Sean, While we can accept criticism of the reason why this list exists, may I suggest you reference other writers work (that is not yourself!). In referencing yourself you come across arrogant, self indulged and frankly so narcissistic you'd give Narcissus a run for his money. In many cases the writer may employ plots that become obvious when reading, Frank Herbert's Dune, employs a lot of this but it does not ruin a great piece of writing as the joy is in the tale not just the suspense.
You have met with a group of people with a wide demographic spread but by just proposing in many of your writings that it is you and only you who can write a good book this has led to anger. If your proposition of brilliance was true then the library I hold would be redundant. This does not make your points irrelevant as comment is free (The Guardian Newspapers motto) but constructing an argument is important and the way you have constructed yours has alienated people and I think you should look at how you have presented yourself to this group of intellectual readers and consider yourself lucky that the damnation happening on this list has not been worse. Chris On 28 Jan 2012, at 14:08, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > I have a right to my comments, the fact many have not taken these very > well - at all, says more about them, than myself: My points were... > > Ok tell me I am wrong in regards the King and the malady, which has struck > him? Tell me please, and I have read neither of these parts yet , but Pug > comes back as a dark robe? > > Sorry predictable!!! > > What is the point in me reading something, where I know what is going to > transpire next? My own work takes me by surprise at times and I have written > it, why is this such a feat to ask by - as you said it yourselves of best > selling authors? Admittedly this is not even just Feist! > > He uses the word reverie too often, and in the wrong context. What are wrong > with, and here's just a few - the words: contemplation, musings? > > Here's another just be going on with, there is a piece where he states, where > the hunters check the Tsurani have left traps. Erm does he not mean - not, or > is this some cunning attempt to lure the Tsurani into a false sense of > security? > > And this is the place my patience held out no more, and if I am wrong please > correct me? > > Garret asked, "What if some of your fellow countrymen had been along?" > > Charles shrugged. "The cho-ja would have been speaking Tsurani. Their > language is almost impossible to learn, so no one tries." > > Hold on, I thought Charles's countrymen were Tsurani, that was the whole > point? And I know the cho-ja can speak the same language as them! > > Also, I also lost empathy for the characters when they insisted on calling > the poor Asian-like bugger - Charles; how very worldly of them... nothing > like having an openmind to new cultures. I suppose, we should be relieved > that they did not refer to him as Bert, Bob or Frank the like? > > I am actually less than two thirds through the first book... I just feel if > he is not prepared to make the effort to get these things right and > consistent, why should I? > > And this is not just me, other people have - and these are avid fans, but > raging inconsistencies between books. > > It is not worth arguing about either, I wanted to be blown-away by this book > and get into reading the entire series. I want to find other authors who are > better than I think I am and be challenged, then I can learn something from > them! I have admittedly learnt some things from Feist, but there is somewhat > more I am disappointed with, but unfortunately this is a fact, and I wish it > were not so - I absolutely wish I had found his book more challenging. > > And no, I don't lurk under bridges, just on a weekend, in scarlet make up, > and a frock - besides... the police have already warned about that! > > In a message dated 27/01/2012 12:35:08 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] > writes:
