You raise a thoughtful and worthy point. I must have been in a parTICularly bad mood when I wrote that I "wouldn't vote for anyone who seemed to want power." <sigh> Our political system typically excludes anyone who *doesn't* want power (no surprise there), and I still vote, so I can only conclude that my assertion was: a) bullshit; b) "exaggeration for effect"; or c) taken out of context (OK, I just threw that one in to console myself). It's one of the essential conundrums/paradoxes of human life that we have far more potential, for good or ill, in groups; and groups by their very nature require leadership (or else they're just mobs); but--and this is admittedly a huge generalization--groups tend to behave worse than individuals do. If people didn't cooperate to form groups, we wouldn't have Mayo Clinics--or hospitals at all--but we also wouldn't have the war in Iraq. And take a look at "Human Resources Departments," many of which are viciously inhumane. It probably isn't fair to say that "Power [always] corrupts," but it is certainly true that "Power tends to corrupt." (Some interesting studies have been made about the effect of being prison guards on otherwise-decent people.) And it seems clear to me (just my opinion) that whenever a group fosters an "us vs them" attitude, terrible things happen. Your point about "the 'reluctant' warrior" is also interesting here. U. S. Grant may have been our most "reluctant" President; and he is generally creditted with running a profoundly corrupt regime. My point is...well, I don't really have a point. I'll simply admit that I'm often taken aback by the inherent contradictions of my own attitudes and prejudices. My "flexibility of mind" runs deep--which is a great strength for a storyteller, but which may make me pretty useless as a political analyst. That's one of several reasons why I try to keep my personal beliefs (politics, religion, etc.) out of the GI. (03/01/2006)

1. Wait a minute. Who says that Lord Foul was "betrayed" at the end of "The Second Chronicles"? I thought he was "defeated," which may be the same thing from his point of view, but which is not the same thing at all from everyone else's point of view. But was there *some* kind of betrayal hidden away in Lord Foul's defeat in "The Second Chronicles"? Or even in the first trilogy? Hmmm. 2. You're visualizing a different dagger than I am. The one that I have in mind has a flat double-edged blade, so it isn't likely to produce a circular hole. (03/01/2006)

First, about the GI. I've already covered this, but the information bears repeating. 1) I don't use "creative writing time" to tackle the GI, so this interview doesn't delay my "real" work. 2) I read every message. And I delete a fair number of them. Some vanish because I'm tired of answering them. (E.g. "When will the next book be released?" "Why isn't there a 'Covenant' movie?") Some are too personal for a public forum. (In those cases, however, I try to send a personal response when I've been given an e-mail address.) And some (fortunately few) are just plain abusive. (Naturally I want to strike back. But in situations like this "striking back" is a lose/lose proposition. It gives the attack legitimacy, and will never sway the attacker.) Now. "Evil" characters and trust. I don't see how you could be wrong. EVerybody everywhere "trusts" in one form or another. We *all* form perceptions of people and situations, and we act on those perceptions. In fact, we all gain most of our insights into other people (as well as ourselves) by observing actions and thinking about the perceptions implied by those actions. To pick a crude example: core-level pessimists tend to live their lives flinching because they "trust" that nothing good can happen. In the case of my "evil" characters, as with *all* of my characters, the content of their "trust" reveals who and what they are inside. It seems perfectly true that characters like Lord Foul, Holt Fasner, and el Senor "trust" Covenant, Warden Dios, and Brew/Ginny to participate in (and even enable) their own defeats. Foul, Fasner, and el Senior are egocentric cynics, "despisers": how could they think or act otherwise? But the same kind of statement could be made about Covenant, Dios, and Brew/Ginny themselves. They may well be haunted or redeemed by doubt, but in the end they "trust" that valor, love, and sacrifice will suffice. (03/01/2006)

I don't control where I go on book tours; but information on how to obtain autographs is available on the "contact" page of this site. (03/01/2006)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. By your definition, I've used the word correctly--at least far as I can tell. What's the problem? Is it your contention that the word can only be used in reference to the Christian sacrament of communion? In that case, yes, I've mis-used the word. But I like to think that words can be used as metaphors, or can be extended (in some form) beyond their most literal denotations. That, it seems to me, is part of the glory of language. Why can't the general concept of "incarnating the sacred in the mundane" be applied in contexts that have nothing to do with churches, priests, or even coherent religions? (03/01/2006)

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.

