Del Rey Internet Newsletter, April (long)
Ellen Key Harris
|DEL| RANDOM BITS OF INFORMATION WITH NO PARTICULAR THEME
|REY| The DEL REY BOOKS Internet Newsletter
Number 3 (April 1993)
WHAT'S NEW IN THE STORES==========================================
UPLAND OUTLAWS by Dave Duncan. Hardcover.
Part Two of _A Handful of Men,_ Duncan's latest series about Rap,
Inos, the tiny kingdom of Krasnegar, and the magical world of
Pandemia. The situation looks grim as the mad dwarf-sorcerer
Zinixo takes over pretty much everyone of importance but Rap, his
family, and the deposed Imperor Shandie, but things must begin to
look up--there are two more books in the series after this one.
Well-written fantasy adventure with a sense of humor.
------------------------------------------------------------
ECHOES OF THE WELL OF SOULS by Jack Chalker. Trade paperback.
Ten years after his _Saga of the Well World_, Jack Chalker takes up
the story of Nathan Brazil, Mavra Chang, and the Well World again
in this first of three novels, collectively titled _The Watcher at
the Well._ After several thousand years, Brazil and Chang are
called back to the Well World and the master control of the
universe--unaware that an entity older and more powerful than the
makers of the Well World may be controlling their actions. This
novel exhibits more depth than the earlier ones and is still a fun
read; it's a good place to start for readers unfamiliar with
Chalker or the Well World saga.
------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL LINE by Anne McCaffrey. Paperback.
With this book Anne McCaffrey brings back one of her most popular
heroines: Killashandra, crystal singer of Ballybran. Killashandra
is as wonderfully vibrant as ever--but all those years of singing
crystal are taking their toll, destroying her memory bit by bit.
Crystal stole her past. Now crystal might restore it...but will
Killashandra dare to take the risk? _Locus_ called CRYSTAL LINE "a
treat for long-time McCaffrey fans, a good read and a satisfying
look at one of the most haunting facets of the crystal singers'
profession."
------------------------------------------------------------
STORM CALLER by Carol Severance. Paperback.
Severance continues the tale of the Island Warrior begun in the
refreshingly different Polynesian fantasy DEMON DRUMS. In this
second book, pregnant warrior-heroine Iuti Mano travels across the
Empty Sea to an island where bird worshippers would like nothing
better than to sacrifice her and her companions, and where the
spirit of the Landmaker shakes the land with volcanic eruptions and
earthquakes. Anne McCaffrey called the first book of _Island
Warrior_ "A marvelous read!" The conclusion, SORCEROUS SEA, will
be out this fall.
------------------------------------------------------------
McLENDON'S SYNDROME by Robert Frezza. Paperback.
Science fiction for readers who love sick puns, bad jokes, and
military satire. Frezza, the author of A SMALL COLONIAL WAR, a dry
military sf novel, takes a completely different tack with this
book, which features aliens shaped like furry bowling pins, a
Nordic vampire who craves chocolate chip cookies (and is the source
of most of the puns), a spaceship crewed by misfits and wackos, and
a hapless protagonist who can't stay out of trouble.
---> DEL REY DISCOVERY
Experience the wonder of discovery with Del Rey's newest authors!
------------------------------------------------------------
TO A HIGHLAND NATION by Christopher Rowley. Paperback.
This is the fourth book in the _Fenrille_ series, a military sf
saga set on an inimical planet filled with horrible nasty
creatures, a human dynasty named the Fundans, and mysterious,
peaceful anthropoid aliens called the Fein. In lieu of a brief
description, I will share with you a headline that pretty much
summarizes what happens in this book, after off-planet raiders
threaten the tenuous peace of the planet: "Fierce, formidable
fighting Fein forces fearlessly follow Fair Fundan forward for
Fenrille's freedom."
DEL REY DATA======================================================
April books:
THE SPOILS OF WAR by Alan Dean Foster (SF)
Book Three of _The Damned_; 345-35857-0
Hardcover, 288 pp; cover art by Barclay Shaw
THE CUTTING EDGE by Dave Duncan (F)
Part One of _A Handful of Men_; 38167-X
Paperback, 320 pp; cover art by Jim Burns
TRANSCENDENCE by Charles Sheffield (SF)
_The Heritage Universe,_ Book Three; 345-36982-3
Paperback, 304 pp; cover art by Bruce Jensen
THE NAPOLEON WAGER by William R. Forstchen (SF)
_The Gamester Wars,_ Book Three; 345-33584-8
Paperback, 320 pp; cover art by David Mattingly
--> DEL REY DISCOVERY: THE DRYLANDS by Mary Rosenblum (SF)
345-38038-X
Paperback, 288 pp; cover art by Peter Peebles
------------------------------------------------------------
May books:
UPLAND OUTLAWS by Dave Duncan (F)
Part Two of _A Handful of Men_; 345-37897-0
Hardcover, 368 pp; cover art by Jim Burns
ECHOES OF THE WELL OF SOULS by Jack Chalker (SF)
A _Well World_ Novel; 345-36201-2
Trade paperback, 416 pp; cover art by Bob Eggleton
CRYSTAL LINE by Anne McCaffrey (SF)
A _Crystal Singer_ book; 345-38491-1
Paperback, 320 pp; cover art by Rowena
STORM CALLER by Carol Severance (F)
Book Two of _Island Warrior_; 345-37447-9
Paperback, 240 pp; cover art by Mark Harrison
--> DEL REY DISCOVERY: McLENDON'S SYNDROME by Robert Frezza (SF)
345-37516-5
Paperback, 320 pp; cover art by Peter Peebles
TO A HIGHLAND NATION by Christopher Rowley (SF)
A _Fenrille_ Novel; 345-35860-0
Paperback, 288 pp; cover art by Bob Eggleton
------------------------------------------------------------
June books:
THE FALSE MIRROR by Alan Dean Foster (SF)
_The Damned,_ Book Three; 345-37575-0
Paperback, 320 pp; cover art by Barclay Shaw
LADY OF MERCY by Michelle Sagara (F)
Third Book of _The Sundered_; 345-37948-9
Paperback, 352 pp; cover art by Tom Stimpson
DEPARTURES by Harry Turtledove (SF)
Short Stories; 345-38011-8
Paperback, 366 pp; cover art by Barclay Shaw
KNIGHTS OF DARK RENOWN by David Gemmell (F)
345-37908-X
Paperback, 304 pp; cover art by Mark Harrison
------------------------------------------------------------
Special Announcement: "Space Fantasy" stamps by Stephen Hickman
Just how dependent on e-mail are you? Have you seen the new first-
class sf stamps that are now on sale, painted by none other than
popular science-fiction cover illustrator Stephen Hickman? (He's
done a fair number of Del Rey covers over the years--for books by
Christopher Rowley, Robert Frezza, and Steve Miller and Sharon
Lee--as well as covers for BARRAYAR and some or all of the _Man-
Kzin Wars_ books.) The five stamps are painted in his distinctive
style, so if something about that last letter from Aunt Merle
reminded you of one sf novel or another, now you know why.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Julian May==========================================
Julian May has been writing sf for more than 30 years. Her _Saga
of Pliocene Exile_ was first published in the US by Houghton-
Mifflin, and was acclaimed by not only sf reviewers but mainstream
critics as well. Her next Houghton-Mifflin book, INTERVENTION, was
published in paperback as two separate volumes, leading to much
confusion...but it was just too big to be published as one mass-
market paperback with the bookbinding technology of the time.
(Lately, books have gotten a lot bigger.) Her current series, _The
Galactic Milieu Trilogy,_ has been long-awaited by many readers
(including its editor). It tells the story of what happened after
the events of INTERVENTION (which is described as "A Root Tale to
the Galactic Milieu and a Vinculum between it and The Saga of
Pliocene Exile"--a description I don't think helps much) and before
the _Saga._ It's being published in hardcover by Knopf, in an
attempt to get May the review attention she deserves, and in
paperback by us.
Books are listed in chronological order, and all are SF.
_The Saga of Pliocene Exile_
THE MANY-COLORED LAND (7/83; 345-32444-7)
THE GOLDEN TORC (9/83; 345-32419-6)
THE NONBORN KING (3/84; 345-34749-8)
THE ADVERSARY (3/85; 345-35244-0)
A PLIOCENE COMPANION (5/85; 345-32290-8; SF Reference)
_Intervention_
THE SURVEILLANCE (12/88; 345-35523-7)
THE METACONCERT (2/89; 345-35524-5)
_The Galactic Milieu Trilogy_
JACK THE BODILESS (11/93; 345-36247-0)
DIAMOND MASK (fall '94)
MAGNIFICAT (fall '95?)
About the Author:
Julian May's short science-fiction novel, DUNE ROLLER, was
published by John W. Campbell in 1951 and has now become a minor
classic of the genre. It was produced on American television and
on the BBC, became a movie, and has frequently been anthologized.
With her late husband, Ted Dikty, Julian May began and ran Starmont
Press; she also wrote numerous nonfiction books for children in a
previous career. She lives in the state of Washington.
IN DEPTH==========================================================
Nicholas Jainschigg has been a science fiction illustrator for ten
years, and is the 1993 recipient of the Jack Gaughan Memorial Award
For Best Emerging Artist, although he is unsure what he is emerging
from. He illustrates for _Analog,_ _Asimov's,_ _Weird Tales,_
_Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine,_ Del Rey, Tor, and DAW.
Here he shares some professional-illustration horror stories from
the artists' point of view:
Years ago, when I was just out of art school, I took my portfolio
around to any publisher who would see me. Some art directors were
more enthusiastic than others, but the one whose commentary I
remember most clearly was the one who told me that my work was too
weird to ever be published on a science fiction or fantasy book,
that I should get out of the field as soon as possible, and that,
needless to say, I could expect no work from him. As a final,
crushing blow he gestured toward the wall of his office, on which
hung a high-fructose rendering of a winged unicorn flying through a
rainbow, and said, "_That's_ the sort of work you should be doing!"
Almost every piece of commercial art is the result of a
collaboration between an art director, a designer, and an
illustrator or photographer. Most times, the collaboration works
as it's supposed to: sketches are executed and approved, deadlines
are met, proofs approved. Then there are the other times....
David Mattingly was once commissioned by a Los Angeles ad agency to
do the poster for an anthology SF movie. The lead film starred
Keir Dullea, but the agency people insisted that he not produce a
likeness because they didn't want to tie the poster to any
particular film in the anthology. The approved painting was of a
couple standing in front of a futuristic city. Naturally, David
put a great deal of painstaking effort into the execution of his
first movie poster. Months later, when he went to the agency to
retrieve the original art and preview the finished poster, he was
surprised to find that someone at the agency had cut out a
photograph of Dullea's head and glued it over the head in his
original painting, not even bothering to match the scale and
lighting. The perpetrator had used non-removable airplane glue.
Not all such damage is inflicted by others--it's a rare illustrator
who hasn't managed to get his or her foot steady in the crosshairs
at least once. My own worst-case scenario occurred a few years ago
when I was asked to illustrate an article on computer insurance for
a national magazine. The approved sketch depicted a computer on a
desk in stormy seas, surrounded by sinking floppy disks resembling
shark fins--the composition based, loosely, on Gericault's _Raft of
the Medusa._ Because of the historical reference, I decided to do
the painting in oils, despite their slow drying time and the short
deadline. I figured I could give the piece a coat of varnish if it
wasn't thoroughly dry in time. Needless to say, I worked right up
to deadline: four a.m. Monday morning, with zero hour at nine.
With a brain numbed by fatigue and nicotine, I applied a layer of
varnish to my still-wet painting. Have you ever noticed that all
spray cans look alike? I hadn't either--until, shortly after I had
sprayed the whole thing, I realized that I had used a can of
alcohol-based quick-drying fixative instead of spirit varnish. The
effect was spectacular: the painting bubbled and heaved like a
transformation scene in a cheap werewolf movie, then cracked and
peeled into dozens of small, tightly curled flakes, which lost all
adhesion and fell to the floor.
After retrieving my hair, I spent the remaining hours reassembling
my painting, then gluing it together with craft glue and acrylic
medium. When I brought it in for approval, however, it was a hit,
and several people in the art department complimented me on the
"artificially aged" appearance. I presume they meant the painting.
Horrifying as it is, this pales beside Tom Kidd's story of his
first professional assignment. Shortly after arriving in New York
to search for work, Tom showed his portfolio to the editor and
publisher of a magazine called "Beyond Belief" (not its real name,
although it should be). The publication was located in a small
office in the sleazy Times Square district. The editor, "Harry,"
was a middle aged man with matted, thinning hair and gyrating eyes.
Even in an air-conditioned office he seemed always to have a bead
of sweat depending from his nose. He was also extremely, volubly
enthusiastic about Tom's work. He commissioned six illustrations,
and told him, "I'm gonna make your career."
Returning a few days later with sketches, Tom found Harry still in
a talkative mood. While examining the roughs, he told Tom of how
he had discovered Jack Davis and had made Boris Vallejo the success
he is. During much of their discussion, the phone was ringing.
Tom finally, almost apologetically, asked why he wasn't answering
the phone. In one leap, Harry was over the desk and tearing the
phone out of the cradle.
"Hello! HELLO!?" He turned on Tom. "It was _not_ RINGING!"'he
snarled, and slammed down the phone.
"Uh...it _was_..." Tom said.
"I _always_ hear ringing," said Harry. There was a pause. "And I
can't tell when it's the phone."
Undaunted by this, or perhaps just desperate for work, Tom executed
the paintings, delivered them, and was promptly paid the agreed-
upon fee. Shortly after publication, Tom returned to the office to
pick up tear sheets and retrieve the original art as previously
agreed.
"You can't have 'em," said Harry.
"Um, we did agree that I'd get them back...." Tom said.
"Yeah, but I had to shell out twenty bucks apiece to get the
transparencies done, so I'm keeping the originals."
Tom happened to have his camera with him that day, so he asked if
he could photograph them for his records.
"Okay," Harry said, "but first I have to show you something." He
reached up to an office shelf and took down a box. Opening it, he
removed a small, chrome-plated revolver. He cracked it open and
spun the barrel, revealing it to be fully loaded. "I keep it
around," he said, "in case someone tries to steal something."
Tom photographed his work in the office. Afterward, Harry gave him
another manuscript to illustrate, which Tom carefully deposited in
a trash can on 42nd Street.
And I, without even the excuse of a gun to my head, have just
agreed to do my first unicorn painting.
--Nicholas Jainschigg
Q & A=============================================================
Q: When is Del Rey going to publish the next Breakneck Boys book
by Geary Gravel?
A: Geary got stuck in book three of _The Fading Worlds,_ WORLD OF
THE NIGHT WIND, so he's been working on other book projects. He
did the juvenile novelization of the movie "Hook"--a book we refer
to as "Hookie"--and has been working on some Batman novelizations
for another publisher. He is also gearing up (no pun intended) to
write three novels set in the world of the popular "Might & Magic"
computer game, the first of which we'll be publishing in the summer
of '94. So he's keeping quite busy, and even making some money,
but not writing those books we wish he'd get back to.
Q: John Brunner--is he dead?
A: This question was pretty fully answered in postings--no, he's
alive, writing, and getting published--but I wanted to add that not
only did Del Rey do his last novel, A MAZE OF STARS, in hardcover
(7/91) and paperback (3/92), we're all set to publish his next
book, MUDDLE EARTH, in September. It's a far-future farce with a
lot of British humor, most unlike his usual gloom and doom.
Q: Whatever happened to Robert Franson, author of THE SHADOW OF
THE SHIP?
A: Robert Franson wrote that one book for us, then apparently had
a really hard time writing an acceptable follow-up book. He wasn't
under contract to us, and after some attempts at rewriting a book
our editors didn't think was quite good enough, he disappeared (at
least as far as Del Rey is concerned). That's all we know.
Q: When will Del Rey be publishing another Liaden book by Steve
Miller and Sharon Lee?
