Kevin's Watch

wayfriend wrote:

Seareach wrote:Yes, that's the Caligula cover

I guess I don't see Caligula in that cover. Is it because he's dressed in a toga? Or is it because the man pictured is holding is hands like he's mad at his hairdresser?

Michael from Santa Fe: In answer to a question a few years ago you said:

"Obviously you've never tasted my cooking."

Do you like to cook? And if so, what is your favorite dish to make?

I hate to cook, so I only do it under duress. My favorite dish to cook is "hamburger surprise" (officially called "Stephen R. Donaldson's Imponderable Hamburger Surprise") because even I don't know what's going to be in it.

(07/26/2010)

John : Steve,

We all know that when you wrote the first chronicles you had no plans for the next two. At the end of TPTP the Staff of Law was destroyed. So my question is did you originally intend to mean that the Land did not need the Staff? I know this is asking you to reach back in decades to other thoughs, but at the end of the first chronicles was your intent that the Land would eventually be whole without the Staff to support Law, considering you had no plans for two more chronicles?

Thanks for your Time!

John

This is simple. The Land existed for ages without the benefit of a Staff of Law. Berek created his Staff in response to a terrible threat. With that threat (Lord Foul) removed, no one at the time had any reason to think that the world wouldn't go back to being fine without the Staff.

(08/18/2010)

Mark Powis: Dear Dr. Donaldson: I regret to inform you that the text of AATE appears to have been illegally leaked to the public. I myself haven't seen or found it, but judging from the newest discussion thread at Kevins Watch, it *is* available for public consuumption. Even though I haven't seen it myself, the comments in the aforementioned new thread CLEARLY indicate that people are reading / have read the book. Automatically I assumed you would wish to be made aware of the situation. Personally, I refuse to read it "early" for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the truly genuine respect I have for you as an author. In my opinion, anyone reading AATE for free on the Web is guilty of theft of intellectual property from you, theft of money from the publisher, recieveing & possessing stolen property.....well, you get the idea. And last but not least: Don't these people realize how badly they're cheating themselves? It's like sneaking under the Christmas tree as a child, carefully peeling back the wrapping paper, and finding out early what your present is. Kinda took a lot of the fun out of Christmas morning when I did that. By the same emotional token, I choose to preserve the joy of holding the book in my hands for the first time, and the almost sexually aroused (!!!) feeling I'll get as I slowly open the front cover for the first time, and begin reading. These people are cheating everyone! Starting with you, and next the publisher, and finally themselves! "Hear you all? You are foolish beyond all hope of redemption, and Steve's lawyers shall feast upon your very souls!".....Best Wishes ! The Spoony


I appreciate your concern. However, the situation you describe may not be what it appears to be. Here's a perfectly plausible scenario that does *not* mean the text has been "illegally leaked to the public." The publisher contracts with a printer to produce ARCs ("advance reading copies") which the publisher intends to distribute free to reviewers, book-buyers, and the like in an effort to create "buzz." Someone who works for the printer slips, say, 3 copies off the production line (in effect, stealing them from the publisher), takes them home, and immediately lists them for sale on eBay. Someone from Kevin's Watch buys one of them, and the discussion starts.

Well, if this is what happened, there are several sides to the story. 1) Personally, I find it reprehensible that someone stole a few copies from the publisher. But that isn't exactly the same thing as releasing the book to the public. 2) And someone else was always going to do the same thing anyway: reviewers are *forever* picking up some unearned money by selling their ARCs--and in fact there's nothing illegal about this (immoral, perhaps: illegal, no). 3) Meanwhile, I can't blame someone for buying a book on eBay. In particular, I can't blame anyone from Kevin's Watch. The people who belong to that virtual community have always "played fair" with me; and I have good reason to believe that the person or persons who bought ARCs will also buy "legitimate" copies when the time comes. So where's the harm?

My publishers certainly don't see any harm. As far as they are concerned, this is (almost) free advertising. The only "victim"--if there is one--is the poor person who paid too much for a book on eBay. And as far as *I* am concerned--well, like you, I wouldn't do it myself. I don't like to reward people (the sellers) who want money they haven't earned. But I can't honestly say that I feel damaged. And I don't think ill of the people who buy the books.

(09/05/2010)

Cameraman Jenn wrote:I just hope he doesn't think it was me. I have a copy but I would NEVER EVER sell it. It is precious to me. Nor would I discuss details of the writing on the watch.

dlbpharmd: There is currently a big debate on kevinswatch.com about the sale of the ARC for Runes on ebay. Would you mind sharing your thoughts and opinions about this?

I think it's "stealing," and I don't condone it. But we live in a society ruled by greed, and I know of no effective way to change "'our' core values." I'm told by those who know more than I do (agents and editors) that the vast majority of ARCs get sold to SOMEbody. Most of the sellers are just more discreet than our friend on eBay.

(06/23/2004)

Avatar wrote:It's so nice when he says nice things about us.

