/2009) |
Mark: Hi Stephen,
In October, I posted a question about the Haruchai women and you replied -
"OK, you got me. I am completely bumfuzzled by the sheer perseverance of this recurring question. Why in, well, Someones Holy Name (at the moment, I cant think whom to invoke) do you care? Apparently a number of people do (although the GI as posted probably doesnt reflect that fact). But I cant imagine why.
And since I cant imagine why."
I've been "pondering" your response and have another question...so, please bear with me.
You create such intense imagery with your writing and the many interpersonal relationships that are carefully woven through the tapestry of your story add SO much more to it. To name a few - Pitchwife and the First, Lord Shetra and Verement, Mhoram's parent's, Trell and Atrian, even to the male/female interaction with the Elohim. So to me, the natural question extends to the Haruchai. I think it would add to the complexity of these already somewhat enigmic characters - perhaps shed a bit of humanness on them. We(I) can only speculate on how different Bannor would've been had we known about his wife/family.
Does this interest seem odd to you and if so, why?
Thanks for taking the time and looking forward to the next book!!
Mark
|
OhmiGod! You want to ADD to the complexity? Does it not occur to you that were already drowning in the stuff? And if you arent, *I* certainly am? But seriously. Maybe you should get a life? (No, stop: bad Steve. Pull yourself together.) OK, *this* time Im serious. Honest. Obviously youre right--at least in theory. The more dimensions/complexities I can add to my characters, the more real or human or believable they may become. But in practice the theory can easily become an illusion. The *real* reason you want to know more about the Haruchai is that Ive succeeded at sparking your imagination. So how did I do that? By describing them literally (in any amount of detail)? Or by describing them enigmatically? By *suggesting* who and what they are rather than by definining (and thereby limiting) every conceivable dimension of their lives? The creation of characters in storytelling is always a tricky balancing-act. Too much information (or the wrong kind of information) clogs the readers imagination. Too little information (or information thats too static) gives the readers imagination nothing to work with. In both cases, the characters stubbornly refuse to come to life. So when I put it that way, your interest in--say--Haruchai women does *not* seem odd to me (except in the sense that I always consider it odd when I succeed at what Im trying to do <rueful smile>). At the same time, however, it certainly doesnt inspire me to fill in any of the gaps. Instead your interest demonstrates that Ive already said enough on the subject. (03/19/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
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.
Lidia Tremblay: Hello, Mr. Donaldson:
There are two questions that have been at the back of my mind, and I would very much like to hear your answers to them:
1. From the first draft to the final product, how much does your story change? Do the rewrites alter your first conception markedly?
2. Immersed as you are in the alternate worlds you create, do you find yourself dreaming of these worlds? Have you ever had a writer's block (if you have writer's blocks) dissolve because you've dreamed the answer?
Thank you for your time and patience. And thank you again for sharing your great talents with us.
|
1. My stories never change after the first draft. And I mean *never*--at least 95% of the time. Once Ive determined the order and nature of events, I do not change my conception. (Except on occasions so rare that I cant remember any.) In that sense, the story is set in stone after the first draft. No matter how strenuously my editors object. Nevertheless I rewrite a *lot*. And I can tell you without hesitation that the single most rewritten facet of my first drafts is always the dialogue. Always. I may not change the lift of an eye or the twitch of a finger; but I frequently change every single word that every character says in a particular scene. (Or not: the problems come and go.) In my first drafts, I really flounder to express what my characters need to say. Because--duh--Im still getting to know them in their new circumstances. So obviously the *second* most rewritten facet of my first drafts is the interior description: whos feeling what why when--and how often have I already said the same things? (Or contradictory things.) In that respect, my rewrites are often *very* different than my first drafts. 2. Its probably fair to say that I never dream about the worlds or characters of my stories. On one--and only one--occasion, I dreamed about writing the next days work; and the next day I did exactly what my dream told me: it felt more like taking dictation than actually writing. Other than that: nada. Dreaming plays absolutely no conscious role in my creative life. Im very aware that my unconscious mind does a lot of my work for me while Im asleep; but that work never takes the form of dreams. Once every mumblemumble years, my dreams shed some light on my personal life; but thats an entirely different issue. (03/19/2009) |
James McMurrey: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
The Covenant series has been a great traveling companion of mine over the years. I even have a set in which when I open any one of the books a little bit of Iraqi sand (from my Desert Storm experience) trickles out -- generally onto my chest while reading in the bed.
I recently introduced my 13 yr old son to the First Chronicles and he has raced all the way through to FR.
I asked Daniel (my son) as to what were his favorite parts of the books and he mentioned the story of when FoamFollower and TC first met sailing down the Soulease River. Since this was really one of my favorite parts of the story in LFB, I though it was fairly amazing my son identified this section, too.
Whenever, I begin LFBs for the umpteenth time + 1, I always find myself re-reading the passage in which Foamfollower asks TC if he is a storyteller. Foamfollowers subsequent response of . Say no more --- with one word you will make me weep. is such a great piece of dialogue. That was probably the hook that forever sold me on TC.
I am sure that the miracle of weaving plot, character and dialogue is part of your genius and calling. However, within that one piece of dialogue, did it have any special significance when you wrote it? Was there an Aha! moment ? ; Or a self-congratulatory chuckle?; Or even a Genius-at-work, Movin on! attitude?
BTW, my son and I have named you WordFriend <humble and hopeful smile>.
God Bless and Good Health! Looking forward to more of your grand work!
--James and Daniel
|
Saltheart Foamfollower (and then his time with Covenant between Andelain and Revelstone) is one of the VERY few occasions while writing when I felt that something was arriving in the story from outside the boundaries of my own imagination. (This is a fairly routine sensation where the ideas that inspire my stories are concerned. But it seldom occurs while Im at work on the actual telling of the story.) One way to put it is that when Foamfollower came sailing up the Soulsease, I had planned what he would do in the story, and how he would contribute to the larger narrative; but I had never met him before. For me, he seemed to sail into the story from an entirely different dimension of reality (I mean reality as it applies to character). And my reaction was one of awe. Not, I hasten to add, Gee-Im-great awe. It started as Gee-hes-great-whoever-created-him-must-be-a-real-genius awe and moved quickly into Gee-this-is-why-people-write-so-they-can-experience-this-kind-of-miracle awe. I do live for those moments, rare though they are, when I somehow succeed at writing or creating better than I know how. So Im not surprised that Foamfollowers first appearance in the story has a special luminence for some readers. (03/22/2009) |
Dave P: As my reading of your most recent Axbrewder novel gets further and further in the past (a couple years ago), I find myself wishing more and more for another.
You haven't mentioned this in the GI for a while. I'm wondering if any ideas for another Axbrewder novel have come to you. You have said before that you don't think about the next project until you finish the current, but you probably can't stop the mind from wandering sometime either.
So, is there any new hope yet for another "Man who..." novel after the Covenant series is done? Just wondering.
|
For quite some time now, Ive had a general idea of where the story goes. But Im still effectively drawing a blank (God, what a gift for a phrase!) on how the story gets there. From time to time, ideas occur to me; but so far theyve all rather quickly demonstrated themselves to be unworkable. Im not worried about this. Eventually my unconscious mind will sort things out. Meanwhile I do have other things to keep me busy. (03/22/2009) |
J P Wedge: I read Lord Foul's Bane when it first came to the SFBC, of which I have been a member forever. It was the best purchase ever made having led me to your writing. Each time a new volume of the chronicles comes out I reread the entire saga and enjoy it just as much as the first time. We are of an age, you and I, so I fully expect to live long enough to have the joy of reading the conslusion to it all, though do try to finish while I can still sit up and take nourishment from a spoon. I'd appreciate it.
Just a short question. Has the way you keep your focus on your writing changed or stayed basically the same over your career. I can only believe that the mechanical aspect of keeping focus is much easier than the mental, and the former would change more than the latter. No need for details. I'm a simple man, so if it interests you to answer, keep it simple.
Keep up the excellent work, you are the best.
|
Life is change. We all change. Among other things, were all older now. Im trying to do more difficult work than Ive ever done before. And there are (far) more external demands on my time, energy, and attention than ever before. Naturally how I keep my focus has changed. Nevertheless some things remain the same. I keep notes in the same way that I always have. I start each days work by reviewing/revising the previous days work. I isolate myself by playing music loud enough to prevent the outside world from impinging on my senses. But in other ways.... I probably dont make your distinction between the mechanical aspect of keeping focus and the mental. From my perspective (or perhaps I should say my perspective *today*, since I may think very differently tomorrow), the mechanical *is* the mental in the same way that the body *is* the brain. There is considerable evidence, I believe, that the brain inhabits the entire body, not just the skull (neurons everywhere, etc.). And as I get older, I find more and more reasons to suspect that the body thinks--not independently of the brain, perhaps, but as a facet of the brain with its own specialized functions. Well, assuming you accept any of that, Im not sure I can explain how it applies to the question of keeping my focus. But I can tell you that if you were able to secretly observe me while I work (and if you can, just shoot me now!), you would see me approach and enter the physical act of writing in ways which are visibly different than they once were. Part of the difference is a side-effect of the fact that I care about different things (or I care about things differently) than I did years ago. Part of the difference is that I experience *way* more anxiety about writing now than I did when I was younger. (For reasons too personal and complicated to explain, Im no longer able to simply trust that I *will* be able to write on any given day.) And a big part of the difference is that Im MUCH more ADD than I once was (no doubt because there are so many more external demands on my time etc.), so naturally I need different coping skills to manage my ADD. You said there was no need for details, so Ive probably already told you more than you wanted to hear.... (03/22/2009) |
Anonymous: Having recently become employed by a book publisher in a financial position, I had been mystified reading your comments in the past regarding "best sellers" and how sales were calculated. No more. The is issue is a not as easy as just tallying books out the door. There are elements of sales, returns, discounts, e-books, and foreign sales that are tricky and it does take a numbers of months to get a true picture of what the sale truly is. Having Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other book seller returning books anywhere from 3-24 months after the initial sale and try to screw over book publishers in very inventive ways does make the sales figure a bit more complicated than it should be. Your written statment that best sellers are calculated by rate of sale is correct and the self-perpetuation of an author selling in the past and then being pre-ordered in that manner in the future is also correct. And who can figure how the NY Times and other best seller lists are developed. From what I hear that is not as straight forward as you would think. All the best with AATE! Would love for us to publish you but my University Press is strictly non-fiction. I don't think the advisory board would go for Giants and magic rings!!
|
[posted for confirmation from an independent source] Thank you! (03/22/2009) |
Jerry Erbe: Greetings Mr. Donaldson,
Have you actually stopped lately to do a comparison between the real world, and what is happening today with our environment and economy, and how closely (or not) it parallels the fictional world you created in The Gap cycle? I would think that even the presence of a little bit of ego might cause one to try and connect the dots between the two worlds. Yes?
|
No, actually. a) Im too busy coping with my present story. b) Im too busy coping with my present *life*. And c) Im too aware of all the things I *wish* I had thought of (most of them medical) to congratulate myself on the few things I *did* think of. Naturally, this doesnt mean that I lack ego. It just means that my ego has been trained (mostly by my parents) to focus on different things. (03/22/2009) |
Verity: Stephen,
I haven't found the answer to this question anywhere else in the website or here on the gradual interview part.
When is the next book in the Chronicles coming out and will it be the last??
Thank you
Verity
|
Is it that time again already? It must be: Ive just read several varients of the same question. Of course, you could just check the news page of the site periodically for updates. Or you could go to the publications page and click on either The Runes of the Earth or Fatal Revenant. That will take you to a page which includes the hoped-for publication dates for both Against All Things Ending and The Last Dark. (03/22/2009) |
Patrick: GAP cycle tv series? I read your responses about movies and took your point about how its not really up to you, but maybe you could talk to a couple of people about doing a tv series, Showtime (i think) is making programs like Dexter, and it is popular, which means that Angus could probably be tolerated on tv. Plus tv series are getting to be really good quality nowdays, each book could be its own series.
So do you know anyone that would be interested in the project? All the sci fi on tv is star trek! The GAP series would really push tv forward.
|
Who do you imagine I could possibly talk to? Seriously? Who do you think would accept a phone call from a mere novelist? (Never mind from a novelist who shudders at the mere idea of having his work taken over by a committee?) Let me remind you, however, that there is an active option on the GAP books (Fully Loaded Pictures). I don't doubt that the people involved have considered/are considering the tv idea. (03/22/2009) |
Joe Higgins: Dear Stephen,
I just yesterday evening finished reading Fatal Revenant. I hate to have to wait a year for the final book but that's life. I do have one question. As inquisitive as Linden is I wondered why she hasn't yet asked Stave why he chose Liand to answer her questions in Mithil Stonedown. Does she do so in the final book?
|
She won't be asking because she has no reason to be curious about it. Liand himself answers those questions when they first meet. And Stave (at least at that point in the story) has no complex or ulterior motives. (04/04/2009) |
Ray Lattanzio: Steve -
In your time in academia, did you ever teach a writing-intensive class? If so, did you have any strategies (successful or otherwise) to improve the quality of the papers that you received from students (i.e.: paying attention to formatting, proper references & citations, even a minimal of proof-reading).
I teach a couple of undergraduate psychology and research classes. Though many students comply with the minimum basic requirements for a college paper, more than a few do not. Since you are infinitely more creative than I could ever hope to be, I was wondering if you have found a creative way to engage those who do not seem to "get it" - regardless of how much time or effort is spent.
If you have any insights, I'd welcome them. If not, I would still like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your creative genius with the world. I have always been a fan of science fiction and fantasy literature, but the "Covenant" books have always been my favorites. The stories are rivoting and your incredible command of the written word makes your books so engrossing it is though one ceases to read, but rather watches a movie in one's own head! Thanks!
Ray
|
I taught Freshman English at Kent State for one full year. During that time, I came up with a number of teaching strategies, some more imaginative than others. I can't honestly say that any of them were *successful*, but I'm proud of a couple of them. Of course, I tried to use texts which might be accessible to the students *at their level*. And for homework I had my students identify passages they didn't understand so that we could discuss those parts of the text openly. But what I consider my best.... From time to time, I would take a paragraph from our current text, scramble the sentences out of order, and give them to my students to put back in sequence as pop quizzes. Very educational for *me*, if not for them. <sigh> And I placed a heavy emphasis on formal logic (although I didn't call it that), explaining over and over again what it is and why it matters. Toward that end, I used the most dramatic example I could find: an editorial written by a Christian fundamentalist MD denouncing The Poor based on Biblical "authority". Virtually every sentence was a howling violation of the rules of logic--and since the rules of logic are, at their core, a practical guide to common sense, I thought my students would benefit from the exercise. (Silly me.) I hope your experience isn't like mine. For years afterward, I thought of teaching Freshman English as The Abyss. (04/04/2009) |
Alexander J. Wei: The last thing I want to do is to take up Steve's time. But I'm struck by the "part titles": "my heart has rooms", "chosen for this desecration", etc. They are all from the Covenant corpus, but from where? The first is from Pitchwife's song. If it wouldn't take too much time, where are they from?
|
You're right about Pitchwife's song. As for the rest: "Chosen for this desecration" comes from TWL, the Raver's speech to Linden in Revelstone. "The only form of innocence": also TWL, Dr Berenford speaking to Linden. "Lest you prove unable to serve me": TROTE, Lord Foul to Linden during her escape from Mithil Stonedown. "Victims and enactors of Despite": WGW, Kevin to Linden in Andelain. (04/15/2009) |
Ossie: No more wallowing in your own flaws! The recent run of "what did you mean when you said you wish you were a better author here?" or "isn't this a technical mistake?" questions in the GI would be enough to drive anyone to diamondraught. So my question is: of which parts of your work are you especially proud, where you feel you nailed it either from a technical aspect, connection with the audience ("they're gonna love this"), or you feel your work as the author did allow your intentions to come through on the page? Personally, I love both Earthblood scenes, and the cleansing of the Banefire - in fact, the entire section in Revelstone from one single word: "Nom". Awesome.
Thank you. For everything.
|
As I've suggested in other contexts, I'm proud of different things for different reasons. There are scenes in the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels, especially "The Man Who Fought Alone," that still make me ache. Long sections of "The Power that Preserves," "The One Tree," and "White Gold Wielder" seem impossibly well-written. But from my perspective, "Mordant's Need" was my first truly successful attempt to organize a large narrative canvas. In that regard, nothing that I've done so far can compare with the GAP books. I'm perhaps maliciously pleased that "The Runes of the Earth" may be the only fantasy novel ever written that climaxes in an argument (AND it has a five-chapter prologue!). And I'm still in love with some of my short stories ("The Killing Stroke," anyone?). Of course, I always aspire to do better.... (04/15/2009) |
robert: Hi Mr. Donaldson
I hope this finds you doing very well. I have just started reading "Reave the Just and other tales"--- your introduction was both sad and funny in the dry sarcastic humor I so appreciate you having. I had a few questions I wanted to ask you... since they may be too personal (in which case I completely understand your reluctance to answer at all) and are of a religious nature (which always seems to bring the nuts out of the woodwork) so again if you don't answer at all I will neither be disappointed or upset. You have and will always be one of my favorite writers.
1) Based on what you have shared concerning your upbringing, I was wondering if your family had a leaning toward calvinism... I have been reading Jonathan Edward's "Freedom of the Will" and both his and your ideology on the nature & determination of the will, the meaning of necessity and distinction between natural/moral necessity, as well as moral agency and liberty. (your writings on being a free moral agent or powerlessness still intrigues me)
2) I know (or at least I think) all good authors are well read on a variety of subjects.. I was wondering how much -- if any -- The "Rede" of the clave was influenced by the "rede" used by pagans.
--- please take no offence at what I have asked you, I really value your insights (especially on freedom of choice and its necessity). If you choose to answer privately only I will not only be thankful that you answered, I will also commend you on "good call" as I would hate to see the gradual interview sullied by narrow minded religious nuts of all creeds.
All my best, robert
|
This seems safe enough. 1) My parents were Presbyterian, which is an off-shoot of Calvinism. On that basis, Jonathan Edwards can hardly be irrelevant. 2) I've encountered the concept of "the rede" in a variety of contexts, but I know nothing about the "rede" of the pagans. In fairness, I should probably observe that "narrow minded religious nuts" occur in ALL creeds, pretty much without exception. As do good and honorable people of the highest quality. (04/15/2009) |
Robert Murnick: Dear Sir,
I've previously asked you about Foul as a character, and I may have discovered my problem. Please bear with me here.
I asked whether there was a chance we might read about Foul's origin. You answered that that would require you to truncate your intentions. I think I can see how that could do that. I don't need to read about how Foul's father beat him or how Earthpower destroyed the only "Dark Female Archetype" he ever loved, I just need to feel confident that he DOES have a backstory.
We have the idea that Foul is trapped in the World of the Land and that his goal is to break free. What he would do if he were able to accomplish this or if there even was a time when he was not trapped may not be relevant to the story you wish to tell. But isn't it relevant to to integrity of Foul as a character?
I'm emotionally attached to your story and characters; I expect to read them in any event. You raised the comparison with Tolkien's Sauron - "Even a character as simple and black as Sauron still makes choices in how he pursues his aims." But Sauron was kept at a great distance from the reader. There isn't much in the LOTR about his origins, although Elrond does say Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. That was enough to confirm for me Sauron's reality. Is there anything you can say to help me feel that Foul is more than just a (please forgive me for suggesting this Steve, please?) d-e-v-i-c-e? <hangs head, grovels, crawls away backwards with face to the ground>
|
Well, of course Lord Foul is "just a device". Archetypal stories are like that: they use devices. (Don't get me started. I'm perfectly capable of arguing that every one of my characters is just a device.) Nevertheless I do aspire to something more. Where Lord Foul is concerned, however, my aspirations don't involve making him seem "real" in the same sense that, say, Esmer (or even Kasreyn) is "real". I'm trying to do something much more complex: I'm trying to make him seem "real" as a being who transcends ordinary definitions of reality. This, unfortunately, is rather like bringing God Himself on stage and engaging Him in argument. The mere act of doing so is inherently reductive: it makes Him less, well, God-like. (Which at least in part explains my dislike for "Creator" questions.) So how, I keep asking myself, do I make an eternal concept believable "as a character" without simultaneously making him too small to be himself? Ow! Just thinking about it makes my brain hurt. In any case, the question of Lord Foul's "integrity...as a character" is one that simply doesn't conform to the ordinary requirements of storytelling. <sigh> Maybe when I'm a God-like being myself, I'll be able to explain all this better. (04/15/2009) |
John: Steve,
Now that you have finished the first draft of "Against All Things Ending" - and I know you have a handful of revisions on this particular book, let alone the last one to write - how do you feel about it? Not asking for spoilers here. Has anything about it surprised you? And I know you have said something to the effect that you don't sit back and think about your books/series as you write them (my words here, can't remember yours and I'm too lazy to look it up). But you must feel something, right? I mean, only one more book - a short 4 or so years out of your life - and Covenant is over; over for good.
One other thing... do you still have the "apartment" you write in, and if so do you ever invite anyone there? Family, friends, agent, readers, etc... (not that I am looking for an invite if you still have the place!).
Oh, and thanks for answering all of our questions, mine in particular!
|
In the very short time that I spent between finishing the first draft and starting the second, I had two reactions, neither exactly typical. The first was that I spent 2-3 weeks wondering where I had misplaced my millstone. Even though I was already rewriting, I felt like Sisyphus on an inconceivable holiday. The second was/is mind-numbing terror. "Against All Things Ending" was by a considerable margin the most difficult writing I've ever done--and "The Last Dark" will be FAR MORE difficult. In retrospect, I feel like I've spent the past 25+ years trying desperately *not* to arrive where I am now. Fortunately rewriting AATE turns out to be an extraordinary challenge. Thanks to that distraction, I don't have to start actual gibbering about TLD yet. I do still have an extremely private apartment/studio where I work. It's something of a "sacred" space: no one else ever comes in here, expect people doing repairs--and I try to do as many of those as I possibly can myself. (04/27/2009) |
Tom Best: Hello, Mr. Donaldson,
I was wondering if you could elaborate on the following statements you made concerning fiction and non-fiction:
"I could actually say quite a bit about this, mostly having to do with my belief that fiction (storytelling) is a richer source of ideas and understanding than any non-fiction."
and
"I read almost exclusively fiction, in part because that's what I love to read, in part because I feel loyal to the kind of work I'm committed to, and in part because I believe you can learn more from a good story than from almost any form of non-fiction."
I've tried to argue the same point with my father and some friends of mine -- they think fiction is a waste of time, a bunch of "made up stuff" -- but, sadly, I'm not very articulate in defending my position. I say things like, "Fiction is the truth inside the lie," or I try to explain how you can live vicariously through the characters in fiction, thereby gaining a new perspective about the world, or about different ways of life. For instance, if the main character is homosexual, or a slave, or a president, or an alcoholic, or a leper, or whatever -- once you see the world through their eyes, it can open your mind to new possibilities, make you more empathetic to your fellow man.
Sometimes I'll pull this little nugget out of my memory (from Clive Barker's Sacrament):
"I am a man, and men are animals who tell stories. This is a gift from God, who spoke our species into being, but left the end of our story untold. That mystery is troubling to us. How could it be otherwise? Without the final part, we think, how are we to make sense of all that went before: which is to say, our lives?
So we make stories of our own, in fevered and envious imitation of our Maker, hoping that we'll tell, by chance, what God left untold. And finishing our tale, come to understand why we were born."
I find it quite profound myself (stories are a way to understand ourselves), but it doesn't go over well with the people I'm trying to convince -- too poetic and philosophical probably. Anyway, I would appreciate any of your thoughts on the subject.
Regards,
Tom
|
I've been procrastinating about this because a) much of what I might say on the subject is highly subjective, and b) I've been trying to think of a way *not* to go on and on about it at length. Barker makes a good point, although he phrases it in a way that will make it unpalatable to some readers. Telling stories is the *essence* of being human. In fact, I suspect that it is the essence of *thought*. I suspect that people who read only non-fiction because they believe fiction is, say, a waste of time aren't paying any meaningful attention to the way their own minds work; to the ways in which they understand non-fiction and their own minds and the world. I doubt that there's a human being on the planet who can decide what to have for breakfast without engaging in some form of storytelling. In addition, I believe that non-fiction itself is only fiction concealed. Surely no one can produce a work of non-fiction which contains nothing more than a disorganized, discontinuous recitation of facts. As soon as the non-fiction writer attempts to arrange his/her facts in some form of meaningful sequence or narrative: that's storytelling. The raw materials (the undifferentiated facts) may not be "made up stuff": the organization of those raw materials *is*. But leaving all of that aside. Perhaps the only crucial difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction writers synthesize (combine and arrange) their facts across a broader spectrum of information, experience, and understanding. No one can doubt that both non-fiction and fiction writers tend to be intelligent, well-read, inquisitive, and searching. But fiction writers organize their materials according to different--I can't think of a better word at the moment--different protocols: protocols which allow them to roam more freely across the landscape of possible meanings. In my (admittedly idiopathic) experience, when people say things like, "I don't read fiction because it's just a bunch of made up stuff," what they really mean is, "Too much freedom to roam scares me. I'm more comfortable in smaller spaces." Or not. It takes all kinds to make a world. Maybe for some readers the restrictions of non-fiction are like the restrictions of sonnets for some poets: the comparative constriction of the protocols creates a special kind of freedom. Such paradoxes are also--like storytelling--an important part of being human. (05/06/2009) |
MRK: To my delight, I recently turned up (and just finished reading) a "Reed Stephens" edition of "The Man who Tried to Get Away". Definitely one of the best things you have ever written.
I was wondering if you have read and/or were influenced by Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre". I saw some similarities in language and theme (i.e., overcoming great social adversity). Also of course Mr. Rochester's grudging but dedicated caring for his violently insane wife.
My other, "big" question came into my mind when I read that the major stumbling block for the creation of the Covenant movie was the Ring rather than the rape of Lena. It occured to me that no, that (the rape) really wasn't that hard to get around, you'd just have to re-write it as a consentual sex scene, which I thought wouldn't be terribly out of character for Lena, her being potentially an enamored Berek groupie, but it would be VASTLY out of character for Covenant. He would have to be a far more self-confident person who would feel entitled to take advantage of the situation. In other words, he would feel like he deserved what he was getting, that the Land was indeed REAL. And of course this is only one way in which the story would be completely altered. Do you think that this would probably be the Hollywood solution and how profound do you think would be the impact on the story and on Lena and Covenant's respective characters?
|
I was an English major fascinated by stories and novels in both college and graduate school: it's inconceivable that I was *not* influenced by "Jane Eyre". (And "Wuthering Heights" and "Emma" and "Bleak House" and "Middlemarch" and and and.) The fact that I don't consciously model my novels on "Jane Eyre" (or any of the others) is irrelevant: the influence is still there. But as far as I know, your thoughts on "rape" and the rejected "Covenant" movie are entirely your own. The only explanation I was ever given was: It's got a ring in it. In fact, the aspiring producers repeatedly assured me that things like rape and leprosy were *not* stumbling-blocks. I have no idea what might happen if we ever got past the "ring" problem. (05/06/2009) |
Basch: SRD - Hope all is well for you.
I was curious about your thoughts on the Kindle, or other ebook readers. As an author do you see this as something to be excited about, concerned about or just generally indifferent as it doesn't impact on your writing?
Thanks for your time on the Gradual Interview. It's great stuff.
|
Personally, I'm indifferent to e-books. And to audio books. They certainly have no effect on how I work--or on how I feel about my work. But so what? The future doesn't care whether I care or not. Some sort of metamorphosis is always inevitable. (05/06/2009) |
Steven H: Thank you for your amazing writings. I am a huge fan of the TC Chronicles, the Gap cycle, Mordant's Need and your short stories. I have not read all of your works, but everything I have read has been tremendous and completely absorbs me.
I just finished LFB and I have two comments/questions about the ending.
1) I felt as if the ending was very rushed, so much so that I feel it was done with intent. Was it indeed your intent to return Covenant back to his leprous life so abruptly?
2) Covenant makes the comment deep in Mount Thunder that he forgot to bring his 'earthly' clothes with him on the trip. He is very discouraged by this since when he 'wakes up' he will know that it had all been a dream since he will be wearing his jeans/boots/etc. In the land at that time he was wearing the robe the lords gave him that had since been stained by traveling through Morinmoss. These green stains on his robe are mentioned many times as if you intended us to take specific note of them. Upon returning to 'his' world we find Covenant in the hospital dressed in the standard issue gown. This of course plays back to TC's comment about forgetting his clothes and assuming that will enforce the idea that it had all been a dream. My question is did you intend specifically for us, and TC, to take this as an ambiguous token that the experience maybe wasn't a dream (I feel that is the case) and would it have gone too far to have let the hospital gown have some sort of fancy printed design that resembled the stains from Morinmoss? This kind of goes along with my first question as the ending was so abrupt, and TC has nothing to offer as far as any thoughts referring back to his previous thoughts under Mount Thunder. I felt that you intended for us to make some assumptions for ourselves instead of you dictating them in the narrative, but I am a little baffled since this is so obviously a blow to his unbelief, which is a central theme of the story.
Thank you for your time and for sharing your creations with us!!
Steven H
|
1) Yes, the ending of LFB is "rushed". I had hoped that the reader would be able to experience how jarring the transition was for Covenant. 2) Surely I've made it obvious by now that I was trying to provide *ambiguous* evidence on both sides of Covenant's personal debate (belief v unbelief). Sure, I could have put Covenant in a hospital gown that was a near-match for what he was wearing in the Wightwarrens. Similarly I could have had him regain consciousness while still wearing his "real" clothes. Instead I did everything I could think of to avoid supplying conclusive evidence on either side. Like all the rest of us, Covenant has to choose his own convictions and commitments in a world which flatly refuses to supply certainty. (05/06/2009) |
Johann de Wet: Hi Stephen!
I have noticed that you have the tendency to end nearly all you intermediate books as cliff-hangers. Is this just a commercial trick, or is it a sacred narrative tradition that all writers have to adhere to? Or do you have a deeply hidden sadistic streak that just like to make your fans suffer while they eagerly wait for the next book in the series?
Cheers!
Johann (South Africa)
|
Surely these are not the only possibilities! Either I have no artistic integrity, or I'm a sadistic bastard? Tsk, tsk. My stories are intended as organic wholes, not as detached pieces. They're *published* as detached pieces; but that's only because they're too long to appear in one volume--and because I need to earn a living while I'm writing them. They're intended to be *read* as single stories. And as single stories, they have no cliffhangers at all: they merely have pauses that allow you an opportunity to put down one volume and pick up the next. If you doubt me (if you *dare*!), try this exercise. First, lay out the whole story ("Mordant's Need" or the GAP cycle) as a single continuous creation. Next, pick the places where *you* think the story should be interrupted for the sake of publishing necessity. And keep in mind the obvious fact that both the publisher and the author want those interruptions to occur in places that will encourage the reader to immediately pick up the next volume. "Commercial trick"? "Sacred narrative tradition"? "Deeply hidden sadistic streak"? Bah! (05/06/2009) |
Phill Skelton: On the subject of Orson Scott Card and characterisation in Fansasy/sci-fi, you wrote: "Thats theory. In practice, Ive read plenty of books--historicals and westerns as well as sf and fantasy--that place setting above character; and each and every one of them was junk. Ive also read plenty of books--thrillers and mysteries as well as sf and fantasy--that place events above character; and each and every one of *them* was junk (although it is true that activity is usually more interesting to watch than scenery).
Think Im wrong? Show me."
I guess it is a question of at what point you consider setting (or whatever) to be 'above' character. As far as I understand OSC's point, he is saying that SF/fantasy books often take the world they are in as the foundation of the story, and the characters are there to interact with the world for the benefit of the reader. Lord of the Rings wasn't born out of the characters of Frodo and Sam, with the plot developing out from there. LotR is one of the examples OSC has quotes elsewhere on this subject, noting that many of the characters are little more than stereotypes - token dwarf, token elf, interchangeable token hobits, Aragorn gets to be noble (and little else), and so on. Of course there *is* more to the characters than that, and without at least some welld eveloped characters a story *will* be junk.
The contrast is with, for example, Milan Kundera, whose stories (that I've read) are about pretty much nothing *but* the characters. Or Jospeh Conrad: what he was interested in was the personality interacting with the events, but the focus was still on the person.
I don't think you could say LotR was about characters in the same way that Conrad's "The Secret Agent" or "Nostromo" are. It is much more about its setting - the world of Middle Earth - than those books, and much less about the personalities, as important as those are (you may disagree of course). Whether you would say it is *more* about setting than character may be a matter of personal taste about use of language.
I think it goes without saying that the Covenant books (and pretty all your stories in fact, one or two short ones excepted maybe) are much more Conrad-esque in their interest in the character than the vast majority of SF/fantasy.
|
Ah, well. I believe I've helped create a problem for which there's no tidy solution. (Further proof, if proof were needed, that I should consider just keeping my mouth shut sometimes.) We are now at a point where the only way forward seems to be to define our terms ever more stringently. What PRECISELY do you mean by terms like "setting" and "character"? And "above"? And yet the more stringent we are, the more subjective our definitions will become. For example (and this is just an opinion), I disagree with you about LOTR. (Also about "Nostromo".) By all reports, Tolkien's inspiration *began* with setting. But (just my opinion) without the characters, no one would care. Sure, some of the characters are stock figures: that's true of many novels. But there's nothing "stock" or stereotypical in the characters that form the moral heart of the story; and without that heart, Middle Earth is just a place with trees and horses. In fact (JUST MY OPINION), I think there are more cliches in the setting than there are in the characters. Which leaves us exactly where? I have no idea. Card has one opinion (which I view dyspeptically). You have another (which you present sympathetically). I have another (about which I should have kept my mouth shut). So what? Even *I* would get bored if everyone agreed that I'm always right. <grin> And in the meantime: well, the situation calls for a cliche (the last refuge of the overwhelmed), so I suggest, "That's what makes the world go 'round." (05/13/2009) |
spoonchicken: Dear Dr.Donaldson......PLEASE tell me, that you DON'T go to kevinswatch.com & read some of the sillier stuff posted in there (epsecially by me!)
|
Is there "sillier" stuff posted on kevinswatch.com? You shock me. How is that possible? <grin> (05/13/2009) |
Charles Adams: I apologize if this is a question you have already answered (I don't even know how I would query for this particular question and answer).
As you have stated many times, you envision an end, and then you work backwards from that end to tell the story.
When you wrote SCOTC, were you writing to the end of that story, or writing to the eventual end of the Last Chronicles? Or some hybrid?
|
While I was working on "The Second Chronicles," I was writing to the end of that particular story ("White Gold Wielder"). I like to think that I concentrate on the story I'm actually writing, not on stories which I hope I will eventually write. However, the fact that I also knew the end of "The Last Chronicles" enabled me to spend a bit of narrative space "preparing the way" for the eventual end of the whole saga. (05/13/2009) |
Tom: Just wondering if you seen this website.
This one has a 3D computer rendering of a cavewight and an ur-vile:
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?p=508831
I was wondering if they come close to what you picture in your head. The ur-vile in particular is very close to what I picture (although the one on the website isn't painted yet). Anyway, it's amazing what people can do with computers these days!
Tom
|
For what it's worth, I particularly like the ur-vile. Other artists have shown that it's very easy to make ur-viles look like stupid creations. So I'm pleased! (05/13/2009) |
Peter B: Hi Steve--
I ran across one of your responses to a July 2004 GI question concerning who the Creator is and was amazed at what you appear to be disclosing. Here's your quote:
Having rid ourselves of those assumptions, we can then consider the possibility that the Land's "Creator" is Covenant himself (an act of imagination which he later shares with Linden); that--in a manner of speaking--both the "Creator" and the man in the ochre robe are Covenant's dopplegangers, externalized versions of aspects of himself.
Was this an attempt at crafty misdirection or should we take the clarification at face value? My guess (hope) is that the integrity of the Chronicles and ending remain.
Many, many congratulations on finishing the first draft of AATE!
|
"Crafty misdirection" or actual "clarification": are those my only choices? Can I pick both? Neither? Am I allowed to be overtly self-contradictory? In the absence of comfortable alternatives, I'm going to avoid responsibility by insisting that the crucial words are "consider the possibility". If the Land is a dream/delusion, then OF COURSE Covenant is its Creator. But surely other possibilities also deserve consideration. (05/13/2009) |
Joe: Mr Donaldson, firstly I would like to thank you for creating Covenant, Giants, Lords, Bloodgaurd, the Land, ALL of it! I first read Lord Fouls Bane in 1986, have read Chronicals 1&2 at least 4 times in the last 20 years and just spent the last 6 months reading all 8. You definately deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as the likes of Tolkien and others. The depth and detail to every aspect of the stories, not just the central characters and primary locales, transends personal and spiritual levels. If I did not know better I would say you lived it. I wish I could. Sorry, to my question, you have said that your finished 1st draft of Runes was 1052 pages long! Revenant 1209! And now 1179 for Against All Things Ending! Has that been true of all the other books of Chronicals 1 & 2? Would it ever be possible to read any of your unrevised Covenant works? What am I missing from those 500 or so weeded out pages? Thank you again for sharing wonderful imagination and amazing talents with me.
|
Each book in "The Last Chronicles" has been significantly longer than *any* of the first six volumes. But trust me when I say that you aren't missing anything by not reading my first drafts. In fact, you're much better off. I *improve* my books by revising them. Sometimes I improve them almost beyond recognition. You do NOT need to know how badly I can write in my first drafts. (However, keep in mind that published books contain many more words per page than manuscripts. The published versions of my books have not been as drastically cut as you might think.) (05/13/2009) |
Steve C: Stephen,
Just another one of your long time fans for decades and decades:
My questions are about the Harauchi. Obviously their senses and their defenses are superior to many peoples since they are not affected by Kevin's Dirt. Also throughout the Chronicles we've seen their ability to discern more than others.
To what extent can they assess or diagnoss the forces and banes affecting the Land? Linden was informed that the Demondim were using a Fall to gain access to the Illearth Stone thousands of years in the past. Discerning the Fall and the mechanism in which the Demondim wield their power seems like quite a feat. How far does their discernment go? We learn of the source of Kevin's Dirt from Esmer, but since the Haruchai remain unaffected, do they understand the nature of Kevin's Dirt? How and why it affects other people's of the land? Although understanding causality doesn't necessarily translate into a solution, it certain goes a long way!
Next question is about the Haruchai's sharing of minds. Stave has developed a way to silence his thoughts. In all of Haruchai society, does this set a precident? Is all that Handir thinks always always shared with the Haruchai hive? To what extent do the Master's regularly communicate with the Haruchai of their home? Perhaps these last questions are outside the scope of your story... But since I wonder if there is more going on with the Haruchai than just the keeping of secrets, I muse on these issues...
Having enjoyed your books over the decades, I've always felt the Bloodguard and Haruchai have unrequieted as well as self-imposed grief. Passion, it seems, can come in many forms. I am glad that you have been delving deeper into their culture and shared psyche. I suspect that there is a lot more to come about the inner workings of the Haruachi and that their long-standing and unresolved issues will be central to the remainder of the books...I eagerly await your next installment. And then the next...and then your next after Covenant. Just keep on writing!
Thank you,
Steve
|
I don't want to say too much about this, mainly because I don't want to limit my options, or--horrors!--introduce an inadvertent internal inconsistency. But I'll go this far. 1) Like the Ranyhyn, if in an entirely different form, the Haruchai are Earthpowerful beings. Hence their great strength, their longevity, and their immunity to Kevin's Dirt. But their discernment may not be as great as it can seem. Being able to perceive both the presence of a Fall and the emanations of the Illearth Stone within the Demondim horde does not imply that the Haruchai can extend their senses thousands of years into the past. It only suggests that they are able to draw rational conclusions from what they perceive in their present. On the other hand, I believe they *are* capable of discerning, say, the absence of health-sense in others. 2) Like the Ranyhyn, the Haruchai are mortal. Therefore they have limits. Specifically they are limited in *range*, both with their discernment and with their ability to communicate mind-to-mind. The "hive mind function" that they've developed over the millennia is only accessible if they're physically close enough to each other. And they've become dependent on it (another form of limitation). How else could a single Haruchai know everything that the entire race remembers? Does Stave set a precedent? Possibly. But if enough other Haruchai make the effort to follow his example, the "hive mind function" will effectively collapse. Why would they want to do that? Wouldn't such a collapse reduce their prospects for survival? (05/20/2009) |
Terry Hornsby: You've written a fantasy epic, a science fiction epic and a detective/crime trilogy. Do you feel any particular allegiance or preference to any genre? What I mean is, do you think, "I'm going to write fantasy. Now, here's the plot." or is it more "I've got a great idea that just happens to be fantasy"? Finally, what's next? A western? A romance? A horror?
|
As I've said over and over again, I don't choose my ideas: they choose me. In a very real sense, I do what I'm told. And so far, I haven't been told what I'm going to do after "The Last Chronicles". Within that general principle, however, it's clear that fantasy comes more naturally to me than sf or (so far) mysteries. Hence the preponderance of fantasy in my short story collections. (05/20/2009) |
Dale Cebula: Just a very silly question for you here:
I recall that Covenant is a successful writer in the first book (although he learned to hate his earlier work) and with his success was able to live a fairly comfortable life and purchased Haven Farm.
Now that you are (or rather have been for a while now) a fairly successful writer, do you think that maybe you overstated the income that Covenant earned from his first book? Do you think that maybe you overstated the material benefits that he gained from a best seller?
Can hardly wait for the next one!
|
Not for the time when the first "Covenant" trilogy was written. Back in those days, bestsellers often sold five times as many copies as they do today, and consequently made five times as much money. I would be pretty comfortable myself today if my circumstances then had allowed me to keep even half of the money I made during the first ten years of my career. (05/20/2009) |
cwmallard: Just a comment regarding Amazons "Kindle".
I only found one Kindle discussion on this site. I want to push the corporate publishers more to release the 1st and 2nd chronicles--in fact all of Stephens work-- in an E-format.
I don't care for an audio format and the publishers can opt out of the text to speech option on the Kindle.
Beg,plead,beg,plead.
Release Kindle versions of Stephens work.
!!!
|
Could happen. I've just signed a contract amendment with Bantam that allows them to release e-versions of the GAP books and "Reave the Just". Eventually something similar may occur with Ballantine for the first six "Covenant" books, "Mordant's Need," and "Daughter of Regals". But publishers and agents are still wrestling with the underlying issues, which are more complex than you might think. Just to cite one example: if a book is no longer available in any physical form, but *is* still available as an e-book, is it still "in print"? (Remember, the rights revert to the author when a book goes "out of print".) And does mere availability suffice as a definition of "in print"? (Publishers naturally want the answer to be Yes: authors naturally want the answer to be No.) If not, how many copies have to be sold to qualify an e-book as "in print"? My present contracts with Ballantine answer such questions for physical books. But back in those days, no one had imagined the possibility--never mind the ramifications--of e-books. And then there's the whole piracy problem, which is increasing exponentially. One e-book legitimately purchased can easily become 5000 bootleg downloads. Quite reasonably (I think), I would like to see Ballantine get a handle on the piracy problem before I sign away EVEN MORE of my few remaining rights. (05/20/2009) |
David Marcum: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
Ive wanted to write to you for a long time, but I didnt have a question that hadnt already been asked. I finally thought of something, and I couldnt find if anyone has asked this before. My question requires something of an explanation...
I am a Civil Engineer specializing in water/sewer/infrastructure projects. A few weeks ago, I was at a job site in a small rural town, and we needed to locate some water lines in a site where we were going to be digging. The towns public works director showed up to help us find the lines. I thought hed have blueprints, or maybe a metal detector. Instead, he pulled out two bent coat hanger pieces and started dowsing. In a minute, he was joined by another town employee and one of the construction workers. They walked up and down the field, muttering and painting marks on the ground at various points. Oddly, every place they marked corresponded to a buried water line.
Of course, Ive heard of dowsing, but hadnt seen it in person. I asked the head contractor about it. He didnt know what I meant for a minute, and then he said, Oh! You mean witcthing the water. He then went on to say that it was common practice. I later talked with my boss and an old professor, and they both said it was a more common practice than I had known, and often the only thing that would work.
I personally believe that the world is much more complicated and amazing than humans can understand, and that there is a lot going on around us well never know. (Kind of like an ant trying to comprehend the internet.) I keep an open mind, and I even got a white gold wedding ring when I got married 20+ years ago...just in case I get hit on the head and need it somewhere else. But I have a hard time with the idea of dowsing There just doesnt seem to be a reason it would work. That day I was in the small town felt like I had wandered into a village somewhere that was using magic or earthpower just because no one had told them that they couldnt.
So my question (after this long explanation) is...How do you feel about something like this in the real world? Do you believe that there actually is some sort of power (magic? earthpower?) around us now for those who can access it, or do you think what I saw was just some quaint superstition and magic is just something you write about?
Thanks again for everything that you have done, and I along with all the others cant wait to see whats going to happen next.
David Marcum
Maryville, TN
|
It's easier (safer?) to respond to your more mundane question. *I* can think of a possible explanation for dowsing: it relies on the fact that absolutely everything has an electromagnetic field (an "aura") of some kind, and on my personal observation (as well as a fair amount of more objective documentation) that some people are remarkably sensitive to the existence and character of those fields. Indeed (he said, since he appears to be in an unusually disclosive mood today), all of the physicians who are currently keeping me alive use methodologies which are comparable to dowsing, both to diagnose my many ailments, and to determine appropriate treatments. And their rates of accuracy/success are *far* higher than the results achieved by the more traditional MDs who (putatively) opposed my deterioration for most of my adult years. Nothing demonstrates the inherent limitations of The Scientific Method better than the practice of "medicine" as it currently exists in the US. Give me a good ol' fashioned dowser any day. Which I suppose implies my reply to your larger question. In my (entirely personal) experience, the real magic is life itself. And I suspect that the more we know about it, the more magical it's going to seem. (05/27/2009) |
Jeff: In a recent GI response, you said "the single most rewritten facet of my first drafts is always the dialogue". This made me wonder what your thoughts are on plays/theater as literature? Do you ever go to see plays? Are there any plays/playwrights you particularly admire? [feel free to ignore the obligatory nod to "The Bard"...unless you have some unexpected/unusual insight?] For what it's worth, I find reading scripts unsatisfactory or incomplete...I don't fully appreciate the work till I see it "on its feet."
|
I don't particularly enjoy reading plays (with the obvious exception of Shakespeare): I miss all the specificity and tone that good actors, a good director, and a good designer would supply. But in fact, I've tried writing plays myself--with rather unfortunate results. By a curious coincidence, one my plays was actually performed in the "experimental" (i.e. graduate student) theater at Kent State. Somehow the director managed to find in my script the exact opposite of my intentions. Cringing my way through that experience convinced me that I *need* all the words that provide context for the dialogue. In retrospect, it's easy to see what the problem was. Performed drama is both a creative and a re-creative art. As a result, it can break down on a variety of levels before the audience ever gets a chance to (mis)interpret it. Sure, some of the faults of my play were mine alone. (A good playwright can write lines that practically force the director and actors to respect his/her intentions.) But some were the director's: he brought sarcasm to bear on lines that were written with empathy. In any case, I'm with you: I'd rather see a play "on its feet." (05/27/2009) |
Mark in Japan: Hi Stephen,
I just read some comments on Patrick Rothfuss's blog that I thought you'd appreciate. It concerns the interactions between popular authors (like yourself) and their fans in these days of blogs and e-mail, especially fans who can't wait for the next book. You can see it here:
http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/blog/2009/02/concerning-release-of-book-two.html
Wishing you good health and good fortune!
|
[posted for the amusement/edification of curious readers] (05/27/2009) |
Stewart Brewer: Hello Mr. Donaldson.
My question relates to your use of the term "Elohim." Given the meaning of this term in Jewish and Islamic texts, how/why did you select this term for use in your Covenant Chronicles books? Also, were/are you aware of the Mormon belief that "Elohim" is the name of God, rather than "Jehovah"? Just curious. Thank you.
|
Yes, I was aware of the Jewish, Christian, and even Islamic (but not Mormon) meanings of the word when I decided to use it. As with the "personal" names of the Ravers (moksha, turiya, and samadhi), my intentions were both descriptive and ironic. The Elohim certainly think of themselves in God-like terms. And they *act* like gods (if you define "gods" as the supernatural beings that populate, say, Greek, Roman, Germanic, and Indian mythologies): capricious, indifferent, cruel, ambiguous; eagerly spiteful; reluctantly benign. (05/27/2009) |
Michael: Stephen:
A casual re-read of the my favorite parts of Fatal Revenant has led, as such activities usually do, to a re-read of the Second Chronicles. I'm deep in The One Tree, and this question came to mind.
Honninscrave talks about the 100 of the Lost/Unhomed who chose to stay with the Elohim, only to never be seen or heard from again. When the quest approaches the Elohimfest, they come to a mound encircled by a ring of bare, seemingly dead trees.
My question: is there some connection between those trees and the giants who remained? I have no rational or defensible reason for thinking this, but somehow I always suspected those trees *were* those giants.
As always, thank you so much for sharing your gift and stories. They are truly old friends who never stop giving familiar and new joys.
|
Sorry. I don't have an answer for you. The answer, if there is one, exists outside the text--and (all together now) I only create what I need. (Could it be that the author simply *forgot* about those Giants? Say it isn't so!) (05/27/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I think it's time we started a serious, sentence by sentence breakdown of the Chronicles. So, to begin: Lord Foul's Bane, Chapter 1: Golden Boy, First Sentence:
"She came out of the store just in time to see her young son playing on the sidewalk directly in the path of the gray, gaunt man who strode down the center of the walk like a mechanical derelict."
Hmmm...interesting beginning. The one item that has puzzled me about this is the use of the word "gray" (although I remember the "mechanical derelict" really puzzling me when I was younger - now I understand since I'm older and most mornings I wake feeling like a mechanical derelict myself). What does "gray" refer to? Covenent seems a little young to have gray hair. His clothing? His temperment? His eyes, which I believe are described as being "gray"? Can you shed any light on your use of the word "gray" to describe Covenant at this critical first sentence jucture?
Next month - Sentence Two! Just kidding...:-)
|
I was referring to the color of Covenant's skin: that ashen hue some people get when they're sick. (05/27/2009) |
MRK: As I mentioned in my last question I had just finished reading "The Man Who Tried to Get Away." It gave rise to some questions about POV narration and character empathy.
Of course the story, as are all the Man Who books, are told from Brew's perspective so all events and characters are portrayed through his perception of them. You have said in the past that you have empathy, to some degree, for all of your characters. However, you seem to have placed some pretty unlikable characters in TMWTTGA, i.e. the despicable Houston Mile and the twisted sociopaths Mr. and Mrs. Hardhouse. Brew certainly didn't have much empathy for them (maybe a little for Lara at first) and I certainly didn't. I was able to identify with Art Reeson at least a small amount, and at least with Houston as far as rabid desire for survival goes, but that was the extent of it. If you, or anyone else, had little or no empathy for them, I could hardly blame them. Is this possible since you are so invested in seeing everything through Brew's eyes, rather than through many as in a third-person narrative? (of course there's Ginny, who is close enough to Brew to be his other half) Or is the empathy simply not obvious since we are never placed in those character' shoes, as we are with say, Angus Thermopyle or Master Eramus (or Nick Succorso or Holt Fasner for that matter). Note: I hope this question made sense; I've been struggling to express it in a comprehensible way. And, in a related question, have you ever at any point considered doing a split-first-person narrative in a Man Who story, with some portions narrated by Brew and others by Ginny? or giving narration duties over to Ginny entirely? ("The Woman Who Kicked A** and Took Names"?)
|
I guess my answer is that the empathy simply isn't obvious. After all, just because *I* have committed empathy to characters like Houston Mile and Lara Hardhouse doesn't mean, well, anything about my narrator's emotions. And it certainly doesn't mean that I personally *like* Houston and Lara. No, it just means that I've set myself aside enough to stand in Houston's place, or Lara's, and to think what they might be thinking, to feel what they might be feeling. Instead of, you know, treating them like bits of machinery to keep the story moving along. So what does empathy *mean* in a case like this, where everything that the reader gets (on any obvious level) is filtered through my understanding of my narrator? I like to think it means that I've managed to make Houston and Lara *real* enough (in spite of my narrator) to inspire questions like yours. After all, isn't empathy the only thing that ever makes another human being *real* to us? If my characters were just wallpaper, or machinery, you wouldn't be posting messages in the Gradual Interview. <grin> As to your related question: I've considered any number of approaches to the next "The Man Who" book (including third person omniscient and present tense narration, both of which I dislike). But I don't really have a story yet. Until I have a story, I can't try to figure out how to tell it. (06/03/2009) |
Tom Radcliffe: I just want to say that I am a huge fan of your novels; Thomas Covenant in particular. I just finished "The Real Story" and have to say it's the greatest book I've ever read.
Now that the fanboy inside of me is at ease I will get to my question. I have read the Thomas Covenant stories a few times and absolutely loved them. Recently have I just cruised through the Harry Potter series and noticed something odd in the last book "The Deathly Hallows". The ending in TDH is almost exactly the same as what you did in "White Gold Wielder", except happier and Harry doesn't die. I guess my question is why are the endings so similar? I know that fantasy writers like to borrow certain themes, ideas,and character templates but I just can't wrap my head around this one. The more I think about it the only thing that I can come up with is that Harry Potter is Rowling's answer to "What would have happened if there was a guiding force, or the creator, controlling TC?" Could it be that simple?
|
I have no answer. I wrote WGW long before Rowling wrote "The Deathly Hallows" (and I still haven't read the Harry Potter books, except for the first one). I can't possibly know what she was thinking when she decided on her ending. But I'm reasonably confident that her stories grow out of her own imagination: they aren't "borrowed" from anyone, or extrapolated from anyone else's work. (06/03/2009) |
Grim: Dear Dr D.,
As you likely know, your experiences with teaching are not unique; It is painful and the rewards are often posthumous. Hypothetically, however, what if you had (on pain of mutual obscurity and descent into poverty) to convince a student to write a short nonfiction text describing a few recent years of work, yet said individual being of sound mind, is deathly afraid of putting pen to paper for fear of grammatical or other inevitable errors? How would you, or perhaps Thomas Covenant if he knows the answer, proceed?
|
If the "student" uses fear of "grammatical or other inevitable errors" as an excuse for not writing, then he/she just doesn't want to write. ("Any excuse is good enough when you don't want to do something.") After all, we're all human: we all make mistakes. So using "mistakes" as an excuse not to write is transparently Just An Excuse. And there's no "fix" (that I know of) unless the "student" is willing to examine his/her unwillingness more honestly. (06/03/2009) |
Tom: Hi, Mr. Donaldson,
I just want to thank you for answering my previous questions. Much appreciated!
But now the time has come to explain this little tidbit (from the GI 2007):
"Someday when I'm feeling mellow, and I have *lots* of free time, I'll describe how "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" changed my life."
I don't think you've described this yet (at least I couldn't find it on the GI). Maybe you were just joking?
Tom
|
So in the middle of a fight, one of the turtles (I forget the names) turns to another and says, "Wait a minute. We're TURTLES. The outcasts of society. How come WE have to stand alone against the forces of evil?" And the other turtle replies, "Face it, dude. It's the only job we're qualified for." When I finished falling about, I had an epiphany (although it may not make sense to anyone else): my life is the only job I'm qualified for. Simple insights for simple minds.... But even simple insights can be profound, under the right circumstances. (06/03/2009) |
Gerald: A question from January about Dune and Herbert's son got me wondering (and I hope I didn't miss a similar / identical question elsewhere in the GI):
(as an aside: I realize this is a rather personal question, but I ask anyway - I hope you are not mortally offended)
Some well known / legendary authors (Tolkien, Herbert, Asimov) have had their universes expanded or possibly re-interpreted by their offspring or other authors.
What do you think about this? Does it invoke any kind of reaction to you? Obviously, when you are gone there's not much you can do about it - but do you have any strong feelings one way or the other about future generations attempting to write & publish stories based on your worlds? Do you have any plans that would enable or prevent such an occurrence?
|
(Please keep in mind that this is entirely personal and subjective. I do not intend my own opinions as a comment on ANYTHING that ANYONE else does.) I'll never give anyone else permission to publish stories based on my worlds. In my (personal, subjective) opinion, people who want to write should rely on their own imaginations, not on mine. And I've expressed my feelings to the people I've chosen to be my literary executors. But I've also assured my executors that I trust them to use their own best judgment. And in particular: if something unfortunate happens to me before I complete "The Last Chronicles," I've given my executors (AND NO ONE ELSE) permission to finish the story--IF, and only IF, my executors actually *want* to tackle the challenge. (Incidentally, "literary executors" are people named in my will to become the owners of my copyrights when I'm gone.) But every writer is different. Just because *I* feel this way doesn't mean that anyone else should agree with me. Honest and honorable people think differently. (06/08/2009) |
Andrew Kennedy: My question concerns editing/re-writing an initial draft. As a lawyer, I write every day. So I am always keen on improving my craft. I recently stumbled on a rule of thumb advocated by authors like Stephen King and John Grogan: strive to cut your first draft by 10%. Since I tend to overwrite, I think the percentage might be a bit low for my writing. Instead, I try to merge sentences, eliminate paragraphs, and remove sentences, clauses or words wherever I can. My writing is more clear as a result.
Do you use a similar rule of thumb in editing/re-writing? Do you believe that it is a common technique among fiction writers (who I assume you'd have more first hand knowledge about)?
|
As I'm sure I mentioned a long time ago, when I get together with other writers, we virtually never talk about actual writing. (I discount panel discussions, where the comments are necessarily selective and somewhat artificial.) So I don't know how very many other writers do things. Yet I, too, aim to boil my first draft down by about 10%. (I had no idea King and Grogan do the same thing.) And "boiling down" seems an apt description. I seldom whack out entire chunks--and when I do, I usually have to write something new to replace them. Much more commonly, I'm looking for ways to make what I've written both more clear and more efficient. And because I write so slowly, a fair amount of unnecessary repetition creeps into my first drafts. (Well, it's necessary to *me* in my first drafts. But it usually isn't necessary to the reader, who hasn't forgotten what he/she read 20 minutes ago.) So a fair amount of my rewriting revolves around trying the make the same point, say, 2 or 3 times instead of 8 or 10. <sigh> There are people who believe that I could reduce my books by 10% just by cutting out every third adjective. Well, maybe.... (06/08/2009) |
Michael Blue: Hello.
I would like to know if the 2nd chronicles of Donaldson's Covenant series was sold as a box set like the 1st series? I found a box set on eBay, so I want to know if there might be a set out there like the 1st that I found.
Thanks,
Michael Blue
|
If any of my publishers ever did a boxed set of "The Second Chronicles," *I* sure never saw it. Omnibus editions, yes. Boxed sets, no. For the obvious reason: sales of the first trilogy as a boxed set were poor. (06/08/2009) |
Reuben Hartgerink: Stephen,
I just finished reading Chaos and Order for the first time, and must say that I am very impressed with the GAP cycle so far. I can't wait to finish the series off.
I do have one question though. In A Dark and Hungry God Arises, there is a section where Morn is quite concerned that the Amnion have acquired a sample of her blood that contains the immunity drug. I got the impression that the cause of her concern was that knowledge of the "structure" of the immunity drug would potentially allow the Amnion to further develop mutagens against which the drug would be ineffective. In Chaos and Order, however, Morn encourages Vector to broadcast the formula to anyone with ears... including the Amnion.
My question is, would such a broadcast not also allow the Amnion to counteract the immunity drug?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to the end of the Gap Cycle, and to Against All Things Ending.
-Reuben
|
I guess it's always that way with weapons technology--or with any competitive form of "progress". (Do I need to mention the "arms race" of recent memory?) Sure, knowing about the immunity drug will give the Amnion a chance to develop a counter-mutagen. But while that happens, humankind needs the immunity drug *now*. And once the immunity drug becomes widely known--and studied--humankind may have an easier time developing a counter to the counter-mutagen. All of which (as I recall the story) would probably have already happened if Holt Fasner hadn't contrived to suppress Vector Shaheed's original research. So it goes between competing imperialisms, especially when each has very different strengths. In any case, broadcasting the formula for the immunity drug is the only way to prevent the knowledge from being abused by entities like the UMC. Withholding knowledge is an important step toward tyranny. (06/08/2009) |
sonke johnsen: You've mentioned being ADD a few times now. Being the same myself, Covenant's frustration at never knowing whether he can access the power of his ring struck a chord with me (in fact, it usually makes me laugh). I'm not sure if you experience being ADD in the same way, but I can never know whether I'll be able to access my own mind, and it seems to get worse with age.
Just curious if you ever thought of Covenant's ring as a metaphor for your head. Thanks and hope the writing goes well.
sonke
|
The unconscious mind is both strange and clever. As it happens, I didn't become familiar with the concept(s) of ADD until I had children myself, *years* after I finished the first six "Covenant" books. Looking back, I can see that the term describes me pretty well. But I wasn't aware of the term, or its concepts, when I created and wrote "Covenant". And I certainly DID NOT model Covenant on myself. Well, not consciously, anyway. If you see yourself in Covenant, the credit goes to my unconscious mind. (06/08/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I love short stories, they are a nice break from always reading just novels. I love yours and wish you would write more of them but I understand about the "one track mind" and being in the middle of Covenant now. So, I'm looking for recommendations for short stories. What is your favorite short written by someone else? Favorite collection? I ask because the authors who you have recommended in the past (Russell, McKillip, Erickson) have all been great (IMO). I have read some of McKillip's short fiction ("Harrowing the Dragon" which contains many of her shorts but not all was excellent) but unfortuneately the other stories are hard to find. Any other recommendations would be great!
|
Like most people, it appears, I don't read many short stories. (The average short story collection sells a small fraction of the average novel. It's a miracle, really, that my short story collections are still in print.) If I really enjoy what I'm reading, I usually want it to last longer than a short story. However, if you're willing to go hunting for out-of-print books, look for "Strange Dreams," an anthology of short stories which I edited. (The book got good reviews, but nobody bought it, so it went out of print almost immediately.) The "gimmick" of the anthology (if that's the right term) is that the book is composed entirely of short stories which I couldn't forget once I'd read them. Incidentally, Erikson has published some outstanding short fiction; but you might have to search under his "real" name, Steven Lundin. (06/08/2009) |
Bob Benoit: Stephen -
Earlier this month you answered a question concerning works of yours of which you are most proud. You mentioned that "Long sections of TPTP, TOT, and WGW seem impossibly well written."
Rather than ask which sections to which you are referring, I would rather ask you to give some insight as to what sets those passages apart for you? What makes them seem impossibly well written? It's probably not an easy question to answer, but even some small insight would be welcome. Thanks and good luck with the re-writes.
|
I use the term "impossibly well written" because I don't (can't?) write that well anymore. Under the right circumstances, the elan of youth can sometimes accomplish things which the craft and experience of many years can't emulate. (Although I have to say: even at the time, I had the strange and wonderful sensation that I was writing better than I knew how to write. Perhaps I was channeling my unconscious mind more directly than usual. It's certainly true that "craft and experience" tend to complicate the process of "channeling my unconscious mind". <sigh>) It's tempting to conclude that I was a better writer then than I am now. However, I choose to believe that I'm simply a *different* writer now than I was then, with different strengths--and (inevitably) different weaknesses. (06/08/2009) |
Sam: Hi Steve,
Greetings from across the pond. England, to be precise. Yorkshire, to be preciser still.
So....to my questions. I'm currently studying for PhD in chemistry and am in the middle of writing my thesis. It's taken 3 and a half years to this point and as I write I find myself having to constantly refer back to old papers, notes and lab books as there is so much that I've done that I can't remember. This brings me to my point. On reading through the Gradual Interview it astonishes me how you can remember the tiniest details about your works, down to your thought processes behind each choice, even for those published decades ago (OK, that almost certainly deserves a <sigh>). When people ask you a question do you go back and check in the books or is the entire saga committed to memory because you've invested so much of your time in it? Did you have to re-read the first and second chronicles before starting the last? If you did I hope you enjoyed it. Do you ever 'daydream' about the Land and muse upon scenarios that you never intend to commit to text?
I apologise if you've answered these questions before, but I wasn't sure how to search for them appropriately.
As I'm a scientist I don't really possess the eloquence to describe how thrilled I've been to read your books. Therefore, I'll just say thanks very much.
I think I'll go and order the Gap books while I await AATE.
|
My memory is nowhere near as good as I sometimes make it look. <rueful smile> So yes, I re-read the first six books before I started on "The Last Chronicles"--and I annotated those books heavily--and I took a mountain of notes--and *still* I forget salient details. So yes, sometimes I do take the time to check the text for the answers to specific questions (my own as well as my readers'). But even *then* I get things wrong, so fortunately I have personal readers who are very good at helping me keep track of what I've done (not to mention what I'm doing). "Thought processes" are easier to remember, if for no other reason than because I spent a great deal more time on them than I did on "the tiniest details" (therefore they take up more shelf space in my over-crowded mind). But no, I never "daydream" about the Land. And I certainly never "muse upon scenarios" that I have no intention of writing. I do, however, muse upon a *wide* variety of scenarios for those portions of the story I haven't written yet: testing possibilities, probing their implications, searching for narrative approaches or strategies which may actually work (and, ideally, work well). You might say that I daydream *ahead*, but not in any other direction. (06/10/2009) |
Anonymous: Reflecting back a bit on the 1st Chronicles, one section of The Power That Preserves that felt a bit odd what was when the three Stonedowners go to seek one of the Unfettered. Like it was an out take. Don't get me wrong. I loved that section of the book, it was a great brief interlude from the main story and its conclusion was absolutely chilling. But at the time in the previous two books the reader had always been connected to the story by either Convenant or Hile Troy (I think). Later in TPTP, long sections of the book were narrated through Mhoram, but at the point he was almost as important to the story as Covenant. What was your thinking to including this section and did you or Lester ever talk about not including it? I'm very glad it was left in.
|
I understand your point. This chapter--even more than the sections from Mhoram's point of view--violates my general narrative stance in regard to Covenant's Unbelief. (Mhoram has been in the story for so long that he can be considered a symbolic extension of Covenant.) And in fact I did discuss it with Lester del Rey. We came to two conclusions. First, the material doesn't stray very far from things Covenant already "knows" (so, we hoped, the violation doesn't feel too profound). Second, if the reader hasn't accepted Covenant's attitude by now, he/she never will accept it anyway. Nevertheless, in retrospect I consider this chapter a "design flaw" in TPTP. By my present standards, it *does* undermine the integrity of the reader's relationship with Covenant. I'm not the kind of guy who actually wants to go back and rewrite his old books. But if I were writing TPTP *today* (as a new book), I would struggle mightily to find a better narrative solution than the one I settled on back in the mid-70s. (06/15/2009) |
Meredith N: Dear Stephen,
I've been a fan for the last 5 years, having read all of the Thomas Covenant books up to date, Mordant's Need, and just now the first two books of The Gap Series. I suppose my question will be considered typically female, but my concern drives me to ask it.
Why all the rape and victimization of women? Why are you driven to destroy both soul and flesh of nearly every woman in your novels, especially those who play a lead role? I realize that these women also demonstrate a sort of primal strength in survival, but I am still left wondering why you depict so many women as living their lives in subjugation...fighting, but entirely hopeless.
I know that I cannot really say what motivates you personally to write these things. I've read your commentary about Angus and how you feared that he was truly a public revelation of your own hidden darkness, but that doesn't really tell the whole story does it?
I appreciate your desire to keep your personal life just that, personal. But could you please give me some indication that you know women who are more than survivors, who are able to live their lives with joy, sense of purpose and wholeness?
My apologies if I have offended, but I am one of the many women who feel personally pained at your depiction of women, even while I immensely enjoy your literary talent and ability to weave tales.
|
I've been procrastinating here. Similar questions have come up (and have been answered, here and elsewhere) fairly often, and now I find that I'm tired of them. (Please don't take this personally.) Or maybe I'm just tired in general. So I'm going to approach your question indirectly. Bear with me. And forgive me if I sound exasperated. That's the fatigue talking. First, I grant that my protagonists (men as well as women) lead very difficult lives: in some cases raped (metaphorically and/or physically), in most cases victimized in one form or another. Neither Terisa Morgan nor Linden Avery has been raped (physically). Both Thomas Covenant and Angus Thermopyle have been dramatically brutalized, if in very different ways. [Brief digression. Without pausing for thought, I could come up with a list as long as your arm of important female characters in my books who have been neither raped nor victimized. If I did so, I could start with Giants, Ramen, or Lords in "Covenant," Min Donner or Mikka Vasaczk in the GAP books, all three of King Joyse's daughters in "Mordant's need," or Ginny Fistoulari in my mystery novels.] Certainly the rape of Lena in "Lord Foul's Bane," and Morn Hyland's experiences in the first two GAP books, stand out. As they should. But they are not thematically unique. Indeed, they are thematically universal. What happens to Angus in the GAP books is not less of a violation than what he does to Morn. What Covenant endures is not less hurtful than what he does to Lena. This is WHAT I DO. It isn't optional for me. I write about the damaged and the maimed, the violated and the bereft. And I seek in them the seeds of regeneration, healing, salvation, honesty, integrity, forgiveness, love. Broadly speaking, I don't have anything else to write about. And anyway, who else *needs* to have these kinds of stories happen to them? Who else could benefit from the possibilities which my stories provide? Certainly not the healthy and the happy, the whole and the unharmed. But still: why rape? From my perspective (which is exclusively my own), that's the same as asking: why leprosy? Why zone implants and gap sickness? Why...fantasy and science fiction? Because I'm a writer who works best when he has access to physical metaphors for emotional states, psychological conflicts, spiritual quests. I use "the external"--as well as every other resource I can think of--in an attempt to shed light on "the internal". (Why else does Mick Axbrewder take SUCH a beating book after book?) On this subject, I want to paraphrase former US Poet Laureate Billy Collins. Among other things, he says that he writes a poem to express an emotion for which we have no name, no direct language. In effect (he says), the poem *becomes* the name of that emotion. So it is with rape in my stories. And maiming. And sickness. And abuse. And possession. They are part of the "language" by which I'm trying to express emotions/needs/conflicts/yearnings that have no other name; that cannot be conveyed by simpler means. (I also want to cite Edgar Allen Poe at this point; but I'll spare you.) I could argue--if I have to--that the whole of the first "Covenant" trilogy is an attempt to *say* what the rape of Lena MEANS. One example (from a work of fiction, admittedly, but not from my fiction). A woman is locked involuntarily in a box and abandoned. Later a man finds and rescues her. He asks, "What was it like?" She replies, "It was like being locked in a box and abandoned." OK, it was a light-hearted work of fiction. But what else *can* the woman say? ("It was like being buried alive." I'm sorry: that doesn't help. Analogies are only useful when they refer to shared bodies of experience.) Her only meaningful alternative is to tell the story of her life (of herself) up to, during, and after the experience. So I write stories that include rape. And leprosy. And child abuse. And zone implants. If I want that "meaningful alternative," what else *can* I do? (06/16/2009) |
Michael Stover: I have a small story from your past to share that your readers may enjoy (and you may too):
Back in 1984 or '85, you guest taught a week-long writing workshop at SUNY Brockport (with Nancy Kress). I was 14 or 15 at the time, but you were already my favorite author, and I participated in the workshop, giddy as all hell! I wrote a (bad) story, and what I remember most about the experience, was how seriously you took me and my story. No one had ever done that before, and I thank you for that.
