Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

This is one of the most 'hardest' feats for writers to do. Keeping the reader so locked into your work that he or she just forgets what's going on around them.
This is a very broad topic but I will be specific on one variable.
Variable up for discussion is villain(s). In my work I do not follow the 'yawn' cliche of villain. I would rather have the reader figure it out as they read. When creating a villain the questions come up in what made him or her turn to do wrong as a way of life. This part the writer does have to do soul searching and see if he or she has the guts to write about their own darkness.
In my opinion the more you reveal yourself the better your bad guy is going to me. Also has the potential to turn the hero in your work the bad guy all along. To be clear, a good person fighting for the wrong cause.
Not a lot of books I have read carried such shocking revelation, there's only a few good books that don't get looked at because of it.
Your thoughts

An interesting question, although I'm not sure I can address it very well. Our books have villains (assorted bad guys) but the MC's main conflict is with herself, so the bad guys tend to be subsidiary.

Take a look at Theodore 'Ted' Bundy, who according to people who knew him was a likable guy, who also did some horrible things.

If you have a likable villain who is suspected of foul deeds, and an apparent hero who is more psychologically capable of having committed the deeds, things could get interesting.

I think the whole hero/villain duality is overstated. There needn't be any real villain, nor real hero.

Looking at the books I've read lately (Kristine Kathryn RuschThe Disappeared, Great North Road, Solaris, even Wool) the conventional hero/villain convention is all but absent.

In The Disappeared there is a protagonist, but he doesn't do heroic things. There are "criminals" as well, but these are normal humans who accidentally transgressed alien races and were charged with crimes in an inter-species court, the punishments for which are quite heinous. Who's the villain? The criminals? The aliens? The answer is: no one. This is a story about the clash of cultures and the tragedies that befall people caught up in that clash.

In Great North Road there are several protagonists. Some of them do heroic-like things, but those actions ultimately don't solve the central conflict. There is also a monster. Or is it? Not to spoil things but the whole plot ultimately questions the notion of what/who a/the villain is.

Solaris? That's a thinking book, not an action book. The MC is never heroic. And the only possible villain in the book is the living(?) ocean on the planet itself...and is it really a villain, or a sentient being trying to communicate and understand us?

Wool also really has no traditional hero/villain motif. There's the MC who's trying to figure out what the nature of reality is. There are hints at a conspiracy to hide the truth from the people, but the conspirators (if they exist) are a nebulous "they" who are never manifest in the story.

So, I don't think the villain thing is really even necessary to keep the reader interested. It is but one possible tool, but not a necessary tool.

What keeps people locked in is the sum total of your skill as a writer. It's part and parcel with your ability to craft a compelling story filled with interesting characters, engaging plot, and proficient language.

Owen wrote: "An interesting question, although I'm not sure I can address it very well. Our books have villains (assorted bad guys) but the MC's main conflict is with herself, so the bad guys tend to be subsidi..."

I have no expectation for anyone to give me a profound answer. This is a question that imposes thought. This is something for 'all' of us to really consider and look at how we make protagonist and antagonist. But thanks for sharing though

Rob wrote: "The difficulty with using a real and non cliche villain is that you need a real and non-cliche hero, and yet there still needs to remain some contrast between the two. One of the points of criticis..."

Rob you have added to this thread, I appreciate that.

You win the daily double! You do have to match a none cliche villain with a none cliche hero. This is something I am doing/ did not know I was doing for sometime till my editor pointed this out. To be clear When protagonist and antagonist are none cliche, this opens up a 'huge' possibilities for your work. Good example is the main character in my current novel that's almost done with edits.
She's a Witch exiled Witch, alcohol abuser, mentally exhausted and still pissed off on why she was exiled. In other words she's rock bottom in her life.
The antagonist I twisted this up. Is really herself. To be clear she's a supernatural being she cannot live her life as a weak human, because of what she is. Furthermore with all high octane supernatural action going on she has to embrace her birthright to survive the harsh reality of being a Supernatural.
The actual villain(s) in my work is the Masonic order and coven ruling a town she lives in. Both antagonist factions are none traditional. Therefore piques the readers interest even more to find out why they are the bad guys.

R.F.G. wrote: "Take a look at Theodore 'Ted' Bundy, who according to people who knew him was a likable guy, who also did some horrible things.

If you have a likable villain who is suspected of foul deeds, and an..."

