Man in the Velvet Mask -- a review
Jeffery Beuck
1/10. I don't think I've ever hated a Doctor Who novel so much as
"The Man in the Velvet Mask." Virgin has published some pretty bad
Doctor Who novels in the MA series, but this one was positively awful.
I disliked "Falls the Shadow", but at least it was passable as a
Doctor Who story. "The Man in the Velvet Mask" had absolutely no
redeeming qualties whatsoever. A lot of people have said that Daniel
O'Mahoney writes excellent horror and knows how to create a
wonderfully dark universe -- rubbish! The story was neither creative,
frightening, interesting, nor anything like a Hartnell story. And
here are my reasons for thinking so ...
[Spoilers ahead]
First of all, the plot was horrible. A group of aliens take Earth and
remould it in the image of the Marquis de Sade??? Why??? What was
supposed to be the function of this "World Machine" which the story
was centered around, but had no function other than to serve as a
horror device for keeping some poor alien imprisoned in its bowels? How did
these aliens and get away with corrupting such an important time line?
And how did they reverse time to put everything back the way it was???
A world made out of clockwork? It was funny as a Dave Stone premise,
but entirely stupid as a gothic horror premise.
The "Dodo love story" was abominably bad. O'Mahoney tried to create a
"twisted" romance which failed miserably, the only purpose of which is
to stick Dodo with the Minski virus -- but who the hell cares? It
will never have any affect on her now that Minski is dead, and it will
never, ever have any affect on the rest of the Doctor Who universe.
Gratuitous sex has rarely offended me before, but there was absolutely
no point to Dodo's shagging this 19th century actor and letting him
corrupt her -- it was completely out of place as a Hartnell era story,
and Dodo shows no signs of this corruption whatsoever in the "War Machines".
You can see that Mr. O'Mahoney is striving to create another dark,
horror-filled world, but it comes off miserably. I didn't find it
frightening at all. You know that this is either a "State of Change"
type world which is a copy of the original, or it's the real Earth
which will be put back to rights in the end. The horrors of the
guillotine were displayed a million times better in "A Tale of Two
Cities". And it's obvious from the beginning that the poor,
mysterious Monsieur Le 6 is going to be the real Marquis de Sade.
Half of the people aren't even real, just Minski's clockwork androids.
There's nothing frightening about a clockwork android losing an arm or
a head. The only thing that is even remotely frightening is the
"talking head-on-a-stick", and even that isn't really scary.
Oh boy, aliens that wear masks, about which we learn nothing else.
That's really frightening. Those are some exciting aliens which
everyone else is going to be storming the blockade to write about.
And the whole story is pointless anyways. Oh gee, at the end time is
reversed and Earth is put back on its real track of history, erasing
all the stupid things that happened during the story. Yeah, real exciting.
My apologies to the fans out there whom I know loved this story. I'd
really appreciate it if someone could point out the redeeming
qualities in this story, because I sure couldn't think of any.
(All of the above is, of course, IMHO)....
--
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Jeff Beuck jbe...@kent.edu
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Marie Vogel
In <58nihh$n...@tombstone.kent.edu> jbe...@kent.kent.edu (Jeffery Beuck)
writes:
>1/10. I don't think I've ever hated a Doctor Who novel so much as
>"The Man in the Velvet Mask." Virgin has published some pretty bad
>Doctor Who novels in the MA series, but this one was positively awful.
>I disliked "Falls the Shadow", but at least it was passable as a
>Doctor Who story. "The Man in the Velvet Mask" had absolutely no
>redeeming qualties whatsoever. A lot of people have said that Daniel
>O'Mahoney writes excellent horror and knows how to create a
>wonderfully dark universe -- rubbish! The story was neither creative,
>frightening, interesting, nor anything like a Hartnell story. And
>here are my reasons for thinking so ...
>
>[Spoilers ahead]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The "Dodo love story" was abominably bad. O'Mahoney tried to create a
>"twisted" romance which failed miserably, the only purpose of which is
>to stick Dodo with the Minski virus -- but who the hell cares? It
>will never have any affect on her now that Minski is dead, and it will
>never, ever have any affect on the rest of the Doctor Who universe.
