@RUTGERS.ARPA,@MIT-MC:jen%mit-nessus@mit-athena.ARPA (05/07/85)
From: jen%mit-nessus@mit-athena.ARPA (Jennifer A Hawthorne)
I just finished reading Pamela C. Dean's "The Secret Country" the other
night and felt impelled to comment on something that really ticked me off.
The book itself is a reasonably good read; it concerns a group of kids
who invent an imaginary land for themselves and then manage to actually
get to this place through the use of two magic swords. BUT---
****FLAME WARNING****
IT NEVER ENDED!! By this I mean that "The Secret Country" seems to be
the newest entry into the "One Story in Several Books" class of series,
right up there with Eddings' Belgariad, The Lord of the Rings, Julian
May's The Pleiocene Exile, Zelazny's Amber books, and so on, and so on.
Thank you, SKZB, for having the decency to finish your stories at the same
time you finished your books.
I don't want to give anyone the impression that I hate this sort of
series; they're great if you are looking for an epic-sized read. But I
get VERY upset when (as with "The Secret Country") there is no way to tell
that the book is not complete aside from actually reading the thing! The
publisher did not deign to put "Book One in the Secret Country Series" or
some such notice on the cover so that I would be forewarned. I reached
the end of the book and couldn't believe my eyes! I felt cheated, and quite
angry at the author, although I later realized that this was unfair to
Ms. Dean as she probably had no say in the matter.
When I complained (loudly) about this to my unfortunate roommate, she
said that the publisher probably thought that putting a notice on the cover
would diminish the sales of the book, as some people refuse to start
a series until the entire work is finished. She also suggested that now
that I had read the first part, I'd undoubtedly buy the rest of the books
when they came out, ensuring decent sales. But it occurred to me, later, that
being advertised as part of a series did not hurt the sales of Julian May's
"The Adversary" or of Eddings' "Enchanter's End Game". In fact, they both made
the national SF best-seller lists. As for reading the rest of the series, I'm
not sure I will. I don't like feeling that I've been tricked into something
I might not otherwise have done.
Does anyone out there have similar feelings?
*****Flame Off*****
On a similar note, "Trumps of Doom", the newest Amber book, is now out in
hard-cover with some of the most awful cover artwork I've seen in a while.
It, too, is part of a series like the first five (one story in several books)
and (MILD SPOILER) it ends on a terrible cliff-hanger. Arrggh! Zelazny
is a sadist.
Out of curiousity, SKZB, how does an author feel about the cover artwork
on his books? I noticed on "Yendi" that Vlad has no mustache and looks a lot
older than twenty-one. The artwork on the paperback edition of "To Reign in
Hell" looks nicely executed, but since I haven't read it yet, I don't know
if it is faithful to the content. How about it?
--Jennifer H.---
"Does the artwork on a book EVER have anything to do with the content?"
-common question at MITSFSbrust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (05/08/85)
> From: jen%mit-nessus@mit-athena.ARPA (Jennifer A Hawthorne) > > I just finished reading Pamela C. Dean's "The Secret Country" the other > night and felt impelled to comment on something that really ticked me off. > The book itself is a reasonably good read; it concerns a group of kids > who invent an imaginary land for themselves and then manage to actually > get to this place through the use of two magic swords. BUT--- > > ****FLAME WARNING**** > IT NEVER ENDED!! .................................................... > .................................................................... The > publisher did not deign to put "Book One in the Secret Country Series" or > angry at the author, although I later realized that this was unfair to > Ms. Dean as she probably had no say in the matter. You are correct. I'm pleased that, at least, you aren't blaming the author. What happened in this case is that she wrote a book that was too long for a first novel, so it had to be split. I agree, and I'm sure Ms. Dean agrees that the reader should have been warned. > Out of curiousity, SKZB, how does an author feel about the cover artwork > on his books? I noticed on "Yendi" that Vlad has no mustache and looks a lot > older than twenty-one. The artwork on the paperback edition of "To Reign in > Hell" looks nicely executed, but since I haven't read it yet, I don't know > if it is faithful to the content. How about it? > > --Jennifer H.--- > > "Does the artwork on a book EVER have anything to do with the content?" > -common question at MITSFS The first purpose of cover art is to sell the book. If, in so doing, it can make a statement as to what the book is about, so much the better. If it can remain faithful to the content of the book, that is more than anyone can reasonably expect. I feel very fortunate in the Vlad books. The covers look good, and artist Steve Hickman captured the feel of the books very well, even though neither character (Vlad or Loish) looks as I envision him. So what? He is, quite literally, an artist. He strains reality through his own perceptions in just the way I strained it through mine. We are bound to have different filter because we are different individuals. When I see an artists rendition of a character or scene from a story, it never looks the way I envisioned it. So what? That is a bogus method of judgeing a piece of art. There is a thing called "feel" or "spirit" that transcends physical description, and if the artist captures that, my hat is off to him. If he does in on a book cover, and STILL manages to make the cover attractive enough to sell (as Steve did), I am delighted. The painting for Hell was fine. The trouble was the title. In the first place, the lettering is atrocious. In the second, I should have called the book DRAGONRIDERS OF HEAVEN. Then the cover would have been perfect. This'll teach me to put a dragon in my books! -- SKZB