Whinging on 'editing' in fantasy novels

I was just playing Morphy's "stupid game" in Book Talk, and found myself whinging about Ship of Magic by Robin Hobb. I love the sea serpents, the liveships, the pirates and the characters, but the first half of this book was so unbelieveably slow I gave up on it for a while. I might not have even finished it had it not been recommended so highly by so many people I respect. Hobb spent so much time having the Vestrit family bitch each other out and slap each other around and whine and moan about their fates. OK, I get it, get on with it! Where was the editor? A book with a pirate should not wait until page 450 to have a swordfight.

I have found the same problem with most of the fantasy I read, including authors I enjoy and respect like GRR Martin, Pratchett, Jacqueline Carey, etc. What is it about the fantasy genre, or its readers, that creates this problem regularly? Do fantasy readers, after cutting our teeth on Tolkien, just expect to be bored to death? Do we not take anything seriously that is less than 1000 pages? Are we just too thick to get the idea the first 3 times something is mentioned?

I love the genre, generally, but it does become tiresome that so many little stylistic quirks have to be "forgiven" in order to enjoy some worldbuilding or imagination.

Wow. I don't find either Tolkein or Pratchett boring...I don't think I've been bored once reading any of their works at all.
Maybe it's just a question of personal taste?

littlegeek -

I agree.

I read quite a bit of YA fantasy, and have many of the same issues - where oh where are the editors?? - but whenever I complain about it, people say "it's just YA, stop griping". In my opinion, it makes no sense to say "it's just fantasy" or "it's just YA" - neither of those is an excuse for poor writing or lack of editing.

>2 jenknox: Must be. I found Pratchett boring but never Carey!

#2 As to Pratchett, I find in many of his books, the small jokes are great and are what keep me reading, but the climaxes are so protracted as to have me screaming. The time to slow the progress of your plot to a crawl is not the last 50 pages. imho.

Try Michner. Granted it's not fantasy, but it may help you not be so frustrated with fantasy. :)

# 1 littlegeek, I too have wondered about the lack of editing, as well as advice, or perhaps it might be called meta-editing.

I found the Thomas Covenant books to be wordy, at times I thought the author must have been adding 2 words from the thesaurus for every initial or first adjective he wrote down.

The "meta-edit"/advice phrase it meant to indicate the sometimes very long works that are produced. I enjoyed Wizard's First Rule (836 pp in pb); but half-way through the second in the Sword of Truth series (Stone of Tears, 979 pp), I decided I was not going to read 10 such volumes. It is going to be 800-900 pp per book of the same plot, vanquish or thwart minor evils and finally a major evil; only to start all over again in the next 800 pages.
Besides half way through #2 I was sufficiently creeped out by the depths of evil & depravity being attributed to the bad guys. Did I need to follow one couple through 10 books of that.
*call me squeamish*
Of course, this has happened to Jordan's Wheel of Time series, but I gradually got into that one, and they did not start out so long. I am glad it will be finished in the next/12th volume. I am hoping Jordan beats the disease afflicting him.

I have a 'thing' for always reading long books so picking up a 1000 page book isn't that much of a chore for me. But, I agree. Editing needs to be enforced. I had to force my way through The Magicians' Guild which was only about 300-something pages. It didn't pick up until page 290 which was when I decided I wasn't going to waste my time with the rest of the series.
I honestly TRIED to read Jacqueline Carey but it was so dull for me. I got to page 150, mayhap 200 and then got bored to tears. The book went to my local used bookstore where I picked up a GRRM instead. His books never seem to bore me no matter how long they are. Which is odd. I guess it is just preference.

There are badly edited books in any genre, and more so in non fiction than in any other genre... try some of the textbooks or dissertations I have to read in my line of work (or no, don't...).

I have not read any of the books mentioned in this thread - I'm quite selective and most of my reading is by recommendation. If there's any hint that the book is not up to standards I usually avoid it...

I think Neal Stephenson could do with an editor, but at the same time I like his convoluted and complex stories...

There is some validity to the editorial complaints even though many of the above mentioned authors are my favourites.

You can always tell.

Look at an author's early work - slim taut novels. Look at their later work - hefty tombs.

My theory (pure conjecture I have no insider knowledge) is that as an author grows in fame and hence stature they gain the ability to overrule cuts that they initially accepted in order to get the book published. Maybe one of LT's authors will comment on this?

