The Gradual Interview

[matrixman]

Although I puissantly disagree with MM about the titles of the books, I do agree with Should being worse.

Huh? I said I liked the other titles in the Last Chrons. If you mean my ambivalence towards "(insert whatever word) Utterly" in general...well, I just think it's odd to have a sentence fragment for a book title, that's all. Oh! Oh! Wait, I get it! The third book will be about a fragmented Thomas Covenant! There'll be bits of him scattered around the Land, seeking the One Glue. Or not.

Hey, I'm sure all this "shall vs. should" business will be much ado about nothing once we have the darn book in our hands. See, SRD takes so long in between Covenant books that, to kill time, we're reduced to debating the relative merits of auxiliary verbs.

[Xar]

Wait until we end up discussing the all-important topic of whether it's better to have his name listed as "Stephen R. Donaldson" or "Stephen Donaldson" on his books...

[wayfriend]

This is really good, Phill!

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)

[Furls Fire]

I just read that too on the GI. Fantastic!

Roll out that canvas and paint away Mr D!!!

[Fist and Faith]

Although I puissantly disagree with MM about the titles of the books, I do agree with Should being worse.

Huh? I said I liked the other titles in the Last Chrons.

Oops. Sorry about that, Chief. Poor reading skills on my part.

[dlbpharmd]

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)

Well, there goes the "Babes of the Haruchai" calendar.....

[Tulizar]

Well, there goes the "Babes of the Haruchai" calendar.....

Yikes...for some reason I ain't conjuring up images of Sports Illustrated models. Maybe that's one calender we could live without!

[Usivius]

when I read that question on the GI I had this hilarious image of the Hurachi woman coming over the mountains in one big mass, decending upon Revelstone and pulling their husband's home by the ears ...

[Zarathustra]

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)

I call "bullcrap." Criticism doesn't necessarily exist to feed the ego of the critic. Sometimes it's cathartic (I've just finished reading a book so bad I could spend a lifetime criticizing it and never succeed in purging the experience). Sometimes it's just conversation. When directed to an author currently writing a book, sometimes it's a plea to up the ante.

I love Steve, but come on! You can't take criticism? You don't WANT criticism from your core audience? From respectful fans? Your books are consistently selling fewer and fewer copies, yet you don't think it's constructive to see why readers think so?

If I fed dinner guests food they didn't like, I think that would be a bigger slip of etiquette than if they politely said so--especially when I charged them money for the dinner, and I make my entire living by feeding them. [And before you say my analogy isn't apt, that the GI is in fact given for free, SRD is the one who made the analogy, so I'm playing by his rules. He equated criticizing the food with criticizing his book. So it's fair to say the main course is in fact his writings.]

[dlbpharmd]

I don't blame SRD for reacting this way. "Preston" comes across as a real jerk. It seems as if he's actually trying in some way to injure SRD, and true, constructive criticism should never intentionally cause any harm or hurt.

[Zarathustra]

I don't see any example of what you're saying, DLB. I reread it to make sure. He uses phrases like "less effective," "reigned in," etc. These are not harsh criticisms. And he went out of his way to say he was a fan, enjoyed Donaldson's work, "best regards," etc. He even states that Donaldson's skill has obviously improved, but that this (ironically) might be a factor in "getting in the way" of the story--a criticism that is often mentioned here. Also, his criticism reaches its culmination in Runes, so it is unfair for Donaldson to say it's all about older books and thus ineffectual. The guy is talking about a general trend with the hopes of affecting that trend in future books.

While I don't agree with all of the guy's points, I think that he makes a pretty good case which Donaldson simply dismisses--for fairly inaccurate and irrelevant reasons--and then gets a little dig in on the guy by the end. Perhaps it would have been better just to reply to the guy in email. What does it serve to publicly humiliate him?

[variol son]

We have no idea whether or not SRD dismisses the criticism Malik. He may do, or he may choose to take it away and think on it without telling us. He may already have heard such criticisms from people from who he has requested criticism. I got the impression that he was trying to make a point that it's pointless to send such things in to the GI.

Besides, the guy sounds to me like he just likes battles and so each series is less interesting for him as each contains less of this, the brutality often being more psychological.

[Seareach]

Well, I think Preston went about it the wrong way. There's ways to write things and then there's ways to write things. Putting compliments the way he did in the context that he did just doesn't work (in my honest opinion).

And, honestly, the last paragraph is not constructive criticism:

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.

This is someone teaching SRD how to suck eggs!

I don't believe the GI should be used by people to give criticism (constructive or not) like Preston did. I agree it's bad etiquette! And Malik I don't think that this sounds like it's coming from a "respectful fan". There is no respect in that "question". To me it's someone saying "hey, I love your writing but from day dot you've been on a gradual decline". Now, am I wrong, but isn't that a "destructive" comment?

I think SRD can take criticism, but (as DLP points out) this seems to have been put in a way that is intended to "harm" SRD.

From my experience, the relationship between a writer and his "readers" (I'm talking about those people who read the book as it is being written) is one which requires a great deal of sensitivity but also trust. A reader must be able to trust the author won't take it personally, and visa versa, but this is a relationship that takes some time to develop. It becomes richer as time goes on HOWEVER (in my opinion) even then, if you want to be brutally honest, I think you have to be careful, considerate and you also have to show some respect (SRD has, afterall, been in this "game" for 30 years!). And I would *never* sit down and deconstruct a writer's career like Preston does, because it serves absolutely no purpose. I would never say "Hey Steve, remember that bit in White Gold Weilder...blah blah...well, that sucked because...." What purpose is there in that? Even if he say's "hey you're right" is he then going and rewrite that novel again based on my opinion? No way! And, in this instance, asking a writer to change his style, go back to the old because that worked better - !

Anyway, Preston doesn't appear to show any degree of sensitivity, only the belief that he knows what good writing is (which, in my books, reads "and therefore you don't"). To me, that transforms things such as the first paragraph of what Preston says:

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.

into just a whole lot of rubbish. All good writers should know: don't tell the reader, *show* the reader.

[matrixman]

Good post, Seareach. I agree with your points.

[Avatar]

*shrug* I'm ambivalent. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an attack, and in a public arena the guy can say anything he wants, just as SRD can reply (or not reply) any way he chooses.

As a reader, the guy has every right to be critical. SRD just makes it easy to be critical (or not) directly to him.

Personally, much as I think the GI is a great idea, I've never submitted anything to it, nor have any interest in doing so.

--A

[hierachy]

Regardless of whether or not Preston should be able to criticize in the GI, he is just plain wrong, and is in serious need of reading the Gap.

[Zarathustra]

James, I think you make perhaps the best point yet. I would have loved to see Donaldson shoot back with, "My characters' motivations are timid? Dude, you've got to read the Gap series! It will knock you on your ass!"

Okay, not a very good approximation of Donaldson-speak, I know. But he missed an opportunity to plug his best series yet.

I think Preston may have only been referring to the the Chronicles. If that's the case, it's fair to say that the motivation for Covenant--being an outcast leper who's faced with the lure of becoming the "messiah" of a seductive fantasy land which might only be his subconscious trying to drive him crazy--and the motivation for Linden--"I've got to find my little boy"--is definitely more toned down and "reigned in." I don't think I'm alone in saying that it's a lot less intense, and is largely the reason why Runes doesn't feel as desperate and poignant as the 1st Chronicles. The writing is much better in Runes, but the character motivation, the entire engine which runs the plot, just isn't as exciting. In this context, the following is perfectly apt:

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).

I admit, I would feel a little weird trying to tell Donaldson how to improve his work . . . but then again, I am his audience. Isn't he implicitly asking each of us to judge his work simply by the act of offering it for our consumption? It is a product, like many other products we buy. Except with most products, the producers want to know if you're satisfied (many provide money-back guarantees and 800 phone numbers to call and complain). Apparently Donaldson does not want to know if his customers are satisfied. And hell, that makes me a little disappointed.

[Seareach]

Well, I for one, find that I can empathise more with the plight of a mother whose son has been taken from her than a leper who thinks he's walking around in a dream...but that's just me.... I don't think either is less "intense"...they're just different.....

As for "consumer confidence": now when they say it can "slice, dice and clean your house" I expect it to. Does SRD "guarantee", does he say "this will change your life", does he say "you'll love this...money back guarantee...no questions asked". He does not. Tell me of any author who does!

Again, Preston does not say "I didn't find Runes as compelling as your other novels" or what ever. He tells SRD how to write. There's a big difference as far as I'm concerned!

[Cail]

I dunno, I don't really have a problem with the way Preston wrote his letter, nor do I mind the fact that he's criticizing. He's SRD's customer, and he's entitled to have issues with SRD's product.

I'm in the minority I think, but I thought Runes was....well, I won't come out and say "it sucked", but I didn't think it was good at all.

[Zarathustra]

I liked Runes. But I can see Preston's points. "Less intense" isn't necessary worse. Sometimes I like less intense, more subtle approaches. And as Seareach points out, some people relate to it better. Gap certainly did turn a lot of people off by being "too intense."

Maybe Donaldson is responding to reader opinion after all . . .