October 14 should be reasonably accurate. 496 pages is just an approximation. I'll be surprised if it isn't longer. Yes, a summary of the previous books (affectionately [?] known as WHGB, What Has Gone Before) will be included. It is entirely different than the summaries in the previous books. And yes, there will be maps--although they may not be quite what you're expecting. No "author's note": I hate writing such things almost as intensely as I hated writing WHGB. (05/29/2004)

I think you're giving me too much credit. "I needed him" sounds to me like the kind of answer I give when I'm too tired to actively think about the question. <grin> Still, I'm glad you found my reply useful. If I haven't said so already, I should state clearly that I don't think the "Chronicles" would exist *at all* if LOTR had not been both written and published first. As I've said, Tolkien brought an entire genre back into being. I don't think I could have done that for myself. And Tolkien (importantly aided by his publishers, Ian and Betty Ballantine) also created an entire market, which I certainly could not have done for myself. Just to give you a hint of how deep Tolkien's "enablement" of my work runs: Ian and Betty Ballantine founded Ballantine Books and made LOTR successful; they hired Lin Carter to follow Tolkien's success with his "Adult Fantasy Series"; when Carter's series failed miserably--for obvious reasons--the Ballantines replaced him with Judy-Lynn del Rey; Judy-Lynn then hired her husband, Lester del Rey, to handle fantasy while she edited science fiction; and Lester discovered *me*--but not before first publishing "The Sword of Shannara," which was the first book to follow Tolkien's success, well, successfully (and which was, not coincidentally, a direct Tolkien ripoff). In more ways than one, LOTR literally made what I do possible. (06/01/2004)

Sorry, no, I've never read--or even heard of--Elaine Scarry's book. And no, I didn't do any particular study of psychological hermaphroditism before or while I worked with Davies Hyland. (Perhaps I should have. Then he might not head the list of characters who have reason to complain about me.) But irony comes naturally to me. I don't have to force myself to generate ironies and paradoxes--but occasionally I do have to force myself to *not* generate them (close personal relationships don't always function well on a steady diet of irony). Sigourney Weaver would be good at Sorus Chatelaine--but she would also handle Min Donner well. Personally, I would prefer Anthony Hopkins for Vector Shaheed--that is, if he refuses to play Warden Dios. I think there are several black actors who would be good at Dolph Ubikwe--but the names I want have suddenly fallen out of my head (except for the always stellar Morgan Fairchild). And of course who but Vin Diesel could play Angus? (06/02/2004)

Yes, I did have an exTREMEly rudimentary map for "Mordant's Need." I drew it myself--and if you knew how I draw, you would know that no more need be said. Of course, DEL REY/Ballantine would have had the thing redrawn by a professional, if I had considered it appropriate. But my editor felt it was unnecessary. And I had my own complex reasons for withholding it. The vastly simplified explanation: unlike "Covenant," where the Land is at least a much a character as Mhoram or Foamfollower or Covenant himself, "Mordant's Need" is not about the world in which it takes place. I withheld my map because I didn't want to distract attention from the characters. (Incidentally, this also explains many of the *other* differences between the "Chronicles" and "Mordant's Need".) I'm confident that I never actually threw away that map. On the other hand, I sure can't find it now. Sorry about that. (06/02/2004)

No, I had to plan the geography and draw the map as part of my preparation to write the story. I can't think spatially at all. Questions like, say, how long would it take Troy's army to march from Revelwood to Doom's Retreat? would have been impossible for me to answer without a map. Just *think* of the narrative logistics involved in having the opposing armies reach Doom's Retreat almost simultaneously, and then having Covenant arrive at Gallows Howe while Mhoram et al are there. (06/11/2004)