You may not remember, but we played some charades at the end of that workshop, and you were on the opposing team from me. We used titles of works of fantasy/scifi, and it was my great luck that you randomly picked my chosen title when it was your turn to act out the charade. The title I'd chosen was "The Chronicles of Amber". I still remember your consternation when you first read it and I enjoyed a moment of student-trips-up-the-teacher joy.
But then, after a moment's consideration, you did it, and with apparent ease! It is a fond memory for me.
Not so much a question, but rather an observation I've always had concerning the Oath of Peace: It always seemed to me that that both sides of the struggle between the people of the Land and Lord Foul were more powerful during the time of Kevin than they were during the time of Mhoram. Certainly the Lords of Kevin's time were more powerful than the Lords of Mhoram, but it also seemed to me that this was balanced by the forces of Lord Foul being more powerful still in Kevin's time, so that, in both cases, straight-forward resistance against the power of Lord Foul was doomed to fail. I always attributed this to the Oath of Peace, that somehow, it limited the power of both sides, not just the Lords.
I welcome any comments friom you on any of this.
|
Interesting. I remember that workshop with Nancy Kress, but not the game of charades. And I can't imagine that acting out "The Chronicles of Amber" was easy (!). The credit should probably go to my team, not to me. Personally, I don't see how the Oath of Peace could have "limited the power of both sides". How would the scruples of the Lords hamper the Despiser? No, I attribute Lord Foul's corresponding "weakness" (if that's an accurate description of the situation) to the fact that he lost vast armies of servants and cannon-fodder in the Ritual of Desecration (a detail which troubled him not at all): losses comparable to, if very different than, the losses suffered by the Land's defenders. (06/17/2009) |
Bob DeFrank: Hello and I hope your writing is going well.
A question about ur-viles: how do you envision their body type?
The way you describe their ears and noses and how they go around on four legs or two legs makes me think of rabbits or some other rodent-like creatures grown to large proportions. Other times they seem like dogs. Is there any particular type of animal I should look at in the real world to get an idea of how ur-viles look and move?
All the best.
|
In May, I posted a link to a web site that depicts a pretty good ur-vile. But that image may not answer your question about body type. How should I describe it? Is it the dingo that has longer forelegs than hindlegs? The hyena? I'm thinking of something along those lines, but without the massive chest that often supports longer arms (e.g. gorillas). (06/17/2009) |
Tom: There has always been a lot of talk in the GI about a movie version of the Covenant books. However, I believe one has already been made - three, in fact. In my opinion, the Matrix trilogy has many parallels: a reluctant savior transported to another "world"; an epic battle against an unstoppable foe; self-sacrifice to defeat the enemy.
I don't know if those movies were to your taste, but do you have an opinion?
|
I enjoy the Matrix films. But the parallels aren't as obvious to me as they are to you. Neo isn't at all reluctant to enter the alternate reality. His only problem in his former "reality" is that he's bored or dissatisfied. And his only "reluctance" in his new "reality" is that he can't immediately wrap his mind around his new powers. After that, he seems eager to discover how far he can stretch his abilities. (06/17/2009) |
JK: Would you pick any music to go along with the reading of your work
|
Not if you held a gun to my head. (Well, *maybe* if it was an ACTUAL gun. <grin>) Like reading books, listening to music is entirely subjective. I couldn't "pick any music" unless I had an intimate knowledge of *your* specific tastes. And even if I knew that much about *you*, my answer would be irrelevant to everyone else. (06/17/2009) |
Susan: This question is actually from my boss and he has given me the task of doing is complaining, so here it goes. He is annoyed with the format of Reave the Just and Other Tales. He was especially annoyed that The Penance was randomly interrupted by another short story.The Penance without the randim interruption. If you could do this, I would be much obliged. Thanks
|
Curious. In regard to "Penance," the only response I can think of is that your "boss" must have read an entirely different story than the one I wrote. (06/17/2009) |
Mike: I, like others, have been anticipating the sequels to Thomas Covenant. I realize the time it must take to develope the stories. But seriously - 3 years apart between books? Where will you be in 2013? Where will I be?
|
That the future is unknown is a fact that we all have to live with. The best laid plans etc.. But I look at it this way: I can't make good things happen by planning for them; but I can *prevent* good things from happening by *not* planning for them. So I make my plans; and then I try to carry them out. But why three years between books? Because I NEED that much time to at least approximate achieving my intentions. No one regrets that inconvenient truth more than I do. But it is what it is. I could only work faster by expecting less from myself; and I decline to do that. (06/18/2009) |
Greg O'Malley: Hello, Mr. Donaldson.
Thank you for the Land and its people. I consider your work a priceless gift to our world, present and future.
Recently, while discussing Fatal Revenant with another reader, I ventured an opinion that was rebutted by using a quote of yours from this Gradual Interview itself.
That seemed to settle the matter. However, being the pedant that I am, I began to think about whether the story as presented can (or should) be trumped by the author. After all, the argument I presented in no way contradicted the evidence in the book, and only your quote from these interviews negated it. (I am deliberately NOT going to provide the quoted passage. <grins>)
I feel that "if it isn't in the story, it isn't in the story."
I suppose my questions are these: What authority (if any) should an author have over his published work with regard to its *meaning* and its *facts*, and are you aware of any instances where any of your stories as written diverge from what you intended them to say?
PS. I also realize that there are still two books forthcoming, and what you stated here in the GI could simply have been an inadvertently dropped spoiler, but my questions remain.
|
Since I don't know what specifically prompted your query, I have no context for a reply. (As you intended. <grin>) But in general I'm on your side. Only the text matters. The way the author happens to view his/her work cannot and should not take precedence over the actual text--if for no other reason than because the unconscious mind (the author's as well as the reader's) works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. Virtually everything I've ever published means both more and less than I intended it to mean: a fact which delights me (although the "less" part can be disappointing <rueful smile>); and which explains, at least in part, why I try (with incomplete success) to avoid polemics. Sure, I have opinions about what I've written. And my opinions are uniquely well-informed, since I'm the only one who has access to my own sources of inspiration. But those opinions are still...just opinions. They don't reveal the story (except, perhaps, occasionally and obliquely): they only reveal how *I* think about the story. As long as you "play fair" with the text, what *you* think about the story is surely valid. The fact that different readers can read the same text and extract different meanings is one of the true glories of storytelling. (07/07/2009) |
Vince: Mr. Donaldson,
The first and second chronicles have been my favorite books since the late seventies, when I wondered into a book store fresh from reading LOTR and made the serendipitous decision to buy the Chronicles trilogy. Six readings later and fresh from Scott Brick's excellent reading of Lord Foul's Bane, I finally have a question I consider worthy of your time.
How, exactly, did Covenant's calling of the Ranyhyn save the company on Mount Thunder? Did the Ranyhyn actually allow the Eoman, Prothall, and (gasp!) Manethrall Lithe to ride?!? If not, how was this any different than what the Bloodguard and Mhoram could have done by calling them? If so, why wasn't this amazing fact -- that ordinary folk not chosen by the great horses were permitted to ride -- recounted later in the Chronicles?
I'm surprised that I didn't think of this on earlier readings, and I don't seem to find a discussion either here in the GI or on Kevin's Watch.
Thank you, more than is easy for me to say, for your stories. I don't know all of what they have cost you to tell, but "joy is in the ears that hear."
|
You raise a valid point. In retrospect, I wish that I had paid more attention to the matter (ideally in "The Illearth War"). That scene deserves (requires?) more narrative respect than I gave it. Unfortunately I'm stuck with the text as it stands; so I can only shrug--and try to forgive myself for being human enough to screw up occasionally. (07/07/2009) |
RADD: So, when do we get to see a trailer for Against All Things Ending?
All the best
|
As always, I don't post such things until a manuscript has achieved D&A ("delivery and acceptance"), which is still a long way off for "Against All Things Ending". (Once my editors give me their feedback, I'll have at least one more rewrite to do.) In addition, I don't usually post trailers until my publishers have told me when they plan to release the book (a decision which no sane publisher would make prior to D&A). (07/07/2009) |
Michael Middleton: I thought I'd throw a light, hypothetical question at you since you're probably having enough going on as it is!
In the Thomas Covenant Saturday Morning Cartoon Show, what's the running gag or "Tommy Covenant's" catchphrase?
(My guess is "Outcast unclean!")
|
I would have guessed, "Don't touch me!" (07/08/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Thanks for the "Strange Dreams" recommendation for short stories. Amazon has it used so I'll get a copy. I did notice one thing about it that surprised me. One of the authors listed as contributing a story was Orson Scott Card. I was under the impression that you didn't read Card because of his views on censorship? Did you pick the stories in the collection, or just edit them after someone else decided what was in the book? Or did your view of Card change AFTER "Strange Dreams" was published?
|
As I think I mentioned, the "gimmick" for my anthology, "Strange Dreams," was that it contained stories I couldn't forget after I read them. I chose all the stories in the book myself on that basis. So as it happens, I read the Card story long before I even met him, much less heard him preach in favor of censorship. And it satisfied my criterion for the anthology: I couldn't forget it. So in retrospect I shrug and move on. Life is too short to spend it second-guessing such things. (07/08/2009) |
Robert: Hi Stephen
In response to the query about box sets of the TC series, a paperback box set of the 2nd chronicles was published by Fontana/Collins in the UK in the early 80s. I know because I have it!
All the best
Robert
|
For the information of interested readers.... (07/08/2009) |
Jason D. Wittman: Hello again,
Just an FYI: earlier in the GI someone asked you if there was ever a boxed set of the Second Chronicles. You replied that you didn't know. I can tell you that there was once -- Del Rey put the paperback version of the trilogy in a box, sort of orange-reddish, with the titles listed on the back and the Darrell K. Sweet cover illustration from White Gold Wielder on either side. I bought a set back in the mid-80's, and though I no longer have it, I remember it fondly.
As to whether one can obtain a copy *now*, your guess is as good as mine.
Hope all is well with you. Keep writing!
Jason
|
More information for readers who may be interested.... (07/08/2009) |
Bob DeFrank: Hello and I hope you're doing well.
A question about the Despiser's capacities: Can Lord Foul see into the future, or into some of the possible futures that might become the present fact? If so, to what extent?
Obviously not with 20/20 vision or he wouldn't keep getting beat.
I ask for two reasons 1) since Mhoram and the Ranyhyn both have oracular abilities it would seem strange that a transcendent being wouldn't. And 2) I'm curious about how the Despiser is able to percieve the time-bound world.
All the best.
|
At the moment, it seems to me that the significant difference between Lord Foul's powers and, say, Mhoram's oracular abilities, or the Ranyhyn's prescient relationship with time, is that LF is not a natural, organic occupant of this reality: he isn't born of the magic and Law that define life in the Land. Precisely because he is a transcendent being, he is *bound* in ways that don't suit him. That's why it's possible for some of the Earth's natural inhabitants (e.g. the Elohim) to have specific abilities he can't match. The Elohim *belong* there: he doesn't. In that respect, at least, he perceives "the time-bound world" in pretty much the same way that most of his opponents do. In particular, he can't "look" at the future--much less go there. He has to live and think and plan (and suffer) according to the laws of causality and sequence, just like (almost) everyone else. That said, his ability to imagine and plan for the possible outcomes of various ploys is obviously very strong--and getting stronger. However, he isn't hampered only by his unnatural (for him) imprisonment. He's also hindered by his own nature; by Despite. His ability to imagine and plan for the possible outcomes of various ploys is flawed by his inability to understand people who are *not* despisers. (07/10/2009) |
Charles W. Adams: You have stated repeatedly, your stories choose you, not the other way around.
Based on the work of yours that I have read, it hasn't yet seemed that child friendly stories have much inkling for choosing you (the kind that make parents wait up with their kids until midnight for releases, etc). Put in a way that gives you more choice in the matter, it hasn't (yet) seemed to be your style.
Do you perceive in yourself an incompatibility between your writing preferences and such child-market stories? Or are you just waiting for the billion dollar child friendly story to make you it's choice?
|
I think it's pretty obvious that there's some kind of inherent and even necessary relationship between the ideas that choose me and--for lack of a better description--who I am. (How could it be otherwise, since this "choosing" process clearly takes place within my own unconscious mind?) So far, at any rate, "child friendly stories" aren't *me*. Just ask my children. Every time they wanted me to make up a story for them, I (rather cleverly, I thought) lured them into making up the story they wanted to hear for themselves. I never once spun a story for them out of my own imagination: I couldn't. (07/10/2009) |
Jim O'Connell: Mr. Donaldson;
As with many others, I'm eagerly anticipating the next books in the series; I've been reading your books since the very early 1980's, and I don't think either of us would be well-served if I mentioned just how long ago that was.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the nature of insanity or madness at least insofar as it pertains to your books. Let me explain:
You've described your work as Epic Fantasy, and you've been very clear how it describes the protagonists facing in externalized form their inner selves. Knowing that now, I'm re- re-reading the 'Covenant' series with an eye to garnering a fuller understanding of your philosophy and internal logic of the story.
I seem to be focusing on Joan.
In understanding Joan, I'm finding a better understanding of Thomas Covenant's relationship to the Ranyhyn (I've always thought the Great Horses 'stood in' for his fidelity to Joan) and through them, the Land; the relationship of the Ranyhyn to the Land, Time, the extravagant nature of Fidelity, and the strength that flows from that Fidelity; and of Joan's interactions with her husband Love, abandonment, a broken phone call, and abject abusive need.
But now she's insane.
But the story continues to be Epic Fantasy. The 'rules', as I understand them, are that the events are externalized inner conflicts of the protagonists. Joan's madness, by these rules, externalize something within Covenant. The story puts her madness in the hands of the Despiser (and by extension, all that he the Despiser brings to the external/internal discussion).
One implication is that madness can be seen as a form of Evil, or of 'possession', either of which is imposed by another, not the victim. Joan's insanity (by the 'rules') is an effect 'out there' of Covenant's conflict 'in here'.
Is this your intent? Is madness in the context of the story a form of external Evil, much like was thought before modern psychological study?
Joan might or perhaps already has -- Break the Ranyhyn; it's what she does (or perhaps she 'seduces' them). Would this be because of who she is her horse-breaking nature augmented by insanity? Or is it something Covenant himself would do through Joan because it externalizes his fundamental distrust of horses? If it's something internal to Linden, what might that be?
In the context of your stories in the context of Epic Fantasy can you shed some light on the nature of madness?
This gradual interview is most appreciated; thank you for your commitment to your stories and to your readers.
|
Hoo boy. I doubt that I can do this justice. But first I need to be clear about one thing. When I wrote my essay on "Epic Fantasy," I wasn't trying to lay down "rules". I was trying to shed some light on fantasy in general, and on epic fantasy in particular: specifically I was trying to account for the fact that "magic" and "monsters" have had so much narrative power throughout the history of human storytelling. If my way of looking at the subject works for you, fine. If not, no problem. There are plenty of other ways to consider the issues involved. And since I wasn't trying to lay down rules, I also wasn't trying to describe the standards or parameters which guide my own storytelling. I really do try to evolve each of my stories (and characters) organically; to help each of them grow up to be themselves, without authorial prejudgments or agendas. IN RETROSPECT, I sometimes observe patterns, both in my own work and in the works of others. And I make an effort to understand those patterns. But I don't write *according* to those patterns. Instead I just do everything in my power to help each story become itself. Later I look back because I want to educate myself, not because I want to pre-determine the shape of whatever I write next. In other words, my observations in "Epic Fantasy" are not a *template*. They are an attempt to understand patterns which obviously exist, but which (equally obviously) are open to a variety of interpretations. So with all of that in mind.... There is material here for hours of discussion: hours I don't have. For example, it might be illuminating to consider the mental state of the characters who first introduce our protatonist(s) to the Land in each story (Lena, Nassic, Anele). Or for another example, there are various manifestations of both madness and possession in these stories, and each one pretty much has to have a different valence or significance, or else they would just be redundant. However, you've focused on Joan. And where she is concerned, my response is actually quite simple: in her case, "madness" is emphatically *not* "a form of external Evil". In symbolic terms, she represents Covenant's self-loathing; specifically his loathing of leprosy, and of himself as a leper. In psychological terms, of course, she represents herself; and she has externalized or projected her own self-loathing as a loathing for Covenant-the-leper. (This fact in no way alters her symbolic meaning in Covenant's internal drama.) For herself, she became vulnerable to being used (possessed) by external Evil because her loathing had already torn her apart (madness). For Covenant, she is, and perhaps has always been, the question he must answer: Is that me? Is it a part of me? And if it is, what do I do about it? How can I live with it? Does any of this help? Probably not. But if I've managed to make the interpretive waters murkier for even *one* reader of the GI, I've done a good day's work. <grin> (07/10/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Colin R. Grimes: I just found this statement in the Wikipedia article on "The Runes of Earth" and thought you might find it amusing. It is listed under "Major Themes":
"Two dangers face the Land: the constant threat of the intention of Lord Foul, although his purposes appear more benign than before . . . "
Benign? Do I hear Lord Foul chuckling?
|
In my 10 minutes of free time every week, I do occasionally consider "registering" for Wikipedia so that I can correct statements like this one. But then I think, Nah. It's more fun to leave such comments alone. (07/16/2009) |
Anthony: Congratulations on your upcoming honor from the University of St. Andrews, in Fife, Scotland.
Do you have a connection to the school, or Fife? Or, for that matter, Scotland (other than the Donaldson surname)?
I was just curious as to what the institution said to you when you were contacted.
|
It turns out that the U. of St. Andrews gave me an honorary degree for the best possible reason: many people there believe in the value of my work. Certainly I have (or had) no personal connection of any kind to the school. Or to Scotland, as far as I know. More information about the occasion is available elsewhere on this site. Look for a link to a blog posted by Professor James Davila, Dean of the School of Divinity, and located for me by Robyn Butler. (07/16/2009) |
James DiBenedetto: Stephen,
I'm re-reading the Gap Cycle, and I have two questions:
First, I'm curious about your writing The Real Story almost completely from Angus' POV. I hadn't ever consciously realized it before, but I tend to assume that the POV character is both the most "important" character and also the one that I as the reader should be "rooting for".
So my question is, when you wrote The Real Story, did you consciously take into account that (some, maybe most) readers would, consciously or unconsciously, make the same assumptions based on the POV you used? Were you actively trying to subvert reader assumptions, just as the assumptions of the patrons at Mallorys Bar and Sleep are shown to be completely wrong by the end of the book?
Second, in the afterword to The Real Story, you discuss the connections of the Gap Cycle to the Ring Cycle, and you say that it's not a direct correspondence and that not everything in the Ring has an analogue in the Gap.
There's no obvious match for Brunhilde in the Gap, but Min Donner's reaction to Warden Dios' orders to give Angus' priority codes to Nick in Chaos and Order seem to be a neat reversal of Brunhilde's defiance of Wotan in Die Walkure (and of course, Min is the warrior daughter of Warden, in a sense). What that your intention, or am I just reaching for connections that don't exist?
|
Well, Angus is certainly the protagonist of the story--or one of them, anyway. In that sense, he is the character (or one of them, anyway) to whom I want to reader to pay the most attention. But my reasons for starting the story the way I did had a somewhat different purpose than you suppose. I knew going in that Angus would be the most *difficult* character: most difficult to write about; most difficult for the reader to sympathize or identify with. Hence my uncharacteristically "objective" onion-peeling rhetorical stance in "The Real Story". I was trying (in a manner of speaking) to *sneak up* on Angus--and on the moral conundrum of his dealings with Morn. I was hoping that an oblique approach to my subject would be more, well, palatable to the reader. I feared that if I just threw Angus in the reader's face, the reader would turn away without ever learning why I considered this story worth telling. And I disagree with you when you say that "There's no obvious match for Brunhilde in the Gap...." I consider Morn a Brunhilde figure: the "daughter" who subverts her "father's" (apparent) will, and who thereby brings about the destruction of the "gods". After all, from her perspective in "Chaos and Order," Warden Dios *wants* her to take control of Angus. When she refuses to do so, she both betrays and redeems Dios' machinations. What could be more "Brunhilde" than that? (07/16/2009) |
Ben Chambers: I have to say that I appreciate your writing, not just for how well you execute it, but because you're willing to risk yourself on new ideas and new stories.
It seems that too many popular authors are, basically, "one trick horses." They may write dozens of books, but the books are all set in the same world, or (worse!) concern the same characters (I won't name names, but anyone who reads should be able to think of at least a few dozen like this...)
I realize there are financial considerations, and that readers are notoriously fickle when it comes to new properties (I think you mentioned its easier to sell a new author than a new series by an existing author). Still, I can't help but feel that these authors are crippling themselves by relying on their "familiar" works, and that they would be better writers if they would face their fears and make the effort to try something new.
Again I wanted to express my appreciation and thanks for your great work, especially in tackling new material, and also to ask if you have any other comments about this phenomenon?
|
Speaking in the broadest terms--and recognizing that there are real exceptions--I agree with you. Artists of any kind who don't push themselves to go in new directions and require themselves to face new challenges don't *grow*. In effect, they cripple their own creativity. Which is sad for them; sad for their readers; sad for literature/music/art/whatever. But there are strange pressures on writers (I can't speak for other fields of creative endeavor) to produce *repeatable" successes. One, of course, is ego: having (perhaps inadvertently) written a bestseller, who wouldn't want to produce another? A second--as you've mentioned--is the unpredictability of readers. I know from personal experience that "Covenant" fans outnumber "Donaldson" fans at least five to one; probably ten to one. And I naturally wonder how readers can be so sure that they won't like my other books. On the other hand, this may not be as "fickle" as it seems. Isn't it simple human nature to prefer books that you already know you're going to like? Sure, it's sad when readers--like writers--don't grow. But when we have a really good experience (with a book, for example), don't we all want to have that same experience again? And aren't we all secretly suspicious when we're offered a very different experience? However, a third (and uniquely powerful) pressure comes from the way publishing itself has changed. Thanks to the conglomeratization of modern publishing, publishers themselves are under intense pressure. Their mega-corporate owners demand high profits, and publishers have no actual idea how to generate those profits. The "fickleness" of readers as well as the uncertainty of the zeitgeist prevent even the most discerning editors from being able to predict which books will sell well and which won't. (And we won't even talk about how the concentration of publishing in New York tends to produce reflexive, self-referential decision-making.) Meanwhile *books* as a whole are selling less and less every year as fewer and fewer people choose to read--which makes the demand for profit both more relentless and more unattainable. So publishers do what any of us might do in their circumstances: they look at what sold well last year, and they do their best to publish exactly the same book(s) again this year. Therefore they pressure writers--hard--to write the same book(s) over again. They're human; and if they don't generate enough profit, they'll lose their jobs. Naturally I wish that more writers accepted the challenge to become better. But I can sure understand why they don't. (07/17/2009) |
Nick: Thank you for taking the time to read my question. Your time is, of course, your own, so I will try and keep this brief.
I am a huge fan. Isn't everyone? And I must thank you for the Chronicles. If not for myself, than for my mother, who often drew quiet enjoyment from watching her know-it-all son pick up the dictionary to look up yet another word he'd never heard of.
So my question concerns character motivation, specifically Thomas Covenant's. I have often tried to explain to people what Mr Covenant is like, and always have I failed in some small way, some nuance. For a man I know so well, I don't know him at all.
How would you describe him?
|
If you had left an email address, I would have spared you public exposure. As you've observed yourself in a subsequent message, I've already spent 8 books describing Covenant. Under the circumstances, I don't think there's anything I can say here that might improve on what I've already written. It's safe to include your email address with your GI message. When I post a public reply, your address is automatically suppressed. (07/17/2009) |
Colin R. Grimes: Dear Stephen,
I have a stylistic question for you. Please bear with me as I explain.
In the "First Chronicles", I note a very broad story arc similar to "Lord of the Rings", i.e. :
First Book - Reluctant hero, bearing a Ring, journeys to the citadel of the wise, and from there a quest sets out that leads to a battle in the underground;
Second Book - a split quest where there is a battle with an "evil" army climaxing in their being destroyed by a forest;
Third Book - the split quest with a major battle to defend the good guys' citadel from an invading army while the hero must journey to the villain's land for a final confrontation.
I was wondering if you had deliberately used this broad outline as means of playing on the Land "real or a dream" question by giving your story the overall arc of a famous work of fiction.
Please understand, I am in no way accusing you of simply copying Tolkien; that would be ludicrous given that your themes and your use of these "arcs" are so entirely your own (and wonderfully successful, I might add). I am merely curious as to the deliberateness of intent, and what your own thoughts on this might be.
With deep appreciation & admiration for your work,
Colin R. Grimes
|
Ah, well. "Unconscious influences" again. Until you pointed them out, I never even noticed those similarities. <sigh> I was much more conscious of using "The Chronicles of Narnia" as, well, as a guide. In and out of the "fantasy" world; time discrepancies; that sort of thing. Of course, I had read LOTR more than once before I began on my own "Chronicles," so I can't very well pretend that I wasn't affected by Tolkien's work. But <smacks forehead vehemently> I really didn't "see" the similarities which suddenly seem so obvious. Maybe they explain why Lester del Rey was willing to take a chance on me. (After all, he loved "The Sword of Shannara".) Or maybe there's something archetypal about the underlying template that both Tolkien and I relied upon. Or maybe I actually was (in those days) more of a Tolkien imitator than I've ever realized. (07/21/2009) |
Anonymous: Are your pre-January 5, 2009 books impacted by the proposed Google settlement that now has been delayed till September? My understanding is that both the author and publisher who hold rights to the book need to enter Google's book database to make claim to their written works. Without that claim, the orphaned rights under the proposed settlement then reverts to Google?
|
So far, I haven't met anyone who actually *understands* "the proposed Google settlement". As far as I can figure out, the whole thing is a copyright issue. Legally, the author's copyright endures for a long time, whether or not a given work is still in print. Google proposes to make (freely?) available whole texts which are not in the public domain (because the texts are still under copyright). Google's opponents call this copyright infringement. For its part, Google claims "fair use," which involves free (but fully credited) quotation of small amounts of copyrighted text for the purposes of research, scholarship, criticism, reviews, etc.. Google's opponents counter that nothing prevents individuals (or indeed institutions) from downloading free entire texts for personal or even public use (which would be a clear copyright infringement). And after that (assuming that anything I've said so far is accurate) the situation gets even murkier. So Google has apparently come up with a method for paying authors whenever their texts are downloaded (even in cases of "fair use"?). In addition, Google apparently offers authors the opportunity to "opt out" of the agreement, in which case those authors' texts will *not* be made available (even texts which are long out of print, as long as those texts are still covered by copyright). Doubtless I don't grasp the true complexities (or even the facts) of all this. But my agent and I have agreed that the whole situation involves "chewing more than we can bite off," so we've decided not to worry about it. (07/21/2009) |
Z Ham: Is there a digital audiobook version of the Gap series? Planned? I drive a lot and want to revisit them. Thanks.
|
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've signed over the e-rights (text) for the GAP books to Bantam/Spectra; but I have no control over whether or not they actually use those rights. So far, no one has expressed the slightest interest in the GAP audio rights. At this stage, I can safely say that no audio books are planned. That's a mistake on the part of my publishers, I think. But once again, I have no say in the matter. (07/21/2009) |
Rob Smith, Adelaide: More an observation than a question...
I've just read another response you've posted where your questioner appears to want you to justify your choices and it occurs to me that few other art forms are open to this kind of scrutiny. Can you imagine da Vinci actually having to respond to people who wonder exactly what the Mona Lisa is smiling at or Beethoven having to explain why he used a B flat instead of a high C?
I assume (because you're still doing it) that the Gradual Interview gives you more positives than negatives but, damn, it must seem there are people leaning over your shoulder while you write occasionally emitting a sharp intake of breath or tutting.
I eagerly look forward to finding out what your most recent choices have been...
|
Yes, I do sometimes feel that people are looking over my shoulder as I write--and preemptively criticizing it before they even know what it is. <rueful smile> This, no doubt, is an effect of how *many* faults have been noted in my earlier work. Makes me self-conscious about my mistakes before I actually commit them; and self-conscious about writing at all, which is certainly not a constructive way for me feel. But the benefits continue to outweigh the difficulties. The GI does make me feel appreciated--and that ain't easy to do. In addition, it requires me to *think*, even when I don't want to; so it can be a useful antidote to inertia and even laziness (I mean mental or imaginative laziness). And it *is* writing, so I can think of it as a way of "staying in shape". (07/24/2009) |
Drew (drew): Hello.
As I'm sure you're well aware, you now have Eight published Covenant books. Though I'd love to re-read all of them in preparation for AATE's publication; I *do* like to sometime's read work by *other* author's too!!
I know you don't really like answering opinion questions, but would you suggest that the average fan at least re-read Runes, and Revenant before the next book, or do you feel that it gives enough background to just jump right into it (once published)?
Also, another large name in the Fantasy world has recently passed away. David Eddings. He too was published by DelRey around the same time as you; were you two friends?
|
This whole point of providing "What Has Gone Before" for each book (after LFB) is to spare readers the necessity of "getting back up to speed" when a new "Chronicle" is published. Naturally I'm flattered when readers *want* to re-read the whole sequence in order to fully experience the next book. But life is short; and I don't think anyone should *have* to do that. Naturally I knew *of* David Eddings. But I never met him, or had any kind of personal contact with him. (07/24/2009) |
Reuben Hartgerink: Hi Stephen,
First, let me break a trend among your readers of criticizing you for taking so long between books and thank you for not lowering your standards. I understand that quality takes time, and I appreciate that you are striving for the highest quality you can attain.
Now to my question (in a rather roundabout way). For many years, my favorite scene in any of TCOTC has been the one near the beginning of TWL where Linden wants to see Joan, and Covenant tells her "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken." I have always felt that if I were asked to summarize TSCOTC in three sentences, I could not do a better job than these three do. Recently, I learned from Tad Williams' website that the parts of his past books of which he is most proud are often not what the readers would expect. He gave an example of a seemingly insignificant scene in one of his novels that he felt was rather well written. I was curious to know if you feel similarly about your work. Are there sentences, or single scenes which you are particularly fond of, or do you tend to be more proud of the book as a whole?
Thanks,
Reuben
|
As I've said in various situations, my reactions change constantly. Mood, context, weather, general frustration (with life more than with writing or the GI), the phrasing of the question: all tend to produce different responses (some of which I have the good sense to keep to myself <grin>). But it's probably axiomatic that my personal favorite whatevers that I've written wouldn't (can't?) be the same as my readers'. Transmitting a signal requires different equipment than receiving a signal. At the moment, the only "favorite" that leaps to mind is the scene in "This Day All Gods Die" when Angus confronts and releases Norna Fasner. For me, that scene is a crowning achievement--doubtless of an entirely idiosyncratic sort. (btw, I'm virtually never able to remember individual sentences. Once they're out of my head....) (07/27/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
dave goodman: Are you saddened by the general lack of intillectual curiosity out there today that leads to smaller audiences? I mean, even given the fractionalization of media and the miasmia of outlets for fiction today(podcasts, e magazines etc..) it would seem to me that there should be a greater circle of young and old alike searching for great fiction. I get the feeling however that this preponderence of choices has diluted the pool and created apathy instead of greater interest. You should be read by a greater audience.
Love all your work and have since the seventies
DG
|
Of course I'm saddened by it--even (or perhaps especially) when I find it in myself. Leaving all other issues aside, that lack is inherently self-destructive. If/when the American Dream--or even Western Civilization--collapses, it will be because our societies chose apathy (or fanaticism: they come to the same thing in the end) over curiosity, engagement, and courage. Naturally the underlying problems have many facets, and are influenced by many things. For example, sensory overload always tends to induce numbness. (Too many books, too many choices, too many sources of stimulation, all too readily available: who can cope with it all?) Or for another example, grinding poverty fosters anger--and helpless anger turns easily to hate--especially when the poor know that their poverty is not an inevitable condition, but is rather a burden imposed on them by the rich. (Intellectual curiosity is a luxury made possible by a certain minimum level of material well-being.) But no matter where we look for causes, their effects are everywhere around us. Reading is only one of many casualties. (07/31/2009) |
Tammy - Arizona: Mr. Donaldson,
After reading some of the questions posted here in the GI this one may seem a little frivolous, but after re-reading the First Chrons again it has been nagging at me.
What ever happened to "clingor"? It was used quite frequently in LFB, but it seems to have disappeared after that.
Take care, and thank you for keeping us so entertained throughout the years!!
|
I'm sorry. I don't have a better answer than, "I didn't need it after that." Sometimes things get left behind just because there's no room for them in the suitcase. (07/31/2009) |
a.kurt: hi mr.donaldson
maybe this is off topic maybe not.
you treated the mentioned the suicide method "seppuku" in your books sometimes(i hope i am right:in the gap sequels),and you had exercised karate(or was it your fight against chuck norris?).
what i want to know is which samurai movies is your favorites,if you can do it pls give your top five?
ty and greetings
|
Of course, "The Seven Samurai" is a classic. And there's another classic that has suddenly evaporated from my memory. <sigh> But in general I'm not really a fan of "samurai" movies. To an extent, the problem is one of "acting style": Japanese acting sometimes doesn't convey much to me. I get more out of Chinese acting. Really, however, I just prefer empty-hand martial arts, both personally and in movies. My absolute favorite martial arts movie of all time is "Fist of Legend" with Jet Li. Other than that, I've enjoyed (in no particular order): "Mr Vampire," "Encounters of the Spooky Kind 2", "The Swordsman 2" (Jet Li again), "Drunken Master 2" (Jackie Chan), and "Once Upon a Time in China" (Jet Li yet again). (07/31/2009) |
Guy Andrew Hall: Okay, first, I did search for all the questions that contained any talk of cliff hangers.
Second, I am not really going to ask you why you suddenly decided to do the abrupt cliff hangers in the last two books, with very little denouement. Okay, okay! With no denouement (and yes, I had to look up how to spell denouement).
Third, after having re-read all the Covenant books up through Fatal Revenant and I've come to a startling conclusion: You are evil.
No. Seriously.
Pure.
Evil. (Pronounced E'vile, in case you were wondering)
My question is; are you aware you are evil? And if so, when did this awareness occur?
Sigh. All right. I guess I should stop being facetious and just once again thank you for the excellent stories you've channeled over the decades.
And yes, it hurt me as much to type decades as it possibly did for you to read it - damn I feel old.
|
Is "evil" *ever* aware of itself *as* evil? Some think yes: some no. Both sides can find examples in literature. Examples in life are a bit more difficult to determine. For myself, I'll say this: when the whole of "The Last Chronicles" exists in print, I'll defy any reader to find *better* places where I could have subdivided the story into publishable segments. (07/31/2009) |
Charles W. Adams: I had a minor epiphany when rereading FR a second time. Until recently, I had always interpreted "Save or damn the earth" as choice with mutually exclusive options. But I came to an alternate interpretation... that Covenant's "victories" could be viewed (at least by me) as having saved the earth and at the same time having "damned" it, in that he refused to even make the attempt to completely defeat Foul (he concluded in the first series that it couldn't be done). In doing so, he assured the earth that Foul could live to despise another day (and that you could write sequels, thank goodness).
When you came up with the concept of "one word of truth or treachery", did your personal interpretation include the saving or damning being exclusive? Or did your own interpretation include for Covenant's victories saving AND damning the earth simultaneously with that "one word"?
|
I feel like I'm repeating myself endlessly when I say that "paradox" is--trying to vary the description here--the wool from which the whole of "The Chronicles" is woven. "Save AND damn" is a concept worth considering in this context (as is "damn AND save": remember the assertion attributed to Covenant early in TWL). But I wouldn't encourage you to ignore the literal text *as written*: "save OR damn". Surely it's clear that the protagonists of this story have always lived on a knife-edge that could cut either way. (08/11/2009) |
Stephen Phillips: Hello Stephen! As I am breathlessly awaiting AATE, I am passing the time by rereading and rereading ROTD and FR. I have a question for you, if you don't mind: When Damelon discovers the Power of Command, what was his command? Did he partake, or just discover it and leave it alone?
I know you don't like answering these types of questions because you don't want to inadvertently answer something that causes a conflict in the canon. So if you want to defer, I understand, or if you want to wait a while and let your subconscious work it, that's cool too. Any author who puts some much of himself out here for the fans can't go wrong by me (even if some of the emails you get state otherwise ;)
Thanks,
Stephen
|
It's true that I "don't want to inadvertently answer something that causes a conflict in the canon." But it's also true that I don't want to get trapped in the potentially endless task of *expanding* the canon beyond the actual text. (I only create what I need, he said yet again.) For both reasons, I have no real answer for you. However, just as a matter of speculation or personal opinion, I'm inclined to think that Damelon was wise enough *not* to use the Power of Command. I also can't imagine what he might have used the Command *for*. (08/11/2009) |
Lou Andzik: Greeting Stephen.
I have been a Chronicles fan since the begining, and patiently await the last two books. (although I pray the age thing doesn't creep upon us both) My question is after the the last book is published, will you, or have you considered the possibility of a full compendium
that details all or many aspects of the Land. Fonstad's "The Atlas of the Land" was nice, but a compendium compiled by the author would lay to rest many assumtions, presumtions and conjectures by the fanbase.
(Plus it could be a good exercise for the mind and other personal gains)
Respectfully submitted.
|
I'm sorry. I have no intention of creating such a compendium. Just about the *last* thing I want to do in life is spend my "declining years" as the Curator of the Covenant Museum. (Plus there's the whole I-only-create-what-I-need issue.) Please accept my regrets. That said: other people have occasionally expressed interest in compiling such a compendium (presumably with my oversight). I'm not inherently opposed to the idea: in practice, it would probably depend on just how much "oversight" I was asked to provide. But I doubt that a compendium will ever be compiled or published, if for no other reason than because "The Atlas of the Land" was a *dismal* failure in the marketplace. Ballantine couldn't give it away on street corners. I take this to mean two things. 1) My readership is "deep" rather than "broad". When people like what I do, they like it a LOT--but the number of people who like it at all is comparatively small. 2) The people who *do* like what I do value their freedom to imagine as they wish. Compendiums, like atlasses (sp?--I'm too tired to look it up right now), militate against that freedom. (08/15/2009) |
Robert K Murnick: Hello Sir. Just curious here. When do you (generally) GI? Morning? Afternoon? Evening? 2:37AM? Whenever the impulse hits you? When you need a break from writing? Thank you. Looking forward to that first AATE .pdf....and the second....and the book....
|
That depends a) on when I have some free time that isn't suitable (too short, too interrupted, too whatever) for more creative work, and b) on when I have the energy to think. Occasionally I have the time but not the energy. More rarely, I have the energy but not the time. However, this I can say safely: I never work on the GI--or on any form of writing--at night. I'm not a night person. By suppertime, my brain has already shut down. (08/15/2009) |
jerry mcfarland: Good morning. I'm making a vain attempt to look after my interests. Having invested so much emotionally into your writings - I have all 21 purchased upon release in first editions - I eagerly await the conclusion of TC.
IF, or SHOULD the economy crash and the publishing world go bust before publication of the last two books, would you seriously consider making them available on disc? What's it called... pdf file or something?
I would gladly pay you top dollar w/o qualms. Even a rough draft!
|
This writer of this message did not intend it to be made public. However, I'm presuming upon his good will because I think there's a point of general interest here. So this is the scenario: the economy crashes (worse than it already has), the publishing world goes bust, BUT the internet still works, and I'm still able to feed myself and my family somehow (without exhausting myself in manual labor <rueful smile>). As I've said before, I don't write for money, I write for love. (Of course, I *need* money. I sell my books to publishers for money. But I write the stories because the ideas compel me, not because money compels me.) In addition, having come this far, I'm positively *desperate* to experience the rest of the story--which I do by writing the rest of the story. So in our scenario, the answer is yes: I wouldn't hesitate to make the books available; and .pdf seems like a reasonable way to go. If we lose the internet, all bets are off. (How could I even make it known that the books were available?) For that reason, "on disc" is probably out of the question. (08/22/2009) |
Christian Bonn: I thought Mark Helprin's new book, "Digital Barbarism" might be of interest to you (see link). Thematically consistent with some of your comments in the GI.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804423491263485.html
|
I found this fascinating, and I'm posting it as a matter of general interest. I suppose it's natural that I agree with Helprin absolutely. And I suppose it's also natural that I'm shocked to learn so MANY people believe authors should not be allowed to own their own work. Still.... In my view, anything that weakens copyright protections takes us farther down the road of censorship and fascism. And I think it's particularly interesting that some people use words like "freedom" to defend their attempts to extirpate individual rights and liberties. Just my opinion, of course. (08/30/2009) |
Steve: Dear Stephen,
As I told you in my last question - I love your writings!! (And thank you for responding to it!)
I just finished re-reading the 1st and 2nd Chronicles and am now about 1/2 through ROTE again. My question has to do with your use of 'adult language'. I mean no criticism in my asking, only curiosity, but I noticed that in the 1st and 2nd Chronicles there is an almost total lack of 'vulgar' terms, where-as I now also notice that such words are quite common in ROTE. Was this a change in your writing style that served a distinct purpose or is it perhaps unintentional? Again, I am absolutely in love with the worlds you have created and I would change nothing about your books. This one difference between your previous writings and your current releases just struck me for some reason so I thought I'd ask you about it.
Thanks so much for your time and notice!!
Steve
|
This subject has come up before (although in considerably more judgmental terms). The change you've noticed is, of course, both real and intentional. By way of explanation, let me just say that a) the beginning of "The Last Chronicles" spends a lot more time in the "real" world than any of the other chronicles, b) the "real" world is arguably a more "vulgar" place than the Land, and c) the characters Linden has to deal with (I'm thinking specifically of Barton Lytton, but Roger Covenant is another good example) are by nature and preference "vulgar" people. In my view, those sections of the story would be UNrealistic if I had written them in any other way. And Linden's "vulgar" responses, while not natural to her, make sense to me because...well, because that's probably how I would respond if I were in her situation. (08/30/2009) |
Bob Benoit: What with the increasing popularity of ebooks and audio formats - two questions: 1) Do you listen to audiobooks yourself - including your own (perhaps in preparation for writing the next book?) Stephen King said that when he sat down to write the final two Dark Tower books (after a long absence) he read and then listened to the first five books in order to re-familiarize himself with the details of the story, and that he found the audio format invaluable because he couldn't "skim" the could with the printed version. 2) Do you consider (or have you changed how you consider) the speech patterns (e.g. accents, fast/slow speech, "clipped sentences", etc.) of your characters knowing that they will almost certainly be narrated in audio format? Or do you rely on your descriptions to allow the readers to form their own "images" of the dialogue? I ask because I listen to a lot of audiobooks, and was recently listened to a book which had characters with many different accents, but didn't recognize the "descriptions" of these accents in the text itself, which lead me to believe that either the narrator made them up on his own, or perhaps through some collaboration with the author. Do you discuss your books with Scott Brick before he begins recording? (OK, three questions.) Thanks again for your time.
|
I know that things like ebooks and audio formats are probably the wave of the future. But I just can't get into them. Maybe I'm too old. And maybe (where audio books are concerned) I prefer/need to rely on my own internal voice. So: 1) No, I don't listen to audio books, even my own. 2) Naturally, therefore, I don't "tailor" my prose for people who are going to read--or hear--it aloud. I control every aspect of timing that I'm *able* to control for the eye rather than for the ear (keeping in mind that my eye is my window to my internal ear). 3) I certainly don't discuss Scott Brick's work with him. We communicate before he does a reading so that he can emulate my pronunciation of "special" words (mostly names; some unique terminology). After that, I let him do his thing. After all, he let's me do mine. <grin> (09/05/2009) |
Anonymous: I figured it out.
Lord Foul is Mr. Burns from the Simpsons. Put a cloak on Mr. Burns and tell me hes not...
|
Well, if you think of Lord Foul as a comic (i.e. funny and ridiculous) character.... (09/05/2009) |
Mike S.: Hello Mr. Donaldson. I have a question on the topic of "Unbelief" in your TC series.
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who's read your books how Unbelief is the cornerstone of Thomas Covenant and his interaction with the land. However, two other aspects of unbelief have become clearer as I've read (and re-read) your series over the years.
First is that TC's unbelief appears to fade over time, with him ultimately accepting the reality of The Land (and his responsibility to it and its denizens). However, would it be fairer to say that TC shifted his unbelief from the land to the "real world"?
Second, does not Mhoram exhibit a fair amount of unbelief as well? Or, more specifically, isn't the fundamental flaw of the New Lords (after the fall of Kevin) "unbelief"? I don't know how else to put it, other than they refuse to accept that the very thing that made Kevin's Lore so powerful was the same thing that cause his destruction (i.e. the power of passionate commitment). They refused to believe that it was necessary to accept PERSONAL, human emotion and passion as necessary to the use of Kevin's Lore - and were subsequently stunted in their attempts to recapture his lore.
I could also go on with other examples (Linden's unbelief when confronted with the existence of The Land and Lord Foul, the unbelief of the Masters for the value and importance of Earthpower, etc..).
Sorry for the long post, but it seems that there is more than a few currents of 'unbelief" running through this series.
Thank you for your excellent work, and I look forward to the next installment.
|
Thank you for your observations. *I* certainly believe that "unbelief" is a "cornerstone," not just to the first trilogy but to the whole "Chronicles". You've pointed out some of ways in which this is true. But I wouldn't say that Covenant shifts his own "unbelief" from the Land to the "real world": after all, he lives a life of pretty thorough commitment in the real world during the ten years between the first trilogy and the second. Nor would I say that his "unbelief" fades over time. From my perspective, his "unbelief" *modulates*, which is not at all the same thing: he gradually redefines his issues until they are less and less about "reality" and more and more about--for lack of a better term--"importance". This matters to me because it shifts the emphasis from "what makes a thing real" to "what makes a thing meaningful": a shift which moves us out of the realm of religious dogma and into the realm of spiritual inquiry. And in practical terms, "importance" is an easier way to understand the shift that takes place in Mhoram's relationship with the lore and attitudes he inherited, or the shift that inspires the Masters to deny access to Earthpower (which they know is real). If you accept the idea of "modulation" that underlies my thinking, you'll be able to find more and more examples of the "cornerstone" of the first trilogy manifesting itself in the later Chronicles. (09/06/2009) |
Philip (Ireland): Dear Mr Donaldson,
First of all belated thanks for your kind response to a previous question of mine (May 2007 from phealy20@eircom.net). I had thought that the appearance of Jermiah as displayed in Chapter 1 (posted online) was a spolier - I now know it wasn't!
I have read a number of posts where you have discussed authors who you admired or were influenced by. Bronte, Conrad and Peake spring to mind. As a part of your general reading or your formal education have you had much interest in medieval, rather than modern, tales or mythologies? If so do they come from any particular part of the world?
I know that Anglo-Saxon texts are studied (and occasionally enjoyed) in many English Literature courses. Over the last few years I have studied medieval Welsh and Irish literature and although the tales do not evoke the lyric responses that a modern novel might they still contain the stuff of fantasy: monsters, heroes and time-travel (!) for example.
On another note, I recall reading in a post of yours that if a book is bought in a bookshop it may take a while for the record to be used for generating a bestseller list, whereas if it is purchased online the information is readily available and the chance of the book appearing on a bestseller list is greater. I really enjoy walking around bookshops and normally prefer to make my purchases in them, but I would be more than happy to order the next Covenant novel online if it meant increased exposure, sales, and revenue for one of my favourite authors. If this is the case then I recommend that you strongly advertise this on your website site rather than just having an option to purchase displayed.
I enjoy your work very much and am looking forward to the continuation of the series.
Yours faithfully,
Philip Healy
|
Strangely, I have no particular interest in medieval (or pre-medieval) tales and mythologies. They strike me as the "raw ore" of human consciousness, and I'm much more interested in the metals that can be forged from those basic materials. Or, putting the same thing another way: whenever I read those old tales and mythologies, they feel like stories I already know: they're so deeply embedded in how human beings think that I've already learned them by studying more recent literatures. For that reason, I'm more interested in the specific use that a particular writer makes of the raw ores than I am in the ores themselves. As for generating bestseller lists: these days, electronic means make it easy for individual stores to report their sales to the people who compile bestseller lists. So "where" you buy a book now has little or no effect on whether or not that book appears on a bestseller list. What really matters is "when" you buy it: bestseller lists measure the speed of sales rather than the total quantity of sales. (09/06/2009) |
Earl Jones: I just finished /Fatal Revenant/ and popped in here looking for information on the "to be continued" aspect (which I have found, thank you, and will let drop with the mere observation that you'd *BETTER* finish this . . . _two_ more books . . . grumble). Finding this forum, though:
You've presented the Covenant books as regarding two separate worlds - the internal one of The Land, and the external one more similar to our 'real' world. In the first series, the element of Unbelief played a key role, with the very existence of The Land as anything more than an extended hallucination in question. (While the introduction of Hile Troy undermined this, it was far from conclusive, as Hile played no part in Covenant's life outside The Land.)
That element of Unbelief has become unsustainable; not only is the world of The Land broader and deeper, but it has now become a shared experience extending interactions between several individuals from the 'outside' world. Further, there is interaction - not only do the 'outsiders' play key roles in The Land, but those within The Land (most notably Lord Foul) reach out to affect even some in the 'outside' world who are never drawn to The Land.
At present, you seem to have set up the focus characters as having made a one-way trip. Do you contemplate resolving the impact of The Land on the outside world, regardless of whether any major characters ever return there? Certainly you'll have your hands full just tying things up within The Land, but . . .
I also find myself wondering (though I haven't gone back and researched it) about the timing of the rise of Lord Foul within The Land vis-a-vis the advent of Covenant's leprosy outside it. You have mentioned a possible Christian trinity parallel, but it strikes me you may have more of a Hindu model: Creator, Destroyer, and Preserver - which are sometimes regarded as three separate aspects of the same supreme entity. Not that I'm expecting a substantive response to this - I expect it might give too much away.
|
I don't want to spend my remaining years arguing about "unbelief" (or answering Creator questions <rueful smile>). But I can't accept your assertion that the issue of "unbelief" has "become unsustainable"; so I have no answer for the questions that derive from your position. This is a predictable reaction on my part. If I accept the notion that "That element of Unbelief has become unsustainable," then I can only conclude that the underlying message of "The Second (and subsequent) Chronicles" is that the first trilogy was founded on a lie. (Unless, of course, "unbelief" is defined so narrowly that it only pertains to Covenant's personal confusion. But such a narrow definition was never my intention.) As I tried to explain (again?) in a fairly recent answer, my view of Covenant's "unbelief"--and of its meaning for the story as a whole--is that it modulates from a rather simplistic question of brute reality to a more profound question of moral substance. To that claim I would add that the whole "story arc" of the entire project is (both by nature and by intention) linear. A leads to B leads to C. B doesn't change the meaning of A: A enables the meaning of B. And so on. Therefore to examine the substance of the first trilogy from the perspective of, say, "Fatal Revenant" automatically encourages a fallacy. To that I would add that it has always been my intention in these stories to dig deeper into my characters (and therefore to dig deeper into the Land, if for no other reason than because the Land is the stage on which my characters act out their dramas). Hence the "one-way trip" aspect you mentioned. Turning the narrative back toward "the outside world" would require me to turn away from the particular quests of my characters--as well as from my own quest in writing about them. As for "the timing of the rise of Lord Foul within The Land vis-a-vis the advent of Covenant's leprosy outside it," the numbers don't seem to add up. If a day in Covenant's "real" life is a year in the Land, surely we have to conclude that "the advent of Covenant's leprosy" is more recent than "the rise of Lord Foul". More than that I'm not inclined to say. Nor am I inclined to get mired in more Creator questions. At least not today.... (09/11/2009) |
Ossie: Thanks again for this amazing forum. I hope that now the draft of AATE is with the editors, you have a little more breathing space, at least for a while, but somehow I suspect that is not the case.....
Peter Jackson, director etc of the Lord Of The Rings films, has said that you never really "finish" making a movie, you just run out of time (to make any more improvements, add additional exposition, make this CG beastie look better, etc etc). Does this apply to your writing? Ignoring the I-have-to-eat-in-the-meantime issue, do you think the time frame you have "agreed" with the publishers is ultimately a good or a bad thing? Given the choice, would you prefer unlimited time to basically present the final story once you felt it was done, or does it help to have a deadline? (You have already said you would prefer to present in one volume, but I mean in the context of the Peter Jackson comment).
Thank you again
|
Where to begin? I know what Jackson means ("you never really "finish" making a movie, you just run out of time"), but I don't have quite the same problem. For me, books never seem to "finish" (never give any sense of closure) because the post-writing chores feel endless (copy-editing, proofreading, etc.--all of which have parallels in film-making, but in film-making things like, say, editing, or synchronizing the music, are far more creative than the chores in book publishing). But I don't "run out of time" the way Jackson describes because I've learned to demand MUCH more generous deadlines from my publishers than I actually need. (Put another way, the deadlines I impose on myself are always more stringent than the ones I allow my publishers to impose.) For me, external deadlines kill creativity. I can't write *at all* if I'm in danger of missing a deadline. It's probably fair to say that my publishers would have been willing to pay twice as much for "The Last Chronicles" if I had agreed to produce a book a year. Three years between books makes them feel like they have to re-invent the wheel every time I turn in a manuscript. But I've learned--at considerable personal cost--that I can't work that way. In my own defense, I want to point out that if I lived by my publishers' current deadlines rather than my own, these books would be published every FOUR years, not every three. My contract gives me three years from D&A of the previous book to *submission* (not D&A) of the next book. By that standard, I wouldn't submit AATE for editorial consideration until mid-January, 2010--which would in turn make publication in 2010 physically impossible. But I submitted AATE in mid-June, seven months early. As a result, the prospects for publication in the fall of 2010 are good. In a perfect world (unlimited time, no need for money), I would have liked to write the entire "Last Chronicles" before publishing any of it. That would have been my best defense against problems of internal consistency--AND once the books began to appear, my readers wouldn't have to wait so long for the next installment. Alas, we--or at least I--don't live in a perfect world. (09/20/2009) |
Steve M.: I recall an interview with the late great Isaac Asimov and his response to a question about inspiration. Of course I am paraphrasing because it was so long ago but he said that a lot of writers make a big issue of inspiration and how they go for years without writing anything because they couldnt find inspiration. Asimov responded with something to the effect, that he never had any problem with inspiration. Pay me the money and I can write. No problem. I am curious what your take is on that statement and how you find your inspiration. It seemed to be easy for Asimov. What about you?
|
Everyone is different. Naturally different writers find inspiration in different places. I know a brilliant writer who can only write when the need for money becomes urgent (or perhaps I should say, who can only swallow self-doubt long enough to let a book be published when the need for money becomes urgent). I know writers who can only write if they've already been paid and now have to meet deadlines. I've heard of writers who can only write if they have to overcome certain kinds of obstacles (incessant distraction in one case; a compelling need to be somewhere else in another). I know writers whose primary "inspiration" for writing is the hope that what they write will be made into a movie. In fact, Asimov *did* make it sound "easy". But there was a tongue-in-cheek quality to many of his public statements (and writings about writing), so maybe we shouldn't take the "easy" part too seriously. (09/20/2009) |
Lee Whipple: Stephen,
How important to your creativity is a deadline? While the story may exist in concept from beginning to end does having a deadline to meet committing it to written form help convert it from thought to a tangible book?
How often is the first draft unready to be seen by anyone accept an editor or trusted friend?
Is the first draft really nothing but a lump of clay waiting to be shaped into the final story and writing the first draft mixing the earth and water to create the clay?
|
I think I answered a question about deadlines recently. For me, they are creativity-killers. But "Is the first draft really nothing but a lump of clay...?" Absolutely not. The first draft IS the final story. Plot changes after the first draft are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent for me. No, what changes is, first and foremost, the dialogue (how the characters present themselves to each other), second, the interior descriptions (how I present the characters to the reader), third, the amount of repetition (because I write so slowly, I tend to repeat myself more often [much more often?] than the reader needs), and last, the flow and accuracy of the individual sentences. My agent has often commented that I do "invisible" rewrites. In part, this is because he's read maybe 75 books since the last time he saw mine, so he doesn't remember the previous version in any detail. But it's also because the "final story" doesn't change at all: it simply becomes more effective as I rewrite it. (09/26/2009) |
Anthony: How many books did you read while writing this latest TC novel? Is the answer a good average for your process? Higher? Lower?
|
As I've said before, I'm a very slow reader. I suppose I may average 15 books a year (not counting the 10 or so that I start and then can't stand reading). Whether or not I'm writing myself has no effect on how much reading I do. (09/26/2009) |
Scott Adams: First I love your books (All of them), I just wanted to ask you if I got your intention in Forbidden Knowledge when Nick is raping (or whatever) Morn on the main deck. I read that he was doing it in front of the crew to show his power or dominance over Morn, but I felt like he was humiliating himself as much or more than Morn. Is that a valid sense of your text? You don't write it that way but I was just curious. Thank you for your wonderful books.
|
Nick doesn't realize it, of course. But you're quite right. It's pretty generally true that you (I don't mean you personally) can't dehumanize someone else without simultaneously dehumanizing yourself. Nick *thinks* he's engaged in a display of personal power. In fact, he's displaying his own emotional poverty. (09/26/2009) |
Loren Rosson III: Hi Steve,
On 4/15/09, you responded to a GI inquiry by saying that "Mordant's Need was my first truly successful attempt to organize a large narrative canvas. In that regard, nothing that I've done so far can compare with the GAP books." I agree that in this sense The Gap Cycle is your most significant achievement, and my personal favorite science-fiction series of all time. In fact I'm rereading it now and enjoying all the convoluted subterfuge. It's fun trying to keep straight what's going on in the heads of the characters.
I'm wondering, however, about a potential inconsistency regarding the Preempt Act. We know it was founded on two accusations, (1) that Com-Mine Security was involved in sabotaging Starmaster, and (2) that Com-Mine Security was involved in conspiring with an illegal. It's the second I wish to focus on, because the issue doesn't seem to be handled consistently throughout the books.
In Forbidden Knowledge, you imply that the Preempt Act was passed because someone in Com-Mine Security had conspired with Nick to frame Angus. Min Donner implies this in the second Angus chapter, and the Ancillary Documentation chapter on the Preempt Act states that "several factors conspired to make the Preempt Act seem necessary... The Thermopyle case on Com-Mine Station, in particular... There Security had apparently conspired to with one suspected illegal to trap another."
In other words, in Forbidden Knowledge, the Preempt Act was founded on the accusation that Com-Mine was in collusion with Nick (in framing Angus). By the time of Chaos and Order, however, that's no longer true. Now we're told that the Preempt Act was founded on the accusation that Com-Mine was in collusion with Angus -- and that Morn is thus needed to return to Earth and testify that Angus was framed. In the first Hashi chapter, for instance, the DA Director ponders as follows:
"A living Morn Hyland represented a palpable threat to [Holt Fasner]... She could testify that Angus was guiltless of the crime for which he'd been arrested and convicted... The still-recent passage of the Preempt Act had been founded squarely on [the accusation that] Security had conspired with Captain Thermopyle to steal station supplies."
I'm wondering if in the earlier books you hadn't realized how much you were going to need Morn Hyland to have a "legitimate" reason for being abducted by Nick. After all, what purpose did Warden Dios have in allowing that to happen? Obviously not the stated reason (so that Nick could have insurance in case he needed to sell something like a cop's id tag, or to use for sex)... but then what? The answer becomes clear that Dios allowed Morn to be taken so that Holt Fasner wouldn't be able to suppress her. But what needs to be suppressed? The fact that Angus was innocent of the crime he'd been accused of -- in other words, the fact that Milos and Nick framed him. But in Forbidden Knowledge, that wasn't suppressed; it was exactly why the Preempt Act passed -- because someone in Security worked with one pirate to frame another. Which makes Morn's testimony rather unnecessary.
Am I reading this change correctly, or missing something obvious? Did you change the Preempt Act's premise by the fourth book -- that Com-Mine conspired with Angus rather than with Nick -- because it makes Dios' actions more understandable, and Morn's survival more necessary? Or is there less contradiction than I'm spotting?
Thank you!
|
It seems clear that you've read the GAP books far more recently than I have. <sigh> I haven't looked at them since, say, '97. So I'm going to have to rely on my increasingly-unreliable memory here. My first reaction is that the "inconsistency" you describe is contextual: in different situations, different people emphasize different aspects of the same action/event/development. As the story goes along, Nick's role becomes decreasingly important (in context), while the role of Angus looms larger. At the same time, Min Donner's perception of events (having some personal stake in them) is naturally different than more public perceptions. That may sound like rationalization. Perhaps it is. But if you were the GCES, which argument would carry more weight with you? a) Com-Mine Security conspired with one illegal to trap another, so at least we caught one of them, hooray. Or b) Com-Mine Security conspired with an illegal to steal station supplies, thus betraying the station and Security's own mandate, those bastards. Interpretation modulates as context modulates. Meanwhile your query, "I'm wondering if in the earlier books you hadn't realized how much you were going to need Morn Hyland to have a "legitimate" reason for being abducted by Nick," prompts me to argue that Morn at every point in the story ALWAYS had a "legitimate" reason for being abducted by/going with Nick. It's legitimate on every level of the plot, from Morn's most personal necessities to Dios' most elaborate machinations. If from time to time the text emphasizes different aspects of the general situation, that doesn't change the fact that my characters have legitimate reasons for what they do when they do it. (10/03/2009) |
Ed from Phoenix: Hello Steve!
I recently discovered the short-lived television series "Firefly" and fell in love with the ongoing story, the complexity of characters etc. And, of course, I could not help but draw some thematic and structural similarities to The GAP Cycle (with a fond smile). The whole thing got me thinking. If someone like yourself were part of the creative team behind groundbreaking television like Firefly or the current Battlestar Galactica (BG), how much better would these stories be?
You have made it clear how your creative mind works (your stories "choose" you, your ideas for new stories come rarely etc.). So I understand your short answer to this one...you wouldnt "do" television. I understand this is not necessarily out of principle (although that may be the case), but out of necessity (your creative mind doesn't work that way).
But on to my questions anyway (please pardon me if I fall off some cliff of hypotheticality here):
1.) If you had no other option (you had no
current story idea for a book), COULD you
write for a TV series like Firefly or BG?
2.) Do you think your creative mind could adapt
to being a part of the sort of
collaborative "think tank" sessions that are
behind great television?
3.) Do you think you could enjoy that kind of
creative work?
All the best and my many thanks for what you contribute to the lives of many.
Ed
|
OK, a different version of the "short answer".... <grin> 1) No. I can't write scripts. I *need* all the descriptive material between the sentences of dialogue. As I've suggested elsewhere, the dialogue is always the least satisfactory aspect of my first drafts, and the most rewritten aspect of my published books. 2) As long as I wasn't being "serious," I could probably participate--for a little while. I do brainstorming in all kinds of situations. But as soon as I started to think seriously about what the think tank was doing, I would pull out. Probably in disgust: perhaps because I needed to go in my own direction. 3) A personal detail here. When my children were old enough to understand that I was a storyteller, and young enough to want to be told stories, they often asked me to make up a story for them. Which I absolutely could not do. Like deadlines, the situation was a creativity-killer. So I became very clever at prompting them to make up for themselves the story they wanted to hear. They may have thought I was telling them a story; but all I was really doing was asking questions and supplying "connective tissue". From which I conclude that I might be able to function--briefly--as a think tank facilitator. But what I did wouldn't be "creative" on my part--except perhaps in the sense that therapy is creative. <rueful smile> (10/03/2009) |
Gary L. Cockerham: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I am a fan of your fantasy work and have read most everything you've written in that regard. Since I am currently awaiting the third in the Last Chronicles series, I've been reduced to reading Koontz' Frankenstein series. Imagine my surprise after reading that the protaganist is the sister and caregiver to an autistic brother, who likes to construct huge castles out of Legos. I was wondering if you were aware of this? If so--none of my business(unless you care to comment)and I apologize.
Yours
Gary
|
Amazing! I had no idea. I don't read Koontz, mainly because life is too short and I can't read everything. (10/03/2009) |
Vincent: 'Of course I'm saddened by it--even (or perhaps especially) when I find it in myself. Leaving all other issues aside, that lack is inherently self-destructive. If/when the American Dream--or even Western Civilization--collapses, it will be because our societies chose apathy (or fanaticism: they come to the same thing in the end) over curiosity, engagement, and courage.
'Naturally the underlying problems have many facets, and are influenced by many things. For example, sensory overload always tends to induce numbness. (Too many books, too many choices, too many sources of stimulation, all too readily available: who can cope with it all?) Or for another example, grinding poverty fosters anger--and helpless anger turns easily to hate--especially when the poor know that their poverty is not an inevitable condition, but is rather a burden imposed on them by the rich. (Intellectual curiosity is a luxury made possible by a certain minimum level of material well-being.) But no matter where we look for causes, their effects are everywhere around us. Reading is only one of many casualties.' ---- SRD
Oh boy, are you touching the pulse of society there! I'm worried by what I see of people online. There is a seething dissatisfaction eating away at the heart of the working class, and through them their children. Once again we are at a point in history where 10% of the population control 90% of the resources.* (*Like most statistics, this one is made up.)
I sense a civil uprising in the future, and that would be the 'best' thing that could happen. If there isn't a civil uprising we could find ourselves in the middle of a totalitarian government straight out of an Orwellian novel.
Romero's vision or Orwell's, a fight for survival or a surrender of free will?
Eh, sounds a little paranoid I know, but unfortunately I can't tell anymore whether I am being paranoid or absolutely reasonable since I've been numbed by over stimulation to the point of indifference.
|
Not that I'm actually qualified to talk about these issues; but.... Here's the reason I have hope: life is a Schroedinger's Cat experiment. (Understand that I'm not a physicist. I'm working from a layman's grasp of the concepts.) Observing it alters it. I consider it intuitively obvious that observing life *defines* life--for the particular observer. But this "definition" is inherently an *alteration* of the thing observed because a second observer looking at the same data (life) perceives a different "definition". In addition, there seems to be more and more evidence (based on what I read--and observe) that the act of observation literally alters the thing observed. In other words, the observer's reality isn't the only thing that's affected by the perceptual process of "definition": the thing being "defined" is also affected. My point (if I have one) is that thinking about life doesn't just change us: it *also* changes life. Therefore that change--cutting as it does in both directions simultaneously--alters the fundamental nature of the (for lack of a better word) experiment itself. Which means, in practice, that whatever happens next is *not* going to be whatever we deduced from previous observations/definitions. [Insert a layman's comprehension of notions like "quantum entanglement" and "chaos theory" here.] So: simply by proposing "Romero's vision or Orwell's," you are DEcreasing the likelihood that either will occur, at least according to your definitions. Make sense? Perhaps not. But consider this: in one form or another, in every facet of life, EVERYBODY predicts the future almost constantly--and only a miniscule fraction of those predictions actually "come true". Even for statisticians. Perhaps especially for statisticians. (10/04/2009) |
Kaan: Hey Steve,
My understanding is that if a given text has been out of print for some length of time, the rights reverts back to the author. Is that not true for other rights as well? You've discussed e-rights and audio rights before and I'm wondering if there is ever the possibility you will gain back those rights if the publisher does nothing with them?
Oh yeah... love your books as well. The Man Who Tried to Get Away a particular favorite!
|
Yes. "...if a given text has been out of print for some length of time, the rights revert back to the author." All the rights. However, the definition of "out of print" has become increasingly complex during my professional lifetime. As one example, a book is not considered "out of print" if it is available in *any* format (e-books and audio books are only two possibilities). As another, in some contracts, a book is not considered "out of print" if anything *related* to that book *licensed* by the publisher is still available (e.g. foreign rights; merchandising rights; film rights). With such contracts (just as an example), a "Covenant" *calendar* currently available only in Serbia would suffice to allow Ballantine Books to retain all of their "Covenant" rights, even if the actual "Covenant" text is not available anywhere in the world. (Please understand: I'm not saying that I actually have such a contract. I'm only saying that such contracts do exist, and that such issues dramatically complicate the question of who owns the rights. This is why each new contract I sign is significantly longer than the one before; and why each new contract requires significantly more negotiation--in my case, between agent and publisher--before I sign it.) (10/11/2009) |
James DiBenedetto: Steve,
This is kind of a vague and maybe unansweable question, but I'll ask it anyway: how would you define your "style" of writing?
You use different points-of-view, take on radically different themes, use very different vocabulary, you vary your sentence length and the type of descriptive language you use, and yet all of your books are clearly, recognizably yours and couldn't be mistaken for another author's. What do you think the common element is?
As an unrelated aside, there was an article in the 8/30 New York Times about a movement among some high school English teachers to get away from the "great books" model that I've seen you criticize previously in the GI - I thought you'd find it interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/books/30reading.html?pagewanted=1&hp
|
I don't have a good answer for your "style" question. I'm too much "inside" whatever I happen to be writing, and too much concerned about tailoring the practical aspects of style to suit whatever I happen to be writing, to be aware of a more general definition of my own style. (In other words, both the subjective and the objective sides of my brain are busy elsewhere. <rueful smile>) But perhaps "inside" *is* the common element. Inside my characters: inside myself: using every technique at my command to lure my reader inside my story. As for my opinions about the "great books" model of teaching reading: those opinions are based on my own experience as a reader, and on my observations of other people (especially my children) learning to read. Reading is a skill--and "great books" tend to be difficult reads. Teaching reading by asking children to read difficult books is rather like teaching the martial arts by asking the students to enter professional UFC competitions. My children and I all learned to hate "great books" in school. But we developed our reading skills by consuming vast quantities of "easy" books when we were young; and as a result, we are now skillful enough to treasure "great books". In my case: while I was suffering through "Silas Marner" and "Julius Caesar," I was also reading every "Bomba the Jungle Boy" and "Dave Dawson, World War II Fighting Ace" book I could get my hands on. It was Bomba and Dave who taught me to love books, not Silas and Julius. The rest is just simple maturation. (10/11/2009) |
Lee Whipple: I just finished "Fatal Revenant " and found myself stunned and disappointed by Linden's choice. I have always seen her as potentially stronger than Thomas Covenant. Her self doubt has always been frustrating to me as a reader; it may be because it echoes mine. When she took the stand of " I don't forgive " I believed she had finally found it within herself to overcome that self doubt -though I saw her unforgiving stand as a potential weapon for Foul to use against her.
