The Gradual Interview

[Nav]

His answer to the obscenity/profanity complaint is very interesting, but I could've answered it in a lot fewer words. Real people use obscenity and profanity all the time, to portray people in difficult, dangerous or stressful situations and have them not use profanity would, IMO, be unrealistic. These words exist because non-swear words aren't always sufficiently expressive, a lot of dialogue would feel sterilised without them.

Seriously though, we're talking about a book where the main character has raped a teenaged girl and people are getting bent about Lytton's potty mouth?

[wayfriend]

I wish I had the slightest idea what his answer means! I don't get his first point at all. But I'll have more time to ponder such things once Bhakti is dead.

The first one is rather easy. Think about his adamant assertion that people of the Land could never come to Covenant's world, and about which world is more real (or ideal). For the Creater to enter the world, he would need to become "smaller", just as people of the Land would become if they tried to enter our world, and that's not possible. Foul leaving the world would become "bigger", as Covenant going to the Land does. Also, entering assumes non-destruction: you need to, for a lack of a better expression, attune yourself to the world, fit yourself into it's Laws, mold yourself to its modes of existance. Foul breaking out is destruction: it's exploding outward. I think both of these are different aspects of the same thing. (Although the Creator somehow made Foul "smaller", but I think this is an exception in that the world was not done at the time; it was built around Foul in some way.)

And I believe his second point is intended to do nothing more than make us say, "OH!!!! Are we gonna find out what the Creator was hoping to accomplish????????? That's gonna be so cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Actually, I don't think so. I think he's saying that one of the reasons the Creator doesn't interfere is something to do with the nature of creating. If you've ever wondered why God created us and then left us to fend for ourselves, then you may have imagined that God wants us to struggle and grow and become on our own. I think the Creator created the world to see what it would become. Putting a hand into it violates that whole idea. (Remember God Emperor of Dune? When infinity is within your pervue, what you desire most is a surprise.)

[dlbpharmd]

Two important Q&As in today's GI:

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 didn’t 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)

[matrixman]

Wow. Good stuff!

[wayfriend]

And remember, LF's only *known* power is his ability to influence minds; to make other people and beings do his dirty work.

Why, oh why, does he say these things?!?! Didn't we list somewhere all the things that Foul did. Oh yeah: Just what can Foul do?. There is an obvious emphasis on known here (as opposed to occulted), but looking over the list you can't argue many of them away as being unknown. Is SRD perhaps hinting that all of Foul's accomplishments were executed through influence?

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".)

This is no surprise to me. Except it leads me to understand these cryptic words a little bit better:

In a sense, I've become the keystone of the Arch. Or I will be—if I let what I am loose. If I ever try to use power.

Covenant fears the Arch itself becoming his instrument.

[Nerdanel]

I think SRD is talking about special powers Foul has and not things that anyone with power and knowledge can do. I suppose somebody like Kevin could in theory have made a Sunbane with enough research and effort. A lot of Foul's power comes simply from being smarter and more imaginative than his opponents, so that even though the tricks available to them aren't in theory that different, Foul can come up with nasty surprises. It also helps being immortal, so Foul has had time to become proficient in everyone's lore and some more.

[wayfriend]

I think SRD is talking about special powers Foul has and not things that anyone with power and knowledge can do.

Good point. But why, then, is "influence minds" a notable exception? We got Kasreyn, we got arguleh, we got Ravers and possession, et al.

[dlbpharmd]

Check these Q&As out:

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 father’s 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)

[Xar]

Hah! That means that all our speculations about whether the words "last dark" and "final dark" at the end of WGW could be extrapolated to give hints about the meaning of the title of the last book were true!

[dlbpharmd]

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)

I can't wait to see this new map!!!

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)

[wayfriend]

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.

This is very much the same for me! Except I never write it down, and then in a day or two you can't remember what it was, you just have a vague impression of genious that cannot be recaptured.

[I'm Murrin]

Indeed. Two nights ago I had a brilliant idea for a story, one I liked, and knew I'd have little trouble just going ahead and writing down (for once) - can't remember a thing about it. Not even the vaguest detail.

[matrixman]

edit

[dlbpharmd]

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 they’re 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)

[Usivius]

I totally agree with "the devoted fan" with regards to wanting the same artist to keep a continuity in the look of the books. Whelan is great and it would be wonderful to have all the Last Chrons done by him. It would be a shame to have some other artist, with a different look and feel to continue it.

[drew]

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?


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.

Did that answer your question U?

[dlbpharmd]

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)

[drew]

Is Michael from Sante Fe on the Watch?

[dlbpharmd]

If he is, he's never identifed himself.

[danlo]

Never heard of the guy...