Kevin's Watch

From the GI wrote: Robert Evans: Since an Indonesian volcano is currently in the news, I was wondering how much study of geology you've done. The "Fire-Lions" of Mount Thunder are a remarkably apt description of pyroclastic flows, years before video footage of these fascinating phenomenon became widely available. You also mention volcano phenomena in other places, such as Hotash Slay and in the Wightwarrens. Is geology/volcanology a particular field of interest for you?

Thanks for any reply!

Sorry. I could probably write down on the back of my hand everything I know about geology/volcanology. Apart from obligatory high school science classes, and looking at the pictures (*very* infrequently) in magazines like "National Geographic," I know squat: it's all imagination.

(btw, "pyroclastic" is a very cool word!)

(07/29/2006)

SRD wrote:From my perspective, the "lesson" of their own nature is one that the Haruchai have had to learn over and over again. This is because, on some very deep level, they just don't get it ("it" being the lesson you refer to). Perhaps this is an effect of the fact that races and peoples in fantasy novels tend to be fairly static. Or perhaps there's some other explanation. In any event, it seems likely to me that Bannor and Cail would understand and even support both Stave and Handir. (Which is about as vague as I can make this answer without straying into spoilers. <sigh>)

The GI wrote:Alun H Brown: Hi Stephen,

You explained recently in the GI that the Creator 'respects the integrity of his own creation' and therefore has to work indirectly around such integrity.

You've often talked about having a similar attitude yourself to your characters, stressing the importance of their 'dignity'. (It is one of the things that makes your writing a cut above, IMHO). So my question is this...is the Creator in the Chronicles (as opposed to the Creator OF the Chronicles) also you?

Or did he just choose you in his own image?

Profoundest thanks for your wonder-full work.

Let's be honest. What could I possibly know about "God"? I have no conceptual tools, no aids to understanding, which are not inherently anthropomorphic; therefore inherently false. All I have to work with is my imagination. Hence my rather frenetic assertions that the "Creator" in "The Chronicles" is a *character*: I made him up, and any attempt to draw conclusions OUTSIDE THE TEXT is doomed to error.

So, keeping rigidly in mind the fact that "The Chronicles" is a work of fiction; that I invented everything in it: in fact, I used myself as a model for the "Creator". I don't mean myself as a person--or a personality. I mean myself as a storyteller. I invented the "Creator" on the assumption that his attitudes and convictions about creation are pretty much the same as mine. Which, I freely admit, sounds rather grandiose. (Less courteous descriptions also come to mind.) But what else was I going to do? Throughout history, human beings have clung to notions of "God(s)" which are *more* rather than less anthropomorphic than the one I chose for "The Chronicles".

(08/09/2006)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Reed Byers: Dear Stephen:

Long-time reader, first-time writer. Heh.

I've been trying to reconcile some of the things you've said about the "reality" of The Land. (I imagine this topic is becoming almost as popular with you as "Creator" questions!)

You've explained several times that the Land's "reality/unreality" is no longer relevent to your story -- and I guess the way I see it is, that's fine, so long as subsequent events don't force us to revisit the issue. A while back, you said something that really stuck with me:

===
It really would be cheating if I suddenly announced, "OK, I was just kidding about that whole maybe-it's-not-real, you-are-the-white-gold shtick. Let's pretend it never happened."
===

By making the "unreality" of the Land virtually impossible, it feels to me that you WERE kidding about the whole "maybe-it's-not-real shtick". It can't possibly "not be real" anymore, can it?

Thank you (as always) for some of my favorite fantasy novels, as well as for your generosity in sharing your thoughts with us in this forum!

• I disagree emphatically with your central assertion (that the "reality" of the Land has been absolutely confirmed). When I said that "unreality/reality" is no longer relevant, I was speaking of the themes of the story: in crude terms, after the first trilogy Covenant and Linden don't *care* whether the Land is real or not. But I insist that I'm still playing by the same rules which govern the first trilogy. I believe that there is nothing in Covenant's/Linden's "real" world which unequivocally confirms the Land's independent existence (I mean independent of their perception of it). Sure, there are a number of people in the "real" world (in both "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles") who behave pretty strangely. And sure, no one in Linden's "reality" knows how Joan keeps getting out of her restraints. But "the Land and Lord Foul are 'real'" is not the only *possible* explanation for those things. Meanwhile, what happens to Covenant and Linden in the Land never has any material, physical effect on their subsequent "real" lives--a detail which implies the "unreality" of their experiences in the Land.
  
  Of course, I'm well aware that the sheer tangible specificity of what happens to Covenant and Linden in the Land positively begs for the reader's "belief"--or, to be more accurate, the reader's "suspension of disbelief". But that suspension of disbelief is essential to the experience of reading *any* fiction, not just sf/f, and certainly not just "The Chronicles".
  
  We could probably discuss specific details (e.g. how did Linden end up with Covenant's ring?) for hours. But *I'm* confident that I haven't violated any of the rules on which the first trilogy is predicated.
  
  (08/10/2006)

Matt Baldwin: Keeping up with tradition and duty, I must thank you first for your works, they are truely superior to almost all in the fantasy genre. I do have a question relative to the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and hope that it is not a spoiler for future novels. I'd like to know a little bit more about the Illearth Stone, where it came from, how it came to be, and if Lord Foul had the entire stone in the first chronicles or just a piece.
Also, on a different note, I'd like to know what you consider, personally, your masterpeice. Thank you for your time in reading and answering these questions.

I've always assumed that the Illearth Stone was made by Lord Foul (or a-Jeroth, as his friends call him) while he was interfering with the process of creation; before the Creator finished his work by sealing the Arch of Time. If you accept that assumption, then it probably follows that LF retrieved *all* of the Stone. I mean, since he already knew everything there is to know about the Stone, and all....

(08/12/2006)

In the Gradual Interview wrote:Joe: Hi Stephen,

You seem to have such a great sense of humour but so little of it is reflected in your work. The humour that is present is so subtle! Is that intentional when you create? Have you ever intentionally written something funny only to cut it later because it didn't fit with the current mood? (which I admit is usually bleak!)

Just curious,
Joe

• Well, you're right: what little humor there is in my work tends to be both bleak and oblique. It usually relies on irony and sarcasm (although there *is* a pillow-fight in "Mordant's Need"). But this isn't a deliberate choice on my part: it's just one of my many limitations as a writer. I can't *do* humor--not in any sense that's useful in storytelling. I would love to be able to compose, well, let's call it "broad humor" when it would fit in a story. For example, some of the ancient tales of the Giants posilutely cry out for broad humor. Sadly, I ain't got it. Broad humor isn't in my toolkit.
  
  If memory serves, while I was working on "The Second Chronicles" I wrote a Giantish song about a character called "Scroll the Appalling". But I cut it out later because it just wasn't funny.
  
  (07/30/2006)

Stephen R. Donaldson, Papers, 1971-[ongoing]
Box 26
Series 7: Additional Stories, Articles, Essays, and Clippings
Subseries A: Writings by Donaldson

[19??]. Scroll the Appalling. Typed poem, 2p. [Written originally for The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Book Two, The One Tree.]