Books: Chapter One!

[Lady Haleth]

Keep up! Its worth it. The pace picks up more later. And personally, I love the writing style, and all the descriptions of forests and landscapes. They help me picture things in my head. Just wait till you get to Lothlorien!
On a related note, I bought a book on Tolkien the other day. Very interesting so far.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Why did you spoiler tag your sentences? They don't reveal anything.
Nevermind. Yes, but a good writer paces their story well, they give attention to what is needed and don't to what isn't necessary. In short, there's more description about nature than anything else. And it just bogs down the writing.

[Lady Haleth]

You can have your own opinions about that. I just happen to really enjoy well-done description like Tolkien's. And he doesn't describe as much, or as pointlessly, as other authors I've read. It does help me to visualize a scene.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

To me, Tolkien is a "medium" on the description level. He's nowhere near as bad as Hugo (I quit reading Les Mis after 70 pages because he was STILL describing how good this pastor was!!!) but he's nowhere near as minimal as Lewis is. Lewis tells a reader what they need to know. . . and lets them fill in the rest.

I don't like to have a whole lot of description, because it makes me feel "boxed in." But. . . to each his own.

[sweeetlilgurlie]

Hahaha! Tolkien was a bit thick for me and I stopped reading The Lord of the Rings because of the description. It can be enjoyable, I know, and I think that I might enjoy them now that I'm older. I do enjoy Tolkien's lighter works, like Smith of Wooten Major and Farmer Giles of Ham. They're quite amusing and interesting.

Oh, description? I've never read Hugo, but Christopher Paolini takes the cake for me, in what I've read. I was thinking, "Are you SERIOUS? We're on page five of describing the forest! Shut up already!"

I'm either a fan of minimalist description, painting in quick even strokes (as Lewis did), or of medium description. Less description just makes the whole work seem more light and breathable, somehow.

EDIT::

Okay, I've heard so many great things about this "Attolia" series. What's the name of the first book, and who's the author?

WHAT?!? You haven't read the Attolia books yet? Oh my! Heavens, good sir, you must!

They're by Megan Whalen Turner and the first book is called "The Thief". I think it's more of a medium-type description book, but I barely notice description unless it's really little or really alot-- so I figure it's medium. The characters begin to captivate you and just get better as you go! Sheesh, I need to buy those books!

[Lady Haleth]

I totally agree with you on Paolini, by the way. I could not stand his descriptions! He went on and on... He just seems like he's trying to write like Tolkien--but he can't.
Not really reading anything aside from college reading assignments.

[sandyentersNarnia]

Yeah, reading some parts was worth it, but very difficult to picture.

[Silver the Wanderer]

*takes note of your liking less description for my own book-writing purposes *

Personally, I like description when it's not overdone. I like being able to visualize the scene. But it's a matter of "showing", not "telling". I like it when the author "shows" me what the forest looks like by making the characters interact with it. "Telling" is what bogs down books with an overload of description. I also like it when description scenes are broken up with dialogue to keep me interested.

[MissAdventure]

Just a really quick thought on whether a book should have more description or not:

I'm either a fan of minimalist description, painting in quick even strokes (as Lewis did), or of medium description. Less description just makes the whole work seem more light and breathable, somehow.

You know, I think that's very true. Especially after what DiGoRyKiRkE said about Les Mis (which I loved, but it is very thick and Hugo likes to spend lots of time on subjects that may seem unnecessary to the story. For one of my friends, that's exactly what she loves about him. To all our different tastes! ), and because I've been reading a few Dickens books this summer. With the older books where they devote a lot of page time to description and such, it's not a light and breathable world (That might have a little to do with their usual subject matter as well). It's more of a rich, deep, thick world, like a ginormous piece of chocolate cake. Huge portions can be overwhelming, but in small bites, it's so rewarding and wonderful. That could very well be just me, but the comment about "light and breathable" made me wonder what the opposite side of the spectrum would be. Naturally, depending on the author's skill or reader's preference, it can come across as clunky and plodding and slow, but on the whole, I personally don't mind whether a book has lots of description or little. Just my two cents.

And while I'm here, I really should do that post I've been meaning to do.

What Dickens have you read? I would suggest Our Mutual Friend as one, if you haven't read it yet.

I've read A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist, Hard Times, Bleak House, and Little Dorrit, some for school and some for pleasure, but I've liked all of them. I read your post right after going to the library and kicked myself for not getting Our Mutual Friend. Happily (or unhappily) it hadn't been there anyway. I'd checked out Nicholas Nickleby instead, and started it, but didn't think I'll be able to finish it before the school year started, so I haven't made much progress at all. Now I know I won't be able to finish it. I'll keep an eye out for OMF at my library! I trust your literary opinion, and reading the less well-known Dickens appeals to me for some odd reason. *still has not read A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, or David Copperfield*

I've been volunteering at my library the past few weeks, and have noticed a few things while shelving books.