--A

Mark Powis: Dear Dr. Donaldson: I regret to inform you that the text of AATE appears to have been illegally leaked to the public. I myself haven't seen or found it, but judging from the newest discussion thread at Kevins Watch, it *is* available for public consuumption. Even though I haven't seen it myself, the comments in the aforementioned new thread CLEARLY indicate that people are reading / have read the book. Automatically I assumed you would wish to be made aware of the situation. Personally, I refuse to read it "early" for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the truly genuine respect I have for you as an author. In my opinion, anyone reading AATE for free on the Web is guilty of theft of intellectual property from you, theft of money from the publisher, recieveing & possessing stolen property.....well, you get the idea. And last but not least: Don't these people realize how badly they're cheating themselves? It's like sneaking under the Christmas tree as a child, carefully peeling back the wrapping paper, and finding out early what your present is. Kinda took a lot of the fun out of Christmas morning when I did that. By the same emotional token, I choose to preserve the joy of holding the book in my hands for the first time, and the almost sexually aroused (!!!) feeling I'll get as I slowly open the front cover for the first time, and begin reading. These people are cheating everyone! Starting with you, and next the publisher, and finally themselves! "Hear you all? You are foolish beyond all hope of redemption, and Steve's lawyers shall feast upon your very souls!".....Best Wishes ! The Spoony


I appreciate your concern. However, the situation you describe may not be what it appears to be. Here's a perfectly plausible scenario that does *not* mean the text has been "illegally leaked to the public." The publisher contracts with a printer to produce ARCs ("advance reading copies") which the publisher intends to distribute free to reviewers, book-buyers, and the like in an effort to create "buzz." Someone who works for the printer slips, say, 3 copies off the production line (in effect, stealing them from the publisher), takes them home, and immediately lists them for sale on eBay. Someone from Kevin's Watch buys one of them, and the discussion starts.

Well, if this is what happened, there are several sides to the story. 1) Personally, I find it reprehensible that someone stole a few copies from the publisher. But that isn't exactly the same thing as releasing the book to the public. 2) And someone else was always going to do the same thing anyway: reviewers are *forever* picking up some unearned money by selling their ARCs--and in fact there's nothing illegal about this (immoral, perhaps: illegal, no). 3) Meanwhile, I can't blame someone for buying a book on eBay. In particular, I can't blame anyone from Kevin's Watch. The people who belong to that virtual community have always "played fair" with me; and I have good reason to believe that the person or persons who bought ARCs will also buy "legitimate" copies when the time comes. So where's the harm?

My publishers certainly don't see any harm. As far as they are concerned, this is (almost) free advertising. The only "victim"--if there is one--is the poor person who paid too much for a book on eBay. And as far as *I* am concerned--well, like you, I wouldn't do it myself. I don't like to reward people (the sellers) who want money they haven't earned. But I can't honestly say that I feel damaged. And I don't think ill of the people who buy the books.

(09/05/2010)

Congratulations of the launch of AATE. I have a question about being a "rightful white gold wielder"... that is, why isn't Linden considered "rightful"?

Convenant essentially gave her the ring "granted out of love and necessity" if I remember correctly from WGW (which I imagine by design ambigiously could be referring both Linden or Covenant).

And, perhaps more importantly, spanning worlds Linden awoke with the ring in the palm of her hand. Unless you want us to believe that she unconciously took the ring, the ending of WGW implies of fundemental granting / gifting or transferance of the ring...not a temporary loan from the library or a leasing of a car, with payment for mileage over the prescribed terms.

What am I missing? Is it no more than merely the covenant of actual legally recognized marriage that marks both Covenant and Joan as rightful? Even as writing that sentence I have a hard time believing that that could be your underpinnings as what constitutes "rightful," especially when you spend so much time in your writing addressing issues of love one way or another.

Anyway, forgive the rant... it's mostly tongue-in-cheek... really just another one of your crazy fans who has been reading and enjoying your work since the early 80's.

Best,

Steve







I concede that all of this is at best ambiguous--and at worst impenetrable. Please don't think you're the only one who gets confused. (What? Moi?)

And I further concede that Covenant wanted Linden to claim his ring at the end of WGW. However she did it (unconsciously, one assumes), she was acting in accordance with his wishes. Or at least with his tacit approval.

But the brute fact is that Covenant *gave* the ring to Lord Foul. That made LF the "rightful" wielder of that ring. So he later dropped it. So Linden picked it up. So what? The point is that she *took* it. It wasn't *given* to her. It wasn't even *surrendered* to her.

And Covenant certainly didn't *marry* her with it. That's an important distinction, even if its import is more symbolic than literal.

aliantha wrote:Well, isn't *this* a nice kettle of fish! At the end of AATE,

Spoiler

Linden's got a ring that nobody gave *her*, and Covenant's got a ring that nobody gave *him*. Neither one of them is a rightful white gold wielder.

I sure hope SRD plans to fix this in the next book!

Alan Lantz: 33 or so years is a long time to write on the same series of books. I have read these so many times throughout the years Covenant seems more real than fiction. Do you ever re-read them and wish you would have written them differently? Perhaps even with different outcomes or different characters?

Hmm. Never with different outcomes or characters. (I believe in what I've done.) But often with better narrative skills (especially organizational skills: parts of the first and second trilogies are poorly organized even though they're written well enough).

(What? You want *details*? You want to know what I'm actually talking about? <sigh> Well, look, for example, at those portions of TIW and TWL where the main characters take separate paths. In retrospect, I don't like the way those paths are laid out. They result in--for me, at least--unsatisfying reconnections.)

(12/29/2010)

dlbpharmd wrote:

Alan Lantz: 33 or so years is a long time to write on the same series of books. I have read these so many times throughout the years Covenant seems more real than fiction. Do you ever re-read them and wish you would have written them differently? Perhaps even with different outcomes or different characters?

Hmm. Never with different outcomes or characters. (I believe in what I've done.) But often with better narrative skills (especially organizational skills: parts of the first and second trilogies are poorly organized even though they're written well enough).

(What? You want *details*? You want to know what I'm actually talking about? <sigh> Well, look, for example, at those portions of TIW and TWL where the main characters take separate paths. In retrospect, I don't like the way those paths are laid out. They result in--for me, at least--unsatisfying reconnections.)

(12/29/2010)