Her choice in Andelain was not a choice of someone who had overcome self doubt, it was the choice of someone who bathed in it.
|
Hey! Cut Linden some slack, wouldja? (He said somewhat tongue-in-cheek.) We're only halfway through the story. If all of my characters discovered their true selves halfway through the story, I wouldn't have much to write about in the second half. (10/11/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Way back in the mists of time (which I guess is appropriate when talking about the Last Chronicles) you answered a GI question about the Power of Command. The question was about whether a person could only use the power once. You answered:
"...I've always assumed that this was a "single use per person" sort of power: it's always *there,* so in theory it can always be used; but it's *so* powerful that no un-god-like being could survive tapping into it more than once. And even that "once" leaves room for doubt: we don't know what the effects on Elena would have been if she hadn't gotten herself killed almost immediately by other means."
So, my question, Linden has now used the Power of Command - is the text going to explore or answer the question about what effects this might have on her?
|
Hmm. I'm not sure how to answer. Some of the effects are pretty obvious: look at the Staff of Law. Some are probably obviated by the--I can't think of a better term--the comparative *littleness* of Linden's Command. She isn't trying to change the world, or even understand it. She just wants an immediate, personal bit of insight. And some (I'm just speculating here) may have been channeled away from her by the nature of the subsequent battle. Really, in every respect Linden's use of the Power is fundamentally different than Elena's. The effects (if any) pretty much have to be different as well. (10/16/2009) |
Doc: Mr Donaldson,
From what I gather from reading the GI you are not a fan of, or have little use for critics. I disagree. I believe they seave a useful purpose. Before I part with my hard earned money, I will read one or more reviews of the restaurant, movie,play or book I am considering spending the aforementioned money on. In fact, if I may be so bold, I assume you have made use of a critic for one or more of the previously mentioned activities. So my question is: Do you disregard all critics, or only the ones who criticize your work?
|
You misunderstand me. I have no use for people who contact me personally for the sole purpose of criticizing my work--or anything else about me. Such attacks serve only to bolster the ego of the critic: they have no other function. But *public* reviews and criticism have an entirely different purpose. They aren't directed at *me*: they are directed at people who wish to be informed about a particular subject; or who are already informed, but who seek a better understanding of that subject. Well, naturally (since I, too, have an ego) I don't much like public reviews and criticism that tear me down in some way (e.g. by discouraging people from reading my books). But I understand the value of what those reviewers and critics are doing, even if I don't happen to like it. And I understand that I'm not the intended audience: those reviews and criticisms aren't written for *me*, they're written for people in general who may want to consider reading (or thinking about) my work. On that basis, I have nothing but respect for reviewers and critics who "play fair": who tell the truth about both their subjects and their personal biases. (10/16/2009) |
Alex Finney: Stephen... I have just finished reading the Gap Series for a third time, after a break of close to a decade. Frankly I think it's your best work by some distance, and this last reading has been my favourite. I have many minor plot and theory questions, but I will leave them for another time. I have just one however, for which I am a little embarassed, which I must ask for confirmation. Who are the characters on the covers of the UK Fontana versions? I think, and apologise if I'm wrong, Nick on The Real Story - Min on Forbidden Knowledge, Angus on ADAHGA, Davies on Chaos And Order and Morn infront of Warden on TDAGD?
|
Those are supremely ugly covers, and your guess is as good as mine. I see Angus and Nick on TRS, The Transvestite from Hell (Min? Morn?) on FK, Holt Fasner on ADAHGA, Angus on CAO, and Morn, Angus, and Warden Dios on TDAGD. But I was never consulted, so I can only speculate about what those images are intended to convey. (However, the eye-patch on TDAGD is a dead giveaway: that has to be Warden.) (10/16/2009) |
Anonymous: Mr. Donaldson,
Eariler this year Christine Barkley's book, "Stephen R. Donaldson and the Modern Epic Vision : A Critical Study of the 'Chronicles of Thomas Covenant' Novels" was published.
Have you read her work, and if so, any thoughts? I know, a very vague question.... sorry.
On another note, I came across an old LP record of "White Gold Weilder", apparently read by you! Since it seems to be only one record, I am assuming this is a greatly abridged version of the book. Was this the only one of your books from which you made a recording, and how did this one actually come to be?
Thank you for your time.
|
Yes, I'm aware that Christine Barkley's book--long in the making--has finally been published. No, I haven't read it. Surely I've discussed my WGW LP elsewhere? Years ago? Yes, I did the reading. When TOT and WGW were at the peak of their popularity, Caedmon Records came up with the idea of having me read aloud one complete scene from each of the (then) six "Covenant" books. Since WGW was "hot" at the time, Caedmon decided to start there and work backward. So what you have is an unabridged reading of the Covenant/Linden/Waynhim/arghuleh encounter. But that LP sold *so* badly that Caedmon immediately cancelled the rest of the project. Incidentally, the HEAVILY ABRIDGED recordings of "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge" (*not* read by me) also sold so badly that the rest of the project was cancelled. There another bad idea got what it deserved. (10/16/2009) |
Mike D: Hi Stephen -
I have just a quick question - back in the beginning of june, you said that you had delivered the second draft to your editors, and it would be 5 to 8 weeks before you would hear back from them. I'm just curious if they've gotten back to you yet, and not knowing what editors actually do, what kind of feedback they give (grammatical, storyline, etc).
Thanks for all of your wonderful work, and I'm looking forward to the conclusion of this awesome storyline.
Mike
|
Perhaps I should have posted something in the "news" section. After all, I'm the one who first mentioned the issue of waiting to hear from my editors.... So. I had to wait about 7 weeks to hear from my US editor. My UK editor took 10 weeks. This is considerably longer than I've had to wait for editorial feedback in recent years. (Swine flu was added to the usual excuses.) But I've had much worse experiences. The editor of "Reave the Just and Other Tales" took something like five MONTHS to respond. The editor of "The Man Who Fought Alone" took more like SEVEN months. At any rate, I'm now hard at work on what I believe will be the final rewrite of AATE. If nothing goes wrong, I should be able to deliver the next draft before the end of 2009. What are the usual excuses? Mainly inhuman amounts of overwork. But overwork has an inadvertent secondary effect. Editors are forced to "prioritize" (a word I don't actually like), and so instinctively they give books that require a great deal of editing precedence over books that require very little editing. And in my case they both agree that AATE needs very little editing. (I disagree.) A more obvious consequence of overwork is that editing tends to be cursory at best. I received a few comments about pacing and a couple of questions about story-logic: nothing else. On the plus side, both of my editors do want me to keep doing what I'm doing. (10/17/2009) |
Aidan (UK): Mr Donaldson, firstly I'd like to thank you for producing such brilliant novels, they've given me allot of pleasure over the years.
My question is what research if any did you do on the scientific aspects of the Gap series. As a Physics graduate I find that blatantly unworkable or plain foolish scientific conjecture found in science fiction can destroy my enjoyment of the work (not in all cases, I love red dwarf and hitchhikers guide to the galaxy in part because of the sheer ridiculousness of them). I was very impressed by the scientific background in the Gap, making the unbelievable seem logical, especially as you seem to have no academic history at all in sciences.
PS. I've just read Dust of Dreams and noticed that the book was dedicated to you. I thought I'd add my own thanks, I probably wouldn't have picked up Gardens of the Moon if it wasn't for your glowing reccomendation on the front cover. I can't believe that was ten years ago though.
|
I take your question as high praise, "espcially," as you accurately observe, "as [I] seem to have no academic history at all in sciences." In fact, I did (for me) a considerable amount of idiosyncratic research, most of which proved to be invaluable. Web research; encyclopedias of various kinds; consultation with "experts," both professional and amateur. But perhaps the single piece of "research" that helped me the most was the most unexpected. In fact, I did nothing to seek it out: instead it found me. For no predictable reason, I was offered a personal, behind-the-scenes guided tour of the Johnson Space Center in Houston. I was able to sit in the actual flight simulator then used by NASA. While I walked through a mock-up of a possible space station, my guide explained how various practical aspects of living in zero g might work (e.g. toilets). I was able to observe zero g training in action. The whole occasion was priceless for my purposes. Oh, and I read some Hawking. (10/26/2009) |
Dave Wilton: Having travelled with you on the journey since Lords Fouls Bane till the present something rather struck me tonight. It seems the land has no sports. I started to think of this and it seems that the flaw in the new lords understanding between passion and power might be down to the seeming lack of a competitive nature in the structure of the Lords subsequent to Kevins Waste.
I know that this raises rather uncomfortable questions to do with the nature of power and desire as demonstrated with Elena.
Gods the question is running away with me now so I will cut to the quick.
Was the lack of competitive behaviour in the Lords of Prothal's generation a concious decision.
|
As I keep saying, I only invent what I need. I didn't need sports for my story, so I didn't try to imagine what they might be. But of course the issue of "competitive behaviour" goes well beyond sports (or games). As I see it, "the lack of competitive behaviour" was *not* "a conscious decision" on the part of "the Lords of Prothal's generation". Instead (to my way of thinking) that lack was an inherited implication of two things: the rural (therefore labor-intensive) way of living of most of the Land's inhabitants; and the (for lack of a better term) all-pervading "religion" of the Land (in which service to the health of the physical world is seen as the highest spiritual endeavor). As you can see in the text, this "religion" does not ascribe virtue to competition: instead it emphasizes the kind of service that suits the individual's talents and inclinations. And as I'm sure you already know, the implications of this "religion" are far more important to my purposes than the implications of rural living. (10/26/2009) |
Uriah Knox: Mr. Donaldson Sir,
First let me state that my question is in no way a Creator question.
I have been unable to miss that you show reticence in relation to such questions. And well you should. After all, aren't such questions not unlike the unanswerables that plague the minds of theoretical physicists contemplating the initial picoseconds of our universe? They shudder to speak of that which is (presently) unspeakable - they have no names for that which existed when the concept of existence itself was in question. And we cannot help but respect this position. Why then should YOU be required to reveal more about your creative process than you yourself even know? Nevertheless, I feel shame, for there are those out there who may perceive my (forthcoming) question as a Creator question. Even though it refers to the Creator and queries about that which surrounds him, I am denying reality itself so that I may put this forth with a clear conscience, as I know of your discontent with such questions. I know in my heart of hearts that this is not a Creator question!
So...
Why "ochre"?
|
Since this is not a Creator question, I can answer with complete (if entirely mundane) honesty: I chose "ochre" because so many beggars of all kinds in India wear (or wore in my day) that color. Thanks to my background, ochre practically shouts "beggar".... Incidentally, that's also why the Haruchai wear ochre. Just another example of "contradiction" as a deliberate thematic tool in "The Chronicles". (10/26/2009) |
Drew(drew): Hi again.
I've got two, hopefully easy, questions for you.
1)The First has to do with Mordant's Need, and the fact that Master Eramis's breath smelled like cloves. Did you research that fact? Are cloves a known aphrodisiac? Or did you just pick them because they smelled nice? Should I get rid of my mouthwash and start chewing cloves if I want to have a better chance with the ladies?
2)This one, I'm sure has has more significance than the first question, yet I missed the point completely in the story. IN the Gap, the Stripped who cut off her body part...what is the significance of that? Is it just to show how twisted the people were, or was there a deeper meaning?
-Thanks
-Drew
|
As you've already realized, your second question is *much* more complex.... 1) I just like the taste of clove. It doesn't have any "deeper meaning". (Sorry.) 2) In contrast, intimate body-mutilation-as-entertainment in "A Dark and Hungry God Arises" is rife with "deeper meaning". (Or so I piously hope.) Of course, it's emblematic of the kind of human degradation that characterizes Billingate. But on another level, it expresses what can happen when societies use corrupt police to combat illegal activities. (On that level, it refers obliquely to Holt Fasner: just look at Norna.) On still another level, it's a medical/technological metaphor for what the Amnion intend to do to all of humankind. And on still another level, it expresses what Angus has done to Morn (as well as what Morn is still doing to herself at that point in the story). (10/26/2009) |
Daniel: Mr. Donaldson, Your willingness to interact with your readers is much appreciated. I have just read Unworthy of the Angel and it is a great short story. Ite seems that this story helps me understand the Thomas Covenant chronicles. It is not a key but rather a refelection like seeing a room through the tiny images of various shiny metal surfaces that inhabit any room. This brings to mind a similtude between the land and Boges Tion, Uqbar,Orbis Tertius. It seems that Thomas can be seen as the sculptor that is unworhty of the ANgel and the Angel himself, Reese Dona as the land, its people, Joan and Thomas himself and both stories orbit the dense buiding blocks of help, need, despite, hope, permission, and sacrafice. These stories inahabit the same space where reason and faith intersect, like Unamuno's Abel Sanchez. Do you see your two works as sharing the same womb?
|
I'm not sure how to answer. In at least one literal sense, all of my stories share the same "womb". With varying degrees of personal specificity, they all arise from and express who I am. And I wouldn't have to work very hard to draw the same kind of parallel between, say (just picking one example almost at random), "Covenant" and "Penance". Or between "The Killing Stroke" and any of the Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels. In retrospect (*always* in retrospect: I don't premeditate these things), it's obvious that the same themes have haunted me throughout my writing life. Although I like to think that the degree of personal specificity isn't the *only* thing that varies.... <rueful smile> (10/26/2009) |
Ranee (Sydney): Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that the Gap books are the most distressing and agonising things I've ever encountered - when Sorus gave Pup the mutagen, I wailed for hours before forcing myself to keep reading. I certainly hope you'll take that as the compliment it is. I have two questions: one, where did the character Norna Fasner come from? And two, did you ever doubt Morn's ability to cope with everything that happens to her? Did you, say, wonder if she should have reacted a lot worse to Davies looking exactly like Angus, or to being 'trapped' with Angus again on Trumpet?
|
Well, I'll *try* to take that as a compliment. <rueful smile> Taking your questions in reverse order: issues like that don't arise for me. (Although maybe they should: who knows?) As I've explained in various other contexts, I can't write at all unless I know how the story in front of me is going to end. The ending is my reason for telling the story. So in a sense (often a quite literal sense), I plan my stories backward: I look at the ending and then figure out what I'll need in order to get there. And along the way, if what I'm doing at a particular moment doesn't conduce to the ending, I ditch what I'm doing: I don't change the ending. As a result, the kinds of "what if" questions you ask don't arise for me (or don't arise in a comparable form). As for Norna, well, she's the "Norn" figure, the goddess who weaves fate or destiny--although in my version of the myth, as in several others, she doesn't "choose" that fate or destiny (in Norse myths, the Norns are blind), she simply manifests or expresses it. Certainly she's a pretty good example of the legacy her son would leave for the rest of humankind, if he got what he wanted. (10/26/2009) |
Andrew Olivier: Hello Dr. Donaldson!
At the end of the first Thomas Covenant chronicles, the Creator shows Thomas Covenant the scene where the people gather around Glimmermere in celebration of life and High Lord Mhoram throws the Krill into Glimmermere.
In that way Thomas Covenant learns what happens to it. If I remember correctly - Thomas Covenant gets the Krill out of Glimmermere when he visits the Land again - in the second chronicles.
So - he uses knowledge (where the Krill is) that was provided to him by the Creator (who showed him the scene).
Would that not constitute a problem, because the Creator may not help or guide him?
Andrew
PS. Thanks for answering my previous Waynhim question.
|
Looking at the story backward, I do see your point. But of course these books weren't written to be read backward. And while I was working on the first trilogy, I had no intention whatsoever of writing more on the subject--in which case your point would never arise (since Covenant would never go back, any help or guidance he received could only apply to his "real" life). So all I can say, in retrospect, is that the Creator chose to give Covenant a bit of validation while he was (briefly) in transition between realities--and on his way "out", not on his way "in". Meanwhile the old beggar's appearances in LFB and TWL obviously constitute an oblique form of help or guidance *prior* to the transition "in". So at least that much of the story is consistent. (10/26/2009) |
Michael Blue (IL, USA): Hello Mr. Donaldson.
I just finished reading Fatal Revenant. I enjoyed it. The Last Chronicles, so far to me, have more "side plots" that you are developing (e.g. Anele, Theomach, Jeremiah, Kevin's dirt, Esmer, Longwrath to name a few). The first two Chronicles had mysterious characters/subjects of course, it just seems there are more in the first two books of the Last Chronicles. If you care to respond, I would like to know what has changed since the 80's for you for this apparent writing style shift?
MB
|
What's changed? There are many answers to that question, most of which I probably don't know. But the most obvious one is that *I've* changed. And the change in myself (as a writer) that I'm most conscious of is: I've become increasingly ambitious. In one form or another, I've raised the creative "stakes" with every big project I've tackled. I've pushed beyond the things I know how to do in order to attempt things I've never done before. Well, in rather generic terms, there's really only one way for a storyteller of my type to raise the stakes: make the "secondary" characters more prominent--which in turn necessitates introducing more sub-plots and complications (since every character who rises above the level of background machinery has his/her own story/plot/agenda). If you choose to do so, you can easily see this process at work as you move from the first six "Covenant" books to "Mordant's Need," then to the GAP cycle, and then to "The Last Chronicles". (10/28/2009) |
Bob O: I just watched the trailer for Pandorum. I don't think I'll see it...too scary;) Pandorum seems a lot like Gap Sickness. Do you think it is a separate strain? Maybe it's just a coincidence but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw it. Do you ever get that feeling that someone is using your ideas?
|
I've never seen the trailer for "Pandorum". Or the movie itself. Or heard anyone talk about it. But do I "ever get that feeling that someone is using [my] ideas?" Very rarely. And in general I don't waste my time thinking about it. After all, I "use" other people's ideas all the time (in my own way). Why should I worry about it if other people use mine? (10/28/2009) |
Karl: Hi Stephen,
I was wondering what you thought about Google's attempt to provide instant paperback printings of out of copyright books, and even more significantly, out of print books. (check this link for some overview: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551363,00.html ).
It actuallys seems like a great idea, even for the author since I think this would encourage publishers to keep books in print as long as possible, in order to prevent them from becoming public domain for printing purposes.
What is your opinion on this? Obviously, I want whatever happens to be as profitable as possible for the authors in return for the work they put in to creating the books.
|
As I've said before, I don't really understand what Google is doing (except possibly the part where Google wants to take over the world <grin>). So I'm not qualified to express an opinion. (10/28/2009) |
Colin R. Grimes: Hello, Stephen!
I was wondering if you were aware that Amazon.com.uk is currently taking orders for "Against All Things Ending" with a listed release date of October 28, 2010. Has Orion/Gollancz declared "delivery and acceptance"? Is someone just hopefully jumping the gun? Or are the Brits just that much faster at recognizing your genius? <smile>
|
No, I wasn't aware. My publishers never tell me such things. The Brits have definitely jumped the gun. But not without reason: they've seen (and liked) the second draft; they know when I've promised to deliver the third draft; and they know from experience that I'm a man of my word. So they are not being irrationally optimistic. (10/28/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You've stated many times, in many forums, that you write for love. You fall in love with your stories/characters and have to tell their tale. You also said that the ideas for the Last Chronicles came to you with the Second. So, when White Gold Wielder ended, you knew there was more story to tell but did not. You went on to other stories. You've sorta answered this before, about not being ready to tell this last tale, that you knew it would be a hard one to do and that you needed more time to prepare to do it. I also think you have mentioned being afraid to tackle it. My question is: was that hard, the waiting (Tom Petty seems to think it is :))? Was it hard to leave Covenant dead and Linden broken-hearted at his death at the ending of White Gold Wielder when you knew there was more to tell of their story? Coming back to my first point, about loving your characters, was it hard to leave them where you left them? Or has it all worked out pretty much how you wanted, working on Mordant's Need, the Man Who books, the GAP books, short story collections first? Hope this question makes sense, I'm not sure it really does to me, but hey, your the smart one and if anyone can understand what I'm trying to ask it would be you.
|
To be honest: no, it wasn't hard to postpone starting "The Last Chronicles". It sure didn't feel like *waiting*. One reason? I had plenty of other things I really wanted to do. Putting Covenant/Linden aside for mumblemumble years gave me opportunities I would never have had otherwise. In addition, I was not dissatisfied with where I left the story at the end of "The Second Chronicles". As with the ending of the first trilogy, I was at a perfectly good stopping-point, and I never felt that the world (or I) would somehow be made less if I never completed my Grand Design. But another reason--as I've said before--is that the prospect of TLC scared the s*it out of me. It looked like it was going to be too hard for me. It *has* been too hard for me. And it certainly isn't going to stop being too hard now. I didn't come back to Covenant because I got tired of "waiting". (Maybe *it* got tired of waiting: *I* didn't. <sigh>) I came back to Covenant almost literally out of desperation. (11/02/2009) |
Anthony: RE: TC Chronicles
Because your stories are told from several characters' POV, when you are actually writing the manuscript, do you write (or edit or revise) all the chapters from Covenant's POV at one time; then go back and write the chapters from the other characters' POV? (Or some similar process?)
I would think this would help a writer maintain the pacing and narrative style and other factors in order to be consistent, despite alternating chapter POVs.
|
I think I've discussed this elsewhere. I write all of my stories in the same sequence that I want my readers to experience them. I couldn't write them any other way, if for no other reason than because my reader and I need to know what character X has done/is doing in order to fully appreciate what character Y is feeling or doing. Doubtless other writers find other approaches more congenial. If so, I say, Good for them. I wouldn't recommend my own way of working to anyone else. After all, every conceivable narrative technique has both strengths and weaknesses. In one way or another, we all have to pick the specific tools that happen to suit what we're trying to accomplish--and then we have to accept the weaknesses that those strengths imply. (11/02/2009) |
Mike: A while back I read the First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and really enjoyed them. Thanks for the decent, Non-Tolkien-imitator fantasy.
However, as much as I enjoyed the First Chronicles (I LOVED Lord Mhoram's Victory), I found the ending somewhat disappointing. I was basically screaming at Covenant (and through him, you) "You still don't get it! We don't need any blasted holding to the eye of the paradox- you need to stop fighting and let him kill you!" I don't really remember why; I just know that the decision to stop fighting Despite, and instead letting it ravage you, seemed to me the obvious solution to the paradox of White Gold. And now, having recently discovered the Second Chronicles and read those, I laughed out loud that Covenant had finally discovered the solution I recommended for him so long ago.
My question is basically this: What changed, in your mind, to warrant the vastly different solutions to the endings of the first and second Chronicles? Was it based on something you're learned since then, or simply because of the plot, or something else?
Thanks for taking the time to answer fan questions like this!
|
I think of your question in very different terms. What would be the point of writing "The Second Chronicles" if I didn't have a vastly different ending in mind? What would be the point of writing "The Last Chronicles" if I didn't have yet another vastly different ending in mind? If we can't all learn and grow and think new things, what's the point of living? In any case, the sequence of endings that I have in mind is both psychologically and spiritually appropriate to my intentions. (11/02/2009) |
Robert A. DeFrank: Just out of curiosity, what would the title of Covenant's first book have been?
Also, any idea what the story would have been about?
|
Sorry. Your guess is as good as mine. I only--all together now--invent what I need. (11/03/2009) |
CA: Where does the Demondim-makers' magic come from? Insequent magic, for that matter? I mean these questions kinda rhetorically, for I've come up with a thought about this, not for you to confirm or deny the actuality of, but maybe just the possibility...
Okay, so say when the Land's Earth was formed, all the magic therein was either Earthpower or a corruption by the Despiser thereof. This doesn't leave immediate room for un-Lawful energies distinct from Despite. Redeemed evil energy would just be Earthpower, and the two are too antithetical to be fused. Wild magic is out of the picture, too, although "engraven in every rock and stone." So...?
Well, Jeremiah comes from somewhere besides the Land and has his own kind of power therein. There is nothing to what you've written up until now (that I remember) that precludes people from having participated in the world of the Land prior to Covenant's advent. Unless I'm missing some explanation for where the Lost Deep/Insequent magic comes from already on offer from you, or some less esoteric possibility at any rate, could it have originated with someone else from outside the Land's Earth?
Just to make my question even more complex, is it possible that there are other worlds besides the given reality of Covenant and Linden and the uncertain reality of the Land (in your writing)?
|
From my point of view, the answer to your basic question is so simple that it renders your related questions moot. Here's how I look at it. In our world, every conceivable form of energy is ultimately derived from the sun. What with all the transformations that take place between the furnace of the sun and life on our planet, energy here takes wildly different forms, some mutually exclusive or even antithetical. Yet the source remains the same. So I apply the same principle to the various manifestations of magic within "The Chronicles". Even wild magic is arguably an expression of Earthpower: dramatically transformed, sure, and accessible only to certain individuals using certain instruments, but nonetheless drawing on the same source as every other form of magic. And I see no reason to think that the knowledge(s) of the Insequent, or the lore of the Viles and their descendants, or Jeremiah's abilities aren't all transformations of the same fundamental energy. Of course, this is only *my* interpretation. The text (or so it seems to me) tolerates other interpretations. But I'm going to stick with the one that makes sense to me. (11/07/2009) |
Shawn Speakman: Hi Stephen,
Since you just answered a question about your editing timeline for "Against All Things Ending," I am curious if you have any news to share about the book's cover, what or who might be on the cover, if John Jude Palencar will be back for it, etc.?
Thank you for the amount of time you devote to the GI!
Best,
Shawn Speakman
http://www.suvudu.com
|
"News," as I've mentioned on other occasions, is posted in the "news" section of this site. If I have anything concrete to reveal, I reveal it. Sadly, it often seems to me that I'm the last person who hears about it when my publishers make a decision of some kind. For example, the fact that a publication date for AATE is posted on amazon.co.uk is information that only came to me through what Dave Barry used to call "an alert reader": I didn't hear about it from my publisher (who in fact denies that it's true). (11/07/2009) |
jerry mcfarland: Ok. Time for the opening salvo of THE question:
IF you turn in the finished manuscript of AATE by the end of 2009, what date do you figure the release date to be? Expected has been around Fall of 2010, earlier hopefully?
|
It's too early for anything more than speculation. But I don't have any present reason to believe that AATE won't be published in October 2010. My US editor hasn't commented yet, but my UK editor is tentatively planning on October sometime. (I probably shouldn't reveal things like this; but both of my editors were willing to publish the book in the version they saw this past summer. However, I insisted on another [much needed] rewrite.) (11/11/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: There's been a lot of discussion on the GI about the titles of the volumes in the Chronicles. However, I don't remember you ever being asked if the title for the series itself: "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" was your idea or was something Lester or someone else came up with. When you were writing the First Chronicles, did you call them that, the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, or was that something added later for publication?
|
Strange. I can't remember. Because "The Chronicles of Narnia" were such a formative influence in my childhood, "Chronicles" may very well have been my idea. But it may also have been Lester del Rey's. The only way to know for sure at this point is to look at the original manuscripts--which I don't have because they're all stored at the Kent State University Libraries Special Collections. (Do I need to add that PCs didn't exist in those days, so the first six "Covenant" books were all written on a typewriter?) (11/11/2009) |
Tim Staddon: Hi from the UK!
Best start by saying thank you, thank you, thank you. I was given "The Real Story" aged 14 by a very religious and anti-sweary godparent, as a Christmas present, because he thought it'd be a "nice" story about space ships. I still haven't had the heart to tell him that you're not quite in the same genre as Victor Appleton II.
In the event that The GAP does get adapted, how much editorial control would you demand and if there was one big change that you'd concede to, to make it work on the small screen, what would it be?
Honestly - if it were me I'd subject anyone suggesting any major plot rewrite, cutting the Earth stuff out, or "toning it down a notch" to a summer booking at Ease n Sleaze, complete with hankie and knife.
Which reminds me: Did Darrin Scroyle REALLY slouch naked in the captain's chair while scratching himself and talking like Bill Shatner, or did my imagination just run off on a gloriously anti-Trek tangent?
Thanks again,
Tim Staddon
|
The option contract for the GAP books defines my role as a "consultant" rather specifically. (Keep in mind that an option is FAR removed from an actual movie. Hollywood buys something like 100 options for every 1 movie that actually gets made.) But you misunderstand my relationship with the project. In this case, the woman who bought the option "demanded" my complete involvement: she wanted me at her beck and call 24/7. I countered by refusing to have any involvement at all. (What? Me? Work with a committee? Are you out of your mind? <rueful smile>). So after a year of bickering back and forth, we settled on something approximately like this: I've agreed (very reluctantly) to submit to four hours of phone consultations during the "option phase" of the project. If the project goes into actual production, I've agreed to provide an additional four hours of consultation per movie (the producer wants to tell the story in three movies). (btw, "consultation" does not imply "control". No matter what I say, I can pretty much count on being ignored.) Well, so far I've done 90 minutes of consultation, and the process is already driving me mad. The questions I'm asked to answer are entirely brain-dead. Indeed, they seem to be the questions of a person who hasn't even glanced at the text. (E.g. Why are zone implants illegal? Why doesn't everybody have one?) This, in my personal opinion, is a Bad Omen. So why did I agree to any of this in the first place? Well, frankly, I can use the money. But here's the real issue: even a crap movie gives a major boost to book sales (which is what I really care about). As for Darrin: he is as he appears in the text. His "authority" is personal, it doesn't depend on rank, insignia, or uniforms; so he can wear whatever suits him. (11/11/2009) |
Mark: Hi Stephen,
As you are probably aware, with the start of Fall we in the U.S. are "allowed" to say goodbye to the big blockbuster movies of Summer and say hello to Oscar-contending prestige flicks. Do booksellers follow a similar calendar? We all hear about frothy Summer beach novels. So is there a season for "serious" books? And more particularly, is this we we have to wait until FALL of 2010 for AATE?? If it helps, you can tell your publishers that I'd buy it whenever it's released.
|
I don't know much about this aspect of publishing. There is, as you say, a season for "beach novels". Similarly there's a season for "coffee-table" books (xmas because such things tend to be expensive): large format books full of pictures (art, architecture, that sort of thing) that you put out on your coffee table to show your guests how sophisticated you are. <rueful grin> And I know (because they've said so) that my publishers want to release my books in time to catch the pre-xmas wave of gift-buying. But I don't pay enough attention to be aware of other publishing "seasons". However, none of this has much to do with the publishing schedule for AATE. Editing, copyediting, proofreading, advertising, producing, and releasing books all take TIME. A year between D&A and publication is the general rule of thumb--although each installment of "The Last Chronicles" has been released more quickly than that. (Only *6* months for "Runes"--which just about killed me, what with all the copyediting, proofreading, and autographing for both the US and the UK.) (11/12/2009) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
Don: Dear Mr. Donaldson
I believe I have read all your published work, and have enjoyed it all, especially Thomas Covenant. I have read that you were most proud of the Gap series (at least before the Last Chronicles), but I must say that I found it difficult to read books where everyone was Covenant.
Anyway, I have a question if you find it interesting:
You have said repeatedly that you read slowly and that limits what you read. Do you re-read books? If so, do you ever find that you shy away from proceeding when you are approaching particularly painful sections? I must admit that I stopped rereading The Illearth War for a month or two because I couldn't face the forced march and all that followed. (And now I'm having a hard time getting back to 1984 because I know what is coming).
|
(Well, *that's* a perspective on the GAP books that I've never encountered before. What, EVERYONE? Hashi Lebwohl? Cleatus Fane? Nick Succorso?) Yes, I do re-read books, especially when I need to remind myself that writing is worth the effort. But I don't "shy away from...particularly painful" or intense sections. Instead I find that I'm inclined to pause (e.g. until the next day) when I'm in the middle of those sections, so that I can a) savor them, and b) pick up the intensity quickly when I resume reading. An obscure form of masochism, no doubt; but my own. (11/12/2009) |
Bob DeFfrank: Sorry if you've been asked this before, but I couldn't find it in older GI archives.
It seemed to me that both the Creator and the Despiser have to reach an agreement when a person from our world is summomed into the Land for a purpose. When Covenant and Linden are summoned to the Land, I took it to be that the Creator chose both of them, but Lord Foul had to approve the choice. Then they see who each of the mortals end up serving.
Which leaves me wondering about Jeremiah, Roger and Joan and Hile Troy. Could anyone really be summoned into the Land by accident? Were any of them chosen by the Despiser, and did the Creator have to approve?
Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree?
Needless to say, if it's a spoiler keep mum.
|
"Reach an agreement"? I sincerely doubt it. In fact, I can't imagine it. How would they do that? LF is trapped inside the Arch: the Creator is "trapped" outside it. How would they communicate? And if they could, why would they? On the other hand, I hope it's obvious that LF and the Creator don't both "pick" the same people by accident or coincidence. (This is just one more of the paradoxes in which I take such delight.) Ultimately they both pick Covenant and Linden for the same reason: *potential*. Covenant has it in him to be LF's perfect tool. As does Linden. And perhaps Jeremiah. In the moral universe of "The Chronicles," the potential for damnation is indistinguishable from the potential for redemption. In contrast, Hile Troy is as close as this story comes to an actual accident. But LF could take Joan and Roger because they had already--in effect--chosen his side. Similarly (within the context of the first trilogy) Mhoram and then Foamfollower and Triock could summon Covenant because he had already chosen *their* side. (Elena's power to summon Covenant in TIW is more ambiguous.) Am I muddying the waters here? Probably. But keep in mind that Joan, Roger, and even Hile Troy don't have the power to set LF free: Covenant and Linden do. (11/12/2009) |
Alison: Hi! I don't really have a question, but I noticed that you entertain people on this forum with answers and discussions, and so I thought I'd make a comment on your Thomas Covenant series in hopes that you'd respond or at least read it.
First, I'd like to say that I was originally completely enthralled with the idea of a martyred/afflicted hero because I have some incapacities of my own and can directly relate to feeling outcast, since my disabilities preclude me from military service and I am now a disabled veteran. Regardless of the cause, it still feels like ostracism.
Second, I'd like to say that I wish you had chosen a disease without a cure and with a modern day stigma attached to it like AIDS. I think that this would've been much more effective (even if it's a bit taboo). At first, I ignored my curiousity about leprosy. Since it is not common in the U.S., I was unfamiliar with it and preferred to maintain my naivety in order to potentiate my feelings about Covenant. Unfortunately, nursing school defeated my attempts and revealed that leprosy is immediately curable and does not recur.
I just wanted to express my disappointment. Now I'm debating buying the second book in the series or switching to your Runes of the Earth series. Right now, I'm leaning toward the latter. (I haven't gotten to the end yet because I read about 200 pages/week in nursing school.)
~Alison
|
For your sake, I hope that you won't tackle "The Last Chronicles" before reading the previous "Covenant" books. "The Runes of the Earth" will make SO much more sense if you know the background. And for my sake, I need to point out the historical fact that the first six "Covenant" books were written in the late 70s and early 80s. Back then, a) no one had ever heard of AIDS, and b) leprosy *was* incurable. (If memory serves, research done in the late 80s lead to a cure in the 90s, not before.) In fact, in those days, leprosy came with at least a couple of millennia of stigma attached. And the symptoms were/are ideally suited to my purposes. (11/12/2009) |
Michael from Santa Fe: You've said many times that you only create what you need, as far as any back story you may reference in your books. But I don't know if you've touched on how detailed you must make it, for yourself, to use it. For example, in Lord Foul's Bane you mention the Elohim and the Sandgorgons. They don't show up until the Second Chronicles, which at the time you wrote Lord Foul's Bane you didn't even know you were going to write. So, when you wrote about them in LFB, did you have any ideas at all about them, other than just a name a few details you mention in the text? Did you have in your mind what a Sandgorgon looked like, so when it came to the Second Chronicles you decided, "hey, I can use those cool desert creatures with the battering ram heads I thought of in the First Chronicles?" Or did you, in writing the Second, have to figure out exactly what you meant by a "Sandgorgon"?
|
I find that my writing life works out better if I "only create what [I] need," and if I create *only* what I need. The Elohim and Sandgorgons in LFB are perfect examples. At the time, all I created were the names--and a hint or two of context (e.g. the word "faery," or a reference to the Great Desert). Nothing else. So when I decided to write "The Second Chronicles," I was free to "mine" the first trilogy for whatever nuggets I could find, and then forge those nuggets into whatever I needed. But "The Second Chronicles" has caused problems because from time to time I created more than the absolute minimum required by the story. I did this because I *thought* I knew the story for "The Last Chronicles," and I *thought* I was preparing for my eventual intentions. Well, I *did* know the story--in broad terms. But I neglected to foresee the possibility (the likelihood?) that in the 20+ intervening years I would come up with *better* ideas for details and back story than the ones I (unnecessarily) wrote into "The Second Chronicles". As a result, the "mining" and "forging" operations in "The Last Chronicles" have been far more arduous than they would have been if I had exercised the same restraint in the second trilogy that I did in the first. <sigh> (11/16/2009) |
Charles W. Adams: In a recent answer you stated... "And in my case they both agree that AATE needs very little editing. (I disagree.)"
I'm reading this as you feel it needs more than very little, not less. If my assumption is wrong, the question is irrelevant.
Did you submit AATE feeling this way? If so, was the choice to submit the draft driven by date rather than quality?
Or is this more of a result of you being your own worst critic?
|
Two things. 1) Everything that I do in writing and submitting a manuscript is a process. There are steps in sequence, and I can't go on to the next step until I complete the present one. And 2) I know from long experience that I need feedback during these various processes. I need readers to look at what I've done and tell me what they see: I need a reader's perspective to activate my inner editor. And I need that several times as I take my (many) steps. Among other reasons, I find that solving one set of problems often lays bare another, more subtle set of problems. But I also need to work sequentially. If solving a problem on page 823 makes me (or one of my readers) aware of a previously-unnoticed problem on page 347, I don't go back to fix it right then: I wait until my next time through the manuscript. So. I write the first draft as well as I can. Then, based on the invaluable comments of my personal readers, I do my first rewrite, solving as many problems as I can--and taking copious notes on the problems that have been noticed out of sequence. Then I send the book to my agent and editors, in part to reassure them that I actually am working (and working on schedule), and in part to get additional feedback to supplement the hard work of my personal readers. Then I do my second rewrite, hoping this time to solve every problem of which I'm aware (or capable of being aware). Well, as it happens, both my agent and my editors are seriously overworked. What they do for me is necessarily fragmented--and sometimes superficial. They simply don't have time to notice, or comment on, every problem they're capable of seeing. So, even if I didn't have a stack of notes, and even if my agent and editors liked the first rewrite as is, and even if my personal readers had no additional feedback to offer, I would still insist on doing a second rewrite, just on general principles. However, in the specific case of AATE, I *did* have a substantial stack of notes, and my personal readers had significantly more comments than my agent and editors. Hence my comment on this site. (11/17/2009) |
Robert K Murnick: Please pardon if you've addressed this - I thought you had, but I can't find it. Back when you created Glimmermere, did you (consciously) have Tolkien's "Mirror of Galadriel" (as an inspiration) in mind?
|
I read LOTR at least a couple of times before I started on "The Chronicles," so I can't very well pretend that I wasn't influenced. But there is no *conscious* connection between Glimmermere and the Mirror of Galadriel. They are, after all, very different, both in what they are and in what they do. (11/21/2009) |
Bugley: Is Anele going to become a forestal? And would you consider ceding the staff of Law to Stave instead of Liand? It would be interesting to see a haruchai use theurgy.
|
I think it's been pretty well established that the Haruchai don't use theurgy. In fact, they want to avoid using weapons of any kind (although they do react appropriately when circumstances warrent it). I'm sure Stave could hold the Staff for Linden and keep it safe. But use it? The whole idea feels wrong to me. (11/26/2009) |
Anonymous: You recently attended a 3 day event out in San Jose. I went out on their website and scanned through the years and I don't think any of your books had even been nominated for an award???? Can you explain that? Are the judges like movie reviewers who only like movies that are so esoteric and/eccentric.
|
As it happens, I have been nominated for the World Fantasy Award three times, once for the first "Covenant" trilogy, once for my second short story collection, "Reave the Just and Other Tales," and once for "The Runes of the Earth." For "Reave the Just and Other Tales," I was a co-winner with Charles de Lint. So I have actually won a World Fantasy Award. Mumblemumble years ago, I had a turn being a judge for the World Fantasy Awards. I learned then that the conditions of the judging do in fact favor "esoteric and/or eccentric" works over popular, convincing, or outstanding ones--but only in the category of Best Novel. The conditions of the judging do not impose the same bias where shorter works are concerned. What "conditions"? you ask. Over-work, mainly. When I was a judge, I had nearly 100 novels to consider, and less than three months in which to consider them. Sheer exhaustion gave unexpected discoveries precedence over more obvious forms of quality. (11/26/2009) |
Matthew Baldwin: Steve,
I've always wondered where the title to your short story, "The Kings of Tarshish Shall Bring Gifts" came from and what meaning it had to the story. I came across a verse in Psalms 72 which was almost an exact replicant of the title. It says: "The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts (Ps. 72:10). This Psalm is allegedly David espousing the future glory of his son, Solomon, so I was wondering if the title was related in the story because the prince was thought to have a bright future due to his dreams?
Thanks for answering my previous questions and for your work in your writings. Like others, they have been a source of enjoyment and inspiration to me.
|
I got the title from the passage I quote from Isak Dinesen's "Out of Africa" at the beginning of the story. I have, of course (given my background), read the Bible. And at one time in my life, I was required to memorize as many "verses" as I could. But all of that was 45+ years ago, and I haven't looked at the Psalms since. So if I was influenced in any way by Dinesen's *source*, the influence must be VERY unconscious. <rueful smile> Consciously I had never heard the phrase until I read "Out of Africa". (12/05/2009) |
Tim Brieger: Thank you so much for answering my earlier question about your reaction to your destruction of Kevin's Watch. Recently, I was rereading many of the questions submitted and began thinking about readers favorite characters. Outside of the obvious, Covenant, you get characters like Mhoram, Saltheart/Giants, Bannor/Bloodguard, Pitchwife (personal favorite)...the Top 5 if you will. My question is, was/is there a character you wrote that did not recieve the attention/fan appreciation you thought they would have when you wrote it? Do you sit and read the GI going, "come on people, more questions about X...he is a heck of a character and you are all missing the boat!"
Just wondering, because, as a teacher I have been known to prepare certain lessons that I thought would be homeruns, only to be duds with my high school kids.
|
I have certainly had the experience of hitting what I consider to be a homerun, only to find that it doesn't score at all. Or, if it *does* score, the score is only posted in a stadium 500 miles away. ("Playing for the Yankees against the Red Sox, Donaldson contrives to hit a homerun for the Wooster High School Generals.") The GAP books leap to mind (the only one of my mystery novels that I consider to be a homerun is the most recent one, "The Man Who Fought Alone"). But in my personal creative/emotional life, this doesn't apply to particular characters. I'm perfectly aware that some are more sympathetic than others, some are more sharply-drawn than others, some are simply more dramatic than others. However, I don't think I've ever felt that a particular character isn't getting the reader appreciation he/she deserves. Perhaps my own feelings in retrospect apply more to whole stories than to individual story components. (I do naturally have my own list of favorite characters. But the fact that the list tends to change from day to day, and from situation to situation, reveals something about my underlying attitudes.) (12/05/2009) |
Luchog: I've read your work only fairly recently (this decade) despite being aware of its existence for far longer; but have devoured all that I could find, in a fairly short time. I greatly appreciate the nature and quality of your writing. Particularly your characters, who clearly do not fall into the standard hero/anti-hero moulds too common in epic fantasy and sci-fi; and the profound departure from, or subversion of, the overused Campbell-esque myth tropes.
One comment and one question. First, I find the names used by the Ravers (moksha, turiya, samadhi) for themselves to be interesting. You've noted in the past that they reflected both the nature of evil to consider itself to be a "higher good"; as well as an ironic use of terms that denote enlightenment in a particular mythology. Interestingly, the concepts embodied by those terms are more complex than that, and carry an additional meaning beyond what most westerners would consider "enlightenment". Rather than adding to, or raising up, levels of consciousness, they're a negation of individuality and identity. A loss of "selfhood" which in most Western value systems would be considered evil (or at least undesirable) in and of itself. As you've said before, this all happened decades ago, so I won't expect you to comment on whether you had that in mind when you chose them.
Regarding my question, for which I was unable to find an answer in the GI, a preface is necessary. I found the GAP cycle to be one of the most difficult works I've ever read. The sheer dark, gritty, grimmness of it was quite challenging. Even as a fan of psychological horror, and "grimdark" works in general, I often found it very disturbing, and had to take frequent breaks. That is not a criticism per se, since as others have mentioned, it's one of your best-written works; and I'm well aware of the difficulty of creating that sort of darkness without devolving into either ridiculous camp or polemical diatribe.
I am simply wondering, and I accept that you may have neither the willingness nor ability to answer this, if you found that writing the GAP books, and the major characters in particular, involved any sort of personal catharsis or "purging of demons"; or if it was simply a device used to tell that particular story. Either way, it's very well done; and it's a story I do plan to re-read eventually (once I've worked myself up to it).
|
Your comment about the Ravers is particularly apt since--as other readers have observed--their individual identities have been completely subsumed in Lord Foul's. This loss of "selfhood" doubtless confirms or completes their "enlightenment"--at least from LF's perspective, since the Ravers no longer have individual perspectives <grin>. Regarding writing the GAP books, I wouldn't comfortably use the term "catharsis," although there probably was some "purging of demons" involved. That story required me to go to some pretty dark places in my characters--which in turn (being the kind of writer I am) required me to go to some pretty dark places in myself. (Paraphrasing a famous quotation, When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you.) I couldn't have done that without some degree of what I'll call (for lack of a better term) "acceptance". But "catharsis" suggests (at least to me) a specific experience of insight, acknowledgment, or release; and I didn't have one of those. Instead I had my usual slow, grinding progress toward a necessary (if ultimately ambiguous or incomplete) validation. (12/07/2009) |
Mike S.: Regarding your observation on consulting time for the Gap option: "So why did I agree to any of this in the first place? Well, frankly, I can use the money. But here's the real issue: even a crap movie gives a major boost to book sales (which is what I really care about)."
Well said! Whether you love or hate the book and it's author, I'm sure L. Ron Hubbard would agree with you on "Battlefield: Earth". That was the absolute worst so-called "adaptation" of a scifi book ever made (could Travolta have possibly picked a more terrible movie to "star" in?). But I'm also certain that the movie enticed more than one viewer to take his wheelbarrow to the local bookstore and bring home the book (physically, it's a monster that should have been three or more volumes).
Anyway, as a reader I have no vote in any such arrangements. However, should either your Gap or TC options get picked up I hope that you exercise as much firm creative control as you can over YOUR stories and characters.
Why? Well, bad movies from good books make good money, but as a fan I would hate to see either series become the laughing-stock parody that Battlefield: Earth became for the late Mr. Hubbard.
Without your guidance, I see no way either "movie" could succeed. With your guidance? Well, I've already mentioned one bad example. You could also ask Mike Straczynski if exercising creative control over "Babylon 5" helped make it a success (it did). Conversely, Joss Whedon can tell you just how fast a good story can turn into a bad train wreck when you lose "creative ownership" of YOUR idea to a studio ("Firefly" and "Dollhouse" come to mind...).
Intellectually, I understand the need to earn a living. Emotionally, I hope to never see any of your characters or stories needlessly prostituted into "crap films" because a studio thinks that mucking with the story can make them MORE money.
Anyhoo, thank you for sharing your stories with the rest of us, and I look forward to reading the next installment of TLC.
Mike S.
|
I appreciate your perspective on the situation. But in addition to the other things I've said on other occasions, I have a particular problem that I don't think I've mentioned before. Working with committees drives me to distraction. No, wait a minute. That wasn't it. (I got distracted.) The problem is that my entire head and psyche are full to bursting with "The Last Chronicles". Wrenching myself out of that mindset in order to deal with issues pertaining to the GAP books requires a form of mental violence that I find exasperating (at best): a problem compounded by the fact that I haven't actually read the GAP books in over a decade, so I don't always remember them clearly enough to provide accurate "guidance" for a movie person. If issues pertaining to a GAP movie came to my attention at a time when I wasn't immersed in a completely different story, I might conceivably find the challenge less troublesome. But as matters stand, I really can't tolerate significant interruptions to my concentration on "The Last Chronicles". (12/11/2009) |
Joe Higgins: I was catching up on the GI and noticed your explanation of how Teenage mutant ninja turtles affected your life. I thought you might find this amusing. Years ago an old friend of mine told me that his daughter when she was a toddler referred to the turtles as "teem-mate neutered injured turtles."
|
There's no doubt in my mind that your friend's daughter was correct. Clearly they *should* have been called "teem-mate neutered injured turtles". (12/11/2009) |
Bugley: Would you consider using hurtloam on Stave's eye socket? Maybe he could gain earth sight to discern the insequent. Ps I love the word 'surquedry'
|
No, I wouldn't consider it. I don't actually want Stave to be anything more than he already is. If he had more "power," he would require a larger role in the story, which would in turn throw other facets of my design out of whack. Plus I'm not convinced that hurtloam would work that way (Hile Troy notwithstanding: his case and Stave's really aren't comparable). (12/11/2009) |
Darren Churchill: Hi Mr Donaldson,
I noticed on the `news` tab that you had considered doing reading from AATE in San Diego last May. Did this reading ever take place in the end? If you were giving this consideration at such an early stage, what about the people from all over the world who could not of made it to SD to attend? How about throwing the provberbial dogs a bone by uploading a teaser onto this site from the first chapter? Which brings me on to a 2nd point. God forbid that you should ever fall under a bus or some such other calamity. But should anything ever happen to you (and I am sure we are all aware of our mortallity)does anyone apart from you have the remotest concept of where you see /saw the story ending in the final LCTC book? Would you sooner the final book remain unwritten? Or if not which author would you most trust to do your story justice? I hope you do not find this question to morbid to contemplate. I like many hundreds of thousands of other readers have the utmost concern for you well being and health. I am sure you will appreciate this even if its admittedly for a selfish reason. Thanks Mr Donaldson you really are one of the greatest story tellers in history in my humble opinion.
|
I did in fact do a (very) short reading from AATE at Mysterious Galaxy in May. I made an exception to my general practice for them because they were making a special effort for me: i.e. organizing and promoting an author event for my benefit when I did not have a new book to offer (an exercise which usually does not work out well for bookstores). I've discussed the what-happens-if-I-die scenario more than once in the Gradual Interview. In practical terms, my will names "literary executors" to make post mortem decisions for me; and I've given them explicit verbal instructions about my wishes. That's really all I'm prepared to say at this point. Of course, the whole situation changes if the world *does not* end in 2012. <grin> Right now, I'm counting on the predictions of the Maya to solve a wide variety of problems for me. (12/18/2009) |
Unpech: Is Linden's own percipience more acute/effective/powerful than that which "once informed and guided all the people of the Land"? I.e. her health-sense unaugmented by other powers, periapts, etc. It 'seems' to be more powerful, but I do not recall any passage(s) where this is clearly stated.
Very much looking forward to the next installment!
|
My own perception has always been that Linden has more than most when it comes to natural, unaugmented "health-sense". (More than, say, the Old Lords? Who knows? Personally, I don't need answers to questions like that. But more than the Haruchai? In that comparison, I would say that she's more "sensitive" rather than more "discerning". She may not *see* more, but she *feels* what she sees more.) She has unique abilities which make her uniquely vulnerable to Lord Foul's manipulations, especially in "The Second Chronicles". (12/18/2009) |
James DiBenedetto: Not sure if this is a question or just an observation, but here goes...
I saw Gotterdammerrung performed live for the first time recently (Washington National Opera - it was truly spectacular), and something struck me.
In the first scene of Act II, Hagen is possibly awake and possibly asleep, and he's talking to his father Alberich, who may or may not really be there. Alberich regards Hagen as his "tool" and after urging Hagen to obtain the cursed Ring, he ends the conversation by admonishing Hagen to "Be true."
Interesting echoes to the First Chronicles and the beggar's words to Covenant, arne't they?
|
I can't very well pretend that there's no connection, since I was intimately familiar with "Gotterdammerung" long before I began work on "Covenant". But like many of the connections in my books (the names of the Ravers leap to mind), this one has an ironic tinge. (For those readers who aren't acquainted with this opera: Alberich is urging Hagen to "Be true" to Alberich's hunger for revenge and to his lust to reclaim the magic ring. The subtext, of course, is that Alberich wants Hagen to carry out his revenge, but does not want Hagen to claim the ring for himself: Hagen is urged to "Be true" to Alberich's desires rather than to his own.) (12/18/2009) |
David Cronin: Hello Steve,
Firstly, my thanks for your many marvelous books over the years. I have been reading your work for around 25 years. At times you have made me feel like laughing, crying, screaming and cheering... sometimes all at the same time!
My question: The story of Thomas Covenant seems to me an intensely personal journey. To what degree do you see parallels between him and yourself (or any other person)?
Best Regards,
David Cronin.
|
As I've said on a variety of occasions, I can hardly write fiction at all if I don't have the sensation that I'm "making it all up". As a rule, I don't base characters, situations, or settings on Real Life, especially not my own. One way to look at this is that my stories seem like personal journeys, not because my characters are stand-ins for me, but rather because I'm a stand-in for them. Of course, my stories arise from some place deep within me: in that sense, they are all based on my personal struggles and quests. And of course, I *do* learn from my characters and their stories. But none of this involves my conscious mind. Consciously the only parallels I see are the ones that apply to us all: e.g. the struggle for meaning and integrity in a world that refuses to conform to our wishes. (12/18/2009) |
Alex Finney: Stephen... While with great anticipation awaiting AATE, I recently decided to read again all your books. In a recent post (thanks again for answering) I commented how much I had enjoyed The Gap Series, with this reading being more fulfilling than any before. Now half way through the Chronicles once again (middle TWL), I am similarly enojying the books in every aspect more than previously. Given I am reading most of them 25 years after my first foray, it begs the question from me... do you have an age (or maturity) in mind for your ideal reader when you write the books? Would you automatically expect a 40yr old to get substantially more from them now than when he was 15?
|
Yes, I would "automatically expect a 40yr old to get substantially more" from my books--because I never intended them to be read by teenagers in the first place. I've always *thought* that I was writing for, well, "mature" readers. Regular readers of the Gradual Interview will know that I'm consistently perplexed, amazed, and humbled that what we might call children have found value in my work. But I suppose I should get over feeling that way. After all, I have children myself: I have first-hand experience with how dramatically capable teenagers can be. And I do remember my own reading when I was a teenager: the fact that much of it wasn't intended for people my age didn't prevent me from enjoying it. (12/18/2009) |
Anonymous: Was Jeremiah orignally planned to be a central character in 3rd chronicles as you wrote the 2nd chronicles? Or was he "mined" as you went through and reviewed the 2nd chronicles and throught about what to write in 3rd chronicles?
Please more updates in the "news" section. I love knowing the status of where you are in the process. It somehow builds the anticipation.
|
Jeremiah was "mined". My original conception for "The Last Chronicles" all those years ago was more than just a sketch, but it was far from being a "whole" story. Actually writing the present story has required a great deal of invention, some of it "mined," some of it forged from entirely new ores. I post news whenever I have some. But I don't like feeling like a "tease," so I only post news when I have something solid to report. (12/18/2009) |
Robert K Murnick: Finally digging into the GAP series. I tried to once before, back when TRS first came out, but couldn't get into it.
Just read about the public humiliation scene on the main deck halfway through FK. Had to put the book down. Cascades of thought masquerading as insight are occuring here. I have no right to pollute the GI with my mental excreta, but heck, that hasn't stopped me before.
First thought: Covenant, despite his rape of Lena, isn't difficult for a male reader to identify with. We (by which I mean us guys) are all handicapped heroes struggling against our own personal despisers, both internal and external. Question: Did you intend for Covenant to be every male reader's avatar?
Second thought: In the GAP (at least up 'til the point I've just read to, and I see no reason for this to change), there is no stand-in for me. I'm entirely a spectator. Is there a female reader somewhere who can identify with Morn? I guess that's possible, but I would think that an exhaustively violated woman wouldn't care to read about the exhaustive violation of a fictional woman.
Third thought: 1) Covenant rapes Lena, engendering Elena and much of the subsequent action. 2) You (Stephen) are taken to task by some of the public for your treatment of Lena. 3) Now you write the GAP, where your hero is no longer the rapist, but the rape victim. I cannot help but conceive that there's some connection between 1, 2 and 3. Care to comment?
Extra thought that doesn't want to go away: Terisa Morgan and Geraden seem like more likely candidates for readers to see themselves as than any of the GAP characters. How do you feel about the reader-will-identify-with-character-X meme and how it has evolved over your career?
|
First. When I write, I don't think in terms of "avatars" or "reader-will-identify-with" or even that old English major standard, Everyman. I do my best to identify with *all* my characters, and I naturally hope that my readers will do the same. This is especially true in the GAP books. Second. In fact, a number of female readers have told me that they identify intensely with Morn Hyland. One woman told me it was the most "cathartic" story she had ever read. Third. There's certainly a connection (I prefer to call it a progression) between 1 and 3 above. I'm digging deeper into the themes--or at least I hope I am. As much as humanly possible, I try not to let things like 2 affect my creative decisions. Extra. See "first" above. But in "Mordant's Need" I did consciously try to write a *gentler* story than my previous novels. I was following my usual pattern of writing what comes to me to be written. But I was also stretching myself artistically. And unconsciously I may have been a) seeking an antidote to the first two "Covenant" trilogies and my first two mystery novels (the first of which also deals with rape); and/or b) soothing myself in preparation for the harsher realities of the GAP books. (12/29/2009) |
dennis glascock: I am curious as to how the last two Covenant books have sold compared to the first 6 books. Right or wrong, I have the impression that the last two books did not receive as much publicity as did the previous 6. If so, could this be because of the time lag between book 6 and 7? Or perhaps the publisher not promote them adequately? Obviously, I am a fan of the series and believe that all eight books are very extraordinary.
|
It's true that the first two books in "The Last Chronicles" have sold roughly 10% of the sales of any of the previous six "Covenant" books. And it's true that publicity is a factor. But here it's important to avoid any simplistic definitions of "publicity". With the possible exception of "The Wounded Land," Ballantine didn't spend more money on advertising and promotion than Putnams/Ace. The real difference (aside from the zeitgeist) was Judy-Lynn del Rey. In a stroke of publishing genius, she first persuaded Holt, Rinehart & Winston (a "mainstream," "literary" hardcover house in those days) to pick up the hardcover rights to the first trilogy, and second convinced Holt to release all three books on the same day. That combination (serious literary publisher, unprecedented publishing gamble) drew an astonishing amount of attention from reviewers--which in turn led to the kind of word-of-mouth advertising that money can't buy. The result was an implausible degree of success. Judy-Lynn's coup was not something Putnams/Ace could have duplicated, even if the whole publishing business were not in decline. Meanwhile there can be no doubt that the "delay" between Covenant 6 and Covenant 7 contributed significantly to the comparatively poor sales of "The Last Chronicles". Many readers, it seems, simply forgot that I exist. (How many times have I heard readers say, "I'm your biggest fan, I've read all your books"? Yet subsequent conversation reveals that by "all" they mean the first six "Covenant" books--and nothing else.) (12/29/2009) |
Ronald Anselowitz: Mr. Donaldson, I first read your books when I was a teenager, eagerly awaiting each new volume. Yours were the only stories that could keep me up reading until four in the morning, and they will always hold a place of honor on my shelves right beside the works of Professor Tolkien. I write to you today to let you know how important it is to me to have digital versions of your work. I plan to invest in a Kindle, and no matter how many books will be contained therein, it will seem incomplete without the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I have seen you state that you don't have much interest in the e-book format and negotiating the rights seems to be a tricky thing, but I hope that you will pass my wishes on to your publishers and let them know that while I have all of your Covenant books in traditional print form, I will buy them all again in digital form to be able to carry them with me on my Kindle. Over the years, I have come back to these books several times, and I suspect I will several times more before I am done. Thank you, sir, for all.
|
These issues are indeed "tricky". Among other complications, e-rights alter the definitions of "out of print"--and those definitions are an important safeguard for writers. In addition, Amazon appears to want "exclusive" e-rights for the Kindle, which significantly limits the number of outlets available to writers. So I'm in no hurry to release those (few) e-rights I still hold; and publishers really shouldn't be in a hurry to do e-business with Amazon/Kindle. (12/29/2009) |
Drew (drew): Hello.
I'm wondering about book dedications. Is it necessary to dedicate each and every book to somebody, do publishers demand it?
Do you remember to whom each book you wrote was dedicated?
Are some books easier to find people to dedicate them to?
Has anyone (to your knowledge) ever dedicated a book to You?
Thank you.
|
Frankly, I don't know whether publishers demand dedications. But I suspect that writers would if publishers didn't. I know I would. Occasionally specifics slip my mind; but I can often remember the dedications of all my books. Some days thinking of a new dedication is more difficult than others; but in general there's no problem: I have many people for whom I want to express gratitude. To my (limited) knowledge, at least a couple of books have been dedicated to me: Patricia A. McKillip's "Harpist in the Wind" and Steven Erikson's "Dust of Dreams". (12/31/2009) |
William: I've just started reading the Axbrewder novels, and I love them. I wanted to ask; to me it seems that the feeling of the Axbrewder books is more casual. While not being any less serious, well written or interesting, it gives a feeling that you had more fun writing it, or that writing it was alot more natural to you.
Is there any vague truth in that poorly worded sentence, or am I just going a little crazy?
thankyou.
|
(Woo Hoo! A Mick/Ginny question!) The word I would use is "colloquial" rather than "casual," but I think I know what you mean. For me, the Axbrewder novels are a strange combination of uniquely easy and uniquely difficult. They're easy because they contain more of my sense of humor (in fact, I occasionally recycle my own jokes through Brew), and because their prose style resembles my own. They're difficult because I find *structuring* them laborious and even occasionally stilted. The problem, I suspect, is setting. Even though the novels all take place in cities I've invented, the "reality" those cities inhabit is intended to look just like ours. This does not come easily to me at the best of times; and it becomes brutally arduous when what I'm writing about *needs* (for the purposes of the story) to be verifiably accurate. That dilemma exerts a kind of creative strain unlike anything I experience writing my not-our-real-world stories. (12/31/2009) |
MRK: First, I'd like to comment on how you have mentioned that you don't really write "funny" scenes, at least not consciously. I just wanted to say that I found the scene in "The Wounded Land" where Vain rips up the tree and then uses it as a ramp to climb into Covenant's room/cell in Revelstone struck me as hilarious. I'm not sure if you intended it that way but it still cracks me up (in a good way).
I'm not a fan of the Twilight series but I was still intrigued by the somewhat-recent story (I don't know if you've heard this or not) of how Stephenie Meyer's 5th novel in the series was "leaked" to the internet and therefore the general public in an incomplete and unedited form. Her response was to simply let it go but give up on finishing her work on the novel altogether, apparently. Given the state of things with AATE, what would your response/reaction be if that book, or any future volume, was "leaked" to the public in its raw, unedited state? (fates forfend)
|
I can't comment on your sense of humor. But if I were in the Stephanie Meyer situation.... I would feel outraged and betrayed. I might go to considerable lengths to try to track down the source of the leak. I would do everything in my power to let my readers know that I--and they--had been ripped off. But I certainly would not stop working on the book. I care too much about the quality of what I choose to publish. And I like to believe that my readers also care about the quality of what I publish. (12/31/2009) |
Dave: Hi Stephen,
I am one of your very many UK fans. I recently read in the news section of your website about the mistakes in the UK edition of the TC Chronicles and having not re-read the first and second recently, decided to purchase the US versions. I have also just been given an ebook reader and wanted to purchase the US versions in ebook format. I searched hard but could only find legitimate copies of the Third Chronicles. I did however easily find pirated copies which I am not interested in.
I read in the GI (March 2008) that you were in discussions with your publishers about this but perhaps this is still ongoing. Is there any chance of an update on this issue or perhaps I am just looking in all the wrong places and they are already available somewhere.
Best of luck with the last 2 books.
Dave
|
For the record: there are NO authorized e-books of the first six "Covenant" books. I still hold those rights, and I'm in no hurry to negotiate them away. (I've explained why elsewhere.) Pirated e-texts appear and re-appear all the time; but they are thick with mistakes. And of course they constitute a particularly arrogant kind of theft. (12/31/2009) |
Paul Morris: Dear Mr Donaldson, your Chronicles depict on many levels the Journey motif.To what extent are you influenced by the monomyth or heroes journey as described by Joseph Campbell?The struggles of Thomas and Linden are very human, both riddled with doubt and frailty, with yet to be discovered hidden strengths: their worth and value to be found in their heroic struggles that they must overcome.
That they are a pair, lovers, human, opposites, is a theme you have yet to really explore: will the qualities that they share together redeem and save the Land?We shall see.
|
Under the circumstances, I'm glad (not to mention relieved) I can say honestly that I've never read Joseph Campbell. Of course, I have nothing against Campbell or his work. I'm just better off when my thinking isn't constrained by other people's conceptualizations about what I might or might not be doing. I prefer to develop my ideas by reading fiction rather than by reading analyses or abstractions of fiction. (01/06/2010) |
Aaron Holt: I am a slow reader. I almost never re-read a story once I have read it because there are so many stories to experience and so little time. I did not hesitate to re-read the Thomas Covenant Chronicles and have felt very fortunate to be able to do so. I have to say I will read them again before it is all over.
Have you ever re-read a story?(besides your own) If so which one?
Thank you for all that you do for us.
|
In fact, much of my reading is re-reading. I'm so often disappointed by new books, no matter how highly they've been recommended, that I find I need to go back to what I consider the "classics" (e.g. Conrad, Faulkner) fairly often in order to recover the sensation that writing books is worth the effort. For example, not long ago I re-read LeCarre's "Smiley" trilogy, both for pleasure and for creative nourishment. (01/11/2010) |
Gary Barnett: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Firstly, many thanks for offering this facility. I find it quite amazing that I have the potential to ask a direct question! And actually, I'm going to venture two...
As a UK reader, who first subsumed himself in your Thomas Covenant books back in the early 80s, I now find myself reading the Last Chronicles (having happened upon them in a bookshop - afraid all your time consuming personal promotion of them (that I read about here) failed to reach me)! I now realise, however, that I should have gone back and re-read the First and Second Chronicles before embarking on the Last Chronicles - there is too much mythology and background to the Land that I have quite forgotten. So I read with interest your statement that the original UK editions contain "many typos, a number of which substantially alter the meaning". Before I restart Lord Foul's Bane, are there any particular typos which change meaning that I should be aware of? (By the way, I see you are disatisfied with your UK publishers in some way, but they did at least provide by far the best cover art for the frst two Chronicles.)
Secondly, I am interested by your choice of names in the books - I am working on the premise that they were carefully chosen. Two names have always struck me as rather odd choices. Firstly I can confirm that Kevin (at least from a UK perspective - where the name Kevin is very much of the 60/70s and now actually associated with silent ungrateful teenage boys) is seriously bizarre following on from Berek, Damon, Loric - and I have searched and found your answer that this is just accident and that from your perspective, there is no oddity here (I too had assumed like some other readers that it would be revealed at some stage that he had come from our world.) The other name (and I can find no explanation on your site) is Hile Troy. I have never heard of anyone with the real first name "Hile". And "Troy" is full of mythological potential. So it seems an odd choice for someone from our world. Was the intent to give this person a name more fitting to a resident of the Land to deepen Covenant's confusion over the reality of the Land and whether in fact someone with the name Hile Troy could have "really" come from his own world?
And a final throw-away on names? Are there any names of characters that, in retrospect, you would have changed? (Apologies, but to me, "Lord Foul" ultimately seemed a little too obvious...".)
Many thanks for many many hours of enjoyable reading.
Gary
|
I'm not going to try to compile a list of all the substantive typos I've found in the UK "Covenant" editions (incidentally, LFB is by far the worst): I can't afford the time. But I'll give you one example. LFB, page one, end of the 4th paragraph: the UK edition refers to "the right mechanism of his will"; but of course that should be "the *tight* mechanism". I've discussed some of your questions about names before. In general, they're very carefully chosen--but not always for obvious reasons. (For example, "Thomas Covenant" and "Sunder" are pretty obvious: "Hollian" and "Linden Avery" may not be.) I don't feel the same "oddity" you do about Kevin. (And how come no one objects to "Trevor"?) I *have* personally known a man named "Hile". However, when I picked the name for my character, I was thinking in German: loosely "Hail Fidelity". The reference to the Troy of legend was incidental. As for Lord Foul: as I've said before, I was young and unpublished, had nothing to lose, and saw no reason not to be overt about my archtypal intentions. If I were starting the whole project today, I would probably want to be more subtle. However (he said ruefully), the name I most wish I could change is "krill". When I picked that name for Loric's dagger, I had no idea that it was a real word--or that its real meaning isn't even remotely useful for my intentions. <sigh> And the second worst name, from my perspective, is "Elemesnedene," for the simple reason that the spelling encourages a grating mispronunciation. Who would guess from that spelling that I meant "ele-main-DEAN"? (01/11/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: OK, you're starting to scare me. As we all know it was discovered that Stephen Donaldson is an anagram for LAND NEEDS PHOTONS - thus giving us a clue on the direction of the Last Chronicles and the scourge of Kevin's Dirt. I decided to see how far you were going to push this, so I took the first letters of all the titles of the Last Chronicles: TROTEFRAATETLD and got:
LOFTED TARTRATE
My first thought was geez, the guy is even throwing his obscure words at us even through his anagrams! "LOFTED", of course, would refer to the fact that Kevin's Dirt has been lofted into the air. Looking up what tartrate is and I find out that it's: a salt or ester of tartaric acid. Tartaric acid turns out is one of the main acids found in wine! Excellent! Good job on this, I like the fact that Kevin's Dirt is composed of one of my favorite beverages. Perhaps I'll order a "Kevin's Dirt" next time I'm at a bar and see what I get. Other than thrown out. Keep hidin' the clues and we'll keep findin' them. :-)
|
<sigh> Now didn't *I* think of using an anagram-generator instead of trying so hard to come up with my own names? (01/11/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Oh, by the way, if you want to increase the sales of the Last Chronicles, or get them turned into a movie may I suggest that you make either Covenant or Linden into a vampire (maybe make the other a werewolf). Really, it will work. Really.
|
I can't tell you how frustrating it is that I didn't think of this for myself. (Oh, wait: maybe the reason I can't tell you is--I'm not frustrated at all.) (01/18/2010) |
Bob DeFrank: Hey and hope you're well. I've got a question about an unfulfilled expectation.
