| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 08:05:43
|
Poll Question:
After reading Erik's comment (in WotC Novel Survey thread) about 'fat' versus tight writing, I thought it's time to have some really 'fat' FR novels, maybe not the Stephen King fat (though it'll be superb if such were the case), but more in line with the books by Steven Erikson, Patrick Rothfuss, David Forbes, and Karen Miller. By 'fat,' I mean detailed yet still action-fraught, with a length of 500 or more pages, approximately 250,000 words. I often feel I want more whenever I read a Realms novel. It's a not a bad thing, but I could have been more content and 'happy' had the novels been longer, more detailed ---delving more in the characters' personalities and the splendor of the setting. Even after reading a trilogy, I still feel that much could have been revealed...
So what do you think? Are you happy with the current length? Would you rather have the all novels to be 'fat'? Or would you want 'only' the RSEs to be given such treatment?
|
|
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 22 Oct 2010 08:13:25
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 12:28:19
|
| Some of both would be good, not necessarily RSEs to be fat though. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
 |
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
|
|
Tren of Twilight Tower
Seeker
51 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 14:32:13
|
My belief is that "thin" novels are more likely to be bought/read by majority. Anyhow, to answer your question, dennis, I would like them to be slightly longer, but not too long. Perhaps another 100-150 pages per novel of a small format.
Tren |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 14:36:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
(Psst! WotC/Hasbro pays by the word)
Hence why Salvatore novels are 40 pages more than most other FR novels thinks I. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 14:36:56
|
| It depends on the writer too. Some can turn out interesting characters that have a definite progression of changes through a single short novel and with others if one aspect of one character changes over the course of six novels it's a miracle. |
Rants and reviews that interest no one may be found here. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 14:57:25
|
As someone who's read George R.R. Martin, The Wheel of Time (well most of it), and who's currently undertaking The Black Company by Glen Cook I think it's time the Forgotten Realms graduated to the Big Boy books. More narritive, more action, more plot and intrigue and all canon.
Since all FR books are roughly 300 to 400 pages in their font/size, they tend to be sorta small by comparison to other, larger books of the Fantasy genre. |
|
|
|
GRYPHON
Senior Scribe
USA
527 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 14:59:24
|
| Fat... |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 15:03:18
|
Its a highly-detailed RPG world, and therefor all novels should be 'fattened up'.
I could think of a dozen lean novels that were mediocre that could be re-written with tons of Realms-related lore tacked on, which would move them from the mediocre pile to the 'must read' pile.
In a novel based on a game world, fluff is paramount. Many of FR's fans are fans because we love the world itself - more background on things presented for the first time (a location, item, etc) should be a no-brainer.
A story should be more then just an adventure - it should provide a window into a part of the Realms. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 15:15:51
|
I actually voted for lean. "Fat" novels have their place and I'm a Jordanite (eagerly awaiting November 8th).
HOWEVER, short novels have this place in my heart. They are the paperbacks you can shove in a back pocket and read on a break at work. They are the books you grab as you're running out the door before heading to the airport/train station to read on the trip. They are the place where all the great up and comers (like certain authors around here) get their first break into the industry. They are the tantalizing appetizers that make you hungry for more from a setting.
Besides, we already have "fat" stories. They just weren't published in on book (well, until the omnibuses came out). Remember, the trilogies/quintets/etc. could be considered one "fat" novel if you read them all in one sitting. For example, the Lord of the Rings? It's SIX books, not three. The publisher just chose to publish them paired together. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 15:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tren of Twilight Tower
My belief is that "thin" novels are more likely to be bought/read by majority.
I don't know... Most of the novels I read are really fat, and the fact that they're New York Times and International Bestsellers goes to say that a lot of people bought them.
quote:
Originally posted by Tren of Twilight Tower
Anyhow, to answer your question, dennis, I would like them to be slightly longer, but not too long. Perhaps another 100-150 pages per novel of a small format.
Not bad. Though I'd still prefer that WotC doubles the current novels' length.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Its a highly-detailed RPG world, and therefor all novels should be 'fattened up'.
I could think of a dozen lean novels that were mediocre that could be re-written with tons of Realms-related lore tacked on, which would move them from the mediocre pile to the 'must read' pile.
In a novel based on a game world, fluff is paramount. Many of FR's fans are fans because we love the world itself - more background on things presented for the first time (a location, item, etc) should be a no-brainer.
