I've been putting off responding to your thoughtful message because, well, because it's had me stumped. Now, however, I think I've figured out what my problem is. It appears to me--and I could be wrong--that beneath the surface your question is about *polemics* (which for purposes of discussion I'll define as "the advocacy or criticism of one or more belief systems": an admittedly idiosyncratic definition which nonetheless serves to help me think). But I'm not a polemicist: I'm a storyteller. In other words, I don't set out to write about themes or issues: I set out to write stories. Along the way, I do try to discover and explore the themes and issues that seem to me to be inherent in those stories. But I strive--hard--to never ever EVER impose my own agendas or "filters" on my stories. Of course, my goal in writing is impossible. Not to mention self-contradictory. I can't turn off who I am ("filters" and all) when I write. And if I could, what would be the point? Ultimately *I* (the whole package of intelligence, imagination, stories, sympathies, passions, filters, beliefs, etc.) am all I have to offer my readers. Nevertheless the way I think about my work is important to me. In itself, it's a filter: a belief about the significance and requirements of creative integrity. Like the Land's Creator, my policy is one of, well, non-interference. <rueful smile> That said, however.... Your observations about systems of belief in "The Chronicles" are certainly apt. (I might argue with your assertion that "The people of the land during the time of the Clave and the Masters appear to blindly follow orders without question.... A spurious belief system ensues." I'm not inclined to criticize people who follow a belief system that obviously *works*: it keeps them alive--and it kills them when they don't follow it. For the villagers, anyway, the belief system is demonstrably *not* spurious: it accurately predicts the real experience of real individuals. Sure, the Clave's teachings *are* spurious: the Clave is lying about the intended purpose of those teachings. But the people in, say, Mithil Stonedown couldn't possibly know that. And they couldn't do anything about it if they did know it.) My point is simply that I didn't set out to write a story about systems of belief. Instead I created characters--and then tried to follow the "logic" of their personal realities to their natural conclusions. The fact that the story clearly *is* about systems of belief is a symptom of who I am rather than a statement about my intentions. Could that be any less clear? I hope not. <grin> I'm trying to be as murky as I can. So "who I am" in this context--my pertinent filter--involves what I choose to call "imperialism". My life has taught me a deep repugnance for imperialism in all of its guises, physical, racial, commercial, religious, political, whatever. I can't ignore that: it's bred in the bone. And in the specific case of "The Chronicles," I don't *want* to ignore it: it fits the story (which is, after all, about a man who--for his own survival--tries to reject one system of belief in favor of another). Here's another way to say pretty much the same thing: your reading of the story is accurate, but it does not accurately reflect my reasons for telling the story. Which you probably already knew. <sigh> (04/02/2008)

Ah HA! A reaction to my mystery novels. *This* doesn't happen very often. Unfortunately, I can't tell you where or how I get my ideas. The various functions of my mind and imagination are as much a--drumroll, please--mystery to me as they are to you. The idea of a mystery camp is not new, of course--although I like to think that I pushed it farther than it usually goes. But how did I decide to include a team of mystery writers? All I can tell you is that their presence seemed like a natural extension of my basic concept. As it happens, "'typical' mystery readers" have passed judgment on my books, and their verdict is nigh universal: the books don't sell. To comfort myself, I observe that I probably don't publish these books often enough to interest "'typical' mystery readers" (who as a group tend to be devoted fans: they commonly don't get interested in a detective--or detectives--until the body of work reaches a certain mass). But that may simply be a form of whistling in the dark. (04/02/2008)

Illness in the Works of Stephen R. Donaldson. What can I tell you? This is another of those "bred in the bone" subjects I was talking about a little while ago. I grew up in a medical family--and I "failed" a number of my family's stated expectations by not becoming a doctor. So I guess I'm compensating for that failure. <rueful smile> On a more constructive note: I have always found physical limitations--and strengths--to be a fertile source of metaphors for the emotional, psychological, and spiritual conditions I want to write about. Those metaphors are EVERYwhere in my stories. But "why do you put Morn and others of your characters through such hell?" I don't mean this to sound flippant (although it will <sigh>), but what *else* am I going to do? Pat them on the back for several hundred pages? Sorry: I'm actually quite serious here. None of us ever know who we are--never mind who we want to be--until we're tested. If we don't go through hell--in one form or another--we never find out what we're made of; and so we can never choose to become the people we want to be. Sure, going through hell exacts a terrible price. And many people can't pay it. (Nick Succorso leaps to mind.) But the people who do-- Ah, those are the people who are really worth reading about. If for no other reason than because it's actually possible to learn something from them. I know (to my cost--in the best sense of the term) that people like Morn Hyland and Angus Thermopyle, Thomas Covenant and Linden Avery, have taught me invaluable lessons. Without them, I wouldn't even come close to being who I want to be. (04/02/2008)