Try thinking of the centipede as a metaphor for--or an incarnation of--Creel's jealousy. His own internal poison (in the form of the centipede) eventually causes him to un-man himself. In essence, "The Conqueror Worm" is a mediation on the self-destructive nature of Creel's emotions. (03/01/2006)

Thanks for the information! I've never heard of "Goji" before. All of my time in India was spent south of Bombay (Mumbai): I never went far enough north to see the Taj Mahal, never mind the Himalayas. So nothing Tibetan ever entered my, well, sphere of perception. (03/02/2006)

Well, I suppose it's theoretically possible that I was influenced by "Doc" Smith's "Lensman" books. I read them long before I ever imagined writing sf myself. But the conscious inspiration (this is the short version) was a desire to combine the three-way drama between Angus Thermopyle, Morn Hyland, and Nick Succorso with Wagner's "Ring" cycle. It's unlikely that I'll visit Australia anytime soon. If you want autographs, information about how to get them is on the "contact" page of this site. (03/02/2006)

In every reality, the past is always full of mysteries. Most remain mysteries. But sometimes we get glimpses.... Other than that, all I can say is, RAFO. Not very satisfying, I know. <sigh> (03/02/2006)

1) My actual pattern is: big project, a few short stories, a mystery novel, then another big project; and so on. After "The Second Chronicles," I accumulated enough stories for "Daughter of Regals and Other Tales." And after the GAP cycle, I had enough new stories for "Reave the Just and Other Tales." This pattern is likely to continue (although I don't have any particular ideas "fermenting" at the moment); so after "The Last Chronicles" I'll probably write some short stories before I tackle The Man Who 5. 2) There is no literal significance to the name Hergrom. Admittedly it isn't as "punchy" as most Haruchai names. But I wanted to keep my options open. And there *is* precedent for two-syllable names (Bannor, Tuvor, Korik, Handir). Someday I may experiment with *three* syllables. <grin> (03/02/2006)

I'm sorry. I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. I don't, won't, and probably can't write prequels. I don't like them when other people write them, and I have no inclination to tackle the challenge myself. My imagination just doesn't work that way. (03/02/2006)

Well, in effect they certainly come to the same thing. But they require different methodologies. You might well ask why Lord Foul doesn't just rouse the Worm himself. That sure sounds simpler than trying to manipulate a white gold wielder. But I suspect (just guessing here <grin>) that he's afraid he might get eaten. (03/02/2006)

Thanks for the information! I'm glad to make it available here. (03/02/2006)

Some things I can explain. Others happen purely by intuition or "feel," and them I can't explain. So: "Leb wohl" ("farewell") is what Wotan sings to Brunhilde as he puts her into an enchanted sleep (as punishment for defending Sigmund and Sieglinde against him) right before he summons Loge to guard her with fire. (All of this, of course, is from Wagner's "Ring" cycle.) Thus Loge's fire becomes the symbol of Wotan's love and respect for Brunhilde, and of his bereavement at losing her--and at everything that follows from her defiance. So it isn't much of a stretch to see the fire (and therefore Loge) as Wotan's farewell gift to Brunhilde, the magic which eventually enables her to bring about his destruction. But "Hashi" I can't explain. It just popped into my head--and felt right. However, it may conceivably be a reference to "hashish," and therefore to Hashi's rather dissociated (or perhaps I should say oblique) relationship with people and events. (On the other hand, I may just be grasping at straws. <grin>) (03/02/2006)

Have you ever wanted to lynch one of your professors? Or laugh out loud at an exam question? Tsk tsk. In a pure world, I would respond by asking you to define your terms. Are you referring to the Earth of Covenant's "real world" or the Earth of the Land? But I'll skip all that. Of COURSE Covenant's leprosy is not "a metaphor for Lord Foul on The Earth." Despite is expressed, not by his leprosy, but by the attitudes of people (in the "real world") toward his leprosy--and by his own subsequent attitude toward himself and other people (in the Land). So there. (03/02/2006)

It probably goes without saying that I disagree with you. Troy's behavior is perfectly consistent with his character: he loves the Land just the way it is. But remember that he's never actually *seen* a gun--or a radio. And assuming that he's actually studied how such things are made.... Try this experiment: assuming that there is no language barrier, and leaving all of your equipment and supplies behind, hike out into the wilds of Borneo until you encounter a totally isolated tribe that uses iron in weapons; then make a gun. Let me know how it goes. <grin> (03/02/2006)

