Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
I'll bet. Especially since he said he doesn't have any idea why people want books autographed at all.
And this one strikes me as somewhat mystifying:Kate Gowers:It seems to be, that by both name and character (mostly), Lord Foul is the epitome of evil. However, he has developed, over the course of the books, a more 'rounded' (OK, only just, but still) personality from the mwhwhahahah type thing he may have started with. Indeed, we now have him doing our heroes favours (even if it his for his own, no doubt nefarious purposes).
So...can good things come from evil intent? Can evil be changed? At the end of one of the earlier books (I don't have copies here in front of me), didn't Foul regress to pre-infanthood? Was Foul ever a child? If so, who raised him? Is there hope for redemption of Foul himself, or would your own beliefs prevent that? If Lucifer, as it were, can be a fallen angel, can we have a risen devil?
Even if (as I suspect), this is not a plan, how do you feel about the redemption of evil?
Cheers!
Kate
_____________________________________
You raise a number of interesting issues which are difficult to discuss in the abstract--and about which I don’t want to be concrete for fearing of “tipping my hand.” So I’m going to restrict myself to a few comments.
1) Lord Foul has always had a “reason” for what he’s doing. Whatever he may have been before “creation,” he is a prisoner now; like many prisoners, he loathes everything about his prison; and if finding a way to escape involves doing massive damage to his prison, so much the better. The fact of his prison justifies all of his actions.
2) Imagery such as Lord Foul’s “regression” should probably be interpreted metaphorically. Or symbolically, if you prefer. If he is an eternal being, then notions like infancy and dotage have no literal meaning. And if he is not, then all we have to do is wait for him to die of old age.
3) “Can we have a risen devil?” I refer you to Angus Thermopyle. “Can good things come from evil intent?” Can bad things come from good intent? Can good things be accomplished by evil means? Consider Warden Dios.
(01/01/2006)
Mystifying: I don't understand how Troy's POV doesn't violate Covenant's unbelief; if the Land is a dream, no one in the Land (no matter where they are from) can have a POV, being figments and all.Jacques Poitras:I recently re-read The Illearth War for the first time since I discovered it as a teenager (I'm now 37), and I was struck by something.
The shift to Hile Troy's point of view would suggest The Land is "real" -- because someone other than Covenant is experiencing it. This takes place well before Covenant himself comes to this realization (when he sees his wound upon his return to our world at the end of the book).
This device must have been a conscious choice for you as the author, because you could have structured the story to maintain Covenant's point of view (and thus maintain the possibility he is imagining The Land) ... i.e. by having Troy recap it all for Covenant when they meet up after Melenkurion Skyweir.
Why, then, reveal The Land's reality to the reader before Covenant realizes it?
(Or did you just structure it this way because having Troy recap it for Covenant would prevent the Elena-Convenant-Kevin-Bannor sequence being climax of the entire book?)
Thanks ... and by the way, I'm finding the books hold up quite well now that I'm a "grown-up."
____________________________________
My reasoning--and Lester del Rey agreed--was that since Troy comes from Covenant’s “reality” his POV doesn’t violate the underlying premises of Covenant’s Unbelief. However, I will ruefully admit that if I were writing the original “Chronicles” now I would structure them more rigorously to support the “integrity” of Covenant’s dilemma.
(01/01/2006)
Among other things, it speaks directly to the quuestion, why did the Creator choose Covenant?Stating the same insight in terms that better suit my current thinking, I now believe that every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use. In one form or another, you’ll find such notions throughout the “Chronicles”.
(12/31/2005)
Hmmmmm - I'm not sure how to answer that. As I said in my question, it's obvious that GF is outside of the Covenant canon, and it really doesn't matter a great deal either way. I was mostly interested in the background of the Haruchai. As I've said before, what I love about GF is the story of that magnificent race - how they came to the Land and to the Vow, the Haruchai mind speak, and leadership by combat. So, Fist and I just wondered whether those aspects of Haruchai culture, as explained in GF, were accurate. The question about the titles was really just an after thought of mine; I asked Fist what he thought and IIRC he pretty much gave me SRDs answer (know it all that he is.Wayfriend wrote:I can see SRD's point of view. He's not comfortable with the world viewing his outtakes. And Gildenfire is one of those.