A: This seems to be a fairly frequent question on the net (with 3
examples of it this month alone). The answer is that we're not
sure if we'll be publishing another one. We loved their books, but
they all had very disappointing sales. We've seen some proposals
from them since CARPE DIEM, but haven't liked them as much as those
first three books and so couldn't acquire them. We have yet to
figure out why sales were so low, since we get so many wistful
queries about their books--indicating that people out there agree
with us that they're good! One of the problems of this business is
that it's very hard to do well with a book after the authors' first
few books haven't performed successfully, so another Liaden book
would have to be spectacular for us to be able to buy it.
Q: What percentage of the sale price does an author get in
royalties? Do you even use royalties with new authors, or is a
fixed-price contract more common?
A: Royalties in the sf/fantasy industry for a paperback are
usually between 6% and 10%, often rising if a book sells more than
a certain number of copies. (For example, royalties could start at
6% and go up to 8% after 150,000 copies are sold.) Royalties are
calculated on the book's retail price, which means your average
beginning author whose book costs $3.99 makes between 24 and 40
cents a copy. Royalties are standard for all authors of original
books, at least at Del Rey. The only authors who might not get
royalties are authors of movie or TV tie-ins, novelizations of
movies, and so on--works that aren't original and from the mind of
the author. Hardcover royalties are higher, and often have more
"escalators"--the points at which the royalties rise.
Q: Do authors sell books to publishers one at a time, or is a
contract set up for N books, or sometimes either? Are authors
required to stay with one publisher for periods of time, or
does it depend on what's in the contract?
A: Contracts can be for one or more than one book. Beginning
authors usually get single-book contracts to start with, until the
publisher is reasonably sure the author has built an audience.
Multi-book contracts are usually reserved for established authors
who have lots of ideas at once, or a well-thought-out series. In
addition, most contracts have an option clause, in which the
publisher claims the right to get a first look at the author's next
work (next work of fiction, next sf/fantasy novel, or whatever--
some options are narrower than others). Everything the author and
publisher agree to is part of the contract--from the number of free
copies the author gets to strictures against selling books to other
publishers for a certain period of time.
Q: I'm intrigued by the forthcoming SKY TRILLIUM by Julian May.
When BLACK TRILLIUM was published, it was rumored that the
three sequels would be written as solo novels by the three
collaborators. BLOOD TRILLIUM was written by Julian May and
the forthcoming GOLDEN TRILLIUM is by Andre Norton; I would
have expected the third sequel to be written by Marion Zimmer
Bradley. What's the story behind this series?
A: As far as we at Del Rey know, each author is allowed to go on
writing novels about her original character from BLACK TRILLIUM at
her own discretion. We're latecomers to the _Trillium_ business,
and don't know much about it other than that Julian May was eager
to write another book in the series and we were glad to acquire it.
IMHO: Cover Art===================================================
Cover art is one of the most interesting and most frustrating
aspects of being a science-fiction editor. A good cover makes me
feel great about a book and its prospects out on the shelves; a bad
cover can make me dejected. Inaccurate covers drive me nuts both
as a reader and an editor; lower-quality books with good cover art
make me despair because I believe that, to a great extent, readers
do pick books by their covers.
Notice I didn't say "judge"; what I've come to believe, after years
of being a book buyer myself, talking to other customers, and
watching the Del Rey sales reports, is that bookstore browsers pick
up certain books because of their covers. They may put them right
back down again after reading the cover copy or the first page, but
a good cover can get a book over that initial hurdle: getting
noticed at all. And many good books languish on the shelves
because their covers are too run-of-the-mill or too poorly done to
attract that first spark of interest.
At Del Rey, the editor's first job when it comes to cover art is to
present the book to the art director. (Many other sf publishers
work differently.) The art director is in charge of commissioning
art, making sure art is delivered on time, trying out different
graphic designs with the art, and putting together the art, the
cover copy, and the best design into a finished cover. We editors
explain what sort of book our title is and what kind of cover look
we think will attract the right audience; we often show covers of
previous books or successful similar books, to point out ideas to
use or shy away from. We usually suggest a particular scene or
scenes for the artist to try, and also suggest which artist(s) we
think are appropriate. We give the scene description(s), and a
complete manuscript, to the art director to pass along to the
artist.
Then we wait. The art director makes the final decision on which
artist to use. In a month or so, sketches arrive from the artist,
who has, we hope, read the book and tried out our suggested scenes
as well as others that looked interesting. Some artists turn in
pencil sketches on plain paper; others do small, rough paintings on
composition board. A sketch can be very sketchy--even faxes are
sometimes used--or almost as detailed as the finished painting.
The editors and the art director come to some agreement over which
sketch is most promising. Sometimes the artist is asked to use the
background of sketch A with the foreground of sketch C, or the
human from sketch B and the asteroid from sketch A. Editors try
not to be too demanding; after all, we're not the experts here.
Sometimes, though, editors catch mistakes at this stage that would
be very annoying on a cover--a left-handed hero firing a laser with
his right hand, and similar gaffes. (When we don't catch mistakes,
sometimes a kind-spirited author does a little last-minute
alteration to make a book consistent with its cover; I know of at
least one character who suddenly grew a mustache in the
proofreading stage.)
When the final art comes in, the editor is usually called in to see
it. If there are any major problems, some repainting can be done,
but usually the art is accepted as is. The art department then has
the painting photographed (and, in our company, scanned into the
high-tech computers the designers get to play with). Type styles
and colors are chosen by the art department, with editors kibitzing
if necessary, and the copy is put together with the art. Then the
whole thing gets proofread and approved by various people, from the
editor of the book to the president of the company. Any
corrections and adjustments are made, the decision whether to use
special effects like embossing and foil lettering is struggled
with, and the cover is sent to the printer.
A few weeks later, the first cover flats come in and land on an
editor's desk for final proofreading. That's when the manuscript
an editor may have picked out of the slushpile, developed, slaved
over during editing, and sweated tears writing the cover copy for
really begins to feel like not just a manuscript, not just more
work to do, but a real book.
Ellen Key Harris
Associate Editor
Del Rey Books
e...@panix.com
|DEL|
==============================================================|REY|
Dani Zweig
>|DEL| RANDOM BITS OF INFORMATION WITH NO PARTICULAR THEME
>|REY| The DEL REY BOOKS Internet Newsletter
This month's theme is...*diversity*. :-)
>ECHOES OF THE WELL OF SOULS by Jack Chalker. Trade paperback.
Any idea when the mass-market edition is due?
>CRYSTAL LINE by Anne McCaffrey. Paperback.
>...
>Crystal stole her past. Now crystal might restore it...but will
>Killashandra dare to take the risk?
That's somewhat misleading, as restoration-through-crystal was not
the risk she was asked to take. But yes, anyone who enjoyed the
first two Killashandra novels will enjoy this one.
>---> DEL REY DISCOVERY
>Experience the wonder of discovery with Del Rey's newest authors!
>------------------------------------------------------------
>TO A HIGHLAND NATION by Christopher Rowley. Paperback.
Am I misreading this or is Rowley being made part of the DR Discovery
series? It would hardly seem appropriate.
>THE SPOILS OF WAR by Alan Dean Foster (SF)
>Book Three of _The Damned_; 345-35857-0
>Hardcover, 288 pp; cover art by Barclay Shaw
The first book in this trilogy, "A Call to Arms", placed too much
weight on a tenuous, implausible, and self-contradictory premise,
whose bottom line was that the human race was the only intelligent
species with any talent for warfare, and that a relative handful
of humans could therefore turn the tide in a large-scale high-tech
interstellar war. That book ends with the discovery -- completely
gratuitous and unnecessary to the plot -- that humanity also had
another unique talent. The second book shoeds the turning point in
this war. The writing was competent but unexceptional, and was
handicapped by another silly premise (a complex and fragile deception
when simple propaganda would have worked far better) and another
gratuitous and unnecessary discovery. Still, I suppose I'll read
the third book when the library gets a copy.
>THE CUTTING EDGE by Dave Duncan (F)
>Part One of _A Handful of Men_; 38167-X
>Paperback, 320 pp; cover art by Jim Burns
Good stuff! If you've read "A Man of His Word", it should suffice to
say that this is no disappointment. If you haven't, you might want to
start with the first book of the first series -- "Magic Casement".
>Special Announcement: "Space Fantasy" stamps by Stephen Hickman
Very attractive, too. They come in books, with each five-stamp
strip (plus the borders) constituting a complete 'mural'. I've
been finding excuses to put $1.45 worth of postage on some envelopes.
>Q: When will Del Rey be publishing another Liaden book by Steve
> Miller and Sharon Lee?
>A: This seems to be a fairly frequent question on the net (with 3
>examples of it this month alone). The answer is that we're not
>sure if we'll be publishing another one. We loved their books, but
>they all had very disappointing sales.
That's surprising. I thought highly of their books, as has everyone
I've ever heard mention them.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
'T is with our judgements as our watches, none
Go alike, yet each believes his own
--Alexander Pope
Garrett Wollman
>[Julian May's] next Houghton-Mifflin book, INTERVENTION, was
>published in paperback as two separate volumes, leading to much
>confusion...but it was just too big to be published as one
Apparently, Pan disagreed.
[Background: This particular splitting has been a petpeeve of mine
ever since I got back from Europe in '89, having purchased the Pan
paperback there, and found that the US publisher had chopped it in
half. My US pb copy of _The Adversary_, a much shorter book, lasted
little more than two years, but my non-US pb copy of _Intervention_ is
still in very good condition, although I bought the hardcover soon
after coming home.]
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ...
wol...@emba.uvm.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
uvm-gen!wollman | It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people
UVM disagrees. | who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
David Weingart
and that struck a chord (bad thing for a filker to say, I know), but
this is my thought on it.
Interesting idea. From what I can gather, it seems that it's
identifying new and promising authors. So far so good, but
why identify them (I do know one or two folks who will _avoid_
new authors as being "inexperienced," but nobody who'll specifically
go out and _look_ for them.
Be that as it may, the one book I picked up and read ("Dancer of the
Sixth" by the ever-popular Author Who's Name Escapes Me) was
OK (not great) with only a few minor problems (certain speech
patterns annoyed me, because characters would keep dropping into
20th Century American, the long flashback that takes up the middle
third of the book was really not necessary (at least, not in one
lump), and the author's heavy hand of coincidence was MUCH
too heavy). If they keep this up, with a little more judicious
editing, they may well succeed in raising a new crop of _good_
pros (as opposed to <flameproof suit on> Brooks and Donaldson).
[aside: this is good, IMHO, because I'd like to see editors actually
work on getting good semi-original writers, as opposed to mindless
role-playing and Japanimation-derived series -- there are books in
that genre which are good, but the SNR is too low to justify my time].
--
73 de David Weingart KB2CWF I do not like green eggs and ham
phyd...@cumc.cornell.edu They are not kosher, Sam-I-am!
phyd...@src4src.linet.org
Me? Speak for CUMC? I can't even spell it!
Grendel Grettisson
>
>ECHOES OF THE WELL OF SOULS by Jack Chalker. Trade paperback.
>
>Ten years after his _Saga of the Well World_, Jack Chalker takes up
>the story of Nathan Brazil, Mavra Chang, and the Well World again
>in this first of three novels, collectively titled _The Watcher at
>the Well._ After several thousand years, Brazil and Chang are
>called back to the Well World and the master control of the
>universe--unaware that an entity older and more powerful than the
>makers of the Well World may be controlling their actions. This
>novel exhibits more depth than the earlier ones and is still a fun
>read; it's a good place to start for readers unfamiliar with
>Chalker or the Well World saga.
>------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon me while I vomit.
Owen A. Lock
>In article <C4tAu...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Ellen Key Harris) writes:
>>[Julian May's] next Houghton-Mifflin book, INTERVENTION, was
>>published in paperback as two separate volumes, leading to much
>>confusion...but it was just too big to be published as one
>>mass-market paperback with the bookbinding technology of the time.
>
>Apparently, Pan disagreed.
>
>[Background: This particular splitting has been a petpeeve of mine
>ever since I got back from Europe in '89, having purchased the Pan
>paperback there, and found that the US publisher had chopped it in
>half. My US pb copy of _The Adversary_, a much shorter book, lasted
>little more than two years, but my non-US pb copy of _Intervention_ is
>still in very good condition, although I bought the hardcover soon
>after coming home.]
>
>-GAWollman
Garrett:
Ellen Key Harris was being more discreet than honest. The actual reason
for Intervention's having been divided in two had to do with the mechanics
of the auction at which the hardcover house presented the book. Del Rey
had made a good offer for Intervention based on the costs of publishing
it as a single volume. One of our competitors made a considerably larger
offer, based on breaking it in two. The hardcover house then restructured
the auction, and Del Rey made a new bid -- based on two books rather than
one -- and won the book.
Two books was definitely the poorer choice, but if we wanted to publish
Intervention it was the only way we would have had a chance. Such decisions
are not uncommon in the industry. In fact, Julian May originally wrote The
Many Colored Land and The Golden Torc as one magnificent volume. It was the
hardcover publisher that broke it in two, producing two merely excellent
volumes.
Owen Lock (the reason I am aware of these details is that I am the editor
in chief at Del Rey; I read the original manuscript of [what became The Many
Colored Land and The Golden Torc] when it was submitted, and I participated
in the auction for Intervention).
Ellen Key Harris
May's INTERVENTION became two Del Rey paperbacks:
>Ellen Key Harris was being more discreet than honest.
Well, much as I hate to disagree with my boss (for various reasons), I
have to do so: I was not being discreet, I just had the facts wrong.
Had I known the real story (which was clearly and thoroughly
explicated by Owen in his posting), I would have used some
probably-less-detailed version of it in the DRIN.
Mea culpa! I'll try to be more careful in the future when explaining
things I think I know the reasons for.
Ellen
--
Ellen Key Harris e...@panix.com
Associate Editor, Del Rey Books |DEL|
201 E. 50th St., NY, NY 10022 |REY|
Whitworth, Kathryn
Re: Miller & Lee:
I wonder if the marketing of the books wasn't the problem?
I was in my favorite used-book store yesterday, and decided to do a spot-
check of Del Rey authors. I should have written down the results, but from
memory:
Miller and Lee: 0
C. Rowley: 4
S. Donaldson: 15
Most of the others that caught my eye were in the 3 to 4 range.
Now I realize that this is statistically insignificant, but I found it
interesting. Ellen, if you'd like me to keep a running tally on a few
authors (no more than 10, please) I'd be glad to do so.
I know I couldn't find Miller & Lee in the mall bookstores when I was
looking for *Carpe Diem*; I also know that I rarely see them used. Does
this mean that the few of us who managed to find the books aren't
about to let them go?
Is there anything that I as a reader can do to encourage Del Rey to rethink
their decision? I'd really like to know what happens next.
Kathryn Roth Whitworth
Chuq Von Rospach
> Pardon me while I vomit.
Pardon me while I speculate why you feel you have to make a public spectacle
of it.
--
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= ch...@apple.com
Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms =+= GEnie: MAC.BIGOT =+= ALink:CHUQ
Minor League fans: minors-...@medraut.apple.com (San Jose Giants: A/1/9)
San Francisco Giants fans: giants-...@medraut.apple.com (The Stick?NOT!)
San Jose Sharks fans: sharks-...@medraut.apple.com (Seat: MM/D/2)
Bob Devereaux
: IN DEPTH==========================================================
: Nicholas Jainschigg has been a science fiction illustrator for ten
: years, and is the 1993 recipient of the Jack Gaughan Memorial Award
: For Best Emerging Artist, although he is unsure what he is emerging
: from. He illustrates for _Analog,_ _Asimov's,_ _Weird Tales,_
: _Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine,_ Del Rey, Tor, and DAW.
: Here he shares some professional-illustration horror stories from
: the artists' point of view:
See for example the Spring 1993 issue of _Weird Tales_, which Nick has
illustrated in total, including, I'm happy to say, my story "Ridi Bobo."