How did I create the Land? Well, the short answer is: I started with the character of Thomas Covenant and tried to imagine a place that was the opposite of having leprosy. Then I tried to imagine what kind of people, races, beings, landscapes, creatures, etc. might occupy and complete such a place. Vocabulary in fantasy is a complex issue. Some words fall into the genre simply because they've become familiar to fantasy readers (and therefore fantasy writers). Some words are unfamiliar to the reader but are normal and ordinary to the writer (because the reader and the writer naturally have different experiences in/with life). Some words are used *because* they are unfamiliar: some writers (such as yrs trly) are trying to create a sensation of the exotic and the magical through language. And some words are used because the writer (yrs trly again) isn't actually *trying* to attract "less-dedicated readers." (My books are really only worth reading if the reader is willing to do some of the work.) Curiously, "younger" readers have been attracted to "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" in droves. (03/03/2006)

Yet another reader who knows more about eye color than I do.... <grin> There's more than one way to look at why the Dead only appear in Andelain; but the crucial point is that their appearance is in some sense a manifestation of Earthpower (Law-ful or otherwise). I think of it this way: Earthpower flows closer to the surface in Andelain than elsewhere. Meanwhile the Sunbane is also Earthpower, but in a form so corrupted that its energy isn't available for most natural--or quasi-natural--manifestations. And the appearance of the Dead *is* a "quasi-natural manifestation": it's a natural consequence of the fact that the Law of Death has been damaged. Plus I have to say: having the Dead appear only in Andelain just plain *feels* right to me. (03/03/2006)

Your question appears to be in two parts. First, about Lewis, Tolkien, and allegory. You know what they say: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. No matter what Lewis may have said, the allegorical elements in "Narnia" are too obvious to miss. In fact, many tens of thousands of people have failed to miss them. In contrast, LOTR can't be read as allegory without pushing the definition of "allegory" past all recognizable usage. (Of course, none of this has anything to do with the qualities that you enjoy in Lewis and Tolkien. For every reader, books are what they are. Calling them "allegorical," for example, doesn't change what they are: it merely describes how they're perceived. And "perception" is nothing if not idiosyncratic as well as mutable.) But "Do you think that you overplay the significance of 'story arch'"? Are you equating "allegory" with "story arch"? I don't. And as a man who prides himself on "story arch," I can say with perfect certainty that a "story arch" (however beautiful or well-designed it may be) that isn't filled with what you call "epiphanies" doesn't satisfy me. At the same time, "epiphanies" (however profuse they may be) that aren't held together and concentrated by a good "story arch" don't satisfy me either. I need both. (03/08/2006)

You're right, of course: I make virtually no use of "institutional religion" in my stories (with the obvious exceptions of "Penance" and the "tent revival" in TPTP). "Theology" is a different matter: if you held a gun to my head, I could probably argue that my work is full of theology in one form or another. Haven't I already quoted--or misquoted--S. P. Somtow: "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry"? Still, your point is a valid one. "Religion" plays no role at all in the lives of the vast majority of my characters. I've often asked myself about that, and I've concluded that the subject is simply too personal: it elicits very strong emotions in me, emotions which would overwhelm any story in which I attempted to include them. Throughout this interview, I've tried to explain in various ways that--for me--storytelling requires a certain "impersonality." Storytelling can't be about *me* (except to the extent that it articulates my convictions about storytelling). It can't be about my beliefs or emotions on any subject: it can only be about the story. (Which probably explains my irrational insistence that the ideas for stories come from somewhere "outside" me: a necessary fiction which allows me to treat the story as if its existence is independent of my self; my ego, my emotions, my needs.) You could say that I exclude "religion" from my work because otherwise my personal emotions would distort and ultimately destroy the story. Or you could say that my personal emotions on the subject are so intense that they swamp my imagination, preventing me from even conceiving--never mind executing--any story. (03/08/2006)

Well, "lose touch with the real world" might be an over-statement. But being deeply immersed in what I'm writing does have a tendency to exacerbate my natural absent-mindedness. When my subconscious is hard at work, it can interfere with my more mundane awareness of what I'm doing when I'm not writing (e.g. from time to time I simply "forget" where I'm going when I get in the car). And I've been known to experience a kind of sub rosa "leakage" as the emotions of what I'm writing spill over into my personal life. (When I was much younger, this "leakage" sometimes ran in the other direction: my personal emotions spilled into what I was writing. But that hasn't happened for a long time. I'm more vigilant now.) However, none of this prevents me from coping accurately with "the real world"--*as needed*. I don't "lose touch" with people or situations that I consider important. (Except when I'm exhausted <sigh>: none of us are at our best when we're exhausted.) (03/08/2006)

