Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by HellOnEarth, Jan 6, 2007.
What's more important when reading a book, or writing?
That's obvious. Quality ALWAYS wins over quantity, unless you're in grade school, and the teacher's only look for length anyway.
Who would want to read a long badly written novel? As opposed to a short amazing piece of literature?
What if you're a writer?
What do you mean? As a writer it would be much better to produce a smaller piece of quality literature rather then a huge book of rubbish. That's why so many writers edit and reedit their work and rewrite, etc.
Depends on what you mean by quality. There are authors who knock out romance stories monthly, or thereabouts, and satisfy their readership, but the quality of the writing would probably be looked down on by literary authors.
Both groups meet the needs of their readers.
That was the first example I thought of too, was the ever present, and most times, dreadfully predictable, Romance genre. Like Robert said they are written quickly, and a lot to feed the needs for their readers.
I don't know that I can add anything to what Robert said other than simply mirroring it.
All in all I think that you need a good balance of both Quality and Quantity. I love a long book but if its boring then It just becomes pointless.
I can't believe you're even asking this!
Quality, quality, quality!
That has to be the dumbest question ever.
Let's not be rash now. Imagine you are struggling with an assailant in your living room. You grope blindly with your hand for the nearest object with which to club him roundly over the head. Clearly a 900 page pile of tripe is better for bludgeoning than 20 pages of genius.
Seriously, as a writer, I think it is better to produce large amounts of writing and then polish -quantity precedes quality. I have always adopted the same approach to foreign languages and it works wonders; first aim to speak a lot, then aim to speak accurately.
The two are always best used in equal amounts...look at LOTR...long and well written...I would rather wait months for a few hundred pages of gold than a couple of weeks for the same amount of crap....
Whoever thinks the Lord of the Ring is well written needs their heads checked.
The Hobbit was wonderful. But everything preceding that, is utter filth with no character and emotion. Boring, snoozefest.
read the alchemist... it's really short but is immensely good
read the alchemist... it's really short but is (immensely) whats the real spelling good
Ok, LOTR was overly descriptive in my opinion but the hobbit was something else.....I chucked the book away on the third page, after then describing one bloody thing!
Its genius but it was frikin boring.
It really depends on what you like?
Sorry, but I thought the Alchemist was thinly disguised mystical claptrap.
Yeah, so is the Eragon series. I think that's a hideous case of quantity over quality.
The Eragon series was so popular because it was easy for children to read and predict. It didn't have a complicated storyline (till the end of book two) and was written in such a way that it was like the fantasies of most little kids.
It wasn't really aimed at experienced writers and the like. Also, remember that the writer began on the firsst book when he was 15.
I think that happens a lot with fantasy novels, eventually you run into a period of some sort of stagnation. The stories hit a point of not being original, or overly descriptive, or any other number of problems.
But, when this happens it is, like mentioned, all in the eye of the beholder. Lot's of people love Eragon, I personally didn't. I did like LoTR, and the Hobbit, but agree with it's excessive descriptions.
But some people like the long winded speech and story telling. Others like it quick and concise. There isn't really a right and wrong in it.
Less is more, kid.
Unless the 20 pages of genius is hard backed
Less may be more, but not all preferences are lass are they?
I myself like reading a lengthy novel, and don't dare tell me I am the only one, because I'm not.
Simply because you think less is more doesn't mean the whole world believes along the same line.
If they did, then LoTR, would never have been as popular as it was.
So no, less is not always more, sometimes less is simply that; less.
Also, could you please not talk down to me like I were 8. It's degrading, and I don't appreciate it.
I have to opt for quality here. One of the most profound pieces I have ever read was one stanza long, and all of forty words. It's all about the language you use and how you use it.
For the writer, it has to balanced. If you take twenty years to write the most awesome ten page book ever, well I hope they had some other source of income.
But if you wrote a hundred novels, two thousand pages long each in ten years that were pointless stereotypical adventures, it doesn't mean that much.
Now as a reader, I want quality. If its a good book thats also long, I really like it. But there has to be quality.
well, I reakon reading alot helps my writing.... not as in stealing other's ideas or books or everything. plagerising.... see I can't even spell! It helps me how to put things, how a book is set out and stuff like grammer. So I'm sitting on the fence. They are equal!
Separate names with a comma.