barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (06/09/85)
"It's difficult to tell the plot without ruining (at least partially) the
book," wrote Leeper about a new ALICE pastiche.
May I point out that ALL of us know the plot of Alice in Wonderland but
I doubt if we think that ruins the book. Do you people REALLY think that
rereading a book can never possibly be as much fun as reading it the
first time, because the book is -- horrors! -- "at least partially ruined"?
For me, one of the significant differences between a good book and one read
only to kill time is that I can read the former again and again and again,
each time thrilling to the old things and noticing new ones.
Edmund Wilson wrote a rather nice essay ("The Psychology of Form vs the
Psychology of Information") in which he drew a significant distinction
between reading the phone book and reading Macbeth--and rereading them.
If Leeper was too busy to summarize the plot of the book being reviewed,
that's understandable. Especially given the number of Leeper reviews
that appear every week. If Leeper thought the book wasn't worth summarizing,
that's understandable too. But as it is, *grumph*.
(Ah well, the same stupid attitude manifests itself in the popular use of
the term "spoiler." *Grumph* again.)
Incidentally, I just finished rereading the original two ALICE books in
the annotated version -- and am pleased to report that THAT didn't
"spoil" or "ruin" them for me.
--Lee Goldgadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (06/12/85)
-- > Don't forget that half of the "Leeper reviews" are by *Mark* Leeper, > not me. > > Evelyn C. Leeper That's what you'd like us to believe, I'm sure, but I happen to know that Mark and Evelyn Leeper are... *the same person*! Evelyn thought she'd throw me off the track by showing up at a dinner a few months ago with this alleged Mark-person, but when I examined the pictures from this event, I found that if you made his hair a little longer and airbrushed out the beard and moustache, you got an unmistakable Evelyn *clone*. It's a plot to take over the world! Well, net.movies anyway. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Jun 85 [24 Prairial An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (06/12/85)
>"It's difficult to tell the plot without ruining (at least >partially) the book," wrote Leeper about a new ALICE >pastiche. This is the other Leeper, but I also have views on the responsibilities of a reviewer. > >May I point out that ALL of us know the plot of Alice in >Wonderland but I doubt if we think that ruins the book. Do >you people REALLY think that rereading a book can never >possibly be as much fun as reading it the first time, >because the book is -- horrors! -- "at least partially >ruined"? > "Ruin" is a strong word. All kinds of nasty things can be done to the reading experience without totally ruining it. What is important is does the review DETRACT FROM THE PLEASURE of reading the story. If so the reviewer should not do it. Sure, a second reading can be more fun than the first, so what? Does that make it justified for the reviewer diminishing the pleasure on the first reading? The second reading is more pleasurable not because the reader knows the plot in advance, usually, but because the reader sees more in the story. And even in the hypothetical case that knowing the plot in advance actually would improve the experience, that is apparently not the author's intention. Otherwise the story would start out "This is the story of how...". The real problem of reviewing is the work that cannot be reviewed without detracting from the experience. Somebody took me to task recently for spoiling a surprise in the film LADYHAWKE, that of revealing the nature of the curse. The complaint was quite correct and I have no idea what a good review of this film would be since it is virtually impossible to say anything of substance about the film without revealing the nature of the curse. Every review I saw spoiled this surprise. Perhaps this is a film that really should not be reviewed at all. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (06/14/85)
>> Don't forget that half of the "Leeper reviews" are by *Mark* Leeper, >> not me. >> >> Evelyn C. Leeper > >That's what you'd like us to believe, I'm sure, but I happen to >know that Mark and Evelyn Leeper are... *the same person*! Curses, I have been discovered! Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (06/18/85)
