# Which do you prefer?



## Stargazer1976 (Oct 30, 2004)

All writers tend to be better at certain things than they are at others. Keeping this in mind, which do you prefer when you read? A writer who has frequent and very intricate/exact descriptions throughout but does not have that many exciting or unusual happenings in his writing for you to guess at what will happen next, or think what would I do in that situation, or make you say WOW how did he think of that?

Or the opposite type who does not describe things very well but really keeps the action and wow parts of the story going with little let up. 

I try to do both when i write but always find myself leaning toward the latter. I just wonder what readers tend to prefer since i am not only just one opinion but also not that much of a reader. I find myself to be more interested in creating than seeing what others have created and as such its almost work for me to sit still and read.

Anyway, any replies would be appreciated.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 30, 2004)

I know what drives me up a wall.  Repeated long descriptions that don't really have anything to do with anything.

Now, if the descriptions have some relation to the world created or to the story, that's fine.  Mieville's "The Scar" is an example.  There is lots of description going on there, but I was fine with it because it had something to do with the story being told.  Also, the story takes place in locations far enough from my everyday experience for me to need a good deal of description to base my own mental pictures on.  On the other hand, my reading of Martin's "A Game of Thrones" has just about come to a standstill for the moment, primarily because he gets so carried away with description that seems (to me, anyway) to be there just to prove that he can write description.  The world he created in that book isn't far enough from things I know for me to need a detailed description in order to build my mental picture as I read.

The thing is, I like at least part of my picture of the places in a novel, the people in a novel, the things in a novel, to be left to my imagination.  Give me enough description for me to have a template to build the rest of the picture in my brain, and I'm a very happy reader.  Feel compelled to tell me what everything looks, feels, and smells like down to the last molecule, and I'll probably get bored because the more description, the less space for things to actually happen in the story.

Just my two cents' worth.


----------



## The Master™ (Oct 31, 2004)

I gotta say, once again, that Raymond E Feist is my favourite writer... He keeps the action going and you don't get lost in unnecessary description...

A couple of authors who bog you down in too much unnecessary description are: Terry Goodkind and (sorry) JRR Tolkein... I've just started reading _Kushiel's Dart _by Jacqueline Carey and that is very heavy descriptively...

I also like Mark Anthony (Last Rune Series), a lot of Terry Pratchett (though never got through Pyrimids or the one before the latest - about the soldiers)...

I like fast paced action, intersperced with some good character development... But must have a flowing storyline - even if it has been done a million times before in other books... If it is well written, I'll read it...


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 31, 2004)

I love irreverent humor, good writing and a fantastic storyline interspersed with good characters. I don't mind style, so long as it only adds to the general naritive. my pet peeve, however is description just to bulk up the text or gartuitus action/sex/language to the same purpose. i like my writing, and the things that i read to flow, and make sense in the context of the story.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 31, 2004)

There is no reason why a story can not be both fast paced and descriptive.  A story without description is merely a plot.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 31, 2004)

I was thinking that - balance as the key. 

 I think George Martin does a great job of describing detail quickly and easily - the problem is he uses so many characters that the plot can seem unfocussed.

 Ideally, in a well-focussed plot, there would be pace and description enough to keep most readers happy. After all, the best writers can simply throw in a few lines of unique description, and the reader's mind will fill in all the details untold of.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 31, 2004)

Martin writes perfect.  What he has attempted to do, is create a massive political saga with the aim of it screening the real fantasy tale of Bran and Jon.  We can only wait and see if this works.


----------



## Stargazer1976 (Oct 31, 2004)

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> There is no reason why a story can not be both fast paced and descriptive. A story without description is merely a plot.


I think your missing the point of my original question. It was not asking which way a writer should write. In an ideal sense they should be ballanced, but as I said in my opening comment Most people tend to be better at one side than they are at the other. Keeping that in mind if someone were to loan you a book where the author was not balanced in their style, which one would you prefer, or perhaps I should say, Which one would turn you off quicker?


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 31, 2004)

Well a book needs a storyline.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 31, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> I was thinking that - balance as the key.
> 
> I think George Martin does a great job of describing detail quickly and easily - the problem is he uses so many characters that the plot can seem unfocussed.
> 
> Ideally, in a well-focussed plot, there would be pace and description enough to keep most readers happy. After all, the best writers can simply throw in a few lines of unique description, and the reader's mind will fill in all the details untold of.


i have had simmilar problems with martins work, the multiple characters, and introducing and retracting veiw points is muddying the waters. its a concept that i have played with myself, although not very sucessfully, was told to go and do it again properly by my lecturer. he is much better at it, and it does work to a certain extent, but i do have a very big problem with the way in which when he decides to give a point of view of a character, that character must automatically become good, if they were bad before, they were just misunderstood, as in jamie, and even our inital views of the Imp. its almost as if he is afraid to make his main characters evil. And its not just that all people have their reasons, at one point the kingslayer actualy muses on his change in attitude.


----------



## Stargazer1976 (Oct 31, 2004)

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> Well a book needs a storyline.


Sure, but once again my question was around the idea that both aspects are included, just that one end is more professionally done than the other.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 31, 2004)

Style over substance?  Substance every time for me.


----------



## aurelio (Oct 31, 2004)

> I love irreverent humor, good writing and a fantastic storyline interspersed with good characters. I don't mind style, so long as it only adds to the general naritive. my pet peeve, however is description just to bulk up the text or gartuitus action/sex/language to the same purpose. i like my writing, and the things that i read to flow, and make sense in the context of the story.



