The Gradual Interview

[Avatar]

Interesting article in that second link.

--A

[aliantha]

Indeed, and I think it also proves SRD's point.

The writer clearly likes the series well enough to have read at least the first trilogy. His major complaint is the language (I was gratified to read the phrase "turgid prose" -- I woulda been disappointed if it hadn't been there ). We know the vocabulary was a deliberate choice on SRD's part -- if some editor or publisher *had* asked him to tone it down in order to be published, I'm pretty sure SRD would've said no. I've know I've read other criticisms of SRD's (over)use of juicy similes, which is an SRD stylistic thing and not a Covenant-specific thing (I remember 'em from the Gap books, too) -- and I think that criticism is probably valid.

But like SRD said, that's a personal preference. In terms of the mechanics of storytelling -- plot, character development, compelling themes, etc. -- you can't call him a bad writer. You can only quibble with the way he does what he does, not whether or not he can do it.

[Cagliostro]

Indeed, and I think it also proves SRD's point.

The writer clearly likes the series well enough to have read at least the first trilogy. His major complaint is the language (I was gratified to read the phrase "turgid prose" -- I woulda been disappointed if it hadn't been there ). We know the vocabulary was a deliberate choice on SRD's part -- if some editor or publisher *had* asked him to tone it down in order to be published, I'm pretty sure SRD would've said no. I've know I've read other criticisms of SRD's (over)use of juicy similes, which is an SRD stylistic thing and not a Covenant-specific thing (I remember 'em from the Gap books, too) -- and I think that criticism is probably valid.

But like SRD said, that's a personal preference. In terms of the mechanics of storytelling -- plot, character development, compelling themes, etc. -- you can't call him a bad writer. You can only quibble with the way he does what he does, not whether or not he can do it.

Agreed. He does have style, and yeah...things like Nick's scar filling up with blood at those choice moments are SO Donaldson and sometimes laughably so, but....damn, the man can string together a story.

[Zarathustra]

But I think it's far from true that there is no objective, negative criticism of Donaldson's writing out there.

I think the idea that there IS objective criticism is laughable. Every criticism is subjective. Just because someone can back up their criticisms with examples or grammar/style rules doesn't mean that one's criticism has risen to the level of objective. Who says you have to follow those rules, anyway? No statement about the quality of art is objective. Such statements are always dependent upon personal value criteria.

I guess lagging sales makes even great writers defensive. But why does he have to ridicule each and every negative opinion about his writing? Merely claiming that he isn't the right person to call his own work "great" (or even "good") doesn't hide the fact everyone can clearly see: he thinks he's the shit. Stop pretending to be modest when you make public examples of anyone with a negative criticism.

Damn, I can't believe I have to say this about my favorite author. I'd be much happier if he were just a cocky ass who couldn't stop talking about why his books are good--rather than this weird combination of false modesty and hyper-defensiveness.

[aliantha]

I'd be much happier if he were just a cocky ass who couldn't stop talking about why his books are good--rather than this weird combination of false modesty and hyper-defensiveness.

Hmm, sounds to me like he's...human.

[wayfriend]

I guess I disagree that there's no such thing as objective criticism of literature. Mr. Donaldson himself believes that there is; he so states.

[Zarathustra]

Well, maybe this isn't the place for debating this issue, but I don't see how any judgment criteria can be objective for something as subjective as art. In science, there's an objective way to judge a theory or an experimental result. Math, repeating experiments, confirming results, and testing predictions--these are all objective methods by which numerous people can reach the same result. The result doesn't depend upon the personal opinion of the scientist.

But saying whether or not a novel has enough character development, appropriate pacing, interesting language, satisfying conclusion, sufficient tension, etc. . . . these are all decided in a subjective manner. They are aesthetic judgments. Each person can have a different opinion on each of these criteria. To say there are objective ways to judge a work based on such criteria would mean that there's a definitive answer for each such narrative question, a way to come to a consensus in which disagreement could only be attributed to ignorance, rather than preference.

Just because you can come up with good reasons to back up your judgment doesn't mean that those reasons are objective. What is "good" pacing? What is "sufficient" tension? What is "enough" character development? What is "interesting" language? It depends on whom you ask. Which means it's subjective.

[wayfriend]

What is "good" pacing? What is "sufficient" tension? What is "enough" character development? What is "interesting" language? It depends on whom you ask. Which means it's subjective.

Well, yeah. If you approach it that way. Good, sufficient, enough, interesting - these are all subjective terms. Of COURSE there's no objective way to prove or disprove them. But that doesn't imply anything.

Objective criticism doesn't demonstrate whether something is enjoyable. You can't objectively reach a subjective result.

However, I hope we can agree that

• dog slowly vapor try

isn't a well constructed sentence. I think we can objectively say that that is bad literature. Not bad as in unenjoyable. Bad as in ill-formed. Specifically, it doesn't function.

You can objectively criticise literature based on whether it is ill-formed, whether it is functional or non-functional.

