The Gradual Interview

[matrixman]

I think "bumfuzzled" is my new favorite word.

[dlbpharmd]

GREAT Q&A today:

Joe: I have a question that has been nagging at me since I started reading Fatal Revenant. I have searched for this in the GI and have read about your disdain for creator questions or to explain specifics about a fictional universe. However, I decided to ask anyways.

Did the Creator actually create the Earth or just provide the circumstances for its creation?

If the Elohim are to be believed the Worm was around after the Universe but before the Earth. Also it was devouring stars within the Creator's creation. If it was after the Arch of Time had been sealed then the Creator did not make the Earth or the Land, and his only part in the creation of the Earth was creating the Worm. Also, by one of your responses in the GI you said the awakening of the Worm would break the Arch of Time and end the Universe. I do not think this would happen in this scenario if the Worm had been around after time had started. This also does not make sense with one of your explanations in the GI of Foul being inside creation placing Banes(like the Illearth Stone) in the Earth before the Arch was sealed.

If the Worm was around before the sealing of the Arch of Time, and thus able to break it. Then I can see only two ways that the story can play out with the Creator making the Earth.

1) The Creator made the Worm and then the Earth upon that, but that leaves out the Worm eating stars since time had not begun. Also I cannot see the purpose of making something that will inevitably destroy what you have made. Unless it cannot awaken unless some external force wakens it. Since it was said that the Worm is not fully asleep i do not see that as a possibility, even still thats a hell of a risk.

2) The Worm is something akin to the Creator/Foul beings i.e. not created by the Creator. In which case it entered into the creation and was eating stars before time started. Then if the Creator did actually create the Earth he must have known about the Worm in his creation and condoned it by creating the Earth around it. Again why create something that will inevitably destroy what you have made. In this scenario I also could not understand how the Worm could break the Arch where Foul cannot since they are both beings from outside the Arch.

Unless I am missing some vital knowledge, I cannot see how the Creator/Worm stories can possibly work together in the way you have them set up with the current information in the books. Also I cannot see how no one else has asked this question yet, unless I have skipped over something stupidly that explains it.

I hope that you answer, or at least tell me you cannot because it will spoil something to come that addresses this.

Thank you for your time,
Joe

I've been wrestling with this question for some time, mainly trying to figure out why I find such questions disturbing (in other words, trying to understand myself). Unfortunately, I can't claim that I've made any real progress. However, a few points are pretty obvious (if not actually *clear* <sigh>).

It bothers me not at all that "The Chronicles" contain Creation Myths which appear to contradict each other--or which literally do contradict each other. Creation Myths reflect the people who tell those tales: the tales may or may not reflect any external "reality".

In my own thinking, I don't grant the Elohim any more "authority" than anyone else. Their Creation Myth, like their understanding of the world in general, is no more true (or false) than anyone else's.

Any Creation *must* contain the means of its own destruction. This seems so obvious to me that I hardly know how to explain it. Life would be impossible without death. My stories would have no power to engage people unless those stories also had the power to alienate people. And it seems inherently impossible for the finite to describe the infinite (hence the way religions always fall back on anthropomorphism, even though anthropomorphism falsifies what it tries to describe).

Well, *all* the Creation Myths in "The Chronicles" are anthropomorphic. On some level, therefore, they are all false.

And...and...none of this is relevant to my intentions in telling the story. ("I only invent what I need.") On the subjects that appear to confuse you, I haven't tried to provide more coherent information because I have no use for such information in my story. ** Hmm. ** OK, that last sentence may be somewhat misleading. Let me try again. In my view, *meaning* is created internally by each individual in each specific life: any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story). That, among several other reasons, is why the Creator has effectively vanished from "The Last Chronicles": I'm trying to tighten my thematic focus and keep it where it belongs.

So when you ask me a question like, "Did the Creator actually create the Earth or just provide the circumstances for its creation?" my reflexive reaction is, WHA---? You've stepped so far outside the story I'm trying to tell that we are no longer speaking the same narrative language.