I confess I felt a chill in the Power that Preserves when Covenent helped that snakebit girl. At that time I knew there was a Second Chronicles still to be read and when his blood mixed with hers (when he sucked the venom out) I was certain she would contract leprosy.
I was sort of looking forward to seeing how this would play out in the Second Chronicles. Her having to deal with the despite of having this disease, which was inevitable if Covenent was going to save her life. Whether she might embrace hope and live as she could, or despair.
Obviously this didn't happen, and Linden is a better character overall, but did it ever occur to you to give the girl a bigger role?
Of course, you could still bring her in, since now the good guys have the Staff of Law they can summon people from our world at need (just fishing for spoilers, don't tell me if I got a bite).
This leads me to another observation: when I was reading the first chronciles, I wasn't as anxious about Covenant's fate as I could have been, knowing that a second chronicles was out there, but when I read the second I was at the edge of my seat with suspense, not knowing if Covenant or Linden would survive or not, since I had no idea a final chronciles was coming.
So, do you ever worry that the existance of the subsequent chronciles robs the earlier ones of their impact on first time readers? If so, do you think there any compensations for that loss of suspense?
All the best,
Bob
|
Actually, I never considered bringing that girl back into the story. In retrospect, I can think of several reasons. For one, who needs anOTHER leper? And, more seriously, the story works better with an outsider (Linden) who has no background with Covenant or his history at all. But at the time...well, I can't remember having given the idea a moment's thought. There are many different kinds of suspense. Is-he-going-to-live-through-it is one of the most obvious, but it isn't necessarily one of the most useful. Especially for a writer with my intentions. Will-he-or-won't-he-face-the-real-issues is often more interesting to me; therefore more suspenseful. And that kind of suspense isn't weakened at all by knowing that subsequent books exist. On an entirely different level, Lester del Rey would never have published a trilogy in which the "hero" gets killed in the end. He would have considered that a violation of the writer's (and the publisher's) contract with the reader. And he was really only interested in publishing books he considered ripe for sequels. So: NO KILLING THE MAIN CHARACTER. (Therefore it probably goes without saying that he was *not* my editor for "White Gold Wielder".) And on an entirely personal level, live-or-die doesn't engage me anywhere near as much as grow-or-shrink. As I like to say, I'm not attracted to stories (my own or anyone else's) in which small people become smaller. I see too much of that all around me: I don't need more. I would much rather read (or write) a story in which a small person becomes bigger, and dies as a result, than one in which a small person becomes smaller, and lives as a result. (01/18/2010) |
Bob DeFrank: A question about the nature of Earthpower in the Land. I was re-listening to the Illearth War (Scott Brick is awesome) and I noticed something: Covenent is explicitly told that the Power of Command can't effect Lord Foul, which seems to imply that Roger incognito's story about planning to wish a time-cyst around the Despiser was complete balderdash.
But then I thought, the command wouldn't be directed at him but at the environment around him, sort of like attacking the ground from under a guy immune to magic.
Or would the Command still not work, since the Earthblood would still know the ultimate result would effect Lord Foul, which is a no-no?
In other words, could some clever phrasing or a 'trick command' on Elena or Linden's part have ended the Despiser's threat forever?
|
Personally, I'm not convinced that *anyone* can use the Power of Command without disastrous consequences, no matter how clever or tricky that "anyone" is. No one--and I do mean NO one--can foresee all the consequences of any action; and that's especially true for an action as potentially immense as using the Power of Command. Hence Damelon's (and Kevin's) *very* elaborate precautions--and even they couldn't foresee all the consequences of their precautions. (01/18/2010) |
Joey: Was reading Faulkner's Nobel acceptance speech this morning and came across this paragraph; reminded me of the struggles you mentioned having with starting on the Last Chronicles.
"He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands."
So, having apparently learned this lesson yourself I have to ask, when are you speaking in Oslo? :)
And congrats on delivery of book 9.
|
I'm posting this because it speaks to me. Faulkner was nothing if not eloquent. But I'm afraid I'm a poor example. I never forget to be, well, afraid. (btw, I've already spoken in Oslo. At an sf convention, as it happens. But who's keeping score? <grin>) (01/18/2010) |
Rob Smith: Hi Steve,
Just a thought on the whole 'Will there be a movie, will it be any good' discussions.
In an interview the director Alan Parker was discussing the 'combative' relationship he'd had with the musician Roger Waters when adapting The Wall. Parker pointed out that for a musician or a writer, the act of creation is a solo effort where they have complete control over every aspect of how their song or story is presented. Filmaking with, lets face it, other peoples money, has to be a more collaborative process where experts (camera operators, lighting directors etc) all contribute to the final vision which cannot be identical to that envisioned by the artist. (Slavishly following every nuance of a novels plot can be hopeless on screen)
Sometimes the group effort pays off (Lord of the Rings) and lots of times it doesn't (insert your choice of woeful adaptation of great novel here. I recall The Postman personally..)
I reckon your arms length relationship with the movie folk is a very sensible approach. If they do a good job you can bask in the glory and if they stuff it up you had nothing to do with it...
|
<applause> (01/18/2010) |
Dale Cebula: In reading the GI I've noticed that you suggest that the Ravers have, in effect, no more sense of self because they are simply extenstions of Lord Foul. However, I do recall reading in a few instances (I think in TPTP and maybe in WGW) wherein Foul does have a degree of concern about any one of the Ravers seizing White Gold and displacing him. So, my question is, do the Ravers have any sense of self or their own identity at all or are they just plain old tools? The text suggests one thing, but I think some comments on GI suggest another.
thanks!
|
Hmm. As I've suggested before, I think the Ravers have pretty much lost their individual identities. In effect, they are "just plain old tools". But Lord Foul isn't the trusting sort. And even a plain old tool might start to get his own ideas if he had access to something like wild magic. (But first he would have to be able to Pick It Up. Remember that the Ravers need bodies. They don't have Lord Foul's ability to take occasional corporeal action without a corporeal host. A Raver would have to possess someone *before* seizing the ring. Which rather stacks the deck in Lord Foul's favor, I suspect.) (01/18/2010) |
Guy Andrew Hall (Rook): Okay, first, self-disclosure: I am a Chemical Dependency Counselor.
Second, I am tired of questions about your writing, stories, creative process, etc. So......
As a trust/risk building exercise, I ask my clients to talk about their favorite bad movie. That is, a movie they know is bad, for whatever reason, but they can't help but watch when they come across it channel surfing. Then, of course, I ask them why they think it is bad, and what the love about it.
As an example, mine is "Big Trouble In Little China." A movie with absolutely no plot to speak of. I hated it the first time I watch it. Then, I came across it months later, and because I knew there was no plot, I ended up watching the actors. I found myself laughing my arse off.
So, what is your favorite bad movie?
|
Oh, who knows. I like so many movies that other people consider "bad"--and dislike so many that other people consider "good". But just picking a name off the top of my head: "Drunken Master II," with Jackie Chan in some ridiculously impressive fight scenes, but no actual (for lack of a better term) substance. A fair number of martial arts movies need a good Chemical Dep...er, Substance Abuse Counselor. But I'll defend "Mr Vampire" with my dying breath. (01/19/2010) |
Ethan: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I hope things go well for you and congratulations on your Doctorate! Have you started introducing yourself as The Doctor yet?
With winter upon us I wanted to ask you something seasonal (assuming of course this makes it way to you before winter moves on heh) But just curious if youd like to share any of the authors or books (if any) you asked for Christmas this year.
Personally Im in a bit of a jam since the series Im reading wont be updated with a new book this holiday<cough cough> ;)
Best wishes!
Ethan
|
Brace yourself. The book I asked for is an up-to-date encyclopedia of medicine. (Sub-text? What sub-text?) After all, I don't want to mislead people when I introduce myself as The Doctor. (01/19/2010) |
Stewart McRae: Steve, my reply to your email On 29 Dec 2009, at 22:20,
Thanks for your reply. Yep, I'm in the UK.
The last book in the GAP series 'This Day All Gods Die' has just been released as an ebook, but strangely enough no. 2 has not.
I've put the link below for Waterstones where I purchased and downloaded them.
'Chaos and Order' had the most errors with dozens of mistakes including chapter headings. Prepare yourself to be a bit annoyed if you download it. The others had typo's throughout but not to the same extent.
Looks to me as if it a copy was was scanned and converted to text as the errors are consistent with what you get out of those programmes.
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/browse/ebooks/science-fiction-fantasy-and-horror/gap/stephen-r-donaldson/4294964550%5E4291098019%7Egap/
Trust you had a nice Christmas and wishing you and your family all the best for the New Year.
You wrote:
Actually, I didn't know that e-books of the GAP even existed. Since you mentioned Waterstones, I assume you're talking about the UK? (Waterstones is naturally indifferent. They don't produce e-books: they simply provide an outlet. Or so I understand.) Can you help me track down those books for myself? I certainly proofread the physical editions scrupulously.
--Steve
|
This is very strange. I'm making it public to warn unwary readers. Although you're in the UK, the edition Waterstones is selling is the US e-book from Bantam/Spectra. And I'm sure your explanation for the corruption of the text is accurate: scanned and converted without proofreading. But the absence of "Forbidden Knowledge" is so blatantly stupid that I'm shocked. I'll ask my agent to look into this at my first opportunity. (01/19/2010) |
Tom: I just found out that your original title for "Forbidden Knowledge" was "Strange Dreams." I'm puzzled. Having just re-read "Forbidden Knowledge," I can't see how dreams -- strange or otherwise -- have any relevance to the story at all. Actually, I think the only mention of dreams in the text is when Morn has a nightmare involving her father (I can't find it right now or I would quote it). So, why was that the original name? Did you have Morn's nightmare in mind? Or was the story vastly different when "Strange Dreams" was the working title? Just curious.
|
<sigh> The mind works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. Also its disasters. When I was originally planning the GAP books, "Strange Dreams" just popped into my head as a good title, so I intended to use it for the second book. Of course, in retrospect I can see that it was wildly inappropriate. Fortunately, my editor, agent, and friends were never put in the position of pointing that out to me. The title troubled me well before I got around to actually using it. So eventually I had the good sense to switch it to an anthology I was invited to edit, and to come up with a different (better) title for GAP 2. But speaking of Strange Dreams (although I probably shouldn't reveal this), I have a recurring--fantasy?--in which GAP 2 is entitled "Forbidden Cannelloni". <lugubrious sigh> (01/19/2010) |
Anonymous: Knowing from book jackets that you lived in New Mexico I always envisioned TC living in New Mexico at the beginning of LFB (even though later I think I found out in 1977 you weren't there yet). Why did you move from NJ to NM?
|
Because I could. NJ was necessity. NM was choice. I fell in love with this region during a providential summer job while I was in college; so when I finally found a publisher and could afford to move, I came here. (01/19/2010) |
Tom: I first read the Gap books when I was about 13. I've read and re-read the story many times since then, and now, at the age of 33, I'm once again immersed in the lives of Morn, Angus, Nick, Warden, and all the rest of your brilliantly imagined characters. Anyway, I just started "Dark and Hung" (grin) and came across a sentence that got me thinking about how relevant the Gap story is to current events. Indeed, you seem frighteningly prescient on some key issues. (You don't keep Norna Fasner locked away in the basement, do you?)
In the first chapter, Holt describes Warden as an "idealist." He says he's even heard Ward "make speeches against 'descending to the level of our enemies.'" Sound familiar? It did to me. It got me thinking about the debate over Gitmo and torture. The rivalry between Dick (Holt) Cheney and President Obama. Then I started thinking about the Preempt Act and the preemptive strike on Iraq. Kazis and suicide bombers. Liberals and conservatives. Chaos and Order . . . Aaaaahhh!
What's the relevance of all this? What's my question? Well, it got me thinking (in a roundabout kind of way, I admit) about Warden Dios, and how I should regard him. Personally, I consider him a hero (in fact, I view the entire Gap saga as *his* story), but that's in the fictional world of your story. I would probably be horrified (I *have* been horrified!) to discover some real-world politician engaged in the same "the means justifies the ends" behavior that Warden engages in. Of course it helps that Warden's "ends" are noble; that he's willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the betterment of humankind. But still? Look what he does to Morn and Angus, to the people who trust and look up to him. If this were a real person, I don't know if I would forgive those crimes so easily.
So, first question (finally!): Do you view Warden Dios as a hero or a villain? Or both? Second question: Do you believe that sometimes the end *does* justify the means, as Warden obviously does? If some real-world politician (say Obama) could somehow put into motion a plan that would eventually lead to peace in the Middle East, even if to implement that plan he had allow some "evil" things to take place. Would you be for it? I know this is all hypothetical, but, hell, it's interesting.
Thank you for your time and your wonderful stories!
Tom
|
A couple of random thoughts before I get to my main point. 1) I guess as an English major I'm required to consider Warden Dios a "tragic hero": a good man undone by his own flaws and mistakes who tries hard to mitigate the harm caused to his world by those flaws and mistakes before he sacrifices himself. You could say that he judges himself, finds himself wanting, and therefore works (by whatever means he finds available or effective) to cleanse the world of both himself and his enemy. 2) In this case, his "tragic flaw" might be his "idealism": he's a True Believer in the constructive function of a police force, which makes him, well, ideal for Holt Fasner's purposes (because he's a True Believer, he's credible, he attracts support and other believers; but the pure or naive nature of his vision makes him easy to manipulate). The character of his idealism prevents him from seeing (until too late: hence the tragedy) that he's actually being used to undermine his own ideals. But the crucial ethical point, it seems to me, is this: sure, he pulls a lot of strings ("uses a lot of people") to bring about the outcome he desires; but he does so in a way that allows Morn and Angus--and even, say, Min and Dolph--the option of NOT doing what he wants. Just one central example. Warden doesn't *make* Morn release Angus from his zone implants--*or* manipulate her into doing so. Instead, in essence, Warden gives her the power to determine Angus' fate (and her own), and then leaves her free to use that power as she chooses (despite the fact that she has powerful reasons *not* to release Angus, the end result of which would be Warden's defeat in his struggle against Holt). The crux of Warden's plot against Holt is TRUST. He risks everything by trusting Morn--and eventually by trusting Angus. I consider this a vital distinction. It's what makes Warden a hero rather than a villain. (For more on this general subject--"Good cannot be accomplished by evil means"--you could of course take a look at "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant". <sheepish grin>) (01/25/2010) |
Colin R. Grimes: Hi, Stephen! Just out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite fantasy films?
|
I feel obliged to cite LOTR. "Underworld," "Constantine," and "13 Ghosts" are a kind of comfort-food for me (although "13 Ghosts" does fall apart right at the end). As is the "Matrix" trilogy: fantasy that blurs the distinction between fantasy and science fiction. Then there are a couple of Chinese fantasy films, poorly titled "Mr Vampire" and "Adventures of the Spooky Kind 2" (I was given bootleg copies on videotape: I have no idea if those movies are commercially available [helpful readers? does anyone know of a source? I would love to see those movies on DVD]). (01/25/2010) |
Jim in Campbell: Mr. Donaldson;
For years, you've been speaking of your familiarity with Wagner's Ring Cycle, and the influence it's had -- explicitly and through subtext -- on parts of your approach to storytelling. Even a quick search here on the GI for 'Wagner' brings up a dozen or two entries where it's mentioned.
Have you ever -- or would you? -- consider writing a full-on serious study of the operas? While I'm sure there are sound annotations or well-received academic papers available, would you consider penning a serious study and dissection of Wagner's Ring Cycle with an eye towards exploring or understanding your own approach to storytelling (or whatever the hell you feel like writing about -- author's license, and all that)?
|
Sorry. I consider non-fiction writing of that kind to be a form of torture (even the "Introductions" and "Afterwords" to my own books). My published essays were all written under one form of duress or another: I would never have written them otherwise. Writing fiction is hard enough. I only do it because the story justifies the effort by nurturing me. Essays do NOT nurture me. (I can hardly describe the relief with which I fled grad school, even though I was good at it.) (01/25/2010) |
Jeff: Mr. D,
Thank you for your works, and the GI.
I'm aware that you avoid discussing/revealing certain aspects of your personal life/opinions, and I hope that this doesn't enter that territory, I'm simply curious for no real reason other than the fact that there have been mentions recently of these people:
How do/did you find your personal readers? Random people you already knew that you trusted? Seek them out by search/application like a regular employer? They sought you out as fans and had insight that you found valuable? Referals from your agent or publisher?
I swear, I'm just curious, I'm not fishing for a job..;).
|
My personal readers cannot be called "random" because I knew and trusted them before (in most cases, *long* before) I asked them to read for me. I knew what they had to offer, and I knew that I could count on them. More than that I don't feel comfortable saying about them. But for writers who want or need personal readers, there's a point here that I consider worth making. If you (the writer) can't evaluate (for lack of a better word) the person doing the reading, you'll never be able to evaluate the worth of the feedback you get. You know the old saying: "If one person calls you a donkey, laugh and walk away. If two people call you a donkey, buy a saddle." Well, that's true--sort of. But it presupposes that the people calling you a donkey are firmly grounded in the real world (i.e. they actually know what a donkey is), and that they have no personal agenda (e.g. they aren't trying to sell you a saddle). Incidentally, this is why other writers often make very poor personal readers: too often we (the other writers) have our own agendas (commonly we need to defend the belief that our own approach to writing--content, style, whatever--is the correct one). My personal readers have three qualities in common: they don't try to tell me how I *should* write; they can tell me the truth about their reactions to what I've written; and they (and I) can distinguish between reactions which arise from their own experiences and/or agendas and reactions which arise from what I actually wrote. (01/25/2010) |
Mark Walker: Surely this isn't a Stephen Donaldson novel being sold on Amazon?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1843865130
It comes up in the list when you search for Stephen Donaldson Novels and has links from other Donaldson Novels to it on Amazon. This gives the impression it is written by the same author but this book just doesn't look in the same league.
Is it one of yours or is it just amazon trying to mislead people into buying some rubbish that they can't shift?
I'd hate to purchase some inferior rubbish but i'd also hate to miss one of your classic pieces of work :)
Many thanks
|
The author may well be "Stephen Donaldson" (it's a common enough name), but he is decidedly not the *same* Stephen Donaldson whose website this is. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that his book is "inferior rubbish". But do not buy it expecting to find the same strengths and weaknesses that characterize, say, the "Covenant" books, "Mordant's Need," or the GAP sequence. (02/03/2010) |
Tim Koupe: Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but curiously, many of us see Hile Troy as a black man. Reviewing the text, there doesn't appear to be any description that overtly suggests this, yet roughly half of us (at the Watch) just assumed he was a black fella.
There are a few theories floating around, like a subconscious association to Geordi, from Star Trek, for obvious reasons.
Race, as opposed to culture, would seem to have little consequence to the Chronicles, but many of us just find it kind of fascinating how this character appears to our mind's eye, contrary to the rest of the cast. And we all seem to like him better that way.
And this, of course, leads to further discussion about how we associate characters to what we are familiar with. If an author does not imply any racial description in text, then are we predisposed to subconsciously visualize what we are immediately familiar with? (Not to be confused with preference)
Don't misunderstand. Race, on its face, just isn't that important and is about the least interesting thing about a person. However, the thought exercise on how we think and draw conclusions, given minimal information, can be somewhat compelling.
Your thoughts on this subject would be very interesting to me.
Anyway, just thought you might get a kick out of the whole Hile Troy thing, if you didn't already know...or did you pull something sneaky on us?
|
I really don't know what to say. In the vaguest possible terms, I have thought of the Haruchai as Asian; and the Ramen look like they might come from India. Occasionally I have imagined the Giants as black (possibly an effect of over-exposure to "Fantasy Bedtime Hour" <grin>). But Hile Troy...? Well, you surprise me. Naturally the whole subject of how readers' imaginations are triggered is both fascinating and mysterious. I wish I could explain it. (If I understood it myself, I would be a whole lot better writer than I am now.) I know that things like diction, cadence, and imagery can have oblique effects--as can associations in the reader's mind, associations over which the writer has no control. But in the particular case of Hile Troy, I wonder.... Could it be that he seems black because he has no eyes--and so do the ur-viles (who are also--duh--black)? After all, the reader is introduced to the ur-viles rather vividly long before Troy appears in the story. (02/04/2010) |
Brian Brewer: Thanks so much for this interview, I wish more artists I admire could find the time to do this. Many of my questions have been answered through it. Thank you, btw, for a series which has meant the world to me and that has been a part of my life literally from boy (15 or 16) to man (47). I consider White Gold Wielder to be among the finest works of fiction I've ever read of any genre, and one that easily brought me to tears several times reading it.
My question: I remember that (forgive me if this is a misquote, I need to get another copy of Gilden-tree and it's been perhaps 25 years) that in GT you said something to the effect of that you had little patience for those to whom the fidelity of the Bloodguard and the fate of the Unhomed held no interest. But in your series the fidelity of the Haruchai seems to commonly be a great weakness, as much as it ever is a great strength. They seem to come to ill through it through their belief in its enduring nature, the inability of what they serve to be worthy of it, and it (I'm assuming) leads them many times to ruin. In the current tale it seems to have made them into oppressors. I'm just wondering if there is some aspect of it that you think initiates all this, like a shield will shatter due to its inflexible nature or something. Some inherent weakness in such a inflexible nature. Or is redemption a possibility for them, since it does seem to be their nature? I ask because the fidelty of the Haruchai means a great deal to me, and I ask in the name of the tears I wept when Saltheart Foamfollower said "I am the last of the Giants, I will give my life as I choose" before he waded into molten lava to give Covenant a fighting chance. Thanks again.
|
Hmm. As I see it, both the Giants and the Haruchai exemplify fidelity. As do the Ranyhyn and the Ramen. The issue, as Foamfollower almost said to Covenant in LFB, is, "What are you being faithful *to*?" The Haruchai, it seems to me, are faithful to an image of *themselves*--as were the Unhomed who perished in The Grieve. Foamfollower, in contrast, is faithful to--the Land? to life? to the struggle against Despite? This distinction, I think, is crucial. If the value of the fight lies in what you're fighting *for*, not in whether or not you can win, then Foamfollower's fidelity is of a fundamentally different kind than that of, say, the Masters. So is redemption possible for the Masters? Look at Stave. His image of himself is effectively shattered in the horserite (TROTE)--yet there he stands, as faithful as ever. Only what he is being faithful *to* has changed. Does that help? (02/04/2010) |
Catcher: Hi Stephen,
Since I've seen you talk about the current state of fiction publishing in the GI, I though you might be interested in the following article that appeared in a recent issue of the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14966219
It's thesis is that "media is diverging into blockbusters and niches -- with everything else struggling". Meaning, a few blockbuster books/movies appeal to seemingly everyone and generate tons of money; and at the same time there are thousands of small budget niche products such as "a documentary about Leica cameras" that manage to find an adequate audience, generating a small profit. But everything in between is not doing well
Does that sound plausible to you? Do you think that The Last Chronicles could be a blockbuster (anyone can/should read it), or do you see it more as something for a select subset of people, if not necessarily a narrow niche?
Regards,
Catcher
|
The idea that media is diverging into blockbusters and niches -- with everything else struggling has been common knowledge? perception? belief? in publishing for at least the past decade or two. As faceless and uncaring conglomerates have taken over more and more of publishing, and have imposed on publishers arbitrary profit requirements derived from other industries (and greed), the pressure on publishers to produce *nothing* but bestsellers increases every year. Yet readers have lost none of their desires for diversity and personal taste. As a result, more and more niche publishers have appeared in order to meet the needs that the conglomerate publishers are forced to ignore. Nonetheless readers who crave not-quite-specialist, not-quite-bestseller books get less and less of what they want or need. This appears to be the category into which my books fall. *I* certainly dont consider them to be blockbuster material: I ask my readers to do too much thinking. Yet Ive been treated to considerably more success than I ever expected. (02/06/2010) |
James Bleifus: Hi, I'm a member of Audible.com. You have one audiobook available through Audible and several books available through other outlets. Will these other books be coming to Audible soon?
Cheers, James
|
Whether or not audio books are sold through a commercial outlet like Audible.com is commonly a question of Who pays the person who does the reading? When a publisher hires someone to do a reading (e.g. Scott Brick for The Runes of the Earth), that book is usually made available through Audible.com in the same way that a physical book is made available through a bookstore. But when the person doing the reading spends his own money to acquire the rights and produce the book (e.g. Scott Brick for other Covenant books), he doesnt get paid at all unless readers buy his work, so he pretty much has to avoid outlets like Audible.com that take a slice of his already-slim income. So why is Brick now spending his own money instead of being paid by Putnams? Because the Putnams audio Runes didnt sell at all, so Putnams is no longer willing to finance the production of Donaldson audio books. Therefore readers who want Donaldson audio books should do their best to make sure that Brick gets paid. (02/06/2010) |
Patrick Jones: There are several ideas/scenes in the movie Avatar that resemble the Thomas Covenant series. A disabled person finds himself reborn in another world. The land is “alive”. The land finds this person special as signified by tiny wraiths floating to him and dancing on his body. The People of the land live in a giant tree like the wood elves. The bad people burn the tree down. The People of the land are chosen by creatures much like the horses of RA. These creatures bond for life with the people. I’m sure there is more.
My question is. Is this plagiarism, or did he pay you to use these ideas?
|
Cameron has been widely accused of plagiarism. (In fact, if I have my facts straight, he once lost a plagiarism lawsuit over Terminator.) But usually hes accused of stealing from stories older than mine. So he certainly didnt pay me for using my ideas. However, as far as Im concerned, the whole subject is a non-issue. If you applied to me the same reasoning you apply to Cameron, I could probably be sued for plagiarism a dozen times over. (Except for the fact that--clever me--most of what I stole is in the public domain. <grin>) Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, sayeth the preacher. There is nothing new under the sun. There may very well be no new ideas under the sun. The only thing thats really new is what the particular artist does with his/her chosen ideas. And as far as I can tell, what Cameron does with his chosen ideas doesnt much resemble what I do with mine. (Where other possible sources for Camerons ideas are concerned, the issue is less clear.) (02/06/2010) |
Reed Byers: I understand your reasons for not wanting to "release those (few) e-rights I still hold".
But I still have to say, some of us are DYING to have all our favorite books in our Kindles, for easy access and casual reading anytime we like!
And (re)reading your works on the Kindle is a true joy. For Runes and Revenant, anytime I hit an unknown word, even when it's fairly clear enough from context, I can just jiggle the joystick a few times, and up pops the definition.
It's a whole new experience for reading Donaldson!
So... you know... food for thought... :)
|
So heres another issue I have to consider. Bantam/Spectra has recently issued the GAP books in e-versions, and the results are painfully corrupt. As far as I can tell, the publisher simply scanned the physical books and posted the results, despite the fact that this process always produces corrupt--and sometimes spectacularly corrupt--results. Well, how do I protect myself--and my readers--from such sloppiness? I cant compel the publisher to re-proofread books theyve already published. I would have to insist on the right to proofread the e-versions myself: a task for which I dont have time, and which brings no guarantee of success, as Gollancz has recently demonstrated with the GAP books in physical editions (despite my meticulous proofreading, the published text is littered with garbage). Such problems would undoubtedly be worse with the first six Covenant books, since the original corrected text exists only as a manuscript, not as a computer-generated digital document. Ballantine/DEL REY could only produce e-versions by the scan-and-post method (Bantam/Spectra *did* have other options available), and I think we can take their sloppiness for granted. (02/06/2010) |
Skippy The Bush Kangaroo: Hail Mr Donaldson!
You can purchase "Mr Vampire" on amazon.com As for "Adventures of the spooky kind 2": an internet search brings up absolutely nothing, and since I consider myself to be the best internet searcher on the face of the planet I'd say it doesn't exist (on DVD or anything else for that matter).
Kind regards.
|
I want to thank the many (!) readers who took the time to inform me that "Mr Vampire" is available from Amazon as well as from Netflix. I won't thank you all individually (you know who you are), but only to save time. I've already ordered my copy--and a few spares, just in case. (OK, I'm kidding about the "just in case". The truth is that my children will want their own copies.) (02/06/2010) |
Peter: How come Ace fantasy is publishing The Last Chronicles and not Del-Rey?
|
Because Ballantine/DEL REY effectively "passed" on "The Last Chronicles". They were willing to publish the books, but were not willing to pay me enough to live on. Perhaps they were scared off by the prospect of having to wait three years per book. (02/06/2010) |
mick walker: Mr Donaldson, im a Psychiatric Nurse and I find it strange that one of the first things you do in Runes is to destroy Kevins Watch! could this be a latent desire to destroy your fan site 'kevins watch?' you know the old saying 'we always hurt the ones we love' bet you dont answer this one
|
Tsk, tsk. How little you know me. I wrote the destruction of Kevin's Watch years before I knew that a website by that name even existed. (02/06/2010) |
David G: Your comment that your webmaster might create a trailer for the next book got me to go back and look at the one for book two. That raised a question for me. Did he get to read the book in advance, or did you write the test for the trailer and give him the quote to use at the end?
Looking forward to October something or other, so I can get the next book.
|
Yes, my webmaster does get to read the books before he creates the trailers. And he writes and designs them himself. For them, I'm *his* editor. (02/06/2010) |
Charles Adams: I just read the news that your AATE was accepted (congratulations), and that you will not be doing a book tour.
Is there a formal difference between that which is considered part of a book tour and that which is considered an "appearance"? Would you be under contractual obligation to not discuss the book in an appearance if you forgo the book tour (as in they own you and your appearances)?
|
In practice, every part of a book tour is an "appearance," but not every appearance is part of a book tour. The appearances that are not part of book tours are ones that I arrange for myself, sometimes by invitation (my up-coming GoH spot at CopperCon ), sometimes by personal preference (my attendance at virtually every International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts). There are no contractual limitations concerning what I can talk about whenever I choose. Naturally my publishers hope that I exercise some common sense (e.g. they don't want me to release spoilers any more than I do myself). But the audiences for appearances, however organized, are so tiny compared to the potential audience for the books that my publishers see no reason to handcuff me in any way. Which, I think, is as it should be. After all, they're *my* books: I should be free to say whatever I want about them (and that includes doing readings from contracted-but-unpublished material). (02/08/2010) |
Jim Latimer: Congratulations on the final acceptance of AATE...October can't come soon enough!!!
A question on your work schedule at this point of AATE's lifecycle...When will you start TLD? With the final rewrites of AATE done, are you creatively able to start at this point, or are the processes of wrapping up and publishing AATE distracting to the point of being unable to "shift gears" so to speak between TLD and AATE?
|
I have in fact started on "The Last Dark". But this will be a brutal process for the next, say, 8 months because of all the interruptions necessitated by preparing AATE for publication. I'm not a good stop-and-start writer: every interruption breaks my concentration, costing me momentum and "flow". I lose the sensation that the story is alive, and I have to flounder for a while before I can resuscitate it. Which inevitably means extra rewriting later. <sigh> But still, I need to feel that I'm making progress whenever I can. (02/08/2010) |
David Scott: In the 2,000 to 3,000 years since Linden Avery healed the land, why are there so few people? One would expect even modest population growth to created a crowded Land after 3,000 years.
|
Hmm. You raise a realistic point, of course. I suppose I could say something about just how drastically the population was reduced under the Sunbane. Or about how deceptively large the place is geographically. Or even about how dangerous it is to live there. But perhaps it would be more honest to say that Linden et al encounter only a tiny portion of the Lands population because thats the way I wanted to story to go. More people means more characters, and more characters mean more pages, which would make my publishers tear their hair. Also more characters mean more complications, and Im already in over my head. I deliberately set out to create a story in which it often seems that Linden and her companions are the only people in the world. (02/08/2010) |
Darryl: I remember reading one interviewer saying that Lord Foul was really Mr. Burns from the Simpsons in a cloak. That was just silly.
Anybody can see LF is really Grouchy Smurf!
"I hate the Land" "I hate Covenant" "I hate Ramen (even the chicken-flavored spicy noodle kind)" "I hate Lords" etc, etc...
But seriously, keep up the good work!
|
Kinda makes me wish I knew who "Grouchy Smurf" is.... (02/18/2010) |
Gideon F (England): I'm afraid I must conform to your general reader base, as you described. I'm a fan of the COTC books, having started Mordant's Need but not finishing it. Although this may be because I'm a teenager and not equipped to enjoy the rest! But I digress.
Not that I'm trying to pick faults, but why must the Despiser use white gold to escape his prison? I'm sure he says at one point that he has other means to destroy the Arch of Time - ceasures just one attempt. By drawing Linden back into the Land, doesn't he risk losing it all?
Concerning Hile Troy. When Covenant tried to find out if he is 'real', because he couldn't find record of Troy existing, does that mean Troy was never 'real'? That he was only a creation of the Land.
One further, small point. If humans are transported to the Land with clothes and artifacts intact, does that mean Roger has a gun in the Land?
In much awe of your work, and will promptly be checking out the Gap novels.
|
As the text repeats fairly often, wild magic is the keystone of the Arch of Time. Lord Foul's other attempts to break free have failed. Apparently wild magic is his only hope. Certainly LF risks "losing it all" by bringing his foes (Covenant as well as Linden) to the Land. But the only way to gain it all is to risk losing it all. Life is like that. My handling of Hile Troy's "reality" was deliberately ambiguous. I wanted to leave the question of whether or not he's real open to the reader's interpretation. Presumably Roger *could* still have his gun. If he didn't drop it when he was shot (a natural reflex). But it would be effectively useless. Never mind that it can't compare with the power he gets from Kastenessen. Where would he get more bullets? (02/19/2010) |
Larry Hampton: I have no Campbell-esque interests in the developement of your characters. I am only vaguely interested in how you feel about your characters at all. I would like you to know that I began reading your books over thiry years ago and have been alternately deeply moved and thouroughly pissed off by them. In my opinion only great writers can do that. But I do have a bitch about the ending of Fatal Revenant, and therein lies my question. Have you ever seen a movie called Tideland? It was written by Terry Gilliam, and included Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Tilley in the cast. The movie was well written, well made, and very well acted. It was also the most vile movie I have ever seen. Not because it was bloody, violent or full of perverse sexual content, but because it portrayed, starkly, the true horror that can come of obssessive human selfishness. I never thought I would experience anything in fiction again as vile as Tideland; and then I read the end of Fatal Revenant. I'm going to read the next two books because I've come to love the characters and because I believe you are a truly exceptional writer, but if what you are is contained in Fatal Revenant I never would want to meet you.
|
Hmm. I'm always bemused by people who feel ready to judge a story (and its author) after only reading part of it. Of course, I do the same thing. Many's the book I've tossed aside unfinished because I've come to conclusions about the story (or the author). But I never do that when the author has previously given me reason to trust him/her. So what is it about the previous seven "Covenant" books that causes you not to trust me? After all, you *do* "love the characters". (02/19/2010) |
Dave P.: Have you ever considered working on an autobiography? Or maybe working with someone else who would write a biography of your life? Maybe it would just be something for the Kent State Library, and maybe not released until after you're gone, considering the privacy you like to maintain.
I've inferred many things based on what you have written on the Gradual Interview, and I'm guessing you've had an interesting life. Why does Steve have rather harsh opinions of organize religion? What was wrong with his early life in India? Why the intimacy with leprosy? Does he know someone who suffered from it, or did he have it himself?
Please - don't think I'm asking you to answer any of these questions (although it really sounds like that - asking for a biography, huh?). Just curious if you've ever thought about it to "complete" your library.
(Feel free to post as much or as little of this on the GI as you're comfortable with.)
|
No, I'll never write an autobiography. Two quick reasons. 1) The idea doesn't interest me. I already get as much of me as I can stand. <rueful smile> 2) I'm lousy at that kind of writing. (I also hate doing it.) In essence, it's a form of journalism: it requires a certain fidelity to facts. But as I've said often, I can hardly write at all unless I have the freedom to Make Things Up. My imagination, my ability to "bring things to life," requires that. That said, I've known the title for my never-to-be-written autobiography for at least 45 years. It's called, "Important People I Might Have Known If I Had Been Paying Attention". (02/19/2010) |
Ray: I am a long time fan of your work and have gone out of my way to spread your work to the point of purchasing LFB for any browser who is unsure of what they want in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section, as this is how I came across your work initially. I have also read Mordant's Need and some of the Gap.
My questions are two-fold. The first question is in regards to your use of Mirror's in Mordant. I have recently read another novel by another popular author who seems to have borrowed the conventions you established, the question is are you aware of this and do you feel this borrowing to be praise or shameless?
The second question is a "have you considered" question, so I apologize beforehand. Have you considered trying to have the Covenant stories produced on film only using what happens in the "Real" world. Taking out all of the action that happens in the Land, but not its effects or references would still be a very compelling piece. I would love a chance to attempt this project as I am a Master's student in Theater. The elements of his "Real" story are just as complete a read without the land for reference. The reason this would work is simple. We never get to see the whole story of anyone on stage. The actions are predetermined but a playwright is not compelled to explain any of them as long as the journey is made. If you are interested in this project as it relates to my Graduate education I would love to hear back from you.
With Utmost Respect
Ray Townsend
Master's Candidate
Regent University
|
1) No, I'm not aware of any other writers borrowing *my* use of mirrors in "Mordant's Need". But so what? I borrowed those ideas myself, primarily from "Through the Looking Glass," Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions," and--obviously--John Myers Myers' "Silverlock". Magic mirrors are probably the least original part of the whole story. 2) Since I have no control over whether or not anything ever gets produced on film, or on stage, I don't spend much time considering such things. But, speaking purely for myself, I don't see the point of telling only the "real world" portions of the "Covenant" story. After all, what you're left with is characters who change without explanation. How do you make that work dramatically? Do you add REAMS of exposition to account for the missing transformations? Or do you just plow ahead on the theory that characters don't have to make sense as long as they keep moving? Just my opinion, of course; but I don't see why anyone would want to tell (or sit in the audience for) a story like that. (02/19/2010) |
Bonso: Hi Stephen.
Do you believe that Lord Mhorams greatest strength was empathy.
It is my thought that his ability to truly empathise enabled him to transcend the pitfalls of power without resorting to pity and possibly despite.
To take this a step further when he lost the power of prophecy he had gained a far greater understanding namely true empathy.
Thanks Dave
|
That makes sense to me. After all, if you think of Kevin's tragic flaw as narcissism ("Only my decisions matter. I'm responsible for everything."), empathy seems to describe Mhoram pretty well. Empathy teaches humility and respect, two qualities which counteract Despite--and forbid Desecration. (02/19/2010) |
Tom: Hi, Mr. Donaldson,
Have you heard of Michael Chabon? Ive read a few of his works and enjoyed them, but what really interested me is how the literary community is responding to him. He seems to be their new Golden Boy.
Here are a couple of blurbs to give you an idea of what I mean:
Chabon is still a literary novelist, but hes having a hot, star-crossed flirtation with the popular genres. He riffs on them, toys with them, steals their best tricks, passes them notes in class . . .
Some writers try to build bridges over the chasm that separates genre fiction from serious lit. Michael Chabon simply denies the gap exists . . . [He] dares you to contradict his assertion that comic books, noir whodunits, boys stories of derring-do, and Pulitzer-worthy novels share the same DNA.
First, isnt this mixing of genre and serious lit what you (and other authors) have been doing for years? Second, why are these lit snobs finally catching on? Why is it finally okay to do this type of thing? And what was up their asses for so long that they didnt recognize the brilliance of such an approach in the first place? Finally, why do we even listen to these bozos? I mean, they are always wrong! Dickens and Shakespeare (to name just a couple of writers) were derided by the critics of their day, now they are considered paragons of literature.
I read in the GI (I think) that someone lost their job for writing a review of one of your books. I cant remember the details, but apparently this critic thought your work had merit and decided to write a serious review, but the powers-that-be disagreed and fired him/her. Anyway, do you think that could happen today? Or do you think, if you were starting out now, your work would be getting the kind of recognition that Chabons is getting?
Thank you for your time. I love the GI and your work!
(P.S. -- I ordered all of your mystery novels recently, and Im looking forward to starting them. If it wasnt for the GI, I wouldve never known you had a mystery series.)
Tom
|
I'm sorry to say that I've never heard of Michael Chabon until now. He sounds interesting. Certainly the reviews make him sound interesting. Of course, what I call "using genres for serious literary purposes" has been going on for, well, forever. I'm fond of pointing out that fantasy is the oldest and most enduring form of literature on the planet. But I don't think that "these lit snobs [are] finally catching on". Instead I think it depends on where or how a writer first gets noticed. A writer who first gets noticed as "literary" can pretty much do whatever he/she wants without losing literary credibility. (Margaret Atwood and Doris Lessing leap to mind.) In contrast, a writer who first gets noticed as "genre" can *never* gain literary credibility (at least during his/her lifetime: time always winnows the wheat from the chaff eventually). That's why the NY Times Book Review fired a reviewer for raving about a Donaldson novel ("The Mirror of Her Dreams"). And that problem, it seems to me, is only getting worse. Many academics now argue that fiction itself is not worth critical attention--except as an expression of "popular culture". Why is this happening? Your guess is as good as mine. But my guess is that it's a by-product of growing anti-intellectualism. The more our society hates/fears knowledge--or even education--the more "ghetto-ized" the people who value intellect become. And one of the sad-but-predictable consequences of being ghetto-ized is that the people *in* the ghetto become increasingly snobbish, increasingly us-against-them, increasingly nobody-who-isn't-already-in-the-ghetto-is-good-enough-to-belong-to-our-club. The people in the ghetto need to feel superior to "somebody". Where books are concerned, that "somebody" happens to be writers who get slapped with the "genre" label. So-o-o-- Academics and critics give mountains of attention to, say, Stephanie Meyer (?) because she expresses "popular culture". But they ignore, say, Patricia A. McKillip (or me) because if they actually read the work they wouldn't be able to sneer at it. (02/26/2010) |
Colin R. Grimes: This may be an odd question, but I was just watching your very funny appearance as "Higgins O'Higgins" on Fantasy Bedtime Hour, and I wondered: Are you really a cigar smoker? You look very natural and comfortable with it. In fact, when you had the pen cap in your mouth during your chart drawing, I thought you looked like you were used to having a cigar in your mouth while writing.
Colin
|
For my sins, I *am* a cigar smoker. Or perhaps cigars *are* my sins. I'm so [expletive deleted] virtuous, I would hardly be human if I didn't have at least one vice. <grin> (02/26/2010) |
Kale Swinehart: Very sorry if this has been asked before, I wasn't sure of what search terms to use. Anyway, do you ever have plans to release the Gap Cycle in a single monster volume? Whenever I travel, there's 3 series I always take with me--Lord of the Rings, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and the Gap Cycle. The former two are available in a single volume but for the Gap series I'm forced to carry around five paperbacks which is less convenient.
Thanks for listening!
|
I'm afraid I have no control over such things. I decide what and how to write: my publishers decide what and how to publish. I often think (strenuously) that they're wrong; but they don't listen to me. And why should they? Publishing is their job, not mine. They have to at least pretend that they know what they're doing. Just as I do. (02/26/2010) |
Jim: Ok, I have to ask this. I was on www.amazon.co.uk site and noticed that Fatal Revenant got really bad reviews, imo (37 reviewers and the overall rating is a 3). Not very intelligent bad reviews either, it seemed to me. They said "I loved the first two series but hate this one. Donaldson's use of language is unbearable. And Linden is SOOOO annoying." And I was like, "You said you loved the first two series and hate this one because of the obscure vocabulary and Linden's insecurities? Did you even read the first two series?"
Then I checked www.amazon.com because I wanted to compare British vs American reviews, and the American reviews are very positive (4+ stars from 90 reviewers). And I wondered, why the discrepancy? Why do British readers seem to dislike the book so much, while American readers are the opposite?
Any idea why the rather considerable difference of perspectives?
|
I really can't explain it. After all, "The Last Chronicles" in the UK is selling better than it is in the US, not just per capita but in total numbers. So I have to assume that the reader-base that writes Amazon reviews in the UK thinks that I'm over-rated (presumably because I'm successful there), while the comparable reader-base in the US thinks I'm not rated highly enough (presumably because my current sales are only a small fraction of my earlier success). Or--? Your guess is as good as mine. (03/12/2010) |
Steve Haynes: Hello again Mr. Donaldson! I love reading this GI and appreciate the time you took to answer the previous two questions I submitted. I have another for you, if you care to indulge me, that has to do with the 'Dragonriders of Pern' series by Anne McCaffrey. I just finished reading her classic 'Dragonsong' and find myself wondering at the similarities with your works. Specifically regarding the Ranyhyn and traveling through 'falls'. For example, the dragons of Pern and the Ranyhyn 'impress' with their riders and only have one rider for life and have a sort of mental/emotional connection with their riders whom they choose. Both also have ways of working around the normal laws of time and distance. I was also struck that going between was similar to traveling through a fall in that both events passed through a place of sever coldness.
Is there anything to these similarities other than pure coincidence?
My thought as I read her story was whether you or Anne had gleaned any inspiration from the others works. Not much more than a passing curious thought, but the similarities were so apparent I decided to ask.
I am a huge fan of your writings and ad my voice of praise to your works. Thanks again for sharing your words with us!
Steve H.
|
It pretty much has to be pure coincidence (and I say this with the added authority of knowing Anne McCaffrey). I had never heard of her when I began my work on "Covenant". She had never heard of me when she began her work on "Dragonriders". And I'm reasonably confident that she hasn't read my work. I haven't read hers. (Time constraints: so much time, so little to do. <sigh>) So maybe certain kinds of ideas are just "in the air" these days. (03/12/2010) |
Carl Campbell: Dear Mr Donaldson,
As a lifelong student of literature and of course your work, I was wondering if you used anything of the imagery in W.B Yeats's 'The Second Coming' as an inspiration for 'Nom' and the portentuous nature of his existence trapped within the gyres (more Yeats?).I am putting together a proposal for Phd study, and would be grateful for your thoughts. I realise that time (yours) and space (mine) is limited. I sense also that you have been influenced by other important poets.
Best regards, Carl.
|
Under the circumstances, it would be absurd for me to pretend that I was not influenced by Yeats. Of course, I had the usual English major exposure to such a major poet. But in addition, at a vulnerable period in my life Yeats served as one of my excuses for not following my writing dream: How can I pretend that I will ever write anything worth reading when YEATS has already written THIS? (As it happens, the *this* in question was not The Second Coming. It was--and forgive me if I misremember, or even misspell (my immediate circumstances dont allow me to check anything)--Chuchulains Fight with the Sea.) heard his own name cried/and fought with the invulnerable tide resonates for me yet. But as usual I have to insist that there was no *conscious* influence. I wasnt thinking about Yeats work (although I confess its impossible for me to recall the word gyre without recalling Yeats at the same time) when I wrote my own. I wasnt (re)reading Yeats and thinking, Ah, HA, I can use that! Instead my study of Yeats had sunk deep into my pscyhe, where it resided while my conscious mind labored mightly to forget all about it. Such is the alchemy of imagination: the sea-change about which Shakespeare wrote. (03/14/2010) |
John: You may have already come across this, but it's interesting enough that I wanted to share it in this forum. My wife and I recently read _In the Sanctuary of Outcasts_, a memoir by Neil White about his year as an inmate at the federal prison in Carville, LA. The population of leprosy patients had declined enough that there was room to house federal prisoners in the facility. But there were still several patients there; White interviewed some of them and got to be friends with a few of them. His descriptions of the way people with leprosy were treated in the early twentieth century shed light on your descriptions of Covenant and people's reaction to him. As I read his book, I kept thinking about Covenant spending time there. Other readers of TCTC might also find White's book interesting.
|
Thanks for pointing this out. The whole subject is both fascinating and disturbing. And the idea of a leprosarium being used as a prison is symbolically perfect. (03/14/2010) |
Ian Boulton: Hi Steve,
It's been a while and so it's time for another of my rare, yet jocular and irreverent, contributions to your GI!
In a recent answer you used the phrase "(for the lack of a better term)". This, from the man who introduced us to the word "chiaroscuro" and numerous others that resulted in me having to keep a dictionary close by whenever I picked up one of your books.
Frankly Mr D, I simply don't believe that you couldn't come up with a better term for whatever it was you were thinking. I refuse to accept the possibility that you were unable to find PRECISELY the right words! It just doesn't compute.
So there you have it: I've said my piece.
Have a fantastic 2010,
Cheers,
Ian Boulton
|
Youre too kind. Literally. I say for lack of a better term in the GI because at that precise moment I *cant* think of a better term--and the GI is not going to go through the multi-year revision process which produces one of my novels, a process which (among many other things) involves constantly striving to come up with better terms. There is, however--although I probably shouldnt admit this--occasionally a less obvious reason for saying for lack of a better term. On those occasions, I can easily think of a better term, but I decline to use it because Im trying to be polite. <grin> (03/14/2010) |
Joel Gisch Milwaukee, WI: Hiya Stephen, I've been a huge fan forever and own most of your books...some as doubles. I was looking at my two copies of The Runes of the Earth and noticed the wording differs greatly from one to the other right from the beginning paragraph of "What Has Gone Before". One is soft cover published by Ace Books/ New York, the other is hard cover and published by Orion Books/ London. I would like to know if both are written by you, because the wording is very different. sample of second line... ACE "Thomas Covenant is inexplicably stricken with leprosy. After the last Two fingers of his right hand are amputated,medications arrest the progress of Covenants affliction," ORION "Thomas Covenant is stricken with leprosy. In a leprosarium, where the last two fingers of his right hand are amputated, he is taught that leprosy is incurable,"
Which of these is how you want it to read and how can they be so different? Its almost like they are different drafts. Is one a bootleg?
Thanks for the excellent captivating writing that i read over and over and love more and more every time.
Joel
|
Its true: there are some (comparatively minor?) textual differences between the version of What Has Gone Before published in the US in The Runes of the Earth and the version published in the UK. (However, if you look at Fatal Revenant, you wont--or shouldnt--find any differences, apart from the usual variations in spelling and punctuation.) On a few details, such as the ones youve noticed, my US and UK editors disagreed with each other rather firmly. Considering the nature of their disagreements, I saw no reason not to satisfy both of them separately. After all, were talking about a $&%*#$% plot synopsis, not the actual story. (03/14/2010) |
Alex Finney: Thanks for all your answer Stephen, it really is a treat to read all the interaction. Having just finished WGW again, I picked up ROTE and quickly read What Has Gone Before, to set me up for The Last Chronicles. I noticed that you didn't mention the party's vist to Brathairealm. I felt that some very significant things transpired there and wondered why you decided not to mention it? Thanks again... Alex
|
For me, writing things like WHGB is arduous, not to mention tortuous. I struggle painfully to find a point of balance between putting too much in and leaving too much out. (For comparison, consider the sections dealing with the first trilogy. There I wrote what might be called a thematic synopsis, paying relatively little attention to the actual plot.) In this case, I decided that a reader picking up Runes simply had no need to know about the events in Bhrathairealm in order to read Runes without feeling lost. Come Fatal Revenant, of course, I could--perhaps should--have reconsidered that decision. But coming up with a synopsis for Runes was already so difficult that I didnt have the energy--or the heart--to reevaulate the previous sections of WHGB. (03/14/2010) |
Wedas: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
I was just reading chapter 1 of AATE. I happened to notice that on page 6 you use "harken", but I thought the more common spelling was "hearken" and wasn't sure whether this was a conscious choice or not.
I also noticed that on page 8 (9 of the document) there is a typo - "Holed them all", when it should be "hold".
On page 9 (10 of the document), after "I just didn't want--" the quotation marks that close that quotation are pointed the wrong direction. Probably the software didn't recognize it because of the dash.
The same phenomenon appears again on p.11 after "if there's anything left--" (12 of the document).
I hope I'm not the 9 millionth person to observe this - I saw nothing about it in the GI. That first chapter has complete unsuited me to do any useful work at all for the remainder of the day. The only thing I could do to any purpose would be to begin rereading the Chronicles. Will 5:00 never come? Thank you for posting it, and for writing the books.
|
I intended to get to this some time ago, but events conspired against me. Pay no attention to typos like inverted quotation marks: those should be corrected as a matter of course during copy-editing and proofreading. And ignore the spelling of harken: thats how the word is spelled in the previous books. But hold/holed is a point I really want to address. It is most definitely NOT a typo. So for all of the GI readers who have pointed out this problem", here is the text, with the portions which do not pertain to Covenants stream of consciousness deleted: Everything I remember is broken. And Im losing more all the time. There isnt enough of me to hold it. .... --hold it, Covenant thought. Holed them all. For a moment, the sight of Giantships tugged at him, pulling him down. He saw the wooden vessels of the Unhomed sunk by turiya Kinslaughterer while the Giants waited for death in their homes. The suction as the ships foundered tried to drag Covenant with them. None of them were left at sea: they had returned to The Grieve to be fitted with Gildenlode keels and rudders so that they might be able to find their way Home; end their long bereavement-- What Im striving for here is to convey the sequence of associations which leads Covenant from one thought and memory to the next. After all, his grip on linear sequence and event is pretty fragile. In his fragmented state, the simple fact that hold sounds just like holed leads his mind astray: you might say that it causes him to stumble from the present into the past. Of course, the fact that the reader *can* misread this passage indicates that the writer has failed to make his intentions adequately clear. But for the life of me I cant think of a better way to handle this particular piece of narration. (03/14/2010) |
MRK: Speaking of reading outside fantasy, I've been reading Stephen King's "Misery" lately and I can imagine that as disturbing & unsettling it is to begin with, it must be even more so for writers of fiction. Many statements made in the novel regarding writing technique and publishing resonate very closely with statements you have made in the gradual interview. I was wondering, have you read "Misery" and if so, what was its effect on you?
PS. I don't know if you've heard of Russell Kirkpatrick; I think he's one of the most promising "up-and-coming" epic fantasy writers out there, along with David Keck. I noticed that on Kirkpatrick's website he mentions both you and Steven Erikson as favorite writers of his. I just wanted to say that as long as there are writers like you and them in the field, there is hope.
counting down to October!
|
Yes, I have read "Misery," and I found it about as disturbing as you might expect. Of course, it wasn't hard to recognize aspects of myself in the protagonist. But in addition, I've had a few experiences with, well, let's call them unbalanced readers: enough to make what King was writing about seem very real. Which explains--at least in part--my nearly obsessive desire to protect my privacy. I'm unfamiliar with Kirkpatrick's work; but I think highly of David Keck. (03/15/2010) |
Tyler Ferguson: One of the few authors I have to have the dictionary nearby when I read your books. Ive published one book and am working on my second. Finally chose to self publish because of the timing and genre (Christian Fiction / adventure. Too racy for Christian publishers and too Christian for secular publishers) my book, Apocrypha, fit in. Ive loved your books for years, having re-read them three or four times, much like re-reading Tolkien and CS Lewis for various other reasons.
As I write my second book, and look at Tolkiens and Lewis writing I find that there is really not much in fantasy that is just made up. Except for your wraiths of Andelain. Any idea on where the spark ( no pun intended) came from for the wraiths?
Yes Tolkien has his Orcs which are hobgoblins and Lewis has his talking trees. My new book is based on some Greek Mythological concepts which has such a wealth of information I find I have to work on a bachelors degree in Greek Mythology to sort it all out.
That said, Im am truly impressed by your writing but perhaps most of all your delving into the aspects of pain, guilt, innocence and its ramifications on choice and our souls. Love conquers all.
|
Well. Hmm. I doubt that there's ANYthing in my work that is--to use your term--"just made up". Surely I've seen living flames like Wraiths somewhere? Perhaps in an animated film? Or am I thinking of Tinkerbell? Or Prometheus? In any case, "there is nothing new under the sun." The only thing that's ever unique is what artists *do* with their ideas. The ideas themselves can pretty much always be traced back to something or other (although "sea-changes" may make the original sources difficult to recognize). (03/15/2010) |
John Connelly: Hi Stephen,
[some material deleted to save space]
Enough background, here comes the zinger.
It took me almost 3 minutes to find them on the internet, scanned and easily downloadable. As I'm sure your blood pressure is going up the more you read, please rest assured that I have not personally downloaded them for the same reason that I wouldn't go into the local bookstore and stick a book in my pocket (I hold the same view on downloading music).
So now the question: Can you comment with your opinion on this? From my perspective, I already own the books and therefore the intellectual property of the stories and would like to not repurchase it in order to have it translated to another medium. In short, I'm curious about your view on whether I own the book (paper and ink) or the story.
I know this isn't the kind of question you normally get from your readers, but as the Kindle, Nook, iPad, etc. become more popular I would like to know the author's opinion rather than the publishing industry's.
Finally, please understand that your approval/disapproval will not change my view on illegal downloading. In a perfect world I would love to have the option of turning my old books to a recycling center in exchange for an electronic copy. Once my Nook arrives I truly believe that I will not buy paper books (willingly) again.
|
Here's how I look at it. The person who makes copyrighted material available for free is stealing, plain and simple. Stealing from the publisher. Stealing from me. And stealing does harm to the victim. There's no grey area here: it's a crime. But is it also a crime to take advantage--knowingly or unknowingly--of the fact that a crime has been committed? On that point, it seems to me, there is room for debate. Sure, accepting a free (i.e. stolen) download supports, encourages, even validates the crime. But does it increase the *harm* of the crime? On the one hand, the person who stole the material is giving it away: he/she doesn't profit from the crime. (Which makes me wonder why the person does it in the first place. Libertarianism? Malice? A desire for anarchy? The confused belief that all information should be free? [I say "confused" because the logical implication is that all publishers should go out of business and all artists should starve--which would destroy the very concept being espoused.]) On the other hand, a certain number of the people who can get material for free will not then purchase the same material legitimately--and that *does* increase the harm to both the publisher and the artist. Then what is the situation if you've already purchased the material and now want a copy that you can easily carry on your ebook? Does that change the moral dilemma? I think so. (Just my personal opinion.) In this case, it seems to me, the harm of the original crime has *not* been increased. That detail may be worth considering. (03/15/2010) |
Nick: Hi Stephen,
A really short question: Can you number your 3 most favorite fantasy books (excluding Tolkien if he's on your list :).
I need something to read until October this year :)
|
Erikson, "Memories of Ice" (sorry, you'll have to read the two previous books to understand it) McKillip, "The Book of Atrix Wolfe" Powers, "Last Call" (Of course, by tomorrow I'll probably have a different list. My preferences change almost hourly. <rueful smile>) (03/16/2010) |
Anonymous: Hey and hope you're doing fine.
I just thought of someting: Galt of the Humbled wouldn't have any inspiration from John Galt of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, would he?
Great writing.
|
Nice try, but no. I've never read any of Ayn Rand. (03/16/2010) |
jerry mcfarland: Just read chapter 1 of AATE. WOW! See if you can talk them into early Summer rather than late Fall. Any hope for chapter 2?
oh... is the trailer rendering possibly the cover? Looks good.
|
I really like the image in the trailer. But no, it was a personal gift from a fine artist (please check out his website). Putnams/Ace will be using John Jude Palencar as usual. And the Orion/Gollancz art isn't what you could easily call "representational". (03/16/2010) |
KerryHoward: Hi Stephen. I have just finished reading the Gap series for the fourth time. I just wondered - whatever happened to Cleatus Fane? Last we heard he was dragged from the GCES assembly, raving. Was he executed, banished or did he go mad and end up in an asylum? Just curious?!
|
Hmm. Since your question asks for information that lies outside the text, I have to say--with perfect honesty--that your guess is as good as mine. But since the GCES, like the UMCP, is going through something of an ethical rebirth, I imagine that what happens to him will be appropriate under the rule of law. (03/16/2010) |
Bob DeFrank: A friend and I were having a disucssion about Lord Foul's Bane. One of us detected some hints of intimacy between Lord Morham and Manethrall Lithe. It's fun to speculate on the possibility that they might have kept up their acquaintence during Morham's explorations and the Ramens' scouting for signs of Foul between LFB and TIW.
Obviously impossible to substantiate, since she's never mentioned again and he never thinks about her during his POV chapers in PTP. But then, he's pretty busy at the time, and likewise by TIW he like Troy has some unrequited love for Elena and he never gives her much thought during PTP either.
Care to make any comment on Morham's love life? Or Morham as a person beyond the archtype of pure service?
Undeniably there are a lot of stories between the books.
|
Ah. Another question from outside the text. Again I have to say, your guess is as good as mine. I'm just glad that my characters seem real enough to imply lives which go beyond the actual story. (03/16/2010) |
Tom York: Been a huge fan since the early 80's, used the "you are the white gold" analogy to friends with low esteem countless times; encouraged friends to read the Thomas Covenant series.
How sad it was then to read on page 146 of "The Man Who Risked His Partner" the phrase "Mongoloid idiot". My 5 year old has Downs syndrome. All my SRD books are in the garage sale now. A huge loss to me. I hope
you reconsider this enormously painful choice of words, and the thought that spawned it.
-Tom york
|
I don't usually respond to messages like this one in public. But in this case, I feel constrained to ask: have you considered the possibility that I was simply ignorant? After all, I was much younger when I wrote that book. I've learned a lot in the intervening decades. In particular, I have a close friend with a Downs Syndrome son. He's educated me in ways that I could not have imagined on my own. Authors are human. Sometimes they make mistakes. And EVERYBODY is ignorant about SOMETHING. (03/16/2010) |
Rod Tokely: Why are your Covenant books so sad? Please make the last chronicles more happy. Nice things do happen too you know Steve. Maybe in this last series, good could well and truly triumph over evil. It's sad to see you create such endearing characters only to torment them for 500 pages.
Cheer up... Please!!
Tokes
|
What can I tell you? Life is sad? I suspect you already know that. I write what I know? Youre probably aware of that as well. So look at it this way. Victory/salvation/validation/integrity is only worth what you pay for it. A half-hearted attempt to look into your own soul will yield only trivial results. If you want to reach the core of who you are and what your life means, you have to give it your all. You have to pay whatever it costs. And the price is always pain. In the complex quest which is life, pain *teaches*. And in many cases, its the *only* thing that teaches. Do you really want me to write about characters who arent willing to endure what faces them? (03/17/2010) |
Richard Watts: In relation to Patrick Jones' question re: Avatar, Cameron and SRD plagiarism, I have to point you to the story of Pocahontas. Cameron appears to have copied this and merely altered the names, places and skin-tone. Surely you're not suggesting that "The Chronicles......." series is an alternative version of this story? After all, Avatar is just Pocahontas with blue people, and Disney did it so well, lol!! Copying is the sincerest form of flattery after all, so Cameron possibly either loves the Classics or has some very deep wish to be SRD? I realise this is not necessarily a question per se, but it does shed a little light on plagiarism, don't you think? There, it's now a question.
|
I hope Ive made it clear that I dont care where Cameron gets his ideas. But its certainly true that Pocahontas is a far more obvious source than anything Donaldson. And there are numerous examples of the general avatar concept in science fiction: stories that often pre-date anything Ive written. However, I keep saying the same thing: There is nothing new under the sun. It doesnt matter where an artist gets his/her ideas: what matters is what the artist *does* with those ideas. And in my (extremely personal) opinion, Cameron has made an extraordinarily trite use of *his* ideas. (03/17/2010) |
Stephen A.: Stephen,
First, I would like to say that it is a great privilege to ask you questions in this way; it's something I've wanted to do for almost 30 years, but we didn't have the Internet back then.
Two things in particular I find compelling about all your Thomas Covenant stories:
a)Your penchant for archaic, rare and high-end words ("glaive" springs to mind).
Is there a reason for this, or are you just trying to make us reach for the dictionary when we read Thomas Covenant stories?
b)The themes of sin and redemption.
Would you say that, in the stories, sin (madness, despair, despite)are part of the human condition; and that redemption almost always comes through faith, hope, love and action ("Be True" "You will not fail"), rather than through ritual or religion?
Am I asking too much?
|
a) Surely Ive discussed this before? I mean, if youre willing to read a couple thousand pages of the Gradual Interview to find the information. The short answer is that I use arcane language in the Covenant books--but not in my other works, or not to anything like the same extent--because I consider that style of rhetoric to be an apt world-building tool for the specific context I want to create. World-building isnt always--or even necessarily--about facts and history: sometimes its just about mood or tone. A writer who can effectively evoke the mood or tone of his/her creation has done more to make that world seem real than almost any amount of geneology, history, geography, or linguistics. Read Patricia A. McKillip if you dont believe me. So. Im trying to evoke a particular kind of (esoteric? exotic?) world, and since--as Ive often said--I see with language, abstruse language seems like an essential tool. b) Writing in ways that evoke themes of sin and redemption is as natural as breathing to me. Its bred in my bones. But I dont actually think that way about my writing. I think in terms of reductiveness and dehumanization, affirmation and integrity. However, putting my views in your terms: we all have to work out our own salvation, with fear and trembling (Im paraphrasing someone, but I cant remember my own source <sigh>). It cant be given to us; so things like ritual and religion are usually (but certainly not always) useless. And to the extent that religion and ritual distract us from the fact that we have to work it out for ourselves, they can be an active hindrance to redemption. (Meanwhile, if you want to bring things like faith and hope into the discussion, youll have to define your terms. People often throw those words around in ways that communicate only confusion.) (03/17/2010) |
Jerry Erbe: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
You've stated on numerous occasions that you know what the end of the story is before you start writing and all your efforts are toward that end. As I am now reading the last book in the Gap sequence for the umpteenth time, the question suddenly dawned on me, "well...WHICH ending!?" What I mean by that is, at what point in the story did your mind consider to be THE end? Morn's testimony to the Counsel? The destruction of Calm Horizons? Norna Fasner's "release"? Warden's final letter to Morn? There are so many barren threads wound-up in the final chapter of the final book that it's hard for me to fathom you having ALL those "ends" simultaneously in your mind when you first started putting pen to paper. So if you would indulge a die-hard, long-time Gap fanatic and spill the beans on this one for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
|
Unfortunately for my ability to explain myself--not to mention for my reputation as omniscient <grin>--what I mean by the end of the story varies from one story to the next. In the case of The Chronicles, those words mean something quite precise: [spoiler alert!] the final confrontation with Lord Foul at the culmination of each tale. In the case of the GAP books, in contrast, my original vision of the end of the story was more vague: too vague to be easily described, yet clear enough to let me feel sure of what I was doing. There was this whole Twilight of the Gods thing: Warden Dios would have to bring about his own destruction in order to redeem humankind. And Morn and Angus would have to be the means by which Dios brings about his own end. And Morn and Angus would each have to be the catalyst for the others transformation. And the bipolar threats to humankinds survival, Holt Fasner and the Amnion, would have to come together and be resolved in the crisis of Dios self-destruction. I know all that doesnt sound very concrete, or even very useful, but it was enough for me. The specific points that you refer to as possible endings are all details that came to me as the story evolved in my mind: they became absolutely necessary to The Ending, but they were not necessary to my original inspiration for the ending. Among my short stories, Reave the Just presents a different kind of example. The original inspiration for that story was the first sentence--a sentence which seemed to me to imply an entire world. But I had no story until I figured out the ending, which in this case went something like, Oh, *now* I get it. Reave doesnt actually *save* anyone. Instead he stands between the other characters and doom until they figure out how to save each other--which is a more profound form of rescue. After that, all I had to do was follow the logic implied by the first sentence until the circumstances of Reaves intervention came to pass. Nevertheless in all cases the ending is my reason for telling the story. Vague or not, comprehensible to anyone else or not, *that* out there is why I put myself and my readers through the process of getting there. Which is about all I can say on the subject without getting into the imponderable complexities of how I do what I do. (03/17/2010) |
Tom: Hi Mr. Donaldson
Superb release of Chapter 1. Can I go forward in time to October so I don't have to wait for the rest of the book? Any plans for a release of Chapter 2?
I checked out the trailer too. Who is the artist for (I assume it's Linden on the span)the trailer? Is the artwork available as a print or as original art?
Thanks for your time and take the phone off the hook-don't let anyone (just this email) disturb your "flow" on The Last Dark.
Tom
|
So far, I have neither plans nor permission (from my publishers) to release chapter 2. But that may change, as it did with "Fatal Revenant". Or not: this is a different situation. The trailer artist is William Springer. If you let the trailer run all the way to the end, his credits appear. But there is also a link on the, um, the "links" page of this site. There you'll find some really gorgeous images from "The Chronicles" created for Springer's personal pleasure. But I have no idea whether any of them are for sale. There may be copyright issues to consider. Or not: this is something of a grey area, at least as far as I understand it. (03/18/2010) |
Graham: Hi Stephen,
I am only 20 and having recently discovered the first two chronicles gathering dust in my attic i decided to give them a try. After many many hours i am still no where near catching up but simply can wait to read your new books. Anyway this tale is by far the greatest i have ever read and i simply love your style of writing. I am by no means a book lover but i personally do not want this turned into a movie, it would just destroy my vision of everything i have read. Just a quick question, what is the best tale you have read and did you draw any inspiration from it?
Keep up the sensational work!
