Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursa major  You may not need to know more, Connavar, but some of us like it when we can find out more. I'm not insisting that there always be a map (or a glossary), but I like it when there is. (I won't refuse to read a book without them, so no harm is done.) All you have to do is not look at the map or the glossary.
(Where the setting is supposed to be real - as in the Inspector Rebus books - all I have to do is look at an Edinburgh street map; all you have to do is nothing.)
And I agree that your example is bad writing, Ian. In fact the writer should assume all readers are like Connavar, i.e. map-resistant, and tell the reader what the reader needs to know in an artful a way as possible, i.e. no clunkiness.
Spectrum: Don't give up the day job just for the moment: your idea might take a while to catch on (which is not to say it won't). |
I should have qouted Jenna i was answering to this :
"What about those who don't live in America and have never been? There are several billion out there, I believe... "
Thinking its nice to know more about real life cities in a fiction book but its not a must to add it,to make it full on info and discriptions of real cities.
Not talking about maps at all. But that as the person Jenna qouted said its not a must to be really familier with of cities to enjoy a story.
Just saying i doubt many readers use fiction books as means to get to know more about a real city.
Talking about Rebus, i read and enjoy the regular info and discriptions is more than enough to se Edinborugh perfecly fine.