A story should be more than just an adventure - it should provide a window into a part of the Realms.
Indeed. I could think of a handful (atm) of novels that lack vivid, ample descriptions and had me wondering: where in the Realms are they exactly, or are they even in the Realms at all?
|
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 22 Oct 2010 15:34:07 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 15:28:32
|
In point of fact, Hasbro/WotC does *not* pay by the word: they specify how many words a novel is supposed to be (usually 90k) and pay a flat sum for that, regardless of how word count fluctuates around 90k. For instance, I tend to turn in 100k novels. Ghostwalker was originally 115k, and I had to cut 15k out of it.
An additional note, one should not take "fat" as a pejorative in this case. It is describing, as dennis explains, a certain style of narrative: highly descriptive, with lots of fluff added to inflate word count. That isn't necessarily a bad thing--lots of people love Dickens (the king of the style), and Terry Goodkind's novels have sold millions upon millions of novels.
When I used the term, I was talking about the modern convention of publishing tight, efficient fantasy fiction that says in twelve words what an older fantasy novel might say in 50. I was not suggesting we diminish the level of detail in fantasy fiction (Realms or otherwise), only that I admire modern fiction for its ability to boil things down to keep a reader hooked, rather than bogged down.
Maybe "loose" and "tight" would be a better analogy.
Maybe an example would serve:
Fat/loose: "Really, Old Mage," Storm said, acquiring an expression of mingled distaste and long suffering tolerance. He knew what that meant. Knew it only too well. She was upset, but she would ultimately relent. "Cormyr needs our help again? What does it need this time? Can't it just, for once, pull itself out of its own mud puddle? Or must it rely, again, upon the timely interventions of the Chosen of a silent goddess?"
"Always, dear one--always."
Storm rolled her eyes. "I just would have liked a bath, you know--or possibly a nap."
Lean/tight:
"Really, Old Mage." Storm gave him one of her infamous looks. "Cormyr needs our help again?"
"Always, dear one--always."
Storm rolled her eyes. "I just would have liked a bath, you know--or possibly a nap."
The fat/loose way of writing is what I consider "over-explanation." I think the latter passage contains just as much information as the former and uses half the words.
Working within the constraints of a word count cap (as I said, 90k-100k) I would prefer my Realms novels to be more efficient, and thus allow the writer to convey *more.* And that, as I see it, is the trend in Realms fiction today: tight writing that gets to the point without over-much meandering.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 15:54:48
|
@ Erik: Why can't we do both? As a long time reader of the Realms novels (TSR and WotC), I've been hooked for quite some time. And I often love the stories others around here really distaste (Red Magic and Bladesinger, insert Drizzt book here to name a few) and while I agree with Ashe that a book of that size is easily portable and great on-the-fly, sometimes I want a book with heavy description.
I'm not saying that ALL books should be this way, but a few would be nice.
Also, I've come to learn that most "Fat" books are often of a setting that isn't well known and requires the extra page/word count to detail that setting more closely. Forgotten Realms has been around for over 20 years and is seen in other media besides novels, so when an Auther writes about a specific location, there has to be some lee-way with what the audiance will know about that place. When someone reads a book describing a new world, setting, what-have-you that isn't detailed in other media, a novel is the ONLY way to get out a story an author is writing about to the media.
And I'm not saying one way is better than another, just that both are different and have merits. I'd just like to see a few more "fat" novels. Or a collective trilogy publisehd in one big ol' book. |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 15:57:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
An additional note, one should not take "fat" as a pejorative in this case. It is describing, as dennis explains, a certain style of narrative: highly descriptive, with lots of fluff added to inflate word count. That isn't necessarily a bad thing--lots of people love Dickens (the king of the style), and Terry Goodkind's novels have sold millions upon millions of novels.
When I used the term, I was talking about the modern convention of publishing tight, efficient fantasy fiction that says in twelve words what an older fantasy novel might say in 50. I was not suggesting we diminish the level of detail in fantasy fiction (Realms or otherwise), only that I admire modern fiction for its ability to boil things down to keep a reader hooked, rather than bogged down.
Maybe "loose" and "tight" would be a better analogy.
The fat/loose way of writing is what I consider "over-explanation." I think the latter passage contains just as much information as the former and uses half the words.