Some author's are simply wordy - Stephen Donaldson is one. I'd never have put Trudi Canavan, or Terry Pratchett in this class though.

Now JK Rowling really needs to listen to her editor more, book5 and 6 have just been ridiculously windy.

It is the nature of fantasy (and SF?) that more description will be needed than in contempary novels, the worlds need discription becuase otherwise they'd be the same as this one. If you don't like it maybe you should stick to reading fantasy short stories - try Legends: Discworld or the collected short fiction of C J Cherryh .

I'll be the odd one out and admit that I often like wordy books that move very slowly. I've never had any trouble with the works mentioned that I have read. If I like the author's style, world, and characters, I don't mind if there isn't much plot attached. At least, I haven't seemed to so far. No problems with Carey or Martin for me - not even with JKR. The only exception was Crossroads of Twilight. Absolutely nothing happened in that book, not even character development, and I did not like it.

I'm going to test my "I don't need plot" theory with Robin Hobb's new Soldier Son trilogy, which I haven't read yet. The first book is supposed to be extremely slow and boring for the most part, just world-building.

I think it is just preference as to whether or not we can tolerate certain authors' ramblings, but I do agree that the editors seem to fade away once an author gets a lot of fame. I just don't usually mind, that's all. >>

Agreed littlebookworm. I have a tendency to devour books very quickly. Usually the longer and more wordy the book, the better because it will last longer. Provided I like the author's writing style of course.

#10 - Reading_fox I'm uncertain about your theory. After all a couple of people have mentioned Jacqueline Carey as an example of needing a stronger editor yet Kushiel's Dart is, drat packed... Um considerable length and the following two volumes were, *sigh* also packed.... similar length. I seem to recall them being about the same as the first. At least in the mental image of my bookshelf they seem to be about the same width. It would seem she would be an example of a first time writer where editors didn't trim the book to get it published. Honestly I'm glad as I love Jacqueline Carey as a writer. However I will agree that Harry Potter books 5 and 6 could have been stronger with some judicial edits.

#8 - Darragh if you didn't care for the Kushiel series you may want to look at JC's Banewreaker and Godslayer duology. Written in the epic/high fantasy style of Tolkien, but from the "evil" side's perspective. They are also shorter and so get rolling faster, if memory serves. I found them fascinating and quite different.

>12 domeloki: Whereas I couldn't get past the first chapter of Banewreaker!

But then I think Tolkein is pretty boring.

*ducks and weaves*

>13 Morphidae: I have to agree with you on the Tolkien *dodges*, but somehow liked Carey's interpretation of the style better *hides behind the bar*

By the way, what is "whinging"? Is it like whining but with an extra "g"?

#15 It's a Britishism of whining. I like it better, but that's my anglophilia in action.

I found Banewrecker almost unreadable, didn't finish it. I liked the ideas, tho, so it was disappointing that I had to put it aside. (Besides which, it "borrows" a bit too much from the Prof., imho.) I did enjoy the Kushiel series, but the style was a little too twee for me, mayhap.

Wow, I would call the Kushiel series the opposite of twee! Heh.

Definition of twee:

adjective
affectedly dainty or refined

All those mayhaps drove me insane!

#10: I don't know if the lack of editing is to do with authors becoming famous. In my opinion it's not so much the authors themselves as the publishing companies.

Fantasy is one of the biggest-selling genres at the moment; I can't believe how many new titles get released every day. I think most editors are not allowed to spend too much time on a single fantasy volume, because the publisher wants to put it on the market as soon as possible. It would explain the distinct lack of editing in most fantasy books nowadays, the heftiness of most volumes, and the seemingly never-ending series. After all, three volumes bring in three times as much money...

Maybe I'm too cynical. *sigh*

btw, may I point out that I do not include Elantris in this discussion. I like Brandon's style, clean and unaffected, with good pacing. And no travelling scenes!

>15 Morphidae: Morphidae, I always think of "whinge" as whine+cringe.

>9 Busifer: Busifer, I agree that lengthy page counts are not limited to the fantasy genre.

Which leads me to my point: I don't believe that editing is wholly at fault in the publishing industry. I think this is a trend in book writing. If you look at fantasy novels of days past, Michael Moorcock, for example, most of the Elric of Melnibone novels were under 200 pages. What author could get away with that today? Would you, a reader, pay $6.95 for 170 pages when you could pay the same amount for 400 pages? On one hand, either may tell a great story; on the other hand, one may entertain you for twice as long.