I'll be on the lookout for NJ's other work & thank him, please, for
the entertaining bio he provided here.
Robert Devereaux
bob...@hpfela.fc.hp.com
Fort Collins, CO
(303) 229-3423
David Zink
>Good stuff! If you've read "A Man of His Word", it should suffice to
>say that this is no disappointment. If you haven't, you might want to
>start with the first book of the first series -- "Magic Casement".
I just bought MAGIC CASEMENT yesterday, along with the Locus ``25th
Anniversary Issue'', which features an interview with Dave.
And Dave is quoted as saying ``I wrote MAGIC CASEMENT, the end of the
trilogy, in 1986.''
Needless to say, I was quite distressed. I still haven't figured out
whether it was a typo, a mis-quote, or whether he was talking about an
earlier and unpublishable version.
>>---> DEL REY DISCOVERY
>>Experience the wonder of discovery with Del Rey's newest authors!
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>TO A HIGHLAND NATION by Christopher Rowley. Paperback.
Confused me too-- but reading the whole post shows it to be referring to
the book above.
>>Q: When will Del Rey be publishing another Liaden book by Steve
>> Miller and Sharon Lee?
>>A: This seems to be a fairly frequent question on the net (with 3
>>examples of it this month alone). The answer is that we're not
>>sure if we'll be publishing another one. We loved their books, but
>>they all had very disappointing sales.
>
>That's surprising. I thought highly of their books, as has everyone
>I've ever heard mention them.
Sounds like the Glen Cook syndrome all over again--which I blame on the
covers. The Tor Black Company covers are uniformly unfortunate, all by
Keith Berdak, who remains uncredited until the fourth book, though you
can barely make out his signature (when it was not cropped).
-- David
David Zink
>[aside: this is good, IMHO, because I'd like to see editors actually
>work on getting good semi-original writers, as opposed to mindless
>role-playing and Japanimation-derived series -- there are books in
>that genre which are good, but the SNR is too low to justify my time].
I have never accidentally picked up a book that turned out to be
role-playing or Japanimation-derived. If you keep picking up such
books, hoping for one not to be mindless, well, I can't bring myself to
pity you.
And I've seen no evidence that editors actually spend any time on those
books either.
So, grit your teeth, reach past that book that says ``based on the
computer game `The Bard's Tale' '', past that Star Wars book, right on
past the Star Trek and the TSR books, and pick up something original.
Most of the ones by new authors -- like Bell's MOJO AND THE PICKLE JAR,
will be merely OK, though refreshing and original; some of them will be
as polished as if their authors have been writing for decades, like
SOLDIERS OF PARADISE, BLACKBURN, or GOJIRO (and they might well have
been). Their editors work hard, and if you keep an eye on the authors,
you will find most of them maturing over time. Of course, they will be
blurbed as ``refreshing and original'', but do you really expect the
rest to be blurbed as ``tiresome and derivative''? So take some time
and hunt; look over the award nominees; talk to people who share your
ineterests.
And don't blame the editors for buying tiresome and derivative crap; blame
the millions of trekkies, Weis and Hickman fans, fang-hags and such that
made STAR WARS: DARK FORCE RISING the best selling SF hardcover for 1992
at around 375,000. Unless you count it as fantasy, where it was only
beaten out by horror titles: Stephen King, Anne Rice etc.
How many crappy books have you bought in an effort to convince editors
to stop publishing them?
BTW, genre editors tell me that the reason there is so little of the
obviously needed editing being done is because the readers just don't
give a flying fuck. For example: suppose you tried to edit Pournelle,
and he decided to find another publisher? How would you explain this to
the bottom line department? If you could point to hard figures--his
books sell twelve times as many copies when they are edited, then not
only the bean counters, but P. himself could probably be convinced to
insist on editing. Since people will buy the same number of books in
any condition, the editors haven't leg one to stand on.
I'm just picking on P. because he's an asshole, not because he needs
editing specifically; in fact he is reported to be the best line editor
in the industry. I also used him because he's a big name, big money,
almost sure-fire author. The same point has been made very clearly in
my presence about Star Trek books and TSR-style fantasy.
Joel Plutchak
>In article <1pi2jl...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> phyd...@cumc.cornell.edu (David Weingart) writes:
>>[aside: this is good, IMHO, because I'd like to see editors actually
>>work on getting good semi-original writers, as opposed to mindless
>>role-playing and Japanimation-derived series -- there are books in
>>that genre which are good, but the SNR is too low to justify my time].
>So, grit your teeth, reach past that book that says ``based on the
>computer game `The Bard's Tale' '', past that Star Wars book, right on
>past the Star Trek and the TSR books, and pick up something original.
I almost completely bypassed Diane Duane's "Door" books because of
that. After all, how could a Star Trek author be any good? Luckily,
for some unknown reason, I did pick up the first in the series, and
was pleasantly surprised. Still can't get myself to read a Trek book,
though. (And I'll be mortally embarassed if I'm getting Duane mixed
up with somebody else. ;-)
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
"I'm mentally OVERDRAWN!"
David Weingart
|> I have never accidentally picked up a book that turned out to be
|> role-playing or Japanimation-derived. If you keep picking up such
|> books, hoping for one not to be mindless, well, I can't bring myself to
|> pity you.
Actually, my rule of thumb is: "No 'based on...' books, no series fantasy"
Also, I skip any book that says "Book <n> of the <mumble mumble>
series/cycle/<mumble>ogy" until they're all out. (There are notable and
welcome exceptions, of course...Effinger's "The Zork Chronicles" was
a rip (having spent hours back in the late 70's playing DUNGEO and
ADVENT), and I own the middle book of the "Cineverse" cycle (I couldn't
resist something with a title like "Bride of the Slime Monster" -- silly
but fun.). Then again, certain authors get ignored based on past experience
(Donaldson, Brooks, (X)anthony, etc.), regardless of what they write.
|> So, grit your teeth, reach past that book that says ``based on the
|> computer game `The Bard's Tale' '', past that Star Wars book, right on
|> past the Star Trek and the TSR books, and pick up something original.\
Grit my teeth? That's 80% of the books stores' shelf space (at least, within
a 2-mile walk of my office (since I tend to buy books at lunchtime, when I
can browse (can't do that with a toddler on the weekends))). Bookstores
near NYH-CUMC have SF sections (if they have them at all) that consist
primarily of (X)anthony and STrek, with a few other authors thrown.
Hell, the last thing I actually bought was Herodotus (last week...still haven't
quite finished it).
|> Most of the ones by new authors -- like Bell's MOJO AND THE PICKLE JAR,
|> will be merely OK, though refreshing and original; some of them will be
I had mixed feelings about that one. _Very_ odd book.
|> you will find most of them maturing over time. Of course, they will be
|> blurbed as ``refreshing and original'', but do you really expect the
|> rest to be blurbed as ``tiresome and derivative''? So take some time
Blurbed? You mean you actually _read_ those? B{)
|> How many crappy books have you bought in an effort to convince editors
|> to stop publishing them?
None! (I frequently don't know how bad a book is until I've spent
my money and tried to read it, however, nor do I know how _good_
a book really is until I've read it (note the current talk on
Downbelow Station...I'm in the "What is this crap?" school on
that one, whereas I can't say enough good about "A Fire Upon the
Deep")).
Jim Mann
>
> I almost completely bypassed Diane Duane's "Door" books because
of
> that. After all, how could a Star Trek author be any good?
Luckily,
> for some unknown reason, I did pick up the first in the series, and
> was pleasantly surprised. Still can't get myself to read a Trek
book,
> though. (And I'll be mortally embarassed if I'm getting Duane
mixed
> up with somebody else. ;-)
> --
The trick to reading any of the Trek books is to not try to read
all or even most of them. I've read perhaps ten of them, based
on two criteria:
1. If it is an author I like, I may give their Trek books a shot.
Diane is one example. John Ford is my favorite example, though.
I liked his SF, so I gave his two Trek books a try. Both are
good, though very different from one another. The Final Reflection
is set in the Klingon Empire and is very serious. How Much
for Just the Planet? is the answer to that immortal question:
"What if Gilbert and Sullivan had written Star Trek?"
2. If I get a good recommendation from someone I trust, I may also
give the book a try. A friend got me to read Spartacus that way,
and it was well worth it.
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Patrick Nielsen-Hayden
>Confused me too-- but reading the whole post shows it to be referring to
>the book above.
>>>Q: When will Del Rey be publishing another Liaden book by Steve
>>> Miller and Sharon Lee?
>>>A: This seems to be a fairly frequent question on the net (with 3
>>>examples of it this month alone). The answer is that we're not
>>>sure if we'll be publishing another one. We loved their books, but
>>>they all had very disappointing sales.
>>
>>That's surprising. I thought highly of their books, as has everyone
>>I've ever heard mention them.
>Sounds like the Glen Cook syndrome all over again--which I blame on the
>covers. The Tor Black Company covers are uniformly unfortunate, all by
>Keith Berdak, who remains uncredited until the fourth book, though you
>can barely make out his signature (when it was not cropped).
Yo, David, where did you get the impression Glen Cook's Black Company books
sell poorly? In fact they've always done very well for us, Keith Berdak
covers and all.
The only reason we haven't published GLITTERING STONE is that Glen hasn't
written it yet. A fact which I almost think should go into the FAQ here, so
frequently do I find myself asked about it.
No harm done, probably, but I sometimes wonder if we all oughtn't be a bit
more careful about saying that X's work doesn't sell, unless we're darn sure
we know what we're talking about. There's a lot of misinformation out
there; I can't count the number of times I've had it explained to me that
Gene Wolfe doesn't sell (ho ho), or that DHALGREN was a commercial failure
(it sold 875,000 copies over twenty-four printings and ten years).
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, senior editor, Tor Books
p...@panix.com * CIS: 72701,1344 * GEnie: PNH * opinions mine
Sea Wasp
>In article <C57JD...@panix.com>, zi...@panix.com (David Zink) writes:
>|> I have never accidentally picked up a book that turned out to be
>|> role-playing or Japanimation-derived. If you keep picking up such
"Anime", please.
The really sad thing is that they don't have to be mindless.
Even if they were just straight adaptations of series. Some of the
Anime series out there are tremendously complex and very entertaining.
That's even more true for roleplaying fiction. Why the companies
involved insist on limiting the authors to producing pulp crap, I don't
know. Certainly there's money to be made by keeping a stable of pulp
authors, but why LIMIT yourself to pulp?
>Actually, my rule of thumb is: "No 'based on...' books, no series fantasy"
I have an easier rule of thumb: I take the book and read it. If
it keeps my interest in the uncomfortable circumstances of either standing
in the bookstore or sitting on the floor of the place, then it's probably
worth buying.
>but fun.). Then again, certain authors get ignored based on past experience
>(Donaldson, Brooks, (X)anthony, etc.), regardless of what they write.
To each his own. Any fantasy by Donaldson I buy right off. Brooks
is on my auto-buy list. Anthony, well, er.... no.
Sea Wasp
Jim Mann
> In article <1q3u5f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
phyd...@cumc.cornell.edu (David Weingart) writes:
> >In article <C57JD...@panix.com>, zi...@panix.com (David Zink)
writes:
> >|> I have never accidentally picked up a book that turned out to
be
> >|> role-playing or Japanimation-derived. If you keep picking up
such
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Anime", please.
And what were some folks saying last week about SF fans not
being into "political correctness"? The whole anime vs. Japanimation
debate is a lot like the Sci Fi vs. SF debate. Most fans call
it SF but those who aren't heavily involved in the field as
often as not call it Sci Fi. Similarly, it seems that those
heavily involved in Japanimation prefer "anime" but most of the
rest of us continue to call it Japanimation (which was the term
that even the anime fans used for at least a decade before
changing their minds on what they wanted to call it).
Kathryn Whitworth
>obviously needed editing being done is because the readers just don't
>books sell twelve times as many copies when they are edited, then not
>only the bean counters, but P. himself could probably be convinced to
>insist on editing. Since people will buy the same number of books in
>any condition, the editors haven't leg one to stand on.
>
I quit reading Jennifer Robeson after the second in her "Song of the Homani"
(I think that's the series; it's been a while) series largely because of all
the g*dd*mn*d typos/wrong words. Looked like someone used a spell-checker
and never bothered verifying whether it was the right word.
Also read *Helliconia Spring*; would've enjoyed that a lot more if it had
less typos. Never picked up any of the others.
I realize that for every reader like me, there's a dozen who don't even
realize that there are typos.
BTW, is it true that if a book is full of typos/missing a page or chapter,
that it may be sent back to the publisher who is obligated to correct the
problem? Or is this urban folklore?
Kathryn Roth Whitworth
David Weingart
|> The trick to reading any of the Trek books is to not try to read
|> all or even most of them. I've read perhaps ten of them, based
|> on two criteria:
Well, you've beat me there...I've read only 2, and they were "Spock Must Die!"
and "Spock: Messiah" (brings back memories, eh?).
|> 1. If it is an author I like, I may give their Trek books a shot.
With a limited amount of time to read (unfortunately), I have to use certain
broad filters. I've heard some good things about both Diane Duane's and
John Ford's ST fic, but there are other things clamoring for my attention
that are first in the priority queue (BTW, on the subject of John Ford, he
did a "Car Wars" piece a number of years ago for "The Space Gamer" called
"Street Legal" -- read it!)
|> 2. If I get a good recommendation from someone I trust, I may also
No applicable...most of the people I trust have very different tastes
than I do. <sigh>
Bill Seurer
|> BTW, is it true that if a book is full of typos/missing a page or chapter,
|> that it may be sent back to the publisher who is obligated to correct the
|> problem? Or is this urban folklore?
I don't know about typos, but several times when I have gotten books that
were missing pages or had duplicated sections with some other part missing
I have taken the book back to the store where I bought it.
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Internet: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com America On-Line: BillS...@aol.com
Dani Zweig
>>...you might want to
>>start with the first book of the first series -- "Magic Casement".
>
>trilogy, in 1986.''
I'd guess there's a context-error here. As published, MC is the first
novel of a tetralogy (teratology? teratism? :).
Dani Zweig
>I almost completely bypassed Diane Duane's "Door" books because of
>that. After all, how could a Star Trek author be any good?
A good enough author can do wonderful things even with formula.
In the context of Star Trek, this means that people who don't like
Star Trek still have an excellent chance of enjoying John Ford`s
ST books ("The Final Reflection" and "How Much for Just the Planet?")
and a good chance of enjoying Diane Duane's "My Enemy, My Ally."
Dani Zweig
>Looked like someone used a spell-checker
>and never bothered verifying whether it was the right word.
This happens all the time. I don't like it -- but I also think it's
a scream. Since spell-checkers have become common, typos seem to
have *increased* in frequency, but now they tend to be words that are
in the dictionary.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
Watership Down:
You've read the book. You've seen the movie. Now eat the stew!
Sea Wasp
>In article <1q3v69$m...@transfer.stratus.com>, jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>|> The trick to reading any of the Trek books is to not try to read
>|> all or even most of them. I've read perhaps ten of them, based
>|> on two criteria:
I've read I don't know HOW many of them. For a while, I collected
Trek books. Starting in the very, very beginning (How many people out there
have even HEARD of, let alone read, the cheap hardback which was the first
ST novel, "Mission to Horatius") and amassing a complete collection up
through the early '80s, when the numbers started to take off FAST. After
that I only picked up a few here and there.
Recommended reads:
1) The Final Reflection: Set mostly in Klingon space and not
COMPLETELY consistent with the later movies, it's nonetheless an
absolutely marvelous look at the culture. Nice characters and a
smooth writing style.
2) Uhura's Song: Space plague stories have been done before,
but this one is a particularly nice version, with the tracking down
and contact of an alien culture (and one with some quite nice ALIEN
touches) working quite well. There are indications that the author
intended something akin to a series, or at least a continuing
character within a group of books. Wish I knew who "Evan Wilson"
really was.