Very true,
Also you can flip this as well. Have Ted bundy like character be the good guy. and the Psychologically stalwart protagonist be the bad guy. Meaning the twist is this, mid way through the book you find out the Ted Bundy Character was actually murdering bad people who masqueraded as pillars of society example ( government black ops that helped a tyrant raise to power). And the good guy was sent by an organization to kill him. Just an odd idea, what do you think?

I sometimes think a lot of tragedies are written from the PoV of the antagonist.

If you can take a "bad guy" and make the reader believe they're the "good guy" then you're a pretty good writer.

Micah wrote: "I think the whole hero/villain duality is overstated. There needn't be any real villain, nor real hero.

Looking at the books I've read lately (Kristine Kathryn Rusch[book:The Disapp..."

In my opinion, on your last paragraph I disagree with some of it. Skill as writer is needed, but its not all that and a bag of chips. I have read great work that have great writing skills but lacked the 'umpfh' to make me read it again. My point Writing skill, plot twist and distancing your self from cliche writing-all of it has to be used in order to captivate readers these days.

The book you talked about the Disappeared. I have to disagree on that, from what I get from that is government rules people forced to obey even when it goes against someones culture. In opinion this is very bland/ we see this everyday in everyones government. Law vs. morality and culture, unfortunately when I see writing like that. I just hope the writer does not get labeled they're making a defense case for the devil if you will. For example take predator, imagine him in court for hunting other aliens. His defense it's his way of proving his status-to mating rites. But in the eyes of the law it's wrong, then you have culture vs government, free will vs. law and all that. I get what what the author is saying but it opens a plethora of injustice done on people. But it does make us look at how zero tolerant man made law is. The novel The Disappeared points the finger at the establishment, I call that work a wake up call.

Imowen wrote: "Very true,
Also you can flip this as well. Have Ted bundy like character be the good guy. and the Psychologically stalwart protagonist be the bad guy. Meaning the twist is this, mid way through the book you find out the Ted Bundy Character was actually murdering bad people who masqueraded as pillars of society example ( government black ops that helped a tyrant raise to power). And the good guy was sent by an organization to kill him. Just an odd idea, what do you think?"

It is something you could do, especially if you leave the reader wondering when at different parts of the story, who appears to be the good or bad guy swings drastically.

Sometimes the more you learn about a situation the more questions you have, until you get that key piece that binds the rest together.

Imowen wrote: Skill as writer is needed, but its not all that and a bag of chips.

I would take a writer like George RR Martin over an author like Robert Jordan any day.

I don't go in for good heroes versus evil villains so much, but the conflicts between my protagonist and antagonist do twist and turn and reverse themselves.

On the other hand, I felt like Imowen was imagining something like a moral 'ride' which the writer sets up for the reader. Mine involves morally ambivalent protagonists and antagonists who aren't always in control of the consequences of their actions and don't always care as much as they should. Any 'evil' which results isn't the horror fiction kind, it's the sometimes starker kind you tend to get in real life.

I know some readers don't want to go on that kind of ride, which is fine. They want characters they can like or admire or find inspiring. And some readers much prefer characters through whom they can explore the darkness.

I feel like maybe it's the conflict (not necessarily intense) that locks readers in, but darkness is a matter of taste.

In the novel I'm getting ready for release ("The War of the Egg") the moral ambiguity lies in the conflict where one species acts to delay humans from entering their world. An act that might seem reprehensible at first glance is seen as justifiable (even to humans) as events unfold.

Events in the real world can hold horrors stark, horrors dark, and horrors that run on their own beyond the pale of simple good versus evil.

Imowen wrote: "In my opinion, on your last paragraph I disagree with some of it. Skill as writer is needed, but its not all that and a bag of chips."

Actually it is. When I say "skill as a writer" I mean the entire package from world creation, character creation, language skills, plot arrangement, story sequencing, pacing, dialog, utilizing exposition effectively.

I.e., I meant "skill as a writer" = "effective at crafting an engaging book." I wasn't just refering to how well an author puts together each sentence. Well written sentences strung together in the wrong order still isn't skillful writing.

So, yes, by my defenition if the writer's skill is up your personal tastes, then you will be locked in.

Obviously everyone's opinion is going to vary on what constitutes skillful writing. There's no one size fits all solution.

Imowen wrote: "The book you talked about the Disappeared. I have to disagree on that..."