Anyone who reads it (I have) can see that the quality of the writing isn't there. It looks like this was elided from the main text some time before that text was sanded, buffed, and polished. The result is that GF just isn't as finished. I can see that SRD might be less than proud in displaying it.
I think that we have to allow that some of the concrete elements of the story, as well as the copy, failed to receive such polish. If SRD changed his mind on something that the Haruchai did, or about the Haruchai's essential nature, he may not have gone into the trash and fixed up that chapter, brought it into synch with the rest. So I can see why he refuses to consider that chapter canonical, as well.
We have it. It's interesting and entertaining in and of itself. Just like having SRD's signature is. Does it's "stature" compared to the Chronicles really matter?
)...shorten the time line?Jodi Whitmore: ...when the first book of the last chronicles came out I bought it right away, read it immediately and was anxious to find book two...After coming to your web-site, I find that I shouldn't expect it until late 2007 and the following books years later. I'm dismayed. If the books were conceived years ago, is there any way to shorten the time line?
A shared delusion, perhaps? As I never questioned the reality of the Land, Troy's POV never bothered me. Later, when I examined things from a perspective in which the Land's reality or unreality mattered, I saw Troy as an expression of Covenant himself. Troy is TC's antithesis, the hero that Covenant perhaps wishes he could be, and Troy's failure is a subconcious warning against being that kind of hero. I never really believed that Troy was real, you see.Wayfriend wrote:(01/01/2006)[/i]
And this one strikes me as somewhat mystifying:Mystifying: I don't understand how Troy's POV doesn't violate Covenant's unbelief; if the Land is a dream, no one in the Land (no matter where they are from) can have a POV, being figments and all.Jacques Poitras:I recently re-read The Illearth War for the first time since I discovered it as a teenager (I'm now 37), and I was struck by something.
The shift to Hile Troy's point of view would suggest The Land is "real" -- because someone other than Covenant is experiencing it. This takes place well before Covenant himself comes to this realization (when he sees his wound upon his return to our world at the end of the book).
This device must have been a conscious choice for you as the author, because you could have structured the story to maintain Covenant's point of view (and thus maintain the possibility he is imagining The Land) ... i.e. by having Troy recap it all for Covenant when they meet up after Melenkurion Skyweir.
Why, then, reveal The Land's reality to the reader before Covenant realizes it?
(Or did you just structure it this way because having Troy recap it for Covenant would prevent the Elena-Convenant-Kevin-Bannor sequence being climax of the entire book?)
Thanks ... and by the way, I'm finding the books hold up quite well now that I'm a "grown-up."
____________________________________
My reasoning--and Lester del Rey agreed--was that since Troy comes from Covenant’s “reality” his POV doesn’t violate the underlying premises of Covenant’s Unbelief. However, I will ruefully admit that if I were writing the original “Chronicles” now I would structure them more rigorously to support the “integrity” of Covenant’s dilemma.
(01/01/2006)
I guess the underlying question is, if Troy is unreal, can he even have a POV? I would say, no. I wonder if SRD says, yes. And then I wonder, if he does, why. If Troy isn't real and still has a POV, it sounds like that makes him Covenant's alternate personality, which I find bleckable.Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:A shared delusion, perhaps? As I never questioned the reality of the Land, Troy's POV never bothered me. Later, when I examined things from a perspective in which the Land's reality or unreality mattered, I saw Troy as an expression of Covenant himself. Troy is TC's antithesis, the hero that Covenant perhaps wishes he could be, and Troy's failure is a subconcious warning against being that kind of hero. I never really believed that Troy was real, you see.
