Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 5797111" data-attributes="member: 54846">Well in all honesty I get inspiration for my D&amp;D from everything I see. Or rather, I'm not afraid to pull tropes or plots or ideas from anywhere.But part of the reason I'm reading REH and Leiber is because I'm writing a novel with strong S&amp;S elements, so I want to go to the source to get a feel for the genre.I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features.I'm glad you feel the need to assume that if people feel a certain way, it's because they are flawed (unwilling to think) than that they might have a legitimate viewpoint.It's not a matter of &quot;literature&quot; but a matter of technique. I dislike how willing Neal Stephenson is at going on long-winded tangents which are irrelevant to the plot or the characters. Hemmingway is literature and he was concise. Spending three paragraphs to say something that could be said in two sentences is to me sinfully unnecessary. I'm of the school of writing where every single word must be chosen wisely, spent carefully and must serve a strong, concrete purpose, every scene must move things forward or otherwise have a strong reason of existing, or it is a waste. The art comes from the word choice, the sentence structure, the way it fits into the rest of the paragraph/page, and the message it conveys. It doesn't matter if it's a contemporary novel or a classic. If I finish a sceen or a chapter or anything and can say &quot;What did that have to do with anything&quot;, then it shouldn't be there.It's like show vs. tell, narrative summary vs. scene, etc. The issue is technique.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rechan, post: 5797111, member: 54846"] Well in all honesty I get inspiration for my D&D from everything I see. Or rather, I'm not afraid to pull tropes or plots or ideas from anywhere. But part of the reason I'm reading REH and Leiber is because I'm writing a novel with strong S&S elements, so I want to go to the source to get a feel for the genre. I'm very wary of Cugel. I recall hearing that, among other things, he is guilty of sexual assault. I am fine with anti-heroes but I expect them to have some redeeming features. I'm glad you feel the need to assume that if people feel a certain way, it's because they are flawed (unwilling to think) than that they might have a legitimate viewpoint. It's not a matter of "literature" but a matter of technique. I dislike how willing Neal Stephenson is at going on long-winded tangents which are irrelevant to the plot or the characters. Hemmingway is literature and he was [I]concise[/I]. Spending three paragraphs to say something that could be said in two sentences is to me [B]sinfully[/B] unnecessary. I'm of the school of writing where every single word must be chosen wisely, spent carefully and must serve a strong, concrete purpose, every scene must move things forward or otherwise have a strong reason of existing, or it is a waste. The art comes from the word choice, the sentence structure, the way it fits into the rest of the paragraph/page, and the message it conveys. It doesn't matter if it's a contemporary novel or a classic. If I finish a sceen or a chapter or anything and can say "What did that have to do with anything", then it shouldn't be there. It's like show vs. tell, narrative summary vs. scene, etc. The issue is technique. [/QUOTE]

Verification