the archives

dusted off in read-only


posted 11 Feb 2004, 10:02 by Fade, Commoner

I don't have much of an opinion about Tolkien, because I never bothered to read all the books. I think Harrison is overeacting at Tolkien. It's like hatemail how he wrote about the books. It's a little difficult to take him serious like this. [quote="Mithfânion":3h7v4jnn] The world feels dreamish, sometimes even having different blurry planes about which nothing at all is explained, perhaps even entered by whimsical magic mirrors and portals. It's translucent.[/quote:3h7v4jnn] I haven't read any fantasy that I was like that (or perhaps I am easy satisfied..?). Not everything has to be described thorough or explained. In real life you can't come up with a explantion for everything either. Also, fantasy is fantasy. The degree of realism may vary and because it is fantasy, there is a license to give your imagination a free run without giving everything s scientific reason. That would break off the story and the fantasy feeling. If I got you wrong, my apology. [quote:3h7v4jnn]I like decent worldbuilding with proper detailed and vast history, a world which takes me back to a different time. Also magic never works for me in Urban Fantasy.[/quote:3h7v4jnn] A large amount of history is not needed in my opinion, unless it does the story good. I can find it sometimes tedious to read pages of history, when if you don't read it, it wouldn't make much of a difference. I do like description though. It shouldn't always be to descriptive, but it does help to get into the story and world the author created. Magic.. Hmm. I don't mind magic..But I think I prefer fantasy with a limited amount of magic, or practical none. Magic is often done to easy. The characters don't seem to have any problem with it, don't get tired, not any side effect and can do all amazing things with keen control. That is too much, it's beyond realism, if you want your book to have a degree of realism within the fantasy world. [quote:3h7v4jnn]And I have yet to read a more overwritten book than Mervyn Peake's ghastly Gormenghast.[/quote:3h7v4jnn] I never got complete understanding why it was considered as a classic and masterpiece. It isn't very bad, but it is long and for me a bit of a drag. If you like the writing style, not much of a plot and to follow the characters for years as a hidden camera inside their heads, these are your books. Fuschia and Steerpike were pretty much the only characters that interested me. It did not had the "I want to keep reading to see what happens" value to me. But the third book should never been written. That was the book of "psychologic crisis, the trip of a mental confused teenager". Just my opinion on things. May sound a little vague, but my mind is foggy. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.