I'm not sure I understand what you are disagreeing on. My point was that there is no villain in the story. You could potentially point to "the government" as the villain, only that's not a character in the book. It's a power system in the book. But a power system, deprived of any physical character to represent it, is not a villain. It's an immovable object.

Have you read this one?

Imowen wrote: "I get what what the author is saying but it opens a plethora of injustice done on people."

Actually that's the main conflict in the story. Injustice is being done to people because of interspecies law. The main characters are stuck between not agreeing with the law, but having to see that it is carried out. The moral dilemna forced upon those who must enforce unfair sentences (from the human point of view) is the fundamental tension in the book.

But there is no real villain. No personified villain. The "heroes" (who are detectives with authority only in one city on the Moon) cannot change, conquer, or overcome a legal system that spans multiple races. They can only make personal choices in light of that legal system.

Charles wrote: "I would take a writer like George RR Martin over an author like Robert Jordan any day."

I'll take a pass on both of them. I've always known Jordan's not for me. But I gave up on GRRM after the third book in his GoT or whatever it's called series. I didn't find him an effective writer at all. His technical writing skill is OK (if uneven), but he's in no hurry to finish the story--he's STILL not done? And I found him seriously misguided in terms of character and plot.

Aside from his interminable meanderings with the dragon lady (I had the distinct feeling he was just shooting off at the mouth, filling in pointless back story with no purpose other than to keep her off the main contenent and out of the power struggle back home until "the appointed time"), here we were in Book 3 and there was still no clear main character.

Yet he wrote it with one family as the good guys and another as the bad guys...Which doesn't work for me if you refuse to have one or more consistent characters to pin my hopes on.

He didn't. He killed them all off and left me wondering just who the F I was supposed to be cheering for after all this wasted emotional investment on my part.

Hated it.

"He killed them all off and left me wondering just who the F I was supposed to be cheering for"

Maybe that was the whole point of it.

Villain may be an inadequate description; antagonist would be more encompassing. And even antagonist typically implies a person or persons, whereas there are plenty successful stories that are man vs. himself (Flowers for Algernon, for example). The antagonist is the condition that the protagonist must overcome. So villains to me aren't so important as who is doing the reading.

Locking in 100% of your audience is going to be an impossible task because you have no control over who picks up your book and who doesn't. If you describe and market your book to have broad appeal, invariably you are going to have people with whom the story resonates and those with whom it does not.

My own book Syncing Forward has dual antagonists: a group of terrorists and the MC's condition that screws up his life. The story is heavy on family love and loss, but also has heavy elements of a thriller and scifi novel. But feedback is as varied as taste in food.

Some readers finished the book in one day while others hated the whole middle of the book. Some thought there was early development while others felt the beginning was slow. And you see this with best sellers: even top ten books on Amazon are loaded with 1 and 2 star ratings. It all has to do with expectation and taste, which of course goes back to your audience: who are you writing for?

All you can do is write to the best of your abilities, then target your audience with a focused description that will attract the people who you want reading your book. My story was primarily about family, but I knew that a 17 year old teenager was not going to feel the pain and anguish of the MC the way a 40 year old parent would.

Robert wrote: ""He killed them all off and left me wondering just who the F I was supposed to be cheering for"

Maybe that was the whole point of it."

And if so, I found that it sucked. **shrug**

writing a card carrying villain with great PR is a difficult but not impossible task.
they have dreams wishes and desires too. are the villains motives due to revenge? jealousy? shame? etc. there is a reason the villain wants to kick the hero's ass. villain dint wake up one day vowing to be the baddest mutha around. something drove him to it...

Micah,
Maybe you are suppose to be happy that you are still alive at the end of the story.

Rob wrote: "I think if I wanted to have a metric to predict books I might really really love, the following might be a close fit: (2*R1+R2)*(R4+2*R5)/(1+R3) ..."

Like this one: Quantum Concepts in Space and Time?

* She says, probably looking like an idiot because everyone else knows what Rob means. At least Quantum Concepts in Space and Time sounds like an SF book.

Robert wrote: "Micah,
Maybe you are suppose to be happy that you are still alive at the end of the story."

That would be the goal if it were a horror story, but it's not. :P

Micah wrote: "Charles wrote: "I would take a writer like George RR Martin over an author like Robert Jordan any day."

I'll take a pass on both of them. I've always known Jordan's not for me. But I gave up on GR..."

Most of those reasons are why I love it. His other fiction is good too. That isn't the only thing he's ever written. I like how he doesn't mess around with flowery phrases. His style is clean and cold.