Now, when I read Moorcock, I find him woefully lacking in the rich details and smoother segues of more modern writers, such as George R. Martin or Tad Williams who each take a lengthy time to set up their epic tales. Compare currently popular novels (in any genre) with older works, and I think you'll see the same trend toward bigger and bigger books.

#21 I half agree with you. I love old Moorcock because of the brevity (and the jokes), and there probably is something to more pages=bigger price. But there is also a trend toward less, or no description in some contemporary novels, for example Palahuniak. And chick lit and fluffy stuff like Evanovich (who I enjoy) are very popular.

Many people say they can't read 19th century novels, some of which are among the best I've ever read, because they are too wordy and too descriptive. To me it isn't simply wordiness, but repetitiveness and uninteresting or unneeded detail that's the problem.

Oh, gosh. Don't get me started on this topic. (And thanks for the kind exclusion, littlegeek in #20). However, the base truth of it is that we authors are just plain long winded. Fantasy authors are particularly bad. I worry that I'm in this camp too.

Fortunately, I've got an agent who loves to make me cut things. He just told me to cut the first fifty pages of Scribbler, as well as two chapters near the middle-end. He's great for things like that. My editor, unfortunately, always asks questions that make me add MORE to the books. "What about this? Did you think of that?"

I think we've gotten used to having fantasy books at 150k+ words. We can thank Tad Williams and Robert Jordan for that one, I think. Also, perhaps, Harry Potter. Regardless, a big thick book is seen as a perceived value. The problem is, bookstores hate them. They want shorter books because you can fit more on the shelf, and I know that Tor management has been actively trying to get its authors to trim the books down in response.

I should have guessed shelf space was an issue! Only shows how ignorant I am...

I tend to enjoy 350+ page books, but in reality short stories could - an can! - be as effective as the long ones. IMO different formats fits different kinds of stories, and with fantasy and sf there are a certain need to extablish the credibility of the social, political and geographical backround/set up. The things we take for granted when reading mainstream fiction where we at least tell ourselves that we know how, say, modern Paris look and smell.

In a short sf/fantasy story this lack in background can be used as twist; I think a lot of the short stories I've read are kind of "surprise" stories - only with different kind of surprises for different genres.

In shorter novels there may be a lack of worldbuildning, a worldbuilding that I enjoy and thinks add texture and believability to the characters and the story. Others thinks otherwise, but as I've said before - I'm not big on "infected mother-daughter relationship" type of stories, which I think most of the non-worldbuilders are...

*ducks under the counter, I know I generalized, but... Hey! don't start throwing glasses, there'll be splinters!*

That said, I've not read HP or any of the others mentioned here (besides LoTR and Elantris, which we remember was mentioned as an exception - right?) and I know editing is a virtue that separates the truly good from the mere talanted writers...

Hi all, I'm new here, but have been enjoying what I've been reading. Hope I won't sound too much a fool now that I've started posting too. :)

I laughed when I saw this thread...it really hit a nerve! I'm often frustrated by the wordy authors and the general bulk of fantasy novels. I have given up on a number of the "long-winded" writers because of just this problem.

While the world is key in fantasy novels, good authors are able to bring the important details across without bogging down the story. One of my favorite examples of this is Zelazny's first Amber Chronicles. He is able to plunge the reader fully into his world without pages and pages of minute description of the intricacies of plant and animal life. Or political leanings. Or clothing. Or...(fill in the blank with author's particular obsession).

Another author who is great at creating fully delinated worlds without getting stuck in the bog (as it were) is Bujold. In The Curse of Chalion and Paladin of Souls she is describing the world, its history, politics, religion -- but the reader is only getting the bits of the world that are important at that moment to the POV character. So the character and the story drive the background information. It's not just exposition for its own sake.

And is it just me, or do those exposition-heavy novels always seem to be the ones that have flat, one-sided characters (and preferably 10 or 11 "main characters" that the reader has to follow) or unimaginative plotlines? Maybe its just compensation. :)

I'd have to say it's just you. I'm sure there are many authors who do match that description, but of the one's I've read above, they mostly have great characterisation in addition to detailed worlds.

#12 - my theory certainly doesn't apply universally there are some authors who do consistently write equal length novels, and it sounds like Carey may be one. C J Cherryh writes dense long books, but all of her work is like that, and fabulously gripping too.