I borrowed your term - 'fat' - in this post, but I do not mean 'over-elucidation' or worthless meandering. I mean more descriptions, more sensible, needful details. Okay, I'll provide an example off the top of my head: Thakorsil's Seat. You can simply state it's an artifact that used to imprison a demon prince. Or you can explain how it came to the possession of your hero, how he stole or bargained for it with Szass Tam (who got it from Larloch), what exactly does it do, what spell or ritual is needed to free anyone who's in it, and many more not necessarily in the same page, or in two or three continuous pages, but gradually as the story progresses and the relevance of the said artifact becomes apparent.
|
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 22 Oct 2010 16:30:32 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 16:22:21
|
@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 |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 16:39:19
|
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.
Edit: I just realized, I actually defined 'fat' (to avoid misconceptions) in the second sentence of my OP a definition that's unlike yours.
quote:
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.
More efficient, yes. But a book can be both efficient and fat - in my definition of the word - at the same time. And for me that's how the Realms novels should be. |
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 22 Oct 2010 19:13:43 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 16:39:43
|
I like the way Realms novels are currently for the same exact reason Ashe gave. I like dropping it in my bag and running with it.
Erik, as always, your posts are spot on. That being said, I have developed a rather disturbing occurrence-- one that has graduated from happenstance. When I read anything you write, you're live-voice replace the one in my head. This becomes rather comical when I read the dialog of your female protagonists ;)
Anyways, great scroll. Please toss my hat into the "Present" category. |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 16:48:59
|
| Y'know, I think it might have actually gone too far the other way. Novels these days- especially FR novels- tend to be a bit TOO light on description and delving into character, etc. To me, tight is being able to take the various scenes, characters, and themese, and weave them together in a way that flows well, and does not jerk you along from one point to the next like an old wooden roller-coaster. This should not mean going light on the fluff, however. If you enter a city, for heaven's sake, I want to know what it looks, sounds, and even SMELLS like! I've seen so many novels lately that just gloss over htat stuff, in the interest of "keeping it fast-paced." A story does not ALWAYS have to be fast-pased to hold the reader's interest. I want to know what the sewers and secret passages of Cormyr are like, or what the interior of Mithril Hall looks like. It seems like many writers today have forgotten that the readers cannot see all the details that they imagine in their heads, when those little details never make it into the book. And we're left trying to envision what that place or thing might be like, without much to go on. Give us more "fat"!! |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 17:05:58
|
I voted to keep the status quo.
Although in a way I'd like to vote for looser writing. My logic is that if you keep stuffing a novel full of words it'll eventually fatten out into a trilogy. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 17:23:47
|
Hmm...I believe I couldnīt really say that there is no room for one or the other, because I think it really depends on which kind of story the novel is supposed to tell. Say weīre talking about a fairly low-level/low-key story, which draws a lot of itīs atmosphere not from the plot (because that might be relatively twistless and strightforward), then I think a "fat" style could indeed make it better, because a love for overdetailed passages or "obfuscating redundancy/wordiness" as Eric so nicely put it can really spice up the ambience. Same goes for comedic fantasy sometimes, which often draws more life from the characters than from the plot.
(Note: Or if Iīm a fan of the characters and author, I really donīt care. Sorry, but if Ed Greenwood or Jeff Grubb wrote a sarcastic/humorous novel consisting solely of banter between some of their rather iconic FR characters, Iīd snap it up in a heartbeat.)
With that being said, though, I do prefer a tighter style in general, because I prefer more plot and Iīd rather skip on banter, than skip on story, if you know what I mean.
Then again, there are authors (such as Eric himself, Richard Lee Byers, Rosemary Jones, Paul Kemp to name but a few) who are very talented IMO in bringing characters to life without needing anything "fat", and there are authors (speaking generally here, not FR specific), who just simply fail doing this and need more exposition to get a character established (and are not neccesarily bad authors, they just may have different strengths). Regardless of genre, really. Often in older novels (again regardless of genre) characters were presented with a ginormous exposition, meaning you anything and everything about them before they really got involved in the plot itself, while more modern books tend to let a character unravel over the course of the book - far better in my opinion.
What Iīm really trying to say here is, that a tight style is generally my preference (with a few neat "fat" passages sprinkled in here and there maybe, depending on the tone of the story), but I believe writing tightly and still accomplishing depth of character is simply a little tougher to do and holds more risk for novels becoming the fantasy version of DOOM with rather little plot and overemphasis on action. Iīve read some fantasy books last year, where I had to constantly try to remember who was who and what the heck were they doing there in the first place - not a good sign.
