Dave Duncan (2004)

Althea Weaver of Chiaroscuro asks: In 1998 you published Daughter of Troy under the pen name Sarah B. Franklin. Why did you make this move after developing such a strong following with your earlier work?

Dave Duncan answers: It was not my idea! I tried to rewrite Homer's epic The Iliad as a historical novel, using modern archeological data to give it some realism. My publisher saw it as a historical romance, a genre that sells much better than straight historicals. As a romance, it had to have a feminine writer. So Sarah BF was born -- and died.

Althea Weaver of Chiaroscuro asks: In a recent interview, you mentioned starting with short stories without much luck, then switched to novels. What is it about the novel form that satisfies you and makes you successful?

Dave Duncan replies: I am long-winded! I need space to develop my ideas. Especially I like to devise a "What If" magic and then discover what sort of a world it would produce, what sort of story would fit in that world, and so on. The late journalist TH White once wrote that he could not clear his throat in less than 3000 words. I need about 100,000. Another reason is that you can only write what you read. I do not read short fiction. I find getting into a story is an effort, and with short works I have just gotten into my stride when I come to the end.

Althea Weaver of Chiaroscuro asks: You have also mentioned that character and sense of place are the most important elements of story. Do you consider setting something like a character, something to be revealed slowly, over time, but having an existence as solid as the characters?

Dave Duncan replies: Character is THE most important factor. I cannot think of a memorable story that does not contain distinctive characters. Setting is important in Fantasy and SF because those genres tinker with the real world, so the reader has to be shown the difference. I suppose the setting gets revealed gradually, over time, if only because to drop it on the reader in one solid lump would be a very clumsy technique. Worlds unfold for me as I write. I even change the jargon a lot as I go along. For example, I am working on a story where only women rule, but I don't want to call a ruler a queen. I have toyed with rectoress, a very ugly word but not necessarily to be discarded for that reason, and with governess, which has some interesting overtones. To my ear, governesses sound like rather fussy people, more interested in people's manners than in making war. Similarly, in the King's Blades books, magic is called conjuration, and that gives it a different feel. I noticed that one reviewer referred to Ironhall, the swordsman school, as having become almost a recurring character in the series.

Katriel of OtherSpace asks: Does a storyteller have a responsibility to the society he tells stories to? If so, why, and in what way? If not, why not?

Dave Duncan replies: This is a VERY old argument. Back in the early 20th century there was a big debate between George Bernard Shaw, who felt that all art should carry a social message, and Somerset Maughan, who maintained that the purpose of art was simply to entertain (or beautify, depending on what sort of art). I'd say that they were both wrong and the answer is somewhere in between. I like a drinking glass to be a pleasing shape; I don't want it to be so contorted that I can't drink out of it or clean it properly. Good novels usually contain solid information about the time or place in which they are set for example Dickens's novels about the Industrial Revolution, or Patrick O'Brien's Napoleonic sea stories. In Fantasy all I can offer is a self-consistent construct of a world, but I can use this as a stage set to present a few social comments. In The Gilded Chain I said a few things about loyalty and honor which apply in the real world also.

Katriel of OtherSpace asks: There are many science fiction stories based around the idea of genetic manipulation, for good or ill. Scientists are edging closer to making this actually possible: How do you feel about that? Do you think that it would be helpful or harmful or a combination of the two? And in what ways?

Dave Duncan replies: I don't believe that things, processes, procedures, tools (or, yes, even guns I suppose) are good or evil. What is done with them can be either. Evil is a human attribute. If someone could "correct" a Downs Syndrome baby, that would be a benevolent act. Turning a normal baby into one of Aldous Huxley's moronic but biddable Gamma people would be damnable evil. And in as much as Science Fiction makes us think about such prospects, writing and publishing SF is commendable. Larry Niven was writing about organleggers back in the sixties and they are now.

To learn more about Dave Duncan and his books, check out his official website.