Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OtherRealms Issue 23 Part 12
Electronic OtherRealms #23
Winter, 1989
Part 12
Copyright 1989 by Chuq Von Rospach
All Rights Reserved.
OtherRealms may not be reproduced without written
permission from Chuq Von Rospach. The electronic
edition may be distributed only if the return address,
copyrights and author credits remain intact.
No article may be reprinted or re-used in any way
without the permission of the author.
All rights to material published in OtherRealms
hereby revert to the original author.
Your Turn: Letters
Jennifer Roberson
An author responding to a negative review is always put in a bad
position. There is no way I can avoid sounding defensive; after all, I
am defending my book. You did a pretty good job eviscerating
Sword-Singer. It's your right, certainly, to state your opinion. That I
disagree with much of what you said is my right, and I'm exercising it
freely in this letter.
Addressing your belief that Tiger was cardboard and Del an automon is
trickier because the interpretation of characterization is always a
subjective thing. Obviously, I disagree. And the incredible degrees
and extremes in reactions to Sword-Singer in other reviews, letters,
and conversations leads me to firmly believe that although people don't
always agree with my resolution, they most certainly do believe in
Tiger and Del as very realistic characters. I'm not saying you're
necessarily alone in your summation, just that T&D's characterization
has never been an issue.
And then there is the ending. This, I fear, is the primary bone of
contention. I've received more letters from readers concerning
Sword-Singer's ending than my other six books put together.
Why? Because people are pissed off. Whether they like Del or not isn't
the issue--some do, some don't--but I killed off a character they cared
about very much. Or, if they don't care about her necessarily, they
care enough about Tiger to dislike what Del's death will do to him. Or
else they enjoy the rapport between T&D so much they don't want to see
it ended. All of these people have told me in a variety of ways (some
rather rudely) that I really upset them by killing off Del.
A few read more carefully and realized that: a) I never said Del was
dead. (you caught that one, too.); and b) That in order to blood the
sword in proper Norther fashion to make it a proper Northern jivatma,
Tiger had to kill and key, an act which requires a song. Tiger did not
kill Del, nor did he ever sing (key). The latter is something he
repeatedly said he would never do; hence, he cannot properly blood the
sword. Tiger is tone deaf, something I mentioned more than once.
Obscure? Maybe so. I felt it was clear enough; for some readers, it
was. For others the possibility of Del's survival was very real, and
they wrote me to find out the truth. But the vast majority of readers
reacted on a strictly emotional level, assuming Del was dead even
thought there was no body (always a risky thing, even in our legal
system). There also was no tremendous remorse or grief on Tiger's
behalf, as you pointed out, which I felt was a pretty good indication
of the truth of the matter.
Contrary to what you may believe, the intent of this ending was never
to trick, lie to or otherwise hang the reader out to dry. The intent
was to leave readers wondering, not convinced one way or the other,
because if a writer is predictable there's no internal challenge to
read the work. I wanted to write an emotional, evocative ending with a
lot of drama and impact. I wanted to build tension, which is required
in a series. Last but not least, I wanted people to care about what
happened. Because if people don't care, I've failed my duty as a writer.
No author enjoys bad reviews. But is particularly painful when a reviewer
states categorically that the book is "tired," and that the writer
"seems to be going through the paces," and "doesn't seem to care." I
care very much about all of my novels, Sword-Singer in particular. Not
liking Sword-Singer is a reviewer's prerogative, but no reviewer has
the right to imply what he believes to be my state of mind. Using the
qualifiers "seem" and "seems" doesn't get you off the hook, any more
than "allegedly" buys reporters out of libel suits. To suggest in print
that I don't care is not part of your job and is very unappreciated.
The third book, Sword-Maker, is currently being written and is due in
September. I will also eventually do a fourth, titled Sword-Breaker,
but have no immediate plans because I have projects currently scheduled
through 1991.
Whether you choose to read any additional entries into the series is
your decision, and nothing I can say (or write) can make you decide
differently. But I hope you realize that with each book I make an
attempt to grow as an author and to cause my characters to grow. No one
remains the same. To expect each successive book to be a carbon copy of
the preceding is unrealistic. I can't please everyone, reviewer or
reader, but I can certainly do my best to remain unpredictable.
