From: tagg@hg.uleth.ca (Nathaniel Tagg)
Subject: Re: The Difference Engine
Reply-To: tagg@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:57:45 GMT

In article <20JUL199222275714@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>, olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.204205.11655@honte.uleth.ca>, tagg@hg.uleth.ca writes...
>> 
>>    This rampage is not the first.  I seem to find everyone and their dog
>>badmouthing The Difference Engine.  Personally, I liked it, but obviously for
>>different reasons than I liked Gibson's and Sterling's earlier works.
>>[etc deleted]
>>    Many are bound to disagree with me, but I thought the work had great
>>merit... although it wouldn't make a good movie, that's for certain.
>> 
>>Your council for the defence,
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>          Nathaniel Tagg               The U of Hell,  Lethbridge, AB
>
>O.K., Nathaniel, since you've taken the position as Council for the Defence,
>here's the prosecution's position.  The book is clearly falsely advertised.  I
>use as evidence the hook writeup on the back of the paperback version (no, I
>wasn't willing to spend $20 on the hardcover version {and glad of that now}).
>
>First it states:
>
>	"And three extraordinary characters..."
>
>There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about these characters.
>
>Second, it states that the three characters:
>
>       "race toward a rendezvous with history - and the future:  Sybil Gerard -
>       fallen woman, politician's tart, daughter of a Luddite agitator;  Edward
>       "Leviathan" Mallory - explorer and paleontologist;  Laurence Oliphant -
>       diplomant, mystic, and spy."
>
>The potential reader is lead to believe that these characters all come together
>at a climax in the book.  But Sybil Gerard's function in the book is extremely
>limited, only being used as an occasional distraction.
>
>Third, it states:
>
>       "Their adventure begins with the discovery of a box of punched Engine
>       cards of unknown orgin and purpose.  Cards someone wants badly enough to
>       kill for..."
>
>This is clearly false advertising.  NOWHERE in the book is there ANY reason
>given for people being killed over this deck of cards.  For all the reader
>knows, they are killing each other over the fancy box in which the cards are
>contained.  Every time a Victorian hacker is brought into the picture, the
>reader _hopes_ they will be used to decipher the cards to determine what they
>hell they're all about.  But it NEVER happens.  In fact, every time a hacker is
>brought into the picture, they're either killed (Radley) or totally dropped
>from the story (the other one, he's so unmemorable that I don't remember where
>he cropps up, who he's with, or what his name is).
>
>Fourth, the second paragraph states:
>
>	"Part detective story, part historical thriller,..."
>
>This is clearly misleading.  The book is neither a detective story nor a
>thriller.  In fact, this book wouldn't even make it into the True Detective
>Book of the Month club!  The fact that it isn't a thriller is only proven by
>the fact that none of the characters are thrilling, none of the characters are
>present in the story from beginning to end, nor is the story line (what whisps
>there could possibly be) anywhere engaging enough to be a thriller.
>
>The prosecution has tried to show that the best part of the book, the dark
>maroon and gold cover, is clearly misleading.  If, as the Counsel for the
>Defence states, this book is supposed to take facts from history and twist them
>into an altered future history, the cover of the book should have stated such. 
>In addition, it should have had a warning label indicating that anyone reading
>this book should have a degree, or at least a quantifiable knowledge, of
>Victorian English history in order to derive ANY enjoyment from it.  And,
>finally, it should have been sold in the history section of the bookstore, not
>the scifi section, which is clearly the audience this book was intended to dupe
>into buying.  The prosecution requests of the Court to sentence Mr. Gibson,
>Mr. Sterling and Bantam Books to refund all royalties, fees, service charges,
>and any other income from the sale of this book to the readers and bookstores
>who were unknowingly conjoled into purchasing this waste of pulp.
>
>The prosecution rests.
>
>Dr. Forbin
>
>P.S. - A good story is outstanding.  But no amount of rationalization will make
>       tripe anything other than tripe.
>
>P.P.S. - Can't tell I've been dealing with divorce lawyers lately, can you?

The Counsil for Defense reposts (heh heh)

     Anyone who takes the dust cover of any novel seriously should have his
head examined.  That isn't the problem and you know it.  You are dissappointed
because it didn't live up to either Gibson's or Sterling's reputations.  Or at
least, didn't coincide with them.
     You're right, it doesn't belong in SciFi; but until W.H. Smith's  gets a
'speculative fiction' section it's going to stay in SciFi.  But it is not a
waste of pulp, and I enjoyed it without a history degree, and if Prosecution
doesn't like it, it can lump it.

["All right, we'll call it a draw." -- The Black Knight in The Holy Grail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Nathaniel Tagg               The U of Hell,  Lethbridge, AB
    "It's just a matter of putting one point seven one five three seven two
and two point two oh four six two eight together."     --The Doctor 
___The opinions expressed by the author of the preceding message are not 
nessesarily representative of the opinions of the author of the
preceding message.____
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk