I could tell you that the Worm is an inherent part of the Earth's creation--which it is. But I find it more useful to think of such things in symbolic terms. Consider the Worm as a symbol of Death. If you had the Power the Command, would you use it to command Death to simply "stop happening"? If you did, the outcome might surpass your worst nightmares. Disasters of astonishing magnitude result from messing with The Way Life Works. Witness the horrors that have arisen because individuals decided that the Laws of Life and Death shouldn't apply--"just this once." Damelon was wise to do everything in his power to keep people away from the EarthBlood. (03/05/2008)

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'm posting this more as a matter of general interest than because I have an answer. I'm confident that you're right: any list of significant US writers compiled by our present "intellectual establishment" would include no fantasy (or science fiction) writers--apart from Ray Bradbury, and (perhaps) Kurt Vonnegut. But why this is true, I can only speculate. One theory is that "real life" in the US has always contained too much that is new and strange and horrible (exploring a continent, slaughtering its inhabitants, becoming a global embodiment of self-righteousness: the list goes on). In context, it's no surprise that many thinking people are inclined to cynicism, irony, despair, black comedy, etc.. (And surely it's no accident that Bradbury and Vonnegut regularly match that template.) Indeed, thinking people here often find comfort in cynicism etc., just as unthinking people find comfort in self-righteousness. But fantasy and science fiction (considered in the broadest possible terms) have two qualities that don't fit in this dark picture: they imply hope (by not being afraid of the new and strange and horrible); and they preach accepting responsibility for the consequences of your own actions (which is not an attitude that anyone would consider characteristic of the US). Just a theory. (03/05/2008)

It's only natural that Linden doesn't share Covenant's (earlier) obsession with reality/unreality, even though she lacks his cumulative experience in the Land. She's a different person with different issues--and a different story. Meanwhile, I can assure you that I would rather shoot myself straight in the head than end "The Last Chronicles" with some kind of "cheap trick," literary or otherwise. (03/05/2008)

What would be the point? I can't imagine what a myspace page would accomplish that isn't already covered by my web site and the Gradual Interview. Unless you think I would be willing to supply EVEN MORE content? Heaven forfend! Life is too short as it is. (03/05/2008)

Trees grow, mutate, have descendants. Rocks melt, fuse, get torn apart and recombined. I would hate to limit my narrative options by saying, "Yes, the gem of the krill is a piece of the One Stone [Rock, whatever: One of Something]." But surely it's fair to say that the krill's gem--and orcrest--are descended in some sense from the archetypal concept of *stone*. Like lomillialor, they express or exemplify ideas and powers larger than themselves. (03/12/2008)

Is it plausible that the ur-viles have reinterpreted their Weird? First, change is the very definition of life. Second, any living and thinking being is capable of conscious change. Third, any living, thinking being that is able to acquire new knowledge is capable of choices which may be radically different than its previous choices. (I speak from personal experience.) And the ur-viles aren't stupid. After a certain number of millennia trudging around the landscape getting slaughtered at LF's behest, some of them might well have noticed that they were on a self-destructive path. I consider it highly plausible that they are capable of reinterpreting their Weird. But have they actually done so? What do the poor things have to do to earn your trust? "What would Vain's transformation have been like, if he hadn't been "wounded" at the One Tree? How would the final Staff have been different, and was that more in line with what the Ur-Viles wanted at the time? Would we (through Linden) have been better off, or worse, if that were the case?" I'm sorry. This is unanswerable because it takes us outside the bounds of the actual story. (See the long statement by Douglas Adams quoted here months and months ago.) If I were telling a completely different story, what would all the differences be? I have no earthly idea. You're certainly free to speculate as much as you want about what the ur-viles may or may not have been trying to achieve when they created Vain. But I can't help you. (03/12/2008)

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'm sorry. I've never been able to distinguish between my ideas and their inception. To use an obvious analogy: how would I distinguish between my son's (or my daughter's) birth and conception? No matter how you look at it, you don't get the former without the latter. So I have absolutely no way to guess what might or might not have happened if Lester del Rey hadn't provoked me. (03/19/2008)

This takes me back years, to the days when circumstances compelled me to explain why *criticism* ("constructive" or otherwise) doesn't belong in the Gradual Interview. Briefly: I didn't ask for it, and it cannot possibly help me; so it exists only to serve the ego of the critic. Your insistence on telling me that reading about Linden is like lugging around a backpack is the same thing in a different guise. What do you hope to gain by telling me? You can't believe that you're doing me good (that would be absurd)--and this subject cannot be emotionally neutral--so you must be trying to do me harm. For some reason. It's amazing to me how often people use "telling the truth" to someone else as an excuse for not being honest about their own motives for doing so. (03/19/2008)

It's all in how you look at it. You could, with perfect justice, call that an inconsistency. I could, with equal justice, counter that Covenant is *very* new to health-sense, so he hardly knows what it means--and he's never laid eyes on the Staff of Law (or heard about the existence of Law? maybe? I can't remember), so he has no way of recognizing that the slain Waynhim isn't *really* natural. Or we could just shrug, admit that we're both human <rueful smile>, and go on with our lives. Here's the truth. The way I think about every aspect of this subject ("Law," "natural," "health-sense," etc.) has changed significantly over the years. No sudden radical shifts, but a gradual modulation as my characters and I study the issues more and more deeply. One very obvious example: look at the role health-sense plays in the first trilogy, and compare it to "The Last Chronicles". Well, the fact that I push as hard as I do to "go further" has one unfortunate (but perhaps inevitable) consequence: it produces inconsistencies like this one (or like the fact that nothing in the first six books hints at the existence of the Insequent). Naturally I wish I were capable of perfect consistency. But that would require that I foresaw everything that would ever happen--to my story, or to me--before I even started on LFB. So I'm forced to shrug yet again, and move on. (03/19/2008)

The earlier "Covenant" books may become available in e-formats...someday. As I've said before in this interview, my publisher and I are at a contractual impasse. And the situation is deteriorating as publishers become increasingly punative in their treatment of authors. (By "publishers" I don't mean editors: I mean the multinational conglomorates that own the publishers.) Nevertheless my agent and I are still trying to a find a way. Maybe someday we'll succeed. And maybe someday Scott Brick will succeed at releasing his audio version of "Fatal Revenant". Who knows? (03/19/2008)

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.

Well, of *course* they start to stink. But this is obviously not a subject on which I've focused much narrative attention. Why? Because it takes up too much storytelling space. And because, well, where does it end? Do you want to know *every* time a character takes a leak, or is every *other* time enough? However, my characters *do* either change or wash their clothes--when they can. (Not so much the people of the Land, I admit: we seldom hear that one of them has done something to get cleaned up.) I could cite examples; but I hardly think they're necessary. (03/19/2008)