[[[Sword-Singer was one of the toughest reviews I've written,
both from the level of negativism and trying to quantify why I
reacted to the book the way I did. After a lot of thought, I'm
sticking with my review as I originally wrote it. I'm going to
expand on it a little here, but I'm going to try to avoid
last-word syndrome since Jennifer's comments have some points
that are important and might make a difference to readers.
The areas in the review where we seriously disagree are the
ending and the characterization. On the ending, while Jennifer
feels there is no way to force a reader to read the next book
in a series, I disagree. Unless you piss off a reader so much
they give up on you, leaving a reader at a cliff-hanger
ending--or worse, not ending at all, but simply stopping--is a
good hook. I railed about this exact problem a couple of issues
ago in my Generic Celtic Fantasy Trilogy editorial. The most
blatant case of this I've seen is Donaldson's Mordant's Need,
which is nothing but a two-volume novel cut in half. There's no
way the first volume can be enjoyed on its own; you must read
the second volume to finish the story.
This is different from a multiple-volume series, where every
book, if it doesn't stand alone, at least works independently
of the others. This is one major problem I have with Sword-Singer.
Sword-Dancer was a book that was obviously part of a series,
but stood on its own. Sword-Singer, on the other hand, is
incomplete. There are significant plot angles that aren't dealt
with in the book. The magic dogs are one major plot device
that is used extensively, but which remains a complete black
box--to be explained, I am assuming, in book three.
For many readers this isn't a problem. For me, leaving as much
of the story hanging at the end of the book really bothered me.
While you could read Sword- Singer and get a complete story, to
completely tie up the story in Sword-Dancer, you must also read
Sword-Maker. There are two distinct storylines Sword-Singer is
one, and Sword-Dancer/Sword-Maker is the other.
On characterization. I went back and re-read Sword-Singer to
make sure I didn't write a review based on my memories of the
book, rather than on the book itself. To me, the characters in
the two books shared names, but they have different
personalities. My reading of Tiger in the first book doesn't
match up with the stubborn Male Chauvinist Pig aspects of the
character in book two. Stubborn, definitely, but he's smart
enough to figure out that Del's really a peer. In book two,
though, he never does figure it out. Del, on the other hand, is
an intelligent, strongly-focused person with a purpose. In the
second book, I find her confused and indecisive--never quite
sure which goal to go after first. That's very different from
the first book's Del. This is not to imply that characters
cannot grow or change. They should. In this case, I feel that
the changes are not part of the story, but because the
characters were written differently.
This is very much a judgement call. The structure of the story
and its dependence on book three is one of those things I feel
very strongly about. The characterization shifts I see also
bothered me strongly. But others, obviously, will feel
differently. I didn't like Sword-Singer because it was
different from Sword- Dancer in ways that bothered me.]]]
Fred Bals
On David Shea's comments on ratings, specifically my giving one star to
a book I couldn't finish As both David and you noted, ratings are
subjective. According to the rating guidelines, one star translates as
"Not recommended," which I think is fairly clear. My opinion is that
the blank [] rating should be reserved for books which are genuinely
offensive--racist, sexist, or simply stupid.
Speaking of stupid, in retrospect my giving Metrophage a dual rating
was a mistake. I don't know what "cyberpunk" is. Nor do I think anyone
else does. Metrophage is a marvelous book, and should be read by
everyone interested in good writing. [*****] and leave it at that.
Greg Benford
I liked the Joel Davis interview and admire him and Bob Forward for
writing Mirror Matter--a subject which is a sure bet to grow
exponentially. The field is further along than many think and
applications will abound.
Dean Lambe (whose line, "A tour de force that is mostly tour" is truly
memorable) is right about the Fermi Paradox being an old subject in sf.
Even the exobio and SETI people are still remiss in giving proper
credit to sf for many ideas--witness Carl Sagan's "discovery" that
near-c ships could span the galaxy in onboard human lifetime, as
published in Icarus, and John Ball's "Zoo" hypothesis which just
repeats 1950's Astounding notions.
I suspect I wasn't the first to use the idea that the Great Silence
arises because noisy races are wiped out by malignant competition, as
in In the Ocean of Night. I didn't know about Saberhagen's Berserker's
then. I think the main point is still that there is no evidence to
rebut this view....
Ian L. Kaplan
I just read the review of Mona Lisa Overdrive in issue #22 of
OtherRealms. While I like the Mona Lisa Overdrive a great deal, I did
not like the ending, because it was so obscure. Gibson spends the
entire book bringing the treads of his story together in "The Factory."
When they arrive, it is unclear to me what actually happens. Bobby
Newmark (aka Count Zero) has zoned off into a huge bio-matrix, that is
one of the largest storage devices ever built. Note that at the end,
Bobby is dead, but still apparently alive in the storage device.
Presumably this is not just a storage device, but also contains active
computational elements (like the Connection Machine). This matrix is
apparently large enough to provide an analog of cyber space, without
being connected. In this matrix, in addition to Bobby, we also find
Lady 3Jane (whom we previously met in Neuromancer). 3Jane apparently
has it in for Angie because she is jealous of her direct connection to
cyberspace (via the bio-chips implanted in Angie's brain by her
father). Then there is the AI (or AIs) that Case liberated into the
cyberspace. In the end Angie and Bobby are somehow joined in the matrix
that Bobby is plugged into. I don't understand the result or the
importance of this union. Nor do I understand what interest the AI's
have in it, or 3Jane's role (other than a malevolent force). Perhaps
reading Count Zero again would help, but I think that Gibson is being
overly obscure.
So while I love Gibson's writing and the world he creates, I am
dissatisfied with how he has tied up the series he began with Neuromancer.
In reference to Gibson and Sterling doing a book together I shudder.
While intellectually I realize that one should separate an authors
personality from their work, I find this hard to do with Sterling. I am
revolted by the Sterling that I see in Cheap Truth. Perhaps his
intention is to revolt people, just as the 50's greasers did. As far as
I am concerned, Sterling has written one decent book, Schismatrix. I
though that Mirrorshades was, at best, a mediocre anthology. Involution
Ocean was trash. I thought that Alan Wexelblat was much too kind.
Sterling is a sort of Damon Knight of current science fiction. He is a
hanger on, without writing much himself. Sterling is just a minor
talent wanna-be (as is, I believe, Tom Maddox). It is interesting to
notice that only the wanna-be's are obsessed with the idea of
cyberpunk. I have not heard Gibson, W.J. Williams or Jeter tout the
"cyberpunk revolution" (although their publishers are happy to). I
don't care if it's cyberpunk or soviet realism. Good writing is good
writing. Just as good cooking, in Creole, French, Italian or Chinese,
is still good cooking, regardless of the style.
I am an avid reader and I consume a fair amount of science fiction. In
many case the quality is low. I think that OtherRealms should be
stronger in its opinions. After all, strong opinions make the most
interesting reading. Even Sterling knows this see his vicious attacks
in Cheap Truth. These attacks would be worth something if they were not
so indiscriminate.
[[[There is a big difference between a strong opinion and an
attack. At one point I competed interscholastically in
forensics in college, which quickly teaches you the difference.
Argue all you want about the issues. Start attacking your
opposition and you get kicked out of the competition. As it
should be.
My policy with OtherRealms is the "cocktail party." I don't
feel anything should be published that you're unwilling to say
to that person in front of their face. You might very well
carry on an attack at a party, but you're likely to either be
well intoxicated when you do or find that you don't get invited
to many parties after a while.
I don't want OtherRealms known for its strident tone, but for
its information and knowledge. Bear-baiting people in public
gets you known. Intelligent, informed criticism gets you read.
There have been times in the past when I've toned down issues
that today I wouldn't. The line between acceptable criticism
and attack is something you learn with experience. There have
been times when OtherRealms has been a bit bland because of
this. I believe these times are over. Time will tell.
OtherRealms will never get into the "controversy sells copies"
mentality, or the "Kick them while they're not looking"
mindset. If you're looking for blood in the gutters, this is
the wrong fanzine.]]]
Rick Genter
OR#22 was an excellent issue, one you should be quite proud of. I
understand the pressure to drop the size of the magazine to stay within
budget, but I think you'll be doing yourself a disservice in the long
run. The quality of the mag is high enough that I wouldn't mind paying
more for my subscription in order to keep the quantity high. In my mind
you've got something that is almost as good as Locus. I'd be willing to
pay more for my subscription, as long as you don't hit something
ridiculous like $10/issue.