3) The Romulan Way: Again set in one of the classic ST
villain's civilizations. I don't think it's QUITE as good as The
Final Reflection, but it is pretty nice.
4) The Entropy Effect: It isn't often you get a story about
the destruction of the universe that manages to avoid space-opera
level bombast, but Vonda McIntyre manages it very well.
5) Trek to Madworld: Imagine Q getting a mind-transplant from
Willy Wonka, then set him loose. How can you resist this one?
It's GREAT.
Qualified Recommendation:
The Marshak-Culbreath series of books: The Price of the Phoenix,
the Fate of the Phoenix, Triangle, and The Prometheus Design.
I like them because they are a strong attempt to take off
from the original ST universe and follow their own track of logic.
Within their own universe they work. I have some problems with their
approach, but they paint an interesting picture. The dark hero/villain
of the Phoenix books, Omne, is particularly interesting. I really
wish they'd been allowed to publish the third and presumably final
book in that sequence.
>Well, you've beat me there...I've read only 2, and they were "Spock Must Die!"
"Spock Must Die" was cute for its time.
>and "Spock: Messiah" (brings back memories, eh?).
Ooo! Ooo! Now that one was a howler. I wish I could remember
where I saw that plot before, but I know I'd read a book very similar.
Maybe I'm crossing the Deathworld III with another book...
Avoid "Perry's Planet" at all costs.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Norman Morin
sf has lousy editing because most of the audience doesn't give a
damn. Could be. If the bookcompanies thought they'd sell
significantly more books if they were well edited, you can
bet they would.
This is too bad, though, as even some masterpieces (or, more
properly, near masterpieces) were marred due to lax editing.
UBIK by Dick has had many nonDickhead readers stop after the
first chapter because it is written so poorly. The rest
of the book is so mindbooglingly good that I'd give the top score
on any scale you want to define, but chapter one is in
great need of some editorial attention.
--Norm
Dave Schaumann
stop me from jumping in... :-)
Trek books... tend to suffer the same fate as the show: a multitude of writers
means wildly varying quality of the story, and the characters and situations
are static, static, static.
For instance: Peter David's _Vendetta_ is widley regarded as one of the best
Trek books yet written. But much of the suspense and drama of the book are
stolen away by the simple fact that you know from the outset that none of the
major characters can die, or even change significantly.
None of the realtionships with alien races can be changed (the Borg can't be
destroyed, the Romulans can't be defeated, the Klingons can't become peace-
loving...), no new (repeatable) technology can be introduced that cannot also
be safely ignored...
In short, you've gotta be a pretty die-hard Treknophile (or maybe just
really easy to please?) in order to derive any pleasure from these books
at all.
--
Dave Schaumann da...@cs.arizona.edu
Evelyn C. Leeper
> Also read *Helliconia Spring*; would've enjoyed that a lot more if it had
> less typos. Never picked up any of the others.
"Fewer typos," actually.
> I realize that for every reader like me, there's a dozen who don't even
> realize that there are typos.
And it probably should be "there are a dozen."
:-) :-)
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | e...@mtgpfs1.att.com <========
Note new address: e...@mtgzy.att.com will work only until April 30.
Kathryn Whitworth
Picky, picky, picky!
I write conversationally here because I'm usually in a hurry, and I *feel*
I'm in a conversation, and besides, if I use proper grammar and multi-
syllabic words, I'm considered stuck-up (that's how it is in small towns in
Texas).
Besides, since dozen can be considered a collective noun as well as a number,
it can be used in the singular. "A dozen is twelve of an item. A gross is
twelve dozen."
I'll accept the first correction. Simple carelessness/informality. Not
something I'll let slide in my mss.
Kathryn
Dani Zweig
>>>...would've enjoyed that a lot more if it had less typos.
>>"Fewer typos," actually.
>I'll accept the first correction...
You give up too easily. As any good dictionary will tell you (and if
it doesn't, it must not be a good dictionary :), 'typos' is a portmenteau
word ('typo' + 'pathos') which refers to the misery of reading a poorly
proofed document or novel. :-)
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
Should 'anal rententive' have a hyphen?
-- unidentified passing t-shirt
Charles Jacob Cohen
> Recommended reads:
> 1) The Final Reflection: Set mostly in Klingon space and not
>
>
>
>
>
How could you leave out "The Galactic Whirlpool" by David Gerrold.
What a treat that is! If you like his Chtorr novels, then you'll like
his style and you should read this. He tries to develop most of
the characters quite nicely.
- Chuck
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect, had intended for us to forgo their use." - Galileo
"I'm an engineer, not a dictionary!" - Me
Dani Zweig
>> Recommended reads:
>>...
>How could you leave out "The Galactic Whirlpool" by David Gerrold...
You want to distinguish between recommendations for people who like
Star Trek and recommendations for people who like good sf but don't
particularly like Star Trek.
Ethan A Merritt
>
>You give up too easily. As any good dictionary will tell you (and if
>it doesn't, it must not be a good dictionary :), 'typos' is a portmenteau
>word ('typo' + 'pathos') which refers to the misery of reading a poorly
>proofed document or novel. :-)
Sure. And "portmenteau" is a portmanteau word ('port' + 'mentir') which
refers to the falsity of carrying things too far! :-) :-) :-)
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
Ellen Key Harris
least at Del Rey, we think line-editing and developmental editing are
very important. Having Lester del Rey around does that to a person.
It does it to an editor, too. So we do a lot of editing of various
sorts on most of our books. Sometimes a book can't be made any
better, but when it can, we try.
No! Really! I don't know about the Other Publishers, though.
--
Ellen Key Harris e...@panix.com
Associate Editor, Del Rey Books |DEL|
201 E. 50th St., NY, NY 10022 |REY|
David Zink
>Owen Lock said, about the explanation in the April DRIN of why Julian
>May's INTERVENTION became two Del Rey paperbacks:
>
>>Ellen Key Harris was being more discreet than honest.
>
>Well, much as I hate to disagree with my boss (for various reasons), I
>have to do so: I was not being discreet, I just had the facts wrong.
Owen Lock was being more discreet than honest.
David Zink
>Yo, David, where did you get the impression Glen Cook's Black Company books
>sell poorly? In fact they've always done very well for us, Keith Berdak
>covers and all.
Oops! That was a bit of a massive jump sideways, wasn't it?
Did the Dread Empire books have tolerable sales? They were the ones I
was thinking of, mostly, it was just the newer ones were closer to hand.
And I always think of them as having worse sales than they should.
I still think the covers suck.
Imagine the gall of putting a close-up of the most beautiful woman in
the universe on a cover.
>No harm done, probably, but I sometimes wonder if we all oughtn't be a bit
>more careful about saying that X's work doesn't sell, unless we're darn sure
>we know what we're talking about. There's a lot of misinformation out
>there; I can't count the number of times I've had it explained to me that
>Gene Wolfe doesn't sell (ho ho), or that DHALGREN was a commercial failure
>(it sold 875,000 copies over twenty-four printings and ten years).
Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it. Even some
of Delany's staunchest supporters, like L. Don Keller, the Delaneticist,
couldn't get through it.
Of course, I also know many people who loved it: but they are most of
them artists, beat poets, sort of new-age post-hippies and rainbow
types.
But then DAHLGREN is hardly an SF novel. It's a poet's notebook, extending
ULYSSES in a logical direction, and providing a lot of lower east side
artists with a validation of their lifestyle.
If your interests are SFnal it has nothing to offer. Why does the sun
hang low in the sky? Why do all the fires burn? Why do the days follow
each other in a random order? It is struggling to say interesting
things about the nature of calendars and naming, but it is doing it in a
very mainstream fashion.
-- David
Ellen Key Harris
Just to clear this up in case anyone's still confused...
MAGIC CASEMENT is the first book in the series _A Man of His Word._
The other books are FAERY LANDS FORLORN, PERILOUS SEAS, and EMPEROR
AND CLOWN.
The next series, _A Handful of Men,_ starts with THE CUTTING EDGE.
Then UPLAND OUTLAWS (just out in hardcover), THE STRICKEN FIELD, and
the last one the name of which I can never remember (I'm at home).
His first series, _The Seventh Sword,_ was: THE RELUCTANT SWORDSMAN,
THE COMING OF WISDOM, and THE DESTINY OF THE SWORD.
'Zat help?
Ellen Key Harris
At least at Del Rey, we will replace any book that is defective--pages
missing, pages misprinted, binding glue disintegrated... And if you
send in a book with a massive number of typos and point them out to us
(or send us copies of the pages, not the actual book, we don't need
the book, you keep it :-), we will often be so grateful that someone
else out there is helping us be the typo police that we'll send you a
present! (Guess what...a book.) We even try to pick something you
might like. Then we fix the typos before the next printing (if any).
Typesetters vary in the amount of care they take, and spell-checkers
have made it very hard to catch the typos that are other words ("lien"
for "line" and so on). It's harder for a proofreader or an author to
catch that sort of hidden typo, too. We try to catch them all (three
people read each manuscript), but if there are enough, an annoying
number get through.
Sorry!
The Publishing Business
(no, really, it's just
Zvi Gilbert
>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure
There is no way in which DHALGREN was a failure, either commercially,
critically, or in the amount of vitriol it gathered (and still gathers!)
in the sf community. After all, if a vocal minority is spitting and raging,
there must have been something that made them pissed.
>simply because it is
>so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it.
Not difficult at all. I'm one, and I know a bunch more.
>Of course, I also know many people who loved it: but they are most of
>them artists, beat poets, sort of new-age post-hippies and rainbow
>types.
I.e., non-sf readers?
Oy. What a bunch of shallow stereotyping. Sounds like you're devaluing these
people, and I don't know why.
I think the book appeals to 1) people who are interested in literate,
odd, and stylistically interesting writing, 2) people who like intellectual
puzzles, and 3) people who aren't afraid of alternate lifestyles.
That describes most of the sf people that *I* know... I think you're doing
the SF community a great disservice by implying that most of them wouldn't
like DHALGREN. SF is larger than the Piers Anthony fans!
>But then DAHLGREN is hardly an SF novel.
Depends on what you think SF is, doesn't it.
>It's a poet's notebook,
Only part of it.
>extending ULYSSES in a logical direction,
Nonsense. The two books have little in common, other than an urban focus,
an occasional penchant for stream of consciousness writing, and a reputation
as big, "difficult" books...
Hm. Well, maybe they have something in common. <grin> However, ULYSSES
has a mythological focus and structure that DHALGREN completely lacks.
>and providing a lot of lower east side artists with a validation of their
>lifestyle.
This is parochial, patronizing, and untrue. As if the people who read
DHALGREN have "lifestyles" that need "validation."
>If your interests are SFnal it has nothing to offer.
Nonsense squared. Your interests aren't the intersts of the field... and I
am one sf reader who happens to love the books, and I know several who
agree with me. It's close to being a shibboleth of mine for sf readers.
>[DHALGREN addresses its concerns in a] very mainstream fashion.
Mainstream, eh? Well, no. SF can (or maybe could) accomodate the kind of
literary experimentation used by Delany (or Aldiss, or Russ, or Disch, etc.),
whereas mainstream lit. often can't. Plus there are many sf tropes
and ideas used throughout the story.
You are right in a sense: SF is generally thought of as a rational genre;
things have explanations, and we eventually find out the reasons for
everything... in that sense, DHALGREN doesn't share all of the concerns of
SF... but it is reacting against them in some profound ways... compare Russ's
_We Who Are About To_ or Disch's _The Genocides_ for more simple examples
of books reacting against sf tropes.
I wish that the DHALGREN bashers would not try to speak for the field. I
hate Piers Anthony, and most of modern fantasy and series books, but I'm not
going to say that they aren't sf or that someone shouldn't read them...
I'll just casually avoid the people who do. <grin>
Greg Nikolic
>Not to get this thread back on track, but I just want to say that at
>least at Del Rey, we think line-editing and developmental editing are
>very important.
Mmmmhmmm. But just who's the writer anyway? If Robert Heinlein or
Stephen King intends his book to be HIS way, who is Editor Nobody to say that
"oh no, it'd be *much* better if you change this, this and this... the book
is much too long, and I don't think I like this character and, hey, if we just
introduced a little subplot *here* I think the book would be much better."
F*ck that. I want to read the authors I like. I don't give a damn about
the editors, to be honest. Remember Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land?
It was cut down. Who cut it down? Heinlein? No. Heinlein's editors.
I read The Stand when it first came out. Liked it a lot. It was 700 or
so pages but, hey, I like my books big and juicy. And then I see "The Stand:
the unabridged version" out. The editors forced King to take out 400 pages.
Hmph.
I don't know the ins and outs of the editorial world. I'll freely admit
that. But if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
I think (s)he's tampered too much.
What do you think?
--
"Please allow me to introduce myself. SYMPATHY
I'm a man of wealth and taste. FOR THE DEVIL
I've been around for long, long years. the Laibach
Stolen many a man's soul, and faith." remixes
Bonita Kale
In a previous article, da...@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) says:
>
>Trek books... tend to suffer the same fate as the show: a multitude of writers
>means wildly varying quality of the story, and the characters and situations
>are static, static, static.
>
>For instance: Peter David's _Vendetta_ is widley regarded as one of the best
>Trek books yet written. But much of the suspense and drama of the book are
>stolen away by the simple fact that you know from the outset that none of the
>major characters can die, or even change significantly.
>
>None of the realtionships with alien races can be changed (the Borg can't be
>destroyed, the Romulans can't be defeated, the Klingons can't become peace-
>loving...), no new (repeatable) technology can be introduced that cannot also
>be safely ignored...
>
>In short, you've gotta be a pretty die-hard Treknophile (or maybe just
>really easy to please?) in order to derive any pleasure from these books
>at all.
I used to read a lot of these. I think the pleasure is similar to that of
a detective series. There is enjoyment in seeing the same characters in
different situations, perhaps growing a little, perhaps just being so very
much themselves. Diane Duane is especially good at this, I think, and
Janet Kagan. To see someone react to an unusual situation in such a way
that we feel a combination of surprise (because it wasn't just what we
expected) and affectionate recognition (because it is so -very- Spock, or
Kirk, or McCoy) is a pleasant little jolt.
There is also a related pleasure in seeing, so to speak, the same pieces
rearranged on the board. Like making different pictures out of the same
shapes.
Bonita Kale
Mike Godwin
>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
>so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it.
Are you endorsing this is as a standard for "failure," or simply
explaining why so many SF fans think it is one?
I finished the book back in '76, but never thought it was particularly
good.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression
mnem...@eff.org| of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and
(617) 576-4510 | burned women. It is the function of speech to free men
EFF, Cambridge | from the bondage of irrational fears." --Brandeis
Mike Godwin
>Hm. Well, maybe they have something in common. <grin> However, ULYSSES
>has a mythological focus and structure that DHALGREN completely lacks.
I too was surprised at this comparison. DHALGREN leaves me cold; ULYSSES
can make me laugh or weep. Or both at the same time.
Joel Plutchak
How about for people who watch Star Trek, and like good SF, but
just can't get into reading about the ST world? I guess what it
comes down to is that some of us have different expectations and
criteria for TV & movies versus for books. (I may have been
convinced to at least give an ST novel a try, though. ;-)
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
"I'm mentally OVERDRAWN!"
Elizabeth Willey
[assertions of preferences for long, long, long books by extremely
famous bestsellers removed]
I don't know the ins and outs of the editorial world. I'll freely admit
that. But if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
I think (s)he's tampered too much.
What do you think?
I think you like big, flabby books, and that you know very little
about writing and self-editing. Possibly age will alter your tastes
and improve your knowledge.
Elizabeth Willey
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>
> I don't know the ins and outs of the editorial world. I'll freely admit
>that. But if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
>grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
>I think (s)he's tampered too much.
>
> What do you think?
