The speaker’s voice boomed out over the civilians heads in the dark auditorium, loud, harsh and graced by hollow distortion as it echoed over the hundreds of the packed-in working class and thundered up to a vaulted ceiling. It seemed even louder over the left side, over the leagues and leagues of deserted chairs, empty but for the dozen or so Kasimovs lounging high up in the consecutive middles of the far-back rows. Some of them had a boot hooked up on the back of the chair before him, as if to demonstrate to whoever cared to look that he was thoroughly hot and bored; which of course he was perfectly entitled to be, as a Kasimov. The people were perhaps too respectful, too intimidated to sit near them. Of course they had stared before the lights had gone down, little children who looked wide-eyed at the military dress sabers and the long coats, the medals that glimmered in the dark heat. They had doubtless been told not to talk to Kasimovs, not to approach them - those, on a higher plane of soldiery. High and strong like glossed granite, more polished around the edges.
Tolkien is usually pointed out as the exception to this, and sometimes to excuse an author’s tendency to dump in a whole lot of extraneous information. Thing is, Tolkien did cut some information out of his story and leave it in the appendices, including a lot of the history of Rohan, the romance of Aragorn and Arwen, the ultimate fates of most of the members of the Fellowship, and tons of Elvish language details. The facts that pop up in his books, including details of landscape and Elvish legends—and, yes, language—overwhelm many readers and turn them off Tolkien (and I think showed up where they did because Tolkien loved them too much to get rid of them entirely, while he could do without depicting a ton of romance). So “Tolkien did it!” is not a valid excuse for the novel to be loaded down with stupid details.What does “stupid” mean in this context? It means, "Things that do not serve the story."
111,981 Literary Works • 600,354 Reviews