Let's take, for example, one of Tehanu's criticisms.

"With a howl that shivered the air, echoed savagely off the carven walls, beat against the battlements like an ululation of fangs and claws and hungry blades….."

I beg your pardon? If somebody knows how to make a sharp object ‘ululate,’ let me know. This is plain word misuse and it drives me nuts.

That's objectively sound: teeth can't howl. I can even take it a step further... since teeth can't howl, comparing something to howling teeth isn't a very functional simile. What point is a simile if you can't conceive of the referent?

Now, you can argue that perhaps you like that kind of thing. Hey, maybe there's a fan out there that likes dog slowly vapor try.

But the distinction between objective and subjective cuts both ways: just because someone enjoys it, doesn't mean it's not ill-formed or non-functional. People enjoy bad things in certain circumstances.

Yes, Literature is an art. But it's an art based on well-defined principles and conventions. How well something follows those principles and conventions is objectively demonstrable.

[aliantha]

Interesting discussion, guys.

I know what you're getting at. Here's an example from my previous career: I was once told, in a writing workshop, not to start a sentence with, "President Bush feels that..." because, and I quote: "YOU FEEL WITH YOUR HANDS!"

There's not a whole lot of poetic license allowed in radio journalism (at least, there didn't used to be...). But fiction writing's a little different, I think. "Howling teeth" could be construed as a metaphor, yes? (Unless you've ever had a toothache, in which case you might take it quite literally....) Now, maybe you go in for this sort of poetic license in your fiction, and maybe you think it's over-the-top. I do think SRD frequently skirts -- and sometimes careens full-tilt -- over the edge into purple prose. I tend to cut him slack because I know he's doing it to achieve a certain effect -- *and* because I've seen him write in a more restrained manner and so I know he's not just a crappy writer who doesn't know any better.

But YMMV.

[Zarathustra]

aliantha, you can only feel with your hands? Feelings can only be tactile sensations? This kind of limited thinking (sticking to only one definition in the dictionary) really annoys me. I'm glad I never took that class. I would have failed.

Wayfriend, I don't think the ululation criticism is objectively sound at all. Fog doesn't really walk on little cat's feet. Yet, Carl Sandberg seems to get away with saying that it does. Why can't blades or teeth ululate if fog can walk on cat's feet? Fangs and teeth and blades can make noise. Ululation is a type of noise. Donaldson is drawing a comparison between those two noises. What's the problem? Once I knew what "ululation" meant, I thought it evoked a powerful image.

"dog slowly vapor try," might not make a grammatically correct sentence, but neither does a lot of poetry. Sure, grammar rules are "objective" in the sense that they are well-defined and don't depend upon personal opinion. But there's plenty of good fiction which violates grammar rules. Criticizing a work based on its grammar is more like proofreading than criticizing. You might as well talk about its typos.

If all that Donaldson is saying by the claim, "But can these unspecified people *demonstrate* that my books are objectively bad? Personally, I doubt it," is that his work is free of typos and grammar mistakes, then it's not much of a claim. Yet, as soon as we move beyond these language mechanics, we're in the realm of the subjective.

I'd like to hear Donaldson argue why his works are objectively good--which, conveniently, he says he's the wrong person to ask. But if it's a matter of objective worth, then why does it matter whom we ask?

[Avatar]

Good post Malik.

--A

[dlbpharmd]

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 doppelgängers 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 can’t help thinking that this isn’t 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 haven’t done that in answering the other questions)? I know your work isn’t philosophical exposition; it provides readers the opportunity to explore these themes on our own by “showing” us characters interacting under specific circumstances. Still. I don’t 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)

[wayfriend]

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)

Wha?!?! This is the first that i've heard.

[dlbpharmd]

News to me too. Furthermore, I now feel guilty about all the pics we took at Elohimfest.

[Avatar]

Different circumstances.

--A

[Menolly]

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>)

*blushing furiously*

[Relayer]

Joey: Ok this is stupid but I can't resist. Every time I hear Ziggy Stardust I think of Covenant...
So my question... did he use a caesure? Or is that a RAFO too??

SRD's reply:
Bowie has *always* used caesures. I thought everyone knew that.

Aha!! And just like Bowie, the Mahdoubt has two different colored eyes!!!
The mystery has been solved. The Mahdoubt is the Jean Genie.

[dlbpharmd]

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)

[dlbpharmd]

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)

[aliantha]

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)

What he said. <sigh>

What I found most interesting was his statement that 80% of 1st and 2nd Chron sales went to non-genre readers. I suppose they're now reading Harry Potter....

Wouldn't it be nice if somebody could think of a way to get the American reading public to stop slicing and dicing their fiction into rigid genres, and instead just read stuff that's good? But SRD is right in that U.S. publishers are to blame -- by starting, and then perpetuating, the slicing and dicing in the first place.

It still annoys the crap out of me that literary fiction-istas will embrace fantasy as long as the author's first language isn't English (magic realism, for example).

</soapbox>