I think as follows:
> .... I want to read the authors I like. I don't give a damn about
>the editors, to be honest. Remember Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land?
>It was cut down. Who cut it down? Heinlein? No. Heinlein's editors.
Those who have read both versions of Stranger (whom count me not among)
say the cut-down version was fractionally better than the original. The
editor had taken out small digressions and unnecessary padding.
>
> ..........If Robert Heinlein or
>Stephen King intends his book to be HIS way, who is Editor Nobody to say that
... the book
>is much too long.....
Well, that's the problem, you see. After Heinlein became such a Big Name
that nobody dared to edit his work, he started putting out these long
rambling epics packed with fluff and degenerate connective tissue,
crying out for surgery. I am an undying fan of Heinlein's earlier work,
but his later stuff I refuse to read.
Asimov had the same problem toward the end of his life. It is the combination
of a glorious reputation based on the earlier works, an editor who hasn't
the gumption to edit the Big Name where it's needed, and the simultaneous
aging and illness on the part of the Big Name to the point that he can't
edit himself. It's a damn shame, but it happens. (I don't read late
Asimov either.)
>.... The editors forced King to take out 400 pages.
>Hmph.
Well, I don't read King at all, so I'll be silent on this one.
Dorothy J. Heydt
UC Berkeley
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer: UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.
James Davis Nicoll
[Dave demonstrates his intimate knowledge of f&sf by confusing
Cook's 'Black Company' series with Cook's 'Dread Empire' series, allowing
him to blame the poor sales of one series on the covers of the other.
The error is pointed out to him]
>>No harm done, probably, but I sometimes wonder if we all oughtn't be a bit
>>more careful about saying that X's work doesn't sell, unless we're darn sure
>>we know what we're talking about. There's a lot of misinformation out
>>there; I can't count the number of times I've had it explained to me that
>>Gene Wolfe doesn't sell (ho ho), or that DHALGREN was a commercial failure
>>(it sold 875,000 copies over twenty-four printings and ten years).
>
>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
>so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it. Even some
>of Delany's staunchest supporters, like L. Don Keller, the Delaneticist,
>couldn't get through it.
Allow me to show you a sf fan who *has* read 'Dhalgren': me.
I'm not alone, either. Perhaps the problem in finding people who have
read the book is not that no-one has read it, but that the investigator
in question allowed his preconceptions to bias his sampling, as he allowed
his dislike of one series' cover art to allow him to believe mistruths
about the sales of that series.
>Of course, I also know many people who loved it: but they are most of
>them artists, beat poets, sort of new-age post-hippies and rainbow
>types.
Hmmm. Doesn't sound like the folks *I* know who have read
'Dhalgren'. It does kinda sound like a listing of the stereotyped
'artsie' types, though. If the people I know are a representative sample,
then the latest Zink hypothesis bears the same relationship to reality
as his 'The bad (In Zink's opinion) art on one series caused another series
of books by the same author (a series written for the most part at an
earlier date) to sell poorly' hypothesis did.
[Further nonsense by Zink deleted. Apparently he never clued
to the source of the perceptual oddities in 'Dhalgren']
James Nicoll
Jim Mann
> >.... The editors forced King to take out 400 pages.
> >Hmph.
>
> Well, I don't read King at all, so I'll be silent on this one.
>
King is someone who's quality is hurt by the lack of editing.
It, for example, had a lot of potential. As it was, it was
a good book. It could have been a great one if an editor had
gotten together with King and said "Well, if you trim it
just a tad and change the hockey ending a bit, you'll have
a much better book on your hands."
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Eric S. Raymond
> Just to clear this up in case anyone's still confused...
I want to add a recommendation. Dave Duncan is *not* yet another one of the
Piers-Anthony-wannabe hacks who churn out endless reams of formula fantasy
for the dim-brained.
His work is original, well-crafted, and informed by a humanity and maturity
that glows through it up like sunlight through stained glass. I don't
always agree with the beliefs he expresses in his books, but I think he
is a genuinely *wise* man. Wise in the sense that he's learned a great
deal about human nature and the ways we each make heaven or hell of our
lives, and knows how to share that experience without preaching or
portentiousness.
I heartily recommend his work to anyone who values good fantasy.
--
Eric S. Raymond <e...@snark.thyrsus.com>
David S. Cargo
I talked to Glen Cook when he was at Minicon. According what I
remember him saying, he's able to write about one half page per week.
He does write and edit on his vacations also. He knows that people
want to see the conclusion of the Black Company books.
He also said that it is unlikely that there will be any more Dread
Empire books; he said the last one only sold 6000 copies.
(Aside to PNH: Hope you had/are having a good time in the Twin Cities.)
David S. Cargo
ca...@escargot.cray.com
(612) 683-5591
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>
>....Dave Duncan is *not* yet another one of the
>Piers-Anthony-wannabe hacks who churn out endless reams of formula fantasy
>for the dim-brained.
Ach, du Lieber! You mean there are people who _want_ to write like Piers
Anthony? The mind boggles. Or do you mean there are people who covet
his income? I can get behind that. Lord, I wish I could churn out endless
realms of forumla fantasy for the dim-brained and make oodles of boodle.
Or, as they say in Yorkshire and such places, "Where there's muck,
there's money."
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>.... Lord, I wish I could churn out endless
>realms of forumla fantasy for the dim-brained and make oodles of boodle.
And then I realized that the original poster had said "endless reams...."
But I think perhaps what I said is applicable too: endless fantasy
kingdoms not worth (in any sense but the financial) the power to blow
them to hell.
*sigh*
Stephen Graham
But avoid _Hero!_. It stunk.
Otherwise, Duncan is on my buy-on-sight, buy-in-hardcover list.
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
Frieja
[snip]
>It could have been a great one if an editor had
> gotten together with King and said "Well, if you trim it
> just a tad and change the hockey ending a bit, [snip]
> Jim Mann
> Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Hockey ending? There was a hockey ending? I think I am going to have to
re-read the book. I think it could have been much better with a hockey
ending.
Go Pens!
(sorry. it had to be done. :-))
--
--Frieja e-mail mar...@alleg.edu
"Laughing Wild Amid Severest Woe..."
Sea Wasp
>gdni...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic) writes:
> [assertions of preferences for long, long, long books by extremely
>famous bestsellers removed]
> I don't know the ins and outs of the editorial world. I'll freely admit
> that. But if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
> grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
> I think (s)he's tampered too much.
>I think you like big, flabby books, and that you know very little
>about writing and self-editing. Possibly age will alter your tastes
>and improve your knowledge.
Despite the fact that her response is rather... er...
inflammatory, I'm afraid I have to mostly agree with Elizabeth.
My stories would not be nearly as good as they are (how good
that is, only my readers could say, of course...) if the editors
had not only told me what I misspelled, but more importantly
had not told me what to cut, what to change, where my logic
failed, and so on and so forth.
Moreover, I do NOT believe that will alter with time.
Most of the MAJOR problems with any story I've written are of
the kind that I SIMPLY COULD NOT SEE until someone pointed it
out; in fact, some were of the sort that it took some arguing
to convince me that there WAS a problem. After the fact,
I could see that there not only WAS a problem, but that it
was a major problem.
A GOOD editor is essential to create a good book.
I don't know if ANYONE is a good enough author to just crank
out a perfect book without some kind of outside input.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Andy Whitfield
In article <1l5VKK#266qhJ4GcKns7lNdxJ5MFV3j=e...@snark.thyrsus.com>, e...@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
|>I want to add a recommendation. Dave Duncan is *not* yet another one of the
|>Piers-Anthony-wannabe hacks who churn out endless reams of formula fantasy
|>for the dim-brained.
|>
|>His work is original, well-crafted, and informed by a humanity and maturity
|>that glows through it up like sunlight through stained glass. I don't
|>always agree with the beliefs he expresses in his books, but I think he
|>is a genuinely *wise* man. Wise in the sense that he's learned a great
|>deal about human nature and the ways we each make heaven or hell of our
|>lives, and knows how to share that experience without preaching or
|>portentiousness.
|>
|>I heartily recommend his work to anyone who values good fantasy.
|>--
|> Eric S. Raymond <e...@snark.thyrsus.com>
|>
I agree. I highly recommend his first series, and the first book in the latest
series titled A Handful of Men. The book itself is The Cutting Edge.
Jim Kasprzak
|>
|> King is someone who's quality is hurt by the lack of editing.
|> It, for example, had a lot of potential. As it was, it was
|> a good book. It could have been a great one if an editor had
|> gotten together with King and said "Well, if you trim it
|> just a tad and change the hockey ending a bit, you'll have
|> a much better book on your hands."
I did. The one I read had some bicycling, but no hockey.
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| "I understand the causes, and sympathize your motivations,
\_| But all the details of this war are just your self-infatuation."
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Dani Zweig
intuitions about the market. The most important of these is that new
authors are extremely vulnerable: They aren't on anyone's must-buy list,
and their sales are the most price-sensitive.
>gdni...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic):
>...if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
>grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or
>two, I think (s)he's tampered too much.
<Wince!> I'll take this comment as support for Piet Hein's observation:
THAT'S WHY
Why do bad writers win the fight?
Why do good writers die in need?
Because the writers who can't write
Are read by readers who can't read.
-- Piet Hein (Grooks 2)
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
Should 'anal rententive' have a hyphen?
-- unidentified passing t-shirt
Bob Alberti
: >finished it.
:
: Not difficult at all. I'm one, and I know a bunch more.
I've read DHALGREN twice, but I've never read anything Zink ever wrote...
: >If your interests are SFnal it has nothing to offer.
Look, Dave, I'm sorry that failure depresses you, but your comment is silly.
Just because the book is challening to you does not mean it offers nothing.
I'm neither a lower-east-side artist trying to validate his lifestyle (a phrase
which sounds like it has its own agenda behind it) nor a hippie. I happen to
enjoy a challenge, however, and DHALGREN is one of the most dynamic books I've
ever read.
I read it first in 1981, and it took me an entire summer. I read it again
last year and it took only a few weeks. But my perceptions of the novel were
so completely different that there were only three or four scenes that seemed
familiar; it was like reading an entirely different book.
This brings to mind when I read the Silmarillion twice during my teenaged days
of Tolkein fandom. The first time through it was the most confusing and
tangled novel I ever read. The second time, read more carefully, and following
a few more passes through the other novels, and I discovered a grace and
symmetry in the book that I really enjoyed. I may not hold Tolkein's works
in such high esteem any more, but the lesson I learned was that there are
rewards to taking on a challenging book like that, and reading it twice
allowed me to appreciate it thoroughly.
But please, return to your Xanth novels if DHALGREN is too much for you.
Owen A. Lock
>In article <C5CII...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Ellen Key Harris) writes:
>>Not to get this thread back on track, but I just want to say that at
>>least at Del Rey, we think line-editing and developmental editing are
>>very important.
>
> Mmmmhmmm. But just who's the writer anyway? If Robert Heinlein or
>Stephen King intends his book to be HIS way, who is Editor Nobody to say that
>"oh no, it'd be *much* better if you change this, this and this... the book
>is much too long, and I don't think I like this character and, hey, if we just
>introduced a little subplot *here* I think the book would be much better."
>
> F*ck that. I want to read the authors I like. I don't give a damn about
>the editors, to be honest. Remember Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land?
>It was cut down. Who cut it down? Heinlein? No. Heinlein's editors.
>
>
In my experience at Del Rey, when something about a novel is thought
to be awkward, we tell the author. Depending on how strongly we feel
about the point, if the author disagrees we'll either go with the
author's opinion or drop the book. It rarely comes to dropping the
book. In the case of Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, I believe
that Heinlein cut it himself at the publisher's request. I think he
did a great job (I've compared the original manuscript to the printed
book). And I think the book is better shorter.
The rationale for editors' doing what they do is twofold: they try
to deliver the best possible book to the reader; they try to
protect their employers' investment in the book (the advance paid
to the author and the money invested in the production of the
book).
There have been editors (at Del Rey and elsewhere) who manhandle
manuscripts. We no longer have any such at Del Rey.
Owen
David Zink
>King is someone who's quality is hurt by the lack of editing.
>It, for example, had a lot of potential. As it was, it was
>a good book. It could have been a great one if an editor had
>gotten together with King and said "Well, if you trim it
>just a tad and change the hockey ending a bit, you'll have
>a much better book on your hands."
And he had listened . . .
David Zink
>gdni...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic) writes:
> that. But if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
> grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
> I think (s)he's tampered too much.
>
> What do you think?
>
>I think you like big, flabby books, and that you know very little
>about writing and self-editing. Possibly age will alter your tastes
>and improve your knowledge.
I think he likes reading the authors he likes reading. And you thinness-
worshipping twits bore me.
I, personally, can't imagine why a reader should need to know about
writing or editing. That is, after all, what the writer is supposed
to be doing.
There are a couple types of editorial intervention; the only acceptable
one is when the editor tells the author what changes she thinks should
be made--from typos fixed to plot-holes filled--and the author has the
opportunity to fix or not fix as he sees fit. The editor has a perfect
write to say ``Change this, or I cannot publish your novel'' and the
author should decide whether to change it or look for another publisher.
After all, if the story is publishable, he will find another publisher.
The editor does not have the right to buy a novel, and then insist on
getting the money back if certain changes are not made: unless that is
the way the contract is written. The editor does not have the right to
make changes without the authors knowledge, or against the author's
will (again, as always, unless the author has signed a contract that
allows it).
Lots of editorial suggestions are stupid, or contrary to some goal of
the author's that the editor does not or cannot fully comprehend.
When you see flab on a person you see the result some aspect of the
person's character. Some people don't mind flab, some seek it out.
And the particular sort of flab an author naturally leaves on his books
tells you a lot more about himself than the tight parts. Which is why
most good authors prefer to be edited.
There are lots of examples of evil editing: take the recently-discussed
revision of the ending of PODKAYNE OF MARS.
I strongly suspect that Heinlein approved the shortening of STRANGER IN
A STRANGE LAND when it happened, and that everything was legal and above
board. He was just too much of a wimp to take it to another publisher,
or else he knew (or tried and discovered) that it was unsalable as is.
And if Greg likes Heinlein's `flab' (and Heinlein had had spine enough
to stick up for it) that's fine and dandy.
A fine counter-point is R.A. Lafferty. He doesn't write to fit, and
doesn't sell enough to live on, either.
If *all* of Heinlein's novels had the same bloated style as his later
novels, he just would never have become famous, that's all.
-- David
Bronis Vidugiris
Re: Duncan
)|>I heartily recommend his work to anyone who values good fantasy.
)|>--
)|> Eric S. Raymond <e...@snark.thyrsus.com>
)|>
)
)
)I agree. I highly recommend his first series, and the first book in the latest
)series titled A Handful of Men. The book itself is The Cutting Edge.
Yep. I pretty much agree with the various points of view expressed here.
I don't always agree with Duncan's views either, but mostly I like his
books. I also couldn't get into Hero at all, either (didn't even finish it).
I did find Rap constantly rescuing the princess a *bit* tedious in the
'Magic Casement' series, but I was still interested enough to finish
the books.
--
The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
The worms post to the net from your account
Bronis Vidugiris
)In article <C5Cno...@panix.com> zi...@panix.com (David Zink) writes:
misc flamage deleted - let the principals fight it out!
)>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
)>so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it. Even some
)>of Delany's staunchest supporters, like L. Don Keller, the Delaneticist,
)>couldn't get through it.
)
) Allow me to show you a sf fan who *has* read 'Dhalgren': me.
)I'm not alone, either.
Zink isn't alone in disliking Dhalgren. I was pretty young at the time, but
I remember really hating the book.
A bit of personal history:
At the time, SF was in *very* short supply, and I had actually 'read out'
a couple of our local libraries. New SF hitting the stands was, at that
time in my life, a time for rejocing. Dhalgren happened to come out at a
time when it seemed there had been *no* SF published for a very long time.