Graham - Edinburgh, Scotland
|
I've read many "best" tales from which I've drawn various kinds of inspiration. (Different tales are "best" for different reasons.) "Narnia" and LOTR are obvious influences. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"--a seminal work in my writing life--and McKillip's "Riddle-Master" trilogy. McKillip is probably responsible for most of the improvement in my writing between the first "Covenant" trilogy and the second. (03/18/2010) |
MRK: Well, we all know by know what short shrift the "elite literary world" gives to fantasy and other genres; I see more and more evidence of it as time goes on. However, I've noticed that another established genre, historical fiction, almost always gets much better treatment. This is ironic to me since I feel that fantasy and historical fiction use many similar narrative techniques and have quite a bit in common. Both rely heavily on epic storylines, battles, journeys, and "larger than life" characters. Also, writers in both genres have to be talented enough to evoke a world that no longer exists and/or never existed and make that world seem real to the reader. One of the conceits of LOTR, after all, is that it depicts a bygone age of our own world. Why the double-standard, I wonder? Further proof of a blurring of the lines is Gene Wolfe's "Soldier" books, which depict an authentic classical Greece but always get lumped in with fantasy because of the magic and the gods present in the stories. I've noticed that Sean Russell has recently turned to writing historical fiction and I wonder if it's really all that different, technique-wise, from what he did before. I also know you admire many historical fiction authors, such as Patrick O'Brian and Sir Walter Scott. I wonder, first, if you could ever write "historical" fiction, or would you be too tied into having to base it around established fact? (you have said you need to be able to "make it all up") also, if you were to write historical fiction (and I would definitely read it if you did), if you would be drawn to any particular era, as many writers in that genre seem to be?
|
My reading tastes are wide: my writing abilities are not. Historical fiction would be entirely out of the question for me. I need pretty much complete control over setting and event. (The most "realistic" scenes I've ever written, the karate tournament in "The Man Who Fought Alone," just about did me in.) The need to stick to verifiable facts paralyzes my imagination. So I've never given a second's thought to "any particular era" as a setting for a novel. What would be the point? (03/30/2010) |
Tom: Hi,
I just came across a question in the GI (May 2007) asking if you knew any "novelization or dramatization of the Rhinegold story." You said you hadn't heard of anything except for Wagner's source, the Elder Eddas. Well, I know P. Craig Russell (he's the renowned comic book artist who worked on Gaiman's Sandman and Coraline) has done a graphic novel adaption of the story. Here are the two volumes, if anyone is interested.
http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/12-050/The-Ring-of-the-Nibelung-Complete-Ltd-Edition-HC
http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/11-724/The-Ring-of-the-Nibelung-Vol-2-Siegfried-Gotterdammerung-The-Twilight-of-the-Gods
|
I'm posting this as a matter of general interest. I haven't (yet) had time to look at it myself, so I can't vouch for it. But I'm gratified by this reminder that the old stories never die. They live on because we still need them. (03/30/2010) |
Matt Roberts: Hi Stephen
I'll begin by saying thankyou and sharing my gratitude for the many, many hours of pleasure your work has given me over the years.
In your reply to James Bleifus regarding Audible and audiobooks of your works you mentioned Scott Brick's work on your books.
Part of what I wanted to say here is that anyone on the fence about purchasing outside of well known channels should feel confident. I've purchased the first chronicles and FR from him and I'm very happy.
To those who think that your work won't translate well from written to spoken, let me say that personally I find that it does.
[I've posted this first part for people who are interested in audio books. --Steve]
I've heard you say in a couple of places that you felt let down by the person/people giving you technical/science advice for the GAP sequence because of scientific inconsistencies that advice lead to. As a life long avid science fiction reader and someone who tries to remain abreast of current science thinking, I think you were being too hard on yourself when those criticisms came (I'm not even 100% sure what they were, I have some guesses but enh...) Were you infact trying to write absolute hard science fiction (science fiction definitions are woolly at best I find, so in this I mean where the story deviates from current science only as much as is absolutely necessary for the story to work) or did you just want a consistent framework that wouldn't annoy too many people while you told your story. I find the gap sequence along way from science fantasy (where science is ackowledged only where convenient) and no where near space opera (great yarn but science, what science?). Its a classic to me and worth a regular re-read (although I'll never be able to figure out if Nick Succorso's end was just the character ran out of meaning to you or was another view on where obsession and hatred can lead us).
|
It's probably clear in the GAP books that I was not trying to write *hard* science fiction: i.e. science fiction in which the science is at least as much a protagonist in the story as the characters. But I did want badly to write *plausible* science fiction, and I worked hard on that. (I consciously strove to avoid "science fantasy." However, it never crossed my mind that what I wrote might be called "space opera.") The breakdown to which I've referred occurs primarily in "Forbidden Knowledge," and it revolves around the sheer scale of the forces which extreme acceleration/deceleration exerts on living organisms. If only I hadn't specified the speed at which the vessels are traveling, I could have avoided this problem. But--as I have subsequently learned--attaining that speed in the time-frame I described would have required multiples of g which exceeded my knowledge and/or my (extremely limited) computational skills. (Not to mention truly staggering amounts of fuel.) Well, I knew I was swimming in dangerous waters, so I asked an honest-to-goodness "rocket scientist" to read "The Real Story" and "Forbidden Knowledge." He did--and assured me that I had not committed any "howlers." Later, of course--too late--some of my more physics-oriented readers informed me (vehemently) that I had screwed up. After that, I managed to avoid repeating the problem. But I've never had a chance to clean the debris left by my ignorance out of "Forbidden Knowledge." Perhaps I shouldn't reveal such things. <sigh> But I've never made a secret of the fact that I screw up occasionally. Much as I wish otherwise. As for ol' Nick, I consider his death to be the logical and necessary consequence of the choices he made in life. It also happens to be beautifully symmetrical, which pleases me. (03/31/2010) |
Brian: Hi Stephen,
I recently came across the large paperback of "Fatal Revenant" in the bookstore, and I couldn't help but look to see if the mistake re: the runes on the Staff of Law (which I pointed out here in the GI) in the final scene had been corrected. I was relieved to see that it was.
This made me to wonder: how often has this sort of "author-pounds-head-against-wall" mistake slipped past you, your personal readers, and your editors to make it into the first edition printing of your works? Do your publishers do a good job in correcting them in subsequent editions? I've been trying to find hardcover editions of previous TC books, and was curious if such errors are to be found in them.
Speaking of editing woes, sorry to hear about the problems you're having with text errors in e-books. Seems our technology has surpassed us mere humans by becoming quite proficient at producing mistakes in ever-increasing quantities.
|
I can't speak for other writers; but I've been very fortunate in this regard throughout my career. I always proofread my books again after they're published in hardcover; I always find SOMEthing that cries out to be corrected (yes, it's true, every book makes me pound my head against the wall over one issue or another); and my publishers have never baulked at making the changes I request--the next time they go to press. The obvious exception is Bantam/Spectra's e-versions of the GAP books. There I'm dealing with a publisher who is totally unresponsive. (I should probably mention here that I only proofread the US editions. I've only learned recently that my early UK editions--pre-Orion/Gollancz, for the most part--are in desperate need of attention. But since I'm no longer on speaking terms with the publisher involved, HarperCollins....) But going back to press is crucial here. When a book is released in a new format (typically a paperback of some kind), that involves going back to press. When a given print-run sells out, that also involves going back to press. That's when changes *can* be made. The alternative is to destroy an entire print-run in order to produce a corrected text; and no publisher is going to do that for me. Too much money and paper would go to waste. One trivial example. Look at the blurbs in an early printing of DEL REY/Ballantine's "Lord Foul's Bane." One blurb calls the story "the 'War And Peace' of fantasy, literature." (!) In later printings, the comma has been removed. (03/31/2010) |
Bob Lee: Dear Stephen,
First, thank you so much for the GI. It is simply amazing that you take the time and effort to take questions from your readers. I find the questions and answers here truly thought provoking. They also keep me sane while I await the next installment of the Last Chronicles.
When I read "White Gold Wielder" at the time it first came out, I was convinced from a comment Linden made at the end that Thomas Covenant was still alive somewhere. When I reread the series about 10 years and even 20 years later, I felt that I had imagined it and that, no, Thomas Covenant was gone for good. Maybe I was just in a bad place in my life then.
I've seen you mention in the GI that you had plans for the Last Chronicles when you wrote the Second Chronicles, and so you could set up events for the time in the future when you would write them. So my question is, was I right the first time? Were you giving us a hint that there was a Last Chronicles coming at some point?
Sincerely,
Bob
|
Well, I didn't actually want to *hint* at "The Last Chronicles" because a) I wanted "The Second Chronicles" to feel complete as they were, and b) I wasn't prepared to promise anyone that I would ever write "The Last Chronicles". But the most obvious hint (I prefer to think of it as preparation) for the story I'm working on now is Hollian's resurrection (breaking the Law of Life). Perhaps less obvious is the expanded role for the Elohim. In any case, I thought I made it pretty obvious in WGW that Covenant's spirit remained alive as part of the Arch of Time. In that sense, you were right the first time. (04/10/2010) |
dave goodman: You responded to a question of mine a while back so thanks very much for that. Did you intentionally use two very obscure words(oregeny,frangible)in the very first paragraphs of the new novel...as an inside jest for your fans? Just kidding....I love the new first chapter. Will the book be avaiable right away for a Kindle? I'm finding that the books I really want to read right away aren't available for the Kindle immediately. In your case would it hurt you or help to have the (heavily discounted) book available for Kindle now alongside the hardback?
|
"Intentionally"? Well, it was intentional in the sense that it's appropriate to the style (the rhetoric or tone) I've chosen for the "Covenant" books. But I didn't intend it as an "inside jest." I don't think that way--especially when I'm writing a chapter as important as that one. I don't know how Putnams will handle the e-rights for AATE. I can't speculate about when the book will be released, or in what form. In addition, I don't know enough about the e-market to estimate the effect of e-books on the sales of physical books. (Obviously my "cut" for a hardback is much higher than for an e-book.) And let me repeat that I have no control over such things. (04/10/2010) |
Paul Morris: Just finished the Gap series and fourteen years on, it was simply a fantastic and satisfying read- even better than the first time.
I wonder what you learned from writing the Gap that you have used in the latest Covenent series? In some ways the Gap is an easier read, there is also a different flow and feel to the sequencing of events and the writing appears lighter somehow.
I seem to need to have to look for much more subtle clues and hints to even begin to guess what will happen next in the latest Covenent novels: this makes for sure an even more rewarding read in the long run. Anyway, truly amazing writing and thank you all your energies and efforts we really appreciate your talents!
|
Certainly the GAP books have "a different flow and feel," and the writing *is* "lighter," than the "Covenant" books. It's not just a different story, it's a different *kind* of story; and I work hard at adjusting my methods to suit my story. Considering "The Last Chronicles," perhaps the single most important thing that the GAP books enabled/required me to learn was a deeper engagement with a wider variety of characters. I like to think (or perhaps simply hope) that this deeper engagement "shows" throughout "The Last Chronicles." (04/10/2010) |
Joey: Was reading an article on an artificial intelligence program that creates original classical music; came across this paragraph and thought of you and a few GI responses. The samples tracks are wonderful. Thought you'd enjoy.
-J
------
As Cope sees it, Bach merely had an extraordinary ability to manipulate notes in a way that made people who heard his music have intense emotional reactions. He describes his sometimes flabbergasting conversations with Hofstadter: Id pull down a score and say, Look at this. Whats on this page? And hed say, Thats Beethoven, thats music of great spirit and great soul. And Id say, Wow, isnt that incredible! To me, its a bunch of black dots and black lines on white paper! Wheres the soul in there?
------
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
|
Interesting. "...its a bunch of black dots and black lines on white paper! Wheres the soul in there?" Exactly the same thing can be said about writing stories. After all, the reader only sees arbitrary black squiggles on white paper. And yet somehow a spark can leap from the mind of the writer to the mind of reader. That's not just magical: it's downright numinous. But it seems even more so to me when we're talking about music. Writing stories is more direct: writer to reader. Since few of us can read musical scores, an intervening interpreter is required; so the spark has to leap first to the mind of the performer, and from there to the mind of the listener. So I wonder: How do they *do* that? (A question which seems to occur to me more and more often as I get older.) (04/10/2010) |
Robert K Murnick: Just finished the GAP series. Fine, Fine work. A few questions for you Sir, if you please.
1) I understand why TRS put me off when I first tried it years ago.its seems like an academic exercise when compared with the rest of the series. In the Daughter of Regals introduction, you say In a novel, the writer simply stands back and throws words at his subject until some of them stick. Perhaps not enough of them stuck for me then. I think I read that you wrote TRS before conceiving of the rest of the series, and then realized that the story needed to be made bigger. Did this realization provoke much in the way of TRS rewrite? If so, would you care to share (in broad terms) what they were?
2) I liked the organic way that the format of the saga changes. In TRS we have numbered chapters. In FK we still have numbered chapters, but also you add Ancillary Documentation and (best of all!) chapters simply titled Angus. I remembered looking forward to those most of all. From there you went to chapters based on POV and finally dispensed entirely with Ancillary Documentation in TDAGD. It reads like you were experimenting with format and didnt mind sharing this with the reader. Was there pushback from editors and publishers for this (for want of a better term) play?
3) In CAO, I remember wanting to see a POV chapter from an Amnioni, and you didnt disappoint when you provided the Marc Vestabule chapter in TDAGD. He, of course, was once human. Did you ever consider writing a pure Amnioni character?
4) The one Ancillary Documentation we didnt get was for Super-Light Proton Cannon. Am I right to suspect that you considered writing this at one time? (After all, we have one for Matter Cannon.) The name itself begs a technological lineage, after all if we have Super-Light Proton Cannon, it follows that there has also been Light Proton Cannon. If Light denotes an amount of mass (as opposed to the bright energy we get from the sun), then there may also have been Heavy Proton Cannon and even Run-of-The-Mill Proton Cannon. If you remember, is it possible you could outline SLPC in a few sentences?
5) Speaking of SLPC, how come only the bad guys had it?
6) I appreciated the Scouring of the Shire denouement of TDAGD when you send Gandalf and Frodo- excuse me; I mean Warden and Angus after Saruman- I mean Holt Fasner. After mad Gollum- I mean Ciro destroys the One Ring- I mean the Amnioni behemoth (and himself), it was nice to see the loose end tied up. (Forgive me, please Im just messing with you). Seriously, did this contrast occur to you?
7) In your divine opinion (Im not being sarcastic you are the God of the GAP universe), did Angus receive Justice? Rapist, murderer, merchant of human beings, but also the (ultimately) heroic savior of the human species. I suppose if a real person fit a similar bill, the authorities would still want him under lock and key (if not six feet underground), heroic savior aspect be damned. But that would be practicality - not necessarily Justice.
|
<whew> A lot of questions. I usually ask people to limit themselves to 2 or 3 at a time. But you've been waiting quite a while, so briefly.... 1)I rewrote "The Real Story" to make it fit with the upcoming GAP books a *very* long time ago. I no longer remember details. But as I recall: at that stage, the text had already been rewritten so often (albeit for entirely different reasons) that I only had to make sure nothing contradicted what I wanted to do later. 2)I stopped writing "Ancillary Documentation" for TDAGD because I no longer needed that form of exposition, not because anyone exerted any kind of pressure on me. My editor at the time liked the way my narrative approach evolved. And she particularly liked the "Ancillary Documentation." Like me, however, she saw that it was no longer needed in the last book. 3)The short answer is, No. Or, more succinctly, No, No, a thousand times No! Anything of that kind would have been--in effect--an attempt to "humanize" the Amnion (by making them accessible to a human mind), which would have significantly undermined the kind of menace I wanted to convey. 4)Well, we also didn't get Ancillary Documentation for zone implants. But never mind. The "light" in Super-Light Proton Cannon refers to the theoretically impermeable barrier of the speed of light. Mass (in this case, protons) accelerated to the speed of light (which we all know is impossible). And 5) only the bad guys have SLPC because their technology, like their way of thinking, is profoundly different than ours. In fact, I think the text points out that the Amnion are technologically superior in virtually every respect. What they *can't* do is mass-produce anything. Each cannon, like each ship, and each symbiotic crytal, has to be individually grown. If they could produce an entire fleet armed with SLPC, they would have swept humankind away before my story ever got started. 6) You've got to be kidding. That parallel never occurred to me. <sigh> But they do say there's no such thing as a new story.... 7) What do I know about justice? No matter how you define it, there are always contrary arguments. When I can say is that I find the outcome of Angus' story especially satisfying. Almost in spite of himself, he has become a very different person (the same personality is being driven by profoundly altered motivations) with new and powerful resources. Isn't that what the quest for integrity--or "self-actualization"--is all about? (04/21/2010) |
Stephen A.: Stephen,
For the introduction of Unworthy of the Angel, you wrote that "Fantasy is the only valid tool for theological inquiry."
I loved Unworthy of the Angel: It's my fave Stephen R. Donaldson short story and my fave non-Chronicles story. Actually, sometimes I like it better than the Chronicles because its more succinct and direct.
What was it the angel said, "Help is the circumference of need."?
I know you're not trying to write a polemic or a systematic theology.
But would it be fair to say that, in the writing, there is no "need" for which there is no help?
And would it be fair to say that in your stories (esp. the Chronicles) redemption comes from three things that abide: faith, hope and love? Or these three put into action?
Thank you.
|
I'm uncomfortable with your question. It seems reductive somehow. But perhaps this is an effect of my extremely didactic (not to say judgmental, or even dehumanizing) upbringing. So my discomfort may be entirely personal (therefore irrelevant to your question). "Now abideth faith, hope, and love, these three. But the greatest of these is love." If only *one* person I grew up with had actually lived by what he/she preached.... Nevertheless I can't deny it: it is indeed fair to say that in most of my stories, "there is no 'need' for which there is no help." Putting it another way, I don't write about people who aren't given a chance. Why, even Sheriff Lytton, as cardboard a stereotype as ever there was (as he appears in the first six "Covenant" books) is given a chance. A chance to be more--or less--than he has previously shown himself to be. And it's also fair to say (despite my discomfort) that redemption (especially in "The Chronicles") usually arises from "hope" and "love" put into action. (I say "usually" because it's hard to find either hope or love in Sheriff Lytton, but he rises above himself nonetheless.) But "faith"? Faith in *what*, exactly? Certainly not in "God"--at least as that word is usually defined. And certainly not in any systematic, codified, or "correct" interpretation of the meaning of life. No, I prefer to use the word "trust" (knowing that it can be equated with "faith"). "Trust" doesn't have the religious overtones of "faith": it frees me to focus more concretely on what is actually being trusted, and on what trust requires of the person doing the trusting. (04/21/2010) |
Jonathan Bernstein: Mr. Donaldson
You should show this to your publishers on how they should sell and promote your awesome works
Abraham Lincoln Vampire slayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X58RPS665V0
Cheers
Jon
|
I can't wait. (04/21/2010) |
Todd: Stephen, again thank you for giving me the most satisfying reading experiences of my life.
It seems that every time I read the TC Chronicles I run the gambit of emotions and sense of wonder.
But of all of the questions your work seems to raise, one stands out above all and I've come to the fact that I must have closure.
What are Heatherly and Julie wearing under the sheets?
|
You have to ask? Tsk tsk. But for the record: the whole show was a gag. One of the difficulties filming (taping? digitizing?) was to preserve "that air of mystery" by not letting the sheets slip. (04/21/2010) |
MRK: The below links are both for different websites concerning the same story and with different photos. I thought you would appreciate them and the image from your work they evoke (at least to me). I wonder if anyone will attempt to drink the stuff and then shout out an ill-considered demand.
http://www.good.is/post/science-rules-antarctic-glacier-has-five-story-blood-red-waterfall-of-primodial-ooze/?GT1=48001
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090416-blood-falls.html
I did also have a question, kind of a silly one. I have heard many other writers espouse the usefulness of Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style". Is this a book you have found useful yourself?
|
[links posted as a matter of general interest] Strunk & White, hmm? Here's my (entirely personal) view. If you can't write comfortably within the rules (guidelines?) provided by "The Elements of Style," you probably aren't qualified to break those rules, even for narrative effect. I've consulted Strunk & White on a number of occasions--but not in the past 35+ years. (04/21/2010) |
Colin R. Grimes: Hi, Stephen! I was just rereading "Heart of Darkness", when I fell to wondering what you, as a fan of Conrad's work, thought of the film "Apocalypse Now" as an adaptation of the story. I'd be interested in your comments.
|
Not my area of expertise. I considered "Apocalypse Now" a good film rather than a great one: very ambitious, but too diffuse in its characters and themes. As an adaptation of "Heart of Darkness," however, the film is a train wreck. Conrad has entirely different characters and themes (not to mention a much higher degree of concentration). On the other hand, I'm sure that the film was never intended to be a *literal* adaptation. Do I need to add that this is just my opinion? (04/21/2010) |
John Cluff: Has there been a date (Australia) set for the release of the next (3rd) book of the last chronicals of thomas Covernant.
|
I'm sorry to say that I have no idea. My UK publisher (Orion/Gollancz) still hasn't given me *their* pub date. Sloppy of them. However, they usually publish within a week or ten days of the US (so as not to lose market-share). I expect (although I have no solid information) that my Australian publisher (a subsidiary of the same company that owns Orion/Gollancz) will release Covenant 9 at roughly the same time. (04/21/2010) |
DrPaul: Hi Stephen,
I'm currently re-reading the Second Chronicles and I'm now onto The One Tree.
Throughout the First Chronicles, and in The Wounded Land, you refer to the Ravers as brothers and use masculine pronouns when referring to individual Ravers. However, in The One Tree and White Gold Wielder you refer to individual Ravers as "it". Now, in The Last Chronicles, you seem to have restored the Ravers' masculinity and brotherliness. Why did you change them from male to neuter in The Second Chronicles, and what led you to reverse this decision in The Last Chronicles?
|
Nothing led me to reverse my decision because I wasn't aware that there was a problem. So the answer to your query is: unmitigated authorial screw-up. Fortunately I'm human (he said ruefully): mistakes are inevitable. They may even be permissible--if I've done enough things right to earn your indulgence. (04/21/2010) |
Gary Barnett: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Many thanks for answering my query back in January. Having completed my re-reading of the First Chronicles (with a gap of some 25 years), can I say that I found the work much deeper and compelling than I ever expected, despite that expectation being based on rose-tinted memory.
One more question, if I may. Covenant's worst crime in the Land is generally seen as the rape of Lena. However, as I read The Illearth War, his secret bargain regarding Elena appeared to me at least equally heinous.
Obviously Elena seeks Covenant's aid in defending the Land and up to the point he shaves off his beard he has refused to assist - in fact, although his unbelief is waning, his viewpoint is still that it is unreal (he needs it to be unreal to maintain his ability to deal with his leprosy in the real world and hence his sanity). Now he "bargains" to assist Elena - up to a point. That is he will assist her to reach Kevin's Seventh Ward so that she can use it and stand in his place as the hope of the Land.
As he explains it later (to Elena), he was seeking to extracate himself from being the hoped-for saviour by placing that responsibility on Elena. But as I read it, he wasn't necessarily being totally honest with himself or Elena at this point - and the bargain he made was much more sinister than simply foisting responsibility on someone else.
In particular, this "bargain" arises just as he has witnessed her apocalyptic nature. He now sees the destructive force that she is capable of. Despite his affection for her, he is still focused on a return to his real world. He may no longer choose to positively disbelieve, but he hasn't changed his view that the Land is ultimately dangerous to him.
So he is looking for a way out of not only the responsibility the Land lays at his door but also a way back to his real world. He knows from Lord Foul's Bane that his return depends on the death of his summoner. It is a terrible bargain, but he decides to help Elena reach the Seventh Ward in the knowledge that she might well destroy herself and return him to his real world....
Can I ask, did your conception of the bargain include this additional element (that Covenant doesn't explicitly admit - though in the Power that Preserves, he doesn't actually contradict Lena's accusation that he killed Elena). To me, this makes much more sense of the level of guilt he feels concerning Elena and her fall.
And as a quick follow-up, your use of the word "bargain" to describe a number of wholly internal decisions made by Covenant in Lord Foul's Bane and The Illearth War was clearly deliberate and important. Were you seeking to indicate here that Covenant is actually seeking to invest these internal decisions with greater import by turning them into "bargains", perhaps to assuege his creeping guilt at not helping the Land in a more active way?
Many thanks again
Gary
|
I can't think of a better analysis than yours. Certainly it's no accident that Covenant's second "bargain" turned out much worse than his first--for all the reasons you cited. His second bargain is inherently less honest. But be careful. It's a bit of a stretch to say that Covenant *knew* (even subconsciously) Elena's intentions for the Power of Command would kill her. As for my use of the word "bargain": it's also no accident that Covenant is named, well, "covenant." (05/17/2010) |
Tony: Hello! Firstly, my gratitude for your part in my being able to appreciate your works I cannot express. So, Thanks! :)
I would like to ask:
When I was forming what might be called a morality - as a necessary response to what was happening in my childhood, I was helped by some of your characters' in COTC process of discovering their 'necessary responses'.
This exploration seems to be a theme in your work, especially later the GAP - which I loved.
The main other work I have found that has helped me in this way has been C.S. Lewis 'Dark Tower' works, and his 'Out of the Silent Planet' Trilogy.
Hmmm. Also to a lesser degree 'The Pilgrims Progress'. I think I found them inadequate, but I admired and was grateful for Lewis and Bunyans efforts.
To cut a very long question short. Have you read these particular works, especially those specific works by Lewis, and if so any comments?
|
Thanks for your good opinion--although I'm uncomfortable thinking of myself as a teacher (so thanks also for not using that word <grin>). I'm learning as I go along, just like other people. Yes, I've read both Bunyan and C. S. Lewis' space trilogy. I found the former interesting historically, but simplistic morally (like most allegorists). Lewis' moral thinking is more complex (while still allegorical), but his "Silent Planet" books were just too static to hold my interest. (05/17/2010) |
Peter Bremer: I loved how you transported a science-fiction style hero (Darsint) into the medieval fantasy story Mirror of Her Dreams. Genre-crossing elements have always intrigued me. What made you pick *that* kind of genre hero? Perhaps your subconscious was getting ready for the Gap books.
Thanks again for all your beautiful work.
|
Perhaps my subconscious *was* "getting ready for the Gap books." Your guess is as good as mine. Certainly the chronological sequence of those works is seductive: *this* followed *that*, therefore *that* must have caused *this*. But that's a logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. While I was writing "Mordant's Need," I was only conscious of wanting something that was easily "alien" to the Mordant world--something that didn't violate my essential paradigm (different realties operate by different rules, but human potential remains)--and I had already used enough "fantasy" monsters. Darsint was a convenient choice. As were many of my choices in "Mordant's Need." I consciously did *not* want to engage in Covenant-style world-building: I was preoccupied with other concerns. So I "borrowed" several familiar tropes in order to construct a comparatively simple background for the characters. (05/17/2010) |
William: Hey Steve.
[text cut to save space]
So now, on a different note, you've talked about the fact that Shotokan is a "complete" martial art, even if it may not appear so until you fully understand it. To me, superficially, karate seems to be almost exclusively focused on striking in combat (of course i'm talking in a purely technique based sense, not about internal aspects or breathing, etc.) Do you feel this is true and that focus on grappling would detract from the art, or rather that there are more body-manipulation aspects that aren't immediately noticeable to a Jujutsuka such as myself?
|
I'm primarily interested in striking and blocking myself. I have several joints that can't take the pressure of grappling; so if I ever end up on the ground, I'm toast. One reason (among many) that I love Shotokan is, it protects those joints. But I've been blessed with rather eclectic teachers. So far, I haven't seen a technique in any other martial art (including Jujitsu and Muay Thai) that isn't hidden away *somewhere* in Shotokan. I don't train most of those "hidden" techniques, but I know they're there. For that reason, I consider Shotokan a good "foundation" style: you can take it in almost any direction you want. (05/17/2010) |
Bryan B: After jumping back into the GI after being away for awhile, I read from an earlier post about your interest in some obscure horror/comedy films for which you were searching, on DVD. Your 'Mr Vampire' of course was already found, but when I read from the "Best Internet Searcher' how the other just must not be there -- that's a challenge. The problem is the translation... the movie you're looking for is, in English, Encounter of the Spooky Kind II. In the original Cantonese, it's Gui yao gui aka Gwai aau gwai. It has never officially been released on DVD, but several cult supply shops sell it on DVD-r for reasonable prices, which is about the best you can expect for obscure imports like these. One suggestion is http://www.trashpalace.com/collectorsmovies/horror1.htm
Does this make me "Better than the Best"? Welcome!
|
Thanks! If you had given me an email address, I would have sent you a personal response. (05/17/2010) |
Matthew Yenkala: Hello Sir,
I strongly agree with your assertions that fantasy is the oldest and purest art form in human history. However, the author of this article disagrees:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/avatar-and-the-flight-from-reality
While the article is mainly about (slamming) Cameron's AVATAR, if you make it further down, Lewis, Tolkien and fantasy in general come into the discussion.
Though I think he's mainly referring to visual art, one can probably infer that he falls into the "if it's not reality, it's silly and pointless" camp.
Wondering if you have any thoughts on this. Would love to see you take this guy on in a debate!
|
I'm not much good at debates. I don't think quickly enough. But the author this article is clearly working from extremely reductive definitions of both "fantasy" and "reality." (05/17/2010) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
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.
John: Steve,
I am rereading (listening) the Chronicles in anticipation of the release of Against All Things Ending. I am currently enjoying The Power That Preserves. A couple of silly things have occurred to me in this pass.
1) What would have happened to Covenant if he had accepted Mhoram's summoning when Foamfollower and Triock attempted to summon him?
2) Why was "the Unbeliever" removed from the title of the second chronicles.
I'd also like to thank you and Scott Brick for jumping through whatever hoops you had to to get the first chronicles into audio format. As life these days does not really allow for the indulgence of rereading, the audio versions have been a guerdon to one whose job has him driving a lot. Although I enjoy Scott's work greatly, your work, to me, is much better on the printed page
|
1) We're outside the text again. But if I understand your question-- I imagine that Triock and Foamfollower would have simply failed. Nothing would have happened to Covenant. Or nothing substantial anyway. Until Lord Foul won his war. 2) Because (as I've said on other occasions) Unbelief is no longer a "foreground" theme in "The Second Chronicles." (05/17/2010) |
Carl Hufton: Dear Steve:
I have read that your autograph is available for free but you do not understand why people want it.
I collect autographs of people I admire and have done since the age of 9.
Can you, therefore, possibly send me an autographed postcard/promo leaflet? I will send a SAE if required.
My address is: Carl Hufton, 6 E=Western Gardens, Nottingham, NG8 5GP, England.
Kindest regards
Carl.
|
The instructions for obtaining autographs are described elsewhere on this site ("contacts"). But there seems to be some confusion about the process. Readers are asked to limit themselves to three. This does not mean that you can *only* have three. It means you can only have three *at a time*. If you want more, simply wait a polite interval and then post your request again. (05/18/2010) |
Casey: You said in David Drake's Lord of the Isles basically that it's an amazing book. But so far I am about 150 pages in and it seems like plain fantasy, whereas I like stuff that's unusual like yours. Is it really worth reading all the way through? I don't want to get invested if it's regular typical fantasy.
|
Well, *I* enjoyed the book--but that doesn't mean *you* will. Tastes vary. And blurbs are written for a variety of reasons (I mean, apart from the obvious one). Ego, for example. Or professional or personal courtesy. Personally, I don't make reading decisions based on blurbs. Even my own. <grin> (05/18/2010) |
Darren: One of the recent GI questions asked about Worm at the World's end. This got me to thinking about relative power and searched the GI and found a couple of interesting points that I have questions about.
1) How can Linden have wielded more power than Covenant? In FR, wasn't it written that the white gold was made for Covenant and that all other wielders possessed only a portion of the power he had with it?
2) In WGW, it states "The Banefire was not stronger than he was...Strong enough to withstand any assault which did not also crumble the arch of time". So can we infer that Gibbon Raver with the Banefire was more powerful than Foul with the Illearth Stone as Covenant administered him a full beat down in TPTP?
My final comment is a plea, which I expect you enjoy less than root canal from what I can read on this site. Please, please allow Covenant to be allowed to control the wild magic again and battle Foul or his minions directly. Sci-Fi/Fantasy reached its absolute peak, during the showdown in Ridjek Thome. I realize the nature of the story has changed and you been there/done that, but damn that was an amazing story line.
|
1) You seem to forget that Covenant is always striving for *restraint*; that he was afraid of his own power long before he learned how dangerous it is. In contrast, Linden wants *more*: she wants enough to impose her will on, well, practically everything. So just because she's wielded more power than Covenant *has* doesn't mean that she's wielded more than he *can*. 2) Do I need to remind you that LF has changed his tactics profoundly between the first trilogy and the second? In the first, his approach is comparatively simple. If he can't get Covenant to fight his armies, he would like nothing better than a direct confrontation: Covenant and wild magic vs LF with the Illearth Stone. That would have given LF what he wants: a contest sufficiently immense to break the Arch of Time. But Covenant foiled him by attacking the Illearth Stone instead of its wielder. In the second trilogy, however, LF's approach is entirely different--and one of its keystones is the venom which erodes Covenant's restraint. Hence Covenant's dilemma in the Banefire: he's been *poisoned,* for crying out loud. Surely, therefore, comparisons between Gibbon/Banefire and LF/Illearth Stone are meaningless. Do I need to emphasize that Covenant *still* has never fought LF directly? Do I need to ask, What would be the point? (05/20/2010) |
Peter: Thank you so much for your work. I won't be throwing your books out if I find an objectionable word. We are all human after all.
And thank you again for making chapter 1 available. It really gets us readers all excited for more!
I for one will be purchasing AATE (and maybe more than one to give as gifts). I know there are readers who will be reading your book from a lending library. Libraries are legitimate sources, yet they do offer copyrighted material for free. You may not be able to keep the physical (or digital bits), but the story becomes yours once you read it. I wonder if I should feel guilty when I read a book from the library since I did not "pay the author" to read it? There is a distinction between libraries and people who offer illegal downloads I'm sure, but how is it different? Your recent GI comments on illegal downloads has me thinking about this.
|
It's difficult to disapprove of libraries. Sure, they make books available for free--in a manner of speaking. And writers (not to mention publishers) have been trying for a long time to figure out how to get royalties (without putting libraries out of business). But do keep in mind that libraries are a public service (an accepted institution of public policy) supported by both user fees and tax dollars. Readers are *paying*, even if the money doesn't go to writers or publishers. And libraries do buy the books they lend out. In addition, there's the significant historical detail that libraries existed before royalties did. The present system of paying writers takes for granted the presence and legitimacy of libraries. None of those statements can be made about the kind of Internet piracy that undermines writers and publishers today. Copyright law may be a comparative recent invention, but it's a LOT older than the Internet. "Gee, I really like these books, so I'll do my best to make sure that their author never earns another dime--and therefore can never write another book." Does that make sense to you? (05/20/2010) |
russw: chiaroscuro?
Not really a question more of a rant. So I'm reading and loving the AATE preview and I come to the word chiaroscuro. Now as someone who first read your works in high school during the early 80's, over the years, I have come to appreciate how your writings have improved my personal vocabulary... but I gotta draw the line at some point. chiaroscuro? really? I'm beginning to think the reason you claim for not have time to read other authors is that you spend all your reading time nose down in a dictionary.
:P
Thanks for all the great books over the years and I look forward to the completion of the Covenant story and your writing projects to follow.
|
If you don't mind my saying so, this seems a bit disingenuous. I mean, considering the fact that "chiaroscuro" occurs any number of times in the first trilogy, and (if memory serves) is not entirely absent from the second. There may even be precedent in "The Last Chronicles," although I can't be bothered to check. (05/20/2010) |
john: A gentleman recently wrote:
"Been a huge fan since the early 80's, used the "you are the white gold" analogy to friends with low esteem countless times; encouraged friends to read the Thomas Covenant series.
How sad it was then to read on page 146 of "The Man Who Risked His Partner" the phrase "Mongoloid idiot". My 5 year old has Downs syndrome. All my SRD books are in the garage sale now. A huge loss to me. I hope
you reconsider this enormously painful choice of words, and the thought that spawned it."
To which you replied:
"I don't usually respond to messages like this one in public. But in this case, I feel constrained to ask: have you considered the possibility that I was simply ignorant? After all, I was much younger when I wrote that book. I've learned a lot in the intervening decades. In particular, I have a close friend with a Downs Syndrome son. He's educated me in ways that I could not have imagined on my own. Authors are human. Sometimes they make mistakes. And EVERYBODY is ignorant about SOMETHING."
And now I have a few words to add. We all do/say things we later regret. We all grow and hopefully learn. In other words, we mature, as individuals and as a culture.bas such, over time, some words once accepted, or used without question, become taboo. Think of the word "Jap(s)", for example, used in many movies and books about WWII. Now this word is considered offensive by some.
But that is not my point: Mr. Donaldson is an author, and words are what he uses to conduct his craft. He uses ideas too, and some of those ideas are harsh and unpleasant and actually quiet nasty - rape is a common element is his stories; the "hero" of his most popular story, Thimas Covenant, rapes an underaged girl as one of his first acts, but we see the act of rape in his other stories, too.
So let me ask this: Mr. Donaldson used what some consider a very insensitive term in a book he wrote many years ago, and the person(s) offended have the RIGHT to be offended, but until you came across that term, how would you respond to someone who said you shouldn't read his books because they were or knew somone who was raped?
Add to that, is not literature where we SHOULD explore the offensive nature of humans? Is not what we write, be it fiction or philosophy (which I believe all good literature to be), the ONLY place we can explore what is both good and bad - we do so by not reading, but reflecting upon WHAT we read.
God knows i've done some offensive things in my life; you have too, who ever you are who reads this. Are those offensive acts what define you? Should people define who you are by those acts alone? I hope not, because I know I am more than the bad/wrong things I have done or said. Isn't our ability to grow and mature what really make us human?
Sorry about the rant, I just wonder, in the end, how we can find offense in one thing, yet find pleasure in what others may find offensive (Thomas Covenant raping Lena, for example)? And I LOVE the Gap novels, despite what happened to Morn, and it was hard to read...
And if it matters, I had a family member who suffered from Downs Syndrome, but passed some years back.
|
I'm posting this as a matter of general interest, not because I want to turn the GI into a debate about what is or is not offensive. I'm grateful for the understanding and support. I would have sent a private reply rather than a public message if an email address had been provided. (05/20/2010) |
Tom: I've recently finished re-reading Mordant's Need - I read it when I was 11, and it's been 20 years, long enough that I couldn't really remember anything more than the fact that I loved it the first time around. I loved it equally the second time around. Your writing has been a great inspiration over the years, and continues to be. So firstly, thanks for your wonderful stories.
Anyway, my question is about the Arch-Imager Vagel. Despite the fact that he's referred to constantly throughout the books, he remains a curiously peripheral figure; he gets one bit of dialogue with Terisa, and that's about it. He seems a potentially compelling character - the pinnacle of Imaging talent, feared by everyone - but you never really get to learn anything about his character, his history, his motivations, etc.
So the question: why is this so? Was there a reason why you didn't feel it necessary to develop his character any further?
This isn't in any way meant to be a criticism; I'm just genuinely interested as to why you chose to structure the story that way. Many thanks for taking the time to answer, and for the gradual interview in general - it's consistently fascinating reading.
|
Deciding what and what not to explain or develop in a story is always a complex narrative challenge. In the end, I have to rely on my instincts (as most writers do, I suppose)--and in this case, I decided that Vagel would be a more "potent" figure if I kept him in the shadows (as it were) instead of revealing him clearly. After all, he *is* essentially a "background" figure, peripheral (but not irrelevant) to the main story. So the question then becomes, How can I make him interesting without bending the story out of shape to accommodate him? Naturally my instincts can be wrong. But I have to trust them anyway. At the end of the day, what else can I rely on? (05/20/2010) |
Dale Cebula: Maybe too many questions for you, so I'll try to be brief. After reading the 1st chapter of the new book (loved it!) I have a difficult question to ask...is the manner that Covenant seems to lose his knowledge similar in any way to the manner that Lord Foul, when he "fell" from the heavens into the world that he corrupted. In other words, Foul (despite his intellect and ability) appears lacking given that he, by all appearences, is an eternal being. When I read what happened to Covenant I saw a possible connection to what happened to Foul.
Also, the various names of Lord Foul make sense in one form or another (corruption, grey slayer), except for the a-Jeroth name. Am I missing something here? Is this a name that you created or does a-Jeroth come from some source I'm not familiar with? Is this the name Foul used when he first "visited" the Lords? Of the Old Lords, did any of them aside from Kevin ever encounter him? Finally, given the long lives of the Old Lords, was Berek (or Damelon for that matter) alive when Kevin came into his own? Always been a little confused about that detail.
thanks!
|
[contains possible oblique spoilers] If you can see a parallel between Lord Foul's "fall" and Covenant's, you're doing better than I am. LF's plight--or so it seems to me--is more like keeping your mind and losing your body. Covenant, of course, is regaining his body and losing his mind. It seems plausible to me that LF might have occasion to need a name that doesn't announce his nature. "Hey, guys, I'm Foul the Despiser, and I want to become a Lord by tricking you." "a-Jeroth" works well for me because it *sounds* right, not because it has any literal meaning (at least as far as I know). I acknowledge that the chronology of the Old Lords is confusing: they lived so long that there must have been significant overlap. Well, I didn't work this out when I was writing the first trilogy because I didn't think I needed it; and now I'm stuck with it. Almost anything I might say goes outside the text. But as "Fatal Revenant" reveals, Damelon was an adult long before Berek became High Lord. And it seems likely that Loric's "trajectory" resembled Damelon's. So again it seems likely that Loric knew Berek. But Kevin may--or may not--be another matter. Loric, apparently, was a real risk-taker. If he fathered Kevin late, and died (comparatively) young, that might account for some of the confusion. In any case, I suspect that a-Jeroth came along after Loric was gone. (05/25/2010) |
Robert K Murnick: Hello. Just completed "The Man Who Fought Alone". Wooo-eeeee! I think I've joined the club of folks who've read every single piece of fiction you've ever published! Sorry it took me so long to get around to it. I guess the bad economy has been good for shrinking my books-I-should-read pile.
So Mick Axbrewder is the character closest to yours, Stephen. Hmmmmm......having never met you in person, I'll have to take your word for it. I thought that "The Man Who...." books were a lot of fun. But "Fought Alone" made me wonder a bit. I have about 10 years experience studying Korean Martial Arts and 4 years studying Chinese Martial Arts, so (as you might expect) your depictions of Master "Song Duk Soon" and Master "Hong Fei-Tung" bothered me a little. But I have met my share of jerks in the Martial Arts world, so I can suspend enough disbelief to believe in them. I've never been to a tournament on the West Coast, so my question is - is it as bad as you showed it to be? Tournament participants and school leaders (Nelson Brick) attacking someone trying to keep the peace? Master Soon's students behaving like a youth gang when Brew visits them? Have you had bad experiences with students of Korean Martial Arts?
This is unrelated - did you ever consider Brew going to an AA meeting?
|
I have to say that no offense was intended to any martial art--or any martial artists--in "The Man Who Fought Alone." Apart from the stealing, and the subsequent murder, at the martial arts tournament, everything that happened there is something that I've witnessed or overheard personally. But what's in the book is specific to the particular characters and situations I'm writing about: unlike my characters, I'm not drawing general conclusions. Meanwhile the notion of battles between martial arts schools (for whatever reason: prove superiority, attract new students, seek justice, keep the peace by containing the conflict, exclude outsiders) has a long tradition. I am FAR from the first storyteller to employ such narrative devices. Sadly, many people who pursue that martial arts do so for reasons of ego, not for what Funakoshi called "perfection of character." (05/25/2010) |
Mark C.: Hi, Stephen.
I have a question that has been nagging at me since I read Fatal Revenant two years ago.
I seem to recall someone saying in The Illearth War that the Old Lords spoke a different language and the Wards were taking a long time to translate because of this.
Yet, when Linden finds herself in the Land's past during Fatal Revenant, it appears that Berek and Damelon (and everyone else she encounters) speak to her in English.
Did the Theomach somehow enable Linden to understand them and vice versa (though she is able to understand Yellinan without the Theomach present)?
Or was Roger with his new hand from Kastenessan able to bestow the Elohim's gift of tongues onto Linden?
I would love it if you could save me from this torment.
Thanks,
Mark
P.S. Please forgive any spelling errors seen above. I do not currently have the texts in front of me in order to check my accuracy.
|
The simplest version is that the language of lore isn't the same as the language of common speech (ref. the Seven Words). Berek and his lineage spoke the common speech, but they wrote and studied their lore in its (for lack of a better term) "native" tongue (which Berek probably learned from the Theomach). That lore-language was lost during the centuries after the Ritual of Desecration. Hence the difficulties translating the Wards. (06/01/2010) |
Jordan: Hey and how are you?
Okay, I don't get why the elohim wouldn't want Vain to accomplish his purpose and make a new Staff of Law? That's what they Appointed Findail to do in the first place since trying to get a fresh one from the One Tree would just rouse the Worm, so why try to hide and hold him? I can see Findail not wanting the quest to succeed, but not the rest of them: the Staff of Law is a good thing. It prevents stuff like the Sunbane which would threaten the Earth.
Another observation: when Vain remade the staff with ur vile lore, I assumed it would mean the restored Land would be altered so they and their lore would be a natural part of things and they wouldn't need to hate themselves anymore. How surprised I was to find the Waynhim were sick by the Staff's proximity.
Happy writing.
|
[possible spoiler] Infelice answers your first question at the end of "Fatal Revenant." As to the second, Vain didn't remake the Staff: Linden did. Vain was just one component; and she transformed him--as she did Findail--according to her own perceptions of health and Law ("the natural order"). (06/01/2010) |
English Major: Hello Dr. Donaldson I wanted to thank you for the many sleepless night's I spent reading your excellent novels. I remember you mentioning how William Faulkner has influenced you as a writer, Well I just finished reading "The sound and the Fury" for the 3rd time and Noticed some distinct similarities between Nick Succorso and Jason Compson. My question is, do you notice these similarities as well?
|
I have of course studied Faulkner. But several decades passed between my last reading of "The Sound and the Fury" and my writing of the GAP books. I certainly wasn't conscious of any similarities. [insert my usual provisos] (06/01/2010) |
Gary Barnett: Dear Mr Donaldson,
In the past, I have laboured under the (perhaps nave) notion that authors are the ultimate arbiters and interpreters of their own works. Within the GI, you clearly explain that, from your point of view, once your works are in the public domain, you accept that any consistent interpretation of your work is as valid as any other (including your own).
Building on that, I wonder whether you deliberately include ambiguities within your work? Obviously you will include plot elements/detail that are ambiguous at the point they arise, but later resolve as the plot develops. But do you deliberately include elements where you yourself do not have a clear view as to which of several possible interpretations is the "correct" one? (It goes without saying that as a simple reader I labour under the weight of many unresolved ambiguities when I read your books and am happy to lay the bulk of that failure on my own limitations!)
To provide just one example to focus my question. When Covenant is about to be burned at the stake in During Stonedown, mutely watched by Vain, he turns to him to ask for help. Vain grins and Covenant erupts into argent fire. It seems to me that there are many different interpretations of what is happening here, all consistent in some way with the Chronicles. Vain's grin may actually be a deliberate way of helping Covenant access his power by heightening his ire. It may simply be a smile recognising the imminent eruption of power. Other possibilities exist. My question is whether, in writing an ambiguity such as this, you always have a clear view of which interpretation is "correct" from your perspective? Do you "know" why Vain smiles at this point?
And a related question. One thing that you have said in the GI has confused me. In relation to Vain, you state that "Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose". However, on a number of occasions Vain goes out of his way to save Linden - is this not because he recognises that Linden (though not Covenant) is indeed essential to his achieving his ultimate purpose?
Finally, I would like to say that the redemption of the Unhomed by Covenant in the white gold caamora at the end of The Wounded Land is one of the (if not the) most emotive, immersive and, frankly, brilliant pieces of fiction I have ever, ever read.
Thank you
Gary Barnett
|
I've been procrastinating with your question because I find it difficult to address. But first, a practical point. I wrote of Vain that "Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose." For the purposes of salving my bruised--vanity? conscience?--I'm going to pretend that you took my statement out of context. <rueful smile> Otherwise my assertion is patently absurd. Vain goes to considerable lengths to preserve Linden--for the obvious reason that he needs her. (How could I have failed to remember that? I have no idea.) So, duh, I was wrong on that point. But I didn't intend Vain's reactions to Covenant/wild magic to be ambiguous. To my way of thinking, Vain simply *likes* seeing wild magic deployed because it--like Linden--is essential to his purpose. As an entity, he isn't complex enough to be manipulative. (After all, the ur-viles aren't the Demondim--and they certainly aren't the Viles. I doubt that they know how to create a fully functioning sentience.) As to your more general inquiry. Do I know what I mean when I write? Yes, I do. Do I know everything that what I've written *can* mean when I write? No, I don't. Am I sometimes deliberately ambiguous? Yes, I am. But I don't do it to confuse anyone. I do it because I can think of a variety of meanings in a specific situation, and they all fit my intentions. Am I sometimes unconsciously ambiguous? Yes, of course. Perhaps the greatest glory of the creative imagination is that it can create *more* than it--or its wielder--intends. (Sadly, it can also create *less*. But that's life.) This, at least in part, is why I try to resist notions of "correctness" in interpretation: because sometimes what I've written means more than I realize. Another reason I try to resist such notions is that reading is an interactive--or re-creative--process. Written storytelling doesn't *do* anything unless the reader invests him/herself in the experience. Therefore, inevitably, the reader's mind provides much of the content of written storytelling. As a result, the reader can see ambiguity where the writer intended clarity; or, conversely, see simplicity where the writer intended complexity. But there's nothing wrong (or "incorrect") about that. The reader's experience of a book is inherently valid--for that specific reader. So it seems to me that readers, not writers, are always "the ultimate arbiters and interpreters" of the work. Why else do you suppose that we still read Dickens, but we don't read Galsworthy? The answer is certainly not that Dickens had a higher opinion of his work than Galsworthy had of *his*. In fact, if Galsworthy were any kind of "ultimate arbiter and interpreter," we probably wouldn't read anything else. (06/09/2010) |
John: Steve,
how do you like the cover art for AATE?
Cover art is NOT your book - it's not what you wrote and has actually nothing to do with the story you tell, but it occurs to me that a novel, in a way, becomes collaborative work: people buy and read your work, but also they also buy the artists work. Perhaps some people may buy a book because of the cover?
So, are you happy with the cover fir AATE?
John
|
It's not really good "politics" (for lack of a better word) for me to comment on the cover art for an on-going project. But...oh, well. To my eye, "The Last Chronicles" covers are too static (they don't convey the impression that the book contains a story) and too literal (they don't look like what I had in mind). But the AATE cover is an improvement over FR's: what is *Gandalf* doing on the cover of my book? And AATE is more "accurate" than TROTE. (06/14/2010) |
Richard: Hello Steve,
I am intrigued. I just saw the following response of yours:
"Considering "The Last Chronicles," perhaps the single most important thing that the GAP books enabled/required me to learn was a deeper engagement with a wider variety of characters. I like to think (or perhaps simply hope) that this deeper engagement "shows" throughout "The Last Chronicles.""
And I was wondering whether you had a preference, both as a writer and a reader, for stories that have a wider set of characters or which are more intimate?
No mere curiosity bids me ask this question. I remember a moment when a tutor of mine - against my expectations - told me a screenplay I had written was all the better for having few characters because I was able to explore them more fully.
I recognise novels and scrrenplays are different, both in style and in scope and in length, but I do find that the balance between emotion engagement and 'sprawling' narrative is often hard to find and excess is too often mistaken for artisry (and vice versa).
|
The simple answer is--and I hope that no one will be surprised by this--it depends. It depends on the nature of the story being told, and on how the author (screenwriter?) handles the characters. I have no inherent preference on the subject (except in the generic sense that I always prefer outstanding work that happens to suit or attract my personal tastes). But perhaps I can hazard a few general observations. Simple plots can easily become cluttered with too many characters. Complex plots tend to become mechanical unless they’re enlivened by complex characters. And any character can be one too many if the writer can’t make that character vivid enough to stick in the reader’s memory long enough to get through the story. (This last may be the most crucial factor.) In my own writing, my preferences are determined by my story: it doesn’t work the other way around. (06/19/2010) |
Bengt Hallberg: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I reread the Mordant's Need books every two years or so. It is such a pleasure to return to that world. I have noted that such a fundamental human feature as religion is nowhere to be found. Was leaving gods out a deliberate choice?
Best regards,
-- Bengt Hallberg, Nykping, Sweden
|
Yes, the choice was deliberate. But my reasons for making it may not be obvious. First, I was trying to get about as far away from “Covenant” as I could and still be writing fantasy. Since “Covenant” is an explicitly archetypal “good v evil” story, I chose to make “Mordant’s Need” what I call “human-centered”: no gods, no religion, no non-human races, no archetypal trappings, and an almost sf-ish form of magic. Why did I feel a need to do this? Well, the story didn’t *require* any of the things I chose to leave out. And I felt an active desire to stretch different creative muscles (he said, displaying his familiar gift for a phrase). In addition, I wanted to prove to my readers that I could write a good story that didn’t sound or feel or even think like “Covenant.” Second, I’ve always suspected that our entire concept of “religion” (and, by extension, “gods”) would be altered if we lived in a world where “magic” is demonstrably and verifiably “real.” If (what I’ll call for the convenience of the moment) transcendance obviously existed *outside* us instead of only within us---and here I mean “existed” in the most mechanical and reductive sense--we might not feel that sense of discrepancy between our inner and outer lives which drives us to search for meaning in a-realistic notions. Then we as thinking, feeling beings might not need what are commonly called “religions” at all. Or we might be drawn to the kind of religion which pervades the Land during the time of the Lords. So I gave myself permission to leave “gods” out of “Mordant’s Need.” (06/19/2010) |
MRK: I recently saw a church sign that said "Fear is Unbelief in Disguise." I immediately thought that the reverse, Unbelief is Fear in disguise, made more sense to me. It got me to thinking then, that fear and unbelief are very closely related. Fears seem to be based on the idea of "I fervently hope this is not true." We fear the proverbial monster in the closet because it *may* be real, but we hope that it is not and find ways to rationalize and affirm that idea, so we can believe the monster does not exist and therefore will not devour us in our sleep. I think this applies to all of your major stories on some level. Covenant fears the ramifications to himself if the Land and its inhabitants are real, so he elects to believe it and they do not exist. Teresa Morgan is champion second-guesser of her own abilities and fears the responsibility that goes along with being an independent, rational, sentient (and powerful) being so she begins to question whether or not she is one. I believe her dilemma is similar, if not identical, to Mick Axbrewder's. Holt Fasner fears the idea that he might *not* live forever and control the universe so he refuses to believe in, or allow, any other possible outcome from his actions. Linden is slightly different; she disbelieves in her ability to make right decisions, at least at the beginning (and readers more cynical than I am agree with
her) and fears the consequences should she
even make the attempt, seeing herself as
morally bankrupt. I also found the sign
ironic, as, in my experience, Christians are about as fearful a group of people as any other. The sign implies to me that having fears mean you have no faith, but isn't fear one of the things that makes us human? Indeed, belief in a supernaturally-governed universe seems to be a whole HOST of reasons to be afraid. Everyone has fears, different ones, maybe, but fears all the same, and with the same underlying basis. Of course, a big part of life (both real life and the lives of the people in your stories) is deciding whether or not we will overcome those fears or if those fears will overcome us. Perhaps that is the difference between your protagonists and our antagonists. What are your thoughts on this and the relationship between fear and unbelief?
|
I really don’t have much to add. It seems so *obvious* to me that fear is the most primal human emotion. Ergo any church or religious group that claims otherwise (“You’ll stop being afraid if you just believe the things we believe”) is simply lying. That church or group could say more honestly, “You’ll stop being human if you just believe the things we believe.” I probably shouldn’t make such strong statements on a subject that people feel so strongly about. But I have a lot of very painful experience on this subject, and I think I’ve earned the right. (06/19/2010) |
Peter Bejmuk: Hello Again Mr D,
1 As you may have been informed, cable channels such as HBO have been having success translating novels into edgy TV shows. Do you think that HBO would be a good venue for the Gap series, considering the mature content of the books? I know you mentioned in the GI (many times) to have no willingness to write screenplays, but if you could have "creative input" over such a series, how much input would you want over such a show?
q2 As GRRM's series is currently being pushed through the gears of HBO, they recently hired a linguist to develope a language of one of fictional ethnic groups of those books. The majority characters of the Land all seem to speak english, but have you ever given any thought to how the non-english languages (such as the Ur-Viles) would sound? Or how the accents or dialects of various regions would sound (how different would a giant vs a Stonedowner vs a Ramen accent be?). Or going back to the Gap, how different would Morn's speech patterns be to Nick or the Dragon? How often do such details come into the mind of an author?
q2.9 Final little question - wikipedia states that under UK publication, you are published as Stephen Donaldson (without the middle initial). Would you prefer a standard author credit across the globe? Or is a single R not enough to be bothered about, as long as they don't leave out any other letters/words on the pages between the covers?
Keep up the excellent work. Looking forward to the next book. I've already made room on my bookshelf.
|
1) I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I don’t want *any* input. (I’ll concede that my input might be useful; but that wasn’t the question.) The idea fills me with horror. If or when one of my books is turned into an atrocious film, I want to be able to say honestly that I had nothing to do with it. 2) The only answers I have to such questions are already in the text. If what I’ve written doesn’t convey the information you’re looking for, I’m probably not capable of providing it. I am *not* a linguist. 3) Actually, I *would* prefer a standardized name (with the R). But when my career started, my UK publisher didn’t give me a choice: in general, UK publishers don’t use middle initials--unless the author doesn’t use a given name (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, etc.). And after 30+ years of precedent, I can’t justify insisting on a change now. (06/20/2010) |
Michael Quigley: Hello Mr Donaldson
I am currently in the final year of my A Level examinations and chose for my English coursework piece to write a 1500 word argument on why your first chronicles should be entered into, if not the main English canon, than the canon of High Fantasy. One of the things I have chosen to look at is your re-invention of the traditional fantasy symbol of a ring of power, however I dont think my analysis of how you make this a focal point around which to explore the nature of power and how you craft a far more complex and engaging ring than even Tolkien really does it justice. To have done that I think I would have needed more than 1500 words on that alone.
Unfortunately I only found this forum with four days left till my deadline so this is not a desperate plea for advice. Purely a hindsight request to satiate my own curiosity that writing this piece has awoken. Now finally to my question; I understand to a degree the paradox of the white ring, how it represents both in a literal sense the power to save or damn the land and the metaphorical representation of aspects of Covenant that can either save him from his own self hatred or consume him but I am having trouble expressing this and all the other pieces concerning the ring clearly so would you kindly please tell me if I am on the right track and help me to get my head round one of the most engaging aspects of your novels.
|
With the usual proviso that I’m not interested in passing judgment on the interpretations developed by my readers…. To what you’ve already said, I would add: the wedding band is a symbol of *voluntary* commitment, a promise motivated by love. Of course, this hasn’t always been true historically. Nor is it always true now. But in Western societies it *is* the idea behind the choice to get married, and it has been for quite a while. It isn’t biologically driven (procreation can occur without it: duh), so it doesn’t resemble the bonds that attach most parents to their children. And it isn’t compelled because it can’t be (although it can be simulated on a temporary basis for manipulative reasons): love doesn’t work that way. No, it’s a *choice*--which lies at the heart of Covenant’s “ring” dilemma as you’ve described it. (06/20/2010) |
John: Steve,
Ok, you said you work on one story at a time. But I'm dying here waiting for the last (?) Man Who... Novel. While writing something else, do thoughts of other things *never* pop into your mind? Maybe you jot something down on a note pad for later reference?
Just wondering,
John
|
Actually, dozens of ideas for the last (?) “The Man Who” book have popped into my mind over the years. But none of them has had a story attached. Put another way, those ideas haven’t fit the trajectory of the characters I’m working with. So in practical terms: nada. In general, the circumstances under which I “jot something down on a note pad for later reference” are limited almost exlusively to the story I happen to be working on at present. I have more notes now for “The Last Dark” than I had for the whole “Last Chronicles” before I started. (06/20/2010) |
Colin R. Grimes: As a matter of artistic curiosity:
Since you have already started on "The Last Dark" and made a special deal with your publishers to get out of book tours so that you can work on it, I was wondering if this was prompted solely by the difficulty of the work, or did you find yourself upon completing AATE so caught up/inspired that you just felt you had to plunge right in? My curiosity in this matter was aroused by statements of yours that this is far from your usual practice (i.e. that you don't like to start work on a new book during all the tedium of the process of getting another book ready for publication).
|
First, I have to say clearly that I did NOT make “a special deal” with my publishers to get out of book tours. I simply preempted their desires by announcing my refusal. They looked baffled for a moment, then said, OK, and, We aren’t really surprised. My contract does not obligate me to help my publishers promote my books. That said, I do feel a desire to get a jump on “The Last Dark.” The difficulty of the task contributes to my feeling of urgency, no doubt. But I’m sure that much of my internal pressure comes from just how *long* I’ve spent both working on “The Last Chronicles” (9+ years) and waiting to work on “The Last Chronicles” (30+ years). I want to be DONE with the &%^@%& thing. It’s true that I don’t like to start on a new book when I’m constantly interrupted by the chores of preparing the previous book. Those interruptions make me crazy. But these are special circumstances. Plus, of course, I’m not getting any younger…. (06/20/2010) |
Bob Benoit: Dear Stephen - I didn't see in any of the 12 questions that mentioned "Kindle" whether anyone asked you if you have tried a Kindle/Nook/Ipad, and if so what you think of them? I have a Nook, and after a little getting used to I love it. I ready voraciously, and frequently will have 2 or 3 books going at the same time. So it's great for me. Have any plans to own one any time soon?
Thanks.
Bob
|
I’ve never used an e-book reader, and I have no intention of starting now. No doubt I’m perfectly capable of sounding like a Luddite on the subject. But really, I just love physical books, and I don’t want to give them up. This doesn’t mean that I think other people should feel the same way I do. My agent and I are currently working to try to negotiate an e-book deal for the first six “Covenant” books; and I’m doing that because I know many readers want books in that form (and also because the physical convenience of e-book readers is pretty obvious). Nevertheless the growing popularity of e-book readers is irrelevant to my personal preferences. My personal preference on this subject is to stick with physical books. (06/22/2010) |
T Patrick: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Hope you have not fielded this question before. I have done some research into giant myth in medieval Europe for an undergraduate university degree; I am very fond of the Covenant books, but was not inspired to carry out my research by your work. However, it was very interesting to find some real similarities in the way you portray the giants and the sorts of myth and legend that certain european socio-cultural groups maintained.
To explain this a bit better - giants in germanic/scandanavian tradition are often associated with having constructed great works in the ancient past (the original Saxon settlers of Britain described ancient Roman ruins as 'the work of giants'), just as your giants constructed Revelstone. Your giants are also described as originating from distant lands - medieval belief (inspired by biblical sources) also associated such creatures as occupying far off realms.
Stumbling across this website while looking up details for your new book, I thought I would ask, out of interest, if your depictions of giants were based on research you had done on the subject matter, or if the similarties I see were arrived at unknowingly?
With many thanks for your time.
|
No, I didn’t do any research about “Giant-myths,” European or otherwise. (I *have* read an English translation of a version of the Elder Eddas; but “research” wasn’t my reason for doing so. In any case, I had created my own version of Giants before I did that reading.) My creative impulse doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, I can’t pretend that I wasn’t familiar with Wagner; so I was at least obliquely aware of *his* sources. That almost certainly influenced my view of Giants as makers of huge habitations. And on a very different level, I remember disliking--even while I was in middle school--how C.S. Lewis used the idea of Giants. That also influenced my creation of my own characters. (06/22/2010) |
Charles W. Adams: I'm not a lawyer, and certainly no expert of copyright law. My career is with computers, so the conversation of digital copies (perhaps pirated) vs. physical is of interest to me.
There is a clear difference between a library book and a pirated digital copy. The phiscal library copy is a purchased book. This book may be handled by many people, much in the same way that a personal copy loaned out to other people. A person who loans the book out gives his/her right/ability to read the book to someone else. I think this concept is called "fair use".
A pirated digital copy is not physically restricted. It can be shared with many people, each of who can read it simultaneously, each of who has not paid for a "use license". This is beyond "fair use". In this case, it's possible to share the material with another person and not give up the ability to continue to read the book.
In the second case, a single purchase of a book (and the piracy of such) can result in hundreds or thousands of people being able to maintain ownership of their copy while sharing it with others.
Besides the morality of behaving this way, there's a practical matter: What incentive does an author have to write, if he knows that he isn't going to be able to make a living doing so?
The digital world continues to evolve, and the laws which govern it will also have to evolve. But who here doesn't want Stephen R. Donaldson to be able to support the life to which he wishes to be accustomed?
Pay for the books!
|
Judging by the extremely unscientific sampling that the Gradual Interview represents, readers who want digital Donaldson books are perfectly content to pay for them. Apparently some people out there do favor pirating books; but it seems that none of them post messages here. Some readers here *do* justify taking advantage of pre-existing pirated books (which is not at all the same thing as justifying the original piracy) by saying, a) “I’ve already paid for legal copies of the books fair and square,” and b) “I can’t find e-versions anywhere except by patronising pirates.” Well, I can’t argue with that. Just remember that patronising pirates encourages them: an intangible consideration, I confess; but perhaps one not entirely devoid of substance. (06/22/2010) |
Anonymous: S-
In the trailor that is on the site, could you tell us where Linden (?)is and what is the green stuff coming out the door on the left?
Thanks
|
Sorry. That would be a spoiler. In fact, simply acknowledging that the answer would be a spoiler is in itself a spoiler. <grin> In FACT, simply acknowledging the existence of your question is probably a spoiler. And I could probably go on; but if I don’t quit now I’ll never get rid of this headache. (06/22/2010) |
Sam: I was just curious after the Last Chronicles is complete are you contractual "bound" to continue this gradual interview for certain period of time? If not would you continue for certain amount of time on your own to answer quetions about the last book?
Thanks for your time. -- Sam
|
Although my publishers *did* pressure me to start my own website, I’m under no contractual obligations whatsoever. And in fact the GI was my webmaster’s idea, not my pu blishers’. So how long I continue answering questions here is pretty much up to me. But I can’t foresee how long that will be. Some days I’m ready to call it quits right now. Other days I don’t know why I would ever stop. (06/22/2010) |
John Huttley: Hello Stephen,
Comments on e-books, payments, profit and piracy occur at various times on this formum.
I suggest this will interest you.
http://www.baen.com/library/
I think his analysis is good (agrees with my prejudices).
Even better, ebooks are doing very well at Baen this last ten years and more, so it can't be a fluke.
Regards,
John
|
This is a useful analysis of the whole situation. Hyperbole aside, it makes sense. For my part, I would simply like to emphasize one point which has already been clearly stated: the authors who participate in the Baen Free Library have given their consent. If I were offered a similar opportunity, I might well give *my* consent. With one proviso: I want a clean and accurate version of the text rather than the slop that fills my books when they've been pirated. (07/02/2010) |
Joey: Came across a website that made me think of the Gradual Interview. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
The author discusses the survivability of artistry in the modern era and comes to the - subtle but I think correct - conclusion that it's easier to be a successful artist today than ever before in history. The key is distributive patronage.
In fact, if success is defined as "earning enough money to make a living from creating art," rather than with the more common "mega-celebrity" definition, he argues that all any artist needs to be successful is roughly 1000 true fans.
Caveats abound, but suffice it to say that so long as any author has roughly 1000 people (True Fans) in the world willing to spend a day's wages (~$100) on consuming that author's work in a given year, it's economically feasible for the author to continue to produce.
The reason that I find this interesting in regards to your work is that the effort and energy you provide to maintain the Gradual Interview falls squarely within the realm of fostering your True Fan community - those people who will buy anything and everything you produce regardless of cost - and that THAT contribution to us is perhaps the more critical work of providing for a livelihood than the actual authoring of the books themselves.
Naturally this article and its insights are meant to apply mostly to NEW artists trying to figure out how to survive, and consequently how much easier it is for them to do so these days where they can publish and distribute their works WITHOUT a publishing/movie/record contract. For that matter, this might be stuff you've already thought about in the past - directly or intuitively - but hopefully when you're feeling down about making tour appearances (and responding to some of the ridiculous questions you get through this website) you can take solace from the fact that you only need about a thousand of us? Lol.
Thanks again for all the work you do for us, both on paper and on the screen.
-----
Excerpts:
A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce... They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work.
.
.
.
To raise your sales out of the flatline of the long tail you need to connect with your True Fans directly. Another way to state this is, you need to convert a thousand Lesser Fans into a thousand True Fans.
.
.
.
The technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this circle possible. Blogs and RSS feeds trickle out news, and upcoming appearances or new works...the entire digital domain conspire[s] to make duplication and dissemination in small quantities fast, cheap and easy. You don't need a million fans to justify producing something new. A mere one thousand is sufficient.
|
It's an interesting argument. Someday it may even become a reality: perhaps even in my lifetime, if Amazon succeeds at its stated goal of causing "bricks-and-mortar" publishers to cease to exist. But "distributive patronage" may not be as easily achieved as this author seems to think. Or so it appears to me. I'm blessed with a substantial number of "True Fans"; but I can't imagine that a *thousand* of them would be willing to fork over $100 *per year* to keep me writing. And of course that amount of money wouldn't begin to cover my family's educational and medical expenses, never mind living expenses. Include the fact that I'm unable to produce a book a year to justify that $100 per True Fan, and the whole model begins to seem fatally naive. But. I suspect that the days of "distributive patronage" are coming. On the one hand, traditional publishing may indeed crumble. (Or not. People who know more about it than I do have conflicting opinions.) On the other, one of the strangest (at least to my mind) byproducts of the explosion in cell phone usage has been a comparable explosion in Internet access. If memory serves, 10-15 years ago only 10% of US homes had computers. Today I'm told that 70+% of US *individuals* have Internet access via cell phone. If that isn't a tool for "distributive patronage," it certainly has the potential to become one. So...who knows? Come the revolution, I may be too old, too set in my ways, or too just plain stubborn to change with the times. Nevertheless I can believe that "distributive patronage" will eventually become viable. Someday it may even become the only option. (07/02/2010) |
Charles W. Adams: You had stated that you weren't happy with the cover art for the last book (US version), and in fact it really did reveal a lot about what was going to happen in the story.
I can say with certainty (at least for me) that the cover art for this book reveals practically nothing. I'm clueless. The only thing I can derive is that at some point of the book the Worm hasn't consumed the Earth yet (and Chapter 1 revealed that already, and the fact that there's a 4th book is a pretty big clue).
If you do in fact have influence over the cover art, and if you expressed a desire for the cover to be less revealing this time, they seem to have taken your advice.
|
My US editor knows how I feel about putting Caligula on the cover of "The Runes of the Earth," and especially about putting Gandalf (or Saruman) on "Fatal Revenant." More to the point, she cares how I feel. And she had more lead-time with "Against All Things Ending," so she was able to consult with me fairly closely on the artist's behalf. So far, so good. (07/02/2010) |
Andrew Kennedy: I have two questions for you.
1) Why do you think as a genre that fantasy novels are so often written in trilogies or series? I find it odd that in other genres that even where there are series, there is far less dependence on what has gone before (Tom Clancy's Ryan and Ian Fleming's Bond come to mind here). Is it something about the genre?
