I read your book, and I have the following comments:

Technically speaking, it was ok.  The two changes I'd make both deal with "movement"--each chapter seems to deal with scenes between characters that take place in a room.  The only time I think there is actually "moving" dialogue (that is, dialogue while travelling) is in the car scene between george, shango, and ayisha, and on the plane from ghana i believe.  This has a somewhat disjointed effect--imagine a movie in which every scene was in a different room with no scenes taking place BETWEEN rooms.  Similarly speaking the characters never truly developed.  Ayisha moves from one point <<<Text Cut>>> to another <<<<Text Cut>>>> but even here we don't SEE the transition; we only hear about it.  We DO see movement though from her being sexually "deviant" to being sexually mature, but this too could use a bit of work.  Similar arguments can be made about Shango.

A word about the enemy.  The antagonists, as they are, are mildly interesting.  I'd make them a bit more rounded, to flesh out the story more and to make them a bit more believable, but this critique leads to the genre choice you made.

When writing a piece of fiction, and telling a tale a certain way there are going to be sacrifices.  For example the common critique of AMISTAD--at least among US--is that by choosing to focus the lens NOT on the takeover of the ship, and the Africans, Spielburg ends up making them background characters.  This of course damages the overall tale.

In this way, by choosing to deal with the concept of ma'at, race relations, and african empowerment, through the metaphor of a thriller, you have to ask yourself what you are gaining and what you are losing. What you may be gaining is access to an audience who simply won't read non-fiction, and who could give less than a care about african empowerment.  So you write a thriller, and slip the message in, hoping they get it.  But what do you lose?  Complexity for one--the concept of ma'at SHOULD be the center of the tale (based on the title) but though I am familiar with it I don't really SEE it much until the end of the book. And issues such as AIDS and the psychological "incompleteness" of Europeans are not ones that should be lightly glossed over--especially if the goal is to actually get people to CHANGE THEIR LIVES because of the work.

So perhaps there are TWO groups you are trying to attract here--people who are already familiar with the concept and want to read more (in whatever form), and people who aren't familiar with the concept (and who don't want to read about it, unless the format is palatable).  As it stands, the latter group EVEN IF THEY READ IT would not necessarily be convinced enough to change their lifestyle (because not enough space is devoted to a nuanced presentation of the issues), and the former group would be put off by its simplistic presentation.

In conclusion then, I have a couple of stylistic, small level changes (dealing with character movement and SCENE movement), and two major questions about the work.  I thank you for giving me the opportunity to read it, and I hope these comments are taken in the spirit they are intended.  If you have any questions, let me know.

peace!
 

LKS, Email reader.

Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 01:08:32 -0500 (EST)