So, I snapped it up, having liked some of Delaney's other works (Nova,
Babel-17, not sure what else.)
I hated it. I disliked the characters intensly. I did finish
it, as not finishing a book was something I just didn't do back then, but I
really hated it. I hated it so much that I actually decided deliberately
*not* to read Trinton (the sequel). This may not sound like much, but
at the time it was quite a big deal - as I said before, there was not a lot
of SF being written at the time, at least that I could access through local
bookstores and/or the local library.
I suspect I would not like the book much today, but probably for different
reasons. (I dunno for sure, I never tried re-reading it).
I would say that the reason I disliked the book was more because I found
the characters repellent than because the writing was bad (for whatever
that's worth).
As usual, YMMV.
Greg Nikolic
>In article <ELIZ.93Ap...@corpus-callosum.ai.mit.edu> el...@ai.mit.edu (Elizabeth Willey) writes:
>>gdni...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic) writes:
>> [assertions of preferences for long, long, long books by extremely
>>famous bestsellers removed]
I never said that. I like long books, I like short books. As with most
things, "it depends" is a fair motto to use.
>> I don't know the ins and outs of the editorial world. I'll freely admit
>> that. But if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
>> grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
>> I think (s)he's tampered too much.
>
>>I think you like big, flabby books, and that you know very little
>>about writing and self-editing. Possibly age will alter your tastes
>>and improve your knowledge.
> Despite the fact that her response is rather... er...
>inflammatory, I'm afraid I have to mostly agree with Elizabeth.
Yes it was rather nasty. I'll pass it off as that time of the month and
conduct a rational response to your thought out post, Sea Wasp.
> A GOOD editor is essential to create a good book.
>I don't know if ANYONE is a good enough author to just crank
>out a perfect book without some kind of outside input.
Outside input: good. Editor overruling author: potentially bad. That's
all I believe, meant to say, et al.
Erich Schneider
>I hated it. I disliked the characters intensly. I did finish
>it, as not finishing a book was something I just didn't do back then, but I
>really hated it. I hated it so much that I actually decided deliberately
>*not* to read Trinton (the sequel). This may not sound like much, but
>at the time it was quite a big deal - as I said before, there was not a lot
>of SF being written at the time, at least that I could access through local
>bookstores and/or the local library.
_Triton_ is not the sequel to _Dhalgren_. _Dhalgren_ has no sequels.
The only other Delany stories related to _Triton_ are "Time Considered
as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones" (which is "in the same universe"
but otherwise unconnected) and the "Neveryon" stories (which are
related only by the fact that both contain parts of the "Remarks on
the Modular Calculus").
_Triton_ is a fine novel, but it's primary character isn't very
lovable. Which happens to be the whole point.
--
Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu
"Today/Yes Winners/Yes Losers/Yes In the Zone/Yes Tomorrow/No"
- Walter Jon Williams, _HardWired_
Valerie S. Hammerl
[...]
>send in a book with a massive number of typos and point them out to us
>(or send us copies of the pages, not the actual book, we don't need
>the book, you keep it :-), we will often be so grateful that someone
>else out there is helping us be the typo police that we'll send you a
>present! (Guess what...a book.) We even try to pick something you
>might like. Then we fix the typos before the next printing (if any).
Del Rey, Ace, Avon, and any other publishers whose books I purchase
should then find mail from me in the coming months. I buy an
incredible amount of books compared to my meager wages, and nothing
annoys me so much, when reading a book I like, as hitting typo after
typo, wrong words, wrong character names, clashing differences in
character descripon . . . I won't even get into the Zelazny book I
purchased that had a few thousand periods missing, among other things
(I think it was one of Avon's little disasters).
Right now I'm running my way through Emma Bull's _War For The Oaks_,
and have hit a few spellchecked wrong word selections, and at least
three instances where the character's name has shifted from Eddi to
Eddie, and back again in the next sentence. I think the folks at Ace
were a little tired when they edited this one.
Del Rey usually gets higher marks for catching slip-ups, as far as I'm
concerned. I don't recall any problems in the fourth book of Julian
May's Pliocene Exile/Galactic Milieu series. Then again, _I_ was a
little tired when reading that one :-)
--
Valerie Hammerl "Some days I have to remind him he's not
ham...@acsu.buffalo.edu Mario Lemieux." Herb Brooks on Claude
acs...@ubms.cc.buffalo.edu Lemieux, top scorer for the Devils, but
v085...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu known for taking dumb penalties.
Valerie S. Hammerl
[...]
>typo, wrong words, wrong character names, clashing differences in
>character descripon . . . I won't even get into the Zelazny book I
^^^^^^^^^
Oy. Just my luck. Rag on publishers and have a compose character key
on a cruddy keyboard make me look simple-minded. :-)
Obviously, I meant description, and now we see why I'm not an editor.
I don't bother previewing my postings ;-)
Greg Nikolic
>>gdni...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic):
>>...if an editor does anything more than correct the odd spelling or
>>grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or
>>two, I think (s)he's tampered too much.
>
> Why do good writers die in need?
> Because the writers who can't write
> Are read by readers who can't read.
>
Lovely. I post an opinion, and people assume not only that I have no
taste in books, but that my very literacy is in question. There are some people
who participate in this excellent forum, people who are anal retentive enough
to save up inane quotes for cases just like this, who cannot simply *counter*
an opinion with their own. No. Not at all. This isn't the first time I've seen
this.
For these people, why don't I go over my *opinion* SLOOOWLY, once more,
for your benefit.
Editors: they exist, so they must be useful creatures.
But: I buy the works of authors.
Ergo, I would like to see the editors do their fine job without
forcing changes upon authors. Advice and suggestions, DEFINITELY, as I stated
previously.
FORGIVE ME, mea culpa, for having like the 1100 page version of Stephen
King. FORGIVE ME for daring to voice my opinion.
So many assholes. So few comebacks.
John F Carr
Tom Clancy is another author who has become too popular to edit. "The
Sum of All Fears" could have been much, much better with even a little
editing.
--
John Carr (j...@athena.mit.edu)
James Davis Nicoll
>)In article <C5Cno...@panix.com> zi...@panix.com (David Zink) writes:
>
>misc flamage deleted - let the principals fight it out!
>
>)>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
>)>so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it. Even some
>)>of Delany's staunchest supporters, like L. Don Keller, the Delaneticist,
>)>couldn't get through it.
>)
>) Allow me to show you a sf fan who *has* read 'Dhalgren': me.
>)I'm not alone, either.
>
>Zink isn't alone in disliking Dhalgren. I was pretty young at the time, but
>I remember really hating the book.
Like/dislike wasn't the point of disagreement: whether people
who read the book were rare and also stereotypical 'artsies' was. I never
said I liked Dhalgren (I'm neutral to it), but I have read it, and
I'm not a stereotypical 'artsie'.
James Nicoll
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>
>I strongly suspect that Heinlein approved the shortening of STRANGER IN
>A STRANGE LAND when it happened, and that everything was legal and above
>board. He was just too much of a wimp to take it to another publisher,
>or else he knew (or tried and discovered) that it was unsalable as is.
Oh, come now. Heinlein, in his later years, was several things I do
not like, but he was NEVER a wimp!
("Au contraire," as the man fished out of the Bay of Biscay said, when
they asked him if he had dined.)
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
[Asserts that he has a right to his opinion, and decries _ad hominem_
attacks]
Absolutely true. You have a right to your opinion, as they have to theirs.
They should not make _ad hominem_ attacks. Nor should you.
Dani Zweig
>There are some people who participate in this excellent forum, people who
Shouldn't "anal retentive" have a hyphen? :-)
>For these people, why don't I go over my *opinion* SLOOOWLY, once more...
Because you're making the fundamental mistake of thinking that people
who disagree with you must not have understood you. You gave your opinion
(twice, in fact), and you got responses. End of story. There's no
benefit in repeating yourself, and nobody will think you're giving up
if you don't have the last word.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine -- Edmund Spenser
Phil Trodwell
>Subject: Re: Dhalgren
>Date: 13 Apr 93 08:49:48
>In article <1993Apr13.0...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>I hated it. I disliked the characters intensly. I did finish
>it, as not finishing a book was something I just didn't do back then, but I
>really hated it. I hated it so much that I actually decided deliberately
>*not* to read Trinton (the sequel). This may not sound like much, but
>at the time it was quite a big deal - as I said before, there was not a lot
>of SF being written at the time, at least that I could access through local
>bookstores and/or the local library.
I sat down to read it when I was just starting out on SF when I was 13 or
so. Big mistake. Almost put me of SF for good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Trodwell
*** This space ***
*** for rent. ***
*** (cheap) ***
Robert J. Skrobola
|> In article <C5FC...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> gdni...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Greg Nikolic) writes:
|>
|> [Asserts that he has a right to his opinion, and decries _ad hominem_
|> attacks]
|>
|> Absolutely true. You have a right to your opinion, as they have to theirs.
|> They should not make _ad hominem_ attacks. Nor should you.
IMO, there seems to be a difference between attacking a person
instead of their point (ad hominem), and declaring that someone is a jerk
for making an ad hominem..
Oh yeah, the thread. :) Seems to me that for my taste, some authors do
just fine writing "flabbily". Others are best when lean and mean.
I too liked the *long* version of _The Stand_. I also love Ellison's
short stories, and things like McKillips _Forgotten Beasts of Eld_,
which seemed to my untrained eye to be pretty tight..
Rob
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Skrobola Institutional File Server Project
Normal Disclaimer: I speak only for myself
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Waters
>In article <1993Apr12.1...@julian.uwo.ca> jdni...@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>)In article <C5Cno...@panix.com> zi...@panix.com (David Zink) writes:
>misc flamage deleted - let the principals fight it out!
>)>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
>)>so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it. Even some
>)>of Delany's staunchest supporters, like L. Don Keller, the Delaneticist,
>)>couldn't get through it.
>)
>) Allow me to show you a sf fan who *has* read 'Dhalgren': me.
>)I'm not alone, either.
>Zink isn't alone in disliking Dhalgren. I was pretty young at the time, but
>I remember really hating the book.
No, I also didn't care for it much, even though I generally love Delany.
However, Zink is full of it when he claims:
1. It's hard to find an SF fan who has finished it (I finished it, even
though I didn't really enjoy the process very much). I know tons of
people who have finished it, and tons of people who love it.
2. Dhalgren was a failure. Sales records amply demonstrate the
falseness of this preposterous statement.
3. (Elided from the quote above, something about only them dirty
hippies and beatniks and art fags liked it). Sorry, I'm one of them
dirty hippies and beatniks and art fags, and I *didn't* like it! OTOH,
I love Niven & Anderson. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it! :-)
I have to admit that even though I share with Zink a dislike for
Dhalgren, I felt that his post was one of the most shallow,
narrow-minded, and offensive posts I've seen in this group for, oh,
weeks. Days, at least. :-)
cheers
--
Chris Waters | the insane don't |"Judy's in the bedroom,
xt...@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Inventing situations." -D. Byrne
Don Wakefield
|> >In article <1993Apr13.0...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
|> >I hated it so much that I actually decided deliberately
|> >*not* to read Trinton (the sequel).
_Triton_ is not a sequel to _Dhalgren_. If you disliked the
characters in _Dhalgren_ and found that reason enough to dislike the book,
then you probably would not have liked _Triton_ either. It was a great book
though.
|> I sat down to read it when I was just starting out on SF when I was 13 or
|> so. Big mistake. Almost put me of SF for good.
I read it in junior high, and enjoyed it immensely. I admit the
sections with parallel text were pretty rough going at times, but not enough
to stall me out. This was a period in my life when I was reading A. E. Van
Vogt's Null-A series and Joseph Conrad's _Lord_Jim_ in the same week, and I
would stay up in my room reading library books straight through the night, by
streetlamp light. Delaney was high on my list.
As for the artsey-fartsy characterization, I was into the
science/college-prep track in those days, participated in most of the sports
teams (without really enjoying it) and 'grew up' to be a computer programmer.
Mentor Graphics designs CAD software for VLSI engineers, so that's the
closest I get to artsey-fartsy. On the other hand, maybe I've changed over
the years. It's been decades since I read _Dhalgren_ and now that I am
attempting _Gravity's_Rainbow_ by Thomas Pynchon, I am finding it very rough
sledding. The book is over 900 pages, and I've managed about 300 in the
several months since I started it, with side trips into many, many other
books that were more accessible.
--
don_wa...@mentorg.com do...@pdx.mentorg.com uunet!mntgfx!donw
Mentor Graphics Corporation 8005 S.W. Boeckman Road
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777
Matt Austern
> It's been decades since I read _Dhalgren_ and now that I am
> attempting _Gravity's_Rainbow_ by Thomas Pynchon, I am finding it very rough
> sledding. The book is over 900 pages, and I've managed about 300 in the
> several months since I started it, with side trips into many, many other
> books that were more accessible.
My method of reading Gravity's Rainbow was quite different: I just
read through it, all at once, and didn't let it bother me that I
wasn't noticing many (most?) of the allusions that Pynchon put in. I
tend to think that nobody is going to get everything, no matter how
hard they try, and that nobody is supposed to---that's part of the
point.
--
Matthew Austern Maybe we can eventually make language a
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu complete impediment to understanding.
Matt Austern
> I sat down to read it when I was just starting out on SF when I was 13 or
> so. Big mistake. Almost put me of SF for good.
I made a similar mistake, at age 11 or so, with Dangerous Visions: by
a truly mind-boggling error, it had been placed in the children's
section of the library.
The experience was sufficiently unpleasant that I still haven't gotten
around to reading the book.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In the case of Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, I believe
> that Heinlein cut it himself at the publisher's request.
This is true. Kind of undercuts the argument going on in this thread,
doesn't it?
> I think he
> did a great job (I've compared the original manuscript to the printed
> book). And I think the book is better shorter.
Agreed.
Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | The restaurant's architect
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | said every effort had been
Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET | made to build McDonald's
Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | 15th outlet in Italy
SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | in harmony with Pompeii.
| --Reuters story in *Chicago
| Sun-Times*, 18 June 92
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
this long, long subject line. For the record, in case that happens,
this is yet another reply to
"Re: Editing (Was: Re: Del Ray Discovery Series
(was:Del Rey Internet Newsletter))."]
In article <C5CII...@panix.com>, e...@panix.com (Ellen Key Harris) writes:
> Not to get this thread back on track, but I just want to say that at
> least at Del Rey, we think line-editing and developmental editing are
> very important. ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Ellen, could you explain what these two phrases mean?
--
O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
- ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/ \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
sometimes a Wombat
>
> I don't know the ins and outs of the editorial world. I'll freely admit
> grammatical mistake and suggest (suggest not impose) an improvement or two,
> I think (s)he's tampered too much.
>
Ahem.
An analogy. Ever notice how some people are too close to themselves to
evaluate themselves properly? The gorgeous woman who thinks she's
average? The teacher who thinks he's not doing anything important?
A writer knows far more about the world they have written. Some things
will be obvious to them, that will not be to Joe Reader, because
something crucial has been left out and the writer hasn't realized
this. SOme really neat subplots and scenes are pointless to the story,
and dilute its effect. A character may be not working in that sort of
odd semi-logical consistancy that makes for being human -- but instead
like Spock On Speed.
As a writer, I want an editor to EDIT me. Tell me how to make this the
best damn book I can. EDIT me.
Larry "Edit hard" Hammer
--
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ For love all love of other sights controls,
GEnie: LARRY.HAMMER \ And makes one little room an everywhere -- Donne
sometimes a Wombat
need of editors, I wrote:
> A writer knows far more about the world they have written. Some things
> will be obvious to them, that will not be to Joe Reader, because
> something crucial has been left out and the writer hasn't realized
> this.
If an editor had looked this over before I posted it, said illustrious
personage would have made me insert the rest of the first sentence:
"than the reader does". This humble baggage regrets this.
Larry "Grubworm" Hammer
--
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ Hidden harmony is better than manifest.