I think one of the more wordy authors in the fantasy genre is Guy Gavriel Kay (as I've said earlier, I haven't read the ones accused of being wordy here in this thread - they have not seemed good enough to pick up when I have been looking for new reading material...) and he certainly is good on character - most of his stories are character based and character driven. So I'm not sure if I agree, not totally, at least.
But then I ENJOY political savy in an author and the juxtaposing of needs, beliefs and realities :-)

Welcome, btw! I hope you enjoy being here with us!!!

#25 Welcome, kmiddelburg! If you post like this one, you're gonna fit right. Actually, there's no wrong way to participate in the Green Dragon, food fights have been known to happen, but be prepared to program a roomba or two, or actually engage your virtual hands to clean up afterwards.
Well, mean, vindictive personal attacks would not be tolerated, but I haven't seen of that in the GD.

I had forgotten Zelanzny's Amber Chronicles as examples of shorter but informative world-building.

All: a corollary question to this topic: When is a set of three books a true trilogy, and not just one story separated into three bindings? The most famous "trilogy," Lord of the Rings is technically not a trilogy.

Can anyone name some trilogies?

As an aside, I was talking about this subject with my friend who loaned me the Robin Hobb, to whom I loaned Elantris. She said she loved Elantris, but it went too fast for her. She wanted more detail about some of the events and characters. (She specifically mentioned the gruesomeness that the king was up to.) Chacon a son gout, dude.

#29 - Oh, good question! I'm sure about to firmly and forever establish myself as a Jacqueline Carey fanatic here (and you wouldn't be far off ^_^), but I'm going to suggest Kushiel's Dart, Kushiel's Chosen, and Kushiel's Avatar. Each story is wholly self contained with a definite beginning and ending. There are threads that do tie all three books together and make a larger overall tapestry when all three are read together, but you could read each book stand alone. You just wouldn't be as closely tied to the characters and their motivations as you would be otherwise.

Please feel free to disagree with my suggestion, I may be missing the distinction of trilogy.

Well, what's a trilogy? One story arc contained in three books with the same characters, resolving in the final volume?

Kim Stanley Robinson's "Science in the Capital" books would fit that definition, as would LotR. Heck, you could argue that Allen Drury's political thrillers of the fifties and sixties are dual trilogies.

Re: 21

Yes, I would buy 200 pages of good, over 400 pages of padded crap, certainly. :)

The 4th Kim Harrison book recently an example, I think. 500 pages that should have been 300 odd perhaps.

Steven Brust - IIssola 254 pages.
Michael Moorcock has been mentioned.
David Gemmell a lot of 300 page stuff. Roger Zelazny mentioned.
Martin Scott's Thraxas, there is another.
Funnily enough I have lots of these, and zero Robert Jordan etc, although I have read some. I do have some of the 400-500 page types,

Basically, I think there is something very very badly wrong with an author's storytelling if they can't finish a story in less than the 10K pages he is going for!

If you buy one book and it lasts longer is that better value? Good question. Certainly not if it boring, then you can have read another one in that time. This would also suggest that the slowest readers in the world get best value for books, buy one, take 5 years to finish. :)

It's not the authors nor the editors, it's the Marketing departments at the publishing houses.
Did'ya ever walk the shelves at your local Barnes and Noble? Notice the width of the titles end on?
If you're an established author with solid sales you can publish something narrow or wide but if not you're getting 4-600 pages, 1"-1 1/2" wide.
It doesn't matter what the story is, it's gotta be sized to fit the Marketing format.

The Story Is The Thing.

Does the story being told fit the length? Is it rushed or drawn out? Length or brevity in and of itself doesn't bother me, as long as the length fits the story.

#35 - Yep Groo, my feelings exactly.

For me, it's all in an author's talent with language and words. The crafting of a short story can be very fine, but so can the world building epics, as in LOtR.

#35 I'm with Groo on this one

I love Tolkien, Martin and Hobbs and have never been bored by anything they have written. It must be noted that I love elaborate phrasing and descriptions like found in Gormenghast. Lyrical I call it. Probably all of my top 10 books are over 350 pages, most well over.

I can see where Williams gets a bit long winded at times, but I still love his books.
However Jordan's later half of the wheel of time was excruciating and I have not been able to finish. (I think that is the first time I ever understood what someone meant when they said they literally could not finish a book it dragged so much)

#27, I know very little about Guy Gavriel Kay, but I do know the Fionavar Tapestry was originally issued in three relatively short volumes. I picked up the series recently at a used book sale, all three books would just about be one volume in hardcover by today's standards.

