Sea Wasp wrote:
> Ralph Wilson Huckabee wrote:
>
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>
>>>> Are there books of his I should start with?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> No, that's not a cheap shot answer. It's one of those endless hack
>>> fantasy
>>> series that starts superficially interesting and turns into a bleeding
>>> ulcer as your desire to see how it ends fights with the utter tedium
of
>>> the whole exercise.
>>
>> Given that juvenile simplicity is endemic to the granddaddy
>> predecessor, Lord of the Rings, it should come as no surprise that
>> derivative works fail similarly on almost every level as serious or
>> interesting literature.
>
> Odd how a large number of supposedly literate people disagree with
> you, including the New York Times, who put Lord of the Rings at the top
> of the list of great books of the 20th century.
My problem with The Ring of Time was not that it was long. I have read
Lord of the Rings (including The Hobbit) outloud twice. It was not
opressive. The problem was that Robert Jordan seemed to deliberately
drag things out, as if he were being paid by the page or the word. Where
others would dismiss a journey with a paragraph or two, unless something
important happened, Jordan would go over it hour by hour, to painfully
demonstrate that nothing happened.
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
|
