The Campaign Builder's Guild

QuoteNow we suffer with a bloated mercantile attempt to capitalize on this series. It's like making the extended mix of a song
before making the normal version.

likes[/i] writing this series? Or that, as often happens, word count issues have forced a writer to split a book more ways than he originally intended?

Quote from: Phoenix

QuoteNow we suffer with a bloated mercantile attempt to capitalize on this series. It's like making the extended mix of a song
before making the normal version.

likes[/i] writing this series? Or that, as often happens, word count issues have forced a writer to split a book more ways than he originally intended?

Of course I considered that.  For quite a while.  And I am cynical, so I will agree to that claim.  But please paste the rest of my post where I rave about the series first, as that is part and parcel here.  Before defending supposed attacks, please include all pertinent comments.

But are you actually defending a Trilogy being busted out to 7 books now as a word-count issue?  Have you considered the possiblity that is asinine, because word count issues such as you mention do not take longer to produce? Splitting a book takes little time, word count issues caused from creating more words does, however, add months and years.  ESpecially when it somehow makes an author scrap a year of work.

However, I think perhaps you neglect to consider that by my use of the word mercantile, I might be blaming the infuence of Bantam and the editors trying to wring a few extra shekels, NOT the Author.  I won't ask for forgiveness or understanding in my belief that a publisher and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question.  I happen to believe that Tolkein's LotR would have ended up being 11 books long in today's climate, and ruined for it.

And let me also applaud this thread again.  You're getting some good response.

And now for some explanation...

J.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).

J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit - 8
This one is an easier read which generally gets it a better score. However for me it loses a little bit there. It was written for children and so has a simpler language, which in the end makes it lose something. However that little loss is more than made up in the fact that it is a wonderful story like its big brother LOTR.

J.R.R. Tolkien - The Silmarillion - 9
The best way I can describe this one is as a masterpiece. It has a similar feel to it as the bible. This in itself says something because all the interconnection and style of that form gives it a life of its own. You can truly believe that this world exists somewhere. This book if anything should be on the required list for a committed world builder as it shows you how to really get a dynamic history going, mixing myth and known fact into a beautiful combination.

Christopher Paolini - Inheritance - 5
This gets a 5 from me as Paolini really showed with it his grasp of both writing and the genre in general. However in doing so he reused alot of old concepts, causing it to lose a great deal vs if he had committed his imagination more fully to the story. However it does maintain good re-readability value if you can get past that.

C. S. Lewis - The Chronicles of Narnia - 7
Another good one, however like the hobbit it was intended for children. Yet its style of writing is even more severe in this manner than the hobbit. So it loses a bit more here. However it is also a very enjoyable read and likewise has its own dynamic history like LOTR.

I would have more but I can't recall everything I have read. Indeed though I am much more a sci-fi fan and will probably have a huge massive list when we do one on that.

The Oddessy was great in my opinion, well written, interesting plot, etc. But the Illiad was just too confusing for me. Our teacher had us do "close reading" with it, where we would have to have notes and highlited parts on at least every other page, but even with that it was insanity.

Quote from: Higgs BosonThe Oddessy was great in my opinion, well written, interesting plot, etc. But the Illiad was just too confusing for me. Our teacher had us do "close reading" with it, where we would have to have notes and highlited parts on at least every other page, but even with that it was insanity.

perhaps that was why 'Vreeg the insane' found the opposite...Interesting view, and totally correct, in my book.

Quote from: NomadicJ.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).

You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compunds the wordiness issues.

Quote from: NomadicChristopher Paolini - Inheritance - 5
This gets a 5 from me as Paolini really showed with it his grasp of both writing and the genre in general. However in doing so he reused alot of old concepts, causing it to lose a great deal vs if he had committed his imagination more fully to the story. However it does maintain good re-readability value if you can get past that.

Grasp of writing? Are you kidding?

Quote from: NomadicC. S. Lewis - The Chronicles of Narnia - 7
Another good one, however like the hobbit it was intended for children. Yet its style of writing is even more severe in this manner than the hobbit. So it loses a bit more here. However it is also a very enjoyable read and likewise has its own dynamic history like LOTR.

Narnia was meant for all ages, and it has quite a few layers if you're willing to look deeper into them.

Quote from: Stargate525You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compunds the wordiness issues.

Sounds like you'd better avoid the Wheel of Time.

Quote from: Polycarp!

Quote from: Stargate525You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compunds the wordiness issues.

Yeah, wasn't a huge fan of 'em.

Quote from: Stargate525

Quote from: NomadicJ.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).

You can't compare the writing styles of two books over three hundred years apart. The problem is that the books move so incredibly SLOWLY, which only compounds the wordiness issues.

Quote from: NomadicChristopher Paolini - Inheritance - 5
This gets a 5 from me as Paolini really showed with it his grasp of both writing and the genre in general. However in doing so he reused alot of old concepts, causing it to lose a great deal vs if he had committed his imagination more fully to the story. However it does maintain good re-readability value if you can get past that.

Grasp of writing? Are you kidding?

Quote from: NomadicC. S. Lewis - The Chronicles of Narnia - 7
Another good one, however like the hobbit it was intended for children. Yet its style of writing is even more severe in this manner than the hobbit. So it loses a bit more here. However it is also a very enjoyable read and likewise has its own dynamic history like LOTR.

Narnia was meant for all ages, and it has quite a few layers if you're willing to look deeper into them.

