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.