> "It's difficult to tell the plot without ruining (at least partially) the > book," wrote Leeper about a new ALICE pastiche. > > May I point out that ALL of us know the plot of Alice in Wonderland but > I doubt if we think that ruins the book. Do you people REALLY think that > rereading a book can never possibly be as much fun as reading it the > first time, because the book is -- horrors! -- "at least partially ruined"? Well, let me re-phrase myself--if I tell you the plot, I will ruin the enjoyment you'll get from watching it unfold yourself. Watching the "Alice" chess game develop is more fun than having someone explain it all to you first, at least for me. > If Leeper was too busy to summarize the plot of the book being reviewed, > that's understandable. Especially given the number of Leeper reviews > that appear every week. Don't forget that half of the "Leeper reviews" are by *Mark* Leeper, not me. If enough people wannt me to stop posting reviews, I will bow to public opinion. Otherwise, use the 'n' key. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
Leban%hp-hulk.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (06/19/85)
From: Bruce <Leban%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> > From: sdcrdcf!barryg@topaz.arpa (Lee Gold) > May I point out that ALL of us know the plot of Alice in Wonderland > but I doubt if we think that ruins the book. Do you people REALLY > think that rereading a book can never possibly be as much fun as > reading it the first time, because the book is -- horrors! -- "at > least partially ruined"? .... Ah well, the same stupid attitude > manifests itself in the popular use of the term "spoiler." > *Grumph* again. There was a recent poll among net.puzzle and (amazingly enough) most people thought that solutions to puzzles should be marked with the term "SPOILER", presumably under the impression that knowing the answer somehow spoils the puzzle! A good story needs to unfold and there's a certain magic in that. Rarely will you get as much out of a book by reading all the sentences backwards or starting in the middle (with the notable exception of /Finnegan's Wake/). When I read a book a second time, I don't expect the same magic, but rather I'm looking for the subtleties I may have missed the first time. There is nothing quite like being halfway through a mystery and having someone say "Oh yes, isn't that the one where the pregnant ballerina is the murderer?" Ah, it is so nice to get back to serious discussions after the recent froth about "The Problems with SF Today." -------
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (06/20/85)
>> Don't forget that half of the "Leeper reviews" are by *Mark* Leeper, >> not me. >> >> Evelyn C. Leeper > >That's what you'd like us to believe, I'm sure, but I happen to >know that Mark and Evelyn Leeper are... *the same person*! Curses, I have been discovered! Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (06/20/85)
>> Don't forget that half of the "Leeper reviews" are by *Mark* Leeper, >> not me. >> >> Evelyn C. Leeper > >That's what you'd like us to believe, I'm sure, but I happen to >know that Mark and Evelyn Leeper are... *the same person*! Curses, I have been discovered! Evelyn C. Leeper
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (06/22/85)
I'm contending that a murder mystery spoiled by finding out that the ballerina (or butler) did it is merely a piece of third rate writing. I don't find THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV spoiled because I now know which brother killed Fyodor. I don't even find Sayers' Wimsey books spoiled because I know Whodunnit. A book is as much about those "subtleties" (interplay of characterization, for instance) as about what happens next. I don't find knowing the plot of a book spoils it anymore than knowing its theme or mood. (I just finished an enjoyable evening of rereading O'Henry stories. A "surprise" ending sometimes hits you even harder when you know it's coming.) Incidentally, I have to confess typically skimming the last page of a new book before buying it. (And so do many of my friends.) I started this back in the late 60s, as SF books began imitating New Yorker short stories. I don't like novels that end up along the lines of "He was now Emperor of the Galaxy, but what did it all mean? Hadn't he been happier as a simple zort-herd. Esmerella had thought so, and now she was dead. Phargamerp drank some more rooq and fell asleep." Since publishers aren't willing to flag these books as "Pretentious/Depressing" on the bacover, the only protection seems to be checking them out for myself ahead of time. --Lee Gold
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (06/27/85)
As has been commented, if a book is not worthwhile after one has been told the plot, it was not worthwhile before. But that does not mean not knowing the plot has no value. Many of us *enjoy* the suspense of not knowing what comes next, and this adds to our enjoyment the first time we read a book (if we are otherwise enjoying it). There is nothing wrong with not enjoying this; many people obviously do not. Indeed, whoever started this discussion specifically disliked the suspense of not knowing what was going to happen. But you should be aware that giving away the plot does detract from the pleasure for some of us, and insert spoiler warnings as called for. After all, no one's enjoyment is diminished by seeing the words "spoiler warning" in an article.