I have to say that I am in complete agreement with the good Princess.  I would only add that I believe story _is_ character.  The characters always drive it for me.


----------



## scalem X (Oct 31, 2004)

Well for the original question: that depends on my mood. If I really want to escape the real world (because of some dark or less dark reasons), I would prefer the description because you can addapt yourself quickly to the story.
If I want pure entertainment, I prefer the 'just another movie script' type.



> but i do have a very big problem with the way in which when he decides to give a point of view of a character, that character must automatically become good, if they were bad before, they were just misunderstood, as in jamie, and even our inital views of the Imp. its almost as if he is afraid to make his main characters evil. And its not just that all people have their reasons, at one point the kingslayer actualy muses on his change in attitude.


Sorry, but I have to disagree. Do you really think that people think of theirselves as evil? Martin writes out of the perspective of the character itself, do you think that some people think of themselves as shortsighted?
If jaime lannister is 'sleeping with' his sister, do you think he feels guilty? No, although a lot of other characters (and I think you as a reader) would call it evil; but do you think that he thinks he is acting 'evil'? No he has got the arguments of the dragon kings doing the same thing. 

A real life example is hitler, do you think he felt evil? No he thought that he was the leader under which the germanic people would unite and conquer the world to make it perfect. If you would see the world from his perspective, you wouldn't see the 'camps' where people were held and killed. You would only see people that understood his vision or people that betrayed him and battles and things like that. The people that where trying to stop him (and luckily succeeded), were the bad guys in his vision, because they tried to stop the world from becomming perfect.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 31, 2004)

scalem X said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I have to disagree. Do you really think that people think of theirselves as evil? Martin writes out of the perspective of the character itself, do you think that some people think of themselves as shortsighted?
> If jaime lannister is 'sleeping with' his sister, do you think he feels guilty? No, although a lot of other characters (and I think you as a reader) would call it evil; but do you think that he thinks he is acting 'evil'? No he has got the arguments of the dragon kings doing the same thing.
> 
> A real life example is hitler, do you think he felt evil? No he thought that he was the leader under which the germanic people would unite and conquer the world to make it perfect. If you would see the world from his perspective, you wouldn't see the 'camps' where people were held and killed. You would only see people that understood his vision or people that betrayed him and battles and things like that. The people that where trying to stop him (and luckily succeeded), were the bad guys in his vision, because they tried to stop the world from becomming perfect.


**********WARNING**************

**********SPOILERS**************









actualy, jamie is thinking that what he did was wrong, and is trying to justify himself. that is the point. in these thoughts, he is repenting for his past and trying to make amends for it, these include his actions in saving the female warrior sent to protect him. he is guilty also for his treatment of his brother and helps him escape to absolve himself. as you so rightly point out, people who are bad don't see themselves as such, and i find this reversal and thinking just at the time martin begins to take his view, just a little to convienient. an arrogant man like jammie would not feel this way, he would always feel himslef to be justified. i know. i've met him in several guises before.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Nov 1, 2004)

****SPOILER****​​​I disagree with you Princess.  Jaime's actions were always misunderstood, and many of his terrible actions were committed under the umbrella of his strong love for Cersei.  His transformation begins with, what we finally realise is, his loss of love for his twin.​


----------



## Silk (Nov 2, 2004)

scalem X said:
			
		

> Well for the original question: that depends on my mood. If I really want to escape the real world (because of some dark or less dark reasons), I would prefer the description because you can addapt yourself quickly to the story.
> If I want pure entertainment, I prefer the 'just another movie script' type.


I have to agree with you on that scalem there are time when all I want to do is get lost somewhere other than the here and now and other times when all I'm interested in is an action packed adventure


----------



## Princess Ivy (Nov 2, 2004)

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> ****SPOILER****​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*************SPOILERS***********************
actualy, the transformation begins with the loss of his manhood. his right hand. from there i think he will begin to realise that his love for his sister never existed, outside of childhood fantasy and lonleynes.


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 3, 2004)

For me, it depends on the writer.  I love Mervyn Peake, and there's only the barest bones of a plotline.  However, the descriptions are lush and perfect, the character names are evocative, and you get a sense of exactly what the world looks like.  

One of Goodkind's strengths (even though I can't stand him) is his ability to move action along.  Even if his plotlines are silly and his descriptive abilities worthy of a precocious third grader, I still damn myself every time by wanting to know what happens.  I think Stephen King does this in most of his literature, then describes the fantastic aspects of the "Gunslinger" series with incredible richness.

In my opinion, Martin rests between the two extremes.  He wants the reader to know exactly how things look in his head, yet at the same time he moves the story along with a vengeance.  "A Game of Thrones" is the first book to have me in tears since "Where the Red Fern Grows".

If I'm feeling intellectual, I'll reach for a book with heavy description and unusual technique every time.  If I want something to rip through, I want a lot of action.  I'm reading "The Redemption of Althalus" by the Eddings right now, which is terrible, but I still want to see where it all goes.  (I have a pretty good idea, but I'll still give the writers the benefit of the doubt.)

I like books that walk in the middle: "A Song of Ice and Fire," "The Coldfire Trilogy," "The Wraeththu Trilogy" and even some old school Sonja Blue.  Carol Berg is one of my favorites right now too, and she seems to describe her world in detail only when the landscape gets fantastic.  Finally China Mieville, who has the ability to do description plopped in the middle of narrative without losing sight of the plotline - he's a genius.

Lucifer.


----------

