Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:05 pm**

WOW! Holy sheep feces!
I dunno ... i agree it's not necessarily a spoiler, but it teases in directions and informs about certain things I realy didn't want to know about. So be forewarned anyone who reads that posting...

Still ... I CAN"T WAIT!!!!!

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:27 pm**

There is a really good answer to a questions about how a writer copes with pacing in their stories on the GI today. Although it gives not 'answers' per se, I like the view SRD gives of the issue.
It's been one of my thorns for a long time. I recall once I left an entire chapter alone for over a year, because the pacing was terrible. Finally I went back, had a different mind-set and tacked the problem froma different angle. I was surprised how seemingly simple it was.
So, that's my solution sometimes... just leave it alone. Forget about it. COme back later with a different mind-set/feeling/idea/ange... whatever...

cheers

Posted: **Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:28 pm**

Roy gets a way awesome answer!

Roy Miyamoto: Thanks for taking the time to interact with your fans through this GI.

Question: In the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, once the Laws of the Land are broken, can they be mended?
Life is process. The word "mended" sort of implies "returned to its original state". About that I'm skeptical. Everything has moved on. And the whole notion of "mending"--or even "healing"--broken Laws troubles me: it could so easily have the unintended effect of diminishing the significance of the earlier stories. "Well, the Land was in trouble, but now everything is fine. No problem. Ergo: no reason to read the previous books. Or even this one." The past made us who we are. I like to think that I can find a better solution to the dilemma.

(08/30/2006)

Think about it. A better solution to the dilemma.

This has major implications for the Final Chronicles IMO.

Spoiler

I don't think Donaldson would say something like this if the Land were to cease to exist with the Laws broken the way they are. Either the end of the Land is involved with repairing these Laws, or before the end the Laws will be "adjusted" somehow. Or something. Damn.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:22 am**

Sometimes I wonder whether Covenant as a creator himself will ever enter the Final Chronicles as a theme... Remember at the end of the FC, when the Creator spoke to Covenant and told him that he surely knew, too, how a creator cannot help his creation?

I don't think the Laws will be mended - I'm pretty sure that by the time we get to "The Last Dark", there'll be little left of the Land to begin with. I suspect we'll see something entirely different... perhaps a new act of creation, I don't know - I have suspicions, but I won't voice them here

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:00 pm**

Xar wrote:Sometimes I wonder whether Covenant as a creator himself will ever enter the Final Chronicles as a theme... Remember at the end of the FC, when the Creator spoke to Covenant and told him that he surely knew, too, how a creator cannot help his creation?

Ooooooh, Xar, I think you may be on to something. If the Land is a construct of Covenant's imagination (going back to the "is the Land real?" paradox), then...but then the Land is partly a construct of *Linden's* imagination, too. Whoooo. The mind boggles.

Every time somebody talks about the Land's end, I can't help thinking of the ending of "The Neverending Story", where it's really dark and the Empress is holding the last bright crumb of the world in her hand. Am I the only one? I don't think for a minute that SRD is headed that way -- for one thing, it's already been done. But I do think about it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:18 pm**

I like the idea that ( i think Drew suggested ) that the Land became real when TC decided it was worth fighting for.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:20 pm**

Todd: Hi Steve,

There was a comment (not by you) that Brooks sold 72,000 books. I was wondering how many copies of Runes sold. Is that something you would be willing to share with us?

I don't have any reliable information. (I do get "royalty statements" from my publishers twice a year, but I stopped straining my brain to decipher them long ago.) However, I've been given the general impression that "Runes" sold between 60,000 and 70,000 copies in hardcover--in both the US and the UK. This is a considerably more impressive number in the UK than it is in the US, since the population of the UK is so much smaller.

(09/04/2006)

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:03 am**

I guess those numbers are supposed to be encouraging, but 60,000 copies still doesn't seem like a lot. Well, what do I know? Book sales remain a mystery to me. How does Runes's sales compare with books by Jordan or Eddings? What Brooks novel is the questioner talking about? Some new Shannara story?

