Timewaster's Guide Archive

Maybe the writer of that episode read Mistborn and thought, hey, that's cool!

From the Dungeons and Dragons Podcast, "December: R.A. Salvatore"  (I got it off iTunes but it's also available at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pod/20061215a)

Salvatore says that not everyone likes the same thing and writers do things in different ways.  He speaks with admiration of  a brilliant multi- page description of a door in Umberto Eco’s Name of the Rose.  Then he says:

I don't do that.  My style is much more sparse.  What I try to do is give enough hooks to the reader that the reader will conjure up his own image of the door and put it into the story.  I know I've succeeded when someone comes up to me and says: 'You're so vivid in descriptions.'  No, I'm not, at all.  But that means that I've latched on to those common shared memories, themes, whatever, and they've brought it forward. . . .

I really believe that back in the day, pre-TV, when readers were pre-TV, Tolkien's readers, you had to give more information because we had less common, shared images.  If I say 'dragon' now, everybody knows what a dragon looks like.  If I say 'goblins,' or 'orc,' everyone conjures images whether from the Peter Jackson movies or from the Monster Manual.  When you go back to Tolkien's time, or back when Melville is writing Moby Dick there were a lot of people who never saw a whale.  How many people today have never seen a whale?  I don't mean in real life, you've seen it on TV.  It doesn't matter.  You know what it looks like.  If I say 'whale', you've got an image in your head.  If I say 'killer whale' you've got an image in your head.  If Herman Melville said 'whale' half of his audience would say 'What's that?' . . . . So back then it required a lot more description whereas today it requires a faster pace.

He has a good point but it leaves me with some questions.

Does the modern reader of fantasy require such "shared" images?  If so then where is there room for originality?

Is Salvatore's comment apply mostly to new readers that don't want lots of description so they relay heavily on what they have seen at movies or on TV?

In his class didn't EUOL say that lots of new writers say something like "I've got this great idea for a new fantasy race.  They're like elves only they have blue skin."  Seems like that is too much reliance on the 'shared images.'  How does one strike the right balance?

Do you remember where you read/heard this?  I know in the Letters book he mentions he dabbled with a story set after LotR where kids played at being in Orc cults and such, but he stopped because he basically didn't think there was anything more to tell in that world.

In volume 12 of the History of Middle Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peoples_of_Middle-earth
"The New Shadow - An incomplete sequel (approximately 30 pages) to The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien quickly abandoned, set in the time of Eldarion, Aragorn's son."

One of the few History of Middle Earth books I've read.

(Since I didn't comment the first time this thread was alive . . . )

Even as a child I thought that having Santa Claus in Narnia was weird.  Some of the other Narnia books include Greek mythology and other "outside" elements.  That confused me when I was young.  "Who is this Bacchus guy and why is he getting drunk?"  Now it just annoys me.   I understand that Tolkien was upset with Lewis's sloppy world building.  He disliked the Narnia books in large part because Lewis included things like Father Christmas.  He hated the inconsistency and the mixing of mythologies.  But Tolkien went to the other extreme with his world building.  His books are excellent in part because of his extensive world building.  But would it have been cool if he'd spent a little less time on his extensive histories and grammars and instead written another book.  He did start one that had the Lord of the Nazgul surviving the fall of Sauron and returning as the new Dark Lord.  But he only made it about a chapter.

Regardless of this "flaw" in Lewis's Narnia books I still love them and have read them many times (I've even read 5 of them in Spanish).

Anyway, I enjoyed LWW: the movie, but it didn't get the deep emotional feeling that I get from the book.

I'm interested in the games, particularly ones that I can introduce to my children, but I'm most interested in writing information.

I'd be pleased to see a regular, brief column on Writing -- the whole range of writing topics, from grammar tips to the psychology of writing.  Perhaps even a tips from an editor saying "Don't do this" or "here is the best way to submit in this situation."

I'll probably post some of my own thoughts in the Writing forum from time to time but think it would be cool to have someone qualified write a regular column.  Geek Girl's column has included some great writing stuff from time to time.  And McFish is always fun to read.  Is anyone else interested in supplying us with that sort of writing advice?

Valentine Michael Smith groks great wrongness in this.

This cracks me up every time I see it.  Between the Bowie reference and the Heinlein response I'm laughing every time I think of this.

Back to Mars - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16094279/    check out the space pictures, especially the picture of Victoria Crater.  (also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_crater)

I think I've wanted to live on Mars since reading the Martian Chronicles when I was about 13.

Last night I listened to a soundtrack by Mark Knopfler while writing.  He's awesome.

At work I've been listening to The Who, Steely Dan, Flaming Lips, Eagles, Golden Smog, Imogen Heap and Fleetwood Mac.

I just wish I could go see The Who.  Keith Moon won't be there but at least Pete's still around.

But it's either see The Who or have money to buy my children Christmas presents.  Maybe I should have posted this in the Grumpy Bear thread.