-Murder and food apparently pairs quite nicely. How else to explain all the books titled Death Du Jour, The Carrotcake Murder, and Fatally Fudge?
-The standard romance novel fare scares me. The titles are alarming. The covers are worse. Also, dukes are popular.
-I realized that the Sci-Fi and Fantasy section in my library is actually made up of Sci-Fi and Fantasy books. (My brother only ever brought home sci-fi books that I was never interested in reading.) Guess where all the McKillip books wre hiding? Which wood book of hers was highly recommended, Solstice Wood, or In the Forests of Serre? My library has both, and I seem to remember one was well liked by a bunch here and the other wasn't.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

Murder and food apparently pairs quite nicely. How else to explain all the books titled Death Du Jour, The Carrotcake Murder, and Fatally Fudge?

Having worked in a library system for 4 & 1/2 years, I know exactly what you mean. Between mystery books, I don't know what gets more attention, food or cats (Lillian Jackson Braun's cat murders just confuse me)

The standard romance novel fare scares me. The titles are alarming. The covers are worse. Also, dukes are popular.

Not to mention Sheikh's Seriously. . . those are just weird.

[Liberty Hoffman]

I love LOTR! I read the first one (FotR) when i was 12 years old and I read it in a week. I then went on to read TTT in two weeks and RotK in two weeks as well. before all that, I read The Hobbit in two days. you could say that I fell in love right away

[7chronicles]

I love LOTR! I read the first one (FotR) when i was 12 years old and I read it in a week. I then went on to read TTT in two weeks and RotK in two weeks as well. before all that, I read The Hobbit in two days. you could say that I fell in love right away

That brings back good memory’s for me!
I first read LOTR when I was 11 right after I saw The Fellowship of the Ring in the movie theaters.
I read them out of order though, I started with The Two Towers because I wanted to know what was going to happen, and then Return of the King, then the Hobbit and then I finally read The Fellowship of the Ring.
As soon as I was done reading The Return of the King I discovered Narnia and read all of them!
That was the best reading year ever!
That was the year I discovered so many things that have become so close to my heart now.

[Meltintalle]

(Lillian Jackson Braun's cat murders just confuse me)

A clarification for any who might have been confused--the cats are not murdered. The cats solve murders. (I think. Anyway, someone solves the murders and the cats are there...) The first few almost made sense, but the later ones made no sense at all.

*is currently reading Fool's Run by McKillip* Eighties sci-fi is so much fun. And McKillip's style works well here, which is not exactly something I would have predicted...

Also, I just noticed that R. J. Anderson has an little blurb on the back of Meg Burden's The King Commands. How fun! Always nice when authors you like approve of each others work.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

A clarification for any who might have been confused--the cats are not murdered. The cats solve murders.

Oh yes! That makes MUCH more sense *rolls eyes*

[/sarcasm]

I'm trying to think of the other author (also with the last name of Brown) that writes books about cat murders. . . The name is eluding me right now.

[Meltintalle]

@ DiGs. Sorry I can't help you out with the other author. I've never read her. I just see the titles when I'm in the mystery section looking for Ellis Peters.

So, I finished Fool's Run last night, and found certain details rather interesting in light of the recent discussion about how much description is necessary. The plot revolves around a band, but McKillip tells us very very little about what kind of music the band plays. Whenever the music is specifically addressed, the lead is playing Bach on the piano. (And we often get very specific descriptions of which Bach piece.) When a concert is described, we hear about the light show and their sparkly costumes. Which, I suppose, is how one gets around describing a new genre of music and allows the reader to imagine that they might actually like Nova's music... Also, the story is not what the back cover blurb would lead you to expect.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

I finished Mrs. Jeffries on the Ball by Emily Brightwell a couple of hours ago. It was a very good mystery (as I knew it would be). All of the Mrs. Jeffries books more or less have the same plot (don't all mysteries?). Collect clues, discuss clues, collect clues, discuss clues, solve case, discuss how the heroine pieced together the clues. But. . . I still like those books immensely.

I plan on placing the next one on hold through my library (we don't have a copy so I'll have to Interlibrary loan it, which takes about 5 days); Mrs. Jeffries on the Trail. Until it comes, who knows what I'm going to read. I'm going to the library tomorrow; I might have to pick up something short and fun there.