Well, I hope I can justify your high expectations. There's nothing like pressure.... <grin> Your questions. 1) Yes, King Joyse's domain--Orison and its immediate environs--is the "missing" Care. Except to the extent that the whole of Mordant is Joyse's Care. 2) And yes, the changes in what Geraden is able to accomplish indicate the maturation of his talent. 3) And yes yet again, I was very aware of the qualities and methods which Joyse and Warden Dios have in common. Although I wasn't conscious of it at the time, Joyse is--in a manner of speaking--a "trial run" for Warden. Much of the content of "Mordant's Need" was my first attempt at techniques, subjects, and themes which I explored much more deeply in the GAP books. Indeed, I could hardly have written the GAP books as I did if I hadn't first written "Mordant's Need." (06/16/2004)

I've already discussed the improbability that "The Atlas of the Land" will ever be reissued. But I can say with confidence that I will *never* create a "comprehensive appendix" (or any appendix) to go with the "Covenant" books. Never mind the fact that I hate doing that kind of writing. I don't have the requisite raw materials. My (extremely cryptic and rudimentary) notes get trashed as soon as I use them; so all I'm left with are the maps. Unless somehow this "gradual interview" counts as an appendix. <grin> It is certainly becoming long enough. No, "The Killing Stroke" was not set in the same fictional reality which includes the Land. And I won't fudge that story by trying to squeeze it in where it doesn't belong. But I do have two stories which I secretly hope will someday lead to novels: "The Killing Stroke" and "Penance." But I must hasten to add that at present I have no ideas which would enable me to take those stories further. (07/06/2004)

I've never tried to construct a map of the entire planet; but in my mind the land of the Bhrathair and the Sandgorgons is on a different continent than *the* Land. After all, any self-respecting planet has more than one desert. <grin> (07/09/2004)

Sorry, the best answer I can give you is the answer to the previous question. Instead of trying to become someone else, you need to trust who you are. (07/15/2004)

I fear you'll be disappointed by the maps in "Runes." They aren't in color; they are deliberately fragmentary (I have some extremely self-serving reasons for doing this); and I don't particularly care for the style (I can't draw usable maps myself, so I'm pretty much forced to rely on "artist's interpretations" of my rough sketches; and time constraints have prevented me from negotiating maps which I might consider ideal). On top of all that, the Land itself isn't exactly prone to cities. But I hope you'll find the story worth reading anyway. (08/15/2004)

My experience with "Runes" this year is quite atypical. Typically publication occurs 12-18 months after delivery and acceptance (what we call D&A) of a final manuscript. The process takes so long because there are so many different things that have to be done: cover art commissioned and painted; advertising designed (which usually can't happen until after the cover art and design is complete; but magazines typically require 3 months of lead time to run an ad); promotional campaigns planned and executed; copyediting on the manuscript; proofreading on the manuscript (a very distinct process from copyediting, but both take time, and the author needs to double-check both separately); contracts and schedules with printers negotiated; maps prepared (in my case, anyway). And I'm sure I've left out a number of details. The preparation of "Runes" has been cruel because 12-18 months of work--for everyone involved--has been squeezed into 6. And that was only possible because the book was rushed to D&A (I was required to do a 6 months rewrite in less than 3). So don't judge what normally happens in publishing by "Runes". As it happens, my US publisher has had finished copies of the book arriving in their warehouse from the bindery for nearly 10 days now. And books may very well start to appear in bookstores by early October. My UK publisher is running about a week behind the US schedule. (09/18/2004)

We're wandering outside the text here, so this is dangerous ground. But I'm willing to hazard a few observations. First, there is nothing about being a seafaring people that requires either maps or written language. Polynesian sailors a very long time ago found their way east as far as Pitcairn Island and north as far as Hawaii (vast stretches of ocean)--and returned home--and there is no record that they possessed anything like maps. As far as I've been able to learn, they navigated by an extremely close observation of their surroundings, by expanding their reach in small increments--and by telling the story (sharing knowledge orally). As for how the Giants could become lost: well, history doesn't record how many Polynesian sailors--or Vikings, for that matter--were lost on their journeys; but the distances they covered successfully, while vast, were small compared to the overall size of the planet and its oceans. And they didn't have to cope with navigational hazards like the Soulbiter. (Even in our mundane world, the Bermuda Triangle demonstrates that "getting lost" can have a wide variety of meanings.) Sure, I know that in the original "Chronicles" references are made to visits to such place as the lands of the Elohim and Bhrathair: places which the later Giants clearly know how to find in "The Second Chronicles." But you might want to consider how completely disorienting it could be to get caught in the Soulbiter, only to emerge a continent or two and several oceans away from familiar seas. Especially keeping in mind that the Unhomed admit how reckless their explorations were. (And we won't even mention how notoriously fickle even mundane oceans and weather can be.) (10/14/2004)

