# Annoying Fantasy Trends



## Sado (Sep 11, 2004)

What annoys you when you read a fantasy novel.  I have two big pet peeves.

The first is when the main character is the "chosen one" spoken of in some old prophecy who is the only one who can rid the world of the BBEG and/or recover the magic dingus.

The second is when characters in a fantasy setting have names like William or Peter, ie normal Earth names.

I have absolutely no reason for asking, just bored and trying to make conversation


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2004)

Ooh yeah, I hate it when my fantasies are filled with Willies and Peters. I am just sick of people trying to cram their Willies and Peters down my throat. Bunch of dicks, I say.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 11, 2004)

I agree with the first. There was a time where it was a new idea, but it's _so_ overused. It can still be done well--rarely--so the presence of a "chosen one" isn't enough to turn me off a book by itself. It counts points off, though.

However, I disagree with the second. While I don't want modern names, I think good, old-fashioned medieval or Biblical names are just fine. I wouldn't want to read a fantasy story with someone named Wally, but I have no problem with something like Gabriel or Jonah. (Or, for that matter, William.) To me, the name has to fit the setting, but many real world names fit the traditional fantasy setting just fine.

As to my own pet peeves?

I hate it when a character from the real world who is pulled into a fantasy realm refuses to believe in the reality of it. I mean, sure, a brief period of disbelief is fine. But don't spend chapters or even whole books denying it; even if it's realistic, it's friggin' annoying to read. (Thomas Covenant, I'm looking in your direction...)

I hate it when writers try to make a book feel more fantasy-like by having dialogue written in Ye Old Flowery Englishe. It's fine to have a specific character talk with thees and thous if the author's making that a character trait (like Mandorallen in The Belgariad), but don't make it a standard feature.

I _really_ hate it when authors slap fantasy settings and names on novels that are all about heaving bosoms and pulsing loins, and try to claim it's a fantasy novel rather than a romance novel. While not _all_ their novels are like this, Anne McAffrey and Mercedes Lackey are both guilty of this charge on multiple counts.

Let's see, what else?

If you're going to get your science fiction in my fantasy, _tell me on the cover!!_ I'm not normally a huge fan of sci-fi/fantasy crossover. It can, however, be done well, so I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, _if I know about it_. Do _not_ try to sneak it in, however, or make it a surprise twist. Ever. Seriously.

The standard fantasy races? Elves, dwarves, halfings/hobbits? If your story doesn't need them, don't include them. Sure, they have a place in fantasy, and some stories _are_ better with them. For the most part, though, if you just need different cultures, use various cultures of humans. When you use other races, there should be a good reason for it. And "It's fantasy, so it should have elves" is _not_ a good reason.

(And now a few peeves that aren't limited to just fantasy...)

If a book is the first of a series, it damn well better _say so on the cover!!_ Nothing makes my arson finger twitch like getting to the end of a book and only then discovering it's book 1 of 27.

Speaking of, tell your stories in a reasonable number of books. The story hasn't yet been written that really needed more than a dozen books to tell, and most don't require half that. And damn it, publish some stories that only require _one_ book! Not everything has to be a series!!

If you're going to publish a book, make sure something bloody well happens. If the plot is in the exact same spot at the end of book 10 that it was at the end of book 9, you're doing something wrong.

Okay, I think I'm done.

For now.


----------



## Sado (Sep 11, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Ooh yeah, I hate it when my fantasies are filled with Willies and Peters. I am just sick of people trying to cram their Willies and Peters down my throat. Bunch of dicks, I say.




Oh yeah, forgot about all those Richards too  

I remember another annoyance in a Harry Turtledove novel I recently read. It's set on some other world, so I imagine they would have their own languages different from ours, but a famous singer on this other world wrote songs that just happened to rhyme in English. That's not as major a complaint though.


----------



## Ferret (Sep 11, 2004)

I really dislike the "It was impossible but he did it!" style. Usually with more info on it, but it just ruins the idea that the hero might just have limitations. 

And magic/special race/society idea/cool for the sake of cool. Cool is cool, all that cool crammed into small pieces and then cramed down you throat multiple times. [cough]R.A Salvador[/cough]


----------



## drothgery (Sep 11, 2004)

It is, in fact, okay for both of the hero's parents to be alive, fairly healthy, fairly happy, and neiter impovrished nor royalty. If you're creating twentysomething heroes, this should be the default state, not an exceptionally rare occurence.