(10/22/2008)

[wayfriend]

I'm on board with that answer. First of all, it's been my position for a long while that creation myths are different tales that refer to the same underlying truth. Which Donaldson does not say here. But the conclusion from that position is the same: it doesn't matter if they're inconsistent with each other, they vary because they reflect the people who tell them, and there's no need for them to be validated by objective evidence.

The comment about the Creator is interesting but, remember he is actively messing with us. The comment is more than a bit ambiguous.

It *may* mean that this is the answer to the question Donaldson himself imposed on us with Runes: where is the Creator?

However, since Linden herself pondered that question, I think that there needs to be an "inside" explanation (something like, the Creator lost his Earth keys) to go with the "external" explanation that Donaldson was changing the focus of his themes.

Which means we really don't have all the answer yet. What we have is an answer of why Donaldson chose to tell his story with this element of plot included. Which I greatly appreciate none the less.

As far as changing the focus of where the meaning lies, I can kind of get that. To some extent, you could explain everything away as "the Creator made it that way", which removes a lot of weight from the characters shoulders'.

"Then take peace in your other innocence," said a voice out of the darkness. "You did not choose this task. You did not undertake it of your own free will. It was thrust upon you. Blame belongs to the chooser, and this choice was made by one who elected you without your knowledge or consent."

[dlbpharmd]

rob farrow: Dear Mr Donaldson,

I read in one of the earlier posts that you think the Coveneant series is unfilmable. I also read that the main stumbling point was the ring and how this would be considered a "Lord of the Rings" plagarism. I am not so sure this is a valid argument because what else could be used, even if you remove the symbolism of the ring.

I think the main stumbling block must be the rape. In the book we are able to clearly understand the reaons for Covenants loss of control whereas for a film this would require a great deal of acting prowess, something not usually associated with a movie containing cgi. If you think about it, just taking the rape, the subsequent desctruction of Lena's family and the effect it has on Covenant would make a pretty good arthouse film. The rape is just too complex.

I wonder if you have ever considered the possibility of any movie adaptation of the books beginning with the second chronicles? By making a film from Linden's perspective, allowing the audience to identify with her growing love and respect for Covenant, the introduction of the rape becomes if not acceptable, at least defensible. Also, the agrument about the use of a ring becomes even weaker (given that this series has more visual indications that the source of the power is Covenant himself with the ring just being a conduit).

Thanks for taking the time to read this,

Rob Farrow

Please. We're talking about the movie biz, remember? This means two things (in the context of your message). 1) What does "a valid argument" have to do with anything? Hollywood rejected the "Covenant" proposal because of the ring. Of course, questions were asked. Is the rape the real stumbling block? Is leprosy? No, Hollywood replied. Over and over again. Who cares about things like that? Not us. We only care that the proposal is an *obvious* LOTR rip-off because of the ring. 2) Whether or not I've ever considered an idea like the one you suggest could hardly be less relevant. I've said it over and over again, and I'll keep saying it until someone believes me: I have absolutely no control over anything that does or doesn't happen in Hollywood. No one listens to me. No one cares what I think. This isn't personal. In Hollywood, money talks: everything else walks. So unless I have a few hundred million dollars to invest.... H*ll, I don't even have the power to say NO to a movie deal. Of any kind. My publisher holds the film rights: I don't.

If you really want to see a "Covenant" film, talk to someone who has enough money to make things happen in the movie biz.

(10/29/2008)

[wayfriend]

Let's start a Kevin's Watch lottery ticket pool. When we win, we finance the movie ...

[Cameraman Jenn]

I think he's been asked about a movie deal a little too much...

[matrixman]

Donaldson is glorious when he's grumpy.

[balon!]

Let's start a Kevin's Watch lottery ticket pool. When we win, we finance the movie ...

I wonder what the conversion rate for WGD's is.....

Jenn and Menolly could fund the entire thing.

[aTOMiC]

I think SRD is correct. Unless someone with a lot of influence and even more money decides to move on the project, it doesn't have much of a chance. However people and establishments change their minds every day so there is always hope.

[Cameraman Jenn]

Honestly, I would love someone to make Mordant's Need into a movie.

