The Gradual Interview

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

So many questions are repeat questions, too!

Edit:

I just read some recent questions, and I recognized Lurch/Mel's post before I read his name on it.... hah!

[drew]

I wonder how many questions in the 240 are wondering if there will be a movie, or when revenemnt is coming out.

[dlbpharmd]

I just read some recent questions, and I recognized Lurch/Mel's post before I read his name on it.... hah!

Yeah - kinda hard to miss, isn't it?

[Loredoctor]

Best question and answer yet:

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 you’ve mentioned above). So I’m 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 human”—another description you’ve given for your writing.

But isn’t 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?"

I’m 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 you’ve 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. I’m 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.

[drew]

I Got another answer!

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)

I couldn't stop laughing after I read the first line of his response

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

As far as that previous q/a went, the one Loremaster put up, that's some pretty interesting stuff. I definately see where the asker was coming from, and a lot of what he put in there is echoed in my own thoughts on the subject. However, I also feel for SRD's response. There is such a difference between telling a story about people and their responses to situations, and telling readers that -this- is how the world works, and that they would be better off mimicing the beliefs of the author.

[wayfriend]

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)

Does anyone else think that this is a non-answer? Or at least answers a different question than the one asked? The question was about Vain, the answer pretty much almost wasn't.

[I'm Murrin]

Think of it this way (Runes spoiler):

Spoiler

Because there's now a Staff of Law, Linden wants to give Covenant the ring back and just use the staff, which defeats the purpose of the Elohim's plotting.

It's also possible that the existence of a new staff by itself counts as 'bothering them' because of the way it shapes Earthpower. Thus, a positive outcome, but not one desirable to the Elohim.

[matrixman]

How is SRD's reply a non-answer? He answered the questions, as far as I can see. Why did the Elohim appoint Findail and make Vain's purpose possible, if they felt that purpose was "undesirable"? Because they were preparing for every eventuality, even one that would mean the undesirable loss of one of their own kind. Why was Vain's purpose "undesirable" to the Elohim? Because it would result in the loss of one of their own kind. The merging of Vain and Findail was not the optimal solution in the eyes of the Elohim: they felt that the Sun-Sage had the power to do it all--stop Foul and the Sunbane--with the ring without needing to bother the Elohim. Why did the Elohim try to make Vain's purpose "inaccessible"? Because Vain represented the least desirable outcome for the Elohim; they saw the merging of Vain and Findail as a solution of last resort, so they tried to make it as difficult as possible to be accomplished--though again, they were prepared for that eventuality in case all their other options failed.

Makes sense to me. In what way did SRD not answer the questions? Did he miss the point of the questions? Did I?

Oh, and I didn't peek at Murrin's spoiler, lest it be a Runes spoiler.

[wayfriend]

Makes sense to me. In what way did SRD not answer the questions? Did he miss the point of the questions? Did I?

The question seems to be 'Why would the Elohim be opposed to creating a new Staff of Law?'. SRD goes on to answer about how the Elohim want Linden to get the ring - but that's not about the Staff of Law or Vain. He then goes on about how the Elohim have contingency plans for Vain - but it doesn't explain why they have all these plans against Vain. He concludes by stating that the Elohim got their worst possible outcome - but he doesn't say why that is the worst.

So that's why I am confused about the answer. (It's a question I am intensely curious about, which is why I am struggling to glean insight from it.)

While the statements that "a new staff by itself counts as 'bothering them'" and "the undesirable loss of one of their own kind" may be valid explanations (I don't agree with them, but they could be correct) which fill in the gaps in Donaldson's answer -- well, Donaldson didn't say that, Watchers said that.

So here I am, drinking from the font of genious, complaining that the water is not cool enough -- I should shut up.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I would imagine that the idea of an Elohim being bound to such a lesser being opposed to them, and being bound at all, would be a bit offensive to them... bowing to the plans of another?