Comic books didn't have any impact on my writing that I can see (although I still enjoy them), but they probably accentuated my natural interest in "long form" storytelling. Mostly they fed my need for fantasy and even adventure at a time when my studies (college, graduate school, and afterward) precluded such things. Today in some places (admittedly few), you could write a thesis on the Kree-Skrull war. That would have been inconceivable in my day. Probably my all-time favorite comic book writer (and sometimes artist) was Jim Starlin. I really loved his vast saga on the Infinity Gems, as well as his all-too-brief work on Warlock. (03/12/2006)

Standard Disclaimer: You're the reader. You have the right to interpret the books however you want. Without you, there *is* no story: there are only arbitrary black squiggles on sheets of wood pulp. With that in mind.... Do I consider wild magic to be a "conscious or unconscious metaphor for addiction"? Absolutely not. (Except in the rather extreme sense that most of us are "addicted" to being alive.) Wild magic is just energy. It's ruinous or redemptive, according to how it's used. You might think of as the sun: terribly destructive if you get too close; but from a "safe" distance, the fundamental source of all life. Energy is all good--until it isn't (until it becomes too much); just as control is all good--until it isn't. Or might think of it this way: how often do alcohol, heroin, crack, or crystal meth save the world? Even if you decide to consider wild magic comparable to addiction (in one form or another), you still need to take into account the fact that what you're addicted *to* makes an important difference. Being "addicted" to "doing as much good as possible for other people" may well become self-destructive, but it simply isn't the same thing as being "addicted" to "getting other people to give you everything you want all the time, regardless of the cost to them." Your question about what I would do if I couldn't support myself as a writer reminds me of an old Carol Burnett skit, in which she says, "Last year, my husband died. So I did the only thing I could do. I became a widow." I suppose I would have tried to become a teacher; but it's more likely that I would simply have become dead--perhaps not physically, but in other equally-important ways. (03/13/2006)

The words are all spelled so that they sound similar because I want the reader to know that the concepts are related to each other. The words are spelled differently because each race (e.g. ur-viles, Elohim) has its own unique understanding/interpretation of the concept. And as the author, I hope I keep them straight when I'm writing about those races (e.g. Weird for ur-viles and Waynhim, not for Elohim). (03/13/2006)

1) Sometimes I'm frustrated by both the process and the results. And I suspect that whenever an individual deals with a corporation, frustration looms (and the bigger the corporation, the worse the frustration is likely to be). But the basic concept doesn't frustrate me at all: I get paid; and they do all the things I either can't do or don't want to do. (In fact, the very idea of setting up my own corporate entity to take the place of the corporation I deal with now makes me want hide under the bed.) Just *think* of all the jobs the publisher does for me, which range from choosing the font to arranging book tours to suffering the immediate consequences if the book doesn't sell. And in practice, large corporations have advantages with which no small entity (e.g. an authors' co-op publishing company) can compete, such as the power to negotiate favorable deals with printing and distribution companies. No, I like the basic system just fine. Most of my personal complaints revolve around how mega-corporate ownership actively prevents individual publishing companies (however large) from doing good work. 2) I own my web site and am solely responsible for its content. My webmaster does all of the maintenance: I do all of the answering--and all of the filtering. (03/13/2006)

I want to ask: What am I, crazy? But what I mean is: Why on earth would I want to *encourage* comparisons to LOTR? My career has already been damaged enough by Tolkien's irresponsible determination to write about a ring when he could have used practically anything else. <grin> And in any case, I'm a writer of fiction. On every level, I construct my "realities" to suit the needs of the story I want to tell. As does every writer of fiction. Introducing LOTR to Covenant's "reality" would have done nothing except distract the reader from *my* story. (03/13/2006)

As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, the original inspiration for the story "Reave the Just" came in the form of the first sentence. In practical terms, I sort of discovered Reave through Jillet. The more I knew about Jillet, the more I understood what he needed Reave to be. The whole subject of "the potential to be heroic" may be too large and complex for my poor frayed brain to encompass. But I sure do write about it a lot. <sigh> And Nick Succorso leaps to mind (as does the phrase "mind-forged manacles" [William Blake]). Now *there's* a character who has all the raw materials of a hero, but who is completely trapped (and doomed) by the (entirely internal) mechanics of his bitter ego-centricity. Certainly I write about characters who display no apparent potential for heroism (Maxim Igensard?). But "the potential to be heroic" is always on my mind, as are the profound and insidious ways in which perception either distorts or enhances that potential. (03/13/2006)

Dear Acolyte Niddy: a) Being phallic, missiles demand respect. "Works of literature which centre around missiles" deserve all the esteem they get from me. b) Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre. However, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the characters. Signed by my own hand, Lord Donaldson (03/13/2006)

Absolutely! Henry James himself insisted that a work of literature cannot be judged by the *nature* of the author's ideas, but only by the quality of what the author *does* with those ideas. And if that isn't sufficient authority, I need only observe that the oldest and most enduring works of storytelling in every language on this planet are *all* fantasy. Without exception. (Go ahead: think of an exception. Take your time. And if you *do* think of one, PLEASE let me know. The information would be good for me.) (03/13/2006)

The Orion "audiobook" is on 6 CDs. The unabridged Penguin "audiobook" is on 22 CDs. So roughly 70% of the text is lost in the Orion version. Which is why I hate abridged editions. I worked *hard* on that 70%. (03/13/2006)

I respect Covenant--but then I try to respect all of my characters. And I admire him: he’s a braver man than I am. But “like”? Have you ever found that it can be difficult to “like” the people you respect and admire? It’s a curious phenomenon which I occasionally experience. If someone that I admire and respect has qualities which I know I lack--and which cause me pain because I know I lack them--then “liking” that someone can be a real struggle. If, on the other hand, the qualities that I know I lack are *not* ones which I yearn for but fail to achieve, then “liking” that someone becomes easy. That may not be very clear; but it is *intended* as an answer to your question. <sigh> Or, approaching the matter from a different direction: When I sit down and read the “Covenant” books straight through, I admire, respect, and am moved by the character. But when I just dip into the books (perhaps researching a point of internal consistency), Covenant’s behavior jars and even offends me. In other words, taken out of context--out of the internal logic of his development--he’s quite UNlikeable. A lesson I try to remember when I’m dealing with real people rather than characters. Most of us primarily meet real people “out of context”: we have no idea what their personal stories are. So it’s often useful to reserve judgment. (03/15/2006)

Your questions go in so many directions at once that they’re difficult to address. For example, to say that “the human psyche is a never ending struggle and between good and evil” is enTIREly different than saying “the universe itself reflects a never ending struggle between these forces.” The former assertion is defensible, if open to debate. The latter is at best anthropomorphic, and at worst observably and even theologically suspect. So I’m having trouble filtering my way through to a subject on which I can actually comment. But the most obvious and necessary comment is that “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant” are a work of *fiction*, a construct of a human mind. They describe specific characters in specific situations in a specific IMAGINARY reality. They do not contain or even reflect “the universe”: in fact, they don’t pretend to do that. A statement like, “The Arch of Time cannot be a prison for Lord Foul because we see evil everywhere around us” is like saying--forgive me--“We know that oranges do not exist because I’m sitting in a chair.” (Now I remember that this is why I got so tired of “Creator” questions.) Your perceptions about the world, or the universe, in which you live naturally affect how you read a book--as they should--but it’s important not to blur the distinction between the book (a completely artificial fiction which--we hope--follows its own internal rules consistently) and the world in which you live. (And don’t even get me started on the UNIverse). The Arch of Time *is* a prison for Lord Foul because he is an atemporal (eternal; unfettered by time, causality, or sequence) being who is forced to exist temporally, and who cannot--at present--return to his natural state. Such an “unrealistic” state of affairs is only possible in a work of fiction. As for the Arch itself: well, I admit that the language is inherently misleading. It implies a pre-defined structure with--among other things--two necessary ends (because an “arch” can’t stand without two ends which are attached to foundations). I regret that. I simply don’t have (and perhaps the people of the Land don’t have) a better way to refer to what is actually a *process*; or a set of on-going rules or mechanics which simultaneously enable things like chronology and consecutiveness (without which life as we know it would be impossible, and the Earth of “The Chronicles” would certainly cease to exist) and prevent things like wandering through eternity, or being everywhere at once, or even being in two places at once. My best analogy is the act of storytelling. “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant” would be gibberish if I didn’t abide by a number of rules (like the Law of Time), some of which are so obvious that we don’t even think about them. Like sequence, linearity: sentences don’t actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove “order” itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE. I could go on and on about this; but I’m sure you get the point. (03/15/2006)

