Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote:How sure are we that the old man in the ocher robe is the Creator?

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Actually, I intended the old beggar to be an avatar or manifestation of the Creator (I mean the Creator of the Land, not necessarily of Covenant's "real world"--and certainly not of *our* "real world").

(07/27/2005)

Malik23 wrote:Nor is there a reason to assume Foul has any interest in TC's world except as a means to free him from the Land's world.

Malik23 wrote:Anyway, I see no reason to assume that hurting Covenant's world would in any way affect the Creator.

Michael from Santa Fe: You've mentioned (in one of your numerous other answers) that internal consistency in your stories is very important and you have huge amounts of notes to keep everything straight for you. However, when you answer some of these questions (which can be very detailed in what they want you to relate as far as why a character acted the way they did or the rules/laws of how things work in the imagined realm) how do you manage to keep that consistency in your answers (without constantly referring to said notes)? I'm not saying you *haven't* been consistent - I probably don't pay close enough attention to the minutae of some of your answers to know if anything you said in answer to one question doesn't jive with another answer (or the published text) - but I'm curious if this worries you or if you just do the best you can wherever you happen to be when answering our endless questions? Thanks again!


I suppose it’s about the context of the question. Or maybe it has more to do with my mood. I’ve been known to check my facts rather obsessively when I answer GI questions. At other times, however, I just sort of wing it, trusting to my own understanding of my work to supply consistency as needed. You could say that different questions “tweak” me in different ways. But I do sometimes find myself taking a position that I suddenly realize I can’t defend: then I really get serious about consistency.

In short: sometimes I worry about it; sometimes I don’t.
(01/03/2007)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Steve: Hello Mr.Donaldson. I got your reply to my April 2006 post about the use of obscenity in Runes of the Earth. I truly appreciate the attention you have given this. I am also quite impressed with the thorough detail in which you responded to my protest. In the last paragraph of your response you mentioned that you would have been "lying" if you allowed Barton Lytton to exist in your book without obscenity.

"So I ask you: what would the effect be if I "cleaned up" Barton Lytton; if I made him less offensive in his conduct, therefore more comfortable to read about? Wouldn't that constitute *lying*? Wouldn't that imply that human evil isn't *really* as bad as we all know it is?" (04/02/2006)

My question is this: How can you justify your statement to me in light of the incredible success of the previous Chronicles (which had no such obscenity)? You made Thomas Covenant one of the most memorable and "real" characters that has ever existed on the written page (without using such obscenity). Your readers understood perfectly well how evil Covenant's human nature was without obscenity. You found other creative avenues of description and THAT was the beauty of it all! I know that you have used obscenity in other books, but I still hold to my position that "Covenant" does not need it. In fact, I would suggest that the quality of the previous Chronicles were exemplified in their lack of obscenity.

In closing, I love your books and I just wanted to say thank you very much for all the hard work you are putting into the Last Chronicles. Differences aside, I would like to wish you and your family the very best during the holiday times. Merry Christmas to you Mr.Donaldson. Hope to hear from you soon.

• Thank you for your good wishes. I don’t want to prolong this discussion because I doubt that we’ll ever agree on it. (Which is not a criticism of either of us: your opinions are just as valid as mine.) But I feel compelled to observe that when you compare what I was able to do with Thomas Covenant and what I did with Barton Lytton, you’re comparing, well, apples and oranges (to coin a phrase <sigh>). According to Karl Marx, “Differences in degree become differences in kind.” In this case, the difference I’m referring to is one of narrative space/room/pages. Creating and developing Covenant, I had (literally) hundreds of pages to work with. I could afford to deploy a large amount of material to dramatize (“show” rather than “tell”) his nature. With Lytton, I had, what? a grand total of ten pages? Fifteen at the outside? (I haven’t checked the exact number.) As a result, I didn’t have many options. The circumstances of the story required me to work efficiently--or *crudely*, if you prefer. Give me another thirty pages, and I could have approached the character differently. But I didn’t have that kind of room.
  
