The Gradual Interview

[Menolly]

I'm guessing it is another RAFO...

[wayfriend]

Good Q.

Who'll take my bet that SRD will never say?

I suspect it's purpose has nothing to do with the Power of Command. It probably has more to do with the "nearness" of Earthpower to the Land, and is semi-symbolic of how the Earth is alive.

Perhaps Earthblood is midichloreans for Earthpower.

[aliantha]

Good Q.

Who'll take my bet that SRD will never say?

I suspect it's purpose has nothing to do with the Power of Command. It probably has more to do with the "nearness" of Earthpower to the Land, and is semi-symbolic of how the Earth is alive.

Perhaps Earthblood is midichloreans for Earthpower.

"Use the Force, Covenant..."

[wayfriend]

Perhaps Earthblood is midichloreans for Earthpower.

"Use the Force, Covenant..."

Hmm... gives me ideas for a movie poster mash-up ... :nudge: :nudge:

[aliantha]

Perhaps Earthblood is midichloreans for Earthpower.

"Use the Force, Covenant..."

Hmm... gives me ideas for a movie poster mash-up ... :nudge: :nudge:

It's a freebie, y'all. I wouldn't know what to do with Photoshop if it walked up to me and shook my hand.

[dlbpharmd]

Suffice to say, that was not the answer that I was expecting. I did in fact know about the debate between Del Rey and SRD over "Gilden-fire," and of course it's been talked about in the GI before. I suppose I was expecting another story.

[matrixman]

Yes, I think most of here already knew of the whole Gilden-fire affair. I wish SRD would dig up the dirt on some of the other battles, too.

I suspect it's purpose has nothing to do with the Power of Command. It probably has more to do with the "nearness" of Earthpower to the Land, and is semi-symbolic of how the Earth is alive.

I'll buy that! Makes sense to me.

Perhaps Earthblood is midichloreans for Earthpower.

I Command Nom to beat Jar-Jar Binks into a bloody pulp.

[dlbpharmd]

I wish SRD would dig up the dirt on some of the other battles, too.

Yeah, that's what I wanted to hear, the dirt!

[rdhopeca]

Got my question answered, FWIW:

Rob: Hi Mr. Donaldson,

I am an avid fan and as such have poured over the website, including reading W.A. Senior's studies and watching the videos that are posted. You had mentioned in one video that the storytelling is what is most important to you, and as such I am wondering. How accurate is W.A. Senior's study as it relates to the thought process of your work? He talks about patterns of heros and mythos in writing and so forth and I am just wondering if that is really your intent when you write, if you do or don't pay that much attention to that sort of "technical aspect" to your storytelling.

Thanks and looking forward to AATE!

As with any critical analysis, Senior's study reflects his way of thinking about reading my books, not my way of thinking about writing them. Of course, I'm educated in his general style of thought (although every critical thinker is different in practice). Similarly, he's, well, educated in *my* general style of thought: we're friends; and he's interviewed me several times. But that doesn't mean I think in his terms--or anything like them--while I write. (He certainly doesn't think in my terms when he reads.) You might consider it this way: it's my job to bury as much gold as I possibly can; it's his job to locate and dig up as much gold as he possibly can. Those are very different activities being performed by very different people.

In fact, I pay a HUGE amount of attention to the "technical aspect" of my storytelling. But those words probably don't mean the same thing to me that they do to you. For example: as a storyteller, I have absolutely no interest in such things as "patterns of heros and mythos". It's the critic's job to take note of such things and generalize about them; but good storytelling must by definition be very specific, dealing as it does (almost exclusively) with specific individuals and specific emotions in specific situations.

Putting the whole thing another way. The storyteller tries to reach outward (to patterns) by reaching inward (to individuals). The critic does the opposite, starting with patterns and applying them to individuals.

(01/28/2009)

[wayfriend]

That was a great question! And the answer wasn't too bad, either.

[aliantha]

Hmm, interesting. Not long ago, I found a "how-to-write-a-novel" book at the library that specifically suggested writing the way SRD says a critic things; nay, it went so far as to say that successful hero stories have some number of X specific elements, and your story had better have them too or it wouldn't resonate with the reader.

Good question, Rob!

