Kevin's Watch

Luke: Ah, Mr. Donaldson it occurs to me that 3 years was more than well worth the wait for Fatal Revenant!

I truly enjoyed every page and look forward to the story continuing. No matter what, I'm sure others members of Kevin's Watch(myself included) will tell you that you are indeed giving us the greatest you have to give. The best part is knowing that there is more to come. In short, Thank You for marching on with your stories.

With that said here's a small question:

I see that the number of pages in your draft of FR was cut over time from over 1000+ pages to 590.

Was that reduction just a result of having to "trim the fat" or did you perhaps dig too deep and need to put some things back in your pocket until the next book?

I'm sure most of us rabid fans would attribute a cut that large due to a decision to omit the long tale of "Baghoon the Unbearable" <large grin> but then again I'm sure we're way off the mark, with the best intentions of course!

First: I'm back. (Well, duh, Steve. We can see that.) After my UK book tour, I took some R&R. But now I can resume this rather ideosyncratic correspondence.

Second, in my absence a large number of messages were posted to congratulate me on both the content and the success of "Fatal Revenant". I'm not going to respond to each of those messages individually--if I do, I'll be a month late(r) getting back to "Against All Things Ending"--but I want to thank you one and all. I'm very lucky to have such readers. You help sustain me both personally and professionally.

Now: your question. I've been over this before, but it probably bears repeating. My final 1000+ page manuscript was NOT cut for publication. All manuscripts shrink in size (but not in word-count) when they become books: books simply have more words per line, and more lines per page. And font size makes a big difference. 590 pages from Putnams becomes 730+ pages from Gollancz because Gollancz has chosen a larger font. The actual words--including typos and internal inconsistencies <sigh>--are identical to my final manuscript.

(11/08/2007)

Wayfriend wrote:Okay, this one ROCKED MY WORLD. Not sure if it is in a good way.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:He didn't pick Covenant: Lord Foul did.

Matt Vomacka: Well, I've discovered the truth. TC and Lord Mhoram are obviously Jews. TC chooses to save a child even though it will prevent him from aiding the land, and Lord Mhoram gives something along the lines of grieved support for this decision.

"In Judaism, life is valued above almost all else. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from a single person, thus taking a single life is like destroying an entire world, and saving a single life is like saving an entire world."

I was suspicious for a while but Lord "Mormon's" lack of a kippah made me suspicious. Now I know the truth, and that Fantasy Bedtime Hour's interpretation of your books isn't entirely flawless or reliable.

Wait a minute! You're serious? "Fantasy Bedtime Hour's interpretation...isn't entirely flawless or reliable"? Holy c*ap, Batman! I'm in trouble now. I've already written Lord Mormon, Atrium, and Bloodguard Bob into AATE.

(11/12/2007)

Todd Burger: Hi Steve,

Any thoughts on Fatal Revenant debuting at #12 on the NY Times bestseller list?

It's gratifying to the ol' ego, of course. But it would have done me more professional good if the book had stayed on the list longer. As I've explained elsewhere, any single bestseller list measures speed of sales, not ultimate quantity. For quantity, you have to *stay* on the list(s) for a while. As a result, my editor is pleased, but my standing with my publisher hasn't improved much. (Don't get me wrong: I'm pleased too. I'm just trying to be realistic here.)

(11/15/2007)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:kamelda: Hi Mr. Donaldson, I had asked a question a few months ago (April 2007) and only today saw the answer. I had a further question about what you said -- I do believe that belief as a commitment holds us to often paradoxical hopes and ideas (I'm hesitant about affirming absolute mutual exclusivity - I would say there's a difference between opposing 'faith and sight' and 'faith and reason' -the process of reason: paradox falls into the former, while flat contradiction would fall more in the latter as all systems are ultimately faith based: it seems I must leap at the most basic level of my experience into a sheer void of 'sight' to assume a correspondence between inner and outer reality). But for instance, I couldn't believe that the test of 'reality' is for something to be 'important' and at the same hold that the test for reality is that the same thing be unimportant, or importance is irrelevant to it? Or that it is valid to hold two mutually exclusive things in the mind as truth, and equally valid to hold only one of them against the other as the same truth. That kind of 'mutual exclusivity' simply can't be held in the mind at all, the mind being what it is, or we couldn't make even the basic leap to the validity of sense perception; evento the validity of a thought that would deny sense perception. I guess what I found 'too easy' was not Covenant's effort, but that ultimately his effort seemed to resolve this kind of difficulty by escaping it, making it less 'important' than the exercise of his will to hold it out of being an insurmountable difficulty. Whereas it seems -irreconcilable with reason, not just sight, to deny the difficulty; or to simply make it more important to exercise the will in the void of it unresolved: the very exercise of the will is an inescapable affirmation of necessary exclusivity; choosing to act in one way commits me to a rejection of other actions. I don't think the ethics of belief can hinge on 'believe in yourself'? Am I misunderstanding?

• I'm sorry. I haven't been able to follow your reasoning. Doubtless you're thinking more clearly than I am. <rueful smile>

• And I probably haven't explained my position (as it pertains to the first "Covenant" trilogy) very well. But surely we can agree that human beings DO assign emotional, spiritual, or psychological importance to things (events, objects, beings, ideas, whatever) which are not tangibly or demonstrably "real"; and that therefore no mundane definition of what is "real" can serve as an accurate measure of what human beings consider important. Indeed, what human beings consider important guides their actions far more than tangible, demonstrable "reality" does. So surely we can also agree that "the ethics of belief" are always and inevitably a matter of personal choice. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assume that anyone who doesn't think the same way I do is automatically *wrong*--which is not a very functional stance for a writer to take.
  
  I'm sorry I can't be clearer.
  
  
  (01/11/2008)

Harbinger wrote:I want to ask a question, but I feel that I should read it's entirety before I do so that I don't waste his time. Not that that's a bad thing.

Some person in the GI, as quoted by Wayfriend wrote:That kind of 'mutual exclusivity' simply can't be held in the mind at all, the mind being what it is

CovenantJr wrote:...I'm pretty confident SRD has someone screening the questions. If he read them all himself, he'd never get anything else done.