The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Basic gaffes in serious nonfiction histories are suprising and disappointing:

That's one of my peeviest of peeves. If it happens near the beginning of the book, I'm out. I can only assume that there will be more of the same and they drive me nuts and it does attest to an essential lack of understanding and research. And someone should have caught it! So sloppiness all around.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes, there are outliers!
It should be 5 or 6 volumes. Massively padded.

Well, yes. But still, in no way can it be compressed into one paper volume.

I did read it all before the TV series came out (which isn't as good as I hoped, but not quite a total flop either). I have an one-volume ebook omnibus, makes it easier to search for various characters, places and things.

But yeah, it's very padded in middle volumes. If Robert Jordan had lived longer, I imagine there would be even more volumes than 14...

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Basic gaffes in serious nonfiction histories are suprising and disappointing: Currently reading A History of Modern Lebanon by Fawwaz Traboulsi and this anachronism caught my eye
e.a.

If I read this correctly, the United Nations supported a decision made around 20 years before the United Nations existed.

Probably the League of Nations. UN is since October 1945.

But a lot of ME history sources are dubious. Essentially the British & French redrew the ME (Syria, Palestine Mandate, then Trans-Jordan, Lebanon & etc after 1918 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. See Sykes-Picot. Both reneged on promises to various Arab groups. This is why Syria (Damascus was regional Administration) claims Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and Palestinian territories.

The mess is nothing to do with League of Nations or UN. It's a mess created by the British and French.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Well, yes. But still, in no way can it be compressed into one paper volume.
…
But yeah, it's very padded in middle volumes. If Robert Jordan had lived longer, I imagine there would be even more volumes than 14...

I agree it's needing to be multiple volumes.
He needed a more aggressive agent/publisher/editor. Opposite problem to Douglas Adams.

See also Thomas Covenant.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It should be 5 or 6 volumes. Massively padded.

It is difficult to sustain a story arc beyond three volumes, unlikely after five and flatly impossible after seven. At that point, the arc breaks down and the books need to be stand-alones in a coherent and consistent universe.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Quoth

See also Thomas Covenant.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get past the rape scene in the first book. Yes, I know all the reasons and excuses for it, and I've read other rape scenes in other books without ditching the book; but for some reason, I just couldn't stomach the main character after that scene. And if you cannot stand the main character, there's not much point in reading.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

It is difficult to sustain a story arc beyond three volumes, unlikely after five and flatly impossible after seven. At that point, the arc breaks down and the books need to be stand-alones in a coherent and consistent universe.

Mostly true, but at least they did manage to finish WoT in a more or less satisfying way. Which cannot be said of some other series (looking at you, George Martin).

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by issybird

That's one of my peeviest of peeves. If it happens near the beginning of the book, I'm out. I can only assume that there will be more of the same and they drive me nuts and it does attest to an essential lack of understanding and research. And someone should have caught it! So sloppiness all around.

Yes, I'm inclined to blame the editor here, as a few pages later there are multiple references to the League of Nations, so the one-off slip should have been caught

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Unfortunately, I couldn't get past the rape scene in the first book. Yes, I know all the reasons and excuses for it, and I've read other rape scenes in other books without ditching the book; but for some reason, I just couldn't stomach the main character after that scene. And if you cannot stand the main character, there's not much point in reading.

Yes, that's true.
There are no good excuses.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

It is difficult to sustain a story arc beyond three volumes, unlikely after five and flatly impossible after seven. At that point, the arc breaks down and the books need to be stand-alones in a coherent and consistent universe.

I think so, unless the series plot arc is in addition to the novels working stand-alone.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Heh. Fortunately, I never notice those mistakes, because I can never remember any dates. I have no memory for numbers at all.

Being a history, this book is full of dates, this just happened to involve one I knew fairly well, the post WWII start of the UN. And since every other reference to the UN's predecessor so far has been correct, I'm reflecting the goodwill and generosity of the season by letting them off.

[svenlind]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Basic gaffes in serious nonfiction histories are suprising and disappointing: Currently reading A History of Modern Lebanon by Fawwaz Traboulsi and this anachronism caught my eye
e.a.

If I read this correctly, the United Nations supported a decision made around 20 years before the United Nations existed.

The author probably meant the League of Nations. IMO a minor mistake.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by svenlind

The author probably meant the League of Nations. IMO a minor mistake.

Had you read all of my related posts you would have seen that (a) I am very well aware that the reference should have been to the League of Nations, (b) I considered this to be a failure by the editor for not catching what I (c) explictly described as a one-off slip.

[svenlind]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Had you read all of my related posts you would have seen that (a) I am very well aware that the reference should have been to the League of Nations, (b) I considered this to be a failure by the editor for not catching what I (c) explictly described as a one-off slip.

Sorry I answered before I had read the whole thread

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Now those come out like popcorn from the popcorn machine, nearly 3-4-6 "novels" a year, all around ...oh, I'd say 40-45K words tops?

I'm OK with 150-200K words per year from an author, since there are very few who can put out much more than that and still keep up the quality.

OTOH, if each of these "novellas" is priced like it was a full 100K+ word book, then I likely will definitely look for other authors until I can get the short books on sale for an appropriate price.