Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vieo

What D&D monster best describes 'Samara'?

Recommended Posts

The Ring is far from one of the most psychological movies of all time.

 

I honestly believe I've written at least three scripts with more psychological depth than The Ring.

 

The Ring was surreal, creepy, and screwed up. But psychological depth is another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes.

 

King's biggest problem is his over-infatuation with "filler".

 

Just tell the darn story already :thumbsup:

 

I mean honestly, how many people make 1000 page books that you can read the first 100 and last 100 pages of said book, and then know "exactly" what's going on.

 

That's how much filler is in there :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I mean honestly, how many people make 1000 page books that you can read the first 100 and last 100 pages of said book, and then know "exactly" what's going on."

 

This is simply not true. At all. I do agree that he does use more than his share of filler; but then again most writers tend to favor that way. Very annoying of all them to do so hence why I skimread many books - even my all time faves.

 

NOTE TO INSPRIING AUTHORS (including myself): You do NOT need 5 pages to describe the hair of your heroine or the eyes of the villain. Period.


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NOTE TO INSPRIING AUTHORS (including myself): You do NOT need 5 pages to describe the hair of your heroine or the eyes of the villain. Period.

 

That should be shoved into the brain of every writer out there, with force if need be. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is simply not true. At all. I do agree that he does use more than his share of filler; but then again most writers tend to favor that way. Very annoying of all them to do so hence why I skimread many books - even my all time faves.

 

Your opinion has been nullified by the fact you don't read :blink:

 

Skimreading doesn't count :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your opinion has been nullified by the fact you don't read

 

Skimreading doesn't count"

 

I do read. I only skimread nasuas overly long pathetic descriptions as I exampled above. Otherwise, I read. Period.


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean honestly, how many people make 1000 page books that you can read the first 100 and last 100 pages of said book, and then know "exactly" what's going on.

 

That's how much filler is in there :blink:

I take it you've read Robert Jordan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean honestly, how many people make 1000 page books that you can read the first 100 and last 100 pages of said book, and then know "exactly" what's going on.

 

That's how much filler is in there :-

I take it you've read Robert Jordan?

 

I was talking about Stephen King :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I caught that you were specifically talking about Stephen King. I think Jordan is really guilty of it as well.

 

I'll try to avoid spoilers. But in one particular book, the good guys stand around and recap for the first 150-200 pages. No joke. They know right from the beginning that two people are kidnapped. The villian says, "meet me here, and we'll resolve things". For the next 600 pages, they do random things and avoid that location for no particular reason.

 

Then for no particular reason, they finally go to said location, hero releases generic balefire and passes out. Good triumphs while the conflict isn't written (the hero keeps passing out) and we move on to the next book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet millions say that Jordan is better than Tolkein because he's writting a lengthier series. Some of the smaller concepts inside Jordan's works are interesting, but most people don't realize that none of it is original. Jordan is blending mythologies, characters and stories from a variety of locations.

 

I can deal with that. And some of the characters are interesting. But his plot structure is perhaps the worst I've ever seen. 13 books where the ending is prescribed from book one's prologue.

 

The whole concept is one of cycles. And he's going to drag it out to 13,000 pages to complete his cycle.

 

Yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck Palahniuk > All

 

If you've ever read a Palahniuk book, you'll know that he NEVER has ANY filler whatsoever. Each sentence is minimalistic- each word like a bullet, cutting through your mind. Each chapter is a fistfight, and each paragraph is a slug to the stomach. I'm not even sure if he uses paragraphs at times. He's just that good. Infact, once, he read a short story aloud to an audience, entitled "Guts", and a couple of them fainted. No joke.

 

Fight Club. Survivor. Choke. These books are masterpieces.

 

Lullaby is okay.

 

Diary... well it sucks, but give the guy a break.

 

And of course, DAN BROWN CAN JUST GO DIE A HORRIBLE PAINFUL DEATH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...