Quote:
Originally Posted by afa
Hmmm... Interesting. I can't recall reading a Fantasy series that had less detailed world-building than Abercrombie; then again, it's pretty clear you're more well-read in the genre than I am. So if Abercrombie really does represent the middle for you, I assume that implies there are others who you do think are barebones? Who would that be?
|
Just more "
widely-read" probably.
Barebones is really what I prefer, so the three works I mentioned previously would be representative of my definition of it.
Quote:
|
Read Lawrence's Prince of Thorns, Polansky's Low Town, and Huso's The Last Page if you're interested in getting an idea of the level of "world-building" I'm comfortable with.
|
**NOTE: by sparse world-building, I don't mean to suggest that those authors haven't created vivid worlds. They just don't spoon-feed those worlds to me. They tend take the approach of "sink or swim." The details of those worlds are right there in between all the words, but it's up to me, the reader, to do the heavy lifting and "build" them.