Posted: **Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:03 pm**

Wayfriend wrote:Meanwhile, who the hecks 'heh' is this?!?!?! A delicious comment on the reality of the Land, or lack thereof.

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)

Wow, that will teach me not to get beind on my GI reading! I wish I'd asked that question. I'm tempted just to lie and take credit for it, but the probability of the author being a member here is too high.

If you're reading, great question! (I don't get the "heh" clue.)

I'll comment on the implications of this answer in the appropriate thread (Edit: Lord Foul in this World, in the TC forum).

Posted: **Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:57 pm**

Warmark wrote:I like the idea that ( i think Drew suggested ) that the Land became real when TC decided it was worth fighting for.

At first I liked it, but now I'm not so sure.

Hile Troy was Covenant's "polar opposite" in that he wanted to fight to save the land according to Donaldson. Moreover he is, apparently, real - the discrepancies are too hard to match up, but Donaldson stated that "I've always assumed that Hile Troy was indeed from Covenant's "real world."" (10/21/2004). It's not the most definitive we can get, but drawing from those two statements a character from the real world entered the land before Covenant became willing to fight for it (note that at the time of his entrance Troy, who was willing to fight, was Covenant's "polar opposite" and so Covenant was logically not willing to fight for The Land).

However, my point is extrapolated entirely from the author and not from the book - IMO that's secondhand. I'm far too lazy to go digging in the Chronicles for examples of Covant's viewpoint turning during LFB or the Illearth War to prove he was willing to fight for the Land before Hile Troy arrived. But I'm inclined to think he only became so after the Land was already real - that is, the Land being real wasn't dependant on Covenant's view of it.

BTW way interesting, provoking, and perhaps creepy statement about Lena. Bolded stuff was bolded by me not SRD

John: Steve,

I couldn't find an answer to a particular question in the G.I, but I may have missed it.

In many of you books children are in danger/threatened/hurt as a main point of the story arc. We see this in LFB and deal with it's reprecussion in all three "Chronicles"; we see this in the Jeremiah story arc; we see this is the first two "Man Who" books; and again in the "Gap" books: the threat to Davies.
Was this conscious? And if so, why? My first guess is that children represent innocence, perhaps, or something pure, uncorrupted? Or was it something else?

Thanks!

Earlier in my career, I might have said that children represent "vulnerability" rather than "innocence". I think I've made it obvious that I consider "innocence" itself to be a flawed concept. Or perhaps I should say that the word itself doesn't seem very useful, since I find it difficult to come up with a workable definition that doesn't involve some form of willful ignorance. (In any case, Freud smashed the idea that children are "innocent" pretty thoroughly.) But now I *have* children, so I'm keenly aware of the primal power that can exist in the bond between a parent and a child; and the word "vulnerability" has a whole new meaning. 20 years ago, I would have had to *imagine* Linden's feelings for Jeremiah: now I know them intimately.

None of which actually answers your question. So to further not answer your question: calling Lena and Davies "children" may be stretching the definition a bit. Of course literally they *are* the children of their parents; but they aren't "children" in the same sense that Jeremiah is (helplessly dependent). Davies is "born" capable of independent decisions and actions; and Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so. Thematically Lena, Davies, and Jeremiah don't have much in common. Jeremiah has more in common with the children in TMWKHB and THWRHP.

(09/06/2006)

GASP! He totally said it. He said it. He said she could've stopped the rape. Arguably laying blame on the victim? GASP! Seriously though

EDIT-And in response to the above post which I forgot to respond to, doesn't gilden-fire violate the question? The POV characters are from the Land.

Posted: **Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:23 pm**

Holsety wrote: BTW way interesting, provoking, and perhaps creepy statement about Lena. Bolded stuff was bolded by me not SRD
None of which actually answers your question. So to further not answer your question: calling Lena and Davies "children" may be stretching the definition a bit. ... and Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so.