>Gratuitous sex has rarely offended me before, but there was absolutely
>no point to Dodo's shagging this 19th century actor and letting him
>corrupt her -- it was completely out of place as a Hartnell era story,
>and Dodo shows no signs of this corruption whatsoever in the "War
Machines".
Dodo shows no signs of _character_ in the War Machines!!!!!
>You can see that Mr. O'Mahoney is striving to create another dark,
>horror-filled world, but it comes off miserably. I didn't find it
>frightening at all. You know that this is either a "State of Change"
>type world which is a copy of the original, or it's the real Earth
>which will be put back to rights in the end. The horrors of the
>guillotine were displayed a million times better in "A Tale of Two
>Cities".
snip
Oh, come one! I think your comparison does Mr. O'Mahony far more
credit than the rest of your review does him damage. You are comparing
what you call a really really bad NA to Charles Dickens?!?!
Doesn't that strike you as kind of odd? I suppose you hated Crystal
Bucephalus because is paled in comparison to the New Testament.
>
snip
The only thing about your review with which I agree is that Man in the
Velvet Mask has none of the feeling of the Hartnell era. In my
opinion, of course, this is a huge bonus! Especially when we are
talking about the late Hartnell era, where the characters are so
cardboard they're a fire hazard.
Man in the Velvet Mask is, in my opinion, a brilliant Doctor Who novel.
It is the second best MA ever published up to and including Speed of
Flight. I honestly recall very little of the plot, having only read
once some eight to ten months ago. However, Dodo is actually
interesting to watch in this novel. The first Doctor is captured
splendidly. The prose is a positive joy to read. The keys to this, I
think, are in its themes. I could tell that there was a lot going on
subtextually, and some posters here have enlightened some bits of that,
but I will have to reread it in order to fully "get" what that is.
Much like another of my all time favorites, Ghostlight.
Oh, and I also agree that I wasn't frightened by the book. I am very
rarely frightened by a book. Stephen King can do it once in a blue
moon. Oh yes, and Andrew Cartmel scared the living hell out of me when
I realized the dogs were killing people in Warchild.
Andrew R. Vogel
avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
Jeffery Beuck
Andrew Vogel (vog...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Dodo shows no signs of _character_ in the War Machines!!!!!
That's because she was only in it for the first episode or so.
: Oh, come one! I think your comparison does Mr. O'Mahony far more
: credit than the rest of your review does him damage. You are comparing
: what you call a really really bad NA to Charles Dickens?!?!
: Doesn't that strike you as kind of odd?
Umm ... not really. I was just trying to make my comparison crystal
clear.
: I suppose you hated Crystal
: Bucephalus because is paled in comparison to the New Testament.
Umm ... what did the Crystal Bucephalus have to do with the New
Testament? The fact that there was a major religious figure? I
actually liked the Crystal Bucephalus -- I thought it was fresh and
original, unlike MITVM.
: Man in the Velvet Mask is, in my opinion, a brilliant Doctor Who novel.
: It is the second best MA ever published up to and including Speed of
: Flight.
But why? Why do you feel this way? That's what I'm trying to understand.
: I honestly recall very little of the plot,
Oh, that's always the hallmark of a good novel.
: However, Dodo is actually interesting to watch in this novel.
She is? I thought she was incredibly dull. We don't get to see any
more of her than her rather weak responses to Dalville's corruption.
: The first Doctor is captured
: splendidly. The prose is a positive joy to read.
Sorry, but I found the prose a positive bore to read.
: The keys to this, I
: think, are in its themes. I could tell that there was a lot going on
: subtextually, and some posters here have enlightened some bits of that,
: but I will have to reread it in order to fully "get" what that is.
: Much like another of my all time favorites, Ghostlight.
Like what? I don't recall anything confusing that rereading would
enlighten me on. Sorry to push the issue, but MITVM was just poorly
written, plotwise.
I don't mean to rag on your opinions; everyone is entitled to their
own opinions. I just wish someone would explain concretely with some
examples what is so fascinating about this awful novel.