Did you ever stop to think that you were cheering for the bad guys (the Starks)? I sometimes think that they're the real villains in the story. I see it as a bunch of hillbillies from the Ozarks going to New York City to teach them cityslickers how its done.

As far as Jordan, I don't need to know what the hundreds of servants working in the White Tower are wearing. Too many paragraphs of fine detail that don't add anything to the story.

That's why I chose them to make my point. Give me someone that understands conflict and plots and not someone that can describe in great detail the scroll work on the fringe of a robe some unnamed character is wearing.

The fact that you stopped reading shows what a profound effect the writing had on you. I've never put down a book as many times as I have the Song of Ice and Fire series.

Rob wrote: "I was talking about using rating frequency to calculate a "love it or hate it" metric. "

I'm dubious that a metric can be assigned to this sort of thing. As a physicist, I understand why someone might want to have one, but (in general) I think trying to invent and apply them does more harm than good.

In this instance, it's not the ratings that matter, but the quality of each rating. For example, any rating lacking a review can safely be assigned a quality rating of 0, because its basis is unknown. (I suppose you could go to some lengths to infer a basis, but why bother?)

Of course, if you is going to go to the effort of assessing the quality of the reviews for a given work, a metric then becomes superfluous.

Edit: I probably should have pointed out that (and I think this is what you are getting at) I believe great books are challenging, and challenging books are unlikely to attract overwhelmingly positive reviews/ratings from a wide audience. So yes, having ratings that are all over the place (or bimodal) can be a positive thing. But the quality of the ratings still trumps the distribution.

Robert wrote: "Micah,
Maybe you are suppose to be happy that you are still alive at the end of the story."

I was just happy to say to myself "well, don't have to bother with anymore of this." ;D

Anne wrote: "I don't go in for good heroes versus evil villains so much, but the conflicts between my protagonist and antagonist do twist and turn and reverse themselves.

On the other hand, I felt like Imowen ..."

Hypothetically it might be a little bit both that a readers wants...Some readers like myself want it all. I rather give a reader 'more' than what they spent their money on...That's just me. Your thoughts?

Charles wrote: "I sometimes think a lot of tragedies are written from the PoV of the antagonist.

If you can take a "bad guy" and make the reader believe they're the "good guy" then you're a pretty good writer."

Then you get the reader to question their own view of good or evil. Give them something to think about.

R.F.G. wrote: "Imowen wrote: "Very true,
Also you can flip this as well. Have Ted bundy like character be the good guy. and the Psychologically stalwart protagonist be the bad guy. Meaning the twist is this, mid ..."

Very true, one thing I like about this is....It let the readers choose/ figure things out and hopefully read the book again to get those pieces you're talking about.

K.P. wrote: "writing a card carrying villain with great PR is a difficult but not impossible task.
they have dreams wishes and desires too. are the villains motives due to revenge? jealousy? shame? etc. there i..."

Opinion wise, that's hardest thing to actually do. Now you have to make the villain 3 dimensional. He could hate the hero because the hero is respected by the people who politically exiled his family. The punch line the mother and father were about to expose members of the senate who committed acts of treason. Or vigilante despising Bat man...See's Bat man as the real wrong in society. Trusting in the justice system that's corrupt and imprisoning terrible crooks that will never be reformed...Now that will be comic that will explode in sales.

Charles wrote: "Imowen wrote: Skill as writer is needed, but its not all that and a bag of chips.

I would take a writer like George RR Martin over an author like Robert Jordan any day."

I prefer H.P. Lovecraft over both any day of the week here...Lovecraft pulls off describing something so terrible that the character cannot comprehend. I spend majority of my time researching and reading what research just for fun now.

Rob wrote: "Anne wrote: "Rob wrote: "I think if I wanted to have a metric to predict books I might really really love, the following might be a close fit: (2*R1+R2)*(R4+2*R5)/(1+R3) ..."

Like this one: [book:..."

That's cool! Possibly not scientific, but cool. I usually read the reviews : )

Imowen wrote: "Charles wrote: "Imowen wrote: Skill as writer is needed, but its not all that and a bag of chips.

I would take a writer like George RR Martin over an author like Robert Jordan any day."

I prefer..."

That's why I can't read Lovecraft. Or Jordan anymore, even though that used to be my favorite style, overly descriptive prose.

Charles wrote: "That's why I can't read Lovecraft. Or Jordan anymore, even though that used to be my favorite style, overly descriptive prose..."