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, "influence".... I don't know how to answer that. I've never read Spinoza; and I wasn't familiar with this Einstein quote. But that doesn't mean their ideas didn't influence me. After all, lots and lots of other people *did* (and do) read Spinoza (and Einstein). Those people may have been influenced by their reading; and I have surely read--and been affected by--some of them. I just don't know it because the interconnections are both oblique and unlabeled. (04/09/2008)

Lord Foul, being the DESPISER, *despises* sushi. There are no sushi chefs in the Land. In a distant region of the Earth, however, an obscure people worship sushi. Sushi chefs are the high priests of that religion. Sadly, they are too self-absorbed to have any effect on the outcome of larger events. (04/09/2008)

1) I never know how books are coming along until after I finish working on them (and "working on them" includes all the rewrites). Since I identify so closely with my characters, my experience in writing about them is intensely subjective. During that process, I have no *perspective* on the book as something that someone else might read. 2) Sorry to disappoint. For my own creative, mental, and even moral well-being, I "deleted" those memories as fast and thoroughly as I could. It's conceivable that Lester's suggestions remain hidden somewhere in one of my file cabinets--but I ain't about to go looking for them. (04/09/2008)

Wit, it seems, is in the mind of the beholder. If you were to poll GI readers, you would find--I suspect--very few who have actually been castrated by my wit. Or even merely maimed in less prestigious ways by my steel-trap-type analytical mind. (04/10/2008)

I guess it’s time for yet another report on the publication schedule for “The Last Chronicles.” I’ve been over this a number of times, but apparently my answers aren’t easy to find using the Gradual Interview search feature. So I’m going to lay this out in a format that I hope will facilitate searches. “The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant,” Book One, “The Runes of the Earth,” published October 2004. “The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant,” Book Two, “Fatal Revenant,” published October 2007. “The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant,” Book Three, “Against All Things Ending,” expected publication 2010. “The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant,” Book Four, “The Last Dark,” expected publication 2013. The long lag between books is painful for all of us--although I suspect it may be more painful for me than it is for you, since I have to actually *write* the ^##%&#@ things. But I need every minute of those three years. What I’m trying to accomplish here is demonstraby impossible. (If it were *possible,* I wouldn’t have to answer so many questions about it.) I can’t simply coast my way through it. (04/10/2008)

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

Huh? Define “it”. And “all”. And “worth”. And “it” again. Gimme some *context,* man. I need to know what we’re talking about here. (04/10/2008)

I don’t know whether it’s stupid or brilliant either--but it does go WAY outside the text. You might want to do a GI search on “Douglas Adams” and read what he had to say about questions that stray outside the text. Certainly *I* do not imagine any possible congruence between the reality (by which I mean the story) that includes Linden and the reality (story) that includes Terisa. (04/10/2008)

Sometimes I find myself feeling proudest of the books which have received the least attention. So I'm especially grateful for your good opinion of the GAP books. But as I've said before, I don't choose my ideas (not consciously, anyway): my ideas choose me. At present, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether I'll ever write any more s/f. Apart from "The Last Chronicles," no ideas have chosen me yet. A rough estimate of the March GI questions/comments suggests that at least 75% of them were posted by men. I wish more women read my books. But then, I wish more EVERYBODY read my books. <rueful smile> Pure ego, of course: I should know better. (04/10/2008)

SPOILER WARNING!

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

Spoilers - Fatal Revenant

To view this post, click here.

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

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 would never consider turning "Covenant" into a video game myself: not because I have anything against video games, but because I don't know how, don't have time to learn, and don't really enjoy such games myself. As for being approached: there's no point in approaching *me* because I don't hold the rights. Ballantine Books does. To the best of my knowledge, Ballantine has ignored every approach so far. (04/10/2008)

A bit of chronology is pertinent. I didn't start studying the martial arts until 10+ years after the publication of the first "Covenant" trilogy. So in the obvious sense, the discipline (and self-knowledge) that I learned as a writer helped me as a student of the martial arts, rather than the other way around. But in a less obvious sense, my training in the martial arts has been very helpful in my writing life. (I would never admit this to anyone--he said, admitting it freely--but in the privacy of my own thoughts, I've been slowly developing an attitude toward writing that I call "the writer as warrior".) My life today is FAR more complicated and stressful than it was 20 years ago (when it was in turn far more complicated and stressful than it had been 10 years previously); and now I find that the "outlet" of basics, kata, and sparring, learning and teaching, does a lot to help keep me sane. And in a (perhaps) even less obvious sense: for me, at least, if for no one else, studying the martial arts is ultimately about learning to face my fears; and I do believe that without my years of martial study I would never have become, well, *brave* enough to write "The Last Chronicles". (04/11/2008)

I cannot imagine myself *ever* "writing a book on the subject of writing". I have virtually no interest in non-fiction myself; so why would I write a book that didn't interest *me*? And writing is simply too difficult to spend the effort on anything except what I love: stories. On the other hand, I do think I've been sort of "tricked" into writing the moral equivalent of a book in the GI. Certainly there is more than enough content here to fill a book--if someone were willing to undertake the (massive) job of editing it (eliminate repetition, organize by theme, create an index, that sort of thing). I have no intention of tackling that ordeal myself. It would bore me stupid. But secretly I hope that someday some enterprising young scholar (and publisher) will see fit to make something out of the raw materials of the GI. (04/12/2008)

I’ve talked about “vocabulary” in the “Covenant” books before--and doubtless will again. I hasten to say that I do not use a thesaurus. Nor is there anything “careful” about my research. I simply love words, partly for their sound, and partly for their power to enable thought. So when I read, I make lists of unfamiliar words. And when my lists reach a certain mass, I indulge in word orgies, looking up sounds and meanings without regard to their potential relevance or usefulness. You might say that I’m trying to furnish my mind with the raw materials necessary for what I want to write by “mining” other people’s vocabularies. On some level, however, I do acquire the raw materials for their own sake; and I value them whether or not they ever serve my purposes. (04/14/2008)

It’s true that the strenuousness of *how* I write ebbs and flows according to the intensity of *what* I’m writing. But this variation isn’t something that I plan or premeditate in order to pace myself or develop my, well, my strength. Instead I go with whatever my story requires from me on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, week-by-week basis, in much the same way that I do whatever my sensei or sigung tells me to do whenever I’m in the dojo. I suppose you could consider working on the Gradual Interview a form of “cycling my intensity”. Rather like riding my exercycle between visits to the dojo. But keep in mind that I never take time away from my story in order to work on the GI. I only use time that I could not have used for more intense, more essential writing. (04/14/2008)

I’m sorry: I can’t explain it. This is another “how does [my] imagination work” question, and I don’t know the answer. Somewhere in the back of my head is the nagging impression that I once saw something malevolent that happened to be green. The crocodile in “Peter Pan”? When I was 9 years old, and had never seen a movie before? Honestly, I don’t remember. But as I recall, I made the Illearth Stone green simply because that seemed like the “right” color at the time. (04/14/2008)

You may be misquoting me somewhat. As I recall, I said that my emphasis on “the necessity of freedom” *may* be a reaction against my parents’ belief in predestination. In practice, my parents were comparatively humane in how they applied their religious beliefs. But the missionaries in general were not. They were “absolutists” down to the ground: “You either agree with me in every detail, or you are going to roast in the fires of Hell eternally.” And you can certainly see “absolutism” in several of the characters and races in “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.” Not to mention the willingness to damn absolutely everyone else for the sake of one being’s beliefs or desires. But I wouldn’t want you to take these ideas out of context. I write this kind of fantasy in part because it permits--and even encourages--exaggeration (i.e. dramatizing passions and beliefs in *pure* forms, so that they can be looked at and studied “outside” their real manifestations in conflicted and self-contradictory human beings). The importance of “absolute” characters like Hile Troy, and the Haruchai, and the Ranyhyn, and the Ravers, and Lord Foul lies *within* the story, not in any desire I might feel to criticize missionaries. (Read my many messages on the subject of polemics.) I hope that makes sense. (04/14/2008)

