<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)

Well, if I could explain how the human imagination works, I would be a *whole* lot wiser than I am right now. <grin> As for the practical details behind the conception of the "Covenant" world, they've already been described at some length earlier in this interview (and elsewhere). On those occasions when I'm "out in public" (e.g. in the UK), I'm happy to talk about my work. But I don't see it in sociological terms, so I might have to do a fair amount of squirming. As I keep saying, I'm not a polemicist (in other words, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything), I'm a storyteller. And much--if not all--of the content of any story is in the eye of the beholder. I simply try to put all of my resources at the disposal of the story I happen to be telling. After that it's up to the reader. (07/01/2005)

If I may ask this respectfully: what would be the *point* of "giving something back fixed"? I mean the storytelling point: what would be left for the writer to write about? I realize that many major religions are predicated on the idea that God (or some other external force) is going to fix things for us. All we have to do is have faith. But I can't see how that makes sense. If we aren't responsible for the content of our own lives, why do we bother to live at all? On the other hand, *believing* that someone else is going to fix things for us can give rise to any number of storytelling possibilities. (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)

What can I say? I'm human, and sometimes things just don't work out as well as I wanted them to. Taken by itself, the text of "The Illearth War" seems defensible: the Lords' army is comparatively large, and will need a *lot* of fires for cooking, etc.; but the number of Hirebrands is comparatively small--and in any case how would an army in a forced march transport the amount of "prepared wood" that would be required? Sadly, this logic is rather vehemently undermined by Covenant's attitude in "The Wounded Land." <sigh> Still, I ask you to give me credit for this one point: Covenant was not present for the forced march in "The Illearth War." (07/19/2005)

I'm sorry to say such things because they sound so much like a cop-out <sigh>. But. Your analysis of Lord Foul's nature, position, and future options is something that I can only address when I've finished "The Last Chronicles." Until then, such matters fall ineluctably into the category of RAFO. Where Elena is concerned, however: I'm inclined to agree with you. By the time she reaches the EarthBlood, she has become (in part because of Covenant's underlying selfishness in his dealings with her) a person for whom no "correct" choice is possible. It's like that old joke: "You can't get there from here. You have to go somewhere else and start." (btw, it seems to me that much of life is like that.) But if she could have started somewhere else (i.e. if she had been a different person), she might have considered her problem in terms of "protection" rather than "attack". Perhaps the only valid use of Earthpower in her position would have been to strengthen beauty and Law against Despite rather than to weaken Law as an attack on Despite. Certainly I don't think that any "force native to the Land could have bested Lord Foul." (By the same logic, I don't believe that Lord Foul--unaided--is capable of breaking free of Time.) That's one reason why beauty and truth are so precious: they're fragile; and on a day-to-day basis unscrupulous despisers always have the advantage. Just try arguing with a nihilist, and you'll see what I mean. <grin> (07/19/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

OK, I'm not researching this. If you want to, please feel free. But as I recall, Linden was involved in healing more than one Giant aboard Starfare's Gem, one of each gender. But guess what? Even if you *are* mistaken, you *still* win a free vacation to the Land (gratuities not included). You can pick up your prize whenever you want it. Just close your eyes. <grin> (07/19/2005)

Dedicated readers of the GI--if any of them are left alive <grin>--can assure you that it contains lots of advice for writers. I'm not going to repeat myself, except to say: 1) Trust your own excitement. It's the only guide you have. 2) Never assume that what you wrote says what you meant. Your reader's mind is different than yours, and that difference must be taken into account. 3) You can learn more by studying what you love to read and what you hate to read than from all the writing classes that have ever been taught and all the how-to books that have ever been written--put together. P.S. Search the GI categories "Creative Process" and "Writing & Publishing Process." (07/19/2005)