2). Is there any hope that after TC is over that you would turn to lighter fare similar to Mordent's Need (which is under appreciated, I think)?
|
I wish these issues were as simple as they may sound…. 1) The easy answer is that the “requirements” of each genre are predicated on reader expectations (or on perceived reader expectations). Since, say, mystery novels, or spy/suspense novels, or western novels have pretty much always offered complete-in-one-volume stories, readers (and therefore publishers) expect writers to continue doing the same thing. And since each story is complete as it stands, without any necessary reference to previous stories, readers expect to be able to read Ryan books, or Bond books, in any order without missing out on something crucial (e.g. character development). So: like most systems, this one is self-perpetuating. The writers create it, so the readers expect it, so the writers create more of it, so the readers expect more of it, and so on. In contrast, most expectations about modern fantasy--especially epic fantasy--were created by Tolkien. (Exceptions exist, of course--at the moment, I’m thinking of Moorcock’s “Elric” novels--but they can’t compare with Tolkien’s power to create reader expectations. Especially when LOTR builds on a foundation that includes both ancient epics and more recent works like “Gormenghast.”) LOTR was *so* popular that it was only natural for publishers to believe that fantasy readers expect multi-volume sagas rather than complete-in-one-book stories. Another self-perpetuating system. But I think there’s another explanation at work as well: world-building. Putting the matter crudely, it takes more words to create an alternate reality and make it feel, well, real than it does to work within the boundaries of a pre-existing and accepted consensus reality. Ryan stories, or Bond stories, may be exotic and (from my perspective) implausible, but they take as given many of the same basic assumptions we all live with. They don’t have to build entire worlds: they only have to adjust a few details of the world we already know. So it seems only natural to me that world-building stories require multiple volumes that have to be read in their intended sequence. Non-world-building stories have different requirements, so they take different forms. 2) As I’ve tried to explain on other occasions, I have absolutely no idea what I’ll write after “The Last Chronicles.” On an entirely personal level, I’m praying for some short stories simply because they don’t take 12 *^&%$^ years to write. And I really would like to be able to do more with Mick Axbrewder and Ginny Fistoulari. But (as I’ve also tried to explain on other occasions) my personal preferences are largely irrelevant. (07/06/2010) |
Phil: Stephen
Thanks for your answer to my q on relativity (early 09 I think). I am back on the Chronicles and have decided to read them slowly this time to pick up the bits of self-reference I have missed on quick re-reads. And what a lot that seems to be! Page 4 of LFB for example has a paragraph on the authors creative process burning like lightning, creating land and peoples, with even a white bolt smiting the heavens. Meaningless at this stage to a first time reader, and almost certainly forgotten 10 chapters later. And on checking the GI I note you have clearly referred in the past to the fact that wild magic embodies the spirit and passion of imagination. Amazing I missed this on previous re-reads. Or perhaps I did and have forgotten so I can renew the joy of discovery. Another example half a page later (which I certainly did note before) was the link between Joan and horses. Which all brings me to my question. In all the analysis of Chronicles over the years by so many fans, is there anything that you are aware of (and are prepared at this stage to reveal) , as a thread like these examples, which you deliberately wrote in, or an allusion which seemed important to you, but which you are surprised that no-one has ever picked up and commented on ?
|
I don’t usually think this way: I don’t try to second-guess or pre-judge my readers’ reactions. And I don’t *expect* them to respond (at least to me). As a result, I’m almost always surprised--to one degree or another. But I’m more acutely surprised by reactions to subjects I hardly thought about at all (e.g. what are Haruchai women like?) than I am by reactions to themes or connections about which I thought intensely. Other than that, I don’t really have an answer for you. When I’m done with a story and I look back at it, I think *very* differently about it than I do while I’m writing it. Much becomes clear to me in retrospect (and rewriting) that I grasp only intuitively during the first draft. (07/06/2010) |
Tom: I guess this is a "how do you do what you do" question, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I don't think it's appeared in the GI before (but I could be wrong).
Anyway, I've often wondered how an author creates subtext -- all the implied, implicit meanings that seem to float beneath the surface of a work. For instance, in your Gap books, despite the unrelenting pace of the "surface" action, I would find myself time and again pondering the "deep sea" issues that seemed to be swimming right below the words I found on the page. All the implications and connections that lurked just out of sight. These implied meanings, which you leave to the reader to puzzle out, are one of the major reasons I find your books so compelling. When I would go back to study how you did it (I've read the Gap book at least five times now), I can never pinpoint exactly what you did to create this effect. Of course, I realize that words have denotations and connotations, and that's part of how you do it. I also realize that stories accrue meaning over time, and that the further along in a story you are, the more connections you can make. But I still feel like I'm missing something. For instance, do you know at a given point in your story what connections your readers are making? If so, how? What if they aren't making those connections? Or are you sure they are making those connections because of the way you structured the story? You *lead* them to make those connections somehow? Which brings me back to the beginning: How do you do that? It's never explicitly stated in the text, so how does it end up in my head?
Hope that made sense, and I'm sorry for using the word "connections" so much. It's been a long day, and that's the only word I could think of.
Once again, thank you for your time.
Tom
|
I've had occasion to say--more than once--that I don't know how I do what I do. I don't even know how *language* works. That's an enduring mystery to me--and even more so when we're talking about language in print rather than spoken. I certainly don't know how my approach to storytelling achieves its particular (or peculiar) form of effectiveness. Still, there are a few things I can say with a modicum of confidence. "For instance, do you know at a given point in your story what connections your readers are making? If so, how? What if they aren't making those connections? Or are you sure they are making those connections because of the way you structured the story? You *lead* them to make those connections somehow?" No, no, no, no, and--was that five questions?--no. I'm not inside my readers' heads: I'm only inside mine. I have no idea what my readers are thinking. I only know what *I'm* thinking. And then I try to share that as best I can. As I see it, there are two forces at work. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I think on two tracks at once while I write. 1) I'm what I call an "experiential" writer. I try to experience the story as it happens, in sequence, to each character. You might say that I try to become each character simultaneously (as much as that's possible) and live the story with them through every event and interaction as those things accumulate. I want to *feel* what it's like to be that character in that situation with those other characters, based on everything that has gone before. Then I try to share that experience with the reader. 2) At the same time, I am constantly looking for connections myself: implications, references, *resonances*. After all, that's what real people do, even when they aren't aware of it: every action and emotion is predicated on a whole network of connections that stretches from the person's distant past to his/her rational or irrational imaginings about the future. And every time I find one of those connections or resonances, I try to share it with the reader. (Without, of course, pausing the story to deliver a lecture on the subject. <grin>) With both of these forces or tracks, I have one supreme advantage: rewriting. The obvious benefit is that I can find and enhance more connections, thereby increasing the story's ability to accrue meaning. But there's another benefit, one which is mostly hidden from the reader: in the first draft, I actually *can* (and DO) pause the story to deliver lectures about the connections--entirely for my own edification. The vast majority of those lectures I cut out in rewriting; but writing them the first time through does me a world of good in my efforts to understand my characters and experience their story. All of the above, I hasten to say, does not constitute *advice*. I'm only describing what I do: I'm not suggesting that anyone else should do the same. What would be the point? Every writer has--and *needs*--a personal approach, one tailored to her/his desires and abilities. But you asked; so I tried to answer. (07/07/2010) |
Anonymous: I'm re-reading FR in order to get ready for the release of AATE in October. It is hard for me to believe that I missed all the clues that TC was really Roger. Now that I have had time to take my time and digest the writing, this was rather artfully done. It was like I suspected something was wrong but I was hoping that it wasn't. Everything from the title, to how Roger and Jeremiah spoke and acted, etc..all pointed to a very logical conlusion. Caught with my eyes wide open....
Question: In 2nd chronicles you explored the whole idea of necessity of freedom of choice and even in FR you mention that Joan's ring is not really usable by Roger or Foul to break the arch of time since her mind is broken. But I guess the idea of tricking someone in to giving up their ring is okay?? Seems like semantics. Linden is not freely giving up her ring (with intent)to Roger if she thinks that it is TC, so isn't the ring not really able to help break the arch of time?? In WGW, TC gives up the ring intentionally and that is why LF can make us of it. Thanks for the website, I really enjoy it!
|
I admit that "the necessity of freedom" can be confusing. But keep in mind that people who have not been explicitly given white gold can still use it (e.g. Linden): they just can't exert its full potential. And beware of comparing unlike situations. If, for instance, Roger had obtained Covenant's ring in the past, he wouldn't need wild magic's full potential in order to commit significant violations of the Land's history, thereby undermining the Arch of Time indirectly. To that I would add that being tricked or manipulated is not the same as being coerced. With trickery or manipulation, the person handing over the ring is still doing so intentionally. The fact that the person is not aware of all the implications of doing so doesn't change the fact that the person *could* have chosen otherwise. As long as the giver retains the power of choice, the necessity of freedom is satisfied. Compare Kasreyn in TOT. He's trying to use coercion rather than trickery or manipulation. He tries everything he can except physically cutting off Covenant's finger (which he is probably afraid to do because something deep in Covenant may still be capable of striking back). Well, if he succeeded, he wouldn't acquire anything like the full potential of wild magic. But he doesn't want that: the idea of destroying the Arch of Time would horrify him. All he wants is more power (OK, a *lot* more power) WITHIN the world as he understands it. The power to "create perfect works and fear nothing" (if I remember rightly). So he has no reason *not* to attempt coercion. (07/08/2010) |
David: Hi Stephen,
Upon recent re-reading of "Reave the Just and Other Tales", was struck by a thought that some of Reave's abilities seem to mirror those of the Insequent, in particular the Harrow (e.g. ability to come and go as he pleases, and the ability to withstand physical beatings with no apparent lasting effect). Just curious if anything in writing "Reave.." and "By Any Other Name" sparked your ideas for the Insequent?
Cheers
David
|
There's no conscious connection in my mind. But the present always builds on the past, so you might be right. (07/08/2010) |
Captain Maybe: What made you decide to give each book of the Gap series two titles (or a title and a subtitle)? It's quite unusual for novels to be subtitled like that - was there anything you drew inspiration from for that? And what was the attitude of your editor/publisher to it?
Thanks.
|
I did almost the same thing with the "Mordant's Need" books. My intent was to let my readers know that there was more than one book to the story (without going through endless repetitions of Book One, Book Two, etc.). And in the case of the GAP books, I also wanted to suggest the progress of the themes from book to book. The technique is actually fairly common: for example, my edition of "Lord of the Rings" uses it. My editors/publishers had no objection--although my UK publishers have felt compelled to attach numbers to the paperbacks. (07/08/2010) |
Würm: I've scoured the GI and don't see this question asked anywhere. What would have happened if, at the end of Dark and Hung, Liete had obeyed Nick's orders to attack Soar?
|
Hmm. Your guess is good as mine? I never know how to answer questions that stray outside the text. And in the case the problem is exacerbated by the fact that I haven't worked on the GAP books for 15+ years. (07/22/2010) |
Würm: Steve,
Matthew Yenkala wrote: 'While the article is mainly about (slamming) Cameron's AVATAR, if you make it further down, Lewis, Tolkien and fantasy in general come into the discussion.
Though I think he's mainly referring to visual art, one can probably infer that he falls into the "if it's not reality, it's silly and pointless" camp.'
I don't see that take in the review in question at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/avatar-and-the-flight-from-reality. What the reviewer writes is:
"I mention this difference between the fantastical as it existed in olden times and today, which some may think a trivial one, because we are or ought to be coming to realize that acknowledged fantasy, of the kind the movies have inherited from science fiction, is a different kind of thing from fantasy that doesn’t know it is fantasy." And this: "But if there is no longer any attempt at imitation of reality but only the aptly-described “magic” of the movies making new realities, then there is no longer any such thing as art as it has been understood for the last three thousand or so years in the West."
James Bowman, our reviewer here, is operating on a definition of art as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." That is an Ayn Rand definition, and the New Atlantis site is based in Randian philosophy.
Bowman is here decrying the invention of new realities - represented on Pandora - versus the re-creation of reality which is art, and which is, in this context, represented by Tolkien, et al.
Therefore, Bowman is not lumping Avatar in with Tolkien as equally worthless fantasy. He is sketching out the stark differences between older and newer fantasy. He is saying that Hollywood fantasy is empty and escapist, whereas, on the contrary, Tolkien wrote art.
Bowman is not the first reviewer to state that Avatar is fluff. It is thematically unoriginal eye-candy, ending with the usual "nerve-wracking count-down" (30 seconds until the bomb drops) followed by a simple physical conflict in which the "good guy" will obviously come out on top. But did Bowman ever imply that Tolkien, Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare wrote fluff? Not once.
|
[Posted as a matter of general interest. Since I never actually read the review in question, I've probably already said more than I should on the subject.] (07/22/2010) |
Todd: Stephen,
I just recently purchased what is (I think) the fourth set of the First Chronicles. I must be hard on paperbacks or something.
Anyway, I was looking on the very first page, opposite the inside cover, and STILL, after all these years, all the different editions and publications, right there smack in the middle of the "The Warning of Lord Foul" page, it STILL reads "Drool Rockworm has the Staff of Life.."
You'd think that somewhere along the line that someone over at Ballentine would have corrected that. Has it ever bothered you?
Do things like that and any typos which may have been missed ever get corrected in between printings?
|
I feel some chagrin at the fact that I've never noticed this before. <sigh> Of course, I'm not responsible for my publisher's mistakes. But still.... After all these years, you'd think I *might* have noticed. When I get a chance, I'll urge the people at DEL REY/Ballantine to correct the problem. Yes, things like typos *do* usually get corrected between printings; but only when the author calls them to the publisher's attention. (07/22/2010) |
Captain Maybe: You've answered lots of questions about the challenges of writing, but I don't think you've ever said whether you actually _enjoy_ writing. (I've just done a search for 'enjoy' and, although I didn't read every answer, the closer I found was an answer to one of my earlier questions in which you said you didn't enjoy _re_writing.)
So - do you enjoy writing? And, of course, I mean enjoy in a broad sense - I don't mean 'Is it fun to write?', but is it broadly a pleasurable experience? Are there certain things that are more enjoyable to write than others, or does it depend on your state of mind at the time?
I did creative writing at university and I remember one of my lecturers saying something along the lines that if writing is fun, you're probably not very good. Is that something that rings a bell with you?
|
"If writing is fun, you're probably not very good." I can't speak for anyone else. And in any case, the assertion is too broad to be useful. But it sure rings a bell for me. I would never use a word like "enjoy" to describe the experience of writing. I call it "wrestling with the Angel of the Lord": it's always arduous, painful, and frustrating. In fact, whenever I'm writing easily, I know I'm doing something wrong. Which explains, at least in part, why it takes me so &^#$% long to produce a book. So why do I do it? Why do I bother? Well, this is the work I was born to do. I'm more consistently *alive* when I'm writing than I am under most other circumstances. Writing makes me--for lack of a better term--a bigger person than I could hope to be otherwise. So it's hard. So what? Name something that you consider worth doing on a profound level; and if you think it's easy--or even fun--I'll be inclined to think that you aren't putting your heart into it. (07/22/2010) |
||X|||: Ok, time to split some hairs.
I've noticed that there is a spell-type mechanism used in the COTC that is very little noted, namely the Word of Warning, encountered by the Good Guys towards the end of LFB. We have since then seen no trace or mention of it, but hey, why use a plot device twice when you don't need to, right? Meanwhile, elsewhere in the GI is, in a different context, the discussion of the deliberate similarity/ambiguity of the words "Word, wyrd, wierd, worm, etc." Could we then retroactively apply this idea to the Word of Warning, making it just as easily the Wyrd or Wierd of Warning?
Also, as an at least former comic book fan, do you have any particular favorites among the MANY comic book film adaptations that have been released over the last decade or so? (you might be interested to know that a Thor movie is in the works with none other than *Kenneth Brannagh* at the helm).
|
For a variety of reasons, I distrust retroactive reinterpretation. When I wrote the first "Covenant" trilogy, I had NO intention of writing more; and I certainly did not foresee getting involved in the similarity/ambiguity you describe. Looking back, I would be very reluctant to assign any special meaning to the term "Word of Warning"--if for no other reason than because it was a puny thing compared to the scale of the issues I'm dealing with now. I suppose my favorite comic book film adaptation so far has been "Iron Man." "X-Men" showed promise, but quickly became too bloated--and too dismissive of my favorite characters. But the worst examples, in my mind, were "Ghost Rider" and the several "Punisher" movies. Those were even worse than the "Fantastic Four" movies. (Just my opinions, folks.) (07/26/2010) |
John Carr: I love all your books.
However, I do have a question that has been nagging me for a while.
I don't think either Covenant or Linden deserved their ring and staff to go black. I mean they are good people with a good conscience, who are trying to do good, from my perspective. Sure, they may make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that their hearts are black, does it?
Which is why I think I have missed the whole point!
Yet I still love all your books :)
Thanks
|
There's more than one way to look at it. A few examples. Sometimes good people do black things, intentionally or inadvertently. Sometimes good people get tricked into doing black things. Sometimes good people have conflicting motivations, some of which are black. And sometimes good people have to go through black places in order to reach the light toward which they strive. Actions always have consequences. And that seems especially true for black actions. But the blackness isn't necessarily the whole story about the person, or about the consequences. (07/26/2010) |
Bernard Roth:
Space travel got you down? Does jumping the gap just make you want to fly your ship into an asteroid and kill everyone on board? Did they have to tie you down and shoot you full of rhinoceros tranquilizers the very first time you traveled away from your home star system?
Quacko Enterprises has the answer! Gap sickness is a thing of the past with the new and improved Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant! Now you can control those nasty homicidal impulses that transform you from a mild-mannered milquetoast at sub-light speeds into a murderous maniac after even the smallest gap jump!
All it takes is one brief out-patient procedure to install your new Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant, and you will instantly have full control of your life! You will finally have the freedom you’ve always wanted! Freedom to travel anywhere in the known universe on any modern day gap-ship! Don’t wait! Get it now! The new and improved Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant! Quacko Enterprises: making space travel bearable for all!
Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant has been proven safe and effective in clinical trials. Mild side effects have been reported, including headache, brief psychotic episodes, catatonic seizures and death (although we suspect the deaths were really only misdiagnosed catatonia.) Notify your physician if hallucinations persist more than four hours. Never loan your Quacko Enterprises Zone Implant controller module to anyone. We mean that. Really. Please implant responsibly.
|
Now why didn't *I* think of that? It seems so obvious, now that you've explained it to me. (07/26/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: In answer to a question a few years ago you said:
"Obviously you've never tasted my cooking."
Do you like to cook? And if so, what is your favorite dish to make?
|
I hate to cook, so I only do it under duress. My favorite dish to cook is "hamburger surprise" (officially called "Stephen R. Donaldson's Imponderable Hamburger Surprise") because even I don't know what's going to be in it. (07/26/2010) |
Robert K Murnick: Hello Sir. I understand that the covers of your novels are not something under your control. But if cover-control was offered to you, would you take it? ....and what would the covers show?
|
As I've said before, I'm not a visual person. I wouldn't want cover control because I can't imagine what I would like to see. However, cover *approval* would be another matter altogether. When I see something, I know whether I like it or not--and I'm usually able to say why. But in my experience, publishers will go to extraordinary lengths to block powers like cover control and cover approval, even when those powers are granted to the author by contract. Publishers do NOT want to be told how to do their jobs. Which I can understand, at least to some extent, since I don't want anyone to tell me how to do MY job. (08/04/2010) |
j.r. gibson: i've read many of your books over the years but have only recently found the g.i., so i apologize for the anachronistic nature of this question: one of the themes in the movie "the matrix" is the idea that this has all been done before. i know in a previous post, "the matrix" was brought up but not specifically in this light.
much fantasy blurs the line between reality and fantasy, but "the matrix" struck me as very similar to "thomas covenant," in that idea of despair maintaining power (or at least existence) through the ongoing cycle of the rise of a savior, the ritual of desecration, the rise of a new savior, etc.
if this idea of a feedback loop didn't strike you as a ripoff, where else have you seen this in pre-halfhand storytelling? thanks.
|
"[T]he idea that this has all been done before" strikes me as very familiar. The example that first leaps to mind is E. R. R. Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros"; but I would bet cash money that the idea goes *way* back. (Any belief system that incorporates reincarnation....) In any case, I'm confident that the "Matrix" films are not a "Covenant" ripoff. The differences are far more obvious to me than the similarities. Plus, of course, "There is nothing new under the sun." (08/04/2010) |
Paul S.: I just want to say Thank You -- not just for the great stories but also for your kindness, openness (where appropriate) and honesty with your fans. You were honest back at the beginning when you said there would be four books and each book would be published three years apart -- and (so far!) you've stuck to it. No additional/split books, no changes to schedules, no "the story grew in the telling" excuses. And the quality of your work is beyond reproach.
With exception of you and Erikson, lately it seems that all of my favorite SF/F authors have fallen into those other traps. Just another small reason why you are my favorite author.
I know the writing process is different for everyone -- but seems you could provide some guidance in this arena for your fellow 'schedule/story-size challenged' peers.
|
Naturally I'm grateful for your good opinion. And I place a high personal value on being a man of my word. But let me make a couple of rather generic comments about my fellow writers. 1) Some people are just plain indolent, and they're everywhere. No writer of my acquaintance would disagree with that assessment. The observation that some writers are indolent is a description of human beings in general, not of writers in particular. 2) But more importantly: everyone works differently. My own method of planning stories backward, so that I know how big they'll be and what shape they'll take before I ever start writing, is highly idiosyncratic (some would say idiopathic). I know a number of writers, some of them very fine writers, who don't *plan* in anything like the same sense. They find a beginning that excites them; and then they just write, discovering the story as they go along. For such people, producing stories that defy their initial expectations is normal. (And wonderful.) But there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply a fact of life: different imaginations work differently. As they should. (08/04/2010) |
jeff: Hey,
I have been re-reading your gap novels, and then saw a documentary which had the (moving) image of a spider eating a caterpillar. It occured to me that the spider converts the caterpillar's cells into spider cells (digestion/metabolism) in much the same way that you envisioned the amnion converting human cells into amnion cells. Except of course they do it internally, but it's pretty much the same thing isn't it?
Is this something you considered when you came up with the idea?
|
Not really. When a spider eats a caterpillar, that's digestion (correct me if I'm wrong), not reproduction. Reproduction is a separate function. If the spider were Amnion, when the spider was done there would be two spiders, not one well-fed spider. (08/04/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't think I'm way off base when I say that Vain has always been a fascinating character for a lot of fans of the Chronicles. There have certainly been a good many GI questions about him. He's just very cool, even though he never says a word. He's mysterious yet very powerful (maybe that's why he's so cool, the ultimate "dark, silent type" :-). Well, here's another question about him. I've always wondered about his name. I assume since the ur-Viles created him, that they named him (?). I would also assume (perhaps, wrongly?) that their name was in their language and that perhaps "Vain" is the human translation of that ur-Vile name. The word vain can have two meanings, 1) to be conceited, full of self-importance, etc. or 2) futility. I've always wondered which of the two meanings you were thinking of when you named him? Both? Since the ur-Viles were so full of "unworth", I guess for lack of a better word, I thought his name was more about definition number 2 and the futility of their situation. But over time, and in reading the GI, I think number 1 also fits, it's their conceit in trying to oppose Foul by creating something of Law (or that will become Law). Am I in the ballpark of how you saw him and why you named him the way you did (sorry for all the baseball metaphors, just that time of the year I guess :-)).
|
Remembering that I wouldn't have used the name if it didn't *sound* right to my ear, I can honestly say that I had both definitions in mind. They work well together. The self-loathing of the ur-viles urges them to think of anything *not* themselves as a kind of perfection (perfection of form and function as defined by Law; perfection of their Weird): hence the sheer conceit of their ambitions. But perfection--or any desire to be something substantively different than what they are (e.g. "natural" rather than "artificial")--is unattainable: hence the futility of their ambitions. But I also had something more obscure in mind. "Vain" is a homonym for "vane"--and (wait for it) Vain is a kind of weathervane: he shows which way the wind is blowing for the ur-viles. Jeez Louise. Are authors really this lame? (08/18/2010) |
Anonymous: Have you ever been invited for an interview on a late night talk show? If not, would you attend one if you were invited?
|
No, I've never been invited. And I've never seen a writer of my general seriousness on a late night talk show. But if I *were* invited, I would be eager to say no--in which case my publishers would probably shoot me straight in the head. <rueful grin> (08/18/2010) |
Captain Maybe: You've answered a couple of questions lately about the cover art of the upcoming US edition of Against All Things Ending, but I was wondering what your thoughts on the UK edition were. It seems to me it's not as mysterious as the previous two - it's too clean - almost happy. But I do like the continuation of the elemental theme - forest, mountain, sea. And I much prefer the less representative, more oblique approach of the UK covers.
What do you think?
|
In general, I prefer the UK approach rather than the US one. And in general, I don't think that the UK "Against All Things Ending" is up to the standard of the previous two books. But have you seen the "revised" UK cover? I'm told that the unrevised version (before both my agent and I screamed) is still floating around on the web somewhere. It makes the book look like a box of laundry detergent. By *that* standard, the revised cover is a huge improvement. (08/18/2010) |
John : Steve,
We all know that when you wrote the first chronicles you had no plans for the next two. At the end of TPTP the Staff of Law was destroyed. So my question is did you originally intend to mean that the Land did not need the Staff? I know this is asking you to reach back in decades to other thoughs, but at the end of the first chronicles was your intent that the Land would eventually be whole without the Staff to support Law, considering you had no plans for two more chronicles?
Thanks for your Time!
John
|
This is simple. The Land existed for ages without the benefit of a Staff of Law. Berek created his Staff in response to a terrible threat. With that threat (Lord Foul) removed, no one at the time had any reason to think that the world wouldn't go back to being fine without the Staff. (08/18/2010) |
Richard Nortcutt: Mr. Donaldson,
A few years back I was in New Mexico somewhere around Nogal. I remember driving by a gate that said "Haven Farm".... would that be YOUR Haven Farm?
|
No chance. "My" Haven Farm was in New Jersey. I've never been to Nogal. (08/18/2010) |
Usivius: Just reading the GI, and there it was: the title of your autobiography: "I'm Not Getting Any Younger."
;)
|
Not bad. But I already have another title in mind--which I have no intention of using. (Is it already in the Gradual Interview? I think so; but I could be wrong.) (08/18/2010) |
Solar: Back in 2004, you posted this answer in response to a question about the Worm and its place in the Land's cosmology:
'Personally, I don't see any inherent conflict between the two main cosmologies presented in the "Chronicles." After all, life necessitates death. Anything that lives carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. (And our own bodies demonstrate just how *many* seeds there can be.) The alternative is stasis. Indeed, anything that doesn't both grow and die (usually in that order) can't really be described as being alive. So if the Creator wanted to make a living world, he pretty much had to supply the means for the eventual ending of that world. Hence, to my way of thinking, the tangible existence of the Worm of the World's End doesn't conflict at all with the general cosmology put forth by the Lords.'
I found your thoughts on the relationship between life and death quite enlightening, but fitting these thoughts in with the events of the 'Chronicles' has proven difficult for me. If something that doesn't die can't be described as being alive, then where does the breaking of the Law of Death and the Law of Life leave us?
Post-'White Gold Wielder', the Land exists in a world where the line between life and death is not only rather blurry, but can and has been traversed. I can't help but think that the Worm's status as the natural end of the Arch's life must have been profoundly altered by the breaking of the two Laws. At the risk of turning this into a 'Creator' question: after the breaking of the Laws of Life and Death, is the Worm still what the Creator originally intended it to be?
|
Ah, well. I created all these problems for myself when I first decided to tamper with “the natural order.” Now it seems reasonable to conclude that the breaking of the Laws of Death and Life has wider implications for the cosmology of “The Chronicles” as a whole. But there are at least two reasons why I wouldn’t draw the conclusions you suggest. First, a few exceptions don’t automatically invalidate a general rule. For example, the fact that a few dead spirits under very specialized circumstances can interact with the living after the breaking of the Law of Death doesn’t make death meaningless: it only implies that--now *here’s* an original idea--living beings have souls which don’t cease to exist after death. (Obviously my intentions would have clearer if I had written about “marring” rather than “breaking” crucial Laws. But it’s too late to worry about that now.) Second, your reasoning doesn’t take the Law of Time into account. Causality and sequence still apply (as does “the necessity of freedom”). Hence the Dead are limited in most of the same ways that the living are. Certainly they can’t resurrect *themselves*: that would really play havoc with cosmology. And they can’t see the future: not really. They can guess at it the same way Lord Foul does, with wisdom and/or cunning and/or thousands and thousands of years of observation; but they can’t KNOW it. Personally, I don’t see how anything that’s happened in the first 8 books undermines or alters (or reinterprets) the implied cosmologies of “The Chronicles.” (09/03/2010) |
Mark: Okay, some of this is outside the text and I know you don't care for those types of questions, but this has been nagging me ever since I re-read PtP.
Elena Foul Wife.
There are so many implications in that title it's staggering. Acting on the presumption that LF didn't just make it up to mess with Covenant, it calls all my assumptions about the Despiser into question.
Foul came across as asture and he loathes the world of The Land, yet this seems to imply a desire for a relationship with the Land, since you explicitly compare what he'll do to the Land to what he's done to her. Yet it's not quite the same as just abusing something because of its worthlessness. In giving Elena that title he elevates her almost to his level - so it seemed to me - and implied a committment on his part as well. It's certainly the most intimate relationship we've ever seen from him.
So, despite the Land's worthlessness and inferiortiy, for LF's point of view, could it somehow change his nature too, even against his will? I know he somehow subsists on Earthpower, since he fed on it to grow strong after the Ritual of Desecration and the First and Second Chronicles.
I've got to compare LF's relationship with Elena to Covenant's relationships with Lena and Elena, and wonder if Covenant's actions somehow gave those desires to LF, who is fulfilling the worst of them.
And I can only speculate about what LF was thinking when he made up that creation story about the unfaithful goddess. Where did that idea come from?
It also made me wonder if Foul and the Foul Wife had any Despiser Juniors during TIW and PtP.
|
Of course, you’re free to speculate in any way that interests you. You--like all of my readers--have earned the right. But from my perspective, it appears that you’re over-thinking the “Foul-wife” issue. After all, unless my own research is badly mistaken, Triock is the only character who uses that term. To my mind, it says more about Triock himself (and the kind of pain he’s experiencing) than it does about Elena. And I don’t see that it implies anything about Lord Foul. After all, Triock has no direct knowledge: he’s only learned what the Ravers (and therefore LF) want him to learn. Thinking about Elena as LF’s actual *wife* seems too literal to me--and it isn’t supported anywhere else in the text. Still, you might be on to something, if you step back from the literal. Diassomer Mininderain comes to mind. There’s a (for lack of a better term) female in LF’s backstory somewhere. Apparently. (09/03/2010) |
Mike D.: Hi Stephen -
First, I want to thank you for answering my previous questions - although they were some time back, I am grateful for your taking the time, and I know i speak for many when I say that your devotion to your fans goes above and beyond what any of us could hope for.
The question -
I've been re-reading the chronicles, from the first up to fatal revenant, to prepare myself for AATE... Somehow, unbelievably even, in my previous readings, I missed a connection that you seemed to go out of your way to make. That connection being between Pitchwife/The First and Longwrath. Having somehow missed that he is their grandson in my previous readings, I'm now wondering if I have somehow missed the importance of that as well. So the question is - Is there some relevant importance in the fact that Longwrath is their grandson, or was it just a nice and/or simple way of explaining the Giants knowledge of Linden and her history/story from her previous time in the Land?
Thanks again for your time and effort. Your creation has been a friend to me for many years, and I know it will continue to be so for many more.
Mike
|
Sorry. RAFO. But keep in mind that Pitchwife and the First simply would not have told their story of Covenant, Linden, et al, exclusively to their children. When they returned to their people, they would have told everyone. Repeatedly. The Giants are like that. Besides, I’m an “efficient” writer--as I keep saying. Why would I bother to create a new geneology when I can use one I already have? (09/03/2010) |
mick: Stephen
First of all I dont belive you exist, you are a dream/nightmare for making me wait nine years to the conclusion of the chronicals.
Do you ever reflect, on the success of authers such as Raymond Feist and his prolific output of books around Midkemia/Pug that you erred in leaving Covernant so long and unexploited? I love with passion your work but I enjoy Feists work aswell.I dont think his prolificness of his created world devalues it at all, I think you were bit of a miser with the land and why stop with the finnal chronicals why final? dont you have bills to pay give the people what they love!
|
Sorry. I don’t believe in giving people what they love. I believe in giving them what *I* love. Which is exactly what I’ve been doing throughout my career, with all of the books that you choose not to notice. Any other approach would destroy my creativity. (09/03/2010) |
Steve Phillips: Hello Stephen,
Congratulations on the complete of AATE. While I, like everyone else on here, don't ever want Thomas Covenant books to stop coming, I'm sure you're both eager to get it over with and terrified at the same time.
My question to you is this: In the Gap series, you did an outstanding job of telling the story from many different characters' viewpoints. So far, you haven't done this in the Last Chronicles, but I think the opportunity would be there in the last two books, if you wanted to. Without giving anything away, are you telling the story in the last two books just through Linden and Thomas, or might we see others tell the story as well?
Thanks again for your hard work
Steve
|
“Without giving anything away…”? You can’t be serious! In important ways, point-of-view *is* story. Certainly point of view determines how story is perceived. I couldn’t answer your question without telling you what the story is going to be. (09/03/2010) |
Terry Hornsby: Harper Collins have done wonders to sell Tolkien after Unwin relinquished the rights (the two brothers who ran it were just too old, I think). Recently they launched a print-to-order service (£40 a book for Christopher T's History volumes). David Langford I believe it was, once recounted how copies of his book, The Leaky Establishment, filled his small garage after the publisher did nothing to publicise the book (which is very funny) - he spent several years selling them piecemeal himself. I believe Christopher Priest has also been let down by publishers and once arranged his own book tour (not to mention how they categorised his book and ruined sales with dreadful covers). The first covers on your British prints by Peter Goodfellow joined together into a wonderful circular panaroma (if that's not a tautology) and I would love for the new books to have the same style treatment. Would it be worth your while to approach the publishers with a similar print-to-order arrangement for a deluxe treatment with some nice new Goodfellow covers, perhaps (not withstanding that Gollancz does those nice boxed editions with those bland cover designs)?
Do you sometimes wish you'd gone with Harper Collins, or that Gollancz promoted your works in a similar fashion? After all, HC's promotions offer a free springboard for similar works if they're packaged in a similar fashion (legal matters aside!) Or are you wary of too close an identification? (I personally think your work is what fans should move onto, after Tolkien, once they grow up, not that Tolkien's work is bad, it is just less mature in its rosy view of history, chivalry and all that). I think the identification works because you complement Tolkien so well, rather than being just another sub-Middle Earth catastrophe.
|
HarperCollins UK and I aren't on speaking terms. They dumped me vehemently when I submitted my most recent mystery novel, "The Man Who Fought Alone." As I recall, they said I had "betrayed the Donaldson brand": an accusation I found offensive. Then they let all of my books go out of print--except, of course, the first 6 "Covenant" books (for which they nonetheless refuse to do any kind of promotion). That's why I'm now published by Orion/Gollancz. And I'm grateful to be where I am. At this stage, I would be delighted if HarperCollins UK released the earlier "Chronicles" to Gollancz. Incidentally, Orion/Gollancz now has all of my other books back in print--with the exception of "Reave the Just and Other Tales" (forthcoming). From my perspective, Gollancz has made a couple of, well, let's call them "packaging" mistakes with my books. But overall I've been very pleased with their treatments, both of "The Last Chronicles" and of the GAP books. I have no desire to return to the way things were 30 years ago. (09/04/2010) |
David Bunnell: Am correct in assuming that Thomas Covenant would not have an iPhone 4 antenna reception issue?
|
Hmm. I've been asked some "outside the text" questions before, but this one sets a new record. (09/04/2010) |
Brandon: Hello, I would like to ask a question. Why would the last chronicles of Thomas Covenant be called that if he isn't really the main character in the books or have any real purpose anymore in them?
|
Tsk tsk. RAFO. (09/04/2010) |
James Post: I'll leave off the standard "I'm a big fan, and you've had an impact on my life" bit; we can take that as read, I hope, or why would I be here?
In the Covenant books, clearly moral/ethical questions are always at the forefront, and although I feel like we've seen enough of Covenant and Linden's internal monologues to mostly grasp their beliefs and motivations, I find myself repeatedly coming back to questions about the actions/motivations of the Haruchai.
1) The Haruchai, as we've been shown, judge others and themselves incessantly, and having judged, immediately act upon that judgment. However, in more or less every significant case we know of (trusting Kevin, distrusting first Covenant [in the first Chronicles] and then Linden [in The One Tree]) they've ultimately been proven wrong. Having perfect racial memory, they've taken this experience and gone on in the Last Chronicles to judge all the people of the Land and find them wanting. Doesn't it seem like they'd learn over the millenia that they are just too different from other people to judge their character correctly?
2. Put simply, why are the Haruchai so lacking in self-motivation? In almost every instance we've seen them, they latch onto the first strong personality they meet and choose to "serve" them, rather than acting on their own toward their own goals. Is there something in their racial history that caused this?
(I'm not really seeking extratextual information here... Just hoping you might point me to something I've missed).
One non-Haruchai query:
We've been given two apparently incompatible 'origin myths' for the world of the Land. Since each of these origins is significant to various plot points in the story, can we hope that the reconciliation of the two will be somehow fundamental to the conclusion of the Last Chronicles?
|
Perhaps it would help if you think of the Haruchai as religious fanatics, like jihadists or Biblical fundamentalists. (It's an imperfect analogy, I know: I'm just trying to shed a little light here.) Those people surrender the meaning of their lives to some external "higher" power; some cause which they may have interpreted for themselves, but which they have acquired from some imam, preacher, or leader. And when things don't work out as promised, their instinctive reaction is to raise the stakes (rather than to reconsider the substance of their beliefs). E.g. "I have cancer. I have faith that God will cure my cancer. My cancer is still killing me. I must not have enough faith. The fault is in me, not in God, and certainly not in my notion of faith." Do you see the similarity? All of those people believe that everything would work out right if only THE WHOLE WORLD could be forced to think the same way they do. Like missionaries, jihadists don't try to *understand* the people they want to convert/destroy. As for the origin myths, since (as I've said before) I don't consider them incompatible, I don't see any need to reconcile them. (09/04/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I believe you have stated in the past that in preparation for writing the Last Chronicles you re-read the First and Second. And if memory serves, you recently read through them again? I assume you are quite familiar with the fact that most people who love the Chronicles of TC have read them multiple times (myself, I have no clue anymore how many times I've read them since I first discovered them back in my teens - I would hazard it's a few). That said, I'm sure I'm not alone in stating that every time I read them I still get moved/excited in all the places I'm supposed to get moved/excited even though I know the story pretty well. I liken this to the Luke Skywalker effect, no matter how many times I've seen Star Wars and Luke flying through the Death Star trench at the end, it still gets my heart pumping...even though I know he's going to "win". Granted, I'm not nearly as excited as when first seeing it...but still. My question for you is: do you get moved/excited when re-reading the books? Are you just reading to get information for the next book or does the story grab you again?
|
I certainly hope that none of my readers react to re-reading the earlier "Chronicles" the same way I do. I don't react the way I want my readers to react. And I don't react the way I react when I read books I didn't write. For both of my (comparatively) recent re-readings, I was hard at work "mining" the text for material and descriptions and hints: my readers don't do that (or don't do it in the same way) because they don't already know my story. And the mining itself has been a mixed experience. In some situations, I have better ideas now than I did then, ideas which are unfortunately inconsistent with the earlier material. That makes me wish I could change the earlier books to match what I'm doing now. But on a different level: the first time I re-read Covenant 1-6, my primary reaction was intimidation. I thought, I can't compete with *that*. (Don't laugh: I'm perfectly serious.) The second time I re-read Covenant 1-3, my primary reactions were boredom and regret. I found them tedious, as well as full of narrative crudity, and I felt bad about inflicting them on people. (Again, I'm perfectly serious.) Covenant 4-6 were better: I actually enjoyed them for the most part. But it was the writing I enjoyed, not particular scenes, events, or characters. You asked.... (09/04/2010) |
ahmet kurt: hi Mr.Donaldson,
first i want to know,what was you thoughts about your name before starting to write books.have you contemplated to write with your right name or with a pseudonyme.and if you intent to need a new one allow me to suggest some here.something like;
Stephen D.Ronaldson,Ronald D.Stephenson or Donald S.Ronaldson.(i intend no offense here with your name,sir.)
secondly,i want to ask you this one before it is to late.you have descriped many places on the Land,and there was incidents and occurences all around and on the other places they were not mapped.is there any other places on the land or around of it,that we will see with new incidents on the upcomming books?
tyvm
|
When I was forced to use a pseudonym for my first three mystery novels, I chose a name that reminded me of mine. "Reed Stephens" is based on "Stephen Reeder Donaldson." But I'm proud of my work, and I've always wanted to put my real name on it. As for your second question, I'm afraid you'll have to RAFO (read and find out). Certain places recur because they must: Kevin's Watch, Revelstone, Andelain, Mount Thunder, Sarangrave Flat. In other situations, I try to avoid repeating myself. (09/04/2010) |
Mark Powis: Dear Dr. Donaldson: I regret to inform you that the text of AATE appears to have been illegally leaked to the public. I myself haven't seen or found it, but judging from the newest discussion thread at Kevins Watch, it *is* available for public consuumption. Even though I haven't seen it myself, the comments in the aforementioned new thread CLEARLY indicate that people are reading / have read the book. Automatically I assumed you would wish to be made aware of the situation. Personally, I refuse to read it "early" for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the truly genuine respect I have for you as an author. In my opinion, anyone reading AATE for free on the Web is guilty of theft of intellectual property from you, theft of money from the publisher, recieveing & possessing stolen property.....well, you get the idea. And last but not least: Don't these people realize how badly they're cheating themselves? It's like sneaking under the Christmas tree as a child, carefully peeling back the wrapping paper, and finding out early what your present is. Kinda took a lot of the fun out of Christmas morning when I did that. By the same emotional token, I choose to preserve the joy of holding the book in my hands for the first time, and the almost sexually aroused (!!!) feeling I'll get as I slowly open the front cover for the first time, and begin reading. These people are cheating everyone! Starting with you, and next the publisher, and finally themselves! "Hear you all? You are foolish beyond all hope of redemption, and Steve's lawyers shall feast upon your very souls!".....Best Wishes ! The Spoony
|
I appreciate your concern. However, the situation you describe may not be what it appears to be. Here's a perfectly plausible scenario that does *not* mean the text has been "illegally leaked to the public." The publisher contracts with a printer to produce ARCs ("advance reading copies") which the publisher intends to distribute free to reviewers, book-buyers, and the like in an effort to create "buzz." Someone who works for the printer slips, say, 3 copies off the production line (in effect, stealing them from the publisher), takes them home, and immediately lists them for sale on eBay. Someone from Kevin's Watch buys one of them, and the discussion starts. Well, if this is what happened, there are several sides to the story. 1) Personally, I find it reprehensible that someone stole a few copies from the publisher. But that isn't exactly the same thing as releasing the book to the public. 2) And someone else was always going to do the same thing anyway: reviewers are *forever* picking up some unearned money by selling their ARCs--and in fact there's nothing illegal about this (immoral, perhaps: illegal, no). 3) Meanwhile, I can't blame someone for buying a book on eBay. In particular, I can't blame anyone from Kevin's Watch. The people who belong to that virtual community have always "played fair" with me; and I have good reason to believe that the person or persons who bought ARCs will also buy "legitimate" copies when the time comes. So where's the harm? My publishers certainly don't see any harm. As far as they are concerned, this is (almost) free advertising. The only "victim"--if there is one--is the poor person who paid too much for a book on eBay. And as far as *I* am concerned--well, like you, I wouldn't do it myself. I don't like to reward people (the sellers) who want money they haven't earned. But I can't honestly say that I feel damaged. And I don't think ill of the people who buy the books. (09/05/2010) |
Michael from Santa Fe: What happens to an advance an author gets on his/her royalties, if the book(s) they write don't make enough to cover the advance? Do they owe back the difference, or is the publisher contractually out of luck?
|
The short answer is the publisher is contractually out of luck. The publisher guessed wrong about how well the book would sell, and has to accept the consequences. The author gets to keep the money. Of course, this is bad for the author in the long run. After a significant loss, the publisher doesn't want to publish that author again. Which is why I'm now on my 4th US publisher. But the situation isn't quite as simple as it looks. Publishers work hard to manage their expenses and set their prices so that they can make a profit *before* the advance has "earned out." As an extremely crude rule of thumb, if a book earns out 2/3 of its advance, the publisher is usually willing to take another chance on the author. (09/07/2010) |
Festil: Mr. Donaldson,
It has been said, (paraphrasing) "dreams are the mind's way of working out the problems of the day." Poetic? Perhaps. But accurate? And it need not be true. Afterall, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Nevertheless, proceeding from the assumption that that assessment is in fact accurate:
From a layman's point of view, what "problems of the day" might be indicated if - while reading tbe Gap sequence or TCOTC (with or without TU) one were to find oneself experiencing dreams of soaring through space aboard Captains Fancy, or navigating the seas upon Starfares Gem?
Thanks!
-Festil
P.S. - As an aside, I borrowed the name of one of your characters and incorporated it into one of my (way too many to remember them all) email addresses. I bet you'll never guess which...
|
I know you don't really expect me to interpret your dreams for you. But I know of several theories of dream interpretation, each of which has felt valid on one occasion or another in my life. 1) "Dreams are the mind's way of working out the problems of the day." Actually, I have very little experience with this. 2) Dreams are a form of mental "house-cleaning." The whole point of dreaming is to forget the dreams as a way of getting rid of debris for which the mind has no further use. 3) All of the characters in the dream are you, and the action of the dream dramatizes in symbolic terms an internal conflict (you vs you vs you) which your mind is attempting to resolve. Sometimes successfully: hence the epiphanies which some people experience in dreams. 4) Dreams are a teaching tool which the unconscious mind uses in an attempt to persuade the conscious mind to change the way it thinks, often by dramatizing the absurdity of what the conscious mind is doing. There are, of course, other theories, some of them extremely explicit. But the real trick to dream interpretation is to identify which theory actually applies to a particular dream. Applying an inappropriate theory perpetuates confusion. Applying an appropriate theory sheds light. (09/07/2010) |
Mike S.: Mr. Donaldson. Thank you for taking the time to read - and respond to - our questions. This time 'round, I have two...
1. In re-reading the first trilogy of TC, noticed that there appears to be a congruence between the philosophy of the Oath of Peace and the philosophy of many modern martial arts (particularly Judo). Judo emphasizes "maximum efficiency" and "mutual benefit"; restraint to only that response necessary for defense is the central theme - same with the Oath of Peace. Note that neither forbids outright violence if called for, but only forbids <excessive> reaction beyond the minimum needed. Knowing your background in the martial arts, I thought this was interesting - comments?
2. One reason I love your work is that your characters are truly "human" (in most cases, that is). They are flawed, they are tortured, they suffer and die, they make mistakes IN THE NARRATIVE that haunt them throughout the book(s). They are "alive". The only other author I've found with a similar penchant is Katheryn Kurtz, who has no problem showing the full spectrum of humanity - and human life - in her stories. Are there any other authors you would care to recommend that have a similar outlook on their craft?
Thanks,
Mike
|
1) What *I* find interesting is that I didn't start to study the martial arts until more than 10 years AFTER the publication of "Lord Foul's Bane." During my years of work on both the first and second trilogies, I hardly knew that the martial arts existed. I certainly had no idea that they might embody philosophies. 2) Over the long haul, every writer worth reading is unique. Each brings a singular set of strengths and weaknesses to his/her work. If you read my books looking for Patricia McKillip's extraordinarily evocative prose, you're going to be disappointed. If you read Tim Powers looking for a writer who wrestles with his characters the way I do, you're going to be disappointed. But this takes nothing away from McKillip or Powers--or from me. However, when I try to think about your question, the name that comes most readily to mind is Paul Scott, particularly "The Raj Quartet." A remarkable work that accumulates power at about the same rate that its characters accumulate flaws. Or you might take a look at some Henry James. Or George Meredith. There are also examples in Conrad, Eliot (George, not T. S.), Austen: the list goes on. (09/07/2010) |
Newlyn: Stephen,
I've never seen this question on the GI before but I may have missed it.
My question is more of a motivational type question. I have found myself in the, quite new for me, situation of doing most of my work from home. I find that I have trouble staying on task and keeping motivated to do my work. Even though I love what I do, something about being completely on my own with it makes it hard to keep the cogs turning. Do you have any specific techniques or advice to those of us who are struggling with this? You've obviously got it down or you wouldn't be producing the quality of work that you are!
|
Everyone I know who works from home has the same problem, whether or not the work is creative or--for lack of a better term--self-generated. Personally, I relieved several of the obstacles by getting an office *away* from home, a place that's physically separate, and that I use exclusively for work. But not everyone has that option. However, everyone I've talked to uses several techniques to create a sense of isolation and an atmosphere of concentration. The first key is to eliminate distractions, which are often visual (e.g. someone walking past the window, or the sight of a pile of dirty laundry), or involve other people sharing the house (e.g. you leave your work space to use the bathroom; your partner/child/whatever says, "Since you're not working, can you help me with...?" I cannot tell you what a blessing it is to have a private bathroom). The second key is to eliminate any sense that you're being *watched*. This is really about eliminating triggers for self-consciousness; and everyone I've talked to does it with *sound*: I call it working in "a cocoon of sound." If you can't hear the outside world, it's easier to believe that the outside world isn't paying attention to you. And as a corollary to this point, you need *appropriate* sound, sound that conduces to the kind of concentration you need. I also need a writing "ritual" which helps me get going every day. Most of the people I've talked to use some version of a ritual or habit. For example, one part of my ritual involves re-reading and revising the work I did the previous day. Does that help? (09/15/2010) |
Anonymous: I have been looking for large print versions of your work without success. After searching the GI I understand some of the reasons why now.
May I suggest to you that a lot of your older fans could really benefit from LP. I read the first chronicles of TC when they were first published, I am now an old & tired old man and would love to read them again as well as some of your newer stuff. I can not read regular print now even with the aid of glasses. Amazon's Kindle DX would be an excellent way to do this as far as I am concerned. And I think Amazon's software would insure that your piracy concern's were handled as well? I know it's hard to accept all this new technology, but ignoring it is sort of like ignoring the telephone or the automobile in 1910. It is still going to change the world we live in, regardless.
|
This isn't under my control. Publishers use small print to reduce costs. Personally, I hate it: I want large print myself. But there's nothing I can do. E-books offer one solution. I'm told you can choose your own font size and even type when you read an e-book. Meanwhile negotiations for the "Covenant" books in e-formats are still on hold: my publishers still haven't convinced me--or themselves--that they can produce an accurate text from a physical book. (09/15/2010) |
Mike White: Hi Mr Donaldson,
Just a quick one - publication date of AATE in the UK is down on all the online stores as 28/10 - is this correct?
Kind Regards,
Mike White.
|
In fact, I didn't know the answer until today. But yes, October 28, 2010, is the correct publication date for the UK edition. (09/20/2010) |
Andy Pastuszak: Having thoroughly enjoyed Scott Bricks audiobook of Fatal Revanent, I was wondering if a similar deal has been struck to have him do an audiobook of Against All Things Ending?
|
It's likely, I suppose. But I don't have any solid information. Scott Brick is dedicated to the "Covenant" books. But he's risking his own money (not to mention his time), and his "Covenant" audiobooks don't sell well. (09/22/2010) |
Michael (a,k.a. Steve) from Santa Fe: So I was going over a list of some of my very favorite authors and I noticed something that I had never noticed before, here was the start of the list:
Stephen R. Donaldson
Stephen King
Steven Brust
Steven Erikson
Neal Stephenson
I was thinking, geez, have I discovered the secret to being a great writer? Is it that easy? Then I remembered the movie, "The Tao of Steve" (a local, filmed in NM movie - see it if you haven't, I thought it was very good). It postulates that all cool guys are named "Steve" and/or being named "Steve" makes you cool. And if my theory holds, also a great writer. So, I guess I can blame my lack of great writing ability on my parents (stupid Great Uncle)...oh, and just call me "Steve from Santa Fe" from now on...
|
It's interesting to note that the Biblical "Stephen" was a martyr. So be careful what you wish for. (09/22/2010) |
Mark L. Slay: I see from some of the posts that you think the idea of turning the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" into a Sci-Fi or Fantasy series is atrocious to you. Would you reconsider writing the screenplay if the Sci-Fi channel promised to do a good job say like they have done with Steven Kings "Haven" based on the Colorado Kid or say the Star Gate series?
|
I would never under any circumstances consider writing a screenplay for any of my books. The reasons are many (e.g. I don't know how), but here are two that leap immediately to mind. 1) Movies and tv are "visual," and I'm almost exclusively verbal. I think I'm incapable of telling a story in any form except a verbal narrative. 2) I hate re-hashing my own work. I want to move on. I don't want to go over the same material again. (09/22/2010) |
anonymous: Im just gonna keep this question as short and too the point as I can possibly get. Do you feel that if Thomas Covenant had chosen to stay in The Land after "The Power that Preserves" that Lord Foul would not have been able to aquire the power to create the sunbane? Let me put it this way, After TC is killed he turns into the Wild Magic and is able to defeat Foul that way, But if he had stayed in The Land, and died thousands of years before the events of "The Wounded Land" do you think he would have been able to stop Foul before it ever happenned?
|
Since your question comes from WAY outside the text, your own ideas are probably as good as mine. In effect, you're asking, "If you had decided to tell a different story, how different would it be?" To that I have no answer. But I can't help thinking that if Covenant had died a natural death in the Land after the first trilogy, he would never have become a spirit of wild magic capable of defending the Arch of Time. Then everything in "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles" simply falls apart. (09/22/2010) |
Roger Huffman: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
While searching the internet I found a book called "Last Drink Bird Head" which is some kind of fundraiser for ProLiteracy. Here is a link:
http://wyrmpublishing.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=20
It says that "Stephen R. Donaldson" contributed. Is that you? Or is there another Stephen R. Donaldson that writes? Does that mean you contributed a story to the book? A Donaldson story that isn't published anywhere else?
Roger
|
Yes, that's me in "Last Drink Bird Head." The gimmick of the collection was this: the editor sent out those four words (last, drink, bird, head) to an array of writers and asked them to contribute the first thing that popped into mind. The subject-line of the email was, Don't think, just write. Well, it was a good cause, and I know the editor, so I complied. But I didn't contribute a story. I wrote maybe four sentences offering a completely spurious idiomatic explanation of those four words in a foreign language. Most of the other contributers had much more interesting things to say. (09/22/2010) |
Jim Latimer: Greetings, Stephen!!! I'm waiting with great anticipation for the publication of AATE...but my question is about the GAP e-books.
You mentioned the release of one of them and the proofreading of a second...2 questions regarding this great news...
1) Where is it available?
2) How can I know I'm getting the new proofread version and not the older "corrupt" version? (BTW, do I sense Lord Foul's hand in these poor "corrupt" copies, or was that just a subconscious slip of the tongue?)
Here's hoping for the 1st and 2nd Chronicles in e-book form soon as well.
|
You should be able to get the GAP e-books from places like amazon.com and ereader.com. All five are now available. But I can't confirm that they've actually been proofread. Last I heard, the proofreading process was "on-going." In any case, I don't trust what the publisher calls QA (quality assurance). "Cheap" is more important than "good," especially in the e-book business. I'm waiting for some kind of evidence that the GAP e-text is accurate before I sign away the e-rights to the first six "Covenant" books. How can you be sure you're getting a corrected version? I have no idea. But since there's no physical product involved, the publisher should be able to replace a corrupt book with a corrected one almost instantaneously. (09/22/2010) |
Anonymous: I've actually read a number of books / authors that you mentioned on the site as being some of your favorites. (Tim Powers, Le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Erickson). I'm finding your tastes are a bit more esoteric than mine. I'm being forced to read very slowly just to understand the material presented. Lets just say my score was higher on the Math SAT than the verbal so I am pre-disposed in some way to numbers rather than words. You have a much more heightened sense to words and the english language, a unique perspective, and more developed sense of story, character, tone, etc.. than I. And then of course there is just the matter of personal taste involved in this also which is hard to account for. Any tips or personal observations for reading and enjoying books that you find challenging in the manner I described?
|
My immediate reaction is: where's the problem? Are your tastes different than mine? Do you enjoy different books than I do? So what? That seems perfectly normal to me. After all, there's nothing sacred about my opinions. They're just, well, opinions. But if you actually *want* "esoteric" (for whatever reason), try Ford Madox Ford's WWI tetralogy, "Parade's End." That'll work your brain right down to the white meat. <grin> You'll notice that I haven't mentioned writers like James Joyce and Vladimir Nabokov. From my perspective, those guys are *really* esoteric. They're so busy playing intellectual games that the whole notion of "story" ceases to have any relevance. Every passion except the cerebral has been denatured. Writers like Powers, Le Carre, Erickson, and Ford may be difficult to keep up with, but they are telling real stories with real passion. (09/30/2010) |
Mark: Hi Stephen,
I was perusing a chat board that talks about the Nook - B&N's e-reader - and found this link talking about the publishers attempting to screw over the authors. Here's the link...
http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2010/08/publishers-behaving-badly-again.html
What is your take on this? Have your publishers approached you about porting all of your books to e-book form?
Have a great day.
|
For the record, a publisher who asks an author to sign over the e-rights is not necessarily trying to screw that author. No doubt there are exceptions; but for the most part, publishers are simply trying to survive. Physical books sales dwindle every year. Meanwhile e-book sales appear to be growing. So naturally publishers are trying to expand their presence in the e-book business. The effect of this process on authors depends pretty much on the terms of the contract--or the terms of the amendment. Broadly speaking, however, anything that helps publishers make a profit has the potential to benefit authors. After all, authors need readers as much as publishers do. As for *my* books in e-formats, I've already said enough on the subject elsewhere in the gradual interview. (09/30/2010) |
DrPaul: Dear Stephen,
Some years ago I read an online discussion in which a contributor accused Star Trek of a particular ideological bias because no millionaires ever appeared in the series. About the same time I read one of David Brin's articles complaining about the tendency of fantasy writers to situate their stories in feudal monarchies rather than in liberal societies. More recently I have participated in a Kevin's Watch discussion prompted by a post suggesting that the Land in TCOTC was "backward" because it didn't have a monetary system. It seems to me that such views miss an important point about both SF and fantasy as genres. This is that much of the best of both genres would not be possible without both the freedom to imagine alternative social possibilities, and the challenge of convincingly exploring both the alternative social possibilities themselves and how people succeed or fail in making authentic choices within such contexts. What do you think?
|
It appears to me that this whole discussion proceeds from a false premise: that the function of storytelling is to portray societies. While this premise clearly holds true in some cases, it is far from being universally relevant. For many many writers, the society being portrayed is simply a means to an end. Context enables story. Why else do science fiction and fantasy exist? I don't write about Covenant because I want to portray a "backward" society. I portray a "backward" society because it frees me to tell Covenant's story the way I want to tell it. Similarly, I don't write about Angus Thermopyle and Morn Hyland because I want to portray an "advanced," corrupt society. I've imagined an "advanced," corrupt society because it enables me to tell the story of Angus and Morn. Of course, being "convincing" is essential to good storytelling. No matter what story I'm telling, it will fail if I can't make the context convincing. So I have to understand that context well enough to pursue its implications consistently and even logically. But the context is *not* the point of the story. For some other writers, of course, the context *is* the point of the story. A fair amount of hard sf comes to mind. To a certain extent, even LOTR comes to mind. During certain literary periods (say, Victorian England), a portrait of society was one of the expected requirements of a novel. Nonetheless I could easily spend the rest of the day listing exceptions. (09/30/2010) |
MRK: It's clear how you feel about ambiguous quotes comparing you to other authors (i.e. "Comparable to Tolkien at his best" I guess it's better than "Comparable to Tolkien at his worst.")
How do you feel though, when another author is compared to *you* in a blurb? I know that both Steven Erikson and J.V. Jones have been compared with you in blurbs on their books (possibly others have as well) Namely in the sense that they could be ranked with you in terms of ability and achievement. Do you take this as a compliment to yourself as well as them?
On a another note, I understand why you would want to be judged on your own merit, rather than using other writers as a yardstick, but are there any authors whom you wouldn't mind being compared to? (e.g. "Comparable to Conrad at his best"?)
PS. For what little it may be worth, I recently wrote a letter to the SyFy Channel and advised them that if they were looking for material for a new miniseries, they couldn't do much better, and could do far worse, than Mordant's Need.
|
I'm torn. On the one hand, I can easily argue that all comparisons are invidious. They mislead more than they enlighten. On the other, I can easily understand why people (especially reviewers) make comparisons. Comparisons serve as a kind of cognitive shorthand. If I can tell you (on virtually any reasonable basis) that "If you like X, you're likely to enjoy Y as well," I save myself a lot of tedious explanation--and I avoid coming to grips with all the ways in which X is *not* similar to Y. A purist might claim that comparisons are lazy communication--unless differences and similarities are according equal consideration. But in practice I suspect that we all do it. I know I do. Shorthand exists for a reason. (Here I'm tempted to go off on a riff about "judgment"--the ability to see the differences between similar things--and "wit"--the ability to see the similarities between different things. But inevitably that would take me to Panini's [sp?] "four levels of understanding," so I'll spare you.) As for how I personally feel when other writers are compared to me: that all depends on my opinion of the other writer(s) in question. A fan once told me that his favorite writers were John Norman (he of the "Gor" books), Clive Cussler, and Donaldson. I was not flattered. (10/13/2010) |
Grant Lovett: I am re-reading the Gap books (they are even more relevant (and ejoyable) today than when i first read them). My 2 questions are :
- why italics for the ship names ? I recall you saying you used them in Covenant for foreign words...but not sure why so in this context
- what sort of speed do you imagine Nick used while using his EVA suit in space when attacking Sorus ? I found this part hard to visualise given that the ships seem to move so fast even when dodging the swarm.
thanks again...cant wait for Oct 19th.
|
I'm glad you've enjoyed the GAP books! Thanks for telling me. As I understand it, using italics for ship names is "standard." But then, so is using "the": "the Trumpet," "the Bright Beauty," etc.. Clearly I'm comfortable ignoring standard usage whenever I wish. <rueful smile> Hence the absence of italics for ship names in the "Covenant" books. My reasoning there was that I was already using italics for too many other purposes. The last thing the books needed was *more* italics. But the same reasoning didn't apply to the GAP books, so I saw no reason to violate standard usage. The thing to remember about relative speeds--especially in the scene to which you refer--is inertia: in the absence of intervening forces (e.g. significant gravity), a body in motion remains in motion (and it keeps going in the same direction). The people aboard a ship are all traveling at the same speed as the ship. So when Nick launches himself against Sorus, he doesn't need his EVA jets to catch her from a standing start: his only needs them to make up the difference between her speed and the speed he already has (since he's launching himself from a moving ship). In addition, it seems to me that ship speeds in an asteroid belt simply can't be as fast as they look in the movies. Inertia again. The faster a ship moves, the more energy it requires to change course in a restricted space. Does that help? (10/13/2010) |
KK : Hi Steve,
My question is from the 1st Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and concerns the griffin. What was it that stopped Lord Foul developing the (his air force) griffin?
Surely the Despiser knew he would need to defeat Revelstone eventually, and the griffin would have been a powerful siege weapon!
|
OK, now you're embarrassing me. <sigh> The *real* reason that Lord Foul doesn't develop griffins as an air force is that I was ashamed of having intruded one into the story in the first place. *That,* I believed then, and still believe, was a failure of imagination. I should have invented a creature instead of borrowing one from standard mythology. Well, I didn't have any better ideas at the time. But the griffin's presence always bothered me, so I avoided relying on it later in the story. (10/13/2010) |
Craig: Hi Stephen,
An opinion and a question if I may.
The evolution of the "txt" into our language has (in my opinion) served to undermine the spelling and punctuation skills of a generation.
The new technology trend now is twitter. "tweeters" post their thoughts and ideas through this medium to hundreds, thousands, if not millions of strangers. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it could evolve into a very unifying and powerful "thing".
But.
By design, the format of this broadcast of information (it is not sharing, that implies getting something back) is limited to 140 characters...including spaces and punctuation marks.
This does accomplish 2 critical things for the person composing a 'tweet".
1. It forces them to focus their thoughts into a concise, hopefully coherant message, so there is no content BUT their core of their message. That is not a bad thing.
2. It forces them to dramaticaly simplify the language.
As an example, a 'twitter' version of the above points may read like this...
Spelling not good B/C txts. Tweets cool new tech for mny ppl. nfo max 140 ltrs. 1 way nfo. Tweets 2 point but only easy words. Eg like this.
To me that is horrifying. Obviously the number of questions in the GI indicates that people do want to know your opinion about things...so...have you considered items like this, and if so, what do you think?
Regards
Craig
|
I may be the wrong person to ask for an opinion. I have absolutely no interest in Twitter, or "tweets," or text messages--or blogs--or Facebook--or.... If my work demonstrates anything, it shows that I strive for *complete* communication. And if my life demonstrates anything, it shows that I value real relationships with real people. (10/21/2010) |
James DiBenedetto: Steve,
Did you know that one of the future technologies you wrote about in the Gap Cycle is now officially a reality?
ABC News ran a story just last night about a new, experimental technique to help obese patients control their weight via electrodes implanted in the brain. I'd call that a case of primitive, first generation Zone Implants, wouldn't you?
|
I didn't know; but I'm certainly not surprised to learn that medical science is moving in that direction. I was simply trying to be logical--if that's the right word--when I described most of the "science" in the GAP books. (10/21/2010) |
Steve Trimble: Hi again, Steve ...
I just re-read the first chapter of AATE here on this site, after i had finished re-reading FR for the third time. I felt like I just needed to drop you a line--in part because you're so open and friendly in your responses to your readers, and also because your work still has its old deep magic.
After I read Runes, I admit to a certain amount of trepidation ... would The Last Chronicles fall into the slumber that was the final few books of King's The Dark Tower series ... so emotional and fulfilling in its first few installments, and yet somewhat unfocused and colorless by the end volumes? You were attempting the culmination of a world, of defining all you had created--and all that we loved about it. I am a judge like any other reader, and I wondered if you would be equal to the task.
Okay, so I've read two volumes and one chapter of the four book set. It seems to me that you have found the literal means to grapple with titanic and unexplainable things. For example, I loved how Covenant sloughed off his divinity and reluctantly--perhaps fatally so--resumed his essential humanity. "Hellfire, doesn't that *mean* anything to you?"
Anyway--a question. When you defined these things in your mind in preparation for defining them on paper, was that question in your mind; that is, how can I answer these essential questions and make the reader believe? Or is that so obvious as to be rhetorical?
Thanks, Steve ... stories like this are truly special.
--Steve
|
You're phrasing the issue differently than I would. I don't ask, "how can I answer these essential questions and make the reader believe?" From my perspective, making the reader believe is a function of the quality of the writing, the design of the narrative, the insight into the characters--and the clarity of the writer's intentions. (In the example you cite, I think I can say without disrespect that King's intentions shifted as he wrote.) No, the question that terrifies me is, "How can I possibly write and plot and understand well enough to earn the reader's attention and justify my intentions?" That's probably just what *you* asked. (10/25/2010) |
Dangerous Dave from Denver: If memory serves, prior to, and during your professional career, you have been a teacher.
What were the courses you taught? Did you enjoy teaching? And did those experiences in anyway help your own writing?
|
I had two teaching phases in my life. One was as a teaching fellow at Kent State: Freshman English. The other was as an assistant instructor at the Ghost Ranch Writers' Workshops. At the time, the first was my definition of the abyss. The second was extremely difficult because I saw what the students were doing very clearly--but I was younger than any of them, and I had never been published, so I had no credibility. But both experiences were extremely beneficial to my own writing. They forced me to clarify what I believed about writing in general, and how I wanted to go about my own writing in particular. To this day, however, I hate teaching writing. <sigh> So maybe I'm human after all. On the other hand, I love teaching karate. Maybe because I don't take karate so personally.... (10/25/2010) |
Bob DeFrank: Hello and hope you're doing well.
Just a question out of curiosity: Do you see each of the three Ravers as specializing in anything? The Despiser usually has Samadhi in situations where he deals more closely with people, as a political manipulator with the King or even a leader as of the Clave, and he's pretty effective. Do you think the other two have certain skills that influence the jobs their given and the methods they'd use?
Thanks in advance. Eagerly awaiting AATE.
|
Frankly, I have no opinion. We're outside the text again. I don't think of the Ravers as distinguishable from each other in any way--for the simple reason that my story doesn't require them to be distinguishable from each other (and I only invent--sing along with me--what I need). (10/25/2010) |
John: At the end of The Illearth War, the Forestal Caerroil Wildwood says Hile Troy's attempt to use the white gold is "a Breaking of Law." How was that use a 'breaking of Law'?
|
Hmm. Keep in mind that when I wrote the first "Chronicles" I had no intention of going on. Under the circumstances, there were any number of questions that I didn't need to think about. Any answer I might offer you now involves retroactive reasoning, which I usually try to avoid. But of course Hile Troy is not a "rightful" white gold wielder. And from a moral perspective (considering, for example, "the necessity of freedom"), handing over the ring out of a sense of defeat (Covenant just wants somebody else to take over his responsibilities) isn't really comparable to *marrying* someone with it. In one sense, Covenant's action is a surrender. But in another, it's an abdication. His surrender at the end of "White Gold Wielder" is entirely different. (10/25/2010) |
Tim Brieger: Mr. Donaldson,
Has anyone ever approached you regarding the language issue related to your works? Meaning, how did it come to be that Covenant, Hile Troy and Linden all speak with, and understand everyone in the Land from the second they arrive? I understand Foul's ability to communicate, as the Creator's, but the average everyday stonedowner speaking English?
In the end, I do love your philosophy about writing what you needed, especially when people ask you about other areas of the Land, social and political development, maps. I guess this falls under that heading.
