quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooch9

Still, even if I'm not that fast of a reader, I'd like more "fat" in the books I read. It will take more time for me, but the end result is always sweeter. I guess I "lean" toward the "fat".

That made no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


That reminds me of Stephen King. He actually admitted that if he has one flaw, it's that he sometimes has "diarrhea" when it comes to writing his novels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


That reminds me of Stephen King. He actually admitted that if he has one flaw, it's that he sometimes has "diarrhea" when it comes to writing his novels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


That reminds me of Stephen King. He actually admitted that if he has one flaw, it's that he sometimes has "diarrhea" when it comes to writing his novels.

---

Oh, the comments that beg to be made in response to this!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

@dennis: Yes, I see what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you borrowed my term and applied it in a different way, with a new definition.

My original use of the word defined "fat" as like "obfuscating redundancy/wordiness" (which takes the form of over-elucidation or worthless meandering), and I was saying that I like how modern realms novels prune this out. I don't need a novel to beat into my head what's going on--just stating it once or twice is fine.

By contrast, your definition of "fat" is "more descriptions, more sensible, needful details," and that's perfectly fine by me.

I just want to make it clear that you aren't using the term the way I did, and thus you're not making it seem like *I* was saying old-school realms novels are more descriptive than modern ones. I don't think that's the case--I believe modern realms novels tend to be tighter and more efficient, because that's the evolution of the style of fantasy writing in general.

I am certainly not a proponent of *less* description, though I certainly think it's possible to have *too much* description (when it confuses the reader or distracts from the story). I can't off the top of my head think of a Realms novel that has *too much* description.

Cheers

---

---

I tend to agree with Erik, although I am certain Dennis didn't purposely misinterpret Erik's statement. When I think of "wordy" I am drawn instantly to Lord of the Rings.I agonize in reading a page of Tolkein's writing.
I do not agree to extending a book simply to reach a word limit, and I equally dislike publishing houses to limit page count/word count to some arbitrary number. If a story is good and has a solid plot, and if the editors can't find anything superfluous, then print the bloody thing! One of the refreshing things about the Harry Potter franchise was the amazing thickness of the latter books. In a Realms-case-in-point, I've always felt that Prince of Lies could easily have had another hundred pages and not been bloated. While somewhat unrealistic for a first-run print, the Cleric Quintet was much more pleasing to read as a giant compendium rather than separate books for some reason. I also tend to think writing style of the author is important.
Regarding Erik's "Storm/El" snipppet - Ed writes in lengthy prose, but I find it eloquent and it doesn't feel "wordy" to me. I want all of the adjectives, and the long descriptions because Ed does them well. In contrast, I felt that Jim Lowder (who I loved for Prince of Lies) didn't do as well in Ring of Winter. (disclaimer: I've had several chats with Jim and so my criticism of this is known to him and was partially due to his own self-described commentary to me about how his writing style evolved when writing the latter novel.)
The only comment on this thread with which I take great concern is that long books will not be read. Not all authors can write lengthy novels, and while War and Peace is a great piece of literature, I don't ever wish to reread it. With high school graduates failing basic composition courses in freshman-year university, getting people to read more, not less, should be the aim of every author. Besides, can we really have too many good Realms stories? Erik, please keep writing them!

---

Azuth

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis

Indeed. Wait till I'm done reading it. Just 3 more chapters. I'll start a thread about how wonderful it is. I already finished 3 other books during the countless breaks I took from reading it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


It's more than author preference, as I did like his earlier books, particular the first 4 Elminster novels. So many things make EMD rather unpalatable for me, but I wouldn't go into details as I already said enough in another thread.

Same is the case with other FR authors whose novels [most of them, that is] I very much enjoyed. I had fun reading RLB's HL trilogy and TCF, but labored through WOV, and in the end didn't finish it. I loved PSK's TW trilogy, but couldn't care that much for his EC. So, more than the author's style, for me, it's the story itself that matters the most.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


I reckon there are more than a handful of FR authors who can pull it off, veterans and relatively new alike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis


In that case, I would say the author should take it his responsibility to also note the changes made by his editor to avoid possible "continuity errors." I do not dislike the role of editors. The editors are there, first and foremost, to help the author and ensure his books "shine." [I love my editors, even though at times they are a little bit bitchy.]

Back to the topic:

Even if WotC releases novels in paperback edition only, with [annoying] newspaper-thin quality, as long as they are "fat," I'd still buy them.

---