This has been a rather thorny discussion. <rueful smile> For some reason, we've had trouble finding ways to understand each other. And yet I've had the impression that if we could just clarify our thoughts in ways that make sense to each other, we would find ourselves more in agreement than not. Now you've given me some further clues to comprehension; and I think (?) maybe (?) I've identified the point where our wires get crossed (if you'll forgive the metaphor). As I recall, you originally felt that Covenant's "solution" to his conundrum (the impossibility of believing the Land is real vs the impossibility of believing the Land is not real) was "too easy". If I understand you, you've argued that simply deciding "the conundrum doesn't matter" doesn't resolve anything because it doesn't risk anything (which is why it's too easy). Is that a fair (if over-simplified) statement of your position? Then you observe that, while as writers I (and others) may make equal commitments to the viewpoints/beliefs of opposing characters, the very fact that we do so affirms a "value" which is not comparable to Covenant's "real/unreal" paradox. In this, your position (I repeat: if I understand it) is unassailable. I simply cannot simultaneously treat my characters with dignity AND dismiss them as fools and charlatans. Again, is this a fair statement of your position? Well, if I'm right so far, then I've identified the point at which our miscommunication occurs. Covenant's story doesn't stop when he recognizes the nature of his "real/unreal" conundrum. Nor does it stop when he (and I) conclude that "the conundrum doesn't matter". No, those positions merely clear the way for, or enable, exactly what you're looking for: "a commitment to lose all and [perhaps] find it". Covenant's final confrontation with LF in "The Power that Preserves" *does* represent an absolute commitment--with absolutely everything at stake (for himself as well as for the Land). But that commitment is not, "Yes, the Land is real," or "No, the Land is not real." His commitment might be (crudely) paraphrased as, "I don't care whether the Land is real or not. It has become desperately important to me. In fact, it *is* me whether it exists objectively or not. And I've done terrible harm to it--as I have to myself. So I'm willing to sacrifice everything and anything, including my life, in an effort to counter that harm with affirmation." Or, putting the whole issue another way: how Covenant chooses to understand his dilemma merely reflects how he thinks. How he *acts* in response to that dilemma reflects the scale of his commitment. And I think that his willingness to risk everything counters your argument that his resolution is too easy. Or, putting it even more crudely: if I'm willing to risk everything for my beliefs, you can conclude that I'm crazy, stupid, misguided, or even evil, but you can NOT conclude that what I'm doing is "too easy". (03/21/2008)

The short answer is that I write about characters I can understand; and since I'm riddled with self-doubt myself.... But "mentally weaker than she has any reason to be"? Surely you jest. Self-doubt and mental weakness are *not* the same thing--unless self-doubt becomes paralysis. And Linden is obviously *not* paralyzed. In fact, she has fought bigger battles, and wielded more power, than Covenant ever did (or else the Worm would have been roused). That doesn't sound like mental weakness--or chauvenism--to me. But power does not breed confidence. *Success* (in the personal sense) breeds confidence. Experience breeds confidence. And Linden (in "The Last Chronicles") has not had either the kind of success or the kind of experience that would counteract her instinctive self-doubt. (03/21/2008)

I'm posting this as a matter of general interest. It underscores at least some of the absurdity which prompts most distinctions between "literary," "mainstream" fiction and "genre" literatures. (03/21/2008)

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)

We could have a truly excruciating discussion here that begins by trying to define things like "mistake" and expands to include mistakes made by authors as well as mistakes made by characters. But I am *so* not in the mood.... <rueful smile> Instead I'll just say: If you accept the notion that "The ends do not justify the means," then you also have to accept that "The ends cannot be used to evaluate the means." And yet somehow I suspect that every "mistake" attributed to, say, Linden involves judging her actions by their outcomes. As it happens, there are no words adequate to describe how completely I do *not* think in such terms while I'm working. From my perspective, none of my characters has *ever* made a mistake. How can I say that? 1) Because if they didn't do what they do, there wouldn't be a story. And 2) because if they didn't do what they do, they wouldn't be who they are--which would mean that *I*, rather than my characters, have screwed up. If you want to argue that an action can be called a mistake when it produces a terrible outcome, then simple logic requires you to argue also that the ends justify the means. But if people like Covenant and Linden believed that the ends justify the means, you could have kissed the Land goodby a long time ago. (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.

Considering that I had never even heard of “Torchwood” before this, I’m surprised to find so many messages posted about the episode, “Dead Man Walking”. In the interest of making some progress on AATE occasionally <sigh>, I’m not going to respond to every message. But my view of the “quote” in question is: if it isn’t a) an “homage” or b) an in-joke, then it’s just stupid. I suggest that we all simply enjoy it for whatever we think it is. Unless the makers of “Torchwood” know something I don’t…? <muffled gasp> (03/23/2008)

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.