If you're going to have a big, ugly, stupid, aggressive evil race in your world, just call them orcs and have done. There's no need to be especially creative in devising a name for them. By the same token, if you're going to have roughtly human-sized, aloof or mysteriously benevolent nature freaks, just call them elves.

It's okay for a significant female character actually be plain-looking, rather than a tomboy or urchin who looks suprisingly attractive after taking a bath and putting on a dress.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 11, 2004)

Annoying fantasy trends...

"Chosen One" heroes who are destined to fulfill a prophecy.

Entire chapters that are nothing but the hero/heroine angsting over something.

Elves that are perfectly wise, enlightened, and the best at everything they do.

Elves that are arrogant and racist, but for some reason the other races still love them and look upon the elves with awe and wonder.

Dwarves that are are always stupid, dirty, and foul-tempered.

Halflings/gnomes (or any other small race) that exist for no other reason than to act cowardly and provide comic relief.


----------



## iblis (Sep 11, 2004)

Stampy-footed and vicious but cute and sexy yet ('lovably') annoying fiery-haired princesses.

hmm...

Weapons with overly cheesy (wince-worthy) names, too.

Ah, anything with an overly cheesy name.

So really my bane in a fantasy novel would be a vicious, cute, sexy, 'lovably' annoying, stampy-footed, fiery-haired princess called Willowblossom or Elfstar or whatever, wielding a hugely powerful awesome magical kewl legendary Piece O Death that goes by the name of Whisperdeath or some such.

Yeh. That'd do it.

Oh, too the cutesy wittle critters that waddle/paddle/flap/sproing/bound/etc. around for no other reason than to score 'cute points' with potential marks, ah readers that is.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

Ya, some of these are annoying but only when done badly.  A good writer can take a cliched event and make it enjoyible reading.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 11, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, some of these are annoying but only when done badly.  A good writer can take a cliched event and make it enjoyible reading.




Heh.   It's all that fiction writing really is. Not so much the what, but the how. Not so much the tell, but the show. Not so much the sound, but the fury.

Or, at least that's how I see it. Most stuff has already been done before. It's the manner that you do it again that's important to me. It's why I still have fun killing orcs I suppose...

joe b.


----------



## Dr_Karl_R_Kroenen (Sep 11, 2004)

I struggle when the writer decides to dedicate sucessive chapters to a different group of characters. One bunch of hero's could be exploring the dealy mines of Uberak and reach a really cool cliff hanger point at the end of the chapter... can't wait to find out what happens to them next.... only the next chapter in the writer's telling you about some wedding on the other side of the continent that you really could not give a rats about.

Dragonlance did this so much. I like one story well told rather than 3 hit an miss affairs told in bite size chunks.   

And I know I might cop some flak for this but please leave poems out of books.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 11, 2004)

> I struggle when the writer decides to dedicate sucessive chapters to a different group of characters.




Really? I find it to be a very effective technique. Yes, there's a little bit of the "Argh! What's happening next?!" frustration. But as long as each of the different groups and stories are worth telling, I find it keeps the book going and keeps my interest piqued.

However, I agree with you that if one of the plotlines is cool and the others are boring, then it's a problem. But I'd say that's a problem with the book itself, not the specific technique.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 11, 2004)

Sado said:
			
		

> What annoys you when you read a fantasy novel.




Something that annoys me is the names of the ultimate bad guy gets. Why do they so often get names that reek "_*I'm eeevil!*_" What kinds of parents have such rotten judgement? 

Another trend that triggers my arsonist trigger is when the author of fantasy tosses in 20th-21st century sensibilties and philosphies for which to use to preach at the reader. Not only does this cause me to dump the book, I put the author in my *never-read-again* list to be never trusted again.


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Sep 12, 2004)

Dr_Karl_R_Kroenen said:
			
		

> I struggle when the writer decides to dedicate sucessive chapters to a different group of characters. One bunch of hero's could be exploring the dealy mines of Uberak and reach a really cool cliff hanger point at the end of the chapter... can't wait to find out what happens to them next.... only the next chapter in the writer's telling you about some wedding on the other side of the continent that you really could not give a rats about.




Try reading George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_ series (book 1 is called _A Game of Thrones_.  You might change your opinion of this technique.


----------



## Theron (Sep 12, 2004)

[Rant]

Many of my peeves were noted above.  A personal one is when authors writing combat-heavy fantasy don't have the slightest notion of how medieval and renaissance ironmongery was used or how battles were fought.  I'm not asking for encyclopedic knowledge here, and this isn't dark, secret information that only people with the proper credentials and an arcane handshake can access.  Just simple stuff like:

Medieval weapons were relatively light in terms of weight.  There's no such thing as a ten lb broadsword.  At least not a wieldable ten lb broadsword.

Any weapon is deadly under the right circumstances.  People whose business is to live and die by the sword know this and respect a poinard as much as a greatsword.

People wore armour for a reason, and it wasn't to make them look pretty and shiny.  It was to keep them alive.  It did this by keeping them uninjured.  In a real combat situation, the first person wounded is probably the loser.  If he's not hurt badly enough initially, he's slowed down enough to be picked off pretty quickly.

[/Rant]


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 12, 2004)

Elves as anorexic pooftahs.


----------



## Kesh (Sep 12, 2004)

*takes notes*


----------



## The Other Librarian (Sep 12, 2004)

Is your gripe the sensibility or the preaching?  I figure that in a fantasy, 2x century sensibilities are fine, maybe even warranted, as the author is trying to  appeal to 21st century readers.  In fact, I think this helps move the genre away from its more crapulent tropes.  Too often fantasy fiction ends up using some stale generic fantasy sensibility that ends up saying nothing.  

 In terms of coming off as preachy, I guess that is just a failing of an author's subtlety.  I agree that if you have an agenda, voice it carefully; no-one likes being pummelled with a "this is a song with a message" type approach.



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Another trend that triggers my arsonist trigger is when the author of fantasy tosses in 20th-21st century sensibilties and philosphies for which to use to preach at the reader. Not only does this cause me to dump the book, I put the author in my *never-read-again* list to be never trusted again.
> 
> Eric Anondson


----------



## Galethorn (Sep 12, 2004)

*Weeps as he burns his 2500-page manuscript detailing the adventures of Aeoloornwyndar, and his mighty giant-duck mount, Blackbill*

But seriously, I count myself as lucky to see so few of those gripes apply to the book I'm writing. Even better, they're all the 'bad if done badly' ones, and I'm using said elements well, in theory; Elves are wise and helpful forest dwellers who few living humans have ever seen, dwarves are surprisingly intelligent craftsmen and tacticians, there aren't any halflings, the main character is happy and well adjusted despite not being raised by his parents, and the prophecies are suitably vague and open to interpretation. Oh, and luck goes for the good guys as much as the bad guys...there's more, but I have places to do and things to go...


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Sep 12, 2004)

I am, to this day, surprised at the number of villians who make an evil overlord mistake.

A bit of a  tangent, but my favorite line in the movie _Dogma_ was when the demon refuses to unveil his secret plan even though he thinks there is no way the heroes can do anything to stop him.  The reason? "I've seen far too many James Bond movies."


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 12, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Something that annoys me is the names of the ultimate bad guy gets. Why do they so often get names that reek "_*I'm eeevil!*_" What kinds of parents have such rotten judgement?




True.  If you live in a fantasy setting and your parents name you someting like "Damien Bloodreaver", I think you're pretty much destined to become an evil overlord.


----------



## Wereserpent (Sep 12, 2004)

Hmmm, now that I think about it nothign will really turn me away from a fantasy novel unless for some reason I deem it boring.


----------



## Sado (Sep 12, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I am, to this day, surprised at the number of villians who make an evil overlord mistake.
> 
> A bit of a  tangent, but my favorite line in the movie _Dogma_ was when the demon refuses to unveil his secret plan even though he thinks there is no way the heroes can do anything to stop him.  The reason? "I've seen far too many James Bond movies."




Thanks for posting that BG. I've been trying to find that list again for a while and forgot where it was.


----------



## Neumannium (Sep 12, 2004)

I completely hate, and will not read books where the protagonist is a farmer who has no idea of his powers or ability.

I mean how stupid is the 'I've lived my whole life as a simple farmer, but now I'm the most powerful wizard/warrior on the planet' crap.  Ugh.  I get sick even thinking about it.    

This means Rand al'Thor from Jordan, and the loser whatshisname from Goodkind.

You might say, "What about Tolkien -- Frodo was a simple hobbit..."...

This is true, but he was a simple hobbit throughout the books.  He didn't suddenly turn into Galdalf with a vertical deficiency.

I'm so angry now, I'll have to go read some George R.R. Martin to soothe myself....

Neumannium


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 12, 2004)

Most of the things mentioned here are only pet peeves if done badly, so I won't pick on them overmuch.

I do hate the thees and thous, especially from people who _don't do it right!_  I mean, c'mon!  Can't you browse a few chapters in the King James Bible, or Spencer's Faerie Queen or something to make sure you're not theeing and thouing incorrectly?  I've seen so many books where the subject pronoun is used as an object, and it really gets on my nerves.

I'm not a huge fan of poor farmer boy who's really the chosen one, but it's been done well, even recently.  Even Jordan's first few books were really good with that genre cliche, before he started spinning his wheels.

And another real pet peeve is evil Overlords who have evil Overlord names, with variations of dark or blood or somesuch in their names.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 12, 2004)

I hate it:

when the author references a historical occurrance (in the case of historical fantasy) and gets the chronology wrong.

when villains "aren't dead yet."

the hero REPEATEDLY does the impossible.

when multiple supporting cast good characters get into nearly identical struggles with bad guys in completely different parts of the book- see Steven King for egregious examples of this.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> when villains "aren't dead yet."



This one can be done pretty well, actually; see Glen Cook's Black Company novels.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And another real pet peeve is evil Overlords who have evil Overlord names, with variations of dark or blood or somesuch in their names.



I always assumed evil Overlords with Evil Overlord names were using assumed names, so this one never bothered me much.


----------



## LiKral (Sep 12, 2004)

Neumannium said:
			
		

> I completely hate, and will not read books where the protagonist is a farmer who has no idea of his powers or ability.
> 
> I mean how stupid is the 'I've lived my whole life as a simple farmer, but now I'm the most powerful wizard/warrior on the planet' crap.  Ugh.  I get sick even thinking about it.



Wow, I thought I was the only one with this problem! Everyone I know that likes fantasy thinks I am crazy for that reason.
I love fantasy but there are so many darned farmboys. So, really, I love fantasy but I only actually _like_ Tolkien and G. R. R. Martin. 
I think one of the problems for me is that the farmboys are always so bland. They are heroic and good and blond and humble, and the best swordsman/mage in the land besides. They never have any weaknesses and there is nothing at all interesting about their characters. Even GRRM has this problem with the character of Jon. I wish for Jon to die in some bloody and pointless way.
It is Luke Skywalker syndrome.


----------



## KenM (Sep 12, 2004)

Book series' that go on and on. *cough WHEEL OF TIME cough* "It will only be two more books, I promise": RJ, Right.    :\


----------



## Sado (Sep 12, 2004)

This has more to do with RPG settings than novels, but I'm tired of the way so many settings have dozens of intelligent races, 90% of which are considered "monsters", who instead of having their own civilizations and cultures all live in little camps just beyond human civilization, just as smart as humans but arbitrarily less advanced? FR is one of the worst of these, and I really don't like the setting very much, but it seems like I end up playing it all the time because it's so widespread.

If anyone can recommend a good setting that doesn't work like this, let me know.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Sep 13, 2004)

The obligatory "trilogizing" of every story.  If you can't tell it in one book, it's probably not worth three.  Or write one story, and then a sequel.  But this whole "trilogy right out of the gate" thing has got to go.

 Proper names with lots of apostrophes and/or multiple consecutive Y's.  If I stumble over too many names too many times, the book gets gently returned to the bookcase never to be seen again.

 Magic being the only gimmick.  Very tired.  Even D&D has psionics and kung-fu powers.  I'm not saying get rid of anything fantastical, but if one more guy waves his hands around, whispers an incantation/silent prayer to his god, and lightning shoots out of his palms I'm gonna vomit with rage.

 As an extension of the farmboy thing, I'm really sick of the over-reliance on the Hero's Journey, with a pathetic n00b in book one who becomes an archmage/lord/demigod by the end of book three.  Hey, how about a guy who starts off kinda badass?  No one cared about the long, angst-ridden journey Bruce Willis's character went on to became such a badass before he finally showed up at the Nakatomi Tower in Die Hard.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Sep 13, 2004)

Main characters who are hypocrites

Main characters who are neither good nor evil

Typical Medieval (European) Fantasy

The big, loud, arrogant barbarian, but everyone still loves him

The weakling, comic-relief wizard

When the author tries to force us to see how "good" and "loveable" the main character is by literally telling us "so and so is such a good person. Only the most compassionate of people would have their heart breaking at a moment like this." Bah.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 13, 2004)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Magic being the only gimmick.  Very tired.  Even D&D has psionics and kung-fu powers.  I'm not saying get rid of anything fantastical, but if one more guy waves his hands around, whispers an incantation/silent prayer to his god, and lightning shoots out of his palms I'm gonna vomit with rage.



Uh, maybe it's just fantasy you're tired of, then?


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Sep 13, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uh, maybe it's just fantasy you're tired of, then?



 I'll concede that I don't read much fantasy (playing D&D is another thing).  I find fiction in the genre pretty uninspired, on the whole.  

 But y'know, I went out this weekend and saw Hero with Jet Li, and it got me to thinking.  This movie is obviously fantastical - you do have guys running over water and doing hang-time jumps Michael Jordan only dreams about.  But nothing was overtly _magical_.  These guys were just scarily skilled.  

 So what if you had magic without the MAGIC?  Why can't somebody try something new and different?  Why all the Gandalf clones?  

 The only thing fantasy has to be is fantastical.  All these trappings like a wizened old sorcerer with a pointy hat are just that, trappings.   I'd like to see a book where someone does something miraculous and no one calls it "magic".

 Or I could just go back to not reading fantasy.  Suits me just fine.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 13, 2004)

Terrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> The obligatory "trilogizing" of every story. If you can't tell it in one book, it's probably not worth three. Or write one story, and then a sequel. But this whole "trilogy right out of the gate" thing has got to go.




In that case, you'd probably like what Ed Greenwood had to say about trilogies during an interview he gave a while back...

"Long, long ago (before TSR, Inc., bought the rights to the Forgotten Realms) I'd decided I disliked "preplanned fantasy trilogies." I had nothing against series, or book-after-somewhat-related-book set in the same world, but I had developed a dislike for tales crafted and planned as three-book releases. (The Lord of the Rings was chopped into three books by its original publisher, but its success led to many publishers thinking that fantasies should appear in trilogies.) In my opinion, when these written-to-be-three-books sagas were attempted by most writers, the reader ended up with an unfolding-the-problem-and-introducing-the-cast first book (that sometimes moved very s-s-s-slowly indeed), then an everyone-rushes-everywhere-and-fights-but-nothing-gets-resolved middle book, and then a blast-the-trumpets-save-the-world-great-big-doom concluding book. Instead, I wanted every fantasy book I read to stand alone as a complete tale, so if readers never knew there were others involving the same setting or characters, they could still enjoy the one they had found, all by itself."​


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 13, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> In that case, you'd probably like what Ed Greenwood had to say about trilogies during an interview he gave a while back...




Elminster, Making of a Mage
Elminster in Hell
Elminster's Daughter


*grin*

In fantasy, I'm actually bored with historical language.  I don't mind if fantasy characters say, "Cool," or "What the ?" if it makes sense in the setting.  Heck, my games don't require players to speak with stiltations, so I am equally lax with my reading.

I haven't read much fantasy lately, but Drizzt has been angsty for a _very_ long time.  I know you can't have a book where the character is happy all the time, but maybe, like, a short story from Salvatore.  "A Day in the Life of Drizzt Do'Urden."  Drizzt hangs out with his buddies, practices sword-fighting with a young and impressionable adventurer, and tells a funny story of the time he accidentally left Alustriel's bedchamber wearing her stockings.  It'd be a hoot.


----------



## Belen (Sep 13, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I _really_ hate it when authors slap fantasy settings and names on novels that are all about heaving bosoms and pulsing loins, and try to claim it's a fantasy novel rather than a romance novel. While not _all_ their novels are like this, Anne McAffrey and Mercedes Lackey are both guilty of this charge on multiple counts.




We must not be reading the same McCaffrey and Lackey.  I find both authors do an excellent job and rarely read like a romance novel.

To each his own, I guess.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 13, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> "A Day in the Life of Drizzt Do'Urden."  Drizzt hangs out with his buddies, practices sword-fighting with a young and impressionable adventurer, and tells a funny story of the time he accidentally left Alustriel's bedchamber wearing her stockings.  It'd be a hoot.




If it ends with him and Wulfgar picking up prostitutes and running off without paying, I might buy that.

Twice.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Sep 13, 2004)

Sado said:
			
		

> If anyone can recommend a good setting that doesn't work like this, let me know.



 Eberron!


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 13, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I _really_ hate it when authors slap fantasy settings and names on novels that are all about heaving bosoms and pulsing loins, and try to claim it's a fantasy novel rather than a romance novel. While not _all_ their novels are like this, Anne McAffrey and Mercedes Lackey are both guilty of this charge on multiple counts.



An emphatic ditto, me too and hear hear. While there's nothing wrong with the pulsing busom novel sell it for what it is.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 13, 2004)

The cliched plot of:  Young orphan, who's really a king, is taken on a magical quest by a dizzy old man, who's really a mighty wizard to defeat the big evil dude and his unstoppable minions, as fortold by the prophecy.  Along the way they join a group of miss-matched travellers including the spunky princess love interest (running away because she didn't want to marry the goofy/homely/evil/old noble with whom her parents were arranging a marriage), the gruff but loveable dwarf/barbarian, the mighty but tragically flawed warrior, the noble and perfect elf, the charming but roguish thief, the seemingly incompetant wizard apprentice who eventually becomes a great wizard, and the matronly old nurse-maid who keeps everyone in line.  They are betrayed by one member of the party.  Another member of the party (seemingly) dies, making the others resolve that much more to get the job done.  The hero wins despite impossible odds, through his faith, honor, charm, kindness, bravery and other good qualities more so than through any actual skill or overt action taken.  In the end, it's announced the hero's the King, and he can finally marry the princess. 

Or any of the variations on that theme.

R.A.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Sep 13, 2004)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> The cliched plot of:  Young orphan, who's really a king, is taken on a magical quest by a dizzy old man, who's really a mighty wizard to defeat the big evil dude and his unstoppable minions, as fortold by the prophecy.  Along the way they join a group of miss-matched travellers including the spunky princess love interest (running away because she didn't want to marry the goofy/homely/evil/old noble with whom her parents were arranging a marriage), the gruff but loveable dwarf/barbarian, the mighty but tragically flawed warrior, the noble and perfect elf, the charming but roguish thief, the seemingly incompetant wizard apprentice who eventually becomes a great wizard, and the matronly old nurse-maid who keeps everyone in line.  They are betrayed by one member of the party.  Another member of the party (seemingly) dies, making the others resolve that much more to get the job done.  The hero wins despite impossible odds, through his faith, honor, charm, kindness, bravery and other good qualities more so than through any actual skill or overt action taken.  In the end, it's announced the hero's the King, and he can finally marry the princess.
> 
> Or any of the variations on that theme.
> 
> R.A.



I always thought an author could have fun with this plot by twisting it so that:  

1. The young orphan and the ditzy old man turn out to be a decoy so the bad guys will concentrate on trying to find and kill them while the competent folks half a continent away actually do the stuff that sets things right.  Neither knows they're a decoy.  The powers that be don't care because, hey, who is going to miss one orphan and a half-senile old man, right?  

OR

2. The young orphan is totally unimportant.  He accidentally made one of the bad guys mad and now the bad guy wants to kill him.  The "good" guys drag him along because, well, someone has to rub down the horses, fetch firewood and generally do the menial stuff and they certainly don't want to do it themselves.  He doesn't _have_ to go.  He can take his chances with the bad guy if he really wants....  Tell the story from his POV as the more or less innocent and uninvolved bystander basically watching all this stuff from the sidelines and noticing the foibles of both the bad guys AND the good guys.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 14, 2004)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> I always thought an author could have fun with this plot by twisting it so that:
> 
> 1. The young orphan and the ditzy old man turn out to be a decoy so the bad guys will concentrate on trying to find and kill them while the competent folks half a continent away actually do the stuff that sets things right.  Neither knows they're a decoy.  The powers that be don't care because, hey, who is going to miss one orphan and a half-senile old man, right?




Tolkien already did this in the story that got this whole thing started.  After all, weren't the king in hiding (Aragorn) and the dizzy old man (Gandalf) just the decoys for the guys that really mattered (Frodo & Sam)?   

R.A.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Sep 14, 2004)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> Tolkien already did this in the story that got this whole thing started.  After all, weren't the king in hiding (Aragorn) and the dizzy old man (Gandalf) just the decoys for the guys that really mattered (Frodo & Sam)?