[Vraith]

Having background in both writing and literary theory/criticism, I'm appalled by the idea of thinking like a critic/theoritician while writing. (unless, of course, I'm writing theory or criticism) There may be writers who can do it, but I'm not one...and most of the students I've had aren't either. Most of those who do this, as far as I can tell, end up in the category of good idea, terrible story. I think SRD in the GI had something similar...if I recall correctly something about books Joyce wrote being "meant to be re-read, not read." There's a place in literature for this kind of thing, but unless one is a master you'll probably end up with predictable junk (or be called pretentious and deserve it).
Are any of you writers that like to write this way? I'd be interested in why, and how you manage to pull it off. (really, not being snide)

[aliantha]

Dear gods, no, I don't write that way. Thinking like a critic while trying to write a story is a surefire way to create a piece of junk. IMHO.

[matrixman]

Personally, I refuse to waste my precious reading time trying to decipher the likes of Joyce. Life's too short.

Great question, rdhopeca! I'd love to get my hands on W.A. Senior's book some day.

[Cagliostro]

Not to be a snob or anything, but I've read through Joyce's fictions. Dubliners was the most enjoyable for me, because it was most like what we are used to, and short stories at that. Araby was my favorite. Reminds me of how when I was a teenager my heart would go off with one person, only to have the next pretty lady who walked by steal it. Hey, my love was fickle in those days.

And yes, I read through all of Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake, but I'll be buggered if I understood much of it. There were sure some pretty sentences in Finnegan's Wake though.

[matrixman]

To be fair, my negative attitude toward Joyce is no better than, say, the negative attitude of many toward contemporary classical music. I happen to like that kind of music, and think everyone ought to give it a chance. Yet here I am knocking Joyce without ever having given him a chance. I may perceive Joyce's work to be unintelligible and elitist, but many could turn around and say that's exactly how they view modern classical music. It all boils down to personal taste.

[aliantha]

I read Ulysses and it mostly made sense to me. Mostly. But I was in grad school when I read it.

I just downloaded Dubliners for my e-reader, as one of my free 100 classic books. I might even read it one of these days.

My worst experience with modern classical music was in college, in symphonic band. We were premiering a new piece that was *supposed* to be dissonant. Some of the clarinets were required to tune a quarter-step sharp, some a quarter-step flat, and the rest had to be in perfect pitch. It was a miserable experience....

[Avatar]

I liked Dubliners too. As for Finnegan's Wake, I've mentioned elsewhere that Joyce was having a huge joke on everybody with it. Of it, he said, "People will still be arguing about it in 1,000 years."

More books have been written analysing it and Ulysses than Joyce ever wrote.

I'm looking at it right now...maybe I'll reread it one day.

Anyway, I liked SRD's answer...I agree with him...critics take their generalisations and try to apply them to existing "situations." Me, I believe that the intent of the author is more important, and I'll take the author's word for what he was trying to achieve, not a critics opinion of what he was actually saying.

--A

[Cagliostro]

I wouldn't exactly say Joyce was elitist as much as the interpreters. I just think he strung together some interesting things when he drank.

And yeah, Ulysses was definitely more readable than Finnegan's Wake, and despite knowing about the banning of his books, I was surprised at some of the bawdiness, which I really shouldn't have been.

Portrait of the Artist was good too, and very readable. But some of the stories in Dubliners were my favorite of his work.

I read him because one of my favorite authors often goes on about him, and makes Joyce seem especially exciting and interesting. But my poor little underexercised brain just doesn't fathom the big books. In particular, Finnegan's Wake was fun to read sentence to sentence, but stringing it all together to a whole....nah, I couldn't do it. I'm still amazed I got through it all. If I didn't have a method, I never would have done it.

[Vraith]

a new piece that was *supposed* to be dissonant. Some of the clarinets were required to tune a quarter-step sharp, some a quarter-step flat, and the rest had to be in perfect pitch. It was a miserable experience....

Hah...reminds me of this blues band (who the hell WAS it..) they had some limited popularity, mostly as a road band in the 80's and 90's...anyway, they had a couple guitars, couple sax, bass, 2 singers, and they'd play the national anthem...but everyone in a different key.

For me, I put Joyce and Chekov in the same position...they're mostly examined in one kind of work (novels/plays) but their best work was in short stories.