I think I've been over this; but I'll risk repeating myself for the sake of clarity. "The Runes of the Earth" was published in a tremendous rush--by both my US and UK publishers. I finished work on the book in mid-April, 2004, and books have already been in the stores for a couple of weeks. That's six months for a job that usually takes 12-15. As a result, all of the normal chores of preparing a book--copy-editing, proofreading, designing maps, approving cover-copy (not to mention art)--had to be squeezed into a painfully short period of time. Twice. AND my US publisher asked me to autograph 7500 copies in advance. AND my UK publisher asked me to sign 1000 copies in advance. AND I've been asked to do perhaps 30 times as much advance promotional work as ever before in my career. AND I have to do book tours in both the US and the UK. The result? I've made *no* physical progress on "Fatal Revenant." I've had no TIME. (11/05/2004)

Well, it's true that I do think of time as being linear. That fits my own experience of life. It fits the way I think. It fits the form of communication through which my stories and their ideas are conveyed. And I'm writing fantasy here, not science fiction: I don't need to include quantum mechanics in my portrayal of time. But none of that means that I actually understand your question. How did you get from "time is linear" to "therefore there is no free will"? Perhaps the problem lies in how we're conceptualizing the Arch. I grant you that the word "Arch" suggests a created beginning and a (perhaps simultaneously) created end connected by a (once again, perhaps simultaneously) created sequence of events. If that's the source of the confusion, then it's my fault for not thinking of a better term than "Arch." My own conceptualization of the Arch of Time does not contain *anything* that is predetermined. Rather, as I tried to explain throughout "Runes," I see the Arch as the (admittedly linear) system of rules--e.g. cause and effect, sequence, linearity itself--which makes it possible for life (as I understand it) to exist; which makes it possible for human beings to think, feel, choose, and experience consequences. In *my* conceptualization, when the Creator created the Arch, he/she/it did not create a closed system in which everything has already been determined, but rather an open-ended *process* both enabled and constrained by a variety of *rules*, a process in which anything can happen as long as it doesn't break the rules (because breaking the rules destroys the process); and even breaking the rules can happen--as long as the being breaking the rules doesn't mind destroying the process. Hence free will. Hence the importance of making choices. Hence the significance of, say, Covenant's and Linden's efforts to determine the meaning of their own lives. Or here's another way to look at it. Think of the Arch as being "under construction" according to the rules of its original design; rules which guide *how* the Arch is constructed, but which do not determine the *shape* taken by the Arch as it is constructed. If the rules are broken, the Arch will collapse; but as long as the rules remain intact, the specific structure being built is determined by the on-going choices and actions of those individuals whose existence is made possible by the rules. Does that help? (02/05/2005)

Sorry, I don't own any Legos myself--and wouldn't have the patience to work with them if I did <grin>. Apart from "The Atlas of the Land" (long out of print), I have no "existing artwork, maps, or anything" that haven't already been published in the various "Covenant" books--although I intend to prepare a new map for "Fatal Revenant." (05/12/2005)

<sigh> This question keeps coming up in various forms. And I keep making the same points. The apparently intricate and even implausible planning (in the GAP books and "Mordant's Need" as well as in "Covenant") doesn't require prescience; or the ability to control as well as foresee distant events; or any other impossible combination of qualities or developments. I call it "open-ended plotting," and all it requires is imagination, some insight into character, and a willingness to rely on many gambits (and possibilities) instead of just one. But first we should distinguish between the first Covenant trilogy and the other stories. There events revolve primarily around brute force, and are in consequence comparatively simple. Lord Foul doesn't *need* Pietten to grow up and betray the Ranyhyn, Covenant, etc. The poor guy is really just an exercise in gratuitous malice. All Lord Foul *needs* is enough muscle to exterminate the Lords--and enough understanding of Covenant to grasp (and exascerbate) his vulnerability to the destructive effects of despair. Matters are of course much more complex in "The Second Chronicles." There Lord Foul has, in essence, given up any form of direct action: now he's all about manipulation. But his plans are nowhere near as fragile as you suppose. Really, the only way he can possibly fail is by misjudging Covenant's character--or Linden's. Just a couple of examples. 1) So what if Covenant gets exposed to the Sunbane? So much the better. What's going to restrain a monstrous and completely insane white gold wielder from smashing the Arch? 2) So what if Covenant gets killed during the Quest? Linden just takes the ring, and the beat goes on. And if they both get killed, someone else takes the ring. (We all know from reading LOTR that such powers always end up in *someone's* hands.) Admittedly that would make Lord Foul's position a bit messier. But he'll just go to work on whoever ends up with the ring--and the Sunbane will continue--and he's no worse off than he was before. Of *course* I'm aware of all the possibilities that Lord Foul (and others like him) are juggling. I work very hard to make sure that the only way he can possibly lose is by committing errors in his evaluation of character. In other words, Lord Foul only loses because people like Covenant and Linden rise above the weaknesses that he sees in them. As for Findail and the Elohim Plan A: they haven't shown much sign that they even care about the Sunbane; so why should they bother to have a plan? (And if they ever decided that they did care about the Sunbane, they would simply Appoint one among them to stop the Clave and the Banefire: as simple and perilous a task as preserving the dying sentience of the One Forest.) No, Findail and the Elohim Plan A are all about white gold. Their Plan A is that Linden has the ring. In that case, they see nothing to concern them. They only have a problem because *Covenant* has the ring. And he's full of venom, which makes him--among other dangers--a good candidate to rouse the Worm. My point--which I hope I can stop making--is that all of these plans (Lord Foul's, King Joyse's, Master Eremis', Holt Fasner's, and Warden Dios', not to mention those of Covenant's Dead) aren't fragile at all. They're practically inevitable--IF the characters of the primary players have been accurately judged. (07/01/2005)

(Note to general readers of the GI: No, I'm not dead. <grin> Life has just been very complicated recently.) 1) Perhaps I should have been more clear in "What Makes Us Human". (We always leave out the things that are obvious to us.) I was referring to imagination and love: the imagination which enables Temple and Gracias to use their technology in ways which the machines could not have anticipated; and the love (for their own kind as well as for each other) which empowers them to take really extreme risks. I doubt that any kind of machine logic would have arrived at Temple's and Gracias' decisions and actions. 2) For the purposes of the story, Alend and Cadwal are both effectively bigger than Mordant. By which I mean two things. a) My own very rudimentary map of the region gave Alend no northern border and Cadwal no southern one because the story didn't need those details. So there's no theoretical reason why those nations couldn't be comparatively vast. b) I wanted Mordant to be physically vulnerable and strategically critical. It is the buffer which prevents far worse wars from breaking out; the keystone of peace--assuming that King Joyse can preserve it intact. Personally, I don't think of Mordant as *small*, but I do consider it smaller than its neighbors. (07/16/2005)

I used only "detail" maps for "Runes" because I was badly pressed for time and a full map of the Land wasn't strictly necessary for the story. If nothing goes wrong, however, I intend to supply a full map with "Fatal Revenant." Not of the whole Earth, I hasten to add: just of the Land. (07/27/2005)

