Ack wrote:I love many of Michael Crichton's books, but yeah, he was what I consider to be a "functional" writer. It wasn't highly detailed in such a way that I could picture something beautiful, but it captured enough to convey the story and keep things moving.
I've only read two Crichton books. Jurassic Park once, and about half of The Lost World. It was so long ago though, my JP books have a Borders Bookstore price sticker on them LOL. So I don't have the most vivid memory of them. And it's been such a long time, who knows if I'd have the same opinion now that I did back then. But I don't recall his writing being bland in any way. Although, now that I think about it, I could have possibly had the scenery from the movies in my head which helped for any lack of imagination the book gave me. But I do remember the book being pretty descriptive of the characters. Although the characters were a little flat compared to their movie counterparts, if the movie didn't exist I would have been perfectly satisfied with the characters in the book. But again, it's been so long.
Limewater wrote:Ziggy587 wrote:Well that's encouraging, thanks. How you would describe the world building of the novels?
Rowling is definitely no Tolkien, but I thought the world-building in Harry Potter was pretty fun.
You mentioned the vastness of Middle Earth. In comparison, the "Wizarding World" in Harry Potter is really very small. But it is also very detailed, with a lot of personality. As you read through the books, you learn more about wizarding society and how certain things work. Rowling clearly didn't have everything worked out when she wrote the first book, but I don't think she claims to have. And there are interesting non-human characters who don't act like humans or want the same things that humans do.
There has been plenty written about how the Wizarding World economy is a disaster and the monetary system makes no sense. These criticisms are fair. If you won't be able to enjoy the books for this reason then I would suggest you avoid them.
One of the awesome things about Tolkien's massive world is that not everything is explained, and what is explained is not always in the highest detail. That element of mystery, when you're left wondering what events transpired over the centuries, is always awesome. Like the original Star Wars trilogy, when you got hints of the past but it was never fully explained, that always seems to somehow make things more captivating.
If the Harry Potter books spend a lot of time explaining its economy only for it to be a hot mess that doesn't make sense, then I could see how that would be annoying. But if you would have to piece together random bits strewn across all of the books, then I don't think that would annoy me. So long as what's on the surface is enjoyable. In fact, if I was paying enough attention to notice that some minor points are conflicting, I often find that to be fun. And it is YA fiction, after all, so suspension of disbelief should apply double. And I also get kinda annoyed when people are OK with flying around on broomsticks but want to pick apart how the economy makes no sense.