Well, true, but I don't really think of Aragorn as a young orphan.  I was actually thinking more along the lines of the whole thing being a farce where Aragorn was really the lost king and Gandalf wasn't as befuddled as he let on either.  In my version, the kid would be a more or less ordinary orphan and the old guy only thinks he's in the know and is actually just having his delusions of grandeur more or less egged on by the higher ups to serve as a decoy.  

An alternate version could have the old man knowing what he's doing like Gandalf, but all those vague hints such people always drop are that way because they're all just made up on the spot to string the rest of the party along with generic hints about great destinies and ancient prophecies and so forth.  Done right, you could suck in readers who think they know what's going on because the book seems to be following the usual formula, but it isn't.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 14, 2004)

the thing that annoys me about many fantasy novels.. is the characters never age or the story all happens in a short time frame...



plus the main characters never die by a lucky shot or errant swing of a friendly blade.

i would love a novel that had the main character killed in a battle by a misthrown catapult shot. and the good guys still win the day in the end.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 14, 2004)

I hate it when the main character has a zillion powers that haven't been seen in thousands of years (Egwene from WoT) or the main character has this huge prophecy hanging over their head (many fantasies).



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> the thing that annoys me about many fantasy novels.. is the characters never age or the story all happens in a short time frame...
> 
> plus the main characters never die by a lucky shot or errant swing of a friendly blade.
> 
> i would love a novel that had the main character killed in a battle by a misthrown catapult shot. and the good guys still win the day in the end.




Well, Flint dies in a somewhat similar way.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 14, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Well, Flint dies in a somewhat similar way.




he dies of a heart attack.   

and Sturm is killed by Kit.

but i wanted all of them dead. and the Heroes of the Lance are just that... Matyrs. real Heroes like Congressional Medal of Honor winners... posthumously...


----------



## dreaded_beast (Sep 15, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> plus the main characters never die by a lucky shot or errant swing of a friendly blade.




What about Tanis?


----------



## Ourph (Sep 15, 2004)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> The cliched plot of:  Young orphan, who's really a king, is taken on a magical quest by a dizzy old man, who's really a mighty wizard to defeat the big evil dude and his unstoppable minions, as fortold by the prophecy.  Along the way they join a group of miss-matched travellers including the spunky princess love interest (running away because she didn't want to marry the goofy/homely/evil/old noble with whom her parents were arranging a marriage), the gruff but loveable dwarf/barbarian, the mighty but tragically flawed warrior, the noble and perfect elf, the charming but roguish thief, the seemingly incompetant wizard apprentice who eventually becomes a great wizard, and the matronly old nurse-maid who keeps everyone in line.  They are betrayed by one member of the party.  Another member of the party (seemingly) dies, making the others resolve that much more to get the job done.  The hero wins despite impossible odds, through his faith, honor, charm, kindness, bravery and other good qualities more so than through any actual skill or overt action taken.  In the end, it's announced the hero's the King, and he can finally marry the princess.
> 
> Or any of the variations on that theme.
> 
> R.A.




But....but....I LIKE Tad Williams' _Memory, Sorrow and Thorn_!


----------



## Ghostknight (Sep 15, 2004)

Theron said:
			
		

> [Rant]
> 
> Many of my peeves were noted above.  A personal one is when authors writing combat-heavy fantasy don't have the slightest notion of how medieval and renaissance ironmongery was used or how battles were fought.  I'm not asking for encyclopedic knowledge here, and this isn't dark, secret information that only people with the proper credentials and an arcane handshake can access.  Just simple stuff like:
> 
> ...




A few points on the above.  medieval weaponry WAS heavy.  Knights were trained from childhood to use it effectively.  This was one of the reasons knights were so superior in combat.  Someone trained in combat from childhood vs a barely trained conscripts is going to be a very uneven contest.  

What usually gets me is the idea that medieval swords etc were more effective when sharp.  Against armor, the sharpness of your sword was immaterial.  A blunt warhammer or mace was just as effective- the main damage being done when the armor was deformed and broke the bones underneath it.  

As for a poignard or rapier being as effective as a broadsword/mace/flail etc- only when out of arnor or in the renaisance era.  In battle where knights were armored, weapons like a poignard or rapier are pretty ineffective unless you got lucky and got it into an unprotected gap.  A tactic used was for the conscripts to swarm a knight, pull him down and punch daggers/agricultural implements/sharpened sticks into the gaps in the armor.  (and killing the horse was just not an option, the price of a decent warhorse being immense)


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 15, 2004)

I hate it when authors _don't know when to end _ their series.

