That sounds pretty cool; I might go look for it at the store some time.
Say, I'm curious: what do you think of the "newer" tendency of fantasty novels to run 500-700+ pages? They used to be about 350 standard a few years ago, and now they're almost always these gigantic things in trilogy form.
I like the advantages of both formats. Although I think sometimes the mega trilogies can run a bit long, they also tend to spend a lot more time on little "world" details like weapons, furniture, etc. and give a stronger sense of "place" to the setting sometimes. The shorter books tend to be a whole adventure but you don't get to know the world that well, which sucks when it's a good book.
I tend to enjoy mega trilogies if the writer is good.
I tend to be able to handle weaker authors if the books are shorter.
So that's a weak sort of yes/no answer.
Laura Resnick, for example, I'd read a series the length of The Wheel of Time. Or that series itself, I'm a Robert Jordan fan.
Tokien? I liked the Hobbit a lot better than The Lord of the Rings because he talked about asinine and useless things and overexplained EVERYTHING in the LotR story. It could have been like 400 pages shorter, the length of a single novel instead of 3, and it would have been great.
The Hobbit was awesome because it was short, to the point and had good pacing.
I like pulp fantasy like the Forgotten Realms stuff or what Ed Greenwood writes too, and that stuff is best in the 350-450 page range.
Comments 2
Say, I'm curious: what do you think of the "newer" tendency of fantasty novels to run 500-700+ pages? They used to be about 350 standard a few years ago, and now they're almost always these gigantic things in trilogy form.
I like the advantages of both formats. Although I think sometimes the mega trilogies can run a bit long, they also tend to spend a lot more time on little "world" details like weapons, furniture, etc. and give a stronger sense of "place" to the setting sometimes. The shorter books tend to be a whole adventure but you don't get to know the world that well, which sucks when it's a good book.
What do you think?
Reply
I tend to be able to handle weaker authors if the books are shorter.
So that's a weak sort of yes/no answer.
Laura Resnick, for example, I'd read a series the length of The Wheel of Time. Or that series itself, I'm a Robert Jordan fan.
Tokien? I liked the Hobbit a lot better than The Lord of the Rings because he talked about asinine and useless things and overexplained EVERYTHING in the LotR story. It could have been like 400 pages shorter, the length of a single novel instead of 3, and it would have been great.
The Hobbit was awesome because it was short, to the point and had good pacing.
I like pulp fantasy like the Forgotten Realms stuff or what Ed Greenwood writes too, and that stuff is best in the 350-450 page range.
Reply
Leave a comment