Kevin's Watch

sites.inka.de/mips/reviews/Gap.html

The series opens with a deceptively slim novel, a novella rather, that turns out to be only an introduction.

That's true.

Primarily known as a writer of fantasy, Donaldson seems to have learned his science from other fiction. He lacks an understanding of orders of magnitude and generally walks the line between impausible and wrong.

Well, I've heard it mentioned that the science is bad in places, but then, I'm not a scientist...

People are raped and debased to the core of their being.

That's true.

there is more treason, treachery, betrayal, and corruption than ever. Everybody has their own hidden agenda. Everybody betrays everybody else. Plots, counter-plots, and treachery keep the situation continually twisting. The story reaches a staggering complexity. The feelings of the protagonists are reduced to mutual, most intense hatred. Hurt, abuse, pain, madness abound.

That's pretty true too.

I think it's probably SRD's best work. *shrug*

Read it and form your own opinion.

--A

Certainly, the Gap is not light reading. But the critic tosses in generalities that warp what is a much deeper story. For example, "People are raped" makes it sound like there is an unbelievable amount of sex in the story. Through the first half of FK there is a considerable amount, but after that, there really isn't time for any.

I also wonder which part of Donaldson's 'science' this guy has a problem with. He isn't specific, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't clear about the science either. (I don't recognize the website as fan- or media-type.)

Anyone who's ever read Donaldson knows he drives character points relentlessly, like beating a dead horse. If you don't like it, you don't. There are rewards for the reader's perseverance.

There's quite a bit of depravity. No way to sugar coat that. But again, the critic doesn't bother to separate machination from desperation. The reasons that Holt and Warden hatch their manipulations are only remotely related, and even the things Morn and Angus do come from entirely different motivations.

I'd guess the critic is jaded about such stories, and yet he shows a thin skin for someone who must read quite a bit. His blase attitude toward the climax makes me wonder if he was reading or glossing.

How about this then:

You can tick off the clichés at your fingers

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:How about this then:

You can tick off the clichés at your fingers

The tropes are there, but does that qualify as cliche? IMO, the way they are handled is not cliche.

On the other hand, there isn't much written today that avoids some cliche. If you want to find something to bitch about in a story, you probably can find a few cliches.

Avatar wrote:
Read it and form your own opinion.

--A

I read The Real Story recently. In the Afterword, SRD admits that he failed in his original task of presenting a 3-sided novel. It became mostly about Angus. Then he aimed for some kind of role-reversal in which victim becomes villain, villain becomes victim. But I don't see it. Angus became a "victim" only in the sense that he got caught and so all criminals who get caught and punished are indeed "victims," that is, if he wishes to blur all such distinctions.

The interesting part of the novel was the gimmick which involves the title. What is The Real Story behind the events witnessed by the bar patrons as described in the first three pages of the book? That gimmick made the book worthwhile reading.

I assume the other four novels are just SRD milking an idea for all it's worth, because, as he stated in his GI, ideas for him are "fecund." They don't come easily. That doesn't mean the books aren't worthwhile reading either, but I assume they lack the interestingly gimmicky nature of the first book which made it worth spending a couple days on.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Angus became a "victim" only in the sense that he got caught and so all criminals who get caught and punished are indeed "victims,"

Nope. Angus doesn't become a victim until the subsequent books. And by then you should not have any reservations about the matter.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I assume the other four novels are just SRD milking an idea for all it's worth

Well, that would be a bad assumption. The Real Story is the tip of an iceberg.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: I assume the other four novels are just SRD milking an idea for all it's worth, because, as he stated in his GI, ideas for him are "fecund." They don't come easily. That doesn't mean the books aren't worthwhile reading either, but I assume they lack the interestingly gimmicky nature of the first book which made it worth spending a couple days on.

Yeah, TRS is completely unlike the rest of the books. There aren't any aliens in it (I don't even remember if they're mentioned), and there are only a few characters in it. The four subsequent books are much larger in scope and a helluva lot better (imo).

I agree with everything that Av and Way said. The Gap series really is SRD's best work.

And you can not make any assumptions of the rest of the story simply by reading The Real Story. The tip of the iceberg, to say the very least.

-jay

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:How about this then:

You can tick off the clichés at your fingers

SRD is NOT a "genre writer". Instead, he's a "genre buster," in that he takes established conventions and cliches and turns them on their head.

Sure, there are cliches in the GAP books. Just as their are in the Chronicles, and in The Man Who series. But they aren't the same cliches that most genre writers get away with (of course, this reviewer fails to point out that most "successful" genre writers get away with far more cliches than Donaldson uses).

The only science point he mentions is a matter of scale. This is true; Donaldson didn't really understand the scale of the speeds he was describing, so the first few books have some things in them that couldn't happen in real life. From what I understand, he tried to avoid things like that in the later books.

Addendum:
People like to complain about difficult stories. When "Pursuit of Happyness" came out, one reviewer called it the "Pursuit of Misery," and said they couldn't understand why anyone would watch such a painful movie.

It seems to me that the reviewer was expecting some sort of Disney-like space opera where there is a clearly defined line between good and evil that nobody crosses: bad guys are irredeemable and good guys are perfect angels. SRD doesn't sugar-coat his characters...or his stories. You can see that by reading the Covenant and/or Mordant books. SRD, like all writers, has his own style...and not everyone is going to like it. If all you can handle is Disney-style sugar-coated heroes and villians, you will not like the Gap books (or the Covenant and Mordant books either, for that matter). But like many poeple have already said, if you've got the stomach for it, The Gap Cycle is a great read and, arguably, SRD's best work (it gets my vote).