I've just posted a comment or two about maps, so I won't repeat myself. Quite some time ago, actually, the orginal maps for the first "Covenant" trilogy were re-drawn, in part to increase legibility, and in part to facilitate making the changes necessary for "The Second Chronicles." I was a willing participant in this process. To my eye, however, the increase in legibility entailed a loss of precision (e.g. where, exactly, is Gallows Howe?). And my publishers, especially in the UK, were extremely sloppy about applying the changes (the death of all the forests west of Landsdrop) to "The Second Chronicles." I don't like the maps in "Runes" stylistically; and they're also inaccurate (we were extremely pressed for time, and the artist refused to heed my corrections). I hope my publishers and I can do better for "Fatal Revenant." I spent quite a bit of time with Karen Fonstad when she was preparing her "Atlas". The results are as close to literal accuracy as possible, considering that I'm not a visual person. (07/27/2005)

Today seems to be my day for maps.... As it happens, "The Atlas of the Land" went out of print a very long time ago (for the obvious reason: poor sales). And I don't think we'll ever see its like again. I'm just not that popular. Which is pretty easy to understand, considering the demands that my books make of their readers. (07/27/2005)

Setting aside the issue of maps for a moment.... There are a couple of issues involved in my visual descriptions. First, as I keep saying, I'm not a visual person. I "see" with words. In other words, I don't have a visual in my mind which I then translate into words. Rather I think of words which then evoke visuals. I see scenes and characters because I have described them rather than the other way around. So what you get in the text is pretty much all there is. If I were to sit down with an extremely gifted and intuitive artist and suffer over it for hours, I still wouldn't be able to show you what's in my head. What's in my head is words. But within that context, I do emphasize certain kinds of descriptive words and de-emphasize others because I'm not interested in literal "accuracy" (which doesn't exist anyway because I don't have visuals in my head): I'm interested in the power of words to evoke emotional and imaginative reactions. I figure if I can engage the reader's emotions and imagination, the reader will create his/her own visuals (which will be far more effective than any literal description). In short, you're never going to see the kind of visual representations you're looking for. Sorry about that. (But if you're just *dying* for something literal, look at the Holt cover art for "The Power that Preserves" on this site: there you'll see a mundane, unevocative, but fairly accurate image of Revelstone.) Maps are a different problem. (And there's nothing anyone can do about the difficulties caused by spreading the maps over two pages: detail will always be lost in the crease. Squeezing the map down onto one page would make it virtually unreadable.) The original "Covenant" maps were exactly what I wanted--and I didn't try to be precise about things like exACTly where Mithil Stonedown is because I didn't care: all I wanted to convey was a general idea of where things are in relation to each other. Unfortunately, the maps in "The Runes of the Earth" are *not* what I wanted. They were produced in an atrocious hurry; I don't like the style; and the artist and I had no effective way of communicating with each other. Perhaps the situation will improve with "Fatal Revenant." I hope that I'll be able to work with a professional who will take the original "Covenant" map and elaborate on it according to my specifications. But I don't have the clout (i.e. my books don't sell well enough) to make any promises. (08/08/2005)

I've already discussed this at some length. But it's been a long time; so briefly.... I don't know what a "story mapping tool" is, but I certainly don't have one. I have mountains of notes, which I deliberately keep disorganized (so that when I want something specific I have to refresh my memory of all my notes). I re-read (and rewrite) a LOT. I work from heavily annotated copies of the first six books. I write out Q&As for myself. When all else fails, I'm fairly clever about finding creative uses for apparent inconsistencies. And I have diligent readers who help me watch for authorial screwups before my books get published. (Editors and copy-editors used to do this sort of thing; but now they simply don't have the time. However, they contribute generously by allowing me to make corrections *after* books are published--which they are *not* required to do.) (08/08/2005)

<sigh> There's a trouble-maker in every crowd.... I don't try "to fuse Eastern Mysticism with the Western Religious traditions" because I don't hold with either of them. I just glean nuggets wherever I can; and the result is an undifferentiated mish-mash with which I'm quite comfortable. Do I believe in "real magick"? I can't answer that until you define "real" and "magick". (This is *your* question. I'm not going to do all the work for you. <grin>) But I'll tell you this: I never have to look very far to find evidence of transcendence. (12/21/2005)