It sounds like you may be asking: Is there a “final solution” to the Problem of Evil? And I suspect that there *is*--but only on a case-by-case level, one individual at a time. (And no, I don’t mean death. <grin>) On the other hand, I can’t prove it. All I can do is tell stories and hope that they convey a worthwhile degree of emotional/psychological/spiritual credibility. (03/15/2006)

“Should” Angus have experienced some form of “justice” at the end of the GAP books? I have a couple of problems with your question. First, I’m not sure that “should” is a very useful word, in storytelling or in life. Certainly the word has an undercurrent of judgment, of denunciation, which runs counter to my convictions about storytelling. And life certainly doesn’t care about such things. I know that *I* don’t care: whenever people tell me what I “should” do--or not do--I just stop listening. <grin> Then there’s the difficulty of defining what either of us mean by “justice.” Apparently you think of justice as some form of, well, punishment or retribution. A re-statement might look like this: You caused pain, therefore you deserve pain. Which sounds reasonable enough. But a) who caused pain *first*? (in the GAP books, isn’t it really Angus’ *mother* who should be punished? or the person who started *her* down the road of pain?), b) where does it *end*? (since no one ever gets through life without causing pain, we’re stuck in a never-ending tsunami of “justice”), and c) at what point do we start taking into account the fact that some people change? that some people (like Morn) just plain grow, while others (like Angus) are dragged kicking and screaming into growth? (And, by the bye, do you really want to punish people for turning their lives around? Do you think that a world without forgiveness, restitution, or amends would be a better place?) Answering an earlier question, I was speaking about “context.” What can the concept of “justice” possibly mean if it doesn’t take “context” into account? But you’re right <rueful smile>: all of that is really irrelevant. My only true answer to your question is: That’s not the story that came to me to be written. And lest you think I’m being glib: doesn’t Angus’ fate seem to *fit* the narrative world in which he exists? Would the GAP books really be the GAP books if they were about “justice”? What about some “justice” for Morn, who after all committed a capital crime with a zone implant, and deserves SOMEthing a little better than “the thanks of a grateful planet”? Part of the underlying sorrow--and, perhaps, the underlying significance--of this story lies in its fundamental lack of resolution. (03/15/2006)

I should be so lucky. But the sad fact is: only a tiny percentage of the people who attend my author events have ever looked at my web site (or, perhaps, at *any* web site). And a majority of the people who *do* look at my web site don’t read this interview. So I’m really not saving myself any trouble. (03/15/2006)

Ha HA, Foolish Mortal! I have you in my power NOW! I picked up that word from Faulkner. (03/15/2006)

Be serious. How could I pick anyone who wasn't a total babe? <grin> So that pretty much restricts me to Linden Avery, Terisa Morgan, Morn Hyland, and, well, Koina Hannish (who would probably bring a whole lot less luggage to the island than the others would). Permanent, temporary, what's the difference? We're all supposed to live in the "now" anyway. But I suspect that Linden might bring more variety to the experience. That would be a plus over the long haul. (03/15/2006)

My first requirement is always that a name has to satisfy my ear: if it doesn't "sound" right, I don't use it. But with both Warden Dios and Thomas Covenant I actively wanted to give those characters meaningful names. So I searched until I found both sound and meaning. In the case of Dios, I meant "Warden" both as "one who protects" (such as a game warden) and "one who protects against" (such as a prison warden). But I also had double meanings for Thomas Covenant. "Thomas" was, of course, the "doubting" Apostle. But in the Bible there are *two* "covenants," "the covenant of law" and "the covenant of grace". If you think of "law" as the restrictions (commandments) imposed by Covenant's leprosy, and "grace" as his eventual ability to become more humane (to sacrifice himself for people and causes other than himself), you'll see what I mean. In other cases, of course, meaning is sort of a by-product of sound (Sunder; Angus Thermopyle). And in still others, only sound matters (Hollian; Koina Hannish). But if a particular name in my stories seems to you to have meaning, that's usually deliberate. In some cases, I'll admit, those meanings would surprise you because they're derived from languages that aren't English (primarily Marathi). Or because the references are so obscure that only I can possibly "get" them. In others, I'm playing "sounds like" rather than using real words or names. (03/17/2006)

Some things are so "obvious" to me that I can't figure out how to explain them. This usually means that the "obviousness" is intuitive rather than rational, so it tends to defy explication. But look at it this way: it's like storytelling. (OK, OK, I admit that I've used this explanation before. Give me enough time, and EVerything is "like storytelling". <sigh>) I create a story which--ideally--works by its own consistent internal rules or logic, and which therefore has its own integrity; integrity which--again, ideally--exists entirely separate from me. I cannot then *alter* the story (after the fact, as it were) without violating its integrity. You, on the other hand, are the reader. You can't *alter* the story under any circumstances. And you certainly can't pull pieces or characters out of it for your own purposes: not without violating *your* integrity (and risking a lawsuit <grin>). But you *can* let yourself be drawn into the story. And if you do that--and if the story has power--you don't fully return to your own life until the story releases you (ends). Meanwhile your imaginative/empathetic participation in the story violates neither its integrity nor your own. So if you think of Covenant and Linden as *you* and the Creator as *me*.... Does that make any sense? (03/17/2006)

No one sends me fan fiction. In part, this is because I protect my privacy (in other words, people don't know *how* to send me fan fiction); and in part, it's because I've often announced in no uncertain terms that I won't *read* fan fiction if it is sent to me. I have no real objection to fan fiction (unless it involves a copyright violation). But I'm not willing to confuse my imagination by filling it with other people's ideas. Also, I suspect that there's something, well, *strict* about my stories which tends to inhibit people from spinning off their own ideas. I can't be sure of that, of course: it's just an intuitive perception. (03/17/2006)

In most obvious ways, of course, you're quite correct: the story has left the whole issue of "reality" (is-it-or-isn't-it) far behind. But everything that I'm doing is still built on the foundation of Covenant's dilemmas and attitudes: Covenant's mind (his "psychodrama," if you will) provides the basis, the essential presuppositions, for everything that I've constructed since the first chapter of "Lord Foul's Bane." In "The Second Chronicles," I *think* I succeeded at expanding the foundation to include Linden's mind/heart/journey. But she and Covenant remain the only characters who really do provide a foundation. Troy doesn't count because a) he completely accepts the Land "as is" with little or no emotional baggage, apart from his inclination to repeat Kevin's mistakes (so in that sense he "reflects" the Land, he doesn't "generate" it, if you see what I mean), and b) he isn't in the story long enough to carry the narrative weight that Linden and Covenant do. And people like Roger and Joan don't count simply because they aren't POV characters: they don't provide the mind(s) through which the reality of the Land is created. Beneath the surface--OK, perhaps *far* beneath the surface--it remains true that we can't have the Land without Covenant and/or Linden. (03/17/2006)

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)

In general, I learned my rhetorical resources the hard way, by reading as much as I could (primarily British literature)--and by studying what I read assiduously. Which is why I'm now able to deploy a variety of different narrative "voices" as needed. But the specific phrase you mention came from SOMEwhere. I remember that distinctly. I simply can't remember *where*. <sigh> At any rate, it isn't original. It's been said that "Age doth make cowards of us all." (Shakespeare?) I disagree. But there's no doubt in my mind that "Age doth" induce a whole cascade of system failures. (03/18/2006)

I've lost interest in the subject of a "Covenant" movie. (Please don't take this personally. It's not a complaint about your question.) But I've seen some evidence that a movie can cause a book to lose some of its impact. I know at least a couple of people who read LOTR after seeing the movies. They think the movies are much better. <sigh> (03/18/2006)

Well, I have practical objections (copyright violation) and creative objections (I've insisted on several occasions recently that "you can't have the Land without Covenant and/or Linden"). So I'll never give my permission for other writers (budding or otherwise) to publish "Chronicles" prequels. BUT. I have no objection at all to what's commonly called "fan fiction": stories written without pay for the amusement and edification of the writer, and possibly of the writer's friends and associates--as long as the original sources are given appropriate credit. Who am I to try to interfere with the creative impulses of other people? (03/18/2006)