--
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Jeff Beuck jbe...@kent.edu
(or try jbe...@phoenix.kent.edu if above address does not work)
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Sean Gaffney
> jbe...@kent.kent.edu (Jeffery Beuck) writes:
> Like what? I don't recall anything confusing that rereading would
> enlighten me on. Sorry to push the issue, but MITVM was just poorly
> written, plotwise.
>
> I don't mean to rag on your opinions; everyone is entitled to their
> own opinions. I just wish someone would explain concretely with some
> examples what is so fascinating about this awful novel.
Well, it's difficult. Everything we say was great you say was awful. I loved
the prose, you hated it. I loved Dodo's character development, you hated it.
It's not a matter of "concrete examples" of good writing, it's a matter of how
we feel about the book. Andrew and I feel that the book is a dark, malancholy
look (almost a metaphor) of the final Hartnell years. You see it as garbage.
Therefore, we will disagree.
Sorry to rant, but I have trouble with actual why this book is good and why it
isn't arguments. Even my reviews are mainly what I *felt* about the book, and
not this-preposition-was-wrong type stuff.
I think MITVM is great. You don't. Ah, well. Bet you loved The English Way of
Death... :-)
--Sean Gaffney
--too busy reviewing UY TV19 to review Bad Therapy, but it's coming...
Christopher Norman
Jeffery Beuck wrote:
>
> 1/10. I don't think I've ever hated a Doctor Who novel so much as
> "The Man in the Velvet Mask." Virgin has published some pretty bad
> Doctor Who novels in the MA series, but this one was positively awful.
> I disliked "Falls the Shadow", but at least it was passable as a
> redeeming qualities whatsoever.
On the contrary...the book had many redeeming qualities:
1) A great prose style. Utterly distinctive, perfectly
spare; every sentence was carefully crafted, and every
sentence had some relation to the basic theme of the
novel. Kind of like a particularly well-crafted piece of
music.
2) A brilliant novelistic scheme, one of the very few Doctor
Who novels to actually be *about* something (i.e. the
malleability of personal identity), and not only that
but the Doctor and the companion are worked into that
theme at the same time. I don't care what anyone's
opinion of the book in general is, this is a *good
novel*.
A lot of people have said that Daniel
> O'Mahoney writes excellent horror and knows how to create a
> wonderfully dark universe -- rubbish! The story was neither creative,
> frightening, interesting, nor anything like a Hartnell story. And
> here are my reasons for thinking so ...
>
> [Spoilers ahead]
>
> First of all, the plot was horrible. A group of aliens take Earth and
> remould it in the image of the Marquis de Sade??? Why???
'Tall relates back to the "identity" theme. Think about it.
What was
> supposed to be the function of this "World Machine" which the story
> was centered around, but had no function other than to serve as a
> horror device for keeping some poor alien imprisoned in its bowels?
The people ruling France were drawing all this alien
technology and power from the imprisoned alien, which is
why he needed to be kept imprisoned. Heavens, how closely
did you read this book?
How did
> these aliens and get away with corrupting such an important time line?
Who cares?
> And how did they reverse time to put everything back the way it was???
Who cares?
> A world made out of clockwork? It was funny as a Dave Stone premise,
> but entirely stupid as a gothic horror premise.
Whatever. I guess if you set out to hate a book, any brilliant
idea is "entirely stupid".
> The "Dodo love story" was abominably bad. O'Mahoney tried to create a
> "twisted" romance which failed miserably, the only purpose of which is
> to stick Dodo with the Minski virus -- but who the hell cares?
No, the idea wasn't to create a "twisted romance"...it all
relates back to the personal identity theme. This is a
particularly clever part of the novel, since O'Mahony sort of
reaches into real life, and stresses the fact that Dodo
never was much of a character. He begins by establishing
that she doesn't really have much of a personality, and
so has her grow up a bit and change and try on different
characters...why do you think they make her join the
company of *actors*, after all?
It
> will never have any affect on her now that Minski is dead, and it will
> never, ever have any affect on the rest of the Doctor Who universe.
Why does that matter?
> Gratuitous sex has rarely offended me before, but there was absolutely
> no point to Dodo's shagging this 19th century actor and letting him
> corrupt her
Of course there was a point to it. Everything that happens in
this book has a point to it; that's how good O'Mahony is.
Again, it all relates back to the "personal identity" theme.