GEnie: LARRY.HAMMER \ -- Heraclitus, #47
David Goldfarb
copy of _The Warrior's Apprentice_ the word "liege" occurs quite often,
and *every single time* it is spelled "leige". Eventually it stopped
bugging me, through sheer repetition.
David Goldfarb |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "Shit happens, and absolute shit happens
gold...@UCBOCF.BITNET | absolutely."
gold...@soda.berkeley.edu |
Joel Plutchak
>3. (Elided from the quote above, something about only them dirty
>hippies and beatniks and art fags liked it). Sorry, I'm one of them
>dirty hippies and beatniks and art fags, and I *didn't* like it!
And I despise hippies and art fags, and I liked the book! (:-)
I've noticed a few books in the category of _Dhalgren_-- books
that some people love, some people hate (and usually get argued
about here). What other SF books are like that? _Stand on Zanzibar_
seems to qualify-- I like that one, too. The big question is Why?
I mean, the Ender novels are well-liked by a lot of people, and
at least a few people dislike them (or at least the first one),
but there is a wide range of people in between. With only a few
exceptions, SOZ and _Dhalgren_ seem to lack that middle ground.
The previously discussed "art fag" theory (i.e. the book is quite
obviously directed at a specific audience, and those not in that
audience will just not get it) doesn't seem to stand up to even a
cursory look. I'm not letting myself think too much about the
possibility that the books were written too far above the level
of the generic SF reader for there to be much middle ground, since
that not only smacks of elitism (I can hear the cries even now),
but implies that the "SF ghetto" wags are right, which I haven't
seen evidence for.
Any thoughts? (I'd think about it a bit more, but my boss is
paying me to think about other stuff right now...)
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
"I'm mentally OVERDRAWN!"
Tom Hamill
>In article xt...@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>3. (Elided from the quote above, something about only them dirty
>>hippies and beatniks and art fags liked it). Sorry, I'm one of them
>>dirty hippies and beatniks and art fags, and I *didn't* like it!
>
> And I despise hippies and art fags, and I liked the book! (:-)
>
an art fag nor a beatnik, I'm none of the above. However, I've been
on both sides of this love/hate fence.
I tried at least a dozen times over 5 years to read 'Dhalgren' and
never got past page 25, and then one day it all suddenly made sense
(of a sort) and I read it 3 times one after another. It must have
been the way the book began with a partial sentence that seemed to
follow the partial sentence that ended it that made it impossible to
stop once I reached the end that first time. Anyway, I've read it many
times since then and never cease to get more out of each time.
'Dhalgren' is a book that grows on you if you give it half a chance...
---tom
PS...And not like any sort of cancerous fungus-like slimy green growth
either.
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l
l CRUSH---CompassionRespectUnderstandingSelfHonesty---CRUSH l
l How could you have ever lived your life without it? l
l Join Now, Apply Within. Spread the word. l
l____________________________ ---me, trying to save the world, l
l wcs...@alfred.carleton.ca l from itself. l
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
parme...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu
> I don't know whether Baen has corrected this or not, but in my
> copy of _The Warrior's Apprentice_ the word "liege" occurs quite often,
> and *every single time* it is spelled "leige". Eventually it stopped
> bugging me, through sheer repetition.
Keith Laumer had lots of problems with the early Retief books.
Someone kept "correcting" his spelling of 'despatch' to 'dispatch'. They
both mean the same thing, but 'despatch' tends to be the correct usage
for diplomacy. I seem to recall hearing that the same manuscript was
"corrected" in this way twice, with him correcting it between and after.
--
"Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein _/_
_, .__ _ _, _, _ _, .__ ____ _ __ / o _ .__
(_)_/ (_(/_(_)_(_)_ |_)_(_|_/ (_/ / /_(/_/ /_/_/_(/_/ (__
/| /| /| /| ___ Gregg Parmentier ___
|/ |/ |/ |/ parme...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu
David Zink
>In article <C5Cno...@panix.com> zi...@panix.com (David Zink) writes:
>>Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
>
>explaining why so many SF fans think it is one?
I was referring back to a comment about SF fans who believe DHALGREN
to be a commercial failure.
>I finished the book back in '76, but never thought it was particularly
>good.
It's just about my favorite book (so far) of this century.
On the other hand, like, say ATLAS SHRUGGED, I sort have to read around
the strange stylistic intentions of the author to get at the parts I like.
-- David
Ellen Key Harris
developmental editing. Here goes:
Line editing: Making sure the sentences make sense, are smooth, and
don't contradict or repeat one another; keeping annoying repetition of
words out of narrative ("scamper" should probably not be used more
than once or twice in a book unless it's about small animals, and a
sentence with the word "women" in it four times probably needs
reworking); separating long, involved sentences like this one when
they're hard to follow or understand; cutting redundant words (as in
"follow -or understand-"); and doing what's called in movies
"continuity": making sure the redhead on page 31 doesn't become a
blonde by page 68, unless the author meant her to (we query the author
on these things), and pointing out that X couldn't know about
development 4, but is talking to Z as if he does.
(Some editors also fix typos and spelling errors, correct grammar and
punctuation, and add some of the production coding needed to set the
text. These are technically the job of the copy editor, who is also
responsible for backing the editor up on continuity.)
Developmental editing: A larger-scale undertaking.
Pointing out large plot inconsistencies, scenes that seem out of place
or don't ring true, boring parts, loose ends, unsatisfying endings,
beginnings without enough background information, and so on. All of
the things dredged up by the developmental editing process (which can
occur on first reading or while doing the line editing) are put to the
author in the form of queries: "on page whatever, X couldn't know
about 4, but is talking to Z as if he does. Does he? If so, when did
he find out? Can we show that, or refer to it so that the reader
isn't confused by his knowledge in this scene? If he doesn't, can you
fix his dialog in this scene so that it's clear he doesn't know?"
Almost all editing changes are suggestions, not demands. There is
always room for negotiation between author and editor. The larger the
problem, the more likely the editor is to defer to the author about
how to fix it. Editors are usually better than writers at pointing
out weaknesses; writers are almost always better than editors at
fixing them. That's my rule, anyway. My mother taught it to me.
This is not intended to be a complete definition of either of the
above terms, nor did it come from anywhere except my head and
experience as an editor. I've probably left some stuff out.
Ellen
--
Ellen Key Harris e...@panix.com
Associate Editor, Del Rey Books |DEL|
201 E. 50th St., NY, NY 10022 |REY|
David Zink
>Oh, come now. Heinlein, in his later years, was several things I do
>not like, but he was NEVER a wimp!
Actually, I've always found the most macho posturers to be among the most
cowardly people. If Heinlein let them change the ending of Podkayne against
his will then he was a wimp. I don't think we've ever heard a report of
similar weakness from Ellison.
At least some of the fifties SF community thought he was a wimp for backing
down from his serious investigations of politics etc. in BEYOND THIS HORIZON
to the commercial crass-pop stuff of his waning years (which we date from
that book).
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>
>Actually, I've always found the most macho posturers to be among the most
>cowardly people. If Heinlein let them change the ending of Podkayne against
>his will then he was a wimp. I don't think we've ever heard a report of
>similar weakness from Ellison.
No, but then Ellison thinks he is committing great art that will last
through the ages. Heinlein knew damn well he was competing for the
reader's beer money.
You remember Heinlein's four rules for getting published:
1. Write.
2. Finish what you write.
3. Put what you write on the market and keep it there till it sells.
4. Never rewrite except to specific editorial command.
To which Ellison added,
Make sure that the editorial changes are an improvement, otherwise,
5. Kill to protect the integrity of your work.
I don't know if Heinlein's response to Ellison's addendum is on record.
I bet he laughed.
In _Expanded Universe_ Heinlein said,
...pulp writing offered an easy way to grab some money without stealing
and without honest work. ("honest work"--a euphemism for underpaid
bodily exertion, done standing up or on your knees, often in bad
weather or other nasty circumstances, and frequently involving shovels,
picks, hoes, assembly lines, tractors, and unsympathetic supervisors.
It has never appealed to me. Sitting at a typewriter in a nice warm
room, with no boss, cannot possibly be described as "honest work.")
I _like_ Heinlein--till he got soft in the head.
Robert Pratt
>In article <6...@p-box.win.net>, ol...@p-box.win.net (Owen A. Lock) writes:
>> In the case of Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, I believe
>> that Heinlein cut it himself at the publisher's request.
>
>This is true. Kind of undercuts the argument going on in this thread,
>doesn't it?
was much better as well, which kept me from buying the non-edited one.
Bob
Bob Pratt | voice : (408) 473-8274
Network Management Products Division | Fax : (408) 435-1706
Novell, Inc. | more voice: (800) 243-8526
2180 Fortune Drive, San Jose, Ca. 95131 | Internet : rpr...@Novell.com
Disclaimer: I do not speak for Novell in any way, shape, or form.
"Next time I say, `Let's go to Bolivia'... let's go to Bolivia!"
[BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID]
Mike Godwin
>I was referring back to a comment about SF fans who believe DHALGREN
>to be a commercial failure.
Ah, I understand. You're right that in no sense can DHALGREN be considered
a commercial failure. It's a success by SF standards, and a modest success
by general mass-market standards.
>It's just about my favorite book (so far) of this century.
Well, it's not the kind of book that makes me laugh (like, say, LOLITA
or PALE FIRE) or weep (like POSSESSION or DUBLINERS) or both (like
VINELAND). And even if we limit discourse to SF writers, I'd have to say
say someone like Gene Wolfe surpasses Delaney in combining imagination
and literary skill.
IMHO, it's not a bad book, and, when considered as an SF book, it's pretty
groundbreaking. But Delaney, like Archilochus's hedgehog, seems to know
only one big thing: that gender and sexuality are mutable and
interchangeable. Once you learn this, you've learned all he has to say.
(Best to get your Wittgenstein and Derrida from the sources rather than
from Delaney, by the way.)
>On the other hand, like, say ATLAS SHRUGGED, I sort have to read around
>the strange stylistic intentions of the author to get at the parts I like.
THE FOUNTAINHEAD was enough for me. For a powerful book that, in passing,
manages some brilliant parodies of Rand's style, see Mary Gaitskill's
TWO GIRLS, FAT AND THIN. Delaney never took such chances.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression
mnem...@eff.org| of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and
(617) 576-4510 | burned women. It is the function of speech to free men
EFF, Cambridge | from the bondage of irrational fears." --Brandeis
Laura Hayes Burchard
>I want to add a recommendation. Dave Duncan is *not* yet another one of the
>Piers-Anthony-wannabe hacks who churn out endless reams of formula fantasy
>for the dim-brained.
>I heartily recommend his work to anyone who values good fantasy.
While I thought "A Man of His Word" was fairly good, I did find his
world concept depressing. Not so much the general nastiness,
as the fact that natural law prevents things from ever getting any
better. Ugh. Conservation of evil, a fun concept.
Laura
--
David Zink
It's hard to fathom the inanity of much of the response; but we'll have
to give proper credit to the perps:
ZVI> zgil...@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Zvi Gilbert)
CW> xt...@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
JDN> jdni...@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
BV> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
BA> alba...@wings.micro.umn.edu (Bob Alberti)
And, of course, not part of that group:
PNH> p...@panix.com (Patrick Nielsen-Hayden)
DZ> Is me!
Now for the reality check!
Patrick is a mid-level editor at Tor, and a long time fan; and
usually fairly careful to say what he means. And he said:
PNH> There's a lot of misinformation out there; I can't count the number
PNH> of times I've had it explained to me that . . . that DHALGREN was a
PNH> commercial failure (it sold 875,000 copies over twenty-four printings
PNH> and ten years).
To which I responded:
DZ> Of course, DHALGREN is widely known to be a failure simply because it is
DZ> so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it.
As an example, I was recently asked by a senior editor at a major
SF publishing house to write an essay about bestsellers. I immediately
commented on DHALGREN's being a bestseller, and was greeted with a
shocked response, and additional ones from other editors who overheard.
CW> However, Zink is full of it when he claims:
CW> 2. Dhalgren was a failure. Sales records amply demonstrate the
CW> falseness of this preposterous statement.
ZVI> There is no way in which DHALGREN was a failure, either commercially,
ZVI> critically, or in the amount of vitriol it gathered (and still gathers!)
ZVI> in the sf community. After all, if a vocal minority is spitting and
ZVI> raging, there must have been something that made them pissed.
Besides the obvious inanity of his last point--the implication that
something that pisses you off, like a stranger shooting your dog, must
therefore be worthwhile--Zvi is only first in completely failing to
notice that not only have I in no way said that I dislike the novel,
but that I also quite obviously know that it was a massive commercial
success--for an SF novel.
In fact, I would be quite surprised if any SF novel published last year
(that was not visual media derived) ever touches the 750,000 copies Dhalgren
sold in its first 18 months.
But think about it; no modern mega-blockbuster SF novel with similar
sales, and none in its day? THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE, a real SF novel (and
a very popular one at that), was released at the same time but only sold
about 200,000. THE DISPOSSESSED, which won the Hugo that year, only sold
about 250,000.
Is this because the field has shrunk in some strange fashion?
I doubt it. *I* think it's because at least 400,000 purchases were by
people who really had very little connection to the field. The evidence
suggests at least that much. I'd bet that about 600,000 purchases came
from without the field.
And look at the reviews: Praise from the NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW,
praise from Theodore Sturgeon in GALAXY, vitriol from Ellison in the LA
TIMES and outrage from Del Ray in ANALOG. And hundreds of fanzines
berating the publishers for putting out such a waste of paper.
CD> DHALGREN found its audience. Not the runaway audience of the manufactured
CD> bestseller. Not the all to swayable and, finally, all too naive
CD> audience of hardcore science fiction readers. Rather that most
CD> important of audiences, the vertical audience of concerned and alert
CD> readers interested in the progress of American fiction.
All too true, and exactly the point I was trying to make.
BV> I was pretty young at the time, but I remember really hating the book.
CW> I *didn't* like it!
So two out of five people roused up enough to defend the book didn't
like it. More explanation for Patrick about why SF people in general
consider it a failure.
DZ> simply because it is
DZ> so difficult to find a SF or Fantasy fan who has finished it.
ZVI> Not difficult at all. I'm one, and I know a bunch more.
CW> No, I also didn't care for it much, even though I generally love Delany.
CW> However, Zink is full of it when he claims:
CW> 1. It's hard to find an SF fan who has finished it (I finished it, even
CW> though I didn't really enjoy the process very much). I know tons of
CW> people who have finished it, and tons of people who love it.
Don't take me so seriously, Zvi; I'm sure there's not a book published
this century in any field which does not have at least one loving reader
here in this very same group. I meant that if you put a bunch of SF
readers in a hat (selected by some criteria other than love of DHALGREN,
I mean), and pluck one forth at random, odds are he or she will not have
even tried to read it, and if they have attempted it, at least 2 out of 3
that they didn't finish it. And at least one out of two again that they
didn't like it if they did finish it. Oh, about putting them in that
hat, Zvi: yes, I know it would have to be a pretty large hat. Don't
take it *that* literal, man; keep your fingers away from the keyboard and
you'll go far.
And Chris; though I meant it literally, I still would hardly have
thought it worth your while to brag about your stoicism in finishing it,
even though you hated the process; and still disliking the book when you
finished. It seems to fall more on my side of the argument.
It's a tale easily duplicated at most meetings of SF readers (Results
will vary at Readercon, of course): start talking to people about
DHALGREN, and count what percentage of those who started to read it
actually finished it.
JDN> Allow me to show you a sf fan who *has* read 'Dhalgren': me.
JDN> I'm not alone, either. Perhaps the problem in finding people who have
JDN> read the book is not that no-one has read it, but that the investigator
JDN> in question allowed his preconceptions to bias his sampling, as he
JDN> allowed his dislike of one series' cover art to allow him to believe
JDN> mistruths about the sales of that series.
