At 4/15/10 03:49 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:
It's in the works Imperator, and has been the source of some overly heated discussion in this very forum. Some might be a bit pissy at it being brought up once again in here, even if you didn't know about those discussions or plans.
As for fast or slow stories... I'd say fast, but not so fast in that I don't know what's going on, or what the place is like. A good balance between action and setting is what I like.
As usual, the most difficult thing to achieve is probably the most aesthetically pleasing.....
The thing I find is that sometimes, when done right, "pace" has little to do with "length". I've read action sequences that were very well put together, highly detailed, but the "pace" of the action was very quick, and it read quite easily.
at the same time, I've read works with high intensity action sequences that were completely mundane and lacking any color at all. I think it's because they believed "action" and "fast" meant "verb, verb, verb, VERB, verb, verb, verb, noun". They threw 25 verbs into 4 sentences, and ended up rushing through the scene.
I like high detail generally. But I like high detail in action sequences almost more than other sequences. "Battle" scenes are my cue here. IMO, a good "battle" scene is fast paced, but very descriptive as well. Some scenes, which in the story take place in 30 seconds or a couple of minutes, go on for an entire chapter, but are quite detailed and real page turners.
5 paragraphs on how a tree sways in the breeze as one walks by, on the other hand.....snore-ville.
So balance and context is really the deciding issue I guess. I prefer more detail when there's more action, less detail when there's less action.
All in all, I find books boring when I get no feel for the situation, and that usually is due to there being so little detail, the plot simply passes from action to action, verb to verb. I've always believed erring on the side of caution would be to give too much detail, rather than too little.