Ok firstly yes I can compare them I have that right. However you should probably re-read what I said as I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that compared to some other books LOTR isn't hardly wordy at all. Furthermore while it may barely move along for you and come across as wordy, to others it runs smoothly and wonderfully.

No I am not kidding, just because I feel that someone has a grasp of writing and you don't doesn't mean you should discount my opinion. I would say I have a bit of experience here and my opinion holds a little more weight than some average Joe just throwing out his 2 cents.

C.S. Lewis wrote Narnia as a children's book. Does this mean an adult cannot enjoy it, certainly not. However it does mean that its style takes on a more simple form which detracts from it for me.

Note the above bolded word here. This was my personal opinion, not something I brought up to be debated (I just felt like sharing it). In closing... its my opinion so :P

Quote from: LordVreegOf course I considered that.  For quite a while.  And I am cynical, so I will agree to that claim.  But please paste the rest of my post where I rave about the series first, as that is part and parcel here.  Before defending supposed attacks, please include all pertinent comments.

But are you actually defending a Trilogy being busted out to 7 books now as a word-count issue?[/quote]Have you considered the possiblity that is asinine, because word count issues such as you mention do not take longer to produce? Splitting a book takes little time, word count issues caused from creating more words does, however, add months and years.  ESpecially when it somehow makes an author scrap a year of work.[/quote]However, I think perhaps you neglect to consider that by my use of the word mercantile, I might be blaming the infuence of Bantam and the editors trying to wring a few extra shekels, NOT the Author.  I won't ask for forgiveness or understanding in my belief that a publisher and agents have an interest and influence upon the length of the work in question.  I happen to believe that Tolkein's LotR would have ended up being 11 books long in today's climate, and ruined for it.[/quote]
Insulting the professionalism and dedication of an entire industry is marginally better than insulting the artistic integrity of an artist. Though since I trained in publishing (but left the field to pursue writing), and since many of my friends are editors, agents, and publishers, I still take personal offense. These are people that love books, love stories, and love authors. Despite what you seem to think, even publishers rarely get rich (the media conglomerates that own them are another story, but then they're always bashing publishers for not keeping up with TV, music, or whatever).

Regardless no one forces an author to do something like split a series; and no one forces a powerhouse like GRRM to do much of anything. Any claim that the series has sold out will still boil down to claiming to author sold out to the publisher.

Quote from: NomadicJ.R.R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - 9
I think people are forgetting that LOTR wasn't written in modern American English. That wordiness that is the common complaint against it is actually quite common in older books (you think LOTR is bad go further back and read Don Quixote). Once you get past that it is a marvelous series, steeped lore, tradition, and all the things that make for true classic fantasy. You really can connect with the hobbits through their feelings of being so small in such a large world (and just wanting to get back to their little home and have a nice smoke).

Since we are discussing how much we, as 21st century readers, can enjoy the experience of reading the book, pacing and ease of reading is a big issue. The Lord of the Rings is good to have read; I've read it several times. But if I just want to sit back and relax and enjoy my evening, I tend to enjoy it more with more modern authors with a faster pace and easier reading.

Quote from: PolycarpSounds like you'd better avoid the Wheel of Time.

While the novels go through certain rhythms of pacing, I didn't find them that slow. It just feels more like it because they're written like one giant book rather than like 11 separate books (kind of like LotR was intended to be published in a single volume).

Quote from: PhoenixWhile the novels go through certain rhythms of pacing, I didn't find them that slow. It just feels more like it because they're written like one giant book rather than like 11 separate books (kind of like LotR was intended to be published in a single volume).

Yeah, as much as I don't adore this series as the end-all fantasy series, I don't find them particularly slow, other than 2 books.

Quote from: NomadicOk firstly yes I can compare them I have that right. However you should probably re-read what I said as I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that compared to some other books LOTR isn't hardly wordy at all. Furthermore while it may barely move along for you and come across as wordy, to others it runs smoothly and wonderfully.

Hence the beauty of the opinion.

Quote from: NomadicNo I am not kidding, just because I feel that someone has a grasp of writing and you don't doesn't mean you should discount my opinion. I would say I have a bit of experience here and my opinion holds a little more weight than some average Joe just throwing out his 2 cents.

Well, I could point out several flaws in his prose but, like you said, this is neither the time nor the place.

Quote from: NomadicC.S. Lewis wrote Narnia as a children's book. Does this mean an adult cannot enjoy it, certainly not. However it does mean that its style takes on a more simple form which detracts from it for me.

Fair enough, but calling it a straight children's book seems to deny that it has any meaning for adult readers.

Quote from: NomadicNote the above bolded word here. This was my personal opinion, not something I brought up to be debated (I just felt like sharing it). In closing... its my opinion so :P

You can't claim your opinion is better than mine if you're going to pull this out afterward!

I'm calling you out, foo!

*draws pistol*

...

*erases pistol, draws sword*

Much more appropriate.

 :fencing:

wow, I had no idea that peoples' likes and dislikes of certain books could cause such animosity.  It's almost like we're talking about whether or not Pluto should remain a planet...

Quote from: Ishmaylwow, I had no idea that peoples' likes and dislikes of certain books could cause such animosity.  It's almost like we're talking about whether or not Pluto should remain a planet...

*pulls out pistol and shoots stargate*

never bring a sword to a gunfight.

*points pistol at ishy*

are you then implying that Pluto is not a planet?!