I think there's a big difference between Jordan and Lovecraft in that regard. Specifically, 68 years of time! ;P

When Lovecraft first published commercially in 1922, his purple prose were not so strangely outmoded as they are today. And they were calculated to emulate a more formal descriptive writing style from the 19th century in order to throw the strangeness of his tales in sharp relief.

In contrast, when Wheel of Time began in 1990, overly descriptive prose was really not the thing anymore. Jordan, like many fantasy writers, I suspect, used it in attempt to sound like a legit fantasy writer. You know, just like Tolkien.

Those are really two very different eras to compare. You still may not like it, but I don't think it's really valid to compare or judge their works only on that basis.

I like Lovecraft quite a lot. Jordan I won't even attempt.

Micah wrote: "Charles wrote: "That's why I can't read Lovecraft. Or Jordan anymore, even though that used to be my favorite style, overly descriptive prose..."

I think there's a big difference between Jordan an..."

I have no problem comparing them in a vacuum. I really only chose Martin and Jordan to begin with because they are both well known with contrasting styles at the opposite end of the spectrum within the same genre.

I can compare Poe to Stephen King, so I don't see why I can't compare Jordan to Lovecraft, even if it is like comparing the Backstreet Boys to The Beatles.

And yeah, it is a personal preference. I'd rather have a good plot over flowery prose or settings and atmosphere. That's why I like Poe better than King. :D

Having tackled Jordan, and enjoyed it the first, second, fifth times through, and then discovered on the last attempt I was getting bored with it, I do agree that excessive description is something to be careful of. It's great when you first come to a new series because it allows the author to paint exactly the picture they want you to have of the world in which they play.

It's not fantasy, but Earth's Children does the same thing - starts a description, and the first time you read the series, it's wonderful. After that, you wind up flipping for pages and pages before you come back to the story again.

There has to be a balance between description and story movement. Because no story happens in a vacuum, and how the environment interacts with the plot affects how the plot progresses. I've read some of Poe's work, and was not thrilled with it at the time. For me, there wasn't enough work done on world building (or, more appropriately world RECORDING) for me to hang the story on. The same goes for some of the current authors I've run across. Their stories are set in contemporary times, and against that backdrop the story makes sense. However, I can see the lack of descriptive backdrop being a problem in the future as the social intricacies shift with time. Especially with plot driven, or environmentally driven, stories.

Personally, what I find the most engaging are the tales that pull you in with character development that also reflects the world in which the characters reside. That can be modern day (such as Estelle Ryan and her Genevieve books) or something as off the wall as Robert Asprinand his MYTH INC series. Both are fun reads that keep you captivated.

Also the QUALITY of how the story is told provides a net to keep the reader locked into the tale. I tried to like Pierre Anthony's Xanth tales, but the quality of his story telling kept jarring me out - mostly it was the over abundance of puns. (Yes, I know that is what the series is known for. I still am amazed how far I got into the books before the puns made me nauseous.) He has good character development, a wonderful pace, and a lousy ability to tell some of the tales. Again, I've run into some that were better than others. And this is an issue that any author has to deal with. A recent example is Brian Rathbone. I love his Godsland series, but the last book just wasn't up to the same quality standards as he's had in the first 8. Really hoping he can pull it back together again if/when he releases any more.

Micah wrote: "Charles wrote: "That's why I can't read Lovecraft. Or Jordan anymore, even though that used to be my favorite style, overly descriptive prose..."

I think there's a big difference between Jordan an..."

Lovecraft perfected describing heinous things that destroyed his characters Psyche...Examples too many to name. I really don't care about time difference its all about the writer pushing his herself to achieve a feat or challenge the writer pose in the self. Lovecrafts' style of descrinption/ can't describe is not long. At times he will do it in three paragraphs, few pages or the entire short story. Describe the thing that should not be in between action sequences.
Saying that, 'It's not easy to do' at all. As writer, I studied how he did it and practiced it till I had my own technique. Lovecraft shows off his perfection of terror at the mountains of Madness, Return to insmuth and Dagon. Jordan and Tolkein completely turned me away from fantasy forever. Tolkein too predictable and Robert Jordan needed to 'wrap' it up with description.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the authors named in this discussion. They're all better than I am.

But as a reader I am allowed to have an opinion. Cut the gloss and give me the grit.