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’m embarrassed to admit that I don’t remember the response you mention. I can’t answer your question because I don’t recall the context of my previous remarks. (03/23/2008)

When I was young (high school and college), I tried my hand at a variety of “creativities,” including comic books and opera. But I soon discovered that I lacked the necessary gifts. I’ve always believed that there are no right or wrong ways to approach being creative: there are only the ways that work for you and the ways that don’t work for you. Things like the need to establish a routine, or to devise some kind of isolation from sources of distraction, appear to be fairly universal--although how individuals put those concepts into practice varies dramatically (I know writers who find “isolation from sources of distraction” in very loud bars). In contrast, things like how I go about planning my stories don’t appear to be even remotely universal. I know writers who plan nothing except the first sentence. When they’re satisfied with the first sentence, they start to plan the second. And so on until they reach the end of whatever it is. I know writers who write the various scenes of a story in random order, often starting with the conclusion and then moving on to whatever happens to interest them next. I know of a writer who only wrote outlines: he started with a one paragraph outline, expanded it to a one page outline, expanded that to two pages, then to four, then to sixteen, still writing only outlines, until his outline became indistinguishable from a finished book. And those are only fiction writers. Include non-fiction, poetry, painting, sculpture, pottery, drama, weaving, and--if I may be so bold--music, and it quickly becomes obvious that we’re talking about a question to which there cannot be any right answers. There are only individual answers; and every individual has to find them for him/herself. (03/23/2008)

I suspect Kevin’s predecessors called it, “I wonder when that leaning rock way up there is going to fall down." (03/23/2008)

OK. If I stretch a bit, I guess I can see Berek as a messianic figure. But do you mean Barack Obama or Barack the husband in “Die Frau ohne Schatten”? [note to self: check German spelling] If the former, he hasn’t really had a chance to do anything messianic yet. Assuming he has that in him. If the latter, he doesn’t really fit the role. (03/23/2008)

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.

This seems like an opportunity to make a procedural point about the Gradual Interview. When I post an answer to your message, your e-mail address is automatically suppressed: a small courtesy intended to protect your privacy. But when you first leave a message for me, if you don’t include your e-mail address, you prevent me from sending you a personal response instead of a public one. And I think it’s obvious that your message was never really intended for a public forum. So please give me your e-mail address--unless you want to take the chance that I might feel forced to delete your message unanswered. (03/23/2008)

1) I don’t mind at all. In fact, I’m flattered. 2) If I were you, I wouldn’t bother asking permission. The rights are held by Ballantine Books; and they are notoriously unresponsive in cases like yours. As long as you give full and appropriate credit for the poem, any sensible publisher will view your efforts as free advertising. And even a stupid publisher couldn’t try to punish you because a) you have *my* permission, and b) you can defend yourself under the “fair use” clause of my contract (as long as you give due credit). Now if you wanted to set *all* the “Covenant” poems--or the whole story--or everything I ever wrote <grin>--you would probably need formal permission. Something that extensive wouldn’t be considered “fair use”. (03/23/2008)

Another “general interest” message. I have nothing new to offer. But if Scott Brick is ever able to carry out his original intentions, readings of all the “Covenant” books will eventually be available in unabridged commercial versions. I’m keeping my fingers crossed. (03/23/2008)

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 don't think it's "self-serving": I think it's fun. I hope your site will be of interest to readers of the Gradual Interview. (03/24/2008)

Yes, Anele's heritage of Earthpower does extend his life--as it did that of his parents. I haven't tried to assign him an exact age; but the logic of the story suggests that he must be over 100. Perhaps well over. (03/24/2008)

It seems likely--not to mention fitting--that the One Forest used humans as the "raw materials" for Forestals. After all, it was humans who damaged the Forest so badly that it needed defenders. (03/24/2008)

