chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/11/84)
Jeff Duntemann put it pretty well, but I'd like to add that (I think,
at least) what he said near the top of the message was more important
than what he said near the end. It isn't ``sequels'' that are bad,
it's lack of new developments. A mechanical way of deciding whether a
``sequel'' is ``interesting'' that works fairly well is: does it have
a different central character? If so, it probably has a different
conflict and/or resolution. (It usually helps if the time frame is
different, too.)
Also note that things that are labeled as sequels are not necessarily
so; it seems to be an edtiorial device to sell books.
(change of topic)
Just finished *Bearing an Hourglass*, by Piers Anthony.
Nano-Review: Good, but not quite as good as *On a Pale Horse*.
Micro-Review:
Typical Anthony style. Main character is Norton, a guy who likes
wilderness and likes to ``see the other side of the mountain, even if
it's artificial''. The book contains the (now standard) Author's Note
(see if you can find the(?) pun in(?) it - I thought it was a typo at
first) which explains that while writing this book about Time, Anthony
was pressed for time himself. I'm afraid it shows a bit. But it is
still a good book. I'm not sure what else I can say here without
creating a spoiler. I'd have to reread it first. Anyway, if you like
Anthony's fantasy, you'll like *Hourglass*.
(By the way, don't take the ``now standard'' the wrong way: I *like*
the Notes.)
(Argh, I really want to say something but I'm afraid it would
constitute a spoiler. Well, how about lots of linefeeds here along
with a *** SPOILER WARNING *** note, just in case.)
*** SPOILER WARNING *** (there's the promised note :-) )
(there's the promised linefeeds (-: )
I wish he had somehow incorporated a ``waste of time'' conflict into
the book. The statement he makes in the last paragraph or two of the
Author's Note ought to be made somewhere in the novel. Perhaps the
third ``inner fantasy'' (the one with both Bat Dursten and the Alicorn
and the others) constituted one such statment to some extent, but if
so, I don't think it was quite strong enough. Also, *Horse* had some
really nice internal and external struggles; *Hourglass* seemed to lack
the internal ones. Oh well, maybe I missed something this time
through.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland