An interview with Sam Sykes, english version

How could you introduce Tome of The Undergates to our readers? Why should people read it?

Tome of the Undergates is quest fantasy with real people. Real, dysfunctional people. Real, terrible, dysfunctional people with severely terrible problems and violent tendencies and difficult relationships and a lot of self-loathing and...wait, this is going down a terrible path.
Tome of the Undergates is a story about people with problems trying to do their best to help one another, to help themselves, to save the world from fish-headed evangelist demons, berserker warrior women and curious horrors from the deep and often struggling with it. You should read it, of course, because you've had quite enough fantasy with perfect heroes, despotic villains and problems that end by hucking a ring into a volcano, haven't you? Of course you have.

How is born your relationship with/your interest for the fantasy genre?

Man, this is always a hard one. There's so much pressure to talk about what an inspiration J.R.R. Tolkien is and how I re-read it every year or how George R.R. Martin proved that you could write human stories in a fantasy genre. It's kind of lame to suggest that I wanted to write stories about broken people and dramatic problems, except also with a bunch of monsters and swordplay, but there it is. Fantasy is a genre where you can really go nuts with whatever you want. Hence, it's a genre I really like.

Was there a particular reason you chose the fantasy genre for your debut?

The story I wrote was fantasy. ...shit, could I have chosen? I should have chosen an epic romance for my debut novel. I'd call it Bottoms on Fire: A Nancy Murderfist Story. It would have been a tale of romance, betrayal, two lovers separated by their own desires...and killer robots. Yeah, that'd have been a bestseller.

You have said that « Writing became a matter of survival. » for you. Could you tell us how so?

Writing's really all I've ever been good at. I mean, don't get me wrong, if the world were to go on fire and publishing, along with civilization, were to collapse, I could probably make a firm living prowling the wastelands and eating senior citizens, but I'd rather not do anything but write. If I had to work an office job or as a chef or anything in which I couldn't act like an eccentric lunatic and get away with it because I'm "one of those creative types," I'd probably die.

It seems that Tome of the Undergates leaves no one indifferent: some people loved it and a few didn't. At all. What do you think about these conflicting reactions?

At the risk of tooting my own horn (and soothing my wounded, fragile ego), I'd say the people who didn't like it are in a distinct minority. But they are still an impassioned minority, one that felt something for the novel, just not instant gratification. It's always been my opinion that being frustrated by a novel is a good thing, because it means you're engaged by the novel. If you're merely indifferent to the novel, then it failed to elicit an emotion and that's not great. I do get one or two reviews like that and they depress me more than the others, but they are, as you noted, in a much smaller minority than even those who get impassioned.

And by the way, are you influenced by book reviews, or do you seek to write something that satisfies you in the first place?

To piggyback off the last question: I'd say some frustration is almost necessary to a book. If I took a vast poll of all my reviewers and readers and consolidated a set of values, opinions and events that they all found favorable, if I wrote a book especially for that consolidation, then no one would like it. Because they would know exactly what happened and the book would have no character, because it had no vision. So, I can't really realistically be influenced by a reviewer, because then I'd be writing their book, not mine.

You have written a first version of your book at 17. Is there still some trace of it in the final version?

Oh, there's a lot of it still in there. None of it is verbatim, mind you; the basis of the story changed a lot. But it was still Lenk, Kataria and the others when I was 17.

Water and the ocean obviously play an important part in Tome. Are you fascinated by it in one way or another?

The ocean is horrifying. It's a vast, pitiless entity without end that surrounds us on all sides. It's filled with all manner of things that are completely alien to us in physiology, personality and intellect (many of which want to eat you). It goes on further than anyone can imagine and goes deeper than we dare to suspect. And even in the absolutely dark, most light-devoid depths, there is still life. The ocean is far more fantastic than any of us could ever write about and years from now, we'll still be trying our damnedest to understand it.

Why do you like to play with fantasy tropes? You seem to emphasize on your characters and « neglect » your world a little in Book I.

Well, it's never been my opinion that world building is more important than the characters. When you worldbuild, you're asking people to come visit. They come, see what's unique about it, then leave and eventually forget it when someone else walks by. When your characters are solid and fleshed out, you're sucking people in. Their problems are your problems, their victories are your victories. It's the difference between being engaged and being entertained. Though no one says you can't do both.

Do you still have a favourite fantasy cliche after all these years?

Really, my favorite fantasy cliche is still people of differing races falling in love without a hitch.
It's one I love to play with (naturally) and it's one, I think, that could do much, much more worldbuilding than, say, five pages describing a hill. We learn culture through character, we learn character through conflit, we see conflict in relationships. It's boring if a man and an elf fall in love and everyone cheers. It's engaging if a man and an elf fall in love despite traditionally hating each other.

Tome of the Undergates is a heavily character-driven book. I know that's a very cliche question, but do you have a favourite character among yours?

Sebast.

What's make a « good » adventurer for you?

A good adventurer is one that gets the job done, obviously!

You are currently working on the third book of your trilogy now. What is your favourite aspect of writing?

All of it, really. I love the love scenes as much as the fighting. I love agonizing over a scene as much as I love it when the muse strikes and everything flows perfectly. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't do it.

You are very active on your blog, on Facebook, on Twitter... You talk about the evolution of the fantasy genre, videogames, movies... Speaking of the internet, is the web an important tool in terms of communicating with your readers? In particular for a new writer?

Oh, hell yeah. If you're not online, you're just not visible. With publishing being the way it is today, the impetus on writers is stronger than ever to really be present and visible in online communities. This might sound daunting, but if you love doing it, it's really not a problem. Personally, I love doing it, so it's never been an issue for me. If someone is severely antisocial, though, they better write some goddamn fine books.

What is your take on the fantasy genre these days?

Overall, I'm positive. I think we're slowly mutating genre boundaries and moving to a place where character and conflict define the story over worldbuilding and magic systems. Those parts will always be important, as it is a creative signature and part of the narrative voice that will engage us, as readers, and get us involved in the world. But I think we're at the point where character is the most important part and we're coming to realize that, without characters and conflicts, the books just aren't worth reading.

Is there a sense of competition between you and other new writers?

Only an imaginary one. Back when I was just starting out, some of the weirder blogs ran these strange "WHO WILL COME OUT ON TOP: BLAKE CHARLTON, SAM SYKES, N.K. JEMISIN" type posts. Those were exceedingly weird and uncomfortable for me as a writer. Being pretty good friends with both Blake and N.K., I can't really see myself as competing with them. In fact, writers tend to "share" fans a lot, recommending each other to their readers and overall helping each other succeed.
And really, it's in our professional interests that everyone does well. If it were only Sam Sykes being published, people would get sick of me very quickly. Diversity helps the genre thrive.

Do you have any more stories planned in this world after Book III?

In fact, we have another trilogy with Gollancz right now.

And one more question... again. Do you have any book recommendations for our readers, fantasy or otherwise?

SCOTT LYNCH. SCOTT LYNCH UNTIL YOU DIE.

Seriously, how to wrestle a a Kodiak bear? It could be useful to know!

You have to get it from behind. A kodiak is flexible, but its arms are still too short to cover all of its back. If you can get hands around its throat, you're solid.

Last but not least, is there anything you wish to share with French readers?

My dearest French friends, I hope you enjoy the book. If you don't, then we must duel with rapiers on the steps of Notre Dame. I'd really not like to have to do that for the sixth time this year, so I do hope we can be pals!

Pages de l'article

1. L'entretien traduit
2. An interview with Sam Sykes, english version