[dlbpharmd]

I think he's been asked about a movie deal a little too much...

I think he's sick and tired of hearing the ring as an excuse, or being compared to Tolkien. He said it best in Albq, NM back in 2007 Elohimfest: "I needed the ring more than he (JRRT) did!"

[CovenantJr]

He said that in Manchester too. LOTR's ring could have been anything, but SRD needed a wedding ring.

[wayfriend]

And yet... time goes by. There has not since been a fantasy franchise that has competed with LOTR. My feeling is that, as time passes, and other fantasy movies come and go, the ring knockoff problem will fell like less and less of an issue.

Someone pointy-haired mogul may even say: Nothing has worked well since Lord of the Rings ... we need another movie with a Ring!

[AjK]

Someone pointy-haired mogul may even say: Nothing has worked well since Lord of the Rings ... we need another movie with a Ring!

This is completely plausible. I tried to think like a movie mogul once but I got a headache.

[Zarathustra]

In an industry where you have A Bug's Life and Ants come out in the same year, Armageddon and Deep Impact or *three* versions of King Kong, or 25 (or so) Police Academy movies . . . Hollywood all of a sudden cares about repetition of common themes??? Come on. Didn't anyone tell them that Lord of the Rings made over a billion dollars? Do they seriously think that similarity (however imaginary) to LOTR would be a detriment? Idiots.

Oh well, I'd rather see a Gap movie anyway.

[Holsety]

1) What does "a valid argument" have to do with anything? Hollywood rejected the "Covenant" proposal because of the ring. Of course, questions were asked. Is the rape the real stumbling block? Is leprosy? No, Hollywood replied. Over and over again. Who cares about things like that? Not us. We only care that the proposal is an *obvious* LOTR rip-off because of the ring.

I actually think people would care about (or notice) it if people who talked about the Covenant movie constantly referred to it as a "LOTR rip-off" but it would mostly turn out to be a "no press is bad press" situation, where "LOTR rip-off" is mostly a labeling phrase that sticks the movie itself in people's minds by using a more commonly talked about book/movie.

I wonder what the conversion rate for WGD's is.....

A particularly brilliant scholar of KW economics actually conducted a study on conversion rates, but found there wasn't enough data to provide a vary narrow conversion rate between the USD and the WGD.

[balon!]

A particularly brilliant scholar of KW economics actually conducted a study on conversion rates, but found there wasn't enough data to provide a vary narrow conversion rate between the USD and the WGD.

that was amazing.

[wayfriend]

That you, lurch? You're punctuation says yes.

Michael Lerch: Mr Donaldson,,About Your Muse or Muses: Do you have a Muse or Muses? Do you care to talk about your Muse(s),, the Muse encounter or experience? Is there any particular story or character in your art that can be taken as the Muse experience? Is there anything about Muses you would like to share with the Donaldson readers?

The Insequent of the Last Chrons strike me as very Muse like. I have wondered if that was your design.

• I'm afraid that my instinctive reaction to your question is: huh??? In other words, I don't have a "Muse"; I don't even think about such things; and in fact I'm not entirely sure what a "Muse" is supposed to be. In my (purely personal) experience, ideas can come from anywhere. For me, they're most likely to come from some intersection of language and emotion; but that is by no means predictable or certain. Ultimately, I suppose, all of my ideas come from some place inside me (a place I cleverly call "my imagination"). But what triggers or catalyzes them varies too much to be specified.
  
  However, if we agree that "Muse" means "imagination" (which it probably doesn't), I do have one thing to say on the subject. The imagination is a muscle. The more it's exercised, the stronger it gets. People who wait around for some sort of "Muse" to strike live in constant danger of atrophy.
  
  (11/12/2008)

[lurch]

way..yeppers,,,and yes,,Muse and Imagination for me anyway, are nearly synonymous. " Intersection of language and emotion"...perhaps a hint on the subject of ancient words once inside the Land..?..Modern Man has lost touch with his emotions?

[wayfriend]

You and Donaldson seem to be like Covenant and Linden - You and Covenant need an external trigger, while Donaldson and Linden need an internal focus.