(09/06/2006)
GASP! He totally said it. He said it. He said she could've stopped the rape. Arguably laying blame on the victim? GASP! Seriously though

I don't think SRD is necessarily talking about the actual rape of Lena here (although I'm second-guessing him). He's spoken about the rape of Lena over and over again, and I don't see any indication that he doesn't think the rape of Lena is anything other than what it is (a violation and therefore, in that sense, Lena is a "victim"). He's probably more talking about the, shall we say, eventual demise of Lena (into insanity). When he says "Lena could have saved herself from Covenant" I *think* he's saying that she, in theory, could have risen above the act rather than letting it destroy her. [And, hmmm, I'm probably digging myself a grave here.] I simply don't think that this is a comment saying "hey Lena could have stopped Covenant from raping her if she wanted to" (which is how you're reading it).

Posted: **Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:59 pm**

Holsety wrote:GASP! He totally said it. He said it. He said she could've stopped the rape. Arguably laying blame on the victim? GASP! Seriously though

One of Donaldson's themes is that you can't be a victim unless you give up. But this is not what he means here I don't think.

I think here he means that Lena's rape was avoidable. At minimum, she could have screamed for help, but she, she decided not to. She could have avoided heading out alone to be with Covenant; she could even have avoided being so warm to Covenant. Heck, she probably could have decked Covenant had she tried, stout Stonedowner that she is.

(Treading thin water, so I must say: I'm not saying Lena is responsible or at fault, just that it was avoidable or preventable. And so, I presume, is Donaldson.)

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:35 am**

Wayfriend wrote:
Holsety wrote:GASP! He totally said it. He said it. He said she could've stopped the rape. Arguably laying blame on the victim? GASP! Seriously though
One of Donaldson's themes is that you can't be a victim unless you give up. But this is not what he means here I don't think.

I think here he means that Lena's rape was avoidable. At minimum, she could have screamed for help, but she, she decided not to. She could have avoided heading out alone to be with Covenant; she could even have avoided being so warm to Covenant. Heck, she probably could have decked Covenant had she tried, stout Stonedowner that she is.

(Treading thin water, so I must say: I'm not saying Lena is responsible or at fault, just that it was avoidable or preventable. And so, I presume, is Donaldson.)

I hope to *God* that's not what he means (and I honestly don't believe it is). Because, that mindset does lead to the assumption that the "victim" is responsible.

Lena should have screamed but she *chose* not to? She stands "dumb and helpless"...and, think about it, you're a virgin and here's this guy suddenly coming at you...you sense something isn't right but what do you do? In those few moments you probably would have no idea what the hell was going on!

Lena should have avoided heading out alone with Covenant? Why? Because she should suspect that Covenant would be so messed up that he would rape her?

She should have avoided being so warm to Covenant? Well, she was just an innocent kid who essentially "idolised" him. She was showing the generosity of all Stonedowners.

She should have decked Covenant? I consider myself a reasonably strong woman (I used to work in a timber yard, I can slam packs of timber as well as any man) but I'm yet to meet a man I can (when playfighting for example) overpower. And in such a situation (blinded by fear and the unknown) would anyone have time to think "yep, I'll punch him before he pins me down" let alone do it.

You can say that it was "avoidable or preventable" but it ultimately comes down to the question of "why should it be?" Why should a woman *assume* that being herself (Lena wasn't down on her knees begging for it!) should result in such a violation.

I will stick by what I said (not because I want to be right, but simply because I can't see how your explanation is pointing to anything other than the victim being responsible): instead of Lena being able to rise above what happened to her (using it to empower her) she let it destroy her. And this works with the Donaldson theme that you talk about--she became a victim because she gave up (she *remained* a victim).