My knee-jerk reaction to most theology is that there's less to it than meets the eye. Doubtless I feel this way because I was badly over-exposed to self-righteous religiosity when I was young. Nevertheless the rather driven theology of my parents is imprinted on my neurons, and there's no chance that I'll ever stop writing about it. In contrast, I suffer from a life-long fascination with psychology; and I like to believe that over the course of my writing life my portrayal of character has been thereby enriched. (And yes, I'm aware that at a certain point psychology becomes indistinguishable from theology--as well as from philosophy. But we all have to start somewhere. I choose to start with what happens to my characters--and why they care.) My parents were Presbyterian. Specifically United Presbyterian. (07/22/2005)

Actually, I've never been conscious of Covenant as an "American," and his specific nationality has never played a role in my thinking. On some unconscious level, I suppose I've always assumed that he was a US citizen (so is Mick Axbrewder). But I'm certainly not aware of giving him--or any of my characters--national characteristics. Perhaps this is because I don't feel fully identified with any particular country myself. Instead everywhere I go is just another occasion for culture-shock. <sigh> Going to India when I was four and returning when I was sixteen pretty much destroyed any personal sense of "homeland" that I might otherwise have felt. Which may, in some baroque fashion, explain why absolutely everything I write is fantasy (even my mystery novels)--in the sense that I can hardly write at all unless I create physical reality almost from scratch. (The exceptions are few, far between, and comparatively brief. Haven Farm is closely based on the place where I lived when I wrote the first Covenant trilogy. And the karate tournament in "The Man Who Fought Alone" matches actual tournaments that I've attended.) In that specific sense, even the GAP novels are fantasy. And all of my mystery novels take place in imaginary cities. (07/22/2005)

Both Lester and Judy-Lynn del Rey were good at recognizing talent. Among a number of notable writers, they discovered Tim Powers--and rescued Patricia A. McKillip from obscurity. (07/22/2005)

I'm posting this because the information seems valuable (many readers have asked about audio versions of my books), and because I was completely unaware of it myself until now. Thanks for letting me know! I hope your research will benefit readers who want--or need--to "listen" to books. (07/22/2005)

Yes, it would have been ideal to have the same editor (Jennifer Hershey) for all of "The Last Chronicles." In addition to the consistency issue, there's the fact that we already knew each other well: we worked together on the whole of the GAP cycle. But my new editor, Susan Allison, has an excellent reputation. *And* she is the paperback editor for "Runes," so she has already dealt with that book in detail. I see no reason to worry about the editorial future of the saga. (07/23/2005)

Thank you! I don't say that enough. If nothing else, the sheer scale of this gradual interview testifies to the fact that you are not alone: a fact which always humbles, sometimes intimidates, and occasionally out-right terrifies me. <grin> I really have no idea how I got so lucky. (07/24/2005)

This, as I think I've observed before, is common English usage: words in "foreign" languages are printed in italics. The implication in the "Chronicles" is that words like Haruchai, Elohim, croyel, and even Grim (as in the na-Mhoram's Grim) are drawn from languages "foreign" to the Land. And yes, I'm aware that the whole question of "foreign languages" can get us into some pretty turbulent waters, especially from a "world-building" perspective. All I can say in my own defense is that I chose not to spend (waste?) narrative space dealing with the vast problems caused by a need for translations. So for practical purposes, let's just say that "foreign" words tend to derive from "lost" languages; languages which were once used many millennia in the Land's--and the Earth's--past. (07/24/2005)

Tom Baker was a good Doctor and an excellent Puddleglum. In "Dr Who," however, I actually preferred the earnestness of Jon Pertwee and Peter Davidson, and the crackpot flamboyance of Colin Baker. Just my opinion. (07/24/2005)

I don't know what you mean by "the 'mediumistic' quality of [my] creative process." I've certainly never dreamed about any of my characters. In fact, the only (conscious) role that dreaming has ever played in my writing has been on those extremely rare occasions when I've dreamed the language I need to describe a particular event or scene. Will my characters die with me? Of course not. They will only die when the last reader who remembers them dies. (And even then one could argue that their influence lives on.) Examples abound. Shakespeare's Falstaff is certainly still alive. (07/24/2005)

