Aphelion

... I had no idea that Tom and Simon were both so ... excitable. It's a good thing that Stephanie usually wears baggy clothes around them (although Simon gets to see her in her tight exercise togs when they play racquetball), or the boys would never get any work done.<br><br>An entertaining and exciting entry in the Nightwatch mythology. Although described as a 'lost' chapter, it seems like Tom is in preparation for the mission described in 'Fly By Wire', and it sounds like the Jigsaw Creek incident is in the fairly recent past ...<br><br>Quibbles:<br><br>At one point, Diego Carson is referred to as 'Diego Garcia' (a bit of a jump, from Death Valley to the Indian Ocean).<br><br>The viewpoint switch from Tom's to Simon's perspective in 'Chapter' II was a bit confusing. On first reading, I thought Tom was thinking that Simon would have felt funny excluding him. I think it's an easy fix -- we just need a section break immediately after<br><br>"After all, Stephanie and Simon were counting on him."<br><br>so easily-confused folks like me don't assume that we're still looking over Tom's shoulder (or visual cortex, if we're inside his head). <br><br>And what WAS the dolphin/tree/Simon/nebulous guardian thingy? Was it a mutated indigenous creature (one of the dragonish beats), telepathic from exposure to spider venom, feeding back images from Simon's and Stephanie's minds as camouflage? Or was it Grant, trying to disorient the new arrivals?<br><br>I suppose Nightwatch writers will either have to consider Diego Carson in future episodes, either as a continuing maybe-more-than-friend for Stephanie, or as a source of more angst if things don't work out. Since he works for the Institute, he WILL be around ...<br><br>Anyway, Death Valley (Mk. II) was worth the wait ...<br><br>Robert M.<br><br>PS The passage from Idoru will complicate things if/when Death Valley is included in the future bestselling Nightwatch book series. But the flattering description of William Gibson (in his younger years, anyway) might make him more open to granting permission to use it.<br><br>

...And I'm sure Mr. Gibson will allow us to quote him, especially since I have been very careful about the restraining order and all.

<br><br>Which one? The one prohibiting him from stalking you, or the one prohibiting you from stalking him? ::)<br><br>Robert M.<br>

Really, I don't annoy him anymore - just adore from afar....

<br><br>Like that anonymous gift of a jar of home-made marmalade you sent with the electronic surveillance device hidden inside (the Ronco Remote Stalker 3000). This caused his wi-fi enabled smart house to warn him:<br>"the jar ... is adore." :o<br><br>Robert "We could be posting actual comments, but this is more fun" M.

There have been some very good critiques posted with some very detailed evidence & support info.

Therefore, I'd like to give two vague, unsupported generalizations. :)


Kate, what I recall was that everything up to where Tom reads the guide map was written pre-broken wrists.

The rest of it had a different Ch'i, if I use that term correctly. Life got in the way, and you were somewhat of a different person when you got back to it. It read that way to me, that this was now a different story from a different perspective. Not that post-tumble was bad or good, just that it read differently.


This is not really at you, Kate, but the whole Nightwatch world in general. Written by so many different authors, it's a bit natural for the characters to feel a little schizophrenic. That is, how you write Stephanie is very different than how Robert writes her. While at the core, we all know she's the same lady, but with different takes on her. I like both the ways she was written (no slight meant at anobody else, I'm just trying to use 2 authors to make a point). Both stand up on their own, and at some levels, interconnect well.

However, I just don't feel that anybody "gets" Tom.

I don't understand Tom. I don't know what makes him tick. I don't grasp how to use him in a story--and that's why he's not in Tinsel Rime. I mean, Tom is so different, he barely deserves the same name in each episode. Sometimes he's kind, and wise; othertimes he's a hefty basket case waiting to happen. It grates on me when I read him.

Dan wrote a lot of Tom, but Dan's Romantic Spaceman Tom is so different than anyone else's Tom, I don't know whether to think of him as the Definitive Version or an Abberation. Robert's Tom always reminds me of Caramon in the early DragonLance books: big, strong, heart of gold, but mostly there to lift heavy things (but with a college education added in). Here, this is more philosophical Professor Tom, doling out infodumps. I couldn't take it, and it broke my disbelief, sorry.

I don't pretend to know the solution, just that I can see a problem.

Nate

First, my comments on the story. Then I’ll wax nonsensical on the character interpretations.

I thought the story very reminiscent of the 1950’s bug movies, where monstrous insects populate the desert and mad scientists abound. I also caught glimpses of noir fiction with the detective-like plotline and the sexual tension. The effect was a bit more straightforward than some of the preceding stories of late.

Kate has a very polished style. She uses a variety of little tricks that shows she’s an experienced writer. If I do have a major complaint about the story, it’s that I couldn’t picture how it fit within the Nightwatch timeline. It left me with the impression that the story was started a while back and not synched with the latest stories. Normally, I wouldn’t care, but with the introduction of Diego Carson and the potentially major impact on Stephanie’s life, I found the concept a bit jarring. Of course, I shouldn’t complain, since I took Stephanie’s other love interest, Kevin, pretty much out of the picture (...or did I?)

As for each writer interpreting characters differently, I find the whole process fascinating. Not only are there different perspectives on the characters, but also on the relationships between the characters. Simon and Stephanie’s rapport has been written from a number of different angles: mentor-mentee; father-daughter; peers; unrequited love. Add the fact that all three major characters have significant neuroses makes for some interesting outcomes.