You're analysing this book on the wrong level...it's not
about plot, though there's nothing structurally wrong
with it. It's not about telling a scary story. It's about
the idea of "masks".
-- it was completely out of place as a Hartnell era story,
True, but that's irrelevant.
> and Dodo shows no signs of this corruption whatsoever in the "War Machines".
>
> You can see that Mr. O'Mahoney is striving to create another dark,
> horror-filled world, but it comes off miserably. I didn't find it
> frightening at all. You know that this is either a "State of Change"
> type world which is a copy of the original, or it's the real Earth
> which will be put back to rights in the end. The horrors of the
> guillotine were displayed a million times better in "A Tale of Two
> Cities". And it's obvious from the beginning that the poor,
> mysterious Monsieur Le 6 is going to be the real Marquis de Sade.
> Half of the people aren't even real, just Minski's clockwork androids.
> There's nothing frightening about a clockwork android losing an arm or
> a head. The only thing that is even remotely frightening is the
> "talking head-on-a-stick", and even that isn't really scary.
I think you're kind of missing the whole point. The book isn't
a failure because it didn't scare you, because that wasn't
the purpose of the book. The purpose of the book was to
explore its theme through the characters, something it
did marvellously.
> Oh boy, aliens that wear masks, about which we learn nothing else.
> That's really frightening. Those are some exciting aliens which
> everyone else is going to be storming the blockade to write about.
>
> And the whole story is pointless anyways. Oh gee, at the end time is
> reversed and Earth is put back on its real track of history, erasing
> all the stupid things that happened during the story. Yeah, real exciting.
Oh boy did you ever completely miss the point of this book.
> My apologies to the fans out there whom I know loved this story. I'd
> really appreciate it if someone could point out the redeeming
> qualities in this story, because I sure couldn't think of any.
I've gone ahead and done so, and I'd be happy to write more if
you like.
> (All of the above is, of course, IMHO)....
Naturlich, Mein Herr.
Christopher Norman
Christopher Norman
Jeffery Beuck wrote:
>
> Andrew Vogel (vog...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : The keys to this, I
> : think, are in its themes. I could tell that there was a lot going on
> : subtextually, and some posters here have enlightened some bits of that,
> : but I will have to reread it in order to fully "get" what that is.
> : Much like another of my all time favorites, Ghostlight.
>
> enlighten me on.
Again, since you completely missed the point of the novel
as evidenced by your review, I'm not surprised.
Sorry to push the issue, but MITVM was just poorly
> written, plotwise.
Even if that were true, like I said before, it wouldn't
matter. MITVM isn't about the plot. The plot is a
convenient way of exploring the theme.
> I don't mean to rag on your opinions; everyone is entitled to their
> own opinions. I just wish someone would explain concretely with some
> examples what is so fascinating about this awful novel.
Jeff, you claim you want to understand, so as a companion
to my reply to your review, here's a post I wrote a few months
ago about the book, concerning the way the main characters
are used, which I thought I should include:
Sorry, I can't seem to find out who wrote this, but
*somebody* wrote:
>> I tried to get into FTS. But, it was a no go.
>> I didn't even bother
>> to buy the MA by him.
>I didn't like FTS much - I couldn't believe Craig
>Hinton dubbed it 'the best NA ever'. It wasn't
>bad, but a bit boring and derivative. 'Man In the
>Velvet Mask' was much better, but possibly its era
>wasn't very well chosen. I prefer MAs tailored to
>their TARDIS crew; 'The Sands Of Time' *had* to be
>the fifth Doctor, Tegan and Nyssa; 'English Way Of
>Death' couldn't have been anything but fourth
>Doctor and second Romana. The era for MITVM seemed
>chosen randomly.
Actually, the era for MITVM was entirely appropriate,
since it was an extension of the basic theme permeating
the book (the idea that personal identity is fluid,
consisting of a series of "masks"). See, Dodo was
kind of a blank page companion. There was never much
of a personality to her character onscreen, so
O'Mahony plays with that in the book, using it as
part of the broader theme that's going on with the
other characters...she even thinks herself, in the
first part of the book, that she's sort of a blank
slate, without anything in the way of distinguishing
features or self-defining life events. I wouldn't
go so far as to say that she "found herself"; there
wasn't quite a slick resolution of that aspect of
the book, but the thematic relevance is there. As for
The Doctor, at that point he was fairly close to his
first regeneration, and was getting old and weak. So the
book uses the concept of regeneration as part of the
exploration of the "identity" theme (it's made pretty
obvious). O'Mahony examines the Doctor's fears about
losing his current personality forever and having to
try on a new one.