Of course, there are many factors that influence my productivity on any given day: interruptions, biorhythms, illness, insomnia, general worry, that sort of thing. But it's generally true that I write more quickly when I can "see" what's immediately ahead of me clearly than I do when I'm feeling my way, wrestling with uncertainty in one form or another. In this context, various things impact how clearly I "see". Sometimes events are plain but characters are not: on other occasions, the problem is reversed. Sometimes I flounder trying to describe effectively a specific character, setting, conflict, or sequence of actions. Generally again, however, I do tend to "see" more clearly as I get closer to the end of a book (if for no other reason than because fewer decisions remain to be made)--or to a scene that I find particularly exciting for personal reasons (reasons which are not always the same as the reasons that make a scene exciting for a reader). (04/14/2008)

No, I didn't mean to imply that Juanita Estevez' instinct for privacy led her to be considered crazy. I intended to suggest that jealous colleagues often prefer to consider someone crazy when that someone achieves a breakthrough which has eluded everyone else. And in Dr Estevez' case, the jealousy of her colleagues was exacerbated by the fact that she didn't understand the principles behind her own achievement (not to mention the fact that her ignorance made her experiments potentially lethal). Doubtless LF would have enjoyed Angus' pain at being manipulated. But Angus' particular (enhanced) abilities would probably not have been of much use to LF's larger purposes. (04/14/2008)

<sigh> Your message underscores the folly of ever saying ANYthing about my intentions for upcoming work. No, I haven't changed my mind about what I'm doing--or will do--in this story. But that doesn't mean I plan "to show Lord Foul's side of things," or "give a window into the reasons for acting the way he does". I don't want to commit myself to anything that explicit. (04/14/2008)

I don't really know how to answer your question. No, there is no codified text ("bible") that reveals absolute truths--unless you think of "The Chronicles" themselves as a bible. <rueful smile> Nonetheless the characters do have access to what might be considered absolute truths. Earthpower is one. Law is another. The necessity of freedom is another. It is absolutely true that the Creator cannot reach through the Arch of Time to alter his creation without destroying its integrity. There are other examples. Still, I feel constrained to point out that one of the constant themes of "The Chronicles" is that "absolutes mislead". Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "the interpretation of absolutes misleads"--interpretation being inherently fallible. (04/14/2008)

Please keep in mind that I'm working without a net (i.e. a story "bible") here. As I've said many times before, in general I only invent what I need. But with that proviso.... Starting from the "known" (the text), we can make some deductions based on, say, the history of the One Forest. The One Forest was decimated by *people*--an act which in sheer scale could be considered a desecration--and they had to come from SOMEwhere. Since they didn't intrude through Doom's Retreat (that happened later, and when it did, the Upper Land was already inhabited--if sparsely, perhaps), and since the various mountain ranges naturally discourage migration, it seems likely that these people arrived from the sea, or along the coasts. Therefore the Lower Land must once have been inhabited by humankind. (I think we can assume that the Spoiled Plains weren't "spoiled" until after LF established himself in Ridjeck Thome.) And these people must have been capable of considerable darkness or malice, since they eventually gave rise to the Ravers. However, even back then the Sarangrave and Lifeswallower must have been toxic. The Defiles Course derives its poisons, at least in part, from the banes buried under Mount Thunder; and those banes--according to the text--were there from the Earth's very beginning. As a result, much of the Lower Land would have been comparatively unwelcoming. So it seems natural that people would slowly move toward the Upper Land, hacking and burning as they migrated. Does that answer your question? As for LF's use of Earthpower to bring himself back after his defeat in the first trilogy: why would he do such a thing if he didn't have to? Being the Despiser and all, he can't possibly *enjoy* things like Earthpower. (I like to picture him puking at the taste of aliantha.) As "a medieval history major," you would certainly know more about the Middle Ages than I do. But surely they haven't been called "the dark ages" for nothing? (04/23/2008)

Hmm. It seems likely that I'll hit 2007 messages answered in May of 2008--or shortly thereafter. (Although this count doesn't include the many messages I've answered privately.) At that point, as I see it, only mumblemumble things can happen. The GI will grind to a halt. Or I'll grind to a halt. Or the world will grind to a halt. Or my readers will spontaneously agree to submit only one question a year. Or we'll all have to reset our watches by the Maya calendar, which (I'm told) predicts the end of the world in 2012. Just a year before the publication of "The Last Dark". Which would be fitting, don't you agree? Certainly I hope for visible changes on the Glorious Day of Alignment (assuming that private responses haven't already cast that day long into the past). The change I would most like to see is, as ever: LIFE GETS SIMPLER. Er, excuse me, I mean, WORLD PEACE. Although I'd settle, with my usual congeniality, for tougher sentences for repeat offenders (just to show that I'm not *entirely* ignorant of pop culture). (04/23/2008)

OK, quick and easy. I don't know that a "Golden Age" *is*. Certainly there is more fantasy published every year now than during any other phase of my life. But Sturgeon's (?) Law still holds: 90% of everything is junk. More books published means that *finding* the good 10% is harder. The martial art of the Haruchai is entirely their own. Doubtless it has many features in common with any number of our codified "empty hand" arts. I never get to do any sightseeing--or even enjoying--while I'm on book tours. Airport, hotel, bookstore: there isn't time for anything else. "Have you ever had an author whose work you didn't like claim you as an inspiration?" Not to my knowledge. Hence my lack of identifiable emotion on the subject. (04/23/2008)

Despite the laborious manner in which you wrote your message, and the thought you put into it, I've deleted a number of your questions. Let me explain. As soon as you ask questions like, "Whatever happened to X?" or "Will Y take place later in the story?" or "Is Z relevant to what's coming?" you place me in an impossible position. Any affirmative or negative response is a spoiler. And if I refuse to answer at all, that's another kind of spoiler. I think I've demonstrated that I'm willing to talk about books that have already been published; but I do dearly wish that my readers would stop asking me to reveal my intentions for the upcoming installments in "The Last Chronicles." That said.... 2) Your speculations about Kastenessen's mortal lover are interesting. I can't say that I've ever thought about her in those terms. And I probably never will. I'm content with my original assumption that Giantish men are defended from the merewives by their gift of tongues. (It's often difficult to seduce someone who understands what you're *really* saying.) 4) LF is in hiding. Esmer doesn't even know where he is. This is consistent with the Despiser's new strategy as he has deployed it throughout the story so far. Doubtless he has read "Desecration Through Manipulation," a sort of self-help book for people who want to feel superior and do harm while remaining safe from the humiliating defeats they've suffered in the past. 7) The "reading" and "general literature" sections of this site offer various suggestions. It's generally true that few sf/f writers are as interested in tormented characters as I am. But for shades of grey, you need look no further than Joseph Conrad, Ford Madox Ford, George Meredith, William Faulkner, or Henry James. Not to mention Tim Powers. And there are some prominent "grey" characters in Steven Erikson's "Tales of the Malazan Book of the Fallen". (04/30/2008)

Wow! I'm impressed a) that a busy man like Davies would do such a thing, and b) that you know what he does. Thanks! (04/30/2008)

It's true that pretty much all of us go wildly astray when we make assumptions (or presumptions). And yet, how is it possible to live without them? We're never *not* in the position of having to make decisions based on incomplete information. So we fill in the gaps as best we can. The trick, I think, is to recognize our assumptions when we make them--and then to not make the mistake of thinking that our assumptions are facts. Oh, wait a minute. You were just kidding.... (04/30/2008)

No, I never met Arthur C. Clarke. And I was never a fan, although I read some of his stories with interest. I won't quote the review which explained most succinctly *why* I never became a fan. But I must say that I'm surprised by the comparison. If anyone could be considered "the Dean of Hard Science Fiction," it was Clarke. By his standard, I've written (very) soft sf. (04/30/2008)

Fully Loaded Pictures' option on the GAP books was effectively extended by the writers' strike. There's a legal term for it, which I can't spell. Force majeur? Is that close? It's the moral equivalent of an Act of God. (04/30/2008)

I don't remember. Doubtless the answer exists somewhere in my files, but I'm not going to spend an hour trying to dig it out. But I can tell you this: *none* of the present titles is my original title. If memory serves (which it often doesn't, so don't quote me), I planned the story with four one-word titles, of which the first was "Sunbane". (Were they all words that started with "s"? I *think* so.) I came up with the present titles when Lester del Rey informed me that he was going to publish the story as a trilogy--and that none of my one-word titles was acceptable. (04/30/2008)