The Gradual Interview

[dlbpharmd]

Oh sure. Nice try at a cover story, SRD.

I gotta say, the destruction of the watch was one of those "punch to the stomach" moments that SRD often does so well. And to have it as an intro...

--A

For me, it was a "Holy Shit!" moment, followed by a realization that this really IS The Last Chronicles.

[Menolly]

Oh sure. Nice try at a cover story, SRD.

I gotta say, the destruction of the watch was one of those "punch to the stomach" moments that SRD often does so well. And to have it as an intro...

--A

For me, it was a "Holy Shit!" moment, followed by a realization that this really IS The Last Chronicles.

[Avatar]

...this really IS The Last Chronicles.

Yeah. Excellent point.

--A

[dlbpharmd]

Darren: One of the recent GI questions asked about Worm at the World's end. This got me to thinking about relative power and searched the GI and found a couple of interesting points that I have questions about.

1) How can Linden have wielded more power than Covenant? In FR, wasn't it written that the white gold was made for Covenant and that all other wielders possessed only a portion of the power he had with it?

2) In WGW, it states "The Banefire was not stronger than he was...Strong enough to withstand any assault which did not also crumble the arch of time". So can we infer that Gibbon Raver with the Banefire was more powerful than Foul with the Illearth Stone as Covenant administered him a full beat down in TPTP?

My final comment is a plea, which I expect you enjoy less than root canal from what I can read on this site. Please, please allow Covenant to be allowed to control the wild magic again and battle Foul or his minions directly. Sci-Fi/Fantasy reached its absolute peak, during the showdown in Ridjek Thome. I realize the nature of the story has changed and you been there/done that, but damn that was an amazing story line.

1) You seem to forget that Covenant is always striving for *restraint*; that he was afraid of his own power long before he learned how dangerous it is. In contrast, Linden wants *more*: she wants enough to impose her will on, well, practically everything. So just because she's wielded more power than Covenant *has* doesn't mean that she's wielded more than he *can*.

2) Do I need to remind you that LF has changed his tactics profoundly between the first trilogy and the second? In the first, his approach is comparatively simple. If he can't get Covenant to fight his armies, he would like nothing better than a direct confrontation: Covenant and wild magic vs LF with the Illearth Stone. That would have given LF what he wants: a contest sufficiently immense to break the Arch of Time. But Covenant foiled him by attacking the Illearth Stone instead of its wielder. In the second trilogy, however, LF's approach is entirely different--and one of its keystones is the venom which erodes Covenant's restraint. Hence Covenant's dilemma in the Banefire: he's been *poisoned,* for crying out loud. Surely, therefore, comparisons between Gibbon/Banefire and LF/Illearth Stone are meaningless.

Do I need to emphasize that Covenant *still* has never fought LF directly? Do I need to ask, What would be the point?

(05/20/2010)

[Barnetto]

Do I need to emphasize that Covenant *still* has never fought LF directly? Do I need to ask, What would be the point?
(05/20/2010)[/i]

I must have imagined that final battle scene in Foul's Creche in TPTP....?

[I'm Murrin]

The one where Covenant focused all his power into destroying the Illearth Stone, and the ghosts laughed Foul to nothingness? I don't recall that involving any direct fighting.

[wayfriend]

Well... It be fair to say that Covenant fought against Lord Foul directly, to the point where Lord Foul knew he would lose. But Covenant does not fight against him further, and Lord Foul's demise was brought about by means other than direct combat.

So, technically, SRD's comment is incorrect; however, to the point he was making answering the question, he was correct - Covenant did not directly confront Foul for the purpose of trying to destroy him. He let the ghosts take care of Foul, and thereby avoided any threat to the Arch which might have arisen had he chosen otherwise.

[dlbpharmd]

I was hoping that posting this question would spark some discussion. Covenant definitely attacked Foul directly; with wild magic, he was able to beat Lord Foul away from the Stone, encapsulated him and penetrated the penumbra to expose the white haired old man within. I think SRD misremembered what he had written.

[Rigel]

Covenant didn't really attack Foul directly; he encapsulated him in pure, argent force, breaking Foul's contact with the Illearth stone. Once that was done, Foamfollower did his thing, and Covenant tackled the stone.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it

[Barnetto]

I was hoping that posting this question would spark some discussion. Covenant definitely attacked Foul directly; with wild magic, he was able to beat Lord Foul away from the Stone, encapsulated him and penetrated the penumbra to expose the white haired old man within. I think SRD misremembered what he had written.

...or he's putting an awful lot of emphasis on the word "directly". He did clearly battle Lord Foul, beat him back from the stone and strip away his aura. Then when LF appeared (as himself?) he stopped.

