[lior]

I've read about the mists of avalon on the turner website, it looks intresting, but as is so often the case, I don't think the incredible depth of this book could be truly captured on a 4 hour tv show, that's a totally different medium and a different creation, so IMO, viewing MOV the series is no replacement for the real mccoy.

on the other hand, stranger things have happened before...

[Hans]

I think when you start reading Fantasy, it good to read book which do have alot of detail. But as get use to what certain things look like that are common in each fantasy books, then you prefer less details.

[Lady_Linda]

I myself are kinda of fond of details, it is nice to get to know how the garden looks like, what clothes the hero is wearing etc - but as already have been said, too much isn't good. (I tend to overdo it when I'm writing so when I look over my texts I have to take off some of the details. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

I do, still, believe that it is better with too much detail if you compare it with too little - it gives a better, more whole story. so if you write little of them, I'd suggest you to think about adding interesting details every once in a while. (But that is of course my personal opinion)

(Interesting post, Wastra - I've never thought about it that way before http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif

Second, is 'Dracula' heavy reading? I kinda reacted to that, because don't agree on that point.

And, Hans, you certainly are right that many things look the same in a lot of books, but when we are writing the goal would be, in my opinion, to create something that is interesting _and_ original, not a copy of what already have been done 100dreds of times before.

~Linda~

[yurisverdlov]

It seems to me there are two main reasons for the use of detail in a novel. The first is to assist in the "suspension of disbelief." That is, the author must convince the reader that the story is plausible or that it is actually happening. The second reason for using detail is to develop plot and theme. Someone mentioned Moby Dick earlier as a book which is revered by critics and which has a lot of detail. One of the reasons for the reverence is that each element of detail adds to the book's themes in a symbolic fashion. One of my favorite writers is Thomas Mann, although it has been a while since I've read his books. Mann uses a technique called "leitmotiv," which builds on the meaning of words and concepts by associating them with details in the novel. Meanings snowball, so that by the end of the novel, a single word or concept can evoke a wealth of constructed symbolism and meaning. The first time I read "Dr. Faustus," it was mind-blowing.

[Bardos]

I hate symbolism in books.
It underastimates your intelligence...

I like the story for the story, like the Master (=Tolkien). *Bow*

[cassandra]

I hate to disillusion you, as it were, but there is quite a bit of symbolism in Tolkien's books. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
But I will agree to the argument that symbolism done badly does feel like the author is trying to hit you over the head with a blunt object. Good authors like Tolkien blend the symbolism so well with the story that the two are indistinguishable and can be read into or ignored at will without losing any of the enjoyment.

[Bardos]

Let me remind you that, when asked, Tolkien answered that there is no symbolism in his books, Cassandra.

[yurisverdlov]

RE: "Let me remind you that, when asked, Tolkien answered that there is no symbolism in his books, Cassandra."

And we know that authors always tell the truth about their novels. ;-)

What Tolkien truly mastered was the integration of myths from various sources --mainly celtic, nordic and germanic--into a new quest myth with its own heros.

But to get back on topic, IMHO, the two main reasons for detail in Tolkein's books are "suspension of disbelief" and "support of the story objectives" (plot, themes, mood, etc.). Any other use of detail would be a superfluous distraction.

-- John Morrison

[This message has been edited by yurisverdlov (edited May 06, 2001).]

[Bardos]

That means you think Tolkien had any intentional symbolism in his books?

[yurisverdlov]

RE: "That means you think Tolkien had any intentional symbolism in his books?"

Tolkien is certainly not a "symbolist" in the strong sense. That is, he does not overtly represent things by symbols, or invest things with a symbolic meaning or character.

When Melville uses the word "white," for example, we understand it as a symbol because he has overtly attached to the word other meanings--the whale, death, raw nature.

No such overt attachments occur in Bram Stoker's "Dracula," but when you "stand back" and look at the story, you see an implicit symbolic layer--a layer filled with Christian symbolism. Dracula is "Death." He sleeps in a coffin. His power can be overcome through the use of Christian artifacts such as the cross, holy water, sacremental wafers--those things which symbolize resurrection. Van Helsing's quest is a quest to kill Death.

Tolkien does not use any of these types of symbolism. What Tolkien uses effectively is a different type of layered meaning--archetypes drawn from myth and legend. Elves, dragons, magic rings and Satanic look-alikes carry their own meaning because they are part of our culture.

-- John Morrison

[This message has been edited by yurisverdlov (edited May 06, 2001).]