I'm afraid it's just your imagination. I certainly never intended any physical resemblence between Covenant and myself--or consciously intended any other resemblence. Please keep in mind that the picture in "The Runes of the Earth" was taken more than 20 years *after* I started work on "Lord Foul's Bane." Back in those days I looked like I was still in high school. <grin> (07/24/2005)

Well, I'm completely flummoxed. a) While I was writing "Runes," I was consciously trying to tone down my (over)use of what I'll call Fancy Words. b) (and this is totally subjective) Apart from the word "scend," I can't think of a single Fancy Word in "Runes" which doesn't appear in at least one of the previous six "Covenant" books. c) My editors objected with polite urgency to the presence of *any* Fancy Words, so I pruned out a fair number during the revision process. d) In my own re-reading, I notice Fancy Words in "The Second Chronicles" far more than anywhere else, including "Runes". As a result, you've left me with my mouth hanging open. Elsewhere in this interview, I've written at length about the specific rhetoric of the "Covenant" books. I'm not going to repeat all of my previous comments. But I feel a need to emphasize a few points. 1) Words are the tools of thought--at least for a person as verbal as I am. The more words I know--and use--the more things I can think about--and write about. 2) Words are an essential tool of world-building, and their flavor, their connotation as well as denotation, even their familiarity determine the nature of the reality (and even the characters) that can be constructed with them. For example, writing about "the arrogance of the Elohim" is NOT the same as writing about "the surquedry of the Elohim," and that difference is crucial to what I'm trying to accomplish. 3) If you're at all inclined to believe that my use of Fancy Words is "mockery," "showing off," or any other manifestation of ego--and thank you for saying that you're not so inclined--then you should have stopped reading me a long time ago, because I'm clearly not worthy of your attention. Does my use of Fancy Words have the potential to scare off readers? He*l, EVERYTHING I DO in fiction has the potential to scare off readers. Every story I tell, everything I do with character and event, is rife with possible alienation. The "Gap-ology" mentioned above positively bristles with material that can either frighten or outrage readers. It's what I do. My use of Fancy Words is only one necessary element of the "Covenant" books. (07/24/2005)

As I've explained before, I don't comment on reviews. I'm posting this so that other readers of the GI can check out what you have to say if they're so inclined. (07/25/2005)

I'm certainly not conscious of creating--or having--a "breakthrough style." The influence of Joseph Conrad, Henry James, William Faulkner, George Meredith, Sir Walter Scott, and others (not to mention the King James Bible <grin>) is everywhere apparent to me. To steal an apt phrase (which I would credit if I could remember who coined it), I'm always "standing on the shoulders of giants." If you have way too much time on your hands, and are genuinely obsessive/compulsive (and I hasten to say that this is *not* an implied criticism: I'm pretty ob/com myself), you might learn a lot about the evolution of my style from the Donaldson collection at the Kent State University Libraries. At least one copy of every version, every rewrite, of every story I've ever published resides there. With enough patience, you could, for example, pick up the very first draft of what later became "Lord Foul's Bane" and watch how it modulates toward its final form. Although I can't imagine why anyone would bother.... (07/25/2005)

It's been a long time since I covered this is the GI. I'll try to be brief. Titles changed at the insistence of my editor: "Lord Foul's Bane" (formerly "Foul's Ritual") "The Man Who Killed His Brother" (formerly "City of Day/City of Night") "Strange Dreams" (formerly "Unforgettable Stories") Titles changed because my editor insisted on publishing "The Second Chronicles" as a trilogy instead of a tetralogy: all of them (but the only one I can now remember is "Sunbane," which originally formed the first two thirds of "The Wounded Land"). In any case, as I recall, no titles were actually imposed on me (except for "Lord Foul's Bane," as I've said before). My editors simply rejected my titles until I came up with ones they liked. Since "The Second Chronicles" (and not counting "Strange Dreams"), I've chosen all of my titles without objection from my editors; I came up with the titles long before I wrote the books; and only once have I changed a title after it was "set" in my mind (and still this happened well before I wrote the book). Curiously, the original title for "Forbidden Knowledge" was--drumroll, please--"Strange Dreams." But I couldn't think of a good alternative to "Unforgettable Stories" until I realized that "Strange Dreams" was actually a lousy title for the second GAP book. So I transferred that title to the anthology; and almost immediately "Forbidden Knowledge" suggested itself. I don't foresee any problems with the titles in "The Last Chronicles." And I'm certainly not going to change the general shape or purpose of the story at this late date. Many details, however, are still being negotiated by my conscious and unconscious minds. (07/25/2005)

Yes, I'm aware of Orion's abridged audio version of "Runes" (on both CD and cassette). And no, I haven't listened to any of it. The whole idea of such abridgement gives me hives. If you want the complete text on CD, it should still be available in the US (perhaps from Amazon.com). It was released by Penguin Audio and read by Scott Brick: decent work as far as I can tell, although he occasionally gives the sentences a different cadence than I would in his place. (07/26/2005)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - The Runes of the Earth

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.

Hmm. I know the answer, I just don't know how to explain it without getting bogged down in personal details that won't have anything to do with your situation (and that I don't want to discuss in any case). So look at it this way: "By Any Other Name" deals with a character who is victimized through no real fault of his own, who (in essence) diminishes himself by running away from the problem, and who is eventually drawn back to confront the problem by his own better nature. Well, I started work on that story, froze up because I found writing it to be extraordinarily painful, couldn't write for six months, and finally returned to work when I realized that I was doing exactly what my protagonist started out to do: I was diminishing myself by allowing my pain/fear/victimization to define and control me. The story helped me understand myself better, and understanding myself better enabled me to finish the story. In my personal experience--and this may have nothing whatever to do with you--a "creative funk" is almost always caused by running away from something (sometimes from an emotional problem, sometimes from a writing challenge, sometimes from a few of the more debilitating vagaries of life). (07/26/2005)

You're not the first to point this out; and it's a certified solid-gold Authorial Fu*kup. In fact, of all the unarguable mistakes that I made in "Runes," I found this to be the most mortifying--because (he admitted, cringing) I actually checked my facts before I introduced Jeremiah, and I *still* got them wrong. This is one of several internal consistency problems that should disappear when "Runes" comes out in paperback (or trade paperback). I sent the corrections that I wanted to both my US and UK publishers months and months ago. (07/27/2005)

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)

Thanks for your good opinion. I know a certain number of Ph.D.s who are "pretentious hacks." But I also know many who are valuable thinkers and teachers. I wouldn't be where I am today without them. But I didn't "go back to school" for my Litt.D.. It's an honorary degree. A recognition of achievement outside the academic halls. To some people, this means that it doesn't really count because I didn't "earn" it in the usual way (school). Fortunately others see the honor in a very different light. (07/27/2005)

No one who knows me would describe me as "gruff" or "unappreciative." But I'm definitely "shy" and "hard to get to know." And sometimes those qualities give me an air of aloofness which can easily seem both gruff and unappreciative. This is especially true on author tours, where my emotional exhaustion--and the strain on my general shyness--exacerbates the problem. (07/27/2005)

History also supplies examples of writers who lost entire books--and survived the experience. Frankly, I don't know how anyone does it. The day my computer died, destroying half of one chapter of "The Man Who Tried to Get Away," was one of the worst days of my life. Still, as they say, "Life is just one #^#$% opportunity for growth after another." I like to believe that I wouldn't actually kill myself. After a period of (no doubt considerable) disarray, I hope I would get back to work. (07/27/2005)

I used the name "Elohim" precisely *because* it means "God". In Donaldson books, however, such references usually have an ironic component. My "Elohim" do have some rather elevated opinions about themselves. (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)

This is obviously WAY outside the text, so anything I say about it must be taken as purely speculative. But--just guessing here--I might arrange a miscarriage in the Land, matched by a miscarriage in the "real world" caused by the trauma of events enabling translation to the Land. (07/27/2005)

I'm sorry. I can readily appreciate your reasons for asking it; but answering your question would be a MEGA-spoiler, and I really don't want to give anything away. (07/27/2005)

Putting it as broadly as possible: Lord Foul simply has too much contempt for people to bother lying to them. In order to lie to them, he would first have to believe that they can actually defeat him. (Misdirection, omission, and manipulation are much more fun than lies: they reinforce his feelings of superiority.) Of course, he *has* been defeated in the past. But he's also learned from his mistakes, which allows him to continue believing that *this time* he can't fail. (Like virtually every human being I know, he's better at solving yesterday's problems than he is at foreseeing--or handling--today's problems.) Of course, deeper issues underlie his manifest egocentricity. But he isn't likely to admit that to anyone. (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)

Between this and "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour," my immortality is assured. <grin> (07/27/2005)

Actually, I intended the old beggar to be an avatar or manifestation of the Creator (I mean the Creator of the Land, not necessarily of Covenant's "real world"--and certainly not of *our* "real world"). (07/27/2005)

I'm tempted to contest the notion that epic fantasy is either "exotic" or "seemingly irrelevant": that would be easier (being more abstract) than answering your actual question. The truth is that I don't really know how I do--whatever it is that I do. As far as I can tell, I just do what comes naturally. I follow the advice of virtually every high school writing teacher on the planet: I write what I know--which turns out to be my own mind (my thoughts, emotions, reactions, dreams) and the minds of those people around me who have given me glimpses into themselves. Of course, that's a terrible over-simplification. It leaves out alot. For example: my literary tastes and standards were formed by the study of giants, from Shakespeare and Dostoevsky to Jane Austen and Henry James. And I've made an exhaustive (and occasionally unflinching) analysis of myself. And I believe in the absolute necessity of empathy; of getting outside myself, putting myself in other people's shoes. Such things greatly complicate the issue of how I do what I do. And then there's the small matter of imagination, which I can neither explicate nor quantify. <sigh> The short answer? Your guess is as good as mine. As for the content of Kevin's lost Lore: as I keep saying, I'm an efficient writer in the sense that I only invent what I need. If I ever need to know what's in the missing Wards, I'll think of something. <rueful smile> (07/27/2005)

I can't honestly say that I drew on a conscious source. The idea of "despite" just seemed to fit my notion of evil. But looking back over my life, I can see that I grew up immersed in depression, my own as well as that of the people around me. In addition, both of my parents died while I was still in my 20's. And I can say with some confidence that I was affected by the state of American politics in the late 60's and early 70's (and no, it's not any better now). (07/27/2005)

First, I'm glad you've been enjoying "The Man Who" books. This is a rare experience for me. Unfortunately, your question is one that I find uniquely embarrassing. I didn't change "alot of the character names," but those that I did change--and off the top of my head I can only remember two--I changed because they made me cringe. And as you probably know, it's no fun cringing at your own work. In addition, it's no fun dropping your literary pants in public. And you're absolutely right: "a character's name has alot to do with the reader's perception of him/her, especially in the world of text." All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I'm not going to answer you. I hope you'll forgive me. (07/27/2005)

Well, I didn't mean that I'm writing "The Last Chronicles" for money. (If I suspected myself of that, I'd go into some other line of work.) I meant that I'm *selling* it--and specifically selling it one book at a time instead of holding them back until the whole project is complete--because I need the money. Still, I like the idea of corporate sponsorship. <grin> Although I personally prefer "Lord Foul the Un-Cola" (being a non-drinker and all), the rest of your suggestions are excellent. I'll get right on them. (07/27/2005)

I'll never write a screenplay for any of my stories. 1) I don't know how. 2) I don't have time. 3) Any screenplay would necessarily involve abridgement, and I'm allergic to abridgement. 4) Movies are made by committees. Therefore they require compromise--and I'm also allergic to compromise. 5) The people who hold the option on "Lord Foul's Bane" already have a good screenwriter in mind, John Orloff. (07/27/2005)

You win: I also can't find "formication" in any of the previous "Covenant" books. I probably got confused because I've known the word, like, forever, while "scend" was a fairly recent aquisition. (07/28/2005)