"Central Hills Close" and "Hidden Valley" don't ring any bells at the moment. (Which doesn't mean much: my memory is cheese.) "Llurallin River" is on the map. Other locations I have deliberately left unspecified, in part to avoid visual clutter, and in part because the exact locations are unnecessary to the story. (02/15/2006)

Yes, I do work from a map, a hand-drawn, entirely personal, and virtually illegible design which as far as I'm concerned is the only *accurate* map. The published maps in their various manifestations have all been derived from *my* map, but right from the start they've introduced any number of errors. At the moment, I can't remember what's in "The Atlas of the Land" (and I'm far from home, so I can't check it), but every other published map of the Land has been at best a loose approximation. I've put an enormous amount of effort into trying to correct this problem for "Fatal Revenant." But in the end I can't control what gets published. The artists my publishers work with (since I'm genuinely incapable of producing a publishable map myself) typically disregard my explicit instructions. If I had the time--which I do not--I would hunt down an artist myself and work with him/her to create exactly what I want. Certainly my publishers would be grateful if I took this problem off their hands. However, that's further than I'm willing to go. I need my time for writing. (03/17/2006)

I'm glad you like "The Man Who" books. You're right: they would be much easier to make into movies than "Covenant". But then, almost everything I've written would be easier than "Covenant".... <sigh> I think you're making too much of a meal out of why the Ravers serve LF. In the real world, as we all know, people who *hate* are perfectly willing to nuke anyone, even their natural allies. Change the skin tone, or the accent, or the pagination of the holy texts, and EVERYONE is an enemy. But "Covenant" is fiction; and in fiction--especially in fantasy--writers are allowed (even expected) to concentrate their themes in ways which aren't always literally realistic. Certainly in fantasy, like attracts like. Giants are drawn to Lords. Ravers are drawn to the Despiser. And remember, LF's only *known* power is his ability to influence minds; to make other people and beings do his dirty work. Directing the energies of souls which are already full of hate (like the Ravers)? Piece of cake. Or perhaps I should say, Radial segment of baked confection. <grin> (04/26/2006)

1) No, the map I was referring to is a map of the Land. "Established" or not, the published versions of the "Covenant" maps have always been full of inaccuracies. Not being a visual person, I've just tried not to worry about that. After all, the general shape of the place *is* accurate. But since the rights to the old map belong to DEL REY/Ballantine, my new publishers naturally want a map of their own. Since I have to start from scratch anyway, I really want to get it right this time. 2) I'm not willing to "tease" people with my progress on "Fatal Revenant". Definitive information, when there is any, is posted promptly in the "news" section of this site. (05/03/2006)

1) Lovecraft's work doesn't appeal to me. As to the sentences you quote: in my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there is less to them than meets the eye. If "Any great and lasting book must be ambiguous," then I guess we'll have to forget a lot of Shakespeare. Ambiguity is only one of many possible creative tools/goals. It has no inherent value: its importance depends upon the skill, intelligence, purposes, and talent of the writer who deploys it. And that second sentence: what does that even *mean*? I grant you that the best writers don't go around trumpeting the "significance" of their work. That kind of ego is almost always a symptom of mediocrity. The best writers concentrate on the story at hand: they let "significance" take care of itself. (They also let story-as-mirror take care of itself.) But that is not at all the same thing as "must seem to be unaware of the significance". One of the qualities that I treasure in great books is that the authors know what they're doing: the authors as well as the stories have a clear sense of purpose. 2) So far, my favorite aspect of "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen" is the emergence of Quick Ben and Captain Paran as major players. But in my opinion the most *powerful* installment so far is "Memories of Ice". Just opinions, folks. Take them for what they're worth. (07/08/2006)

