donn@sdchema.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (04/28/84)
It's always much more interesting to see two reviewers disagree than to see just one reviewer's platitudes. I think that was the big plus in format of the original SNEAK PREVIEWS (a PBS movie review TV show). This is just the sort of thing I was hoping to stir up. Mr. Cain, however, seems to have taken my put-down of the novel TEA WITH THE BLACK DRAGON somewhat more seriously than I would have -- he actually gave the review to Ms. MacAvoy, and forwarded her irate response to me... Ms. MacAvoy has rightly pointed out that the superficial biographical information in my review was derived from an interview in LOCUS #278 (March 1984) and should have been so credited; it was not my intention to be discourteous to LOCUS, as Ms. MacAvoy seemed to imply. I like LOCUS and recommend it to everybody who reads SF-LOVERS -- you'll find more useful information there (including better reviews :-) than you'll find in this forum. Ms. MacAvoy also says that I had no business relating her first name, which she prefers to keep out of the public eye (despite the fact that the LOCUS article starts with '<censored> A. MacAvoy's first published novel, TEA WITH THE BLACK DRAGON, ...' -- perhaps this was an editorial oversight). Oh well. As long as I'm handing out credit, I should note that the background information in the review of Gene Wolfe's THE WOLFE ARCHIPELAGO came from the [very good!] introduction to that book. On to Mr. Cain's letter... I shall quote in full lest I be accused of quoting out of context: Date: Wed 25 Apr 84 10:15:24-PST From: CAIN@SRI-AI.ARPA Subject: TEA rebuttal In regards to Donn Seeley's review of R. A. MacAvoy's TEA WITH THE BLACK DRAGON: I think the review missed the mark. In fact, reviews like this which do little more than summarize the plot of a book have never impressed me as being fair to the author. The plots of many of my favorite books sound pretty trite when put through such a narrow filter. It certainly is true that a summary of the plot of TEA makes it sound weak. It is also true that some good books are also hard to summarize in this way. This does not, of course, imply that TEA is one such book. At any rate I think a review without a reasonable plot summary is unfair to the reader. To me, the impact of a book comes from a less tangible source; from the writer's commitment to the story. This expresses itself in the writer's ability to conjure true-to-life characters, to engage them in dialogue in which I feel a part, and then to confront them with problems to draw them out of themselves. If the writer fails in these, then I am tempermentally incapable of reading the story. For that reason, two out of every three books I start end up in the trash by page seven. However, any story succeeding in these things finds a home on my bookshelves. Hm. I seem to hang on to the end of every book, regardless of how bad the prospects are. Sometimes I regret the experience. Sometimes (as with TEA) I merely feel let down. I personally think that part of the favorable reaction from hackers is due to the (quite tangible) fact that the book deals with computers. Hey, I'm a hacker too -- one of the reasons I got the book was to see what fun it had with computers. I was disappointed. By the way, I like strong characters too (see below). TEA is the kind of book I read with pleasure. The characters begin to come to life in the first sentence and are allowed to grow and to change throughout the book. The dialogues are fun to read, and the plot, though simple, is calculated to explore each of the character's strengths and weaknesses. It is the kind of book which goes onto a smallish shelf I have for books to be re-read every couple years. Here is where we diverge. I came to TEA with great anticipation after having read several reviews that described it as 'wonderful', 'a delight', and so on. I was prepared to be resigned to a superficial treatment of computers and the world of hacking, although I hoped for better; I wasn't so happy to find the flat dialogue, the wandering point of view, the insipidness of the characters, the hokiness of the plot. I don't want to stomp all over the book -- the narrative problems are not bad compared to some authors' first novels. But given the reviews I expected to find much more than I found. I compare this reaction to my feelings after having read THE WILD SHORE by Kim Stanley Robinson, another first novel in the set of books which I reviewed: I really had a moving experience with SHORE, the characters behaved like real people, did things I did not expect, and the narrative was pleasantly mature and polished, with lovely imagery and realistic plotting. TEA is inferior (my humble opinion) yet has had much more praise lavished upon it. That Seeley's review summarizes the main woman character (Martha) as "dotty" or the main man (Mayland) as "reclusive" tells me the two of us read distinctly different books inside the same cover. No mention is made of the fact that this love story involves two people over the age of 50 (one possibly much older), or that the most intriguing mystery is Mayland Long's past. Mention of the distinctly Zen/Tao flavor of the book is also omitted. The age of the leading characters didn't strike me as particularly relevant. The Zen or Tao 'flavor' of the book was just that, a flavor, and perhaps my main gripe against the book is that it is very unrevealing about the culture of dragons or even about Taoism. It is true that the resolution of the 'plot' involves the quest for the Dragon to see the Way, but after pages and pages of machinations with computers and ruthless criminals it is hardly the central plot event it should have been. I think the story would have been much more interesting (to me at any rate) if computers had been left out entirely and the book devoted to the events of Long's quest. In addition, Seeley refers to the cover blurbs as "overkill." Do I rightly hear him saying the book did not deserve the favorable reviews it received from others (which is tactless at best)? Am I then to assume that nominations received by TEA for the Nebula, the Hugo, the John Campbell, the Phillip K. Dick, and the Compton Crook awards are mere gaudy trappings? Tsk, another person calls me tactless. I imagine that personality defect is all too obvious now that I have undertaken to respond to this message at such unbearable length... I certainly think other reviewers are entitled to their opinions. The remark about the 'overkill' on the cover was simply to express my feelings about the fact that the book jacket scorns a plot summary in favor of simply listing quotes from reviewers (very enthusiastic quotes, I'll admit that right away). Much better books in 1983 (my opinion again) received lesser favors from the publisher. I must say I am at a loss to explain why TEA is a nominee for the Hugo when books like Wolfe's THE CITADEL OF THE AUTARCH, Benford's AGAINST INFINITY and Spinrad's THE VOID CAPTAIN'S TALE were passed over. (Fortunately all three are on the Nebula ballot. Curiously, only TEA and Brin's STARTIDE RISING managed to make both ballots. You may be interested to know that TEA came in second for the Philip K. Dick award, after Tim Powers' THE ANUBIS GATES. All this from LOCUS issues #279 and #280.) TEA WITH THE BLACK DRAGON is emphatically NOT science fiction -- I'm confused about why it is up for science fiction awards. Of course I have been confused about this before (I like the remark attributed to Alfred Bester which I read in Richard Lupoff's WHAT IF? series -- 'The fans -- the wonderful, demented, fans...'). LYONESSE by Jack Vance, equally non-science-fictional, is up for a Nebula. Oh well. Sorry, but for all these reasons I feel the review was unfair to a very good book. Ron Cain CAIN@SRI-AI I'm afraid it just wasn't my cup of (ouch!) tea. Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn 32 52' 30"N 117 14' 25"W (619) 452-4016 sdcsvax!sdchema!donn@nosc.ARPA PS Hey, you didn't think I was finished without repeating how to get a subscription to 'LOCUS, the Newspaper of the Science Fiction Field'? For a 1-year subscription, send $24 to LOCUS Publications, PO Box 13305, Oakland CA 94661. Enjoy.