Kevin's Watch

aliantha wrote: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.

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

Malik23 wrote: 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.

Malik23 wrote: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.

• dog slowly vapor try

"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.

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)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote: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)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote: 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>)

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.

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)

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)

dlbpharmd wrote:

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)