From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Subject: Re: The Difference Engine
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date: 27 Jul 1992 13:37 EST  

In article <1992Jul22.083102.16257@sco.COM>, charless@sco.COM (charles stross) writes...
> 
>In article <20JUL199222275714@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>>
>>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.
> 
>.... and lots more incredibly accurate and wrong-headed criticisms of
>the back-cover blurb and the shriek-line, which he uses as justification
>for panning the book and whining that he wants his money back.

No, Charlie, no whining intended.  Just rage at feeling cheated by two of my
favorite authors.  Kinda the same way I felt after reading Greg Bear's "City of
Angels".  Like the author was just trying to fufill a "number of novels"
contract clause with the publishing house.  It may work out great for the
author, but it's the readers who bear the financial burden of lousey work.

> 
>Paul, you are _not_ wrong; you are simply not right, either. The
>map is not the territory; the cover blurb is not the book. Anyone
>who buys a book on the strength of a shriek line deserves exactly
>what they get. Shriek lines are not written by authors, or even
>(usually) the editors who slave over the book; they're written by
>some poor Joe Schmoe in a corporate publicity factory who's
>been handed a threefold pre-digested synopsis and told to come up
>with a phrase that will *sell copy*, not convey an accurate
>rendition of the content.

O.K., Charlie (and everyone else who stated basically the same thing), I admit
that using the back cover of the paperback, or the cover flaps of the
hardbound, to judge the book are incorrect.  Unfortunately, unless a person has
a review available, it's all anyone has to go on when deciding whether or not
to purchase the book.  In looking at the back cover blurbs, nothing there is
false by comission.  It's false by omission.

Even so, reviewers cannot be trusted either.  Most reviewers (at least in the
software industry) receive free copies of the item to be reviewed.  I built
quite a sizable software library doing reviews.  Obviously, the reviewers have
a vested interest in writing good reviews if they are allowed to obtain free
copies of books before they hit the shelves (no, I didn't do that with my
reviews; if you want to see one of my reviews, get a copy of The Journal of
Pascal, Ada and Modula-2 with my review of Dr. Pascal; you'll find it quite
balanced).  Knowing this, I suppose the thing to do would be to follow the
various comments of the various reviewers, reading what they've reviewed, and
forming my own opinion.  But I don't have the time for that, and I suspect
nobody else does either.

> 
>It may interest you to know that the bits of blurb you quote
>don't feature on the UK editions of the book; that's because they
>were added by the publisher. The same goes for the cover 
>illustrations. The _only_ component of the book that is 
>invariant and the responsibility of the authors is the _text_.
> 
>You might get away with suing the publishers for false
>advertising -- but before you criticize this most excellent
>book, it would help if you learned to read and comprehend
>what you are reading. _The Difference Engine_ isn't a 
>ripping yarn in the tradition of E. E. 'Doc' Smith; it's a
>carefully refined construct put together by two seriously
>smart cookies who were making a most pointed, ironic and
>deeply-considered argument about the interaction between
>culture and technology.

Yes, I got the point of the book, i.e. the interaction of culture and
techonology.  And, yes, I enjoyed the concept of today's technology using
Victorian means, but it could have been summed up in the span of 10 pages at
most.

>Criticizing this novel for not having
>an action-adventure plot is like criticizing the space
>shuttle as a means of transport for not having oars. *It's
>not meant to.* Although it's difficult to get used to at
>first, you might try considering the idea that the acme of
>literary achievment does not require a penny-dreadful
>plot construct in order to articulate its conceptual
>framework. 

I agree that art can take on many forms, but I don't go watch nails rust in
barndoors for fun either.  And that is the best description I can give this
book.  Just because Gibson and Sterling are two of my favorite authors, doesn't
mean I'm going to rationalize their trash into a fine work of art.

What is the reason we buy books, movies, etc.?  Entertainment.  For me, this
book was entertaining for all of five minutes.  The rest was pure torture.  Why
did I finish the book?  Because I was looking for _some_ redeeming quality from
two of my favorite authors.  It never came.  I was also trying to make sense of
the book for a friend of mine, who is a scifi fan and a professional writer. 
His comments were identical to mine.  It's a very poor book.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: as individual writers are concerned,
Gibson and Sterling stand out in a crowd.  They just don't work well together. 
Yes, I could see both their styles in this book.  Their styles are too
different, and what you end up with is a story which makes no sense at all
with technical highlights.

> 
>And no, _The Difference Engine_ is probably _not_ cyberpunk,
>believe it or not. But what the hell; it's a worth-while
>read for all that ...
> 
>-- 
>Charlie Stross aka charless@scol.sco.com ..... UNIX oriented text mangler
>WARNING: The opinions voiced in the preceding electronic document are the
>product of a warped mind. Take two before meals. 

I guess what I'm really after _are_ back cover blurbs which tell the truth. 
After all, what else does the general public have to determine if something is
worthwhile?  Unlike a painting, you can't see the insides of a book without
reading the whole thing.  What is a person supposed to base their decision to
read a book on except the blurb on the back cover?  Especially when CP books
are not the favorite of the WASHINGTON POST BOOK WORLD reviewers?  But I
suppose getting the Madison Avenue bunch who write the blurbs to tell the truth
would be as impossible as [fill in the blank].

I guess I'll go find a barn.

Dr. Forbin