Kalboyd

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Angus became a "victim" only in the sense that he got caught and so all criminals who get caught and punished are indeed "victims,"

Nope. Angus doesn't become a victim until the subsequent books. And by then you should not have any reservations about the matter.

I'm sure you're right about that. However, the Afterword was definitely referring to role-reversals in The Real Story as a stand-alone novelette in its own right, which it could well be as a kind of testing of the waters.

I shouldn't have said that the gimmick was the only interesting part of the novel. I also liked the scene where Morn first locks eyes with Nick. There was a long analysis of this moment in time. However, it really only amounted to Nick planning to "jock block" Angus, so in the long run it wasn't as complex as SRD made it appear.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I assume the other four novels are just SRD milking an idea for all it's worth

Well, that would be a bad assumption. The Real Story is the tip of an iceberg.

In that case, SRD milked it for all its worth very successfully in the minds of his fans. Although they have scored far less successfully than his Covenant with the general public in terms of overall sales.

As for that reviewer I mentioned, it sounds to me like his mistake was reading the whole thing too quickly. Perhaps these books only need to be savored.

I don't know, once the ball starts rolling, it's pretty damn hard to put The Gap down.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:In that case, SRD milked it for all its worth very successfully in the minds of his fans.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but SRD didn't "milk" anything. He simply wrote a damn fine story.

-jay

Angus became a victim when his obsession with Morn became a compulsion. It's a very twisted relationship, in that he holds all the power, but because of his weird mentality concerning Morn he gives her a good level of emotional power over him. It's mostly in his own head, really, but events are very much out of his control by the end.
The fallout from TRS shown in later books is where you really see this, true - Angus is Morn's victim in that by the time he's handed over to the cops he's twisted their relationsip in his mind to the point that can't cope without her.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Angus became a "victim" only in the sense that he got caught and so all criminals who get caught and punished are indeed "victims,"

Nope. Angus doesn't become a victim until the subsequent books. And by then you should not have any reservations about the matter.

As I saw it, Angus became a victim in TRS to Nick and Morn through his desire for Morn. Yes, he was caught, but he walked into it and let Morn go.

The Angus we first met only cared about Bright Beauty, and wouldn't have given Morn the zone implant.

ItisWritten wrote:

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Angus became a "victim" only in the sense that he got caught and so all criminals who get caught and punished are indeed "victims,"

Nope. Angus doesn't become a victim until the subsequent books. And by then you should not have any reservations about the matter.

As I saw it, Angus became a victim in TRS to Nick and Morn through his desire for Morn. Yes, he was caught, but he walked into it and let Morn go.

The Angus we first met only cared about Bright Beauty, and wouldn't have given Morn the zone implant.

I just finished the book, and I can tell you that he was falling for Morn. SRD explicitly describes the beginning of the end for Angus at an early point in the book where he deigns to answer some question she had or responds to some point she made. He began to show simple humanity due to her influence, her sensuality, her very presence. This was only the first example of weakness on Angus's part.

Angus was a victim of his own desires. So I can see his possible victimization from that standpoint.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Angus was a victim of his own desires. So I can see his possible victimization from that standpoint.

Like I said, SRDs comment that each of the three becomes a victim, victimizer, and rescuer applies to the series as a whole. By the end of the series, you will have no reservations that Angus was a victim. (Just as you will have no reservation that Morn was a victimizer.) You really can't form a conclusion just based on TRS. You haven't even really met Nick yet.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Angus was a victim of his own desires. So I can see his possible victimization from that standpoint.

Like I said, SRDs comment that each of the three becomes a victim, victimizer, and rescuer applies to the series as a whole. By the end of the series, you will have no reservations that Angus was a victim. (Just as you will have no reservation that Morn was a victimizer.) You really can't form a conclusion just based on TRS. You haven't even really met Nick yet.

Agreed, but I have only read one book at the end of which SRD details his failure to make this role-switching happen in the first book which was not intended for publication because he was ashamed of it for two reasons: 1. the attempt was an artistic failure, and 2. the personality of Angus Thermopyle was overly revealing of his "buried" self.

...the real story has to do with the way in which Nick becomes Angus's victimizer and Morn becomes Angus's rescuer.

There were no plans for basing a series off this book at this time, and SRD even writes on the next page:

Because I was ashamed of the novella, both artistically and personally, I decided not to publish it. At the time, I believed I would never publish it.

Those events occurred in 1985. Then:

But the idea remained utterly and entirely static - until 1987, when I realized that the world of Angus, Morn, and Nick offered me the perfect setting for the story I had in mind. (In addition, of course, I realized that using The Real Story to launch a larger narrative gave me a perfect opportunity to make constructive use of the ways in which it didn't measure up to my original intentions.

Because I haven't read the entire series, my original point only concerned the first book and the comments made about it in the Afterword. Those who have read the entire series have an obvious advantage over me. That SRD had to write three more books in order to fix the original problem is beyond my point, albeit worth mentioning.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the TRS you have read is the unpublished one. Of course, TRS was re-written before it was released, with the "larger narrative" firmly in mind, and of which, since it was published, we can be assured SRD was not ashamed.