tad williams (was Re: : fantasy monarchies)

hallieod at indigo.ie hallieod at indigo.ie
Fri Feb 7 05:48:48 EST 2003


Melissa in reply to Christian:

>
>>i believe (and i may be wrong) that there's no good reason for a book to be
>>more than around 500 pages.
>
>which, while still carrying the caveat that you could be wrong, represents a
>statement of universality.  The second part of this paragraph is better
>because, again, it's about your opinion:

"Better"???  :-)

>
>>i find that's about as much as i can stand and
>>still enjoy the whole thing, anyway. i prefer books in the 200-300 page
>>range.
>
>When you're asserting that books shouldn't be more than 500 pages, or that
>brevity is always better, you're being rude to people who prefer long books
>by effectively calling their favorite books bad.

Nah, I don't think that's rude.  Now DWJ, ranting about the length 
and awfulness of the books she had to read for whatever award thing 
she was judging - that was rude.  I'd have enjoyed it had I not been 
cringing at the possibility that someone who'd written one of the 
books would read her complaints and be devastated.

But sweeping generalisations can be so much fun!  Then one gets to do 
mental gymnastics looking for exceptions - frex, the length of Harry 
Potter four (700 plus pages, right?), and the expected length of five 
(longer again, I've heard).

Just to draw some of the fire from Christian (possibly, or else no 
one will give a fig), I recently read _Lirael_ and was very 
disappointed in it, after _Sabriel_.  One of my reasons was that I 
felt it desperately needed a good cutting, and would have been much 
better a couple of hundred pages shorter.  It wasn't my only problem 
with the book, mind you, but I still think would have annoyed me even 
without the others.


Hallie.


--
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/



More information about the Dwj mailing list