K. wrote: "Having tackled Jordan, and enjoyed it the first, second, fifth times through, and then discovered on the last attempt I was getting bored with it, I do agree that excessive description is something..."

I honestly stopped reading at the 8th book. Wish I had stopped at the 6th. I loved it up until then.

Just a testament to the variety of readers out there and what it takes to keep them "locked in". The tragedy in a song of ice and fire kept me locked in. The wasteful text of Robert Jordan eventually pushed me away from Wheel of Time. I could have chosen other authors, but I just think they are prime examples of what I like now in a story. Just bring me the plot on a silver platter, and leave the fluff for everyone else. :D

I just happened to pick two authors that Micah hated. :D :D :D

Imowen wrote: "Micah wrote: "Charles wrote: "That's why I can't read Lovecraft. Or Jordan anymore, even though that used to be my favorite style, overly descriptive prose..."

I think there's a big difference bet..."

Exposition and description both reside on the same level to me, best interspersed or introduced with dialogue. That is a very recent opinion though.

Charles wrote: "K. wrote: "Having tackled Jordan, and enjoyed it the first, second, fifth times through, and then discovered on the last attempt I was getting bored with it, I do agree that excessive description i..."

What is the old saw about opinions? I still like fantasy. I'd love to go back and reread Jordan, but after the last dismal attempt, I'm not sure I could get through it.

If the book is an obvious "one read", I don't mind the thick descriptions. However, if I think that I'll come back to read another time, then I do like the description paired down some.

However, that is preference, like you mentioned, rather than a genre specific "must have or else" requirement to be included.

The most important thing as a writer is to connect and communicate with the reader. And the reader is a wild beast that remains untamed.

reading this discussion just gave me a lightbulb moment. :D i read a lot of old fantasy and horror (especially all the authors mentioned.) dont try to combine all those techniques. that is a setup of a big hairy confusing mess...

I am finding this discussion deeply interesting. I have never read Jordan or Lovecraft or Poe or GRRM's GoT (whatever the accepted acronym is -- I attempted the first book but I'm afraid I was overwhelmed by boredom and could not pursue it). I did read more of GRRM's Dying of the Light which I thought was overall well-written (in terms of prose style); however my (years-old impression) of the plot is that it consisted of two immature, annoying persons and bland cypher doing nothing much to no purpose at great length.

So I cannot directly relate to these author's work, but I'm getting the impression that there is yet another memo we did not get. For myself, I'll admit a weakness for what I imagine it considered florid prose -- I can almost always find a way to shoehorn yet another adjective into a sentence -- just as I like multiple independent clauses set off with em-dashes (with a parenthetical aside when I can get away with it); an ill-used semi-colon here and there (blasted semi-colons are the bane of my existence), and if the whole comprises its own paragraph, so much the better -- except for the time it was pointed out to me that a particular sentence (of which I am very fond) was not indeed a sentence at all, because I had managed to leave out the verb.

Taken together with including prologues and epilogues; pages of long, knotted, digressive exposition, not starting with the action (except when we feel otherwise) and probably too much sex, I'm beginning to feel we are truly accomplishing something here. With just a little more effort, perhaps we can achieve a true breakthrough. Indeed, I believe I'm beginning to see the light. :-)

Nope, that's not a light at the end of the tunnel, its just more main characters dying.

Charles wrote: "Nope, that's not a light at the end of the tunnel, its just more main characters dying."

Not our characters though. They loll hedonistically in hot tubs consuming champagne and cupcakes. :-)

Charles wrote: "K. wrote: "Having tackled Jordan, and enjoyed it the first, second, fifth times through, and then discovered on the last attempt I was getting bored with it, I do agree that excessive description i..."

That really was overkill in Jordans' work. I agree, prefer heavy plots, plot twist and plot WTF lol.

Imowen wrote: "Charles wrote: "K. wrote: "Having tackled Jordan, and enjoyed it the first, second, fifth times through, and then discovered on the last attempt I was getting bored with it, I do agree that excessi..."

That's all I was trying to convey.

I never finished that story because of the repetition. I admit I have a bad memory sometimes but that was way overkill. It was like telling me in the face I was too stupid to remember what had been said already 50 times before.

G.G. wrote: "I never finished that story because of the repetition. I admit I have a bad memory sometimes but that was way overkill. It was like telling me in the face I was too stupid to remember what had been..."

That's one thing I learned from Jordan, in regards not to do that to readers period. People like us who 'read' books are intelligent, common sense folk that write also.