I prefer a tighter style especially when it comes to multi-novel stories and plots (Iīve always hated trilogies where the second part is basically only in existence to set up the third one). But since the characters in the book are the ones I have to love or loathe, I think the way they are portrayed is one of the most important quality control signs in a tighter style (the "show - not tell - formula" for instance).
And regarding the points Dennis made...yeah, Iīll take a copy of Ericīs first FR trilogy of Eriksonesque proportions |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 17:54:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dart Ambermoon
Iīve read some fantasy books last year, where I had to constantly try to remember who was who and what the heck were they doing there in the first place - not a good sign.
It really depends how one sees it. I for instance see it as a challenge a challenge to concentrate. If you read Erikson's Malazan books, you'd notice how several characters seem to appear out of nowhere and the explanations as to their roles are revealed much later in the story.
quote:
Originally posted by Dart Ambermoon
But since the characters in the book are the ones I have to love or loathe, I think the way they are portrayed is one of the most important quality control signs in a tighter style (the "show - not tell - formula" for instance).
That so-called formula applies to all stories of good quality, be it fat or lean. Sorry, but I don't see any reason it best applies to lean stories. In fact, the author can show * more * about the characters (and the setting) in a fat novel.
|
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 17:57:25
|
Ed writes 'fat'.
Are we saying that the creator of the realms writes in an anachronistic style? 
Without that extra verbiage, we do not get a sense of the characters. Sure we know what they are saying to each other and how it turns out, but it is that 'deeper understanding' that helps staunch the absurd ideas some folks get, like Elminster and the Chosen are the Justice League.
I understand the Realms better then a lot of people because I can read what is not being said, because of the 'fat'. When you render everything down to just the action, the characters start to look a little 2D-ish.
The idea that books should be written to accommodate our fast-paced 21st century lifestyle turns my stomach, quite honestly. I read to 'get away from it all' - to leave the 'rat race' behind - not to just get my reading over with and move onto the next 'dime-store novel'. I savor each moment I get to spend with my favorite characters in my favorite world. They are like a fine wine, and should be rolled around inside of you before swallowing. Not chugged down like a can of beer.
Fat may not be healthy, but that's what gives the meat flavor. I'll take a prime Rib over hamburger any day. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 22 Oct 2010 17:59:21 |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 18:12:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
It really depends how one sees it. I for instance see it as a challenge a challenge to concentrate. If you read Erikson's Malazan books, you'd notice how several characters seem to appear out of nowhere and the explanations as to their roles are revealed much later in the story.
Well, maybe I wasnīt clear enough. The point isnīt that they appear out of nowhere and their roles are revealed much later - I actually like that and I absolutely love the Malazan books - the point I was trying to make is that there are novels where NOTHING is explained, not later, not ever. With Erikson you can be sure that there WILL be an explanation/logic, so it adds to the intrigue. I was talking about generic dark mystical fighter #1 teaming up with generic hawt female rogue #2, and the only depth of character Iīll ever get is that #1 has kewl gear and #2 has got a cleavage. I donīt mind books and plots being challenging - in fact Iīm usually disappointed by lack of subplots. Yet an enormous amount of flavour text isnīt needed to improve either, if the author knows what he is doing. Mind you I am not speaking of page count or word count or trickery of plot...I was speaking of novels being too tight, not too fat, and being unable to create character. You wouldnīt compare SEīs novels to DOOM, would you? And the Malazan books are writen pretty tightly for the most part in my opinion.
quote:
That so-called formula applies to all stories of good quality, be it fat or lean. Sorry, but I don't see any reason it best applies to lean stories. In fact, the author can show * more * about the characters (and the setting) in a fat novel.
Of course it applies to all stories, I just pointed out that tighter novels may have a more difficult time at achieving it than fatter ones, because establishing things with fewer words is simply often not as easy as using up more. |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
Edited by - Dart Ambermoon on 22 Oct 2010 18:13:33 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 18:33:40
|
Time for some clarification on my part.
"Lean", when I'm talking about books are those that are between 50,000 and 100,000 words. I'm not talking about style. Shorter word count doesn't always mean that the text is less descriptive, only that the story is faster paced. It's the difference between a hour-long tv show and a three-hour movie. I've seen tv shows that have been more descriptive and "fatter" than some supposed-epic movies. So, when I say I'd like to keep my Realms novels lean, it's the fact that I like that they are able to give me a slice of life in Faerûn instead of the entire pie. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 18:39:44
|
| Sounds fine to me Ashe, but I think I'd rather have the whole pie. To savor over time, of course. A slice just gets devoured too fast. Especially for me. I've been known to blitz through 1000 page novels in one sitting- in just a few hours! That makes the fatter ones more appealing to me- it means I don't go through them as quickly. It sucks when your reading speed and comprehension can outpace the author's ability to tell a detailed and intricate yarn.... |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 18:44:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Ed writes 'fat'.
Are we saying that the creator of the realms writes in an anachronistic style?
Without that extra verbiage, we do not get a sense of the characters. Sure we know what they are saying to each other and how it turns out, but it is that 'deeper understanding' that helps staunch the absurd ideas some folks get, like Elminster and the Chosen are the Justice League.
I understand the Realms better then a lot of people because I can read what is not being said, because of the 'fat'. When you render everything down to just the action, the characters start to look a little 2D-ish.
The idea that books should be written to accommodate our fast-paced 21st century lifestyle turns my stomach, quite honestly. I read to 'get away from it all' - to leave the 'rat race' behind - not to just get my reading over with and move onto the next 'dime-store novel'. I savor each moment I get to spend with my favorite characters in my favorite world. They are like a fine wine, and should be rolled around inside of you before swallowing. Not chugged down like a can of beer.
Fat may not be healthy, but that's what gives the meat flavor. I'll take a prime Rib over hamburger any day.
Hence why I said it depends on who writes and what the story is supposed to accomplish (would you like a gazillion different dressings on your prime rib?).
Ed writes fat, yes, but heīs fricking great at it. Think about all the FR authors you have read...would you really like all of them to write that way? I know that the thought alone scares me.
Donīt get me wrong, I agree on about everything you said, Markustay, (and Iīll take Voloīs guides over about any other FR supplement, and that is fat writing for supplements as far as Iīm concerned), but I believe there are stories that do not need that kind of style, while others desperately do. And, more importantly, there are authors who are good at writing that style and others that arenīt. You also need to have the right characters to write for, if you write in a fat style.
It works brilliantly with Edīs or Steven Schendīs characters (or Scott Bakker - for a non FR reference or Ian Rankin for a non-Fantasy reference), but I feel that characters like Erevis Cale or Drasek Riven work better by exposing them in smaller glimpses over the course of a story - not without detail mind, but with a lot more subtlety. Scratch that...a different kind of sublety would be a better expression.
Action? Yes there is far too much action and not enough story in a great many novels (and movies and whatnot), but some of Edīs novels have a lot of action in them without losing their fat style, because he has the talent and characters to make it work. There are passages consisting only of dialogue that work great in a fat style in an Ed novel, but also work out great in a tight style in a Kemp novel. Would I still prefer a 600 page Kemp novel to a 300 page one - hell yeah.
And if writing tightly means more action/less dialogue et al. then I misunderstood the term in general and all my ramblings should be ignored.
I just believe that it all depends on the kind of story you wish to get across, as the two different styles are suited better for different types. |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 18:47:05
|
Either way, I like my books the way I like my women - interesting, with lots of meat. 
But seriously, when I went to the discount bookstore last week (looking for 4e products - only two available there thus-far) I picked-up Player's Guide to Eberron (I think that was it), and was considering purchasing it (it was only $7 IIRC), but I was afraid if I dropped it it might fall between a crack in the floor.
YEAH, it was THAT thin - it felt like the back and front covers were almost touching.
I know we are not talking about sourcebooks here, but its the same principle - I want my books to have a little weight to them. Why should I invest my time (and money) in something that's barely going to wet my appetite? A fat book is going to give me a few days enjoyment, not just one night.
I need more of a commitment then that.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Halidan
Senior Scribe
USA
470 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 18:51:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Ed writes 'fat'.
Are we saying that the creator of the realms writes in an anachronistic style?