Thanks again for your time and patience with all our questions.
|
Look at the issue from a different perspective. How could I sustain, even briefly, the internal integrity of Covenant's Unbelief if he couldn't even talk to the people he meets? If the whole experience is a form of hallucination, which he desperately strives to believe--if it's all being generated inside his own failing mind--then *of course* everyone else speaks his language. What else could they possibly speak? (Obviously "inhuman creatures" like the Waynhim and ur-viles are a different case. Since they represent alien concepts in Covenant's thinking, he wouldn't *expect* to understand them.) (10/25/2010) |
John Blackburn: An easy one I hope: why is there no map in Mordant's Need? I remember reading it and thinking "I could do with a map" as there is quite a lot of discussion of geography. Did you prepare a map for your own use while writing it?
Best of luck with AATE. I'm certainly buying it!
|
Actually, I did work from a rough map (which, btw, I no longer possess) while I was writing. But I had quite a list of reasons for not including it with the published text. E.g. I wanted to teach myself not to rely on the descriptive "shorthand" of a map. That was a salutary narrative exercise. However, the main reason--the *main* reason--was that I wanted to do everything in my power to STAY AWAY from the prior example of the "Covenant" books. I did *not* want "Mordant's Need" to look or feel or even smell like More Of The Same. That's why so many of the world-building details are--for lack of a better term--more "conventional" than they are in "Covenant." That's why the world is "flatter" (more mundane), and the magic is more mechanical. I wanted to get away from "archetypal" fantasy and write a more "human-centered" kind of fantasy (as I called it at the time). In retrospect, I like to think that was an important and necessary step in my growth as a writer. It certainly helped prepare me for the GAP books. (10/25/2010) |
Jim Peterman: Hello Stephen.
Congratulations on finishing AATE, and I wish you all the luck and energy you need with TLD.
I was pre-ordering AATE on amazon.ca today, and I see they are also offering a "Against All Things Ending 12-Copy Signed Prepack" in the $350 range. There is no explanation or description with the entry though.
Can you offer any insight?
Thanks,
Jim
|
This offer is aimed at bookstores. In addition to the pre-autographed books, such offers often include a free-standing display rack (called a "dump") that bookstores can put out front to attract attention. (10/25/2010) |
John: Steve,
It's 9/21/2010 as I write this, and I find that I can actually buy AATE online at some U.S. book sellers. I will not buy, as I do not know if you will receive any compensation for these books; as the publication date is in October I wonder if these are stolen? Or perhaps some book sellers jump the gun to make a buck?
John
|
If you could actually *get* the book in September, it was probably an ARC (advance reading copy), and those aren't supposed to be for sale. (I certainly don't get any compensation.) But most legitimate online booksellers allow you to *order* a book several weeks before publication. In those cases, you won't *receive* the book until the publication date--and I *do* get my usual royalties. (10/25/2010) |
Paul Morris: Dear Stephen
Just thought of a way to" advertise" the forthcoming big literary event in my life. I will be sharing the following with my friends on FaceBook.
The return of Thomas Covenant
By Stephen R Donaldson in
Against all things ending.
Imagination: think Tolkein
Writing: think Conrad
Depth and symbolism: think the Odyssey
Entertainment: a real book: makes the Internet look like a distraction
For the first chapter click here
http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/28167391AATEChapter1.pdf
For the trailer click here
http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/flash_window3.htm
Thoroughly recommended.
Hope this is okay!
|
Thank you! If more of my readers did things like this, it would be very helpful. "Getting the word out" is perhaps the most useful form of advertising. Unfortunately, publishers aren't very good at it. (11/02/2010) |
Guy Andrew Hall: First of all, hate your books. All of them. And when I think I might be mistaken, that I might actually like them, I have to re-read them to remind myself that I hate them. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to reread them. I figure I will hate the next one, but it will probably take a few readings as well.</snark>
Secondly (where I actually get to my question), do you play chess? Be warned - your answer will determine the fate of the world. Well, okay, that might be a bit melodramatic. How about the fate of my mood? Not quite so overwhelming? Oh shoot! That's a second question. Ignore it.
|
Your reaction is more common than you might think. I'm always amazed that people hate my books enough to read (and re-read) them all. I have no good explanation. But it's obvious that my books inspire strong emotional reactions--and that hate is *not* the opposite of love. I played chess at lot in my pre-college years. Came close to being school champion (the finals were never played, so I didn't get a chance to win). But I probably haven't played more than 10 games in the intervening 40+ years. (11/02/2010) |
Mark McDonald: Steve,
I read the first Covenant series while in high school and appreciated it very much. I enjoyed the Second Chronicles even more. I've read the first two books of the final Chronicles and while I enjoyed them, I have to admit that I had difficulty understanding some of the concepts. Maybe I need to go back and re-read them. You're an excellent author, and maybe I'm just not used to that. (grin)
My question (which I don't think has been asked in the GI) is why did you not make Lena one of Covenant's dead in the Second Chronicles? Is it because his feelings of guilt and shame were more
pronounced over her than they were over Elena because of the former's innocence? (at least more innocent than Elena). Is she not there because he wants to forget her more than he does Elena?
I look forward to the final volumes of Covenant's story. Thanks
|
The easy answer would be that Lena is not there because she wasn't Earthpowerful in life: her spirit has less of the requisite energy. Atiaran at least studied in the Loresraat, and Trell was a Gravelingas, but Lena had no special relationship with the "soul" of the Land. That answer is accurate enough--as far as it goes. However, it feels like a bit of a cop-out. It might be more useful to say that she didn't fit in with what I was trying to accomplish in "The Second Chronicles." I didn't want to reintroduce the themes she represents because I was hoping to move beyond them. To move, perhaps, from guilt to restitution or reconciliation (as expressed by Covenant's caamora for the dead Giants in Seareach), which is arguably the main thrust of "The Second Chronicles." (Incidentally, this also explains Elena's appearance as healthy and loving, despite the fact that she wears a very different aspect later. There, unlike "The Last Chronicles," the Dead are trying to bring Covenant what he needs--and he doesn't need reminders of his guilt. He's going to get plenty of that from Lord Foul via the soothtell.) So I wouldn't say that Lena isn't there because Covenant wants to forget her. I would say she isn't there because--brace yourself--the story doesn't need her. (Now where have you heard *that* before?) (11/03/2010) |
westend: first thankyou for your amazing tales they are very much appreciated
may i ask how do you rate aate in comparison to your previous work?
Secondly if you had the oppotunity to submit a question to any author in the same way that we can to you, who would you contact and what would you ask?
thankyou once again
|
"Against All Things Ending" pleases me. So far, I feel that I'm rising to the challenge of "The Last Chronicles"--which means, among other things, that each book is stronger than the one before (as it should be). Frankly, I've never really understood the Gradual Interview. If I had a chance to ask a question under comparable circumstances (circumstances which imply that I don't already know the author personally), I wouldn't. I don't want to know anything about work that disappoints me (except, perhaps, Why did you let this happen?--which is not a very useful question). And when work doesn't disappoint me, I figure that all of the answers I'll ever need are already in the text. (11/03/2010) |
Richard: Hello Steve,
I am reading Erikson - on your recommednation - and it occurs to me that often in fantasy there is a tendency to begin chapters with the use of invented song or poetry and why it is that this is the case?
I am not sure if there is other literary precendent that causes this or influence of other authors?
Or because it creates a certain verisimilitude for the world that is being created?
Or other?
In short, I am interested in your opinion.
Thank you.
|
I can't think of many writers, other than Erikson, who use this technique. My own imagination doesn't work that way. But I would guess--and it's only a guess--that Erikson does it a) to create "a certain verisimilitude," and b) to focus the themes he's exploring in that section of the story. Perhaps it's also a world-building technique, a way of implying other times and other dimensions in his story's "reality." (11/04/2010) |
Matt Finch: Hi Steve,
Way back in '79 you provided the cover quotations for Patricia Wrightson's gripping Australian fantasy, The Dark Bright Water.
I guess you've given many such quotations but just wondered what had brought that book to your attention and if you had any comments on the work of the late Ms. Wrightson.
|
I first encountered Wrightson during my one stint as a judge for the World Fantasy Awards. I enjoyed the book enormously, and tried to get my fellow judges to consider it for the "best novel" award (alas, without success). But her books were never widely available in the US, and I was unable to find more of them after her first (if memory serves) trilogy. (11/04/2010) |
Derek Gledhill: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I have been a big fan of yours for many years and have read the chronicles both in german and french. I was just curious to hear your opinion on Philip K. Dick and if you had read any of his works.
Looking forward to Against All Things Ending!
Sincerely,
Derek Gledhill
|
Yes, I've read some Philip K. Dick. In general, I find his work too--what's the word I want?--disjointed, or oddly jointed, to be emotionally satisfying. Which is why I haven't read more than 2-3 novels and some short stories. But his work is certainly full of interesting and imaginative ideas. (11/04/2010) |
David G: Steve,
Love your work, and am looking forward to picking up the new volume in two weeks.
Just curious, do you feel nervous as the release date approaches, or is that all spent by the time you get to this stage in the process?
|
Sadly, I'm always nervous as the publication of a book approaches. Will it be well received? Won't it? After all, I have a lot at stake here. (11/04/2010) |
Michael Blue: Hello Mr. Donaldson.
I'm really looking forward to AATE in a few days. I see from your "appearances" link that you will be attanding the Buckeye Book Fair on November 6th. I am planning to visit the fair in hopes to meet you in person. I have never been to a book fair, so I'm looking forward to this one. I have a question about the book signing. I know that you will be signing newly purchased books being sold there. I would like to know if it's innapropriate to ask to sign a different book I have? I have a original Lord Foul's Bane HC, and I would like to have that signed instead. Thanks. MB(A fan since my friend Kevin gave me his Bane paperback in 1978)
|
Certainly it's OK to bring older books to events like the Buckeye Book Fair. The Fair won't make any money on a book bought previously (boo hoo). But the underlying purpose of such events is to encourage reading, not to make money, so you shouldn't be stepping on any toes. And even if you are, *I* am always happy to sign older books, regardless of what the people around me think. (11/04/2010) |
Casey: I am confused on something, and I am sure you've probably been asked this before. I've been re-reading Runes of the Earth in preparation for AATE, and one thing that confuses me is that it is estimated that the Falls have been around for approximately 90 to 100 years. Yet, apparently the Ur-Viles escaped into a Fall during the time of the Sunbane. Also, supposedly the Kresh have only been around for 90 to 100 years, and yet the Ramen claim to have a centuries old animosity towards them. Was this just a mistake you made, or is it part of something you're going to explain later? BTW, I think you are the greatest writer of all time:) Your books are far beyond anything I've ever read, and I've read probably several hundred books. My dad's a fan too, he wrote you a hand written letter I believe in the early 80's, and has a typed letter you sent back to him. That's a family heirloom to us, lol. Keep up the great work man. Don't get offended at the question, I'm not attempting to impugn your work or anything, I'm just curious about those questions.
|
Time distortion/travel stories are always rife with paradoxes and contradictions. I’ve done everything I can think of to minimize (or obfuscate) them, but they are inherent to what I’m doing. If you feel confused, I can’t blame you. First, let’s set aside the kresh. I never intended them to be regarded as time travelers. They were always around: they simply didn’t begin preying on Stonedownors until other perils left the villages vulnerable. The other issues are a matter of perspective; of *when* we look at the Falls. When the time of the Sunbane was the present, there were no Falls. The ur-viles did not escape Lord Foul’s wrath via a Fall: they hid in the Lost Deep. But everything changes when we look at the Falls from a different present. From the present perspective of “Runes,” when Linden arrives in the Land, Joan has already been unleashing Falls for about three months in her (Joan’s) life, 90 years in the Land. And those Falls reach *backward* in time, into the past (although the “current” of the Fall runs from the past to the future). So in Linden’s present there *are* Falls reaching backward: to the time of the Sunbane, and even earlier (to the time of the Demondim). Clearly this is a contradiction. But it isn’t a *fatal* paradox because both the ur-viles and the Demondim were removed from the distant past *after* they had ceased to play any role in the Land’s history. Similarly it is not a fatal paradox that the Demondim can draw on the Illearth Stone because they access the Stone *before* it begins to play a role in the Land’s history. By one kind of reasoning, all of this is nonsense. No wonder it’s confusing. But by another kind of reasoning, well, all I can do is shrug and say, Why not? I’m trying to play fair. I’ve devised a set of rules, and I’m applying them consistently. What more can we ask? (11/09/2010) |
Cambo Morrison: My question has to do with the subtle presence of a lot of Buddhist concepts in the Covenant books. The most obvious are Sanskrit words as character names like the samadhi, moksha, turiya and dukkha. By the way, I thought having inherently deceptive, body snatching creatures name themselves after words for unity, liberation and pure mind was a nice ironic touch.
But when I start mining for Buddhist interpretations, they keep on coming. The caamoora can be read in relation to certain Zen meditations that use pain as a catalyst, and the importance of purity and victory through surrender in the Second Chronicles fit well with Buddhist philosophy. The use of paradox is also very similar.
Are these correlations intentional on your part? Were the themes of Thomas Covenant influenced by Buddhism in any major way, or was it just a minor element that gave us some cool character names?
|
After a long hiatus, I find myself once again retreating to the assertion that I’m not a polemicist. I don’t write stories to promote--or even to explore--religious, philosophical, or spiritual insights. To the best of my ability, I ask religious, philosophical, and spiritual questions in an attempt to discover everything contained within a story I’ve been given to write. Sure, I’m sensitive to the points you raise. And in one sense, their relevance is intentional: in the sense that I’m trying to find everything I’m capable of finding in my story. But in another sense, that relevance is definitely *not* intentional (I mean “intentional” in the sense of espousing my own beliefs). So: “influenced by Buddhism in any major way”? Hard to say. Anything that influences me influences my work. But I don’t use my work to explore or promote those influences. That probably doesn’t answer your question; but I don’t know what else to say. (11/09/2010) |
Casey: Why is it even still called the chronicles of Thomas covenant? I mean isn't it really about linden now? It was practically about linden on the second chronicles too. I just don't get it. Is it because if you change the name of the chronicles it will attract less readers? Not too many like linden the way they like covenant.
|
Hmm. It’s all in how you look at it. Do you really think that Linden’s story is *not* about Covenant? But if that doesn’t make sense to you--and my previous work hasn’t earned your trust--then all I can say is, RAFO. (11/09/2010) |
Paul Meier: Hi Mr. Donaldson.
You, by far, are my favorite author. Thank you for your writings; you have been truly blessed with enormous talent. Now my question. In the first chapter of AATE. You bring to Andelain the four ancient high lords plus Elana. Did you purposely leave out the others like Prothall and Mhoram because they were not "needed" in your story line at that particular time? I guess I really like the character of Mhoram as well as his relationship with TC. 2nd Question: Will chapter 2 be released so we can read it too????
|
By now, it’s obvious that chapter 2 will *not* be posted on my site. So this seems like a good time to reiterate that I’m never less than two months behind on the Gradual Interview. A question asked in, say, September doesn’t usually reach me until November at the earliest. On the one hand, this is less than ideal. On the other, the lag has been much longer at various times in recent years. You could say that I left Lords like Prothall and Mhoram out because I didn’t need them. But from my perspective, it would be more accurate to say that I left them out because they didn’t *fit*. I love them both, especially Mhoram. But the issue is one of *stature* in The Grand Scheme Of Things. Turn by turn, Berek, Damelon, Loric, and Kevin *shaped* the world of my story. (For their part, Elena and Caer-Caveral *shaped* the conditions for Covenant’s return.) Prothall and Mhoram (merely) defended it. Does this count as a spoiler? I’m not sure. (11/09/2010) |
Dominic: Hi Steve, I have a love/hate relationship with your work i.e. reading your novels is such a frustratingly beautiful experience that I can't put them down no matter how much it hurts!
My question relates to new work.
You've mentioned in the past that inspiration for new work comes to you sporadically however in the afterword to the Real Story, you explain that your original inspiration came from a relatively simple concept.
As a composer, I have found I suffer from the same uninspired condition so I try setting abstract parameters and restrict specific instruments to disfunctional scales in the hope that the harsh musical canvas will force cooperation & cohesion and perhaps even something beautiful.
The Gap Cycle, Mordant's Need & The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant have all included characters who have had to contend with such abstract parameters and unlike my compositions, you've managed to create something beautiful from the chaos.
Now for the question:
Rather than waiting for inspiration, would you consider taking the above concept and applying it without any specific purpose and let the story write itself?
P.S. I was recently discussing my relationship with your work with a friend that runs a bookstore and you may be interested to know that it's a common complaint among her customers.
P.P.S If all else fails, I've always liked the idea of a story based on a chess match with the narrative developed around the actual moves of the character pieces. It could be set in any place, time etc. Feel free to pinch it as I lack the literary skills to write what I've imagined.
|
I can't imagine working in the ways you describe. It is absolutely essential to me that stories evolve organically from their own sources (whatever those happen to be). I'm more likely to write in pig Latin than to use an abstract (and arbitrary) "concept" as the basis for a story. (11/17/2010) |
Russell Smith: Against All Things Ending will be published in less than a month. At this stage of the process I imagine that its your publisher(s) that have all the work to do. Is there anything that you do, or you have to do on the day of publication? Maybe to ask the question a different way, is the day of publication more or less important to you than the finishing of the manuscript, or final delivery and acceptance?
I am very much looking forward to continuing my journey with Covenant, Linden, and the rest, very shortly. Thanks as always the great stories, and taking time to answer questions in the GI.
|
Publication day is always a High Anxiety time for me (as are the 10 or so days that follow). Despite my best efforts to concentrate on other things, I find that I care a great deal (too much, really) about sales. On one level, this is reasonable. Sales affect my income, which in turn affects my ability to support my family. And of course I have as much ego as anyone else. <sigh> Nonetheless it involves a profound perceptual fallacy: sales are not now, and have never been, a meaningful measure of quality. For my own peace of mind, I wish that I could make a more effective distinction between what I've done and how it's received. (11/17/2010) |
Robert Murnick: Michael Cunningham, the author of this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03cunningham.html
contends that prose has a "music"; "The sentences should have rhythm and cadence, they should engage and delight the inner ear." His article concerns the translation of style into other languages. But I guess I've always been more enthused by plot than by the rhthym of the words that transmit it to me. What's your take on the issue of the necessity of style beneath the story and how much of this (writing in the SRD style) is intentional for you?
|
First, let me say that I don't think there is an "SRD style." (Of course, there *is*, but it's more deeply buried beneath the surface of the prose than you might think.) As anyone who has read my short stories can attest, I deploy a variety of styles; and they're all consciously (intentionally) chosen to suit the particular story I'm telling. Certainly there is a "Covenant" style, but it is different in many respects from the "Mordant's Need" style--which in turn is not the same as the "GAP" style. And none of them emulate "The Man Who" style. Style is the means by which the plot and the characters are communicated. And since the means determine the nature of the experience for the reader, it follows that different stories absolutely require different means. But to your first question. For me (and perhaps only for me--although apparently some other readers feel as I do), it's axiomatic that all good prose has "rhythm and cadence," and that outstanding prose positively *sings*. (Certainly I strive to "engage and delight the inner ear.") Elmore Leonard is an interesting example. No one works harder at writing lean, "minimalist" prose than he does: he writes at the opposite end of the spectrum from the "Covenant" style. And yet his sentences *flow*. For his purposes, their timing is pretty much perfect. They fit together like the finely tooled pieces of an exquisite mechanism. In fact, I might go so far as to argue that he creates the entire reality of his story and characters through rhythm and cadence (and diction: word choice is obviously crucial). By comparison, Patricia McKillip's prose *sings*. It engages and delights the inner ear. I can almost feel it in my bones when I read. (Do I need to add that she writes very different stories than Leonard does? Her prose can't do what his does--and his can't do what hers does. Nor should it.) Don't get me wrong. None of this implies that being "enthused by plot" is somehow less important or valuable than caring about style or music. You are who you are: you read for reasons that please you. That's as it should be. Nonetheless I maintain that your experience of what you read would be changed if the style were changed. However, I should add that many writers don't agree with me. They strive for pure "functionality," nothing more. They say that they want to write prose like glass: it lets the story through so clearly you forget the glass is even there. Yet my experience as a reader doesn't match their stated intentions. (Of course, I believe that the glass *always* affects what shows through it; but that's beside the point.) Either their prose enhances the story for me (as Leonard's does), or it flattens the story, making the plot and characters less effective than they could have been. That's *my* reality. It has no inherent relevance to yours--or to anyone else's. All I can say in conclusion is that I live by what I believe. As most writers do. (11/17/2010) |
David Hawkins: I have been making my living as a writer for four years now, mostly doing technical and sales/marketing style writing. However, I have also been writing and building a stock of fiction which I am planning to transform into either a collection of shorts, or to write novels over the coming years instead.
With this said, you hit me with a thought that makes me feel much better about my writing. I have been considering how to write science fiction books that would hopefully inspire and interest folks who wish to see our space programs take off again.
However, after reading so many book by Ben Bova, I am daunted by the task of making reality fit into my stories.
You however talked about having total control of the creative development of your world, and how you needed this to write.
I see that perhaps this is true for me too, and I wanted to thank you for this gradual interview, as it has opened my eyes to a way of thinking about writing.
I struggle daily with how to come up with my story, and your discussions about the writing process have made me feel that I can accomplish this goal, despite not always feeling that I can actually accomplish it...
|
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) |
Tim: Hi Stephen,
Yesterday I observed a young person litening to his Ipod while simultaneously reading on a Kindle and it got me thinking..College kids no longer put on a record and pour a nice glass of wine- they rip down a music file from the internet. Now Amazon wants to make us forget all about the pleasure of beautifully presented, real physical books and convert us all to Kindle/ebooks. My question is: do you think the current obsession with electronic technology will end up taking some of the charm and soul out of pleasures like music and literature? Also, what do you think of the ever increasing role of technology in our lives, in general?cheers,
Tim
P.S Much looking forward to the real, hardcover release of AATE!
|
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) |
Lee in Vegas: Mr. Donaldson:
I'll bypass the sycophantic dotings as a former fan-boy who wants to thank you for influencing my life (even though you have).
My question pertains to commerce. I'm sure there is a budding (dare I say burgeoning) cottage industry in memorabilia and/or apparel you could reap some financial benefit from.
Have you ever considered adding this to your web-site? I'd love to see renditions of your Covenant and Gap books on shirts and other forms of self promotion.
Counting down the days,
Lee
|
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) |
Bob DeFrank: Mr Donaldson
Hope this message finds you well. A question about the Second Chronicles: I was sort of surprised when no Ravers popped up during the Quest's visit to Bhrathairain. I'd have thought they would have loved that place, and it had no shortage of able bodies. I was constantly looking for one of the Brothers to turn up and cause trouble.
Another small disappointment was Kasreyn's death. He was as intriguing character, sort of a Sith to the Lords' Jedi, with each having a competing philosophy for how to use Earthpower and live in the world - to rule the world rather than LF's desire to simply destroy it. I was hoping he would survive TWL and continue as an antagonist in WGW, only to find himself caught up in the Despiser's deeper plots.
With that in mind, I appreciate the added complexity of the Insequent and their motives and how you were able to balance that against the straightforward quest nature of the story in the last chronciles.
When you first conceived of the last chronciles, did you know it would include these extra layers of maneuvering characters?
Counting the days till AATE.
Happy Halloween.
|
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) |
jennifer: OMG...it suddenly hit me like an invisible tidal wave!
AATE is coming out in a few days! A new book by you is one of the best things in life, man! I don't have a question! I just have to express my excitement and appreciation somehow!
The beauty of it is how you give US new questions to ask not just of your works and themes and thoughts but of ourselves and indeed the very content of our own lives. Insight, power, purpose - priceless!
"Show me the truth!"
DAMN RIGHT! Thank you SO MUCH for sharing your incredible gifts of vision and communication with us! You rock, Mr. D!
;)
|
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) |
Doug The Slow: [various deletions here]
I have recently purchased an eReader as soon as I read in the GI that AATE was out electronically and I have already pre-ordered it.
I purchased Jim Butchers Small Favor while I a wait the eventual release of my school boy jitters. While reading the appetizer before the meal, I came across a quote from TC in the pages.
Dresden's Half brother, a Vampire, states that he is an "outcast leper unclean!" Oddly enough his name is Thomas. [Do] the likes of Jim Butcher have to go through your agent or you to add such things to his novel? And do you get a piece of the action when such things happen? Or is it just a nod of professional respect in your direction?
Quite frankly if it's just a nod of professional respect, Outcast leper unclean should be in every book published today.
Respectfully,
DCM
|
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) |
peter: In the film 'Nine' based loosely on the life of the director Fellini, the protagonist (played by Daniel Day-Lewis) says that every film is 'murdered' three times. First by the writer when he sets it to paper, second by the director when he transfers the (already once murdered) material to film and thirdly by the audience when they place thier interpretation on what they have seen (quite likely to be a million miles from what the writer intended when he viewed the story in his minds eye). Is the same true to at least some extent with the writing of a novel in that it never comes out as you intend because the words contrive to work against you and foil your atempts to translate your inner vision on to the paper.
|
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) |
Mark Slay: Stephen....Did you see what Putnam did to your book cover for "Against All Things Ending" ?
On the book jacket and on the spine, they misspelled Thomas Covenant. It says on the spine, "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Convenant" instead of "Covenant".
They should be made to send out new book jackets to all people who purchased the hard back.
Looks like they spelled his name correctly everywhere else including on the actual book cover itself.
|
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) |
Jeff N: Hello, Mr. Donaldson.
In AATE, the US edition, page 511, paragraph 4, sentence 5, some punctuation seems to be missing; (...not rested not enough...). If it is, you might wish to have it corrected in future printings.
Also, while doing a search to avoid repeating a question, I came across the following: "But hold/holed is a point I really want to address. It is most definitely NOT a typo."
I notice that the print edition uses "hold" instead of "holed". I wonder if you decided to change the spelling or if your intended spelling was mistakenly "corrected".
Thanks for your time. Hope this helps...
|
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) |
Steve Cohen: Dear Stephen,
Congratulations of the launch of AATE. I have a question about being a "rightful white gold wielder"... that is, why isn't Linden considered "rightful"?
Convenant essentially gave her the ring "granted out of love and necessity" if I remember correctly from WGW (which I imagine by design ambigiously could be referring both Linden or Covenant).
And, perhaps more importantly, spanning worlds Linden awoke with the ring in the palm of her hand. Unless you want us to believe that she unconciously took the ring, the ending of WGW implies of fundemental granting / gifting or transferance of the ring...not a temporary loan from the library or a leasing of a car, with payment for mileage over the prescribed terms.
What am I missing? Is it no more than merely the covenant of actual legally recognized marriage that marks both Covenant and Joan as rightful? Even as writing that sentence I have a hard time believing that that could be your underpinnings as what constitutes "rightful," especially when you spend so much time in your writing addressing issues of love one way or another.
Anyway, forgive the rant... it's mostly tongue-in-cheek... really just another one of your crazy fans who has been reading and enjoying your work since the early 80's.
Best,
Steve
|
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) |
Jason D. Wittman: Hello again, Mr. Donaldson,
I'd just like to make a comment regarding the GI question of Oct. 21st about whether things like Twitter and text messaging, etc. are "great" or "horrifying." Consider the following "tweet" (under 140 characters):
"Once there was hobbit named Frodo who had an Evil Ring. One day the wizard Gandalf told Frodo he had to destroy the Ring. So he did."
(I'm currently trying to write a 2-page-or-less, double spaced synopsis of my novel so I can pitch it to agents -- Sisyphus had it easy, and this is for only one book. I can only guess the trouble you had synopsizing entire trilogies!)
Regards,
Jason D. Wittman
|
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) |
Mick: Why oh why do they delay publication in the UK by 10 days or as you would say half a score of days? is it to cross the atlantic?
|
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) |
David Scott: I have read AATE but cannot figure out who the character on the cover, the rough looking guy with the staff, is supposed to be. Who is it?
|
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) |
Case: I love your stuff, but it seems like for certain things you always repeat them and they are always the same. Certain phrases and words used in the same way over and over. Just one example is how Linden is somehow always surprised to find that she is hungry, or that covenant has a face as strict as commandments, or mentions of the words puissance, loam and exceeded, among others. My question is, is that a conscious thing? Do you know you do that? I notice almost all writers have things they commonly repeat. Why is it in all fantasy they eat bread and dried meat and cheese? I'm just musing aloud.
|
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) |
Andrew: Stephen, thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions.
I was wondering if you could please give us an update on how Against All Things Ending is selling, and whether or not you are happy with the sales results.
|
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) |
Tim: Hi
I recently wrote a short story which I quite like but which doesn't flow quite the way I like. I'm thinking when I rewrite it of trying to impose proportions from the fibonacci sequence on it.
I was reminded of this when my wife came home from wor telling me about her workmate's knitted top with a fibonacci stripe pattern. Painter's and architects have always made use of the golden section (which is the proportion of adjacent fibonacci numbers) Debussy is argued to have incorporated this type of proportion into his music and the classical composers (haydn, beethoven) either instinctlively or intentionally also have major points of change in their music at points which divide their movements into 'golden' proprtions.
My question is:
do you or do you know of authors arranging events in their novels according to prescribed proportions (e.g. 30 pages of exposition, 50 pages of something different then 50 pages of denouement) or do you just rewrite until it feels right? Have you heard of this sort of thing being helpful at all?
|
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.
Alan: Since we all know you were a big Tolkien fan (and presumably are) I was wondering if you had read the relatively recent The Tale of the Children of Hurin, and, if so, what your impressions were? The language is quite archaic, but I was amazed at how good it was. Reminded me all over again of how excellent Tolkien was at the things he did well.
|
I lost interest in Tolkien "residue" after "The Silmarillion," so I haven't read anything since. (12/29/2010) |
Steven J. Thomson: I notice today that AATE has reached #15 on The New York Times Bestseller List. Although I'm only 60 pages in, I am not surprised at this.
Does this acknowledgement gratify and does it affect your writing process?
Congratulations Stephen; TLD will well worth the wait.
A True Fan;
Steven J. Thomson
|
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) |
Alan Lantz: 33 or so years is a long time to write on the same series of books. I have read these so many times throughout the years Covenant seems more real than fiction. Do you ever re-read them and wish you would have written them differently? Perhaps even with different outcomes or different characters?
|
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) |
Guy Andrew Hall (Rook): Not a question, just a story that is interesting that seems related to the earlier questions about online piracy.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10/22/174206/Comic-Sales-Soar-After-Artist-Engages-4chan-Pirates?from=headlines
|
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.
Terry Hornsby: Having searched and not found this question (but my eyesight isn't as good as it once was), have you ever wondered if Covenant is ever filmed, what would be the soundtrack of the film? I know you like classical, particularly Wagner, to provide a pleasing white noise whilst writing, but what music would you use in key scenes, or as interludes between action sequences? Maybe, as Covenant faces Foul at the end of the first Chronicles, for example, it would be "Always look on the bright side of life" (apt, but not seriously!). Or maybe someone like Howard Shore, whose Gollum theme, in particular, really captured Smeagul/Gollum's duality (thanks largely to - was it? - Fran Walsh's lyrics).
|
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) |
Brian: I have your books in hard copy, but I now own a Kindel for traveling. Your latest books are available on Kindel. Is your publisher planning on rereleasing the Kindel versions for the first chronicals and second chronicals?
|
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) |
Mark: So....now that your book is finally out, do you have a sense of relief - abeit temporary? Having never published anything, I would imagine that it's much like the birth of a child.
On a side note, this book was available as an e-book immediately. That's great for me as I thought I'd have to wait a bit...not that I wouldn't have bought a hard copy...
Thanks for a great ride so far.
|
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) |
Terry Hornsby: Further to my question "What Soundtrack?" would accompany the Covenant series, I found this website, where (it must be) one of your keenest fans has detailed his own ideas to the series (I hasten to add that whilst I might use some of the music, others strike me as decidedly odd):
http://theland.antgear.com/
(there is a link on the right of the home page called "Soundtrack" to get there. The site seems to have been done with frames, rather than proper pages, so I can't seem to link to it directly).
|
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) |
Robert Hope: Good afternoon sir.
On the Watch, we're having a discussion about how much can be interpreted about an author's character and personal opinions based on the messages and/or themes housed within a work of fiction. In particular, if a work of fiction contains a lot of dysfunctional behavior within a love relationship (ie divorce, inability to reach out, etc etc), that one can imply that the author must have intimate knowledge of divorce et.al.
I've been insisting that one can't make any assumptions about the author's character or opinion, in the sense that if the novel is a horror novel, one can't then assume that the author enjoys killing and maiming, or spends his time down at the morgue swiping cadavers for experiments.
Realizing and respecting your privacy, I am still wondering...is it worthwhile to attempt to extrapolate things about the author based on their work?
|
It has always seemed to me that attempting "to extrapolate things about the author based on their work" is a doomed exercise. The better the author, the more completely his/her experiences/emotions/opinions/self are both submerged and transformed in the work. (Just one mundane example: I started writing about divorce long before I actually experienced it. And having experienced it, I haven't written about it since--except to the extent that I've been following the implications of Covenant's divorce.) In fact, I'm inclined to argue that the whole point of my writing is to express what I am *not* (perhaps as a personal quest for wholeness). To get out of myself and into a realm composed entirely of imagination and empathy. Of course, it ain't that simple. For one thing, I make all this stuff up (I mean my stories and characters): it pretty much has to express me SOMEhow. For another, an argument could be made that I am in the process of *becoming* what I write about. But anyone who chooses to draw conclusions on such bases is begging to be misled. (01/12/2011) |
Pete: It seems that many of your powerful non-protagonists (King Joyce, Warden Dios, Lord Foul, that ochre-robed Creator bum) rarely, if ever, exercise their power to their full potential. It seems to be a common theme amongst your stories that some sort of ultra-strategic puppet master is pulling the strings of your main characters. Why do you believe that you incorporate this concept so frequently into your works?
|
Hmm. Personally, I wouldn't lump King Joyse, Warden Dios, and even in the Creator in with Lord Foul, Master Eremis, or Holt Fasner. The latter are puppet-masters, no question. The former are more like parents: they love their children, but if they ever put forth their full strength (e.g. if they solve all their children's problems for them), the children will never find their own full strength. Admittedly, this analogy fits Joyse and the Creator more obviously than it does Dios. Nevertheless I don't consider Dios a puppet-master. Sure, he puts people in situations they didn't choose for themselves. But then he leaves them alone to handle those situations however they wish. (In other words, he trusts them, much as the Creator trusts Covenant and Linden.) All of which seems rather like real life to me. (01/12/2011) |
Michael Walker: Hi,
I assume all of the characters, to a greater or lesser extent, are based somewhat on aspects of yourself. But, is there any one character which you think is particularly similar to yourself?
Or, to rephrase that a bit, do you frequently wander around in an ochre robe telling people to be true? :P
|
As I've had occasion to say recently, I dispute the premise of your question. So naturally I don't know how to answer it. But which of my characters is *least* unlike me? For that, I refer you to Mick Axbrewder in my mystery novels. (01/12/2011) |
Eloise Albert: Mr Donaldson,
I have purchased AATE, but waiting until Christmas to read it...giving myself a little present!
Just wondering if you've seen this internet program, and your thoughts about the Donaldson/Covenant segment of the show. Is he being truthful when he mentions your irritation?
http://thisweekin.com/thisweekin-books/this-week-in-books-19-with-j-daniel-sawyer/
|
In fact, I tried to watch this show. But I became impatient with it and began to skim. That's my only excuse for the fact that I don't remember the "irritation" you asked about. <sigh> (01/12/2011) |
Michael from Santa Fe: Congrats on AATE making the NY Times Bestseller list! I contributed to that, but no thanks are necessary. :-) You recently answered another GI question that you get nervous before a book release and that you wonder how the book will be received. How do you determine in your own mind that the book was well received? NY Bestseller? Print Reviews? Peer comments? Kevin's Watch forum comments? Certainly not Amazon.com reviews? :)
|
<sigh> The ego is a black hole. Its hunger is never sated. There may not be enough validation in the entire cosmos to make me feel that my book was "well received." Which is why I've spent decades teaching myself to listen to my ego as little as I can. (01/12/2011) |
Ian Boulton: Hi Steve,
I thought of this question several years ago but have never been able to phrase it in such a way that it not would sound like an implied criticism.
In the end, I just thought "ah, to hell with it, I'll ask him anyway". It's slightly tongue in cheek actually, but....
How come the people of the land have a command of vocabulary that's almost as good as yours? Cord Bhapa just used the word "guerdon" and I bet he doesn't have a copy of The Oxford English Dictionary. Or even one of your American Webster ones!
There you go; I've said it! I imagine there may be an enormous library in Revelstone but nowhere else I can think of! Perhaps there's a reference one in Foul's Creche.
I'm about two thirds of the way through AATE and enjoying it immensely - congratulations, it's building up nicely to The Last Dark. Though I'm hoping there will be SOME light at the end of the tunnel!
Regards,
Ian Boulton
|
I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows. (01/12/2011) |
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.
Michael Blue: Hello Dr. Donaldson.
It was a pleasure meeting you at the Buckeye Book Fair yesterday. I appreciate you coming out and spending a few moments chatting, signing AATE and my 1st Chronicles that I brought as well. You shared about your blended band after I showed my white gold ring I had a smith create for me, in part, inspired by your Covenant books. As I drove back and researched here on the GI, I could n't find any direct question (I'm quite sure multiple people have asked you this question over the years) that asked you why you chose white gold for Thomas' wedding ring? Would your own band have any history on this matter leading up to Bane? Being that white gold is yellow mixed with other metals - nickel, silver, palladium, would that have any significance?
What comes to mind is in WGW where Covenant is killed by Foul with white gold magic, thereby perhaps fusing his earthly body with that of the spiritual.
|
I chose white gold for my own wedding band because I like what it symbolizes: it's an alloy, blending different metals to make something new, just as a marriage blends different people to make something new. And I chose white gold for Covenant's wedding band for the same reason, only more so: it "fits" him even better than it does me. (Why else does he try to give it away? His marriage has failed, like most of his bonds with other people. And why else does he so desperately need to keep it? He needs to affirm those bonds in spite of what he's lost. Otherwise he *will* become the Despiser.) (01/19/2011) |
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.
Terry Hornsby: Just in response to one of your fans. There is already a very famous Hugo-nominated "science fiction" novel by John Brunner called "The Squares of the City", based on a real chess match (a famous match played in 1892, according to Wikipedia). It is SF in a speculative socio-political sense, very close to reality. I read the book twenty years ago and for those with patience, can recommend it heartily.
|
[posted as a matter of (possibly) general interest] (01/19/2011) |
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.
Evaleigh: Mr. Donaldson,
I'm not finished with AATE yet (just starting Part 2-5) and I must say with all honesty, that I have found myself reading as if in a dream. I have been reading very slowly, but your writing is like that for me. Each paragraph or sentence can be reread and more becomes aware.
So that leads me to my question(s): When you write such deep and intense stories, do you get exhausted? Do you have to take a nice drive in the mountains to find grounding again?
Thanks for your wonderful fan support. I usually just send you appreciation notes, but for once I have a question. Oh, and I'm not sure on the total sales for AATE, but you've made me very happy. I love it. So at least you can say you made one person happy with your new book. (I know that won't really pay the bills, but I suppose that's not the true reason you write.) *warm silly smile*
Thank you.
|
Do I get exhausted? More than I can easily express. As I'm sure I've said on other occasions, I'm what I call an "experiential" writer: I try to become all the characters and experience what's happening to them as it happens. A very draining process. In fact, exhaustion is one of the biggest problems I have to overcome writing THE LAST DARK. And "a nice drive in the mountains" doesn't cut it for me, alas. (02/15/2011) |
Casey: I'm curious about a few things. First, on a personal level, which character do you like more, covenant or linden? Secondly, have you ever read Hyperion by Dan Simmons, or do you know of his work? Third, when are the original two covenant trilogies going to come to the kindle?
|
"Like"? What's "like"? Covenant is easier to write because he's, well, simpler. Linden touches me more because her struggles resemble mine. I've read some Simmons. "Hyperion" and "The Fall of Hyperion" are extraordinary work, as ambitious in their own way is Erikson's "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen." The first six "Covenant" books will not become e-books in the foreseeable future. The same publisher has crucified the GAP e-books so badly that I'm unwilling to release the e-rights to my earlier books. First my publishers have to prove to me that they're capable of doing a competent job--which at present they are not. (02/15/2011) |
Richard Page: Hello Stephen,
My first exposure to you was when my friend lent me 'The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant', when I was about 14 or so. After a few years, I picked the series up for myself, and am currently enjoying 'Fatal Revenant'.
Before I read the Last Chronicles however, I bought the entire Gap Series, and I must say, it was sublime! I adored the story, the setting, the characters, and the fact that I was wishing the best for Angus, who is actually a completely despicable man. Sure, he saved everyone, but how does that excuse him for the things he had done prior? The rape and degradation of Morn Hyland?
Your main characters always have a dark undertone to them, whether it be Covenant's denial of the Land and violation of Lena to Nick Succorso's treatment of women and his crew to Angus' murderous and constant raping of Morn due to the Zone-Implant.
The one thing they all seem to have in common is that I feel sorry for them. Covenant was suddenly exposed to health and something which couldn't have been real. Nobody trusted Nick, even up to the moments of his death, even though he was once a revered space captain. As for Angus, he was disgusting, his acts unforgivable, yet, he was violated as much as Morn was. Being turned into that half machine/half human ripped him apart, and he could do nothing except blindly follow orders, even though he just didn't want to.
My question is, how difficult do you find it to write these anti-heroes? The people that the reader should despise, yet, we feel pity for.
|
I'm sure I've discussed this previously, in one context or another. I don't consider these characters "anti-heroes." (Of course, I know where they're going to end up before I ever start writing their stories.) Today, at least, I consider them "tortured." And like most tortured people the world over, they've been pretty badly tortured themselves; and in turn they feel an often unconscious impulse to inflict torture on others. For my own sake, as well as for the sake of my characters, I need to believe that tortured people can change. Is that difficult? Of course. It may be more difficult than anything else. If it were easy, everybody would do it. (02/15/2011) |
Matt Hope: Dear Stephen,
I've just finished reading "Against All Things Ending" and would like to thank you for writing another great book. I literally couldn't put it down, almost leading to a terrible accident in the bath tub between a precariously balanced hardback and a dive bombing moth!
Anyway, I digress. I came across an interesting article on a news website talking about a recent trend in American Schools which seems to be coming over to Britain. It seems parents have begun to petition schools to ban certain books in the school library, if they feel they are inappropriate for their children. Given your position as an author and one whose first book did contain some possibly controversial elements, I wonder what your views on this matter are? Do you think young people should be restricted at all in the material that they read?
Personally I find it terrifying that free-thought could be curtailed through litigious measures and I hope that good literature will continue to be made available to students in all schools despite the wishes of their parents. It always strikes me as something of a lack of confidence in they way you have raised your children, if you believe they are going to read something and suddenly turn into an insane degenerate. Mind you... I've never been quite right since reading “Lord Foul's Bane”...
Thank you for your time and reading all this crazy random stuff people send you,
Matt
|
Oh, well. People have been banning books ever since books were first created. Think of all the precious libraries that have been burned to the ground over the past 2-3 thousand years. Frightened and/or vicious people have always found knowledge (and therefore books) terrifying. And yes, the desire of parents to ban books for the "protection" of their children expresses a profound "lack of confidence" in the parents themselves. Fears breeds fears, just as (I said a moment ago) torture breeds torture. But books are still here, despite an uncounted number of "knowledge pogroms." We can hope that books will survive the decimation of school libraries. (02/15/2011) |
Steve Trimble: Hi Steve,
Just finished AATE. Amazing stuff, as always. Favorite part: The return of the Ranyhyn as the splintered company is preparing to depart. Something about the way you write the great horses of the Land always brings a lump to my throat.
Question: I've wondered about your concept of service--i suppose you could say that TC would be nowhere without it. The Haruchai, the Ramen, the Lords, the Forestals, even the Ravers. All base their identities on service of one kind or another. And it seems in AATE that you explore this concept or theme (Weird?) in the most detail yet. Is perhaps the whole story your way of exploring your own ideas on this weighty theme?
|
As I've said on various occasions, I don't write to preach--or even to explore--my own ideas. Instead I try to do justice to the ideas implicit in the stories that come to me to be written. The "Covenant" books--just to pick one example--are about "service" (among other things). The GAP books are not. But of course it's not that simple. My whole approach to writing, as I've described it in the GI, is based on "service." Obviously this is a "weighty theme" for me personally. So I guess the issue, as I see it, is one of emphasis. *My* emphasis is on the story, not on myself, or on my own beliefs or attitudes. The "Covenant" books reflect this more directly than some of my other works; but that's not what the "Covenant" books are *for*. (02/16/2011) |
MRK: Finally got my hands on AATE and reading with fervor!
However, my question actually concerns an older work of yours, "Animal Lover". When I read the story, I found it hard to understand the motivation of the villains, whose names escape me. They said something to the effect of "when we're through, people will *understand death*." I was never really sure what they meant by this; could you please shed some light?
Also, I was wondering if you have ever read Ken Bruen? He is the only author I know of who actually reminds me of you, not in terms of literal writing style (he primarily writes lean-prosed crime novels) but in terms of how deeply flawed yet sympathetic his characters are, how he puts them through the proverbial ringer while facing seemingly hopeless odds, and the profound emotional whallop his books pack. His sleuth character, Jack Taylor, could easily be the Irish counterpart of Mick Axbrewder.
|
Well, keeping in mind that I wrote that story more than 30 years ago.... Hunting (as it's presented in that story) fosters an illusion of power: specifically, the power to deliver death, therefore (by extension) power over death. If the animals can shoot back, that illusion is shattered, and the whole sordid exercise of "sport" hunting is revealed for what it is: an attempt to deny the reality of the hunter's own death. At least I *think* that's what I meant. <rueful smile> Sorry, I've never read Ken Bruen. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard the name before. I'll have to look for him. (02/16/2011) |
Wizard Bill: ...I find that I care a great deal (too much, really) about sales. On one level, this is reasonable. Sales affect my income, which in turn affects my ability to support my family. And of course I have as much ego as anyone else....
I quoted this passage as I found it quite interesting. I believe that this would indicate that you are unhappy about the fact that you are human. I know that you are also aware that for you to increase sales, you would have to put out many more works at a much faster rate. So, my question is this: "Would you (I already know that your own person would not allow it to be so, but nonetheless) rather publish more, inferior works than keep your standards so high, so that you could provide for you and yours?
|
It's true: I'm not particularly happy about being human (although I understand the fallacies inherent in my reflexive attitudes). I blame being raised by judgmental fundamentalists. They taught me from the cradle that I deserve to roast in the fires of Hell eternally. Nevertheless I believe that my career has already answered your question. (It *sounds* like you're asking: if I were a different person, would I do different things? But that question doesn't need an answer.) If it hasn't...well, I guess that's my tough luck. (02/16/2011) |
Casey: I'm curious, you say you've had the story of the third chronicles planned 25 years back. But during the writing process, which ideas are new? I have a feeling the insequent were created as you began writing.
|
You're quite right. I always knew that the story needed *something* (in fact, I knew it needed quite a few *somethings*). But I didn't discover what that requirement meant in practice until I began actually working on the story. The Insequent were indeed one of those discoveries. I'm tempted to mention others, but that would turn this answer into a spoiler. (02/16/2011) |
alan: Mr. Donaldson,
You've stated many times that your works are not (intended as) polemic and I take you at your word. However, often the message received by the reader is not the one intended by the writer. I’ve heard it said before that "perception is reality."
I’ve just recently completed reading AATE and it seems that the theological framework of the Covenant series has shifted in the years since it was initially conceived. How could it not? There now seems to be Calvinistic undertones creeping into your latest work. Of course, I could just be reading my own experience and biases into your novels.
So, my question: have you found yourself returning to the faith with which you were raised, if you had indeed left it?
|
Sorry. It's almost always a mistake to draw conclusions about the author based on the work. (You are, of course, always entitled to the reality of your own perceptions. You simply can't assume that I share that reality.) There are indeed "Calvinistic undertones" bludgeoning their way (I wouldn't call it "creeping") into "The Last Chronicles." That's deliberate. But my intentions are--let's be polite here--oblique. If "perception is reality," then I think it behooves all of us to try to perceive as accurately as we can. (02/16/2011) |
Andrew: Do you see the three chronicles as a single work or as three? Do you think it (your answer) is important for readers to know this?
|
I *hope* that the three chronicles will eventually be able to stand as a single work. In that aspiration, I may or may not succeed. But do readers need to know this? Of course not. The only thing I really want readers to know is: it's important to read the books in order. Otherwise they don't make much sense. Everything else will reveal itself--or it won't. (02/16/2011) |
Dan Diaz: I truly appreciate being on this journey with you and the people you've created in Chronicles. My fondest affection goes to the Haruchai of the Last Chronicles, especially Stave, and Galt.My question is this: Did the relationship between Stave and Galt, and the revision of perspective they experience (especially Stave) take you as much by surprise as it did the reader? So much is hidden about the Haruchai, that I can imagine that you are also still learning about them.
|
Hoping that this does not constitute a spoiler.... As with so much that's in "The Last Chronicles," I knew where I was going in a general way; but I discovered the specific details (putting my intentions into practice) as I went along. So--speaking, as it were, generically--Stave's journey in the story, and the journey implied by his relationship with Galt, were not a surprise. But who they both turned out to be as individual characters *was* a surprise. (In my case, however, the surprise happened 3-4 years before I actually wrote AATE.) (02/26/2011) |
Jim Filler: I just read the latest replies in the GI and one interested me particularly. You talk about the importance of style for communicating story. And I agree with you. But I also wonder if and to what extent you think presentation plays a role in communicating the story. By “presentation” I mean paper quality, font, font size, spacing, etc. As I read AATE, I alternated between reading it on the Kindle and reading the hard back (yes, I bought both), and when I initially started reading on the Kindle, I switched to the hard back, because I liked the font and the spacing in the hard copy. It looked more elegant. But I was having trouble with my eyes (I’ve started to notice difficulty reading things close up-getting old) and switched to the Kindle because I found it easier to read. I’m still not sure how the different formats affected my reading experience, and if it did.
So I was curious about your thoughts, if you give this much thought, etc.
Thanks. As always, a HUGE fan and can’t wait for the next book.
|
Speaking only on the basis of my personal experience, and of the experiences of the few people I've talked to about this.... It seems to clear to me that things like font size and style have an objective effect on readers. Simple practicality: when a font is large and distinct and spacious enough to be read with ease, readers are able to move both more quickly and more comfortably (which naturally increases the pleasure); and since the majority of readers are becoming old enough to experience declining eyesight, the issue is serious. I've heard several people say they no longer read because fonts have become too small and effortful. (So why do publishers keep shrinking their fonts? Short-term thinking--which usually produces self-defeating results. Smaller fonts use less paper, which cuts costs. So fewer people buy the book, so costs need to be cut further, so fonts become even smaller.) As you've observed, perhaps the biggest advantage of devices like the Kindle (apart from the question of bulk) is the ability to choose a font size that works for the individual reader. But other issues of presentation seem pretty idiosyncratic to me. For some people, a book is only "real" if it's a hardback. Paperbacks are too disposable (and sometimes harder to hold). (Plus they typically have larger fonts.) But for me, a book is only "real" when it's a mass market paperback. I grew up poor: paperbacks are my *definition* of real books. I wouldn't voluntarily read a hardback, or a trade paperback, if I could get my hands on a mass market paperback. And these days even my own books don't seem "real" to me because they aren't published in mass market. Go figure. As for paper quality, I only notice it when I'm signing books. The character of the paper affects how smoothly my pen moves. (03/09/2011) |
Jeremy: My question is why do the ur-viles and the waynhim owe Linden service, or why do they want or need to help her? I'm sure you explained it but I must have missed it when you make me stay up reading till dawn as I am wont to do with your entrancing prose!
If I could sneak in another question it would be: do you believe in God and if not what are your opinions on the nature of our existence? I hope that's not too personal or abstract or irrelevant. Thank you for your time sir and even if you don't give me an answer I will wish you both peace and love. Yours thankfully Jeremy.
|
I don't think you've missed anything. NONE of my characters (except the ur-viles and Waynhim themselves) know why those creatures serve Linden--or even oppose Esmer. If I succeed at my intentions, their reinterpretation of their Wierd will eventually be clarified. But that reinterpretation hasn't been defined for the reader yet. (Hinted at, yes: defined, no.) I don't use the Gradual Interview to discuss my personal views on the subjects you raise. It's not just that I don't consider them relevant. I'm afraid that my personal views will be used to (mis)interpret the story. But it can't be insignificant that *religions* appear in my stories so rarely. (Unless you consider the Council of Lords' service to the Land a religion.) (03/09/2011) |
Solar: You have said many times that you are not comfortable with the idea of working with characters and worlds that you did not invent yourself; that in order to write stories, you need to feel that they are your own creations.
However, you have also said that when you were much younger, you wrote two fan-fiction novellas, one based on Marvel's 'Thor' and the other based on Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'.
Do you have any thoughts on this apparent contradiction? It seems almost as if your imagination changed in some way as you grew older, and that you have lost the will (or the ability?) to work with the ideas of others. Going from a writer who produces fan-fiction for his own satisfaction to one who would not write about other people's characters even if you held a gun to his head seems like a remarkable transformation. To what do you attribute this change in attitude?
|
There *is* no contradiction. You said it yourself: I was "much younger" back then. I was still discovering myself as a writer. In that process, I tried my hand at all kinds of things which turned out to be Not What I'm Good At. For example, the experience having one of my plays performed at Kent State convinced me (in no uncertain terms) that I am *not* cut out to be a playwright. But the fact that I made the experiment *then* doesn't affect the integrity of what I'm doing *now*. Those earlier experiments enriched what I've become. (03/09/2011) |
Anonymous: In his 'On Writing', Stephen King advises against the use of adverbs. Vehemently so (heh). I'm curious what your stance is; I can accept the culling of extraneous adverbs but are they always an indicator of clumsy prose?
|
Every writer has his/her own way of writing--and of thinking about writing. King isn't the only writer who eschews adverbs (however vehemently): Elmore Leonard and Kurt Vonnegut leap to mind. And he isn't the only writer who preaches against adverbs. All I can offer is my own opinions (and my own writing). But here's how I look at it. Adverbs are words, and words are the tools of the writer's craft. If any particular tool produces clumsy (or apparently clumsy) results, that isn't the tool's fault. But nor is it (I hasten to add) necessarily the tool-wielder's fault. We all have limitations. No tool-wielder is equally adept--or equally comfortable--with every tool. That isn't a "fault": it's just a fact of life. As it happens, I can't say what I mean without adverbs. Perhaps King can't say what he means *with* adverbs. So what? I'm not trying to write his prose, and he isn't trying to write mine. We're both just using the tools that suit us. (03/10/2011) |
Michael Carolan: Hello Stehen,
Firstly it's a long time since i have asked any question here and I am very grateful for the effort you put in to satisfy us fans and for the answer I recieved before.
my question..
When you sit at your computer to write.. Do you have rules for yourself? For example.. I'm not getting up until I have put down 1000 words.. or I'm not going to surf the net when this gets hard.. I suppose its a tricky topic to tie down in one question.. and one that you might answer.. ;-P Really its ..
What rules do you set yourself when you sit down to work?
Keep up the wonderful imagining.... but ease off on the words i dont understand.. lol.. I shouldnt need a dictionary every time I sit down to read..
Michael.
|
I don't think in terms of "rules" when I'm at work. But I certainly have "goals." The first and foremost of which is, Write SOMEthing. (I can't very well call myself a writer if I don't actually string words together in some sort of--hopefully--useful sequence.) And toward that end, my daily guideline (I'm sure I've said this before) is: It's OK to write badly. I can always rewrite later; something good will come of it eventually; and in the meantime virtually any writing is better than not writing. My secondary goal is to write enough to invoke the sensation that I'm making real progress; that what I'm writing is "alive" in some sense. That's important to me (although the amount of writing necessary to reach that point varies wildly from one session to the next). But it only comes into play when I have well and truly met my first goal. (Do I have to mention that I also resist distractions--phone calls, surfing the net, paying bills, whatever--as much as my circumstances allow? Isn't that axiomatic?) But seriously: what's wrong with encouraging you to expand your vocabulary? Words are the tools of thought. The more words you know, the more things you can think about. (03/10/2011) |
Simon Stopher: Hi Stephen.
I have purchased a signed copy of AATE, from my local Waterstone's bookshop. It appears to be sheet pasted into the book.
The signature bears more than a passing resemblance to others you signed for me in Manchester, UK back in 2007.
My question is given that you are not doing any book tours for AATE, how do I know if its a genuine signature, because otherwise I cannot see you signing hundreds if not thousands of these templates?
Thanks for your time.
|
Actually, I *do* sign thousands of what are called "tip-in sheets." (Counting both the US and the UK, I signed nearly 10,000 for "Runes.") My publishers require it: they think it increases sales. These sheets of paper are then bound into the published books and sold (or even given away). So I think you can be confident that the signature "pasted into" your book is authentic. (If it isn't, the person faking it is wasting his/her time.) (03/10/2011) |
Jeffrey Goode: Covenant: "Soon would be good. Now would be better." Whoa, did the Timewarden just channel a paraphrased Nick Succorso? :)
|
Who knows? Covenant *was* part of the Arch of Time, after all. Maybe that gave him access to different realities as well as different times. (03/10/2011) |
Adam bajkowski: Hi Stephen, as I absorb myself not only in the depths of your stories but also in the many philosophical arguments you cause your reader to ponder on and the multitude of unusual and uncommon (though often repeated) words in your story telling, I can't help but wonder if you actually set out to 'educate' your reader in as many ways as you can imagine. Is this true?
By the way, as a doctor, can I just say that your description and elucidation of why people cut themselves is better than anything I've ever read in a medical textbook. Also, in the hallowed walls that are Cambridge University, one of my son's 1st year history colleagues was asked in an exam to write about events which conspired to ensure the apotheosis of Edward III as a medieval monarch . Much as he knew about Edward III, he didn't know the meaning of one of your favourite words!
|
Do I "set out to 'educate' [my] reader"? Not at all. That would stray (never mind seduce me) into the realm of polemics, which I avoid as stringently as I can. I do what I do in the service of the story. What the reader gets out of the story (if anything) is up to him/her. (03/10/2011) |
Dave P.: You're scaring us. When you recently said in the GI that "Time presses cruelly upon me, and my need for short-cuts has become imperative.", you were late getting to the airport, right? Or you had to take the turkey out of the oven. I hope it's nothing more than that.
|
"Nothing more than that"? Dream on. At my age, *everything* is more than that. <grin> (03/10/2011) |
Tim B.: I was just wondering, how many people other than yourself, know the end of the story? In light of things such as Wikileaks and so many news outlets, internet chats/blogs, etc. existing today, do you ever fear that someone who knows may "leak" the ending prior to the final book being published? Possibly an advance reader, someone in the publisher's office, or even a family member or friend who you have let read early drafts that you may have a falling out with?
|
Unless someone is channeling my subconscious, nobody else living or dead knows the end of the story. I've given out plenty of hints, of course (my whole life's work is a hint of one kind or another), but most of them (the concrete ones, anyway) obfuscate as much as they clarify. (03/10/2011) |
Bill Ridgway: Dear Steve,
I searched the GI and cannot find this question asked anywhere. Do you practice your karate EVERY day, and, when you are writing, do you find it easier to concentrate on your writing (gain focus)?
|
Going to the dojo three times a week is about my maximum. At other times, I practice various little things in various little ways, but I don’t follow a consistent training schedule. Focus is strange. I think it’s like training sparring: sure, my skills (gradually) improve--but whenever I make progress, my teachers simply shift into a higher gear. The result is that the discrepancy between where I am and what I’m trying to learn never gets any smaller (a frustration which is by no means unique to me). Therefore I can’t measure my own progress. I have to rely on other people to give me a realistic picture of where I am. Well, focus is like that--or so it seems to me. The “stronger” my focus becomes, the greater the obstacles to focusing become. (Obstacles in my life; in my story; in my emotions; whatever.) So I *believe* that studying karate helps me focus, but I have no objective yardstick for the change (if any). (03/16/2011) |
Ossie: Your TCOTC work has always avoided any direct "crossover" with Covenant's "real" world, apart from the specific characters the story is about: the creatures within it are unique to the Land (apart from general concepts such as giants and humans), and the history is unique to the Land (apart from general concepts such as having a Creator and an Ancient Evil Enemy). In short, regardless of the question of whether the Land is *real*, there is no question that it is a *different* place to Covenant's "real" world.
So I have always been interested by the names "Satansfist" and "Satansheart". In every other case, names in the Land are unique to the Land, and not "borrowed" from Covenant's "real" world (apart from general concepts common to the language of both worlds, made into names: Corruption, Fangthane, Kinslaughterer). But "Satan" *is* purely a name, with no other, more general meaning (or rather, if you want to argue in the case of words like "satanic", the name came first and created the concept, rather than the other way around). So the specific use of "Satan" in relation to the Land's Ancient Evil Enemy seems to imply that it came from a common source as the one in Covenant's "real" world, and hence an explicit link between the two worlds independent of Covenant himself.
Unless this is a massive spoiler for TLD, I think we can assume by now that this is not the case, and that there is no such link. So I'm not really sure what I'm trying to ask here, apart from: "Satansxxxx" seems somewhat incongruous with the naming conventions you use in the rest of Covenant?
Thank you - Covenant is my favourite story, ever.
|
“Incongruity” I’ll concede. I suppose every story contains miscalculations. Mine certainly do. My justification for names like “Satansfist” (and “Kevin”) is that they arise from Covenant’s mind. But being able to justify those names doesn’t make them *good*--i.e. effective, apt, evocative, or simply not jarring. If I were writing my older books today, I might make some different decisions. (03/16/2011) |
Danny: Hey and happy writing!
I'd had a question about the Covenant movie that had been in the works at one time. Filmmakers tend to make changes in source material when dealing with a movie based from a book, to keep things moving, emphasise characters, that type of thing. Just out of curiosity, do you know of any changes that had been planned for the movie?
You keep writing and I'll keep buying.
|
It was a long time ago now. But the men who hoped back then to make one or more “Covenant” movies were True Fans, and they wanted to make no substantive changes. In practice, that meant making as few changes as they could get away with. However, they never discussed with me what those changes might be. The whole project never got that far. (03/16/2011) |
A stonedownor: Hi Mr. Donaldson, keep up the good work! *sigh* another three-years lapse... If the world ends in 2012, I will kill you personally for not having started one year before <grin>
My question is about the publication of LFB.
You said previously in the GI that the manuscript was rejected by 47 publishers until it was accepted by Lester del Rey.
This seems to hint that you submitted *only* LFB; did you submit also a synopsis of TIW and TPTP (since we know you had the plot already in mind) or was your hope to raise the publishers' interest only with the first book since the three volumes of the first cycle are somewhat "stand-alone" (on the contrary of TSC and TLC)?
|
(Silly wabbit. I’ll already be dead.) I submitted *only* LFB. I didn’t want to horrify an editor with three long manuscripts from an unknown author. But of course it would have been foolish to pretend that LFB could truly “stand alone,” so in general I acknowledged that I did have two more books. As I recall, I did not include plot synopses (which I hated writing even in those days), but I did offer to submit more text if the editor wanted to see it. (03/17/2011) |
J.R. Gibson: Stephen,
I just finished AATE, and went back to the GI to get caught up (didn't want to see any spoilers while I read). Book 3 is indeed the best of this series: I say that thinking nothing could have topped the Viles.
Previously here you have written, "To this day, however, I hate teaching writing. . . . But both experiences were extremely beneficial to my own writing," and, "I'm always amazed that people hate my books enough to read (and re-read) them all. I have no good explanation."
Maybe there's a kinship here: isn't conducting the GI a (sometimes painful) way of you teaching an English class? And yet you keep coming back. I love your writing, and I love another writer you've referred to here, Patricia McKillip. But whomever I read, I think I often find "camp" where the author's intent was depth, yet I still am deeply moved at points where clearly that was intended. Yet as you said, if the readers keep coming back, "hate" probably isn't the right word. Perhaps "love/hate" is just too convenient a cliché.
My questions to you: You keep coming back to the GI, so what do you get out of it? Of course, on one level it's clearly a way to reach your fan base -- but do you get anything out of it personally or professionally? (akin to writing class) Of course much has transpired in the time between the first "Covenant" and now, but do you think the GI had anything to do with how you have progressed as a writer?
|
First I have to say that “hate”--like “love”--means different things in different contexts. Personally I don’t see the connection between the exhaustion and despair that I feel when I try to teach writing and the virulent rage that readers feel when they tell me they hate my books. Although I make plenty of mistakes, I have never tried to destroy a student. Quite a number of readers have tried hard to destroy me. (You may think I’m exaggerating, but you should perhaps consider trusting me on this point. You really don’t want to read some of the messages I delete from the Gradual Interview--or the letters that arrive with no return address, or the diatribes handed to me anonymously when I’m “in public.”) So what do I get out of my (variable) dedication to the Gradual Interview? Quite a few things--although none of them have anything to do “with how [I] have progressed as a writer” (why not? because the GI is inherently retrospective: it involves looking at what I have already done rather than at what I am doing; therefore its capacity to educate me is oblique at best). Honesty requires me to mention that “good PR” is one benefit. (Well, I *hope* it’s good PR.) Another is validation: writing is a lonely business, and the stories I choose to tell are often draining; the GI reminds me that I’m not as alone as I feel. Another is, well, let’s call it “cross-training”: exercising different intellectual muscles. (Which, of course, does contribute to my progress as a writer, despite my protestations to the contrary.) Yet another might be called a reality-check: it helps me determine the relationship (if any) between what I tried to communicate and what I actually communicated. (Which certainly--I’m being polite here--*encourages* progress as a writer. <sigh>) However, none of this feels like “teaching” to me. (03/17/2011) |
Lachlan Hibbert-Wells: Dear Stephen,
[message pruned to save space]
Rambling aside, my love of the Covenant series (and to be honest, all your books, which I also own) has not been easy on the books - I'm pretty respectful but a friend who stayed in my room recently started reading them by bending the spine, forces pages to come unstuck. It's currently being repaired but I'm thinking of buying a second set to carry with me, lend etc. To this end my question is whether there is any chance we'll ever see a collectors set of all 10 books once the Final Chronicles are done? I know you've spoken of your issues with the original publishers before but I still hold out hope that this would be possible. A consistent style, possibly even like the pyramid editions where you can see the next books cover in the distance of each book, and design would be a wonderful thing to own and pass on (although feel free to state if you hated the 'pyramid' covers!)
|
As matters stand, there is *no* chance of a uniform “Covenant” edition (even an ugly one). Different publishers are involved, and they simply don’t cooperate--never mind coordinate--with each other. But “as matters stand” is not mere rhetorical noise. In the UK, for example, my current publisher (Orion/Gollancz) is making a concerted (and possibly even strenuous) effort to buy the rights to Covenant 1-6 from my former publisher (once Fontana, later HarperCollins). Success is conceivable, if only because Orion/Gollancz has something HarperCollins wants (or so I’m told). That would make possible a uniform edition--in the UK. In the US, alas, something similar seems far less likely. Why? Because Ballantine owns all the rights (including foreign rights). Publication in places like the UK gives Ballantine a stream of revenue which requires zero effort or investment. Why would Ballantine surrender that merely to let Putnams/Ace make more money? I wish things were different. (03/17/2011) |
James Dashner: You can only imagine my excitement when you decided to write the Last Chronicles. Thank you for that.
My question: What's your opinion of the sudden boom in ereader purchases and its portent for the future? Just generally speaking, I guess, from an author's perspective. I'd be fascinated to hear it.
|
Recent events have taught me a new appreciation for the sheer *convenience* of ereaders. Perhaps that’s crucial? Perhaps the impracticality of physical books has played a larger role in the general deline of reading than I ever suspected? I don’t know. But I do know that ereaders appear to be booming--and not just among younger, tech-savvy readers. Maybe that means something. (03/17/2011) |
Nick: You have said in this interview that you see the Gap Series as being the supreme achievement of your writing life.
I'd agree with that.
Why do you think that the vast majority of posts and questions here are about TCOTC? What chord does it strike that it seems to resonate so much more with people than TGS?
I suspect it is because TGS is complete in itself, like Wagner's Ring: I've read them more than once, but have no question to ask, either factual or related to character.
|
I'm only speculating here. But off the top of my head, I can think of three possible explanations. 1) The "reality" of the Land--at least as it's presented in the first Covenant trilogy--is more attractive than the GAP "reality." At least initially, the Land is a place where people might want to spend time--perhaps because the Land feels magical. 2) The characters surrounding the protagonists in TCOTC are (a lot) more likable (also simpler) than virtually everyone in the GAP books. 3) It's conceivable that readers respond more easily to the more "archetypal" nature of the story in Covenant than they do to the more, well, human-scaled issues in the GAP books. But really your guess is as good as mine. (03/22/2011) |
Ethan: Do you foresee a time when you might give up writing or is this something which you plan on doing until the day you ... well, you know.
|
God willing, I won't have to give up writing. I certainly intend to keep it up as long as I can. (03/22/2011) |
Chen: Hi Steve,
thank you for the wonderful tales!
Reading the 1st chronichles for the umpteenth time (hey, I have to fill the next three years with something, after all) a couple of questions came to me.
1) Why did you name one of your characters "sor-anal"? ....oh, whoops, you already answered this elsewhere! :) so:
1) Why Covenant's bargain with the Ranyhyn prevented them from flying to the South during the Despiser's Winter in TPTP? If they could foresee the time of their calling, they should be able to start their journey from wherever they are in the due time. Or does not this apply to TC calls?
2) In the GI, you justified Linden's ability to speak with the Old Lords with the fact that the ancient language used in Kevin's Wards (which had to be translated my the New Lords) was not the one they used as "common-speech". Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the little mud creatures dwelling under the Spoiled Plans in TPTP (you know? I'd love to see those little fellas again) named themselves with that same (rarely spoken) ancient language: how could they know it?