This just supports the position that the Land is not real, imo.Wayfriend wrote:I guess the underlying question is, if Troy is unreal, can he even have a POV? I would say, no. I wonder if SRD says, yes. And then I wonder, if he does, why. If Troy isn't real and still has a POV, it sounds like that makes him Covenant's alternate personality, which I find bleckable.Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:A shared delusion, perhaps? As I never questioned the reality of the Land, Troy's POV never bothered me. Later, when I examined things from a perspective in which the Land's reality or unreality mattered, I saw Troy as an expression of Covenant himself. Troy is TC's antithesis, the hero that Covenant perhaps wishes he could be, and Troy's failure is a subconcious warning against being that kind of hero. I never really believed that Troy was real, you see.
In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Marc Dalesandro: Hello Mr. Donaldson,
1) I one of your recent replies in the GI, you state (rather slyly, in my opinion) that "as matters stand, the lore of the Old Lords is just plain irretrievable."
"As matters stand"? Is this some sort of hint that Kevin's Lore might feature in Fatal Revenant? Your answer sure sounded like a heads-up or teaser!
2) Is Lord Foul bound by all the Laws of the Earth, since he is imprisoned there? I know he cannot violate the Law of death, etc without help, but could he be affected by the Power of Command, or the might of the Elohim? Or is Foul somehow beyond such things?
__________________________________________
1) Some days I simply can't resist my impulse to tease. I get an entirely malicious pleasure out of creating misleading expectations. Of course, that's one of the keys to my writing in general. I work hard at setting up expectations which I intend to both frustrate and fulfill in unforeseeable ways.
2) Yes, Lord Foul is bound by Law: otherwise his existence in time wouldn't be a prison. Such things as the Power of Command and the strange resources of the Elohim are not *in themselves* violations of Law. Obviously, they can be used to *threaten* Law. And Lord Foul might conceivably be impacted by them. But it is not an accident that LF is never defeated by gambits like High Lord Elena's. In such cases, Law preserves as well as imprisons the Despiser.
(01/20/2006)
Mark Holdsworth: The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Wards of High Lord Kevin's Seven Wards are not described in any detail in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Series (as far as I remember), and all we know concerning the Third Ward is that it was discovered between the times of the First and Second Chronicles. Should these missing Wards be considered lost lore, destroyed during the Ritual of Desecration, or will their purpose(s) be revealed in the Third Chronicles?
Thanks for creating the Land. Your novels flow like a great musical score. I seem to listen to the words you write more than just visualize what they portray. I consider myself a visually oriented person, so this is no small feat!
Tsk tsk. Y’all are becomin’ increasingly clever in your attempts to elicit spoilers. <grin>
(01/22/2006)
"Thomas Covenant, I am going to die." Once again, he withdrew, muttering half to himself. "That is intolerable."
He was gone for several moments. When he returned, he set a stool before the chair and sat on it. His eyes were level with Covenant's. With one skeletal finger, he tapped Covenant's half-hand.
"But you possess white gold." Behind their rheum, his orbs seemed to have no color. "It is an imperfect metal-an unnatural alliance of metals-and in all the Earth it exists nowhere but in the ring you bear. My arts have spoken to me of such a periapt, but never did I dream that the white gold itself would fall to me. The white gold! Thomas Covenant, you reck little what you wield. Its imperfection is the very paradox of which the Earth is made, and with it a master may form perfect works and fear nothing.
"Therefore" -- with one hand, he moved a lens so that it covered Covenant's eyes, distorting everything -- "I mean to have that ring. As you know-or have known-I may not frankly sever it from you. It will be valueless to me unless you choose to give it. And in your present strait you are incapable of choice. Thus I must first pierce this veil which blinds your will. Then, while you remain within my grasp, I must wrest the choice I require from you," A smile uncovered the old cruelty of his teeth. "Indeed, it would have been better for you if you had succumbed to the Lady Alif."