#37, I like Tolkien and Martin, think Hobb is pretty good, but I absolutely detested what I read of Mervyn Peake....to my ears it was about as "lyrical" as farts in a bathtub.

>33 bluetyson:, Bluetyson,
I think you're right about the latest Kim Harrison novel. That could've used some serious trimming.

If you buy one book and it lasts longer is that better value? ... This would also suggest that the slowest readers in the world get best value for books, buy one, take 5 years to finish.

Hahahaha! Good point. "The slowest reader gets the most out of his books" is probably a subjective statement like "blonds have more fun". ;)

>35 mrgrooism:, Mrgrooism,
I think the story IS the thing-- but how do you make that into a cookie-cutter formula? Of course, the real answer is: you can't. However, if thick books sell well then perhaps the publishers draw the conclusion that the public wants thicker books.

Can any of our LT authors who occasionally peruese Green Dragon add anything to this subject?

Is there a maximum or minimum word count? does it change over a series? Do you get mroe editorial control? or less?

Reading_fox

I could take a stab at it -

Having been around the block a few times, I can say it's not a simple question.

There isn't a minimum word count, and maximum depends on your publisher. Editorial control comes with experience, sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the author. Some don't like to be edited - just as many gratefully welcome the helping hand.

What doesn't show when you look at the finished page is the number of staff in an editorial office - a continuing trend of downsizing of personnel has had a horrific toll on the amount of time any editor or copyeditor has to spend on any one title. There are times when one could wish for more editorial input, but there simply isn't the time or the personnel to handle the load.

There's another angle to consider.

I'd suggest, quite often, a reader who wants apples but is reading oranges puts up a squawk - not realizing the intent behind the writing, the expectation was not in line. "Bad writing" or "purple prose" may be anything but, if the book's orientation was along another line.

Example: if a book, like a mystery, is primarily an intellectual puzzle, it won't play on emotion as a suspence point - if it did, you'd quickly realize the characters you identify with couldn't be the murderer....so taut descriptions of a character's surface, not much emotional backdrop or depth, and a read of mental activity would define the style.

A book that uses action only as a motivator, likewize, would not want to bog down in unnecessary description or emotional motivation - mood setting would be more minimal. The gripping point is what happens. How it happens. Not too much how the character feels internally.

But if a book utilizes emotional drive also, as a suspense point, or if the emotional motivation is the driver for the story - it would take a denser style to carry the extra thread. Not only what happens, but how did it feel, and how were the feelings of the character motivating the storyline? I usually don't cry over characters in mysteries or thrillers - the emotional line is too thin. You read to know who dunnit, or what happens, more than you want to feel as the characters did. A thriller that makes you feel as the characters did, in any kind of depth - quite likely would be unending torture!

The books that move me emotionally usually are written more lushly.

The books that devastate me emotionally - will generally carry a denser style still - why? Because the more of the five senses are evoked, the more intense the experience. The brain actually slows down, increasing the intensity of sensory input - but that can't be done in a spare style as easily, and it takes a reader willing to stop the rush pace and settle in.

You don't always have the guarantee the author knows what they're doing - some books are just dense for no reason.

Sometimes there is a beauty to how the words fit together, and that matters - and in that case, where the style itself is evocative - sometimes the reader who just wants to know what happens could care less - it's a matter of taste.

Not to say there aren't some books that needed a better edit --- but some books get slammed when in fact they are quite brilliantly done, given the premise the author set out to accomplish.

But personally, before I whinge, or pan a title, I usually try to see what the author was trying to do. Why they chose the prose style - and in taking the extra time to sink into that, often the payoff becomes apparent. A dense style can be well worth the read, in the wallop the story packs as it comes into its defining moment.

I read alot of different types of books - for as many different reasons. Understanding what I want out of a book helps - if you're not to be fighting the style.

Thanks Janny that's a fascinating insight. I hadn't thought of the different senses angle at all.

"There are times when one could wish for more editorial input, but there simply isn't the time or the personnel to handle the load."

Is also really interesting to consider.

I detect a note of irony in post #41....

For my part, dense prose is not a problem, repetition is. Once you've made the point, move on. And it's not just fantasy; I recently read Doctor Thorne, and although I absolutely love Trollope, if I ever hear or read the words must marry money again, I may get violent.