Rather than anachronistic (which naturally seems pejorative), why don't we just say that he writes in an "older" style. Far less pejorative and probably much closer to the truth, although I'll leave that to Ed himself to confirm or deny. Personally, I like old things - I'm not a luddite, but I value old things for what they are and feel no need to compare them to their modern day successors.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Without that extra verbiage, we do not get a sense of the characters. Sure we know what they are saying to each other and how it turns out, but it is that 'deeper understanding' that helps staunch the absurd ideas some folks get, like Elminster and the Chosen are the Justice League.
I simply refer you to Erik Scott de Bie's excellent example further up this thread. More verbiage does not equal more information, and I doubt that all the words in the world would help those who misunderstand the Realms to arrive at a conclusion that is closer to the truth.
Most (I won't say all, even though I am very tempted) of these who misunderstand the Realms do it for reasons that have nothing to do with the amount of information available. Those who believe their opinions without checking the facts are victims of their own ignorance, which also cannot be help my any amount of additional verbiage.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I understand the Realms better then a lot of people because I can read what is not being said, because of the 'fat'. When you render everything down to just the action, the characters start to look a little 2D-ish.
A strawman argument Markusky, and I expect better from you. No one has said (much less proven) that "thin" book have "just the action," and to suggest so varies significantly from most, if not all of the Realms novels that I have read. Indeed, from "Darkwalker on the Moonshae's" until the present day, I think it would be very hard to make that argument stick on a regular basis.
In many (if not most) of the Realms novels written to date, readers have more than enough information to form accurate pictures of the characters in their mind's eye. One look at the volume of Realms fan art gives us ample proof of that. They also have more than enough information to figure out a character's motivation and possible future plans. This is demonstrated by the number of Realms book characters (especially those who have never seen mention in any other sourcebook) that we see popping up in various DM's campaigns and acting in a consistent manner as in the books that created them. While you may feel that you understand the Realms "better than most people," I would counter that there are thousands more who understand the Realms well enough that they feel comfortable taking book characters and using them as NPC's in their campaigns. And that's with the "thin" novels that have been produced to date.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The idea that books should be written to accommodate our fast-paced 21st century lifestyle turns my stomach, quite honestly.
Where does this come from? If you equate short fiction with an accommodation to a hectic lifestyle, the early days of modern SF (from the mid 1950's to the early 1970's) and magazines like Analog must have been written for people who had no time at all.
SF (and by relation, its younger cousin fantasy) started almost exclusively as short stories. Howard, Lieber, Burroughs, and hundreds of other authors wrote the fundamental stories of our genre at 3,000 words or less. And in the pre-internet age. Size has nothing to do with the pace of society.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I read to 'get away from it all' - to leave the 'rat race' behind - not to just get my reading over with and move onto the next 'dime-store novel'. I savor each moment I get to spend with my favorite characters in my favorite world. They are like a fine wine, and should be rolled around inside of you before swallowing. Not chugged down like a can of beer.
An interesting analogy, but faulty none the same. More words simple does not equal more action as Erik Scott de Bie has already shown us. Simply put, more is not always better.
Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
I will echo anyone on this board when they say that they'd like to see more Realms lore in any format - sourcebook, novel, comic, computer game, pewter miniatures, funeral notices or anything else WoTC sends our way. But the word count of a novel is no guarantee of its ability to further our understanding or enjoyment of the Realms. Overblown verbiage and excessive use of adjectives can take a fine wine and make it a cheap muscatel. It's still a wine, but fit only for winos. I'd prefer a decent imported dark beer myself.
|
"Over the Mountains
Of the Moon
Down the Valley of the Shadow,
Ride, boldly ride,"
The shade replied,
"If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Allen Poe - 1849 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2010 : 19:02:33
|
We've got some different things here:
long, complex, multi-stranded plotting vs tightly focused stories: I think Wizards missed a trick in not doing more of the former; the Realms is also suited to quick, episodic short stories, and I find some of the single novels fall awkwardly between with pat beginnings and endings and artificially simple pared-down plots.
description, adjectives, plot speed: I like to see range here, what authors feel suits the stories, assuming it's well done. Meandering can be a great pleasure -- if I don't enjoy the characters' lives, I don't care about racing to some plot destination -- padding, if it is padding, is not (many of the books I copy-edit would gain from taking out a tenth of their words, but that's a lengthier job than modern publishing scedules and budgets tend to allow).
third person limited, internal monologues, etc. (which add word count): I think they're overused in modern fiction generally. Whole big question of its own. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
'
