> He contributed exactly nothing to the story.
Couldn't the same thing be said of Tolkien's colorful description of the countryside that can go on for pages at a time?
Couldn't the same thing be said of Tolkien's colorful description of the countryside that can go on for pages at a time?
Whereas this guy takes up pages and pages, to ultimately have no effect on the story at all? Felt like a bait and switch to ten year old me.
Personally, I think those things (and Tom!) do contribute a lot to the story, so maybe that's why I liked Tom. There's more to writing than simply telling a story and making everything pertinent to that, and thus there's more to reading. Of course, I also like worldbuilding and would read D&D manuals simply for that, without ever playing sometimes, so another reason why I liked Tom, but I can't help but wonder if it's split into two camps because of how people approach reading and literature.