#43 - It's also not just fantasy, littlegeek. I am reading Francis Schaeffer whose thoughts and ideas I love, but the man states his point over and over in many different ways, sometimes chapter after chapter. Thank goodness for skimming techniques. :)

Agree, MrsLee, Dr Thorne could hardly be considered fantasy!

I notice you read a lot of mystery. That's a genre where repeating yourself would definitely NOT be desired. You want to hide the clues, hence brevity is paramount. Maybe that's why I like a good mystery now & again.

Speaking of which, I just got The Art of Detection in paperback, which has both Kate Martinelli and Mary Holmes. Good summer reading.

#45 - Your summer reading sounds great, two of my favorites. I never thought about why I like mysteries, I just tell my husband it's to keep him on his toes in the luvin' department. :)

#41 - Interesting thoughts/insights, indeed - thanks for sharing them.

I tend to think that personal preferences differs/makes what is "good writing" differ as well.

Personally, I have a hard time with writers who do not care about their choice of words, and I enjoy word play. But I'm first in line to confess my incapability to judge english language prose - even though I've read english language books since I was 13, 28 years ago, some of the nuances escapes me. As an effect there are books that I really enjoy but which other people tells me are a bit weak in the language department...

#40 -- I'm a freelancer for the local paper and a poet, not a published novelist, but I do follow the industry, and I do write spec-fic. Author Randy Ingermanson says, no, the standards aren't as stringent once you've been published once. Tongue-in-cheek, he adds, it drives you crazy when you're trying to break in, but you sure appreciate it once you're there.

Word counts: Standard novel length is 80,000 - 90,000 words, although one publishing house I've looked at asks for manuscripts around 100,000. It's generally assumed that SF will exceed this due to the extra space it takes to explain an alternate universe effectively. This may account for some of the "drag" many of you seem to be experiencing. I struggle with this in my writing, because I'd rather move things along, but the setting can be very thin and hard to believe in/understand without more details added, especially if it's not your standard fantasy world, which mine aren't.

I read an interesting discussion about novel length and BFF ("Big Fat Fantasy") on DeepGenre.com, it's worth checking out if you have the time. :)

http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/constanceash/craft/storytelling/big-fantasy

A quote:
"However, going by our own experience in the last few years, publishers are finding that bookstores are leery of carrying very large books by writers not already well known, unless the publishers pay a fee to place them. For one thing the books, due to size, may well be priced higher than the chains want to carry." - Constance Ash

Especially the comment by Pat Rothfuss about getting his 210,000 word manuscript published is a fun read. :)

#49 - thanks for the link to Deep Genre, not ocme across that before, it is always interesting to read the insights of the authors.

You think fantasy is bad, you should try reading theology...especially Karl Barth. Someone said he writes like a surfer. He finds a good idea, rides it in, paddles out, catches it and rides it in again, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, ad infinitum.

Although Camus said he read Barth for style.

"You think fantasy is bad, you should try reading theology"

I couldn't have said it better myself.* But, seriously folks... I like a good epic fantasy. I actually think that fantasy is the genre best suited to massive volumes.

To me, great fantasy involves a good deal of world building. I don't think that The Lord of the Rings needs any paring down. Then again, maybe there's something to be said for writing short individual books within a long series (a la Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Barsoom" series.)

*I don't mean to start a fight, I just couldn't resist biting at that one! I'm just light-heartedly shooting my fool mouth off.

Michael Moorcock wrote an essay called "Epic Pooh" which criticised the "Merry England" style of LOTR, which Moorcock said was akin to Winnie the Pooh.

Discuss!

Yeah, by Moorcock standards LOTR was pretty tame.

- Gods slain: 0
- Continents reshaped: 0
- Worlds consumed by chaos: 0
- Reincarnations of epic heroes: 0
- Ancient races exterminated: 0
- Previously unknown immortal beings unleashed: 1

That last one must have been a fluke.

The Silmarillion scored better, though. That's more like it.

But I quite liked Winnie the Pooh. Let's see...Aragorn is Christopher Robin? Or would that be Gandalf? Eeyore would be Gimli? Legolas = Tigger? The Hobbits......Rabbit and friends? Hephalumps, I do not know how to spell hefalumps. They would have to be the orcs I suppose. Oh, maybe Owl would be Gandalf, or Elrond?