Jeffrey Swystun says: “I agree Rick. I felt he created a new genre with The Terror and Black Hills. Drood was of another class. Regardless, he is always ambitious and interesting.”
Booklover59 says: “Rick O: Don't know about anyone else, but my criticism has nothing to do with genre and everything to do with quality. I've gone back and read some of his older novels recently: the HYPERION/ENDYMION novels, which hold up well and which will -- because of reprints and such -- keep him comfortable in his dotage; CARRION COMFORT (a book which I enjoyed so much, I read it once a year for about six or seven years), holds up, but with age and experience (mine) does cry out for a bit more editing; SUMMER OF NIGHT (I would have kept the "Dream" portions, but it holds well as is); THE CROOK FACTORY (his best stab at an "entertainment", also holds up well); LOVEDEATH, his best collection of short fiction (other stand-outs in short fiction include "Looking for Kelly Dahl", and everything in PRAYERS TO BROKEN STONES, except "The Offering", which is a teleplay anyway, but also displays Simmons's inability with the form). After that, the only solid novel he wrote (I don't count the "Hard Case" hard-boiled books, because they border on parody, and are too easy to write) is A WINTER HAUNTING (vastly different from "Summer", but all the better for it). Just before that, he wrote the second-worst novel of his career, DARWIN'S BLADE. Just after "Winter", he began to crash and burn, first publishing ILIUM (I say publishing, because I'm aware that books can be written simultaneously, and I think ILIUM was written before Simmons's brain/creativity took a nose dive), which was a very good start -- the first half of something that looked to equal his "Hyperion/Endymion" books -- but then crashed and burned with OLYMPOS (a mess, prose and plot-wise).
THE TERROR stands as his last-ditch attempt to write something worthwhile, and he almost achieved it. But (once again) the absence of a good, strong editor, shows in the superfluous prose throughout the book (which still doesn't harm it fatally, because the tone of the book is created by stagnation and paranoia), but then he seems to have gotten worried and tacked on the SF-style ending (inspired by "The Thing From Another World"). It's almost as if the original Dan Simmons -- the one that wrote so well for nearly twenty years -- wrote a large portion of this novel, and then sent it forward in time to be finished by his less-talented, strangely political older self.
DROOD was a combination of a VERY interesting idea, a GREAT main character (the Wilkie Collins in HIS novel is, indeed, "fictional"), coupled with little or no plot. That might have worked in a novella, but it was death for a book that runs nearly 1000 pages.
And the less said about the didactic BLACK HILLS (western porn mixed with social diatribes and Crichton-style chapters that over-explain everything) or (his worst novel every) FLASHBACK (A TON of social diatribes and political commentary, didactic drudgery, and really, REALLY bad writing, with part of a good SF idea) the better.
Bringing us to THE ABOMINABLE.
Simmons breaks no new ground, here. Meta-fictional narratives have been around a looooooooooong time, so the pretend manuscript, as well as the "Is it true or not?" angle, isn't only new to ingenues (see what I did there? A bit of a rhyme, to lessen the sting).
And as many, MANY others have pointed out already, his writing is STILL slovenly (Simmons messed up the first sentence, for cryin' out loud!), STILL didactic, STILL focused on minutiae, and STILL lacking any interesting plot (the BIG REVEAL -- as many, MANY others have already pointed out) is laughable. And the whole point of most of these parties being ON a mountain is illogical, what people in the writing biz call reaching -- and I DO mean reaching.
No, the criticism of Simmons's writing "style" or abilities for the past fifteen years has been quite valid. And unless he suddenly does a 180 (something I don't believe he will achieve, even when he writes the Hyperion-related book of novellas), his best days as a writer are well behind him.
He should hang up his "pen" and look into getting a job with Fox "Views", since he's made his conservative views painfully public. He'd make a LOT of money with those yahoos”.
Rick O. says: “I don't think most of these reviewers have read enough of Simmons to make a fair discernment. Simmons can write”.
Rick O. says: “Wilkie Collins was indeed a good friend of Charles Dickens, in fact, four of Wilkie's novels were turned into movies”.
Booklover59 says: “Rick O: Having read enough of Simmons to make MORE than a fair assessment of his writing -- more so, I dare say, than even yourself -- I can tell you that a majority of the criticisms about over-writing and a propensity to be didactic and (especially in the case of FLASHBACK) a recent tendency to insert political beliefs are all spot on.
As for your comment about Wilkie Collins, I'm not sure what that has to do with my statement that when it comes to the _novel_ (which, if you understand the word, means it is a work of _fiction_) by Dan Simmons is, no matter how one tries to parse it, a _fictional_ character (i.e., a character based on a real person, but, nonetheless, a _fictional_ character. Thus, the _fictional_ Wilkie Collins). I must say, I'm a bit -- only a bit -- surprised at how often I have to explain that to people who actually read -- either novels or nonfiction books or both.”
Rick O. says: “If you have soured on Simmons's writings, stop reading him. As for Wilkie, he is not fictional, nor are Dickens and Thackeray in Drood. They are real people put in a alternate history role. It's already assumed that Simmons doesn't know what they said to each other.”
Booklover59 says: “My eyes have been opened: you really _don't_ understand what I'm saying (writing) when I explain about the "fictional" Wilkie Collins (even after I explain "slowly")! :) That, of course, explains why you so easily overlook the inherent flaws and lower quality in Simmons's later writing. You don't see it.
(By the way: I meant to respond to your statement: Simmons can write. True, he CAN write. Even guys like Rush Limbaugh can write. But...can he write _well_? I say, no: not on the evidence of what he has published in the past six years.)
Because I'm silly, I'll try to explain the "fictional" thing one more time -- as if you were a ten-year-old.
DROOD is a novel. EVERYthing in it is fictional (even if a scene or two, or a character, or two, is _based_ on reality). That's why it's called a novel, and not a book of history, or a biography. Therefore, ipso loco facto obviouso (that's "fictional" Latin, in case you were wondering), the Wilkie Collins who appears in DROOD is, indeed, a fiction, because he is being portrayed in a _fictional_ manner, and doing and thinking and saying things the _real_ Wilkie Collins never did (to further illustrate our point: the guy named Hemingway in THE CROOK FACTORY isn't _really_ Ernest Hemingway -- he's a fictional construct. And if you go to the movies and you see a film called "Saving Mr. Banks", that REALLY ISN'T Walt Disney -- that's an _actor_, someone _pretending_ to be Walt Disney).
On the other hand, if you, like some of the other reviewers of THE ABOMINABLE actually believe that a man named Perry left a manuscript for Simmons to publish, then I've just wasted a bit more of my, and your, time.
Something I promise NOT to do again.
All best wishes for your future enlightenment as you travel the highways and byways of life.”
Rick O. says: “You obviously didn't understand my remarks. Of course I knew Perry wasn't real, "I said the introduction of Jacob Perry's meeting was awesome...it wasn't hard to believe that Perry was also genuine." ( referring to Simmons's writing skills ). In my last paragraph, I said, "In the afterword, Dan Simmons keeps the ruse alive..." You don't seem to understand the different genres of writing. In your view, a book is either non-fiction, or fiction. Wikipedia list 21 different literary genres. Your ideas of what fictional characters are, or are not, is pure flapdoodle.”
Booklover59 says: “Rick O: A grace note before leaving:
Nope, I didn't misunderstand. That was me being a bit sarcastic because of _your_ inability to understand the concept of fictional characters -- even those based on someone who actually existed -- in a novel versus accounts of, or by, humans in a book meant to accurately portray their lives (autobiographical or biographical books). Guess my sarcasm was too subtle.
And, um, my "view" regarding nonfiction and fiction is shared by just a lot of other humans on the planet. Many of whom, like myself, have taken up pen and paper to earn a living by writing. (For guys like _Stephen Glass_, and yourself, apparently, the difference between the two is confusing).
But I can see -- purely from your referencing "Wikipedia" as a scholarly source -- that I'm pounding my head against the proverbial wall.
Take care, and try not to stuff yourself full of too many wild blueberry muffins.”
Rick O. says: “With humble deference to your opinion, I've never met any literary aficionado who shared your thoughts on this subject. You say that you are a writer... I would like to read something that you have written. I'm not saying this as a smart aleck, I just would like to read something that you wrote, in order to understand where you are coming from.”
William G. McQuaig says: “Does reading all of his published works count? I have. And my review of this novel was fair, and more importantly, accurate. I noted that although you claimed this book got unjust negative reviews, you didn't mention how they were unjust. I encourage you to read them, including mine, and find one bit of inaccuracy in it.
I love Mr. Simmons' work as a whole. I am a huge fan of his. But this book is subpar in too many ways to overlook. I found most of the negative reviews thoughtful - at least the ones where the reviewers took the time to explain why they didn't like it.”
Rick O. says: “The reviews were unfair because of what you (yourself) said, that the story was unbelievable. Simmons writes in three genres, one of which is fantasy...duh. The plot was not stupid, just typical Simmons. The ruse that Jacob Perry was real is a brilliant literary ploy. The addition of the Nazi's motive was a little weak, I agree, but plausible. The man can write in three different genres, which is exemplary.”
William G. McQuaig says: “Rick, as a fan of Dan Simmons, I still have to stick to the major pivot point and plot of this story being unbelievable. But in my review, I was very specific about what was wrong. It has nothing to do with your contention that Mr. Simmons can write in three genres. He can. Maybe more, even. At least a half dozen of his novels are my favorites of all time, including "The Terror", which also, as you know, combines fact and fiction.
But in this case the story takes place on Mt. Everest, which is where I find it completely laughable and unbelievable. And in my review I say why, which I'll repeat here (and my apologies for the hijacking of your review, which I don't think is bad, by the way):
Portion of my review -
"So...why on Earth would the original climbers try to hide the photos and escape the Nazis by going all the way to Mt. Everest, specifically? And by trying to climb it? Wouldn't it have been easier to just take the pictures to say...England? Right away?
No, they go where they will undoubtedly become trapped. Again, for some reason, Everest. Dead end. And they're not expert climbers. They're good, but not expert. So they go to the world's highest peak to run from the Nazis. This sinking in yet? Chased by the best climbers in Germany and Austria. Yeah, that makes sense. What...the...heck? If I had possession of those photos, I doubt I would go where I know I will be trapped, outclassed, outmanned, and out climbed. And which is really, really far away from the place the photos need to end up. England."
- end of review.
It is inconceivable (except to the author) that inexperienced climbers would take secret documents from Germany to Mt. Everest to get away from the Germans who are chasing them. It's as if they went out of their way to trap themselves in a far off land, rather than simply go the distance from Germany to England, give the documents to Churchill, and be done with it. If anything, this novel should have taken place on the Eiger. Now THAT would have been more believable, and would take nothing away from the great detailed mountaineering portion of the story (which I loved, by the way). Plus it would take away any expectations of a "Terror-like" creature that we probably all had. Let's face it, many of us bought this book expecting exactly that, and it was a disappointment.
Had the novel taken place in the Alps, that would have been a moot point.
That's all I'm trying to get to with my review. Ultimately, it's all just personal preference and opinion. I don't like Mr. Simmons any less for it. I do wish he'd get himself a new editor though, someone with fresh eyes who can be of more help to him. I don't think he's out of good stories, nor do I think he was just lucky previously. He's a brilliant writer who did not, this time, write a great book. Like a baseball player in a batting slump, he can still get out of it and bat .400 if he wants to.”
Rick O. says: “Wow! That was an eloquent rebuttal. I do understand and agree that the Nazis chasing the climbers up Mt. Everest was the weakest part of novel, however that shouldn't have induced all those one and two star reviews. That is what I meant in my review's opening statement. It was still a marvelous novel. As you agree, the detailed mountain climbing part was great and as far as I'm concerned a learning experience.
If some of the reviewers thought that the mountain climbing parts were overdone, they should read the American classic Moby-Dick . Herman Melville spends countless pages on whaling to a point where one almost wants to quit reading the novel.
Lastly, if you go to dansimmons.com, you will see that he spends a lot of time talking about the techniques of writing. Click on "writing well-installment fourteen" on top of the page. The man knows what he is doing.”
William G. McQuaig says: “Rick, thanks. It's nice discussing this in this way. I always have to pause and sort of laugh at myself when I write any book review because a writer like Dan Simmons on his worst day still makes me look like a third grader when it comes to writing.
A side note, but related is that I usually buy two copies of DS books because I often loan them to people when I make recommendations to read them. Most of the comments I get back are: 1) That's a long book! and 2) The detail is amazing!
Like James Michener, DS puts more detail in than just about anyone since Victor Hugo, but to me, it's all good detail that fleshes out characters, makes them more real, and creates verisimilitude in his works. The Hyperion cantos is a great example. Those worlds became real because of the detail he put in.”
No comments:
Post a Comment