GI, July 2004 question

[High Lord Tolkien]

When SRD was asked about him ever doing or planning to write a childrens story he replied with this:

"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"

What does "obvious reasons" mean?
Just the fact that he's never written one?
Seems like there might be some personal stuff I'm not aware of?

[Rincewind]

he means he doesent want to lower himself to the level of those annoying small things commonly referred to as... children

[Myste]

I imagine it's probably because the ways he deals with his subjects--guilt, redemption, powerlessness, and the costs of responsibility--are not particularly well-suited to children.

Accessing fear and the darker side of wonder--the way Stephen King and Neil Gaiman do--is in its way a lot more innocent than what SRD does. King & Gaiman take readers to the darker side of the human imagination; even at his scariest, King is still fanciful. SRD takes readers to the darker side of humanity in general; only his contexts--The Land, space, Mordant--are imaginary. It's what makes him a better writer, and what makes his books more difficult to read

[Loredoctor]

Seems like there might be some personal stuff I'm not aware of?

Why read so much into this?

[High Lord Tolkien]

Seems like there might be some personal stuff I'm not aware of?

Why read so much into this?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because this is Kevin's Watch and not Mallory24/7!!

It was the "obviously" that struck me as strange.
Later on in the GI he talks about knowing very well about being sued or something vague like that.
Anyone know the details on that one too.
Or is it in the GI somewhere?

(I admit that I skip around the GI and I don't know why)

[CovenantJr]

I imagine it's probably because the ways he deals with his subjects--guilt, redemption, powerlessness, and the costs of responsibility--are not particularly well-suited to children.

Accessing fear and the darker side of wonder--the way Stephen King and Neil Gaiman do--is in its way a lot more innocent than what SRD does. King & Gaiman take readers to the darker side of the human imagination; even at his scariest, King is still fanciful. SRD takes readers to the darker side of humanity in general; only his contexts--The Land, space, Mordant--are imaginary. It's what makes him a better writer, and what makes his books more difficult to read

I agree (though I find Stephen King far more difficult to read than Donaldson - bloody midwest colloquialisms!). Children can deal with far-fetched monster-under-the-bed stuff, but Donaldson's dark themes usually revolve around the internal struggles of human beings.

[Menolly]

Seems like there might be some personal stuff I'm not aware of?

Why read so much into this?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because this is Kevin's Watch and not Mallory24/7!!

It was the "obviously" that struck me as strange.
Later on in the GI he talks about knowing very well about being sued or something vague like that.
Anyone know the details on that one too.
Or is it in the GI somewhere?

(I admit that I skip around the GI and I don't know why)

I think I read somewhere on the GI or the website itself that SRD went through a bitter divorce at some point in his life. Perhaps his ex gave him a hard time about their children?

[Myste]

I agree (though I find Stephen King far more difficult to read than Donaldson - bloody midwest colloquialisms!).

They're actually New England colloquialisms, but same difference. Down Eastern is as weird as Midwestern.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I think I read somewhere on the GI or the website itself that SRD went through a bitter divorce at some point in his life. Perhaps his ex gave him a hard time about their children?

See? I didn't know he was divorced or even had children.
I find that stuff interesting.

[Seareach]

I imagine it's probably because the ways he deals with his subjects--guilt, redemption, powerlessness, and the costs of responsibility--are not particularly well-suited to children.

I agree totally with you Myste!

Why do people think it has anything to do with SRD's personal life? I think that has absolutely *nothing* to do with it! When SRD says

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.

do people honestly think that it's because he went through a bitter divorce or what ever? To me the "obvious reason" is what Myste said.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I imagine it's probably because the ways he deals with his subjects--guilt, redemption, powerlessness, and the costs of responsibility--are not particularly well-suited to children.

I agree totally with you Myste!

Why do people think it has anything to do with SRD's personal life? I think that has absolutely *nothing* to do with it! When SRD says

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.

do people honestly think that it's because he went through a bitter divorce or what ever? To me the "obvious reason" is what Myste said.

Well, I wonder about that.
A writer draws upon his/her life experiences.
A bitter divorce or loss of a child or having a father that treated lepers is going to affect someone in some way whether they know it or not.

This doesn't affect my enjoyment of the story and I don't believe that knowing the life of the author will give me any insight behind his works.
But just like others here enjoy hearing about SRD's likes and dislikes or political affiliation I like to hear other tidbits too.

(Maybe I'm just dumb but I still don't get the "obvious" part.)

[CovenantJr]

Look at his track record.


The Chronicles of TC chose to be written - tale of a rapist leper tormented by impotence and guilt.

The Gap chose to be written - I haven't read it yet, but I know from reputation that it's pretty grim stuff.


I'd say the reasons for children's stories not choosing SRD areobvious.

I agree (though I find Stephen King far more difficult to read than Donaldson - bloody midwest colloquialisms!).

They're actually New England colloquialisms, but same difference. Down Eastern is as weird as Midwestern.

I've been told King is from the Midwest. I'll slap my source

[Seareach]

Well, I wonder about that.
A writer draws upon his/her life experiences.
A bitter divorce or loss of a child or having a father that treated lepers is going to affect someone in some way whether they know it or not.

Don't get me wrong: I know that writers draw upon their life experiences. As an example, SRD reveals in the GI that "Penance" is the story which

responds to a lawsuit impugning my honor, both as a writer and as a father.

And, I guess the obvious one is the fact that Thomas Covenant is a leper. If SRD hadn't grown up around lepers Thomas Covenant wouldn't be the man we know him as.

Why I think the reason is "obvious" (and has nothing to do with his divorce) is because, as others are saying, the themes aren't appropriate for children's books.

SRD writes (GI):

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.

When he says "the very idea frightens me" I take it to mean that, as a parent, he identifies that what he writes about isn't appropriate for young children. I certainly wouldn't want my young teenage children reading The GAP series...although I did read The Real Story when I was 15!

[High Lord Tolkien]

Well, I wonder about that.
A writer draws upon his/her life experiences.
A bitter divorce or loss of a child or having a father that treated lepers is going to affect someone in some way whether they know it or not.

Don't get me wrong: I know that writers draw upon their life experiences. As an example, SRD reveals in the GI that "Penance" is the story which

responds to a lawsuit impugning my honor, both as a writer and as a father.

And, I guess the obvious one is the fact that Thomas Covenant is a leper. If SRD hadn't grown up around lepers Thomas Covenant wouldn't be the man we know him as.

Why I think the reason is "obvious" (and has nothing to do with his divorce) is because, as others are saying, the themes aren't appropriate for children's books.

SRD writes (GI):

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.

When he says "the very idea frightens me" I take it to mean that, as a parent, he identifies that what he writes about isn't appropriate for young children. I certainly wouldn't want my young teenage children reading The GAP series...although I did read The Real Story when I was 15!

Ok, that makes more sense to me now.
It also made me remember that he also says in the GI, somewhere, that someone once told him that younger adults can focus on parts that they like/understand and leave out the rest.