The level of technical editing was much better than OR#21. The only
gripe I had with the content of OR#22 was Charles de Lint's use of
profanity in his reviews. "Colorful metaphors" can be quite powerful
when used properly. Charles' reviews of John Shirley's two books just
contained so much "shit" that it turned me off.
[[[The problem, unfortunately, is not just the subscription
price, but also the cost of the complimentary copies. To
support a fanzine of the size I printed last issue would
require not only raising subscription prices, but reducing the
number of fanzine trades and complimentary copies I ship out,
and I don't want to do that. The fannish aspects of OtherRealms
are of growing importance to me, and I'd rather find a
compromise that lets all of these aspects work together. If it
was just cost of production vs. cost of subscriptions, I could
go semi-pro and take in advertising. That's another option I
chose not to do]]]
Ben Bova
Two reviews in the same issue! How pleasant. But I must make one point
in response to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes' review of my novel Peacekeepers.
People keep looking at the politics of my novels first, and the story
second. I wish they wouldn't.
Dan'l says, "Peacekeepers is another approach to 'We need SDI now!!!'
which Mr. Bova handled so entertainingly and well in his marvelous
Kinsman Saga."
Well, I'm glad he liked The Kinsman Saga, which certainly did deal with
the realities of SDI. But Peacekeepers is not an attempt to promote SDI
or anything else. The novel looks at the possible consequences of a
working SDI system. To my mind, it falls squarely into the "What if ..."
style of science fiction.
John Betancourt
Reactions to Michael C. Berch's review of Dreams of Flesh & Sand (by
W.T. Quick and my own Johnny Zed his recipe doesn't quite serve
100,000; more like 50,000. (I know the print run of both books.) One
extremely minor quibble JZ is my third novel, not second; everyone in
the universe--including the book buyers- -seems to have missed the
novel I did for TSR, Rogue Pirate. Which is fine by me, since the
copy-editor did a real butcher job on the novel...things like "sea-
serpent" got changed to "sea crustacean."
I also don't view Johnny Zed as cyberpunk. That wasn't what I set out
to write, and it isn't what I think I ended up with. It's more a
political novel with a bit of telecommunications thrown in. I hasten to
point out the term "the Sprawl" wasn't invented by Gibson; in fact, it
was in textbooks we used in high school. To me, at least, cyberpunk
requires punk characters or characters with a punk mindset. Neither
are present in my book. I'm still happy Michael liked the book. That's
all that really matters, in the end.
Other topics I think you are being a bit too hard on Marion Zimmer
Bradley's Fantasy Magazine. Marion's experience has all been on the
editorial end previously, and production/distribution/editing for a
magazine is vastly different from an annual anthology.... Read MZB'sFM
for four issues and see how it's evolving.
I admit I may be biased I have a story in the second issue, and have
read both issues cover-to-cover. I definitely think the second's
contents are a vast improvement over the first. Graphically, though,
the magazine still has a long way to go.
P.S. In case your readers are interested, I run a BBS in Philadelphia
called "The Hub"--1200/2400 baud, 215-889-0997.
[[[I do plan on keeping an eye on MZBFM, but there's a budget
to keep in mind. MZBFM was priced at the high end of the
magazine market--the cost of a paperback these days--and you
have to then ask yourself whether you want to use part of your
reading budget on that or whether that money is better spent
elsewhere. If the magazine had been priced at $3.00 instead of
$3.95, I might have been more forgiving, but their price
implies a level of quality that isn't there. For less money,
you can get better fiction and a higher quality magazine from
Argos, or Aboriginal SF or Weird Tales. Or you could buy one
extra paperback. Until the quality does go up, the money is
better spent elsewhere.]]]
We Also Heard From
Charles de Lint, Lawrence Watt-Evans, Michael P. Kube-McDowell, Joel
Rosenberg, Marge Simon, Dawn Atkins, David Thayer, Ginjer Buchanan,
Sheryl Birkhead, Roger Zelazny, David Shea, Heidi Lyshol, Dave Smeds,
Dave Meile, Brad Templeton, M. Elayn Harvey, Andy Porter, A.C. Clarke.