  Doubtless your central objection remains: Lytton’s rhetoric--and Linden’s response to it--violates the *tone* that you’ve come to expect from the “Covenant” books. If that statement of your position is accurate, you have six books worth of justification for your expectations. In response, I can only say that I have constructive reasons for violating the tone of what has gone before. In fact, “violating the tone of what has gone before” has been essential to my intentions ever since I decided to move beyond the first trilogy. The Sunbane certainly violated the former “tone” of the Land. Lytton’s rhetoric prepares the way (metaphorically or symbolically rather than literally) for some of the things I’m doing in “The Last Chronicles”.
  
  (01/03/2007)

Wayfriend wrote:It's not what he says about profanity that interests me here, but what he says about Runes' tone.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Steve:

... In fact, “violating the tone of what has gone before” has been essential to my intentions ever since I decided to move beyond the first trilogy. The Sunbane certainly violated the former “tone” of the Land. Lytton’s rhetoric prepares the way (metaphorically or symbolically rather than literally) for some of the things I’m doing in “The Last Chronicles”.

(01/03/2007)[/i][/list]

The only way I can read this, right now, is that, based on the assumption that lofty prose connotes the Land while profanity connotes Covenant's real world, it implies that the Final Chronicles are going to involve Covenant's real world more than the previous ones.

Creator wrote: I do not think this story will have a happy ending ...

Lucimay wrote:when has anyone ever exPECTed a
happy ending to these stories? happy is relative i guess.

Matrixman wrote:Yes, indeed. WGW had a "relatively happy" ending. Bittersweet. And I liked it. (I thought that was the end of the entire series, because I was, er, too dense to realize/appreciate all the loose ends that still existed.)

Dave: Mr. Donaldson,

Thanks again for your writing and answering all our questions. Recently, I had a craving to read the First and Second Chronicles again. Couldn't find them in the basement, so I went out and ordered a new set of paperbacks. Hope you still benefit from the sales.

But the artist that does the covers - hope he/she isn't getting overpaid. Here's my question - does the artist usually read the book before creating the cover illustrations? The reason I'm asking is that the cover of The White Gold Wielder has a picture of a man and a woman, I'm assuming Covenant and Linden. They're standing on a plateau looking out over a valley. The man (Covenant?) as his ring on the left hand, which is around the woman's shoulder (Linden?). And in his right hand, he's holding the new Staff of Law. If I remember the ending of the book correctly, the event depicted isn't exactly in the timeline.

Are artists given this much leeway in their work?



[SRD] Where cover art and leeway are concerned, there is enormous variety. Some publishers refuse to let their artists read the book: the art director describes the image/scene he/she wants, and the artist attempts to do satisfactory work. Some publishers own stock portfolios of pre-painted art, and they simply grab something out of the pile when they need a cover. In contrast, some artists will not do a cover without reading the book; and they often insist on choosing their own images/scenes. Lester del Rey considered cover art paramount: he let the artist do whatever the artist felt like--and they he changed the book to suit the cover. Some editors only care about the artist’s reputation: the specific art is a trivial consideration. In the case of the cover you describe, the editor asked the artist (Michael Herring) to create one vast painting which could be cut into six panels for the six “Covenant” books; and what the editor wanted in the original painting was symbolic resonance and variety rather than literal accuracy.

But speaking *very* broadly: editors consider an “evocative” image/scene far more important than a “literal” one. Hence the many inaccuracies you’ve observed.

(You may be interested to know that Darrel K. Sweet’s original cover for WGW depicted Marie Antoinette, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and a rhinoceros confronting Hawkman. First I wept. Then I screamed. Fortunately the success of TOT gave me the clout to insist on changes.)

(01/10/2007)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Perry Bell: Hello Stephen,
I know you have stated your <snicker> love of questions about magic, but I just have to ask this.
Why is it when Linden uses the staff of law, the fire emitted from the staff is yellow rather than the blue fire that was emitted when used by a lord? Does it have to do with the weilder of the staff, or the spirit of the weilder? I also wondered if this is an effect of linden wearing the ring but not actively employing the wild magic too.
Thanks again for all you do.
Perry Bell

• Several reasons (although the presence and/or use of white gold is not among them). Of course, as you surmise, the spirit of the wielder is crucial. And Linden *made* her own Staff: after Berek, the Lords inherited the Staff. In addition, the Lords had lore: Linden does not (a detail not to be underestimated).
  
  (01/10/2007)

Cail wrote:Not sure if you were responding to me, but yeah, I don't deny that. I'm just wondering out loud whether or not the Creator has been introduced to the story yet.