Irritating fantasy

Remove all ads!

I see exactly where you're coming from, but I have to admit I do have certain differences. My favourite characters, (the only one which anyone will know is Maron from the Rasheman rp) all have flaws, but those are usually charcter flaws, like fears and neuroses. Maron's claustrophobia and loneliness are prime examples of this, but my main character, Daie, always gets the crap kicked out of him because he simply isn't strong enough.

Anyway, I get annoyed by character death, especially at the end of a book. Especially especially if it is a romantic character.

 

When the same concept is explained over, and over, and over again. I am reading your fourth book, Mr Jordan. I already know what the bloody One Power is!

 

That's one of my favorite things in fantasy, the tragic (and sometimes ironic) ending. I tend to use death to illustrate the weaknesses of my characters. My tragically flawed knight looses both of the women in his love triangle, the first one because he won't show any affection for the young woman, instead chastising her for her failings to be as proper and as moral as he is. She's a slave of his (it's cultural thing, his land has a 800AD-1200AD Nordic feel) and figures well if he won't love me no one will (not that should would be content with the love of any other then his) and much like Ophelia decides it might be time to leave a failed love behind... The woman, whom is his "beloved", he kills with his own sword, because his duty requires him to kill her and his honor and knightly duties mean more to him then love in the end (in his defense she falls into the sworn enemy of his beliefs).

I've become addicted to tragic endings and often find myself feeling unstatisfied if the fanstasy novel doesn't give me that feeling of tragedy.

 

I bring this book up alot...but it is one of my favourites..."The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" do this, but actually pull it off, because the person that gets picked is just such an odd choice! So I guess I have to disagree, but only when its done well...shoving a mechanic into a fantasy setting and having him become a knight...kinda like Ash in Evil Dead 3 does not work. But keep that person the same when their in the fantasy world as when their out, thats a recipe for a good character.

I hate it when the book is all about the action, rather than the way the characters think through their actions. And when they're on some mission to steal something and the characters have one fight and then get it...that happened in a trilogy I read recently, I forget the name (probably a good thing ), but they were after a book and they snuck into the library through some tunnels, fought a random giant snake that guarded it, and then opened a box and there was the book...who leaves an important book in an unlocked box!

anyway /rant

 

Mmm, from these comments I must be the only one who likes Dragonlance (but only the ones written by Weis and/or Hickman; the other authors tend to be utter garbage). Dragonlance, in particularly the original Chronicles, tends to be a little on the feel-good side of fantasy at times, but I'd hardly call it childish. However, the aforementioned "gnomish spaceship to the mooooooooon" bit was indeed childish (and, to illustrate my point, wasn't written by Weis/Hickman: I think it was actually from the book Light and Darkness or some other silly name).

I dislike: any fantasy written by Salvatore (although his one endeavor in the Star Wars universe was significantly better than his Drizzt-worship); Harry Potter, and any other OMG-Child-Hero books (the idea of a child actually defeating something or someone significantly older than them, that "no one else could", is ridiculous); that hideous "Baldur's Gate" novel, which completely butchered the good aspects of the game's storyline; Robert Jordan (I tried, I really tried to like it; I just couldn't).

 

No, I haven't. And I doubt it on the "perhaps" statement; even if it has a well-done child-hero aspect, that's still 1 in 1,000,000

 

I have to disagree, with proper planing and writing this can add a lot the story. Like giving different information of the plot through different character's perception to make the whole story understood is, I think, a great way to build climax. I really think one's perception is really signifiant, and just to have the narator's one is boring.


Anyway, as for fantasy that irrate me. It's simple the overuse of magic as an explanation to thing, «hey say there son, why this giant temple of golden and wood stands and have a proper economy in the middle of nowhere?» «Duhh it's MAGIC what else?». I just find it lame. I want magic and all but as something strange and unknown, not something everyone can get at ye olde magick shoppe

The «Black and White» morality. C'mon there's no such things as absolute good and absolute evil.

Sissy elves, c'mon in tolkien they kicked ass and were master of warfare!

Stupid and complex for nothing names. Like the overuse of «Hs». Zhatakirhtywook is a LAME name.

Artifact of immense power, that threaten the very fabric of the universe. Who would be stupid enough to build that?

