Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: To Reign in Hell [SPOILER]
Message-ID: <195@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 18:00:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: hyper.195
Posted: Fri May 10 18:00:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 05:58:21 EDT
References: <1823@topaz.ARPA> <1369@shark.UUCP> <184@hyper.UUCP> <5264@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 86

> In article <184@hyper.UUCP> brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) writes:
> 
> >It is Bad Form for an author to respond to negative reviews.
> 
> Now, why is that?  It seems to me like you would want to respond to bad
> reviews.  After all, what kind of response can you make to good reviews.
> "Thank you, thank you."  Mutual back-patting isn't that interesting.
> 
> Obviously you don't want to get caught up in arguing about your books too
> much -- you'd end up looking juvenile -- but I think a fair amount of
> response to negative reviews is warranted.  The author of a book has a very
> different understanding of the book than a reader does, because much of what
> the author understands about the book comes from internalized thoughts,
> false starts, musings, etc., that never show up in print.  Negative reviews
> often point out where the author failed to completely communicate his
> understanding.  Writing to clear up these kinds of mis-communications can
> be helpful for both the author and the reader.
> 

The point is that the book ought to stand on its own.
If I was trying to get something across, it may be
of academic interest to someone to know what I
was trying to do, but book either made its
point or it didn't.

Now, it is certainly the case that it might have
worked for some people and not for others, or
to differing degrees for different people, but
an explanation from the author saying "No, no,
you missed the point, I WANTED that chapter
to be dull and boring to point out the bordom
in our lives," or something like that, is not
especially helpful.  The fact that it took me
an entire book to say what I wanted is a good
indication that I'm not going to be able to do
much better in a few column inches.


> > ...The real
> >flaw in the book (I say its a flaw because very few
> >people have picked it up, so I obviously didn't bring
> >it off) was this: Abdial's actions didn't matter.  If
> >there had been no Abdial, things would have proceeded
> >in almost exactly the same way...
> >
> 
> Prime example, I think.  I never considered this point until you brought it
> up.  Thinking back upon the book, I guess I can see your argument for this.
> I don't agree with it.  For this to hold, the forces involved should have
> been so overwhelming that the course of events would be unchangable.  This
> simply isn't so in To Reign in Hell.  There are several points in the book
> where a conversation between Yaweh and Satan would have cleared the air.
> Regardless of whether or not you brought the point across in the book, it
> is interesting to hear that this was the point you were trying to make.
>

A prime example of what I meant.  Yes, now you know
one of the themes I was playing with.  I thought this
might be interesting or wouldn't have brought it up.
But it doesn't make the book any better.  If the reader
didn't pick that up on his own, after-the-fact knowledge,
interesting as it may be, won't improve it.


> 
> Now, the question is:  Did you start out with this as your "point" or did
> it develop during the course of writing the story?
> 
>     Scott R. Turner
>     ARPA:  srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
>     UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
>     SPUDNET: ...russet$eye.srt

I don't honestly know.  There were a number of
things I wanted to play with.  Depending on when
you ask and the phase of the moon, I will probably
say different ones were the "point."  I try to
play fair with my readers, however.  What I mean
is, I do my best to let the characters behave as
they will, rather than using them as mouthpieces
for points I want to make.  There are two advantages
to this: one, it is, I think, more honest.  Two, it
allows me, after the fact, to go, "Oh, that's 
an interesting idea.  I wonder if I believe it."

I hope this answered your question.