marycatelli (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
marycatelli) wrote2022-06-28 09:23 pm
marycatelli) wrote2022-06-28 09:23 pm
Entry tags:
too many cooks
Was reading two books recently.
One opened up with three characters, all of whom had striking oddities in their background. One I could have put up with. Even all three could have taken a little more oddity than one character's background could have managed. But all three?
Though as I was pondering it, other book came to mind. It was in a series, and all the characters in it had been introduced elsewhere. And in this book, every single one of them came together.
I was thinking that, because they had all had their stand-alone stories, that it was less aptly woven together than The Lord of Rings, what with the jump to a book with them all. But then I pondered whether LOTR had as many characters chasing as many threads. I concluded not. But weaving them all together in one book was also unwise. Weaving has to be built.
It also helped LOTR that the villain's plans were not hidden. That added to confusion in this book.
One opened up with three characters, all of whom had striking oddities in their background. One I could have put up with. Even all three could have taken a little more oddity than one character's background could have managed. But all three?
Though as I was pondering it, other book came to mind. It was in a series, and all the characters in it had been introduced elsewhere. And in this book, every single one of them came together.
I was thinking that, because they had all had their stand-alone stories, that it was less aptly woven together than The Lord of Rings, what with the jump to a book with them all. But then I pondered whether LOTR had as many characters chasing as many threads. I concluded not. But weaving them all together in one book was also unwise. Weaving has to be built.
It also helped LOTR that the villain's plans were not hidden. That added to confusion in this book.