I won't say it's the most brilliant book ever written,
but I thought it was pretty damned clever the way the
characters and the thematic thread of the book were
so closely inter-related.
Christopher Norman
Gregory A Welda
On 12 Dec 1996, Jeffery Beuck wrote:
> 1/10. I don't think I've ever hated a Doctor Who novel so much as
> "The Man in the Velvet Mask." Virgin has published some pretty bad
> Doctor Who novels in the MA series, but this one was positively awful.
> I disliked "Falls the Shadow", but at least it was passable as a
> Doctor Who story. "The Man in the Velvet Mask" had absolutely no
> redeeming qualties whatsoever. A lot of people have said that Daniel
> O'Mahoney writes excellent horror and knows how to create a
> wonderfully dark universe -- rubbish! The story was neither creative,
> frightening, interesting, nor anything like a Hartnell story. And
> here are my reasons for thinking so ...
I am with you Jeffery. I think 1 is generous.
worshiped,
Gregory but not
loved
Marie Vogel
In <58rkaf$m...@tombstone.kent.edu> jbe...@kent.kent.edu (Jeffery Beuck)
writes:
snip
>I don't mean to rag on your opinions; everyone is entitled to their
>own opinions. I just wish someone would explain concretely with some
>examples what is so fascinating about this awful novel.
>--
I did the best I could to defend this novel, which I love, but as I
said, I have little memory of it. I remember being wonderfully
impressed by the whole thing and enjoying every minute of it. From the
very first line. The next time I read it, which should be in the next
two months, I expect, I'll post a review while it's fresh in my head.
Who knows, maybe it really is crap and on closer inspection, I'll
discover it as such. Ha ha, that would actually make it very much like
the Hartnell's of it's time. :)
Anyway, look out for my review if you want to know why I like it, but
until then, I can't help you.
Andrew R. Vogel
avo...@eden.rutges.edu
Marie Vogel
In <58rsol$c...@news.iconn.net> gaf...@iconn.net (Sean Gaffney) writes:
>
>> jbe...@kent.kent.edu (Jeffery Beuck) writes:
>
>> Like what? I don't recall anything confusing that rereading would
>> enlighten me on. Sorry to push the issue, but MITVM was just
poorly
>> written, plotwise.
>>
>> I don't mean to rag on your opinions; everyone is entitled to their
>> own opinions. I just wish someone would explain concretely with
some
>> examples what is so fascinating about this awful novel.
>
>Well, it's difficult. Everything we say was great you say was awful.
I loved
>the prose, you hated it. I loved Dodo's character development, you
hated it.
>It's not a matter of "concrete examples" of good writing, it's a
matter of how
>we feel about the book. Andrew and I feel that the book is a dark,
malancholy
>look (almost a metaphor) of the final Hartnell years. You see it as
garbage.
>Therefore, we will disagree.
>
>Sorry to rant, but I have trouble with actual why this book is good
and why it
>isn't arguments. Even my reviews are mainly what I *felt* about the
book, and
>not this-preposition-was-wrong type stuff.
>
>I think MITVM is great. You don't. Ah, well. Bet you loved The
English Way of
>Death... :-)
But I did too!!!!!
Andrew R. Vogel
avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
I like Gareth Roberts and Daniel O'Mahony. I MUST be schizophrenic!
Andrew Kaplan
I like Roberts and O'Mahoney as well. And David A. McIntee and Ben
Aaronovitch and Gary Russell and Paul Cornell and Christopher Bulis and
Andrew Cartmel and John Peel and Kate Orman, among others. And if I
didn't keep liking the Doctor Who novels I read, I wouldn't keep reading
them month after month.
So if you're schizophrenic, I must be locked in a straitjacket in a
padded cell.
Or maybe I'm just a Doctor Who fan.
