Addai67 wrote...
The problem I have with your post as with Psycho's is that it is very dogmatic. Sure, there are writing conventions, and a lot of times when people go outside them, it flops. But still, not everyone has to write the same way, and not all readers like the same things. For me, Tolkien's style is like red meat to the hounds. That's because he approaches a creative subject as if it were an academic one. He's writing history and philology, just a history and philology that was never "discovered" before he wrote. That's how a lot of sci fi and fantasy is- a whole new world, with new rules and new backgrounds. I want to know the stories that come out of those worlds, but if a lore set fascinates me, then I am just as interested in the "textbooks" that come out of them. So, what, am I a faulty reader for appreciating appendices and codex?
P.S. I also think that the more background material that is written, especially for a fantasy genre, the better the actual story is going to be. And if an author is willing to publish the guts of his or her writing process, I eat that kind of thing up.
It was not from lack of interest. I read plenty of fantasy growing up. No one ever bought me a Tolkien book, and I had no idea who he was until I was a teenager. My mother owns his books now, so I could theorectically borrow them; I just never felt a strong desire to.
I like lore as much as the next person. I am huge tabletop geek with a brain that knows several campaign settings inside and out. When I *really* like a world, I seek out additional material to wring out every detail I can. That said, there is not much I can respond to here. As you wrote: "Sure, there are writing conventions, and a lot of times when people go outside them, it flops."
There are *very* few writers that earned accolades by succeeding on talent alone. That's fire from the gods. It's something so rare and precious, it comes around once every few generations, if that. There is little I can say about Tolkien, having never read his books, but I have seen more than one critical deconstruction of his work that made a good argument about its quality, or lack thereof in those cases.
No, you are not a faulty reader for appreciating lore. My point was that lore should not be a crutch for the story. If you read my first post again, you will see that I mentioned additional information and annotated versions were fine to gain added insight after the fact. What I think is poor form is for a writer to depend on such things to make their tale work. If you needed to read a textbook of information to fully appreciate a story, then something is wrong with that story. If you read a textbook afterward to enrich your experience, but the story can otherwise stand on its if you did not, then the story, at least in that aspect, is probably fine.
Modifié par Seagloom, 08 novembre 2010 - 06:25 .
Retour en haut
I suppose Mary Kirby could have locked it to nip things in the bud right then and there. Ah well, too late now!
