LESS THAN BRIGHT GOLD

Press, 18 December 1976, Page 17

LESS THAN BRIGHT GOLD

Hunter’s Gold. By Roger Simpson. Heinemann. 104 pp. $8.95. (Reviewed by Eric Beardsley) The most memorable book-of-the-film, for this reviewer, is “M. Hulot’s Holiday” — and only because it serves to trigger fond memories of Jacques Tati’s comic masterpiece. Indeed those unfortunates who have not seen the film are unimpressed by the book. So it is with “Hunter’s Gold.” Those who have not switched channels religiously, as it were, on recent Sunday evenings to follow the fortunes of young Scott and the resolution of the cliff-hangers with which each episode concludes will find the book rather dull and flat. The problem is difficult. Television and books are quite different media and what goes tolerably well on one does not appear to advantage in the other. Assuming that the cameras have already done the job, Mr Simpson has not attempted to translate the TV script into literary terms. Little attempt has been made at characterisation, at providing some background to the Otago gold rushes or even at lending it colour by sketching in some of the sights,

sounds and smells of a Central shanty town. The chapters are even termed “episodes.” The book is therefore little more than a condensation of the television script with a generous number of stills from the series thrown in to provide colour. Should you come “cold” to it you will not be impressed; but if you have enjoyed the series, appreciated the vast job of building a replica of a shanty town or of directing crowds of extras or even of training a principal to bestride his horse with some appearance of authority, then you may well enjoy and appreciate the book. The publishers are to be commended in getting the book out (no doubt with Christmas in mind) before the final episodes are screened. There is the risk that readers will turn to the end to find out what happens. Suffice it to say that a nice boy like Scott would not have a murderer for a Dad. One quibble. The book is peppered with the non-word “alright.” Fowler does not comment at length on this common error, but notes simply and authoritatively: “All right. The words should always be written separate: there are no such forms as ‘all-right’, ‘allright’ or ‘alright’.’’