You appear to be asking about two entirely different, fundamentally distinct things, evil in our consensual reality and evil in the Land. Evil in our reality (and I emphasize that this is just my opinion). In my view, every personality is composed of a host of conflicting impulses, some tending toward destruction (perhaps in ways which we might be able to agree are evil), some tending toward healing, some rational, some emotional, some petty, some noble, some egocentric, some unselfish, some that defy description. Every human being is a mixture of all of these impulses; and it is the specific proportions of the mixture which make each individual unique. Well, when the mixture is dominated by the darker or more destructive impulses, we get--just to pick one example--sociopathy. And when the mixture is so completely dominated by the darker or more destructive impulses that every other kind of impulse is, in effect, cowering in a corner somewhere, we get people whom most of us would not hesitate to describe as evil. (And just to make the subject more complicated: every individual mixture is created by a combination of "nature" and "nurture" so unquantifiable that it's impossible to tell where one leaves off and the other kicks in.) That's as close as I can come to believing in "bad seed" or "natural evil." I'm simply convinced that everybody contains everything. Obviously, however, in some cases certain impulses are so dominant that their opposites (and anything associated with those opposites) become invisible. Of course, I can't actually *demonstrate* any of this. If those opposites have become invisible, we can't possibly know that they still exist. Nonetheless I choose to believe it. I doubt that I could be a storyteller if I didn't believe that everybody contains everything. Evil in the Land is entirely another matter. And I don't want to discuss it--for the simple reason that I've already discussed it at length elsewhere. But if you take the ideas described above, and combine them with the argument in my essay on "Epic Fantasy" (downloadable from this site), you should get a pretty clear picture of my views on evil in the Land. (07/28/2005)

Briefly, huh? Now I *know* you're joking. But I'll try.... Putting it crudely: the LOTR books are drenched in sorrow and nostalgia, and the movies are not. Despite their heroic trappings, the books aren't really about "good vs evil": they're about "simplicity vs evil". (In other words, they're about the Hobbits, not Aragorn and the Riders of Rohan and Gandalf and Elves.) And in the process of defeating evil, simplicity (in the person of Frodo) is crippled. It's a very sad story. Well, movies being movies, the heroic trappings dominate, and so the unique emotional depth of the books is lost. If you doubt me, consider this: the movies leave out virtually all of the harm that is done to the Shire *after* Sauron is defeated. *That* (the whole last third of "The Return of the King") is what ties the books together and completes their thematic development--and in the movies it's just not there. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the movies. I like a good "heroic" fantasy as well as anyone. But I don't think that those movies will ever linger in the heart the way the books do. (07/28/2005)

Wherever possible, I try not to hamper anyone else's creativity. If someone felt moved to compose one or more operas based on "Covenant," I wouldn't stand in the way (just as I wouldn't stand in the way of a movie). But I think it would be a deranged endeavor, even more truly "doomed from the start" than a movie. By their very nature, operas have to be even more truncated/condensed/abridged than movies, if for no other reason than because singing takes so much longer than speaking (which in turn takes so much longer than showing). I don't doubt that individual scenes could be set to music effectively. But the larger story would be irretrievably crippled. Under the circumstances, discussing specific composers seems pointless. (07/28/2005)

Thank you. Here's the best report I can give you on sales for "Runes" so far. My US publisher is happy: my UK publisher is very happy: neither is ecstatic. Publishers don't get ecstatic without both prominence and longevity on their respective "Times" bestseller lists. Am I satisfied? Not entirely. But I try not to care too much. As long as my publishers don't dump me--and do keep my books in print--I'm pretty much content. (07/29/2005)

Creative outlets? No. Hobbies? Yes. These days I study karate pretty diligently. Long ago, I played the guitar (12-string, no less); but then I lost interest. Ditto with playing tennis (although I suspect that my racquet had less than 12 strings <grin>). More recently, I played competitive bridge; but again I lost interest (this time, however, in competition rather than in bridge). Back in my college days, I got ideas for plays; but they dried up after I had the humbling experience of seeing one of my plays performed. And I do still (rarely) get ideas for poems. (07/29/2005)