[Variol Farseer]

As I've suggested in another thread, it may be that the Elohim are opposed to the Staff of Law, and even to Law itself, out of sheer self-interest. The 'laughing faery Elohim' that the Unhomed met in ancient times are no more; they have turned into arrogant, self-serving spirits like Chant and Infelice. I have the strongest feeling that the change in the Elohim is a consequence of the weakening of Law when the Staff was broken, and still later of the Sunbane:

"In the mountains which cradle our clachan, we see the peril of this Sunbane which requires you to your quest. And in the trees of Woodenwold we have read your arrival.

"Yet had such knowing comprised the limit of our knowledge, you would have been welcomed here merely as other visitors are welcomed, in simple kindness and curiosity. But our knowledge is not so small. We have found within ourselves this shadow upon the heart of the Earth, and it has altered our thoughts. It has taught us to conceive of the Sunbane in new ways — and to reply to the Earth's peril in a manner other than our wont."

So Daphin said to Linden in chapter 7 of The One Tree.

I believe — as I said in that other thread — that the Elohim had, in effect, grown addicted to the incondign freedom that the damaged Law gave them. To such beings as they had become, a new Staff of Law would be an instrument of bondage: it would force them to abide within their former limits. In a sense, they were all Appointed, and Findail's loss, though greater than any other's, was shared by them all.

[matrixman]

Wow! Great answer, VF! It also expands on Murrin's reply about the Staff shaping the Earthpower.

[dlbpharmd]

OK - either I'm an idiot or this is the dumbest answer SRD has ever given:

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)

SRD has always refused to answer this question in the past in the GI so I'm surprised that he tried to make an answer here. Are we to take this that Linden unknowingly lifted the ring off of Covenant's hand? If that's true, then the ending of WGW - which has thrilled and fascinated me for over 20 years - has lost all of its luster.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't take it that way. To me, he's saying that it's simply a Law of magic. In the Land, Covenant offers Linden the ring, and she takes it. But this is no run-of-the-mill event. Because it's white gold, and probably because of the love involved, it doesn't end in the Land. All aspects of this ring go from Covenant to Linden, so the transfer extends to the real world. The Law of Sympathetic Magic says, "Oh, the ring has been passed on? OK, let me transfer it in this other world, also."

[Variol Farseer]

Fist: Since we have seen other ways in which forces in the Land can influence the 'real' world (most obviously, the process of summoning), I expect you're right. Sympathetic magic could work across that kind of barrier, particularly when aided by magical contagion. The fact that the ring itself exists in both worlds simultaneously (like the bodies of Covenant and Linden) ought to make such contagion virtually inevitable.

The whole thing defies common sense, but suits the peculiar logic of magic very well.

[Loredoctor]

The whole thing defies common sense, but suits the peculiar logic of magic very well.

Agreed. And that's the crux of the issue.

[wayfriend]

If that's true, then the ending of WGW - which has thrilled and fascinated me for over 20 years - has lost all of its luster.

Agreed. So I'm not believing his explanation. He has granted me (and everyone) free license to interpret these things any way we want to. And, here, I shall. It was magic!

[matrixman]

Okay, I'm in a bit of a state of shock here. No, dlb, you aren't an idiot, but SRD's answer makes me feel like forming an Idiot Club nonetheless. Anyone wanna sign up?

I wouldn't say SRD's reply is dumb, but he's giving me visions of Linden the Zombie plodding over to take the ring from Covenant's corpse. This is either tragic or hilarious, I'm not sure which. Sounds like a bad horror movie...or a Resident Evil game.

I'd rather have an "immaculate transfer" if you will, whereby the ring just magically vanishes from Covenant's hand and re-appears in Linden's. Anything but zombie Linden. Ugh.

Then again, it just hit me that Covenant himself is in a "stupefied state" for a big chunk of The One Tree, so I guess I really shouldn't complain...

[Fist and Faith]

The way to think of it that works best for me is - wild magic give her the physical strength to move in the real world. She couldn't for a while, and wouldn't have been able to on her own. But this event was such an absolute that the wild magic gave her the strength to do what she had already done in the Land, what she most certainly wanted to do in the real world, and what Covenant also wanted her to do in the real world. If the passing of the ring hadn't been permanent in both of their minds and hearts, it wouldn't have happened in the real world. Since it was permanent, the wild magic made sure it was across the boards.