Re: [rehfans] Thud and Blunder revisited

[Scotty Henderson]

From: Mike Mott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [rehfans] Thud and Blunder revisited


> > Anderson seems to want the reader to be dragged through every brothel
and
> > chamber-pot an author can imagine.  Why?  How does realism enhance
> > fantasy?  How does making that imaginary world over THERE look like the
> > real world HERE improve the story?
> >
> > Like I said: it's not the believability that he asks for which bothers
> > me.  It's the meticulous duplication of details from our world's past
(or,
> > at least, the past as we imagine it to be) that I find dissatisfying.
That
> > makes the fantasy genre more like a pseudo-historical one.
> >
> I get your gist here: in other words, cut to the chase.  Tell the story
and
> don't kill us with trivia.
>
> I agree with this one hundred percent.


Yes, me too. Anderson does tend to go into far too much detail,
super-detailing many scenes, to the detriment of the story pacing, in my
opinion. He often bogs down this way, except where he gets into action
scenes.

Scotty