As I've said many times, if I don't know how a story ends, I can't tell it at all. The ending is my reason for telling the story. Once I know the ending, I plan backward (sometimes vaguely) until I reach a viable starting point. But that doesn't mean I "flesh out" the conclusion before I do anything else. Far from it. My sense of an "ending" involves some sort of intersection between ideas, events, and emotions; but I make no attempt whatsoever to "pin it down," to make it concrete or tangible. All it has to do is feel important and, well, "real" to me. After that, I write "in [exactly] the same manner [as] the story unfolds": I experience the story along with my characters. In my case, however, this process doesn't "change" the story as I go: it "gives definition" to the story as I go. I "flesh out" the specifics of my conclusion only when I'm intimately familiar with all of the processes which lead to and enable that conclusion. (08/09/2006)

As with the martial arts, I'm totally eclectic about psychology. I want to expose myself to as many different approaches as possible; take what works for me and let the rest go. And although I enjoy theory, I'm really an empiricist: I latch onto anything that sheds light for me, and I discard the rest. Of course, I have opinions. Who doesn't? I think that Shotokan is a good place to start the martial arts because it provides a flexible foundation that adapts easily to other approaches. In the same way, you could say that I "believe in" Cognitive Therapy. But what I *really* believe is that it isn't about the style (or the theory): it's about the relationship between the guide and the student. Styles--and theories--that shed no light for me can be vividly illuminating for other people. In particular, creating characters is *not* about theory. I never apply any form of analytic construct to my characters. I think about their circumstances, I think about the "vibe" that my POV character gets from them, and I try to put myself in their shoes, experience what it's like to be them. (With a POV character, of course, it's a bit more complicated. But I can still pick up a "vibe" by watching how they interact with other characters.) And I *learn*: I get to know them as the story goes along, so that when I rewrite they become more real. (That, incidentally, is the biggest single difference between my first and last drafts of a story: the characters come into better focus as I rewrite.) It goes without saying, I think, that anything which sheds light for me improves my ability to create characters. (09/07/2006)

The Land is a region on a globe in the same way that, say, Greece is region on a globe. The Land happens to be isolated on every side, the sea to the east and rugged mountains everywhere else. But if you go through the mountains, as the Ramen do with the Ranyhyn, you come to other lands. Well, I designed the Land that way for a variety of reasons, one of which was to make it a metaphorical arena. A place where the same issues that confront people everywhere are *concentrated*: a place where--in a manner of speaking--Earthpower flows much closer to the surface of reality. (Hence the name "*the* Land," as if it were the only place that matters.) That's why it's possible to get out from under the Sunbane. Or from under Kevin's Dirt. I haven't provided maps for any other regions of the globe because they aren't necessary to the story I'm trying to tell. (11/11/2006)

I'm sure I've mentioned elsewhere that working on a particular books never seems to end: it just dribbles away. There's the map for "Fatal Revenant" to consider (always a painful process because the people who draw maps punish me for requesting corrections by introducing new inaccuracies). Both my US and my UK publishers will send me copy-edited copies of the text, which I will have to go over meticulously. (Copy-editors delight in destroying my prose, my meaning, and even--occasionally--my characters.) Later both publishers will send me new copies for proof-reading. Both will want my help with things like cover copy. Both will want my input on cover art. Both will try to orchestrate as many interviews as they can: always an arduous process. Both will probably ask me to sign several thousand advance copies. Both may wish me to go on book tours. And as if that isn't enough, I proof-read my books after they're released in hardcover, looking more for internal inconsistencies than for typos (although there are always typos) so that the paperback will represent the best possible version of my intentions. What with one thing and another, getting started on Covenant 9 won't be easy. (02/28/2007)

I'm afraid that I can't give you a satisfactory answer. I don't write the kind of fantasy that can be readily quantified. (The top speed of a Ranyhyn is X mph. A Giant like Foamfollower can lift Y pounds. The Haruchai are Z strong compared to the Giants. How many foot-pounds of force can Mhoram exert with his staff?) Clearly there *is* a significant distance-limit to the mental communication of the Haruchai. But what's their actual range? A hundred yards? A quarter of a mile? A mile? More? I just don't think in those terms. (Critics have pointed out--to my chagrin--that I also don't think effectively in those terms when I'm writing science fiction. <sigh>) (Incidentally, this is why I work from an explicit map when I'm working on the "Chronicles". I *do* want the distances to make sense.) But if you'd like a rough guestimate: the mental range of the Haruchai is probably less than a stone's throw for a Giant. (How's that for a non-answer?) btw, your thoughts on Kevin's Dirt make sense to me. (04/12/2007)

Well, lessee. The editor who discovered me, Lester del Rey, was (duh) male--and unalterably opposed to the whole idea of a female lead character in a story like "The Second Chronicles" (although he didn't object to Terisa Morgan in "Mordant's Need"). His stated position was (and I swear I'm not making this up), "You can't have a 'Tarzan' book with Jane as the main character." If the president of Ballantine Books had backed him up, I would have been out on the street (metaphorically) with "The One Tree," even though "The Wounded Land" was already in print. The original editor of "The Man Who Tried to Get Away" (a woman) took violent objection to Queenie Drayton's medical problems. If she had had her way, Ballantine would have kicked me out then and there, instead of when I started work on the GAP books. When my agent went looking for a publisher for "The Last Chronicles," the sf/f editor at Ballantine (a woman) wasn't interested, apparently because she prefers fantasy that feels more like science fiction. My point--if I have one--is that women are (double duh) people too. They come in all varieties. Working with an editor who happens to be a woman is a function of personality rather than of gender. Or of age. In my experience. Thanks for your map offer. Fortunately my publishers have finally achieved a map that pleases me for "Fatal Revenant". I consider it a real breakthrough. (05/10/2007)

Thank you for sharing this. The way things look to you is not the way things look to me--but that's not important. What I like best in your efforts is your ability to make these places look alive. (03/22/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

I’ve never tried to provide meticulously explicit maps for the “Covenant” books. There just isn’t room for all the names and labels I might want to put in. But I’ve always assumed that when the Black and Mithil Rivers meet, the resulting river is also called the Mithil, not the Black (simply because the reasons for its name are no longer apparent). So the river that Covenant crosses into Andelain in “The Wounded Land” *is* the Mithil. (04/10/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

This question has been hidden since it is listed in the following categories:

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

You can choose to bypass this warning in the future, and always have spoilers visible, by changing your preferences in the Options screen.

When I was forced to use a pseudonym for my first three mystery novels, I chose a name that reminded me of mine. "Reed Stephens" is based on "Stephen Reeder Donaldson." But I'm proud of my work, and I've always wanted to put my real name on it. As for your second question, I'm afraid you'll have to RAFO (read and find out). Certain places recur because they must: Kevin's Watch, Revelstone, Andelain, Mount Thunder, Sarangrave Flat. In other situations, I try to avoid repeating myself. (09/04/2010)

Look at the issue from a different perspective. How could I sustain, even briefly, the internal integrity of Covenant's Unbelief if he couldn't even talk to the people he meets? If the whole experience is a form of hallucination, which he desperately strives to believe--if it's all being generated inside his own failing mind--then *of course* everyone else speaks his language. What else could they possibly speak? (Obviously "inhuman creatures" like the Waynhim and ur-viles are a different case. Since they represent alien concepts in Covenant's thinking, he wouldn't *expect* to understand them.) (10/25/2010)

Actually, I did work from a rough map (which, btw, I no longer possess) while I was writing. But I had quite a list of reasons for not including it with the published text. E.g. I wanted to teach myself not to rely on the descriptive "shorthand" of a map. That was a salutary narrative exercise. However, the main reason--the *main* reason--was that I wanted to do everything in my power to STAY AWAY from the prior example of the "Covenant" books. I did *not* want "Mordant's Need" to look or feel or even smell like More Of The Same. That's why so many of the world-building details are--for lack of a better term--more "conventional" than they are in "Covenant." That's why the world is "flatter" (more mundane), and the magic is more mechanical. I wanted to get away from "archetypal" fantasy and write a more "human-centered" kind of fantasy (as I called it at the time). In retrospect, I like to think that was an important and necessary step in my growth as a writer. It certainly helped prepare me for the GAP books. (10/25/2010)