As for Tom specifically, until someone else writes him as the main character in a story, I’ll have to defer to Dan’s Fly By Wire as the definitive version. Personally, I’ve always viewed Tom as the invisible glue between Simon and Stephanie. He’s the one that keeps Simon from going over the edge and Stephanie from collapsing within herself. His presence is subtle, yet critical.

My guess (noted in my earlier comments on DV) would be that the story falls somewhere between 'Jigsaw Creek' and Tom's blast-off for the 'Fly By Wire' mission.  Hence the LACK of Diego Carson references in post-FBW continuity may not bode well for a long-term Stephanie-Diego relationship of any importance.  However, just Getting Some might improve Stephanie's mood and outlook  ;).  (Pinch-faced woman reacting to a public display of affection:  "Well!  I never!"  Response:  "I'm not surprised.  If you had, you might be a little more relaxed!")

The Simon-Stephanie-Tom triad is peculiar in many ways, because the three characters are connected as mentor/protector - protege (Simon having rescued Stephanie from Gryphius, helped her join the Institute, and introduced her to her self-defense trainer), therapist - patients (Tom serving formally or informally as counsellor for both Simon and Stephanie), friends, and comrades-in-arms.  At the same time, time spent on missions has allowed both Simon and Stephanie to learn a lot (but not as much as Tom!) about their respective foibles, fears, and ambitions, and they have developed a mutual respect for their individual strengths and talents.

The sexual tension element gets layered on top of that -- both Simon and Tom are attracted to Stephanie for obvious reasons, but are compelled by their history to feel protective of her (regardless of the fact that they know she is very capable of defending herself physically and increasingly on an emotional level as well).  She, in turn, is attracted by Simon's charm and experience, and by Tom's physique and role as healer, but may feel that a relationship with either would be almost incestuous.

Tom, in the Nightwatch stories, fills the role of 'strong guy' (viz. Peter Lupus in the original Mission Impossible TV series), general support and counsellor, and (when, as in DV, he happens to have relevant knowledge) information source.  When not on missions, he is a successful psychologist (anybody wanna introduce some of his other clients?) and gym rat (he didn't get those muscles playing pinochle), who somewhere along the line underwent astronaut training (sorry, I've forgotten the details from FBW).  He certainly deserves to be the focus of a story (when he's not confined to a makeshift spacecraft with correspondingly limited opportunities to reveal his interests and character).

Robert M.

I'm hesitant to weigh in too much on this issue of varying characterizations. I do look for consistency to a certain extent and weigh in when I feel things have strayed too far off the path; otherwise, though, I owe it to the writers to give them some room to maneuver.

I hesitate to name specific stories where I felt a particular author pegged on to what I think of as Tom, or Stephanie, or Simon. I may have actually spoken privately to a few authors expressing that view, though. I don't want to offend anyone, and I also don't want to stifle anyone's creativity. I'd prefer to offer help and suggestions when a specific story idea is presented or when the initial draft is sent in.

No offense meant, but this doesn't really sound like a good idea.

Just because you thought an author did something really well doesn't mean the rest of us will have our feelings hurt that we're not mentioned. On the contrary, during Tinsel Rime I would have loved a few hard targets to lock onto while working on my characterizations.

Honestly, I think one of your major strengths as an editor may also be one of your most frustrating traits. You don't want to get in the way of anyone's creative process, so you hang back. You give Callow-esque hints, and then leave it to the writer to either get it or not in their "voyage of discovery." If they do, they have a much deeper understanding of the character, and if not... Well, the story comes up shallow or "off", or maybe the story just stays "stuck" and doesn't run until the next season (or ever).

For example, I remember asking about Callow's history, and his character. At the time, all I really wanted to do is fill in his dialogue in a scene while the juices were flowing, and wanted to know what to have him say. To do that, I wanted to know where he came from, his past. Your answer, as I recall, was somewhat enigmatic. So instead, I spent a week thinking him out, inventing a past in my mind. Eventually, I figured he had been a former CIA manager... former for something I don't know. But he acquired a love of cloak and dagger somewhere, and he clearly likes pulling Simon's strings, almost like he had something to prove. If that's right or not, I have no idea... but that's the way I wrote him.

If we as writers did know, however, I think that would help keep him more consistent story to story, and help to move more quickly to bigger scenes. (I realize that while very important, Callow doesn't play a very large role in any story, that's why I used him in the example.)

And you do point people to specific stories in the Nightwatch Bible for minor characters such as Melvin, Ed, Bill, Lyman, Gillian, etc. I really don't think it would hurt for the major characters, too.

Nate

It’s an extremely difficult task to manage people, which Jeff is basically doing. Extraordinarily difficult. People have this annoying predilection to being different from one another. One approach does not fit all. Factor in cultural influences and the personality of said manager, you find that you have something that’s more art than science.

I've managed several departments, and employees are far easier to direct, since there's money on the line if they don't deliver, whereas Nightwatch writers are all volunteers, which puts them under an entirely different category.

I was shooting for more of a discussion of the flow of character and plot information to Nightwatch writers. Personally, I think examples of where Jeff thought characterization had been done exceptionally well would help future authors, rather than hinder the process or hurt the feelings of past authors. That's all I was going for there.

Nate