Poor translation , I'm pretty sure a lot of people'll agree with this

/rant

I'm done

 

The thing that bothers me the most is the lack of origionality. For example: Tolkien's world was pretty unique when he created it. He may of taken a lot of Norse and other mythology, but he combined all fo his research with his imagination to create his very own world. Since then there have been so many rip offs, especially when concerning the nature of elves and dwarves, and the fact that they hate each other. I mean, I want something that is creative and new-not just another knock off of a previously created idea that worked. Against all odds, a child beats a powerfl enemy that no one else could? Why not, if you give a plausable explanation for it. But 10 seperate progidies beat ten seperate villans in ten seperate fantasy novels? The idea has become overused, and the first story gets labled as bad along with the rest of them. This also bothers me when I go into a bookstore, and have the difficulty of weeding out the good fantasy from the bad, unorigional junk.

 

Which is why we read Martin, Erikson, and Hobb - because they breathe new and original life into the fantasy genre in ways that are not so obviously derived from Tolkien, don't feature absolute good vs absolute evil, and don't feature little kids saving the world from super powerful dark lords (much).

 

I think Martin is the author of «A song of Ice and Fire» (or something like that) I wondered if it was worth reading? Any thoughts?

 

Hmm, you must not visit Booktalk much. It is probably the most consistently admired fantasy series amongst SP members and, for that reason alone, is worth reading. At the very worst, you'll be able to argue with us about why we think it's so great.

 

Now that you mention it, I've been wondering about that...

 

Chandos, what is it about SoIaF that you don't like?

 

I'll let Chandos answer for himself but for me with Martin's books everytime I've tried reading any of his books I've left them to go to something else, and the reason for this is mainly I don't care about the characters and what happens to them. In the Hobbs' books FitzChivalry is probably the most put-upon person in any book series if it can go wrong, it will go wrong for Fitz, but you care about him and Verity, Chade, Nighteyes and the others; but with Martin's books they leave me cold and I lose interest.

 

My feelings exactly. I always end up setting them down for something else.

 

Sorry to return to a topic that the thread has passed by, but I have to dump on Goodkind some more. I found the very first "Sword of Truth" novel to be highly political, with the "wiser than even his own teacher" Republican Richard Rahl being coaxed out of his wonderful life to go and solve the political problems of the rest of the world with his hokey, Dr. Phil wisdom of how people should behave.

He takes on a VERY Euroish, Nazi-ish villain (from whose loins he sprang, rather like the vast majority of Americans come from European ancestry) and once his enlightened presence graces the Eastern world all is well again and the evil D'Harans become somehow pure and wonderful, as do their female sado-masochist SS psycho-sluts.

He then goes on to fix everything wrong with religion (as symbolized by the mislead Sisters of the Light) and later tangles with philandering, hypocritical, historically revisionist Democrats and then the Communists in the Old World.

It's just so nauseatingly American right wing that even a right winger like myself can't handle it. It's the same reason I hate Tom Clancy (who is not a fantasy writer but bears mentioning in comparison here) in that in Clancy's world, the military consists ONLY of upright, decent people and anyone who questions their actions is unpatriotic, and the CIA is a bunch of hard-working, peace loving saints who have no flaws whatsoever. GAG!

 

The Mord Sith were awesome though...

You know what they say, you write what you wanna read. I personally enjoyed the first few books, and I reckon the Mord Sith are the coolest characters.

 

I'm not going to argue Hobb v Martin here because I think Hobb is great. Song of Ice and Fire is brilliant because:
a) no obvious good or evil
b) some characters that seemed evil turn out not to be so eveil when you get to know them
c) you don't know who is going to die next (nobody is safe - creates tension)
d) people end up rooting for different characters (my favourites are Arya and Tyrion, other people like Jaime or Danearys or Brienne)
e) lots of complicated political scheming
f) you never know what is going to happen next

It's just a class above anything else I have seen in the fantasy genre at the moment (other than Hobb and Erikson).

 

As stated (and as I mentioned after reading it) Fitz IS the most unfortunate protagonnist EVER. He's the living proof of Murphy's Law. Whatever can go wrong, will. If you're Fitz.

But I don't know how you guys can sympathize with him and not with the Starks and the others in AsoIaF?

They have to put up with nearly as much crud as him. Especially Jon Snow who has a LOT in common with him.