"Do I need to ask. What would be the point?" - I guess this is the more interesting comment. At the end of TPTP, TC says "I'm not going to kill him. He'll just come back." An interesting notion. Perhaps the point is that the act of killing in revenge would in itself be enough to give life again to despite - a Catch 22.

[wayfriend]

I kinda don't get the "what would be the point?" comment myself. Sure, Donaldson knows ... but we don't!!!!! Probably refers to the idea that Foul is an externalization of something within Covenant, and we don't battle with those kinds of things so directly: if the story is about anything, it's about finding better ways to deal with our inner selves.

[Barnetto]

I kinda don't get the "what would be the point?" comment myself. Sure, Donaldson knows ... but we don't!!!!! Probably refers to the idea that Foul is an externalization of something within Covenant, and we don't battle with those kinds of things so directly: if the story is about anything, it's about finding better ways to deal with our inner selves.

Agreed - I was sort of alluding to a different aspect of that externalization idea myself in suggesting (however vaguely - and can you get more vague than "sort of alluding"!) that the "despite" created by killing LF would simply generate another version of "despite"...

[dlbpharmd]

I have not included the first part of this question, and SRD's answer, because it is spoiler material from chapter 1 of AATE.

Dale Cebula:

...

Also, the various names of Lord Foul make sense in one form or another (corruption, grey slayer), except for the a-Jeroth name. Am I missing something here? Is this a name that you created or does a-Jeroth come from some source I'm not familiar with? Is this the name Foul used when he first "visited" the Lords? Of the Old Lords, did any of them aside from Kevin ever encounter him? Finally, given the long lives of the Old Lords, was Berek (or Damelon for that matter) alive when Kevin came into his own? Always been a little confused about that detail.

thanks!



...

It seems plausible to me that LF might have occasion to need a name that doesn't announce his nature. "Hey, guys, I'm Foul the Despiser, and I want to become a Lord by tricking you." "a-Jeroth" works well for me because it *sounds* right, not because it has any literal meaning (at least as far as I know).

I acknowledge that the chronology of the Old Lords is confusing: they lived so long that there must have been significant overlap. Well, I didn't work this out when I was writing the first trilogy because I didn't think I needed it; and now I'm stuck with it. Almost anything I might say goes outside the text. But as "Fatal Revenant" reveals, Damelon was an adult long before Berek became High Lord. And it seems likely that Loric's "trajectory" resembled Damelon's. So again it seems likely that Loric knew Berek. But Kevin may--or may not--be another matter. Loric, apparently, was a real risk-taker. If he fathered Kevin late, and died (comparatively) young, that might account for some of the confusion. In any case, I suspect that a-Jeroth came along after Loric was gone.

(05/25/2010)

[wayfriend]

Is that a confirmation that Lord Foul used the name a-Jeroth when he infiltrated the Old Lord's during Kevin's time?

I know many have speculated so, but I cannot remember if it's ever been confirmed before.

I have not included the first part of this question, and SRD's answer, because it is spoiler material from chapter 1 of AATE.

Appreciated!

[wayfriend]

This is a really good question and answer. And it, I think, settles a few issues about Vain that have been raised here before: highlights mine.

Gary Barnett: Dear Mr Donaldson,

In the past, I have laboured under the (perhaps na�ve) notion that authors are the ultimate arbiters and interpreters of their own works. Within the GI, you clearly explain that, from your point of view, once your works are in the public domain, you accept that any consistent interpretation of your work is as valid as any other (including your own).

Building on that, I wonder whether you deliberately include ambiguities within your work? Obviously you will include plot elements/detail that are ambiguous at the point they arise, but later resolve as the plot develops. But do you deliberately include elements where you yourself do not have a clear view as to which of several possible interpretations is the "correct" one? (It goes without saying that as a simple reader I labour under the weight of many unresolved ambiguities when I read your books and am happy to lay the bulk of that failure on my own limitations!)

To provide just one example to focus my question. When Covenant is about to be burned at the stake in During Stonedown, mutely watched by Vain, he turns to him to ask for help. Vain grins and Covenant erupts into argent fire. It seems to me that there are many different interpretations of what is happening here, all consistent in some way with the Chronicles. Vain's grin may actually be a deliberate way of helping Covenant access his power by heightening his ire. It may simply be a smile recognising the imminent eruption of power. Other possibilities exist. My question is whether, in writing an ambiguity such as this, you always have a clear view of which interpretation is "correct" from your perspective? Do you "know" why Vain smiles at this point?

And a related question. One thing that you have said in the GI has confused me. In relation to Vain, you state that "Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose". However, on a number of occasions Vain goes out of his way to save Linden - is this not because he recognises that Linden (though not Covenant) is indeed essential to his achieving his ultimate purpose?

Finally, I would like to say that the redemption of the Unhomed by Covenant in the white gold caamora at the end of The Wounded Land is one of the (if not the) most emotive, immersive and, frankly, brilliant pieces of fiction I have ever, ever read.

Thank you

Gary Barnett

• I've been procrastinating with your question because I find it difficult to address. But first, a practical point. I wrote of Vain that "Covenant and Linden are irrelevant to his purpose." For the purposes of salving my bruised--vanity? conscience?--I'm going to pretend that you took my statement out of context. <rueful smile> Otherwise my assertion is patently absurd. Vain goes to considerable lengths to preserve Linden--for the obvious reason that he needs her. (How could I have failed to remember that? I have no idea.) So, duh, I was wrong on that point.
  
  But I didn't intend Vain's reactions to Covenant/wild magic to be ambiguous. To my way of thinking, Vain simply *likes* seeing wild magic deployed because it--like Linden--is essential to his purpose. As an entity, he isn't complex enough to be manipulative. (After all, the ur-viles aren't the Demondim--and they certainly aren't the Viles. I doubt that they know how to create a fully functioning sentience.)
  
  As to your more general inquiry.
  
  Do I know what I mean when I write? Yes, I do. Do I know everything that what I've written *can* mean when I write? No, I don't. Am I sometimes deliberately ambiguous? Yes, I am. But I don't do it to confuse anyone. I do it because I can think of a variety of meanings in a specific situation, and they all fit my intentions. Am I sometimes unconsciously ambiguous? Yes, of course. Perhaps the greatest glory of the creative imagination is that it can create *more* than it--or its wielder--intends. (Sadly, it can also create *less*. But that's life.) This, at least in part, is why I try to resist notions of "correctness" in interpretation: because sometimes what I've written means more than I realize.
  
  Another reason I try to resist such notions is that reading is an interactive--or re-creative--process. Written storytelling doesn't *do* anything unless the reader invests him/herself in the experience. Therefore, inevitably, the reader's mind provides much of the content of written storytelling. As a result, the reader can see ambiguity where the writer intended clarity; or, conversely, see simplicity where the writer intended complexity. But there's nothing wrong (or "incorrect") about that. The reader's experience of a book is inherently valid--for that specific reader.
  
  So it seems to me that readers, not writers, are always "the ultimate arbiters and interpreters" of the work. Why else do you suppose that we still read Dickens, but we don't read Galsworthy? The answer is certainly not that Dickens had a higher opinion of his work than Galsworthy had of *his*. In fact, if Galsworthy were any kind of "ultimate arbiter and interpreter," we probably wouldn't read anything else.
  
  (06/09/2010)

[dlbpharmd]

I'm still pondering this q&a. Vain certainly seemed sentient to me.

[Relayer]

I agree with you, that Vain is sentient. But I think the point is the words "fully functioning." It's more like he's programmed with a purpose, and some amount of leeway in how he can follow that programming. But he doesn't have *free will* -- in the way that the concept of the Necessity of Freedom manifests in the story. As such, he is a tool, and can't decide *not* to be part of the Staff, can't decide to head off to the great desert to fulfill our Nom vs. Vain fantasy, etc.

[Solar]

I submitted a question to the GI, and SRD sent me a private response. His answer was RAFO, and he said that 'RAFO' was more of a spoiler than he was willing to make public (hence his private reply).

So now I'm stuck with a vague spoiler that nobody knows about but me, and I can't tell anyone about it without betraying SRD's trust.

...Does this happen often?

[wayfriend]

Yes, I agree, Relayer. The reason Vain was unresponsive for the most part was that he just wasn't fully sentient - in fact, I would go so far as to say that the unresponsiveness was intended to convey that point.

What is interesting to me in SRD's answer is how Vain responds differently to Covenant than to Linden. Vain needs Linden; Vain doesn't need Covenant, although he needs the white gold.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I submitted a question to the GI, and SRD sent me a private response. His answer was RAFO, and he said that 'RAFO' was more of a spoiler than he was willing to make public (hence his private reply).

So now I'm stuck with a vague spoiler that nobody knows about but me, and I can't tell anyone about it without betraying SRD's trust.

...Does this happen often?

It does to me.
My Great Aunt has a letter form Tolkien where he answers her questions about whether or not Balrogs literally have wings.
She let me read it on the condition that if I tell anyone she cuts me out of her *considerable* will.
So, until she passes away I keep my mouth shut.