--
Andrew Kaplan
and...@bright.net
"If I'm not back in an hour,
I've probably made another huge mistake!" -- Pinky
Marie Vogel
In <32B34C...@bright.net> Andrew Kaplan <and...@bright.net>
writes:
>Marie Vogel wrote:
>>
>> In <58rsol$c...@news.iconn.net> gaf...@iconn.net (Sean Gaffney)
writes:
>>
>> >
>> >> jbe...@kent.kent.edu (Jeffery Beuck) writes:
>> >
>> >I think MITVM is great. You don't. Ah, well. Bet you loved The
>> English Way of
>> >Death... :-)
>>
>> But I did too!!!!!
>>
>> Andrew R. Vogel
>> avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
>>
>> I like Gareth Roberts and Daniel O'Mahony. I MUST be schizophrenic!
>
>I like Roberts and O'Mahoney as well. And David A. McIntee and Ben
>Aaronovitch and Gary Russell and Paul Cornell and Christopher Bulis
and
>Andrew Cartmel and John Peel and Kate Orman, among others. And if I
>didn't keep liking the Doctor Who novels I read, I wouldn't keep
reading
>them month after month.
>
>So if you're schizophrenic, I must be locked in a straitjacket in a
>padded cell.
>
>Or maybe I'm just a Doctor Who fan.
>
Oh yeah. Could be that, I suppose. :)
Andrew R. Vogel
avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
...and Neil Penswick! Nope, I'm definately loony!!!
TrboTurtle
Andrew Kaplan <and...@bright.net> wrote:
>
>So if you're schizophrenic, I must be locked in a straitjacket in a
>padded cell.
>
>Or maybe I'm just a Doctor Who fan.
>
You mean there's a difference ?
Craig A. Reed Jr, (Trbot...@aol.com)
Owner/Manager - Tardis Pizza
"We promise to deliver your order thirty minutes BEFORE you order, or you pay extra !"
Dave Stone
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > A world made out of clockwork? It was funny as a Dave Stone premise,
> > but entirely stupid as a gothic horror premise.
>
> Whatever. I guess if you set out to hate a book, any brilliant
> idea is "entirely stupid".
Just to clarify something here: The clockwork world is such a tired old,
hackneyed, cliched image - pretty much on a par with pirates in space, I
might add - that when I tossed it off I wasn't aware that it was an
'idea' at all.
Gosh.
--
Take care. Have Fun. Bring your own banjo.
Christopher Norman
Dave Stone wrote:
>
> Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > A world made out of clockwork? It was funny as a Dave Stone premise,
> > > but entirely stupid as a gothic horror premise.
> >
> > Whatever. I guess if you set out to hate a book, any brilliant
> > idea is "entirely stupid".
>
> hackneyed, cliched image - pretty much on a par with pirates in space, I
> might add - that when I tossed it off I wasn't aware that it was an
> 'idea' at all.
Depends on how it's used. Okay, kill me for using the
bloody word "idea". Dig me a grave and toss me in it for
being so unbelievably gauche. Tar and feather me for not
writing a long boring paragraph about how the *use* of
the premise was "brilliant".
Christopher Norman
Dave Stone
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > The clockwork world is such a tired old,
> > hackneyed, cliched image - pretty much on a par with pirates in
> > space - that when I tossed it off I wasn't aware that it was an
> > 'idea' at all.
>
> Depends on how it's used ...
True. I think we might be on the same side, here.
The *use* of imagery is the crux of any creative endevour.
Post-perspective, we've seen any number of still-life violins until
Cubism comes along and fractures them.
Jeffery Beuck
Christopher Norman (cano...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: > Just to clarify something here: The clockwork world is such a tired old,
: > hackneyed, cliched image - pretty much on a par with pirates in space, I
: > might add - that when I tossed it off I wasn't aware that it was an
: > 'idea' at all.
: Depends on how it's used. Okay, kill me for using the
: bloody word "idea". Dig me a grave and toss me in it for
: being so unbelievably gauche. Tar and feather me for not
: writing a long boring paragraph about how the *use* of
: the premise was "brilliant".
Hey! Dave Stone's murder contest was over about a month ago.
--