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:22 am**

I think you're making a correlation between "avoidable" and "responsible" that isn't necessarily true or inevitable.

--A

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 am**

Laying that debate aside <grin>. In the GI some time ago (it was regarding "The Killing Stroke"):

... as my training progressed I gradually came to believe that there is no such thing as a "victim" (except to the extent that many people are self-victimized). There is, of course, such as thing as "prey"; and when a predator comes after you, you are commonly referred to as a "victim." But there's a useful distinction to be made here. In my lexicon, "prey" has no say in the matter: "victim" does (hence the emphasis on self-victimization). To pick a crude example: a woman is attacked by a rapist. She is "prey" (i.e. she has no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that she was chosen for attack). And if she fights back with all of her resources (as "prey" always does in nature), she remains "prey." But if she gives up on herself and submits, she becomes a "victim"--and she is self-victimized by her decision to give up on herself. The important point (in "The Killing Stroke" as in life) is: how do you *choose* to respond to the behavior of a predator? And if your attacker is *not* a predator (i.e. you've chosen to engage in combat when you could have avoided the fight, as in running like hell away from the rapist, or staying out of vulnerable situations), then you have--in effect--chosen your own fate. Your attacker becomes merely the instrument of your own will. Therefore "there is no killing stroke": there is only the decision to be killed, or to not be killed. And if you choose not to be killed, you don't get to call yourself a "victim," since your will determined what happened.

I'm afraid this isn't very clear. Sorry about that. Maybe I'll try again when somebody flames me for criticizing rape victims (which is definitely NOT what I'm trying to do here).

(06/25/2004)

...which I think sheds a bit of light on what SRD meant (not that I necessarily agree completely with his point of view). But I'm happy to admit that my second guessing of SRD was wrong (wouldn't be the first time!

)

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:19 am**

I love The Killing Stroke. My favourite short story of his.

--A

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:47 pm**

Oh dear.

Seareach wrote:Lena should have screamed but she *chose* not to?

Honestly, I believed it said that in the story. Looking back, it only remarks that she refrained from doing something *afterward*. Apologies.

Seareach wrote:Lena should have avoided heading out alone with Covenant? Why?

There is no reason whatsover that she should have. I said it might have gone a different way. I did not say she should have known better. Same for all your points. I am only speaking of a sequence of events that led to a point: I am not speaking of anyone seeing the point coming and failing to avoid it.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:47 pm**

I don't think you need to say "oh dear" (which I find condescending). Even you said you were "treading thin water"...

When I've had time to think, I'll try and explain what I was getting at. But, in no way was I having a go at you, or trying to implying that you thought Lena should have known better.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:50 pm**

Malik23 wrote:
Wayfriend wrote:Meanwhile, who the hecks 'heh' is this?!?!?! A delicious comment on the reality of the Land, or lack thereof.

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)
Wow, that will teach me not to get beind on my GI reading! I wish I'd asked that question. I'm tempted just to lie and take credit for it, but the probability of the author being a member here is too high. If you're reading, great question! (I don't get the "heh" clue.)

I'll comment on the implications of this answer in the appropriate thread (Edit: Lord Foul in this World, in the TC forum).

Two thoughts:

1) 'heh' - must be Jay!!

2) if the land is sustained only in and by the minds of a few (Covenant, Linden, Joan - perhaps, and Roger); what would have happended has Linden NOT been able to be translated to the Land? Covenant was dead (in the real world); Joan released; Roger too young. Would it have ceased to exisit? hmmmmmm....

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:48 pm**

Seareach wrote:I don't think you need to say "oh dear" (which I find condescending). Even you said you were "treading thin water"...

When I've had time to think, I'll try and explain what I was getting at. But, in no way was I having a go at you, or trying to implying that you thought Lena should have known better.

"Oh dear" may be an unfamiliar expression - it's something of a mea culpa. I'm sure WF isn't being condescending.

Kevin's Watch

The Gradual Interview