I don't think of it as rudeness. I consider it a fairly natural anxiety about the uncertainties of life. After all, we've lost a number of valuable members of the sf/f community in recent years: David Gemmell, Charles L. Grant, Jack Williamson, Fred Saberhagen, now Arthur C. Clarke, and others. It's not surprising that readers are feeling vulnerable to mortality. As I am myself. But I'm still healthy enough to be a punching bag for martial arts students a third my age. <grin> (03/24/2008)

On more than one occasion, people have urged me to do this (usually people who stand to profit by it). I resist on general principles. First, I don't think anyone should have to pay a "premium" for an autographed book. Second, I'm not willing to make the various efforts involved (shipping books back and forth with a dealer in autographs; or traveling to the dealer so that I don't have to ship books back and forth; or going into the bookselling business myself--which would be a huge hassle because I'd have to file a bunch of paperwork with the state and pay gross receipts tax) on "spec". Third, my autograph is already available for free. And fourth--well, I don't actually understand why people want autographs in the first place. I never have. (03/26/2008)

If you want to write, I strongly recommend *studying* writing--as well as actually writing. "Schooling" isn't inherently necessary (you can study on your own), although most people find the imposed structure as well as the guidance of schooling helpful. But I don't see how anyone who isn't a student of writing can hope to be any good at writing. But "I sometimes feel my life experience isn't enough or too self-centered to use"??? "Vanity, vanity, all is vanith, saith the preacher: there is nothing new under the sun." Except you. No writer has anything to offer his/her readers, except him/herself. If your "life experience" is inadequate, to "too self-centered," what was it *for*? (03/26/2008)

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 doubt that the Raver "could have provoked" Covenant "just as easily by beating" Linden. Sexual threats are pretty much always more intimate and, well, primal than ordinary physical punishment. And of course (as you observe) the provocation of a sexual assault is exacerbated for Covenant by the fact that he has committed a similar crime himself. Threatening Linden with rape seems well-calculated to set Covenant off. (03/26/2008)

I have no data that would enable me to offer you a meaningful answer. Both male and female readers have informed me that they threw "Lord Foul's Bane" away after the rape. Both male and female readers have informed me that they "got past" the rape, and were very glad that they did so. And some male and female readers have read all six of the previous books, even though they found Covenant "repulsive" throughout. But this is sporadic, anecdotal evidence: it has no statistical validity (the "sampling" is too small and random to suggest "trends" of any kind). I have no idea what constitutes "a common reaction," either for men or for women. Certainly the readers who post questions and messages on this site do not comprise a valid statistical sampling in any useful sense. The evidence here is unnaturally weighted in favor of readers who like what I do. (03/26/2008)

The scene you describe was a piece of imaginative projection. I've never done anything like that myself, but I've imagined it with intense horror. At some point during the first draft of "Lord Foul's Bane"--in reaction, if memory serves, to a comment made by a friend of mine--I realized that I had only one copy of what I was writing (not even a carbon); and the house I was living in was a tinderbox (compare Covenant's home on Haven Farm). The thought of what might happen nearly made me pass out. After which I began my obsessive practice of having backups everywhere. Clearly something deep within me was utterly appalled at the idea that my work might be destroyed. Of course, I knew the famous story about Carlisle (although I've now forgotten all the details): if I remember rightly, his dog knocked over a table, spilling his (only) manuscript into his fireplace; and ten years of work went up in flames. That may have played a role in inspiring my horror. But my horror was--in a manner of speaking--vindicated years later when a computer malfunction deleted five new pages of one of my mystery novels. I was so upset I almost stepped in front of a truck. And no--since you sort of asked--I'm not going to mention my childhood. Although I enjoy blaming my parents as much as the next man. <grin> Anyway, my point--if I have one--is that I put on Covenant terrors that I've never been able to face directly in my own life. Hence the "harrowing" resonance of that scene. (03/26/2008)

We've stepped way outside the text again. And we're violating the vague-but-essential relationship between Covenant and the Land. But sure, it sounds plausible to assume that hurtloam could heal the illnesses you cite. If such ailments ever occur in a magical reality like the one I've devised. (03/26/2008)