Thank you also for the GI!
|
1) Mainly I think of this as a question of practicality. How far would horses get through the Southron Range--in winter--before they had to turn back? Assuming that they love the Plains of Ra and don't want to leave? And considering that the Lords or the Bloodguard might summon them (and probably did during the years between TIW and TPTP)? (Of course, it's also possible that the misuse of the Staff of Law affects the abilities of the Ranyhyn. Or perhaps they're just that loyal.) 2) Maybe the jheherrin picked up quite a bit from their proximity to Lord Foul and power? Maybe their lineage is really ancient, and they learned "common-speech" more recently? This is all speculation, since we're outside the text. (03/22/2011) |
Anonymous: Do you have any updated information on when Scott Brick will publish the audio versions of the Second Chronicles?
|
As far as I know, Scott Brick has no plans to tackle the Second Chronicles. I have the impression that he can't afford to. He has to spend his own money, and the sales of the first trilogy don't justify the expense. (03/22/2011) |
Anonymous: Fifteen years ago, I was fortunate enough to wander in to a used book store in Baltimore and find hard cover copies of LFB, TIW, & TPTP published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (the Wyeth covers really were quite beautiful). Of course, I purchased them. TPTP is a few inches taller than the other two, a bit wider, and the page font is also a bit larger and looks to be of a slightly different script. That has always struck me as odd and I was wondering if you have any insight regarding the difference in the size of the books? Did Holt make a couple of different print runs of this book?
|
In this case, books which appear to be from the same edition are actually from separate publishers. The larger ones are from Holt. The smaller ones were published by the US Science Fiction Book Club using a reduced size of the Holt package and text. (Naturally the SFBC purchased the right to do this from Holt.) That's standard practice for the SFBC. (03/22/2011) |
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.
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.
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.
Robert Shore: I noticed that some time ago you said that you've tired of competitive bridge (though not the bridge). Do you still play any ACBL games? I'm also curious to know what rank you've reached in the ACBL.
|
I didn't really get tired of competitive bridge. I got tired of competitive bridge players. That obsession with winning brings out the worst in a lot of people. I still love the game, but I no longer play in the ACBL. I was a Life Master (which doesn't mean much) on the border of the next level; but I've forgotten what the next level is called. (03/22/2011) |
Paul Thomas: First a grand thank you: you write for yourself but the gift we receive is immeasurable. You've taught me many things, the paradox of life, the necessity for understanding human boundaries, and that there is beauty and love to be found anywhere. Gracias!
Someone earlier asked about the repetition of certain phrases and you spoke of leitmotifs and of looking for a mindset. I tend to think of it as a flavor, like a scent; every home has one and you tie the people to that. Many times I've had repetitious thoughts that were at first vacuous but later made sense; when scared by something "Looking down the barrel of a gun" would come to mind. I've absorbed a few from you: "Joy is in the ears that hear" , "hellfire and damnation', 'we cannot be blamed for the end result, only that we did our best to do what was right' (heavily paraphrased :) .)
To the question (at last!) Do you know of anyone that plays an online game, especially 'World of Warcraft'? I play it on and off and found myself perceiving the 'digital world' to be like the Land in certain ways: The things you do there don't really mean anything to the physical world, but they mean something to the reader/player.
There are virtual animals who don't defend themselves and there is no reason to do anything to them, yet every so often I will be in an area and it seems some player has decided to kill them all. No returns, no resources .. just a few pixels on the screen that were moving and no longer move. I feel hurt for them, like some light has left the world. They don't really matter but it's the the senseless apparent barbarity and inhumanity that bothers me.
Is this part of what you are talking about when you had Covenant fighting in his mind over the reality of the land? That sometimes it matters not the end result but the things we do, or choose to do, that make us who we are wherever we go? Trell's abomination/desecration in the close: the act of a torn man destroying what he loves. That the stone was abused means nothing in the end, but the violence he enacted on his own soul, that is the important thing? Another way of saying integrity? I could steal and no one would actually be hurt, but the act of it belittles me?
Thanks again, and I wish you a grand Christmas and wonderful New Year.
|
I know a few online game players--including "World of Warcraft"--but that isn't something we talk about. I have no real interest in playing such games myself: for me, they're too much like work. But I think it's obvious that there are plenty of people in the world who Just Like Killing Things. Makes them feel "powerful" in one way or another, I suppose. (I'm just guessing, of course.) And I have no doubt that those people would defend their actions, strenuously if necessary (of perhaps even when it isn't necessary). Which fits your point rather neatly, I think. If reality is what we make it (which is what the argument comes down to in the end), then the conclusion is inescapable: what we make of reality makes *us*. ("It's OK to kill these virtual animals--or these real animals--or these real people--because I want to do it and I choose to believe it's OK." Clearly that reasoning says more about the reasoner than it does about, well, whatever.) Indeed, I suspect that we don't make anything *except* ourselves--since (as far as I can tell) reality doesn't care what we do. Just my opinion. (03/24/2011) |
bob: I have been reading your books since the first paperback edition of LFB and I was a kid. I almost flunked a class when "The One Tree" was published because I wanted to read it before someone at college spoiled it.
What I want to say is certainly not a demand, or even a request, it is a hope, maybe even a prayer. It is presumtuous in the extreme even to hint at telling an author what to write, but here goes anyway:
Where is the love for the land? Where is the joy for the ears that hear? The land in these books is a joyless, cold place and it is difficult believing that someone would even care enough to want to save it.
I guess I miss that feeling of love you obviously had for the land and the inhabitants. I am hoping to get a glimmer of that again in the last book.
I enjoy your books, I enjoyed AATE, I have always enjoyed the idea of a deeply flawed hero. The Superman/John Wayne figure never did anything for me. It didn't ever seem as real as a leper/rapist who stood up and saved the world.
I guess I'll dig out my old copy of Lord Foul's Bane, it's been a good 10 years, maybe by the time I get back to AATE it will seem different to me.
Thanks,
|
Hmm. I hardly know what to say. Your reaction is so far removed from mine, I can hardly believe we're talking about the same book. My knee-jerk response is, If joy is in the ears that hear, where's *your* joy? *I* haven't lost any of my love for the Land and its inhabitants. But there's a valid point here, although I think about it differently than you do. One of the over-all themes of "Covenant" is: evil does real damage. Sounds simplistic when I say it that way, I know; but it can't be said too often (certainly not in *our* reality <sigh>). "Sic transit gloria munde." (I hope I spelled that right.) "Thus passes the glory of the world." Things become less. Entropy is one reason, of course. But a more immediate reason, I think, is: evil. (Well, evil, and the things evil feeds on: ignorance, greed, fanaticism, etc..) Certainly the world of the Land is breaking down because Lord Foul wishes it so. In any case, no one needs love more than a person--or a world--that's dying. (03/24/2011) |
Timothy Robinson: Do you read your own stories for pleasure? If I have been away from my own fiction for awhile, an unfinished piece is its own inspiration and I find myself reading it from beginning to the jagged edge. It is satisfying to me when I enjoy reading what I have written.
|
No, I've never read my own stories *just* for pleasure. I've always had some other purpose in view when I re-read them. But maybe it's time I gave that a try. I suppose I'm afraid it might make me cringe. But it might actually, well, give me pleasure. (04/06/2011) |
Terry Hornsby: Finally started reading AATE and I had this awful presentiment of how the story will end. I'm resisting telling you how I think it will all come together because whilst I believe it would make a great and fitting close: (a) if I'm wrong, I'm just wasting your time and making myself look stupid (b) if I'm right I might jinx your creativity (in rather the same way that Linden and Covenant must be free to make their own mistakes/choices).
My question is, sometimes overplanning a story, discussing it or having someone tell you how it's going to end can be a disincentive. Do you find this with your own creative processes?
|
Please DON'T tell me how you think the story will end. I'm vehemently DISinclined to discuss my intentions before I've written them (even my publishers can't get outlines out of me); and I don't enjoy hearing people speculate about things I haven't done yet. Such conversations feel like fetters on my creative freedom. I have occasionally done brainstorming with other people about concrete narrative conundrums. But those are practical, how-to-do-X discussions. I'm careful not to say anything about my larger intentions. (04/06/2011) |
Fred Patterson: First, a word of thanks. Whether it be your work, your passion, or just a driving compulsion to write, you have given countless hours of enjoyment to people you have never met.
My Question: You gave up pursuing a Ph.D. to write - that seems like a pretty gutsy move. What was going through your mind when you made that decision? What were you risking? And what convinced you to take the gamble?
|
(This, of course, will be the short version. I have absolutely no desire to write my autobiography.) I conceived the ambition to be a writer of stories (very) early in college; so naturally I became an English major, wanting to study storytelling from the very best, rather than from some "teacher" whose sympathies might or might not be in tune with mine. And having no other prospects after college, I naturally went to grad school in English, on the theory that I might eventually be able to get a job teaching if I couldn't make my way as a writer. But among many other things, grad school taught me that at a certain point the skills of being an analytical reader diverge from those of being a creative writer. In fact, at a certain (admittedly rather advanced) point those skills become antithetical to each other. I could feel myself drifting farther and farther away from my heart's desire. So when an opportunity finally presented itself, I dropped out of school in order to devote myself to writing. I suppose that was "gutsy." It was certainly a major crisis in my life--and a major turning point. As far as I knew, I was risking pretty much everything. And the price turned out to be pretty &$%^@! high. But I'm fairly certain that any other choice would have killed me (emotionally or spiritually, if not physically). I've never forgotten this line from a "Three Dog Night" song: "Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." Words to live by. (04/06/2011) |
Drew: Hello.
I have a couple of questions about your writing process.
You have stated earlier in the GI that you have an actual office where you write, and it sounded like you write during regular business hours, taking weekends and holidays off, if I remember correctly. You obviously know various other authors; I was wondering if you knew if this was the norm, or do most authors write at home, and whenever they can? When did you start this practice, right from the beginning, or was it something you decided later on?
How long of a break do you take NOT writing? I know you don't really get a chance for a break in between books in a series, but say, when you were done the GAP series, how long did you take before you wrote the next *...Man Who* book?
Thank you.
By The Way, I received THREE copies of *Against..* for Christmas. I guess Donaldson Fans are easy to buy for, especially when you have a new book out!!
|
As far as I know, there is no "norm" for how writers work. I know one writer who writes in coffee houses while conversing with strangers. I've heard of one writer who only wrote when he was (literally) surrounded by his family. I know a number of writers who write at home. Most (but not all) of them have a dedicated space they use for writing. But I don't know any writers who keep the same kind of schedule I do--or who have the kind of (obsessively guarded) privacy I do. Every practical aspect of my writing process is something I discovered by experimentation and experience. For one example, I discovered that continuing to write as long as I was "in the zone" was counter-productive. Sure, I got a lot done by allowing that energy to burn as long as it lasted. But afterward I was so burned out that I couldn't write again for days. Hence the comparative rigidity of my writing schedule. For another example, I didn't learn that I can't write at home until I actually had to share the house during my work day. For years, I wrote at home--ALONE--while my wife went away to work. But then she quit her job; and I became the guardian for my youngest sister; and I found that their mere presence in the house--never mind the inevitable interruptions--blocked my writing. I can't stand having anyone "watch me write" (however indirectly). At that point, my need for a separate (almost sacred) "office" became imperative. But I can't answer your question about breaks. I don't plan such things; and I don't know how long they'll last when they happen. In any case, most of them are imposed on me by LIFE--in one form or another. I get "life-block" far more often than I "take breaks." Although obviously I do need breaks. These mammoth writing projects are *very* draining. (04/06/2011) |
Jonathan Brown: Having read almost all your books (am currently working on Against All Things Ending), the thing that strikes me most is that, irrespective of physical location, it is the mental and psychological journey of the characters that is not just highlighted but the imperative.
Now that can and should be true of much literature, but rarely if anywhere are characters screwed up to such intensity for such long periods of time as they are in your books. The only author I know well (I read just about everything he wrote many years ago) who does this is FM Dostoyevsky.
If to some extent LOTR and others inspired genre (and with it the freedom to imagine more broadly) was Dostoyevsky the inspiration for the mental intensity and pace of your novels? I may not be that well read but you are the only author with his "tone" that I have come across and it has intrigued me for years. SF's Dostoyevsky to Tolien's Tolstoy? Modessit would be Turgenev I think.
|
Like you, I've read all the Dostoyevsky I can get my hands on. Great books. Unparalled emotional honesty. But I'm not conscious of Dostoyevsky as a personal inspiration. (The key word here, of course, is "conscious." How often have I made that point?) At a certain point in my life (long ago), I wanted to write like Conrad. I never consciously wanted to write like Dostoyevsky. Incidentally, the early Susan Matthews books have some of that same quality: I'm thinking of "An Exchange of Hostages" and its immediate sequels. (04/06/2011) |
Steve M: This question relates to The Second Chronicles of TC. Linden develops a percipience described as a kind of amplified version of the "health sense" that Covenant himself experiences in the first Chronicles. In "The One Tree" Linden takes this a step farther by actually possessing Covenant by entering into his mind to free him from the silence imposed on him by the Elohim. There does not appear to be any support in the preceding narrative which would indicate that Linden had this ability. It just seemed to come out of left field. Moreover, there is nothing in the narrative that would suggest that the Giants or others would believe that she would have this ability. From a narrative perspective, how do you make the jump from percipience (a very passive ability) to being able to enter into someone mind and literally possess them? (Definitely a much more active and as you describe in the text an almost violent ability).
|
Hmm. I don't really understand the problem. In my mind, health-sense is not "passive" (at least not in the way that using tools like, say, x-ray is passive). It's at least as active as any other form of direct perception. As I imagine it, "seeing inside" is loosely analogous to "being inside": why else does the perception of "wrongness" produce such visceral reactions in those who perceive (even Covenant)? And the step from "being inside" to "influencing what's inside" does not seem to me to be a large one. ("Perception creates reality.") In addition, the text does affirm that Linden's health-sense is more powerful than that of the people around her. And people like the Giants have no reason to doubt her, if for no other reason than because they can't know the extent of her abilities. (After all, it's obvious that she comes from an entirely different reality.) (04/27/2011) |
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.
Michael from Santa Fe: I don't think this has been asked, but any particular reason that there are three Ravers, not two or four or more? Did three fit the structure of the story, is it symbolic somehow (the trinity comes to mind) or was it just one of those, "it felt right" for the story things?
|
I'm sorry. Maybe I had a better explanation 30+ years ago. But now all I can say is that "it felt right." I definitely needed more than one, but it was important not to have too many. (04/27/2011) |
Dave: Here's something that's been bugging me. Back in '04 after discovering you had published a new Covenant book, I ordered a copy of ROTE from amazon. When it came in the mail I noticed it looked smaller than my other hardcover Covenant books. It's roughly 8.5x6 inches, not the size you see in the stores. I pre-ordered both FR and AATE from amazon and those are the typical size, roughly 9.5x6.5.
Also, my ROTE doesn't have the "edition line" of numbers on the first few pages. I can't find that it states anywhere that it's a book club edition or anything similar.
Any idea what this is?
Thanks - eagerly awaiting TLD,
Dave
|
The only explanation I can think of is that you somehow obtained a Science Fiction Book Club edition of "Runes" (which is the smaller size and does not include an "edition line"). When you pre-order from Amazon, you get the publisher's (larger) edition. But Amazon also handles a large number of re-sellers, any one of whom might offer a SFBC edition. Could you perhaps have ordered "Runes" from a re-seller through Amazon? (04/27/2011) |
Tim: Hi Stephen,
I am an English Major and a fan of fantasy fiction. Just wondering what you think of all the supposedly "highbrow" literary professors in our colleges, who either groan or laugh condescendingly at the mere IDEA of ten volume fantasy epics.
P.S I am enjoying the new series. Still feeling very sorry for Elena!
-Tim, Australia
|
I've discussed this general subject elsewhere in the Gradual Interview. I won't repeat myself now. But some professors at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts recently pointed out a distinction that hadn't occurred to me (although perhaps it should have). Some academics groan, not at the "mere IDEA" of fantasy epics, but at the "ten volume[s]." Life is short, time is shorter, and the prospect of reading ten massive volumes in order to evaluate a writer's intentions can be more than a little daunting. In fact, much of the academic and critical neglect of epic fantasy may be due to sheer *size*. (04/27/2011) |
Stephen Collings: Hi Stephen!
Tolkien also needed a ring!
He needed a trinket of intrinsic value that could easily be lost and which would be entirely hidden when pocketed! It also needed to be able to be put on by accident when fiddling around in one's pockets, and to be able to be put on and taken off without anyone else seeing anything happening (with a hand in a pocket!) He needed a ring!
And as a ring, Bilbo was also able to keep it secret from the dwarves throughout the "The Hobbit".
Please pardon me for pointing all this out, but, when I thought about it, it struck me as quite interesting how the physical nature of Tolkien's ring *is* entirely integral to the plot of "The Hobbit".
|
I'm not convinced. Tolkien's ring may be integral (or at least convenient) to the plot, but it is not integral to the themes. As far as I can tell, Tolkien's ring is only *meaningful* because it's a circle--and even there I may be clutching at straws. (04/27/2011) |
Tim Brieger: I teach government at a high school, and one of the things we discuss is copyrights. I happened to be at Disneyland this past week, and they have an attraction called "The Land". It got me thinking...to what extent is your material copyrighted...and does this present a legal issue? Now, I am sure you would not sue the "happiest place on Earth", but just one of those things that gets your attention. By the way, I actually introduced myself as Thomas Covenant to someone while I was there waiting for family to get of Soarin, totally went over their head.
|
My work is copyrighted to the fullest extent of the law--which would absolutely NOT include the use of a generic term like "the land" as a proper name. If I took offense at Disney's use of the term--which I do not--a copyright lawyer would laugh at me. (04/27/2011) |
Gary Barnett: Dear Mr Donaldson,
Many thanks for your earlier answers to my Covenant questions. Your reward is that I've now read the Gap Cycle and have more questions!
Prior to the setting of the story, Nick had been paid to go to the Amnion Enablement Station to test Hashi's immunity drug. He had been injected with a mutagen, but it had not "taken". When I started thinking about this, it wasn't clear why the Amnion would have allowed Nick to simply leave having given him a mutagen. Why wouldn't they have held onto him to having given him a mutagen? The Amnion are researching how to achieve a transformation that leaves as much human appearance behind as possible - so why would they let Nick go without seeing the effect of the mutagen on him? It isn't explained in the text. However, what is clear is how much care Nick takes to agree the detailed terms of his engagement with the Amnion on his visit with Morn. Therefore, to the extent you gave it any thought, would I be correct in thinking that the implication is that Nick would have taken equal care on his first visit to make it clear that he would (in return for payment) enter the Station, be injected and be immediately allowed to leave? The Amnion would assume that there was no great downside for them as, once the mutagen took effect, he would (as an Amnion) return to them?
Secondly, did you give much thought to the nature of the trade between the pirates and the Amnion? This did concern me a little for the following reason. The Amnion are able to pay Nick in credits, a universal form of payment, it appears. Where did they get the credits from? OK, no problem having a few credits - no doubt some pirates would have paid for genetic enhancements etc. BUT most of those trading with the Amnion would want to be paid in credits for the ore and other resources they traded. That is the nature of illegal trade. You trade illegal goods for freely usable, fungible cash. So where were the Amnion getting all these credits to pay for all the resources they required from the pirates? As I say, I don't see how they could acquire them all for trade given the nature of the direction of most of that trade. But if you assume that the Amnion could simply issue completely fungible credits (like a bank), then you have a real problem. The Amnion would have a very simple way to bring down Human Society - you flood the system with Amnion issued credits - the resulting inflation brings down the economies of Human society…. sorry to be picky!
Finally (if I may transgress your normal rules!), when Nick sends the flash to Hashi concerning "kazis" (which Hashi fails to decipher), he is presumably talking about Angus' rescue of Morn and presumed return of Morn to Earth where she would be able to give evidence that she had been bartered as payment to Nick in order to set up Angus (and obtain passage of the Pre-empt Act on a false premise)? So her information would, in a sense, be like a bomb.
Many thanks again
|
Well, keeping in mind that I haven't been back to the GAP books since '95, so they aren't exactly fresh in my mind.... (The proofreading I did for the e-versions doesn't count because I was really just double-checking the work of another proofreader.) And also keeping in mind that your first two questions go outside the text, so my comments have no particular authority.... First, I surmise as you do that the Amnion let Nick go the first time because they had no real reason to suspect that their mutagen would fail. Which raises the question: why didn't they grab him when they got a second chance? Well, because he was offering them something much more valuable. Second, I didn't worry about this point because there are so many viable explanations. We are, after all, dealing with "virtual" credits, not tangible cash. So one of the obvious functions of a place like Billingate is as a "bank" for illegal operations. The Bill can provide payment, not just in credits, but in goods and services (the "goods" might be things that could easily be sold legally in human space); and the Amnion can pay the Bill in goods, services, *and* safety/protection. In addition, there's no up side to trying to flood human space with "virtual credits" (which might not be as easy as it sounds, given humankind's access to unerasable data): every Amnion bootleg operation would flounder as soon as illegals learned they were being paid in "bad" credits. Finally, you may be carrying your reasoning a little too far. After all, when Nick sends his flash, he isn't aware (is he? I don't trust my memory) that Angus will eventually return Morn to Earth. I suspect that Nick had something more immediate in mind--I just can't remember what. Sorry. (05/10/2011) |
Stephen Glenn: I'm sharing the Covenant series with a friend. He has just finished the fifth book, and he is enjoying the interaction between Thomas and Linden, but his comments made it clear that he missed the consistent presence of a heroine in the first trilogy. He thought that Elena would fill the role, and it pained him to see her removed from it. I can recall similar feelings when I read the early books in the series.
Was it a deliberate decision to wait until the fourth book to introduce a central heroine? How do you feel that the first trilogy was affected by the absence of such a character? Would you say, in retrospect, that it would have been better if a main heroine was present? Was Linden's introduction a deliberate effort to fill that role, or would you say that the story line itself just evolved in such a way that she wasn't needed any earlier?
I have to wonder what my friend will think when he reaches the seventh book and finds the heroine still present while the hero is absent...
Best regards, and thanks so much for nine wonderful, wonderful books. You truly demonstrate what the potential of fantasy fiction can be when handled by a truly impressive author.
|
Hmm. Back to basics. When I wrote the first trilogy, I had no intention of ever writing more. So no, my story wasn't affected by the absence of a heroine for the simple reason that I didn't need one. It's not that kind of story. And I didn't "wait until the fourth book" to introduce Linden. There was no *waiting* involved. Instead there was a profound shift in my thinking about my writing future: a shift that revolved around further "Chronicles," and that required a heroine. The "hero alone" (i.e. without a heroine) then--and only then--became the first stage of a much longer journey. In retrospect, I have no concerns at all about my choices on this particular subject. I did what the story I was telling required. As I am doing now. (05/10/2011) |
Paul: I am an occasional visitor to this site but this time have a question that has affected me more than usual. In a previous question (January 2011), you respond:
"I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows."
I am confused! When you say "their genesis in Covenant's mind", are you specifically stating that the Land is a figment of imagination alone? I have been harbouring the belief that the Land could still be real or imaginary, depending on the future direction of the story.
Apologies if I've overlooked something in your books, misunderstood your commentary or asked a stupid question based on responses you've already given...
Thank you!
|
Forgive me, but <SIGH> I have been over and over this. To the best of my ability (which is obviously limited), I have done what I can to preserve the integrity of *both* sides of the fundamental contradiction: the Land is real; the Land is a figment. In order to do that, I have to "play fair" with *both* notions. Well, playing fair with "the Land is real" is comparatively easy: internal consistency, lots of tangible detail, intelligent world-building, characters who care, that sort of thing. Playing fair with "the Land is a figment" is a more complex challenge. In simple terms, all of the evidence that "the Land is real" must be susceptible to an alternative (opposite) explanation which is equally consistent. Frankly, that part of my narrative challenge could have been handled better (presumably by a better writer--or perhaps by me at a later stage in my writing life). But whatever my errors may have been, they don't affect my basic principles: the Land is real AND the Land is a figment. So OF COURSE "all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind," just as they also find their genesis *outside* Covenant's mind. (05/10/2011) |
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.
RKat: Hey and hope you're doing well.
Alan Moore is notoriously critical of the movie adaptions of his work and refuses to have his name associated with them. LeGuin and L'Engle have similar feelings.
Two questions, just out of curiosity. I know there had once been plans for a Covenant movie (sadly scrapped) do you know of any significant changes to the books that were planned had it gone through?
Also (and this is just a matter of artistic curiosity), should anyone make some movies of the Covenant books, what would be the straw that broke the camel's back? Some alteration would be unavoidable when transferring a print medium to a visual medium, but how far is too far for you? What would make you pull an Alan Moore, completely disown the movies and ask that your name not be associated with them?
Eagerly awaiting The Last Dark.
|
Not that I think any of these situations will ever come up.... 1) The people who bought the "Covenant" option years ago were true fans. If they had been able to go ahead, they would not have wanted to make any significant changes (except for the kinds of changes that are absolutely necessary to transform an "internal" story like a novel into an "external" experience like a film). 2) The "straw" that could "break the camel's back"--and has certainly done so in the past--is demanding my involvement. I don't want to have anything to do with it. The way I see it, movies are None Of My Business. If someone wants to make a movie out of something I wrote, and then chooses to shoot him/herself in the head by screwing it up, that has nothing to do with me--or with what I wrote. S/he doesn't need my permission to screw up, and I won't take it personally--as long as I am NOT INVOLVED. (05/15/2011) |
Chis Kruckenberg: Recently I became a member of the "Read Every Novel Written by SRD" after finishing Against All Things Ending. I have to say though, despite the fact you've said in the past you suck at writing humourous scenes, I believe 90% of Mick Axbrewder's sarcastic inner dialogue is some of the funniest stuff I've read. Also, I actually laughed out loud when Angus essentially makes Nick Succorso soil himself when he tells him he's going to rescue Morn Hyland. So do take some solace in that your humor reaches at least SOME of us :)
However, I've recently started reading "Dust of Dreams", and was surprised to see that the book was dedicated to my favorite author (you, of course). I know you've discussed your opinions about your dedications and whatnot before, but how nice does it feel to have a book dedicated to YOU for a change, especially in a series you've touted pretty highly?
|
To be perfectly honest, *I* think a fair amount of what “Brew” says to himself is funny. I’m glad to hear it comes through. I don’t think anyone has ever said that to me before. (In contrast, a few people *have* told me how funny they think “The Chronicles” are. Rather disturbing, that.) Words can’t express how good it feels to have a book dedicated to me by a writer I respect as much as I respect Steven Erikson. It’s right up there with a dedication from Patricia A. McKillip. (05/22/2011) |
Gavin: I have been a long admirer of your works, which really ponder some very fundamental philosophical points. I have a couple of observations and one question. The first observation: In our anti-metaphysical age (perhaps we're all under some kind of "Kevin's Dirt" which prevents us from seeing the inner reality of things), fantasy literature gives this reality a voice. (So, maybe fantasy literature is actually more 'real' than what we call the 'real world')
The second observation: I am quite moved by your story of the ur-viles' reinterpretation of their Weird. And it looks like something similar may be happening with the lurker of the Sarangrave. While at one level, the devotion of the Feroce looks perverse, maybe their very devotion and humility are working a transformation in this creature. This devotion, combined with the experience of failure and vulnerability, seems to be turning the lurker away from Despite and mere appetite.
My question concerns the origins of the skest. In AATE, the skest, the sur-jheherrin, and the Feroce arise from a common ancestor in the jheherrin. But when I returned to the first reference to the skest in TWL, they seem to arise from the action of the (diluted) sun of pestilence on 'pale, flagellant creatures' that swam in the pools of the Sarangrave. These 'pale, flagellant creatures' don't really fit the description of jheherrin or such-like beings. How do these two descriptions of the skest fit together?
Thanks!
|
I appreciate your obserservations. I certainly think that fantasy has the potential to address issues which are far more “real” than they appear to be: issues which are fundamental to the human condition. It may well be that the “origins of the skest” stories offered in the “Second” and the “Last Chronicles” appear inconsistent because they actually *are* inconsistent. <sigh> Sometimes such problems cannot be avoided, perhaps because of a memory fault of which I’m unaware (“We don’t know what we don’t know.”), perhaps because I’ve come up with a better idea. Tonight I suspect that the origins of the skest are an example of the latter. To my way of thinking, the idea that the skest and the sur-jheherrin both evolved from the same sources is clearly *better* than what I wrote in TWL. In cases like this one, I decided some time ago that “better” is more important than “consistent”. (“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” RW Emerson) (05/22/2011) |
Bill: Hey Mr. Donaldson -
First, I'm been an avid reader of yours since the First Chronicles and deeply appreciate the time you put into your work and the gradual interview.
Are you aware that your latest book is available - in it's entirety - for free on Google?
http://books.google.com/books?id=ukRplJvGSD4C&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=insequent+vizard&source=bl&ots=vKTKo2DlCr&sig=_hHh_ZTXbHaq4Qjy6X142tW-6Uo&hl=en&ei=5oKnTdeqJYLe0QH2uvilBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=insequent%20vizard&f=false
I didn't know you were giving your works away for free.
Can you provide an update as to where you are on the last book of the Chronicles?
Thanks.
Bill
|
I'm told that, according the massive Google lawsuit settlement a few years back, you can *search* the text, and you can download chunks of it up to a certain amount, but you can't actually get more than a very small fraction of the book for free. In other words, the text is available for the kind of "fair use" that scholars practice, but that is NOT comparable to giving the book away. I hope I'm right about this. <sigh> (05/23/2011) |
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.
Jack: A quick thanks and congratulations. For the opportunity the gradual interview bestows and for the completion and subsequent success of AATE. I look forward to experiencing the conclusion of my favorite book series.
At any rate, onwards! My question is about Covenant as an author.
I find it interesting and together unsettling that Covenant's role as a writer seems to be essential to the story, yet is hardly ever recognized or brought to our attention. Only a couple times is it mentioned at the beginning of each series (perhaps not at all in the Final, but I'd need my memory jogged) However, there's such a huge connection between him and the Land. So I begin to wonder if there's a subtlety at work here, that Covenant the writer is as important as Covenant the leper.
Just look at our divine duo. Despite and Creation. Now I wouldn't quite draw a line between Foul and leprosy, but what it does to Covenant is certainly the same as what He does to the Land. And the Creator? I'm just glad he hasn't tossed his work into the celestial fireplace yet (*cough* thanks, Ms. Avery)
Looking back, I feel that Covenant abandoned his writing because there was no room for imagination when leprosy and the psychological treatment he received moved in. And without imagination there can't be beauty (we want to Preserve this, right?!) just the cold hard law of leprosy. Only after his triumph and evolution did Covenant begin his writing anew.
I guess my actual question then is how important is this facet of Covenant's life to the connections between him and the Land? Assuming yes, will it come more into play later on (Final Chrons) And why isn't it touched upon more?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks again!
-Jack
|
An interesting question. I've been procrastinating with it, I think, because I don't know how to answer. The glib response is, I don't need to spend narrative space talking about Covenant-as-a-writer because the whole story is a Covenant novel: he's living what he writes. But that reply feels like avoidance to me, and it probably won't satisfy you. Well. One lesson I've learned (although I routinely forget it) is, If you don't know how to answer, reject the premise of the question. (I learned that from "The West Wing" <grin>.) I'll start here: "Without imagination there can't be beauty." Sure. But I might argue that the following statement is also true: "Without imagination there can't be evil." Without imagination, isn't everything just brute instinct? Want/need/get/have. The end. As evidence, I'll simply cite the fact that there are writers (creators) who are unquestionably despisers. In itself, imagination is just an ability, a tool, inherently amoral. Whether it is "good" or "bad" depends on how it's used. Yes? Surely this is why both Lord Foul *and* the Creator chose a writer (indeed, the *same* writer) to promote their desires. Surely this is why the text refers (at least once) to the Despiser as the Creator's "brother." Surely this is why Covenant-the-writer (not just Covenant-the-leper) has the capacity to both save and damn the Earth. As you've observed, Covenant didn't recover his ability to write until he defeated Lord Foul the first time. But perhaps that is *not* because imagination itself overcame "the cold hard law of leprosy." Instead, perhaps, it is because of the particular *use* that Covenant found/chose for his imagination. A constructive, even loving use. He's even found or chosen a constructive use for his leprosy. So. If you accept all of that, then my original "glib" response is no longer as glib as it sounds. (05/28/2011) |
Matt Brown: So. Questions. Since so many of us are total geeks for your work, and have been ever since Covenant entered our lives (which was about 15 years ago, for me), do you ever feel that this has changed you as a person, just the fact that you have influenced people's lives ... refined millions of moral compasses? Does that sometimes daunt you as a man? I think it might paralyze me occassionally ... Secondly, have you ever regretted Covenant's rape of Lena to the extent that you wished, if even for a moment, that you had burdened him with guilt differently? I'm not suggesting you ought to, or should have ... it's just a question. And finally, and I suppose this is a request ... so forgive me, please ... if you haven't already planned to do so, might you include, at the end of the final book, something a little more cathartic for us as Covenant and Linden, the Haruchai and the Ramen, Giants and Ranyhyn and Stonedownors, leave our lives? That's all. Thank you for your story ... thank you for bringing Linden and Covenant and the Land back for us.
|
Taking your questions in the order of easy-to-answer.... 1) Catharsis is my middle name. (The "R" stands for "cathaRsis.") (An old joke, I admit. I usually say that the "R" stands for "stRess.") If you don't find catharsis in "The Last Chronicles," I will have failed in my intentions as a storyteller. (Keeping in mind that catharsis doesn't always come at the end. Just so you know.) 2) No, I have never regretted the rape of Lena. It fit my intentions perfectly. In retrospect, I think that the scene could (should?) have been written better. I regret that. But not the story itself. 3) Consciously (because I never know what my unconscious mind is doing <sigh>), I do not feel "changed" or "daunted" by the devotion of some of my readers. Grateful, yes. Fortunate, yes. Changed, no. (As for daunted: I do occasionally feel daunted by the challenge of competing with my own work. But not by my effect on my readers.) Why not? you may ask. What's *wrong* with me? you may well ask. <grin> Because--and I'm perfectly serious about this--I don't take it personally. Readers find value (or not) in what they read because of who they are, what they need, what they're ready/able to understand and accept. The book itself (and therefore the author) simply serves as a fortuitous catalyst: absolutely everything else is a description of the reader, not of the book or the author. What I *do* take personally is my own relationship with what I write. I dig into myself as deeply as I can. I strive toward the highest standards that I'm capable of recognizing. *That* is a description of me. And of course I'm aware that other people find substance in what I do in part (but only in part) because I work hard to provide substance. But anything that happens after the book leaves my hands isn't about me. So why would it change me? (Apart from the fact that it encourages me to keep doing what I do.) Why would I feel daunted by it? (See? Rejecting the premise of the question works. <grin>) (05/28/2011) |
Romeo Gresta: Dear Mr. Donaldson,
After reading AATE, I've just restarted reading all chronicles again. And every time it is still surprising me. Thanks for creating such a stories that reach us deep inside.
I've just searched the GI about this and I couldn't find an answer. I was just re-reading TIW and wondering what motivation Atiaran have to try to summon Covenant that ends up killing herself and summoning Hile Troy. Was it for revenge, for having Covenant judge by the Lords for his crimes against Lena and (as she sees it) against the Wraths of Andelain? Was it for seeing the suffering of Lena, always waiting for Covenant to come back? Or was it for any forgiveness that she might have found?
Best regards.
|
The fact that Atiaran went to such extremes--far beyond her abilities and knowledge--suggests that she was not motivated by anything that could be called "forgiveness." I hesitate to use a word like "revenge" to describe a woman with such a great heart. But certainly Lena's plight must have been a constant source of intense pain for Atiaran. So where else could she hope to find *relief* for her daughter? "Restitution" might be a better word for what Atiaran wanted. (05/29/2011) |
Bob DeFrank: I've just finished reading Scott Brick's recording of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, marvelous by the way, and have moved on to Nostromo. I'm halfway through and can't help but note a few similarities to Nick from the GAP series. At least in terms of their cynical attitudes and drive to seek glory and make an impression. Was there any conscious inspiration?
Follow up question: was Nick as fun to write about as he was fun to read? Even at his lowest he still manages to be awesome.
|
As a student of Conrad, I can't pretend that I haven't been influenced heavily by his work. But I drew no *conscious* inspiration for Nick from Nostromo. And I actually think of Nostromo's self-absorption as being less malign than Nick's. Fun to write about? I don't remember Nick being particularly fun to write about. Hashi Lebwohl, on the other hand.... I really enjoyed that. (05/29/2011) |
Matthew Yenkala: Hello sir,
Though I have a feeling you may have seen this one before, I didn't find it in a GI search, so I'm taking a chance and sending it to you for the halibut.
In lieu of the long list of serious questions I wrote down in 2004 and promptly misplaced (I'll try and find them before the Last Dark makes them all irrelevant), I offer you the following observation from the silly, stupid & fun department.
*ahem* (drum-roll)
If you go to the site http://deanjackson.dj/nameanagram/index.php
And enter your name, Stephen R Donaldson, you will find that the best anagram for your name is--
HONEST AND SPLENDOR
Kinda has a ring to it, don't it?
Hope this has improved your day at least .02 percent.
Thank you, please drive through!
|
Oh, I think we're up to .04 percent by now. <grin> In fact, I find this rather hard to believe--and yet I don't have the patience to test it. (05/29/2011) |
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.
Michael: The first Staff of Law (made from a branch of the One Tree) and the biblical Staff of Moses (supposedly made from a branch of the Tree of Life).Is the idea for the SAL taken from biblical or Sumerian texts?
|
Not consciously. On a conscious level, I was more aware of Norse influences. (Wotan's staff, etc..) But with my Biblical background, I can't claim that I wasn't unconsciously influenced. However, I have no Sumerian background at all, so we can cross that possibility off the list. (05/30/2011) |
Rob Smith: Discontinuing the gradual interview? - I think most of your readers are stunned you kept it going for as long as you did! The idea it might get in the way of The Last Dark is too horrible to contemplate! Enjoy some peace - write well - and if you are so inclined, come back to us when you are done so we can do some more of the on-line worship stuff :-)
|
Once again, a broadcast reply to thank the many readers who wrote to express appreciation for the Gradual Interview *and* understanding for my decision to stop. It's been quite a ride, and I don't regret a minute of it. But I really do need to summon all of my remaining resources for "The Last Dark." As promised, I will continue to work my way through the questions/messages which were posted before the cut-off date. New answers will appear for a while. But please accept this one response for every message that says essentially the same thing. I'm grateful! (05/30/2011) |
Bill Murrnane: Stephen -
Are you stopping the gradual interview on May 21st because that's when the world is going to end???
Just kidding.
Thanks for taking time to speaking with your fans all this time.
Bill
|
I don't actually expect anyone to believe me, but I'm perfectly serious: I never heard anything about this "Rapture" business until after I announced my decision to discontinue the Gradual Interview. From my perspective, it seemed obvious that the Rapture was going to come *because* I discontinued the Gradual Interview. Alas, it now appears that my efforts are *not* the keystone of Life As We Know It. What a blow! (05/30/2011) |
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.
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.
Fr. Robert Dye: You comment about your doubt that your publishers can produce a quality ebook from a physical book for the Covenant books . . . but this has already been done. It is bootleg, to be sure, but why not take advantage of it?
I have seen excellent versions of 4 of the first six Covenant books. They would still need proofreading, and I think some of the italics might need hammering into shape. the other two were only "pretty good" . . . probably at a state of 2 out of 5 stars.
Do you want the files? I know where to get them. I know it is not legal, but good grief; I've bought everything you ever wrote (except the Berzerker story) new at the bookstore, so I don't feel much guilt putting the files in larger text on my eReader.
|
Hmm. I assume (without any particular evidence) that you have the same bootleg RTF files I do. I downloaded them once myself. If they *are* the same files, they are far from what I could call "excellent." In fact, they are quite corrupt: no better than what my publisher's non-English-speaking proofreaders would produce. So using those files as a starting point would not reduce the amount of work I have to do (which *I* have to do because my publisher refuses to take responsibility for producing an accurate text). But if you happen to have a bootleg version that's different than mine, perhaps it would simplify my task. Please send the URL (or the files themselves) to me via my agent. I'll know soon enough if they're identical to mine. (06/01/2011) |
John: Steve,
I have a more philosophical question regarding the concept of, let's call it, "Evil" and "Intent", that I do not know can actually be answered. Your books are filled with terrible acts of evil; name a series you have written, and such acts can be found. And I mean specifically deliberate acts of evil. Whoever commits such acts knows what they do, they do understand the concept of good and bad (to use such blunt terms), and specifically say "to heck with it, I'll do this anyway, as it's what I want regardless of who is hurt, because what I want is more important". Fasner, for example.
Yet, others commit acts of evil out of intent of good. Take Elena, for example. It seems to me that these act which result in evil are the greater of the two, perhaps because everyone expects an evil person to act, in an evil way, and for those who seek to do good to actually do good.
Indeed, the entire Covenant series could not or would not exist were it not for the characters you wrote who tried to do good but screwed up BIG TIME.
Did I perceive this correctly? And if so, does this reflect on what you think to be a "Truth" of the world in which we live (I ask because if this is true what I have read in your works, it must have had some influence from somewhere)?
Thanks for your time. Now stop slacking reading and replying to this and write some books! I say that with love, by the way.
|
There's something rather horrifying about good intentions that produce evil. Perhaps that's why storytellers like me are attracted to such developments. Speaking for myself (i.e. separate from my books), here's how I look at it. The end never justifies the means. It can't. Why? Because no one can ever foresee what end the means will actually produce. Chaos theory forbids it, as I like to say. "Real" life is full of people who insist that the end justifies the means--and yet, strangely, the outcome is never the one they're looking for. Nevertheless those people continue to insist. Hence the importance of the theme. However, storytelling enables the consideration of more extensive implications. The "evil" ends which may result from "good" (well-intended) means may in turn produce other ends which are equally unpredictable, and which may be either "good" or "evil." Do we know the *eventual* outcome of Elena's actions, or of Linden's--or indeed of Covenant's? Perhaps someday we will. In the meantime, we might do well to keep Esmer's Law in mind: "That which appears evil need not have been so from the beginning, and need not remain so until the end." (06/03/2011) |
Steve M: Taken as a given that Chronicles 1,2 and now 3 contain numerous themes, motifs, multiple meanings and interpretations both consistent and contradictory; overlapping and independent. To sum up, definitely a very complex piece of writing. Now; that being said,; if placed on the spot (like I’m doing to you right now) where you had to pick one message that you hoped the reader would walk away from the chronicles with, what would that be? Yes, I know, technically they are not finished but...
|
Oh, just on a whim, and not trying to get too rococo about it: how about "Attempts must be made"? (06/03/2011) |
SPOILER WARNING!
This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:
Spoilers - Fatal Revenant
To view this post, click here.
You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.
aliantha: Hi Steve,
Re the possibility of a UK omnibus volume of all ten Covenant books: some of us in the US who've gotten hooked on Malazan (on your recommendation, by the way, and thanks!) have learned that it's possible to buy UK releases from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.ca.
Looking forward to TLD. Come *on*, 2013!
|
As matters stand, there will never be a 10-volume Covenant omnibus in either the US or the UK because in both countries competing publishers are involved. Covenant 1-6: Ballantine (US) and HarperCollins (UK). Covenant 7-10: Ace (US) and Gollancz (UK). Of course, if that state of affairs ever changes, all bets are off. (06/04/2011) |
Rev. Doctor Mark Bernard, R.H.D.: I just ordered the leather edition of TBOSRD from Subterranean Press, while I finish AATE.
Are you considering any more special editions?
Also, I was wondering about the topic of Religion.
It seems that there is the underlying theme of your own brand of Gaia. I would contemplate the Forestals as Druids, for instance, or the Haruchai as Shaolin Monks (both on steroids). There appears to be an assortment of warrior priests, each with their own specialty.
Am I revealing my own bias in this, or is there merit in my observations?
|
Since "special editions" aren't really under my control (I can prevent them from happening, but I can't make them happen), I don't spend much time considering them. Based on nothing except the messages posted in the Gradual Interview, I have to say that the "Covenant" books appear to hold up a mirror to the religious perceptions of their readers. You see "Gaia" (about which I know nothing) and "Shaolin Monks" (about which I knew nothing when I created the Haruchai). Other people see "The Chronicles" as Christian texts, or Buddhist, or existentialist, or humanist, or Taoist. Of course there is "merit" in your observations. But that doesn't mean you're reading what I wrote. No one *ever* reads what I wrote: even *I* don't. Why? Because reading is inherently interactive. In many ways, it is a re-creative process. By their very nature, what the reader receives and what the writer transmits are singular. Which is a big part of what makes the whole thing so wonderful. As for me, I don't think about religious themes--or *any* themes--when I write. I concentrate on two things: 1) telling the story to the best of my abilities; and 2) giving as much of myself to my characters as I can. In retrospect, of course, I become aware of all manner of themes. But I don't consciously strive for those themes while I'm writing. (06/05/2011) |
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.
Rob Smith: Hi Stephen,
Not so much question - just letting you have some info. I pre-ordered your 'best of' from Subterranean Press that was due in March. I chased them last week as I hadn't heard and they tell me they are running a couple of months behind due to some 'cover issues'. Hopefully they are getting the colour of the ring right <smile>
|
Hmm. I don't think there *are* any rings in "The Best of..." from Subterranean. But there have indeed been some cover issues. All I can tell you at this point is that *I* didn't cause those issues; and they *are* being resolved. The book will be available eventually. (06/05/2011) |
MRK: I don't really have a question this time. I don't know if you have heard of the practice of constructing "poems" out of book titles, but I recently learned about it and decided to see what I could do when limiting myself to titles of your works. I came up with these 2 (I cheated on the 2nd one and used short story titles as well as novels).
"The Man Who fought alone
Against All Things Ending
The Power that Preserves
The Wounded Land"
"The One Tree
Forbidden Knowledge
The Man who killed his brother
The Man Who tried to get away
A Dark and Hungry God Arises
Fatal Revenant
The Real Story
A Man Rides Through
Chaos & Order
Unworthy of the Angel
What Makes Us Human
This Day All Gods Die"
Ok, I do have a question actually; what would you say is your favorite Paul Scott novel outside of the Raj Quartet? (which admittedly may be hard to top)
|
Most of this I'm posting as a matter of general amusement. But my favorite Paul Scott novel outside the Raj Quartet (apart from the quasi-sequel, "Staying On") is "The Chinese Love Pavilion." Although no Paul Scott novel is without interest for a reader like me. (06/18/2011) |
Brian: I have a question about the Haruchai. In all of the post-Bloodguard story, there has never been any indication that the Haruchai who accompany Covenant or Linden sleep. They always seem to be on guard whenever the humans & Giants are sleeping, yet they are also awake when everyone else is awake. So, when the Haruchai commit themselves as protectors, are they taking a kind of "mini-Vow" which precludes sleep, like the Bloodguard's Vow? And there was one instance towards the end of AATE where one of the Haruchai eats some aliantha and drinks a little water. That's the only time I can recall any of them ingesting anything. Did the Bloodguard Vow give up food; and if so, do the Later Haruchai require no or little food/water? (oops, two questions)
|
This is extra-textual. Since the story doesn't mention a "mini-Vow," we can only speculate. But to my way of thinking, such speculation is unnecessary. The Haruchai are a warrior culture; and warrior cultures can be extremely reticent about *anything* that might be interpreted as weakness. For example, old Samurai texts discuss the importance of concealing even ordinary needs (food, drink, sleep) in order (one assumes) to appear fearsome. Some even urge the use of makeup to disguise signs of fatigue. Maybe the Haruchai sneak food and drink when other people aren't looking? Then there are all those stories about soldiers who learn how to sleep on their feet. Add to that skill the mind-sharing of the Haruchai, and it becomes plausible that, say, Galt, Clyme, and Branl could take turns sleeping while still being effectively on guard. As for issues like, did the Bloodguard give up food as well as sleep? alas, I really have no idea. (06/18/2011) |
Scott Adams: I searched for a question like mine but didn't see one, so if it's been asked before pardon me no need to answer. I've read most of the GI amd read many times about how maybe now you would write some parts of the original TCT or TSCOTC, have you ever thought
of rewriting the 1st and maybe the 2nd chronicles to
satisfy your thoughts about them. Would that be possible from a publishing standpoint? I've never heard of an author doing that for purely asthetic reasons. I know and you've mentioned that you write better now than when you started out so...Maybe comparable to remastering a band's record, although it's still the same work just better sound...love your books especially TC and
Gap series.
|
I've never given any real thought to revising the first and second "Covenant" trilogies, either to correct what I now consider flaws, or to improve internal consistency. I don't believe that my publishers would let me do it (unless the books first went out of print so that the rights reverted to me): asking them to take on the extra expense of re-publishing those books would require more clout than I have. But even if I did have ready and willing publishers, I suspect that I would refuse the task of revision. Here are three reasons. 1) As I like to say, I don't want to spend my life serving as the curator of the Covenant museum. I have better things to do than re-hash old work. 2) Every story that I write is a product of its specific time and place in my life. The, well, let's call it the "spirit" of who I was when I wrote, say, "Lord Foul's Bane" no longer exists. (It may endure somewhere in data-storage, but I can't retrieve it.) Therefore I suspect that any revisions I imposed on the text now would violate the spirit in which the text was written then. (Henry James is notorious for revising, and thereby crippling, his own books long after they were first published.) 3) Flaws are a fact of life. At some point, we all have to learn to live with past mistakes. When my first three mystery novels were re-published, I did do some subtle revisions. But for the reasons I've just given, I restricted myself to purely mechanical issues. Primarily I tried to smooth out (slightly) how the prose flows. In effect, I changed nothing more than a few dozen words of "connective tissue." (06/18/2011) |
Bob DeFrank: Mr. Donaldson,
Hope the world is treating you well and eagerly await the concluding adventures in the Land.
I notice you're a fan of McKillip. Have you ever read Barbara Hambly or CJ Cherryh too?
|
I've read quite a bit of CJ Cherryh. No Barbara Hambly, alas. Life is too short for all the books I want to read. (06/18/2011) |
Michael from Santa Fe: I have been following in the News section your struggles with the GAP ebooks. This got me thinking, they obviously published (or put out for consumption) these books without proper proofreading. They basically changed and/or altered your intentions for the text of the book (whether intentional or not). I assume when you have gone through the editing and proofreading process for a physical book that at some point it's agreed by both the author/editor and publisher on a final version to be printed. At that point, I assume, the publisher could not contractually alter the text without your permission, correct? If they could, they could in theory, publish a totally different book than what you submitted and put your name on it. What makes this situation any different? I gather from the News section that you are fighting with Bantam on the changes. I understand of course that making any changes costs them time/money, which they would be reluctant to do, but aren't they contractually obligated to fix your text since that's not what you wrote or wanted published?
|
You're right: the publisher has no contractual right to alter the text--at any stage in the process (the author's control over the text is supposed to be absolute--as is the publisher's right to reject the text if the editor isn't satisfied). So the publisher has no contractual right to release an e-book which is different in any textual way from the physical version. The e-book is *supposed* to be identical to the physical book. On that point, no one argues. Instead the publisher(s) argues that time and cost make "due diligence" impossible. "Cost forces us to out-source our proofreading to India. It's not our fault that India does a lousy job. It's not our fault that you aren't profitable enough to justify the expense of producing a clean text." Eventually I fear that publishers will try to alter their contracts to preclude any kind of proofreading, by the author or anyone else, even for their physical books. <sigh> Indirectly Amazon is responsible for some of this. Amazon deliberately puts publishers under enormous price pressure. To stay in business, publishers feel forced to cut costs in every conceivable way. Even (and this is the part that makes me crazy) when those cost-cutting measures (e.g. producing e-books riddled with gibberish) demonstrably reduce sales. (06/29/2011) |
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.
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.
Matthew Yenkala: Heya Mr. SRD,
Just found this article linking leprosy to contact with armadillos...thought you might find it of general interest:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/27/armadillos.spreading.leprosy/?hpt=Sbin
Anyway--stay away from armadillos till after "The Last Dark" is done! Just sayin'...
Matthew Yenkala
|
Forgive me for saying so, but this is old news. I first heard about it in the late 80s. In fact, I first heard about it from an irate reader who castigated me for not taking into account medical advances which occurred after (!) I wrote the first six "Chronicles". (07/06/2011) |
Uriah Knox: If I understand it properly, Linden Avery is a psychiatrist, and consequently would have knowledge of various psychotropic substances while in her practice. Why did she not built a chemical/alchemical collective in The Land to mass produce such things? Just consider the dampening effect that the influence of Quaaludes would have on a bloodthirsty army of Cave Wights! A nice measure of Risperdal would bring those hoity-toity Elohim back down to earth darn quick. Esmer, of course, desperately needs a complete Zyprexa schedule. And, who knows, perhaps saving the Land would only require a covert slipping of some time-released Lithium into one of the beings that Lord Foul likes to possess!
Pardon me if I have unintentionally revealed the nature of the solutions to be found in the final book of the series. I accept that Linden has been a bit preoccupied with having to deal with time travel, monstrous beasts of fire, constant threat of major physical trauma and her former lover Thomas Covenant clearly showing signs of pre-Alzheimer's disease. (Perhaps he could well make use of Aricept to manage his intermittent journeys into catatonia - honestly, the nerve of him to go off into his own personal fantasy land while already living in his own personal fantasy land!) Perhaps, at long last, Linden is finally ready to make use of her profession and supply all of these suffering men, monsters and spirits with the pharmaceutical relief that they so clearly require.
|
What a great idea! I wish I had thought of it? God knows, pharmacology holds the cure to all mortal ills. (07/06/2011) |
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.
Jay: Since Junior high I have read your works. I find myself desiring a conclusion to this current series. I was wondering how you feel the "Last Dark" is coming together for you, how satisfied you are with what you have so far written and when you see yourself having completed it.
|
I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm psychologically incapable of feeling "satisfied" with *anything* at this stage in the process, not with what I've written so far, and certainly not with when the work might be complete. Besides, I have to go to the dentist today--so *that* sucks. Unfortunately, there is no "right" person. My private readers are sworn to secrecy; and no one else has any idea what I'm doing. (07/20/2011) |
Jorge Calzada: Hi. I write from mexico wondering if there is a legal option to get the second chronicles as ebook/pdf/txt to be read on my kindle. Your books are hard to get here and I am willing to buy them plus I hate piracy. I bought the first chronicles while on vacation and really really enjoyed them.
I searched all around but there only seem to be non-legal versions for download as pdf, for free. In all fairness I would rather ask and pay you or a digital publisher than encouraging file sharing.
Thank you
|
I've responded to this question a number of times before. But now there has been one rather tentative development. To recapitulate: I certainly want to make all of my earlier books available in e-versions, especially the first six "Covenant" titles. But my publishers did a real hatchet job on the GAP e-books, and the results were a textual nightmare. As a result, I'm currently unwilling to release the e-rights to "Covenant" (or to "Mordant's Need"). And my publishers are unwilling to make the effort (i.e. spend the money) to ensure clean e-texts. So. Now I'm spending my own money in an attempt to procure a clean e-text for "Covenant." If I succeed, I can't publish the results myself: my contracts forbid "competing editions." But I *can* offer the e-rights to my publishers--on the condition that they use *my* text instead of producing their own. At present, this process is in the exploratory stages. When I have something concrete to report, I'll post it as "news" on this web site. (07/20/2011) |
Willow: I have been re-reading Fatal Revenant before I move onto finally reading AATE and all the emotions that I get made me think of the Gap series. While reading book 4 I actually threw my book in the closet for several days because I was so angry about what was happening. There didn't seem like anyway out of what was happening and I was furious with the characters for what they were doing. I finally picked it back up after a few days of cooling off and it all worked out. But it just makes me wonder if you ever thought (or hoped) you would get that kind of emotional reaction from someone with your stories?
|
Hmm. Have I ever wanted my readers to throw my books in the closet? Of course not. (Although I would happily make an exception for readers who keep on reading my books even though they feel offended by what I'm doing.) But it should be obvious by now that I do want my readers to *care* (as strongly as possible) about the characters, the events, and the themes. (And I suppose that feeling offended is a form of caring.) After all, I give my heart to my stories. Why wouldn't I want my stories to reach the hearts of my readers? (07/20/2011) |
Mark Sanges: Hello again Mr. Donaldson,
My wife, after years of writing is finally setting off on the road to being published. So my question is, what if you were a new writer starting out today but had the knowledge and experience your long career has given you? Would you still approach publishing by pursuing a publisher or an agent with your work, facing repeated rejections? Or would you pursue more direct and modern means to publication such as self-publishing, publishing eText exclusively, or some other approach, perhaps the on-demand publishing solution you mentioned in your answer to my original question?
As always, thank you so much for your wonderful books and for taking the time to answer so many of your fans questions. Best of luck with the fourth, and final Covenant book.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanges
|
The world of books is changing rapidly, I don't know where it's going. But I still believe that traditional publishers (and agents) perform valuable services, in part for the writer (obviously viable alternatives now exist), but moreso for the reader. When a reader buys a book from an established "house," he/she can be sure of one thing which does not apply to any form of self-publication: the book has been screened (and even proofread) by *somebody* who is NOT THE AUTHOR. The book has been selected from among hundreds of manuscripts because the publisher believes that readers will like it (and that therefore the publisher will make money). This detail cannot be over-emphasized. Imagine the alternative: a hundred times as many books as there are now, all entirely indistinguishable from each other except by the author's name (and as those authors die off...), or by reader reviews (which have always been dramatically unreliable, if for no other reason than because the typical reviewer has nothing at stake except his/her own ego). If that future ever comes to pass, I fear that reading books will evaporate entirely. We'll all have hundreds of thousands of choices, and we'll have no reason to want any of them. And on a much more personal level, the possibility of rejection can be good for the soul. It teaches humility. It reminds us that nothing we've written is *inherently* an effective piece of communication. It doesn't "work" simply because we wrote it. Writing is little more than self-indulgence (or self-therapy) unless it can bridge the gap between the writer and the reader--and publishers are valuable (if fallible) reader-surrogates. Nothing worthwhile is ever accomplished without risk. (08/03/2011) |
Andrew Kennedy: I wonder how you, as an artist, feel about those who view novels and the like more akin to just a piece of intellectual property rather than a literary work. Through the GI, it seems to me that your sensibility is more of that of an artist.
When I think of a literary work as a piece of intellectual property, the question really is always on how to exploit it to its fullest. James Bond is probably the king there, with films, games and (almost forgotten) a series of authors continuing Ian Fleming's "literary tradition." LOTR is not far behind, and the transformation to exploited intellectual property will be complete if a sequel to The Hobbit is made, comprised completely of new material derived from Tolkien.
I assume that literary critics consider such things monstrosities, and perhaps some authors do as well. But it seems that the trend is toward extracting every last revenue stream out of the initial creative endeavor, and it is now impossible to ignore. Do you think that this trend harms the creative process?
As an author, do these competing visions affect your view of your work?
|
I don't really know what to say. Intellectual property rights cut both ways (to coin a phrase). Sure, they enable certain kinds of exploitation (if the owner of the rights feels so inclined). But they also block other kinds of exploitation (e.g. stealing). In fact, without intellectual property rights, anybody who felt like it could try to take over *my* creation--for any imaginable purpose. So it seems to me that the real issue is not intellectual property rights themselves, but rather what the owners of those rights choose to do with them. And the owners of those rights are as diverse as the general population. Some exploit: some don't. (08/03/2011) |
Anonymous: Your love of opera is well known. I wonder what you think of popular musical theater, such as "Les Miserables?"
|
"Les Mis," like "Rent" and Elton John's "Aida," is an opera. (By strange coincidence, I was present on one occasion when the original producer of "Les Mis" said, "Of COURSE it's an opera. But if we called it that, no one would go to it.") I love them. Although some "popular musical theater" reveals more musical sophistication than others, I love that direct expression of passionate emotion in beautiful sound. (08/03/2011) |
Matthew Yenkala: OK, I know, I know, I recently submitted a question, but I had another good one and I didn't want to forget it. So please forgive my indulgence.
So--in these pages you've spoken, at length, about books you've loved or that have made an impression on you; authors who have influenced you; films, tv shows, music and even comic books that you've enjoyed or that have moved you. And by and large, everything you've listed has been--frankly--good stuff. Stuff that no one could fault you for liking, whether it's to their own personal taste or not.
However--
We *all* have some guilty pleasures. Maybe it's that Wilson Phillips CD on the back of the shelf, or that copy of "Grease 2" you try to pretend you don't own. We ALL have a few "cheesy" loves--things that are either so bad they're entertaining, or else, AREN'T bad (in our opinion at least) but are--misunderstood. Or maybe are "noble failures". Or perhaps we have a nostalgic or childhood fondness for them. Or maybe we just like them because we like them, what other people think be damned!
We all have them. So what are yours? Books, music, movies, TV, whatever--Out with it, man!
Matthew Yenkala
|
Hmm. Why would I think about any of my pleasures as "guilty"? Sure, there are (for example) movies that I think of as "comfort food": they satisfy me, but I don't really expect them to satisfy anyone else. "Underworld." "Constantine." The "Matrix" trilogy. "Face/Off." (OK, so maybe I do feel a little embarrassed about "Mr & Mrs Smith." <grin>) But such pleasures (guilty or otherwise) are nothing if not, well, private. So why would I want to talk about them in public? (08/07/2011) |
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.
C Collins: (This is a Thomas Covenant question.)
I've read that Joseph Conrad is one of your influences. This strikes me as particularly interesting when thinking about how power is presented in the Covenant novels and power in Heart of Darkness. Is there a parallel between Covenant's rejection of power and Kurtz's acceptance of it? (In that Covenant saves himself by rejecting it and Kurtz loses himself by accepting it.) I see it clearly in numerous instances in your Thomas Covenant novels but I may just be over-reading things.
Thank you very much for your time.
|
It would be foolish for me to pretend that I was not influenced by Conrad. If I had stayed in grad school, I would have written my dissertation on Conrad. "Heart of Darkness," in particular, is an important work, seminal in the formation of my own ideas. In fact: hidden away in my filing cabinet somewhere is a journeyman novella in which I tried explicitly to apply "Heart of Darkness" to--of all things--playing varsity tennis in college. <bemused shrug>. What can I say? I was young. And I was trying to exorcise a very personal demon. Anyway, that experience taught me that imitation may or may not be the sincerest form of flattery, but it *is* a highly effective means of self-education. But (as always) I wasn't *consciously* thinking of Conrad, or of "Heart of Darkness," when I first worked on "Covenant." As I think I've said before: when I'm actually writing, I don't think about What It All Means. I think about the internal logic and necessities of the characters, and about how those things interact with events. Only in retrospect (e.g. while rewriting) do I attend to the thematic implications of what I've done. At which point the relevance of "Heart of Darkness"--as well as much other Conrad--becomes pretty obvious. (08/17/2011) |
Catcher: Writing is a lonely activity that must feel isolating. You have earlier in the GI said that one thing that helps here is simply being read. I suppose getting questions through the GI, participating in things like the fantasy bedtime hour, and perhaps even corresponding with your editor and agent help too. Still, this should be far short of a typical job where you get peer company everyday at an office.
Do you employ any other means to feel less isolated at work? I ask more than casually since I am in a similar situation presently, where I am doing some solitary research in preparation to launch a company (which would then have a few employees). Perhaps there's no avoiding it, and one should compensate by spending more time with friends and family? Any thoughts much appreciated.
Catcher
|
I think I've mentioned from time to time that I cope with my sense of isolation in a variety of ways. Listening to music makes me feel less alone. I place a (very) high priority on the people I love (family and friends). I study karate, which is a group activity. (Gets me out of the house, encourages me to interact with other people, gives me something to think about that isn't writing.) And I have private readers who help anchor me in the real world of communication during the INTERMINABLE process of writing my books. Each of these things provides only partial relief from the ways in which isolation erodes my self-confidence. (How do I know that I even exist, when I'm the only one here?) But taken together, they are fairly effective. I only collapse occasionally. (08/24/2011) |
Unpech: Dear Stephen,
Over the years I have sincerely enjoyed reading (and even participating once or twice) in this Grand, Gradual Interview! Your courtesy in addressing all manner of questions, from the ridiculous to the sublime has been, well, like a drink at a mountain stream.
On the frequent occasions that I re-read your works, especially the Covenant and Gap series, I often conceived of things I might like to ask you, but the hilarious antics of Angus, Hashi, Pieten, Kaseryn, the Harrow et. al. distract me, and invariably push those questions right outta my head.
But here's one last one in advance of the impending Rapture and Submission deadline:
Your bio seems to indicate that you are , as am I, a non-equestrian pacifist and landlubber, but your descriptions of the Ranyhyn, (and horse-lore in general), military tactics (especially those of Hile Troy) and the sea-faring Giants and their dromonds are exquisitely vivid. Was this skill achieved merely through research (book-learnin'?), or do you have any experience in these fields?
Hail!
|
"Hilarious antics"? Angus? The Harrow? Surely you jest! But never mind. Don't underestimate the value of book-learnin'. It can be a powerful catalyst for an active imagination and an eager sense of empathy. Especially if the books are fiction (which is virtually all I read). Good fiction is simply more visceral and vivid than non-fiction--at least for me. As you observe, I am a non-equestrian pacifist and landlubber. But nothing is really that simple. For example, I do have some extended experience with horses. (Experience which taught me to dislike them vehemently. Which in turn makes me singularly proud of my "success" with the Ranyhyn--such as it is.) And I do love the sea--although I've pretty much only been a passenger. Any actual knowledge I may possess comes from books. (Conrad, of course. Stirling Hayden's "Voyage".) The other factor--surely I've said this before?--is that I write to engage the reader's imagination, not to (for lack of a better term) educate the reader about somethingorother. (Leprosy is an obvious exception.) As a result, my readers do a fair amount of my work for me. (08/24/2011) |
Jon Smith: Hi Stephen
its really sad to see the GI go as it was fascinating to dissect an discuss your fabulous work with the creator himself :) before it disappears completely i would like to ask a question on the nature of Covenants relationship with Elena
For me this was the key to falling in love with your work, the interplay between these two characters and their impossible situations made for such emotional and compelling reading that i almost speed read through the warwards march on dooms retreat to get back to the high lords quest. In lots of ways for me the issues, stakes and drama with the quest party exceeded the major battles going on at dooms retreat, i did feel a personal growing connection to the characters and their revealing flaws, vunerabilities and in a strange way the symbiotic relationship between Elena, Covenant and the Bloodguard. All three of the seperate parties pasts and futures were being shaped on the quest as if it were a crossroads. It spurred me on in a compelling way almost like a mystery novel and i felt i was always just around the corner to another profound surprise. I loved it.
To the questions:
Throughout the Illearth war he goes from anger at his summoning to being afraid of her effect on him, passionate desire for her, being at peace by her side, nurturing a daughter relationship and then just before they enter Melenkurion Skyweir after she shaves him an almost profound love for her. Just before her fall and certainly soon after he acts almost desperately to save her and proclaims he loves her and then as he leaves Mithil stonedown in The Power that preserves when Lena asks to marry him he shouts internally that she is crazy and its her daughter he loves. Does he still love her that way? Elena obviously had a huge impact on his change of attitude to the Land but covenant seems to almost forget her in future novels (yes i know she is dead) maybe i am too nostalgic :)
How does Covenant feel about his daughter?
There are some among the watch that castigate Elena as reckless, arrogant and someone who lacked the capability to perform as High lord. Personally i
I don't believe she was reckless, it was a one chance opportunity that could have made the difference in the war, she believed she had a responsibility to the land, her lordship and her beloved to use any weapon against despite, remember TC had no idea and had refused to wield the wild magic. Was she supposed to shrug and march back to Revelstone leaving such a potent weapon behind, knowing that the warward were fighting a desperate battle at the same time? I think she was definately sure of herself but not arrogant, as a highlord in a time of war and crises I think she needed to be, it was part of the reason she was chosen as highlord, as the other lords said she had inner mettle. I don't read arrogance in her character leading up to the tragic mistake she made. I read nothing but admiration for her in the other lords and people of the land. Even Covenant loves her, her affection for him and his abuse of that which he so desperately needed broke him. Amok may have cautioned it's use but he led her there because he knew the land was in danger, she was given a power without the necessary wards that were designed to stop this exact thing happening. She was responsible and she knows that but i believe Amok, Foul and Covenant pushed her to the edge of the precipice. She made the jump. I have only empathy for her, I really think she is misunderstood and unfairly judged by some.
Was this the way you wrote her motivations and character or was she the reckless and arrogant high lord some view her as?
Thank you so much for many fantastic novels, im sure you don't need me to tell you that reading the GI and having discussed many things on the watch that your work has touched a great many people in a very profound and personal way.
Jon
|
Here Endeth the Gradual Interview: a chance once again to return thanks to my readers. I'm grateful for all of the people who have stayed with me! (But I'll continue to post news, progress reports, etc., whenever I have something of substance to convey.) Perhaps it's fitting to end the GI with a question about Elena. (Of course, you've actually asked several questions.) First, the character herself. I think it's fair to say that she was "reckless" (rushing to use a power which she had never studied, never learned to understand) and "arrogant" (trying to solve the whole problem at one stroke by herself, so eager to save the Land herself that she never looked closely at the nature of Kevin's flaw). But that does not in any way invalidate your own response to her: a response which is widely supported by the text. Her fellow Lords were not fools. The Ranyhyn were not fools. Even Covenant, in his tortured fashion, was not a fool. They all saw in her the potential for greatness. "Save or damn." I see her as a tragic figure misled by her own virtues, her own unquestioning capacity for love. (One of the "points" of her story is that questions need to be asked, but she doesn't ask them.) As for Covenant's feelings toward his daughter. I think it's important to remember that at this point in the story he is still significantly driven by a form of selfishness. He's still trying to "bargain" with a situation he finds intolerable. Even more than Lena (and by implication, Atiaran), Elena is teaching him to love. And that love is--in a manner of speaking--cleansed by the fact that she is his daughter. In his case, at that point in the story, parental love is less selfish (and hence more relevant to his relationship with the Land) than other forms of love. But he isn't *there* yet. He still sees in Elena an opportunity to avoid responsibility for his circumstances. He hasn't yet become the man he needs to be. So why does she play such a diminished role in his emotions later on? Well, how could it be otherwise? a) Much of what he learned from her has been transferred to the Land: that love has gained a larger and less selfish outlet. b) Life goes on. People move on. After ten years in the "real" world, years during which he has no reason whatsoever to think that he'll ever see the Land or any of its people again--well, there would be something profoundly wrong with him if he had *not* moved on. Certainly he would not have become a man who could love Linden, a "partner" rather than a daughter: a love *chosen* rather than one determined by parental instincts. AVE ATQUE VALE! (And thank you, Google! <grin>) (08/31/2011) |