As I think I've said before, these things are a matter of sales. If a book like "Runes" sells well enough, and if the audio version sells well enough, publishers naturally go looking for other ways to make money from the same project. Well, "Runes" has sold pretty well as a book, but the CD sales have been abysmal. So it's *very* unlikely that any of my earlier work will appear in audio versions. Except, of course, through the Library of Congress "Books on Tape" program. A few extra Donaldson titles are available there (I don't know exactly which ones). (03/18/2006)

Honestly, it never crossed my mind. Which does seem like an over-sight, now that you bring it up. But every day I'm reminded--usually in some embarrassing way--that it really isn't possible to think about EVerything. (03/18/2006)

Somewhere deep in the bowels of the GI.... Oh, well. Moksha, turiya, and samadhi are what the Ravers call *themselves*: the names reflect the self-image of the Ravers. Sheol, Herem, and Jehannum are "given" names which reflect what *other* people think of the Ravers. Although Lord Foul probably revels in the name "Foul," I seriously doubt that he considers himself "evil." "Evil" doesn't often think of itself that way, in my (admittedly limited) experience: instead "evil" sees itself as a form of Higher Good. Just ask any self-respecting terrorist. Or Pat Robertson. Or.... (03/18/2006)

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.

I certainly can't comment on whether or not you're "overly-sentimental". <grin> How would *I* know? But I don't share your feelings--for the simple reason that the books haven't ceased to exist. I can revisit them whenever I want. Of course, revisiting them means that I grieve again for characters like Foamfollower. But that's OK. I'm just glad that books still have the power to move me. (03/18/2006)

Please accept my regrets. I didn't mean my response to your earlier message to sound either dismissive or contemptuous (although I think I can see why it *did* sound that way). Sometimes I'm in a hurry, and I'm more brusque than I intend to be. But I'm perfectly sincere about what I was trying to express. I'm not *entitled* to your attention--and certainly not to your respect. If I don't earn those things in your eyes (and in this case your eyes are the only ones that matter), then I honestly can't think of a reason for you to continue reading. Please believe me when I say that I'm not putting you down here. "Life's too short" has become a cliche because it's so *true*. Certainly *my* life is too short for everything that I want to do and accomplish--and read. When I observe that you and I are in the same boat, I mean no offense. (03/18/2006)

Well.... Nothing that anyone says is likely to affect what I want to do with this story. But there *are* oblique influences. One is that questions in the GI help me identify areas in which I've failed to be clear in the previous books. ("If one person calls you a donkey, laugh and walk away. If two people...." etc.) That's useful. And sometimes, quite unexpectedly--and VERY indirectly--the GI causes me to reexamine some detail of my intentions. Some question or comment somehow reminds me that I'm secretly dissatisfied (and in fact have been secretly dissatisfied for some time) with one facet or another of my Grand Design. And no, I'm not willing to be concrete about this. Any concrete answer to your question would be a howling spoiler. (03/19/2006)

You raise a point on which opinions vary widely. Other people have told me that I must have done a great deal of research into "military affairs or strategy," and that Troy is realistically portrayed as "a victim of circumstance". It's not an issue that I'm willing to argue either way. But I'll risk a few observations. No, I haven't done any particular research into the subject of military strategy. Doubtless I'm completely ignorant about the practical side of such things. But then, so is Troy. He's a pure abstract theorist, with no practical experience of any kind; and his theoretical work involved a style of warfare entirely different than Napoleon's--or the Land's. From that perspective, his original plans still seem quite rational to me (using rivers for rapid deployment, trying to choose advantageous terrain, etc.). Just my opinion, of course. But if I were writing "The Illearth War" today, I wouldn't change any aspect of his role. And let me just observe that in centuries past the Lords *have* tried other approaches to battling Lord Foul's armies--with disastrous results. In his own desperate way, Troy achieved a major victory. I still don't see how that victory could have been achieved by other means. (03/20/2006)

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.

No commercial entity or "person with money" has ever approached me on the subject. And since I don't listen to the radio, I actually have no idea whether or not ANYthing I've written could be effectively dramatized in that medium. Seems in theory like it ought to be more "possible" than a stage play; but I don't really know. (03/21/2006)

I'm afraid you have a long wait ahead of you. I have a one-track mind, and "The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" will consume my attention for the foreseeable future. I *do* want to write at least one more Brew/Ginny novel. But I can't promise anything at this point. (03/22/2006)

But they have such different methologies. Especially now. I like to think that Lord Foul would turn Sauron inside-out. <grin> (03/22/2006)