Your mysterious double-space convention intrigues me: what *is* the
rationale?
Your logic is about as pathetic as they come; first off, *I* am a
science fiction fan, *I* have read DHALGREN, and *I* love it dearly. I
just don't think it is SF. But the idea that your malicious
preconception--that since I was denying DHALGREN was SF, I must be
deriding it--by your logic must indict your entire argument and render it
valueless, *that* will never occur to you. Noooo.
And as for the cover art: if you offer a Black Company book to the kind
of person who would enjoy reading it, they usually back off because of
the cover art. I've seen it happen a dozen times. But if you
persevere, they will read and like it. That's my reason for criticising
the art (besides the fact that it is ugly), and the basis for my belief
that the books sold much less well than they should have.
DZ> Of course, I also know many people who loved it: but they are most of
DZ> them artists, beat poets, sort of new-age post-hippies and rainbow
DZ> types.
ZVI> I.e., non-sf readers?
ZVI> Oy. What a bunch of shallow stereotyping. Sounds like you're devaluing
ZVI> these people, and I don't know why.
Are you sure you know what a stereotype is? And I was just going
through a list in my head of the people I knew who liked the book. All
but one of them fall into all those categories, and that one I just
don't know ell enough to know for sure. But I think he's an academic.
Oh yeah, there's another one--my brother-in-law, a librarian who
moonlights with his own industrial noise group down hear in the lower
east side--though he lives elsewhere. And the only SF he reads is
Delany and Ballard. So I can't count him as a real SF reader.
ZVI> I think the book appeals to 1) people who are interested in literate,
ZVI> odd, and stylistically interesting writing, 2) people who like intellectual
ZVI> puzzles, and 3) people who aren't afraid of alternate lifestyles.
ZVI> That describes most of the sf people that *I* know...
Well, Zvi, that may describe some SF readers, but I think you'll find
that the majority like theirs within certain limits; THE DISPOSSESSED
they liked, DHALGREN left them cold.
FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM is like that, and beloved of many SF readers. But
that should not enough be to make it SF. Why are SF readers so afraid
of liking something that is mainstream?
And your real point is what I said in the first place: there is a
particular audience that likes the sort of book DHALGREN is; you name
three qualifiers. Frankly, none of those look like they need apply to
SF. They in no way limit the potential DHALGREN readers in a way that
would cause the set of all DHALGREN readers to approach identity with
the set of all SF readers. It's not even a subset; or a super set (not
even fuzzily). They are completely different sets. They have a
non-null intersection. But that intersection is a fairly small
percentage of the set of all SF readers.
DZ> and providing a lot of lower east side artists with a validation of their
DZ> lifestyle.
ZVI> This is parochial, patronizing, and untrue. As if the people who read
ZVI> DHALGREN have "lifestyles" that need "validation."
The number of people capable of sustaining an alternate life-style
without external validation is vanishingly small. Almost everyone is
surprised and pleased to discover that there are other people who share
their interests. Much like SF readers when they first discover
conventions or this group.
And besides, oh paragon of malicious interpretation, I didn't say that
readers of DHALGREN need validation of this sort, but rather that
needers of this sort of validation can find it in DHALGREN, and
therefore form *A SUBSET* of the readership of the book.
CW> 3. (Elided from the quote above, something about only them dirty
CW> hippies and beatniks and art fags liked it). Sorry, I'm one of them
CW> dirty hippies and beatniks and art fags, and I *didn't* like it! OTOH,
CW> I love Niven & Anderson. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it! :-)
A dirty hippie, a beatnik, and an art fag, all rolled into one? Oh, my.
Me, I'm one of those sometimes artistic types who live down on the lower
east side. Way down. And *I* like DHALGREN and Niven and Anderson.
Are you sure you know what you're spouting about?
DZ> But then DAHLGREN is hardly an SF novel.
ZVI> Depends on what you think SF is, doesn't it.
ZVI> I wish that the DHALGREN bashers would not try to speak for the field. I
ZVI> hate Piers Anthony, and most of modern fantasy and series books, but I'm
ZVI> not going to say that they aren't sf or that someone shouldn't
ZVI> read them...
Yo, baboon, don't mean to imply that you shot yourself in the foot or
anything, but even *I* know that modern fantasy books aren't SF. Why do
you think they have an organization call the Science Fiction and Fantasy
Writers of America?
And please don't brag about being too intellectually dishonest to stick
up for your standards. If you know it's fantasy, feel free to say so.
And are you trying to imply that I suggested people shouldn't read some
book or other (DHALGREN, perhaps)? Because that's a sort of libel I
take strong exception to.
DZ> It's a poet's notebook,
ZVI> Only part of it.
Only all of it. We read the first chapter, which opens with the Daphne
myth. A few pages later, we discover that the first chapter is either a
revision of one of the first things he sees in the notebook, or an
earlier draft. In the end, when the unity of novel and notebook is
admitted, the last sentence can be continued on into the first
paragraph. Or maybe into that other revision in the notebook.
Numerous passages are later revealed to be final or earlier drafts of
passages that are clearly part of the notebook. There is no reason to
believe the whole thing is not simply a lightly edited publication of
the notebooks themselves.
DZ> extending ULYSSES in a logical direction,
ZVI> Nonsense. The two books have little in common, other than an urban focus,
ZVI> an occasional penchant for stream of consciousness writing, and a
ZVI> reputation as big, "difficult" books...
Close, Zvi. It is an extension because ULYSSES is almost entirely a
stream of consciousness work. But this approach has flaws; for one
thing, most of the actual stream of consciousness is not in words but in
pictures and feelings. These can be approximated with words, and such a
convention is acceptable in normal fiction. But in the stream of
consciousness, where the avowed intention is to eliminate the appearance
of the author mediating between the mind of the viewpoint character and
the reader, it is a serious flaw. DHALGREN is a stream of
fiction-and-poetry-writing novel.
ZVI> Hm. Well, maybe they have something in common. <grin> However, ULYSSES
ZVI> has a mythological focus and structure that DHALGREN completely lacks.
I'm sure Chip will be delighted to hear your opinion.
Oh yeah, Zvi. That was irony again.
DZ> If your interests are SFnal it has nothing to offer.
BA> Look, Dave, I'm sorry that failure depresses you, but your comment is silly.
BA> Just because the book is challening to you does not mean it offers nothing.
BA> I'm neither a lower-east-side artist trying to validate his lifestyle (a
BA> phrase which sounds like it has its own agenda behind it) nor a hippie.
BA> I happen to enjoy a challenge, however, and DHALGREN is one of the most
BA> dynamic books I've ever read.
ZVI> Nonsense squared. Your interests aren't the intersts of the field... and I
ZVI> am one sf reader who happens to love the books, and I know several who
ZVI> agree with me. It's close to being a shibboleth of mine for sf readers.
For those unfamiliar with the hebrew, Zvi means that he is close to only
accepting as `sf readers' those who like DHALGREN. Given that
definition of SF reader, his proof is certainly made easy.
But he has already slashed this argument across the Achilles's tendon many
times: he's at best trying to say that if you have interests in this
sort of fiction, as well as SF, than you can like the book. That seems
pretty obvious. But that does not mean that the book seeks to supply the
classical pleasures of SF, and therefore it should come as no surprise
that it has not been popular with the SF readership as a whole.
DZ> [DHALGREN addresses its concerns in a] very mainstream fashion.
ZVI> Mainstream, eh? Well, no. SF can (or maybe could) accomodate the kind of
ZVI> literary experimentation used by Delany (or Aldiss, or Russ, or Disch,
ZVI> etc.), whereas mainstream lit. often can't. Plus there are many sf tropes
ZVI> and ideas used throughout the story.
When a literary author writes science fiction, he uses sf tropes; true
sf writers, however, never concentrate on including the tropes, but
instead concentrate on including the science. They have a particular
viewpoint, a way of looking at the universe to which the literary author
is generally blind, just like the scientist is unable to understand the
ways in which artists make decisions, and complain about the illogic.
And just to harp on a further point: the literary experimentation in
DHALGREN is not significantly more weird than the experimentation in
ULYSSES. Nor were the sexual situations more offensive to modern
readers that ULYSSES's were in its day. If Delany weren't a known, Hugo
and Nebula winning SF novelist, there is no question that DHALGREN would
have been released as mainstream (as NAKED LUNCH), and I suspect it
would have done much better that way.
ZVI> You are right in a sense: SF is generally thought of as a rational genre;
ZVI> things have explanations, and we eventually find out the reasons for
ZVI> everything... in that sense, DHALGREN doesn't share all of the concerns of
ZVI> SF... but it is reacting against them in some profound ways... compare
ZVI> Russ's _We Who Are About To_ or Disch's _The Genocides_ for more simple
ZVI> examples of books reacting against sf tropes.
And here your argument *really* disintegrates. You essentially are
maintaining that DHALGREN is not actually an SF novel, but because it is
an SF-bashing novel, it should be treated as if it were SF. Only Chip
manages to get more arcane. He says that DHALGREN is a novel which is
like an optical illusion; depending on which version of the multiple
variants you accept as fact, and which versions you deem fictional
within the fiction, you see a completely different story. Like a figure-
ground illusion such as the vase with the two faces, or the Necker Cube.
And solely on the basis of the presence of this optical illusion-like quality,
DHALGREN should be considered an SF novel. Excuse me while I barf.
JDN> [Further nonsense by Zink deleted. Apparently he never clued
JDN> to the source of the perceptual oddities in 'Dhalgren']
Oh really? What in the world are you basing this on? I apparently did
clue in--I only commented that the perceptual oddities were one of the
few SFnal elements, but they had no SFnal explanation that made the
universe in which Bellona was set any different or more advanced or
extrapolated in any way from the universe we all know and live in.
BA> I read it first in 1981, and it took me an entire summer. I read it again
BA> last year and it took only a few weeks. But my perceptions of the novel
BA> were so completely different that there were only three or four scenes
BA> that seemed familiar; it was like reading an entirely different book.
I first read it when I was twelve. Or at least most of it. I can't say
I got all that much out of it. But it was a better book for a person
that age than JANE EYRE or NOVA (IMHO). I read it a few years ago, and
like it very much, thank you. I have to agree that which scenes caught
my attention varied considerably between the two readings.
JDN> In what way does depicting a weird society developing in isolation
JDN> fall outside the boundries of SF? What qualifies a work as SF?
Wow. An intelligent question.
In what way is THE LORD OF THE FLIES SF?
But seriously. There are many accepted definitions. Does the book have
SF on the spine? Why yes it does. Does Sturgeon think it is SF? I'm
not sure, but he certainly liked it, so he probably did. Is it by an SF
author, or stored in the SF shelves of the bookstore? Why yes to both.
Do I care about any of these definitions? Not particularly.
FLYING IN PLACE is usually sold as a mainstream novel; but it is
technically considered fantasy because the ghost is proven to be real
within the frame of the story.
Similarly, any story set in a currently uninhabitable place, set in a
future markedly different from ours, containing alien creatures, or
containing inventions far beyond the realm of what's possible today
is usually considered Science Fiction.
But what of stories containing elves, and goblins? Well, that depends
whether they are presented in a way that makes it possible that they are
merely alien creatures with an alien biology. If they have
unexplainable magical powers, than they are usually considered fantasy.
That's the basic way we distinguish--is there a potential rational
explanation for what is happening? Remember, the original PERN books
were not just Science Fiction, but Campbell-purchased ANALOG (ASTOUNDING
then) style fiction as well.
Another favored method is: were the SFnal elements removed, would the
story be significantly changed?
And this is one of the main points--what are the SFnal elements. 1) The
holographic projectors. 2) The bloated sun in the sky. 3) The two
moons. 4) The curious isolation of the city. 5) The curious destruction
of the city.
And 1) -- almost irrelevant. Just a flimsy--but visually more
fulfilling--metaphor for weirdly cut and dyed hair, spiky clothing, and
tattoos.
5) -- the setting is, after all, modeled after post late sixties riot
torn Harlem, Buffalo and Detroit.
2 & 3) -- I'd love to hear an explanation that made of them actual
events that could be explained rationally.
4) -- Hard to deal with on any level. The outside world still exists;
it still functions. What is keeping the government from at least
looting the city? Is some mysterious force involved?
``...A portrait of a city called Bellona that has suffered a disaster so
cataclysmic that the very fabric of the space-time continuum has been
distorted...Buildings burn endlessly but are not consumed. Radio and
television broadcasts cannot enter or leave the city. The sky is sealed
with thick haze...''
This is Vonnegut. It is not science fiction.
BV> I would say that the reason I disliked the book was more because I found
BV> the characters repellent than because the writing was bad (for whatever
BV> that's worth).
Chip is convinced that Kidd has great charm.
I liked him too.
Note:
I forgot to add to the list of the sorts of people I knew who bought
DHALGREN (way back when): teenagers who heard it had lots of explicit sex.
Boy were they in for a surprise.
CD> [ Sex will not account for DHALGREN's popularity.
CD> About 35 of DHALGREN's near 900 pages do deal with copulatory mechanics,
CD> but this is not a high enough percentage, especially with the real and
CD> near-real porno seldom more than a bookrack away. Also the `sex' in
CD> DHALGREN is too psychologically portrayed for real arousal. From the
CD> beginning to the end the characters never stop thinking. ]
David Zink
>can make me laugh or weep. Or both at the same time.
>
>--Mike
Almost the reverse for me. I could criticise ULYSSES for hours. So I
can't claim it didn't affect me.
-- David
Chris Waters
[Most stuff elided, I'm just going to reply to the parts where I made the
mistake of getting involved in this mess.] :-)
>And Chris; though I meant it literally, I still would hardly have
>thought it worth your while to brag about your stoicism in finishing it,
>even though you hated the process; and still disliking the book when you
>finished. It seems to fall more on my side of the argument.
Agree. When I wrote that post, I was relying on my memory of your
earlier posts. From your other later posts, I see I misinterpreted what
you were saying. I've been waiting for the flames to fall my way,
since I clearly deserved 'em, and I'm glad to see that they were
moderate. :-)
>CW> 3. (Elided from the quote above, something about only them dirty
>CW> hippies and beatniks and art fags liked it). Sorry, I'm one of them
>CW> dirty hippies and beatniks and art fags, and I *didn't* like it! OTOH,
>CW> I love Niven & Anderson. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it! :-)
>A dirty hippie, a beatnik, and an art fag, all rolled into one? Oh, my.
Depends on my mood, actually. I've been known to play a reactionary
conservative at times, too! (Although that's a difficult role for a Zen
Atheist.) :-)
>Me, I'm one of those sometimes artistic types who live down on the lower
>east side. Way down. And *I* like DHALGREN and Niven and Anderson.
>Are you sure you know what you're spouting about?
<Wince> No, I'm sure I didn't. My sincerest apologies for this
spewage!
Let me just summarize my thoughts about Dhalgren. This time I won't try
to respond to any particular person's points, for my own safety. :-)
1. Dhalgren didn't turn me on, but I can see what others see in it. In
general, I like Delany (esp. early Delany), but Dhalgren was too
much work to read, and didn't offer enough reward for the amount of
work involved. IMO, of course!!
2. I know a lot of people who like Dhalgren, and a lot who don't, and
I haven't noticed that these people necessarily have much else in
common in either case. Any claim that "only <people who fit into
category X> will {like|dislike} Dhalgren," is ridiculous, IMO.
3. Dhalgren is obviously SF. I'm not sure how anyone could, in all
seriousness, claim that it isn't. But I have no interest in
participating in a "what is/isn't SF" thread. Basically, I agree
with John Campbell--SF is what SF editors buy. :-)
Mike Godwin
>Almost the reverse for me. I could criticise ULYSSES for hours. So I
>can't claim it didn't affect me.
It helps, I suppose, that the first time I read ULYSSES was during a group
reading of the work out loud on Bloomsday in 1979. The reading took about
28 hours.
Hearing the book made it even more apparent how beautiful it is.