Perfect example: Glen Cook's "Black Company" novels.  The first three were excellent, and had a satisfying conclusion.  

But then he kept going, and going, and things got progressively silly.  I eventually gave up in irritation, and in fact have no idea whether the series ever ended.  (Last time I checked the Company was in some alternate world sleeping or something.)

If he wanted to start a new story, with new characters, in the same world, that would have been fine.  But squeezing the life out of Croaker and company was just too much.

(And the very notion of even beginning that Jordan tree-killing festival puts me to sleep.)


----------



## Ibram (Sep 15, 2004)

Standard Issue Fantasy... I cannot stand the stuff
Its not that I have a problem with Dwarves being gruff, Elves being perfect nature lovers, and Orcs being evil but does it always have to be all three at the same time?


----------



## Theron (Sep 15, 2004)

Ghostknight said:
			
		

> A few points on the above. medieval weaponry WAS heavy. Knights were trained from childhood to use it effectively. This was one of the reasons knights were so superior in combat. Someone trained in combat from childhood vs a barely trained conscripts is going to be a very uneven contest.



First, let me say no.  Second, still no.  I've handled and fought in replica medieval armour for nearly 20 years.  I've held authentic medieval swords.  The average weight of a medieval longsword was about 3.5 lbs.  A full kit of gothic plate armour (not tourney plate) weighs about 65 lbs, tops.  That's less weight than a WWII US Paratrooper carried into battle and a whole heck of a lot better distributed.

Medieval armies were also seldom composed of untrained conscripts.  Most of the foot were townsmen and members of the guilds whose military duty was akin to being in the National Guard.  They trained at least once a month.  The pay records are all there.  You don't conscript your peasants and farmers unless you're desperate, because 1) they can't fight worth a darn, and 2) when they die or run off everybody starves.

Your point about a knight being better trained is rather self-evident.  The _conrois_ of the 13th century Kingdom of Syria trained as a unit three to four times a week.  That's a pretty impressive standard of preparedness even by the standards of today's military.



> As for a poignard or rapier being as effective as a broadsword/mace/flail etc- only when out of arnor or in the renaisance era. In battle where knights were armored, weapons like a poignard or rapier are pretty ineffective unless you got lucky and got it into an unprotected gap. A tactic used was for the conscripts to swarm a knight, pull him down and punch daggers/agricultural implements/sharpened sticks into the gaps in the armor. (and killing the horse was just not an option, the price of a decent warhorse being immense)



See above regarding my experience.  To a point, you're preaching to the choir.  

However, I am not speaking strictly of the battlefield, nor am I everyone is wearing the best possible protection.  Typically medieval/renaissance people did not truck around in armour all the time. Which is one major reason why the sword remained the most popular weapon among the upper classes, particularly as a symbol and for civilian wear.  Walking around in field plate in a city was a major no-no.  Carrying a sword was just your right according to your station.

The key is choosing the right tool for the job.  No warrior with half a brain took a rapier on to a battlefield.  A basic understanding the interaction of weapons vs. conditions vs. various means of self-protection isn't brain surgery, but it seems to be beyond the ken of too many writers I've encountered over the years.

Meh...it's just my own brand of snobbery, I suppose.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 15, 2004)

Ibram said:
			
		

> Standard Issue Fantasy... I cannot stand the stuff
> Its not that I have a problem with Dwarves being gruff, Elves being perfect nature lovers, and Orcs being evil but does it always have to be all three at the same time?



I'd disagree with that one. If you're going use classic fantasy names for races, then they should fit the archetype (generally speaking; individual exceptions are okay, but they should clearly be the exception, not the rule), or at least be descended from people who did. Don't call your tall, thin, aloof, nature-loving race "dwarves" just to be contrary. By the same token, if you're going to use a race that conforms to a classic fantasy archetype, then you should use the classic name for it. Don't call your big, ugly, stupid race "trollocs" just to be contrary (yes, trollocs don't look exactly like orcs and are the result of a mad scientist's genetic engineering experiment that wasn't a complete success, but that's hardly important to the backstory of _The Wheel of Time_).


----------



## jester47 (Sep 15, 2004)

I agree with most everyone here.  Which is cool.

Does anyone know of a story that does not have any of the above annoyances?  I would really like to read that if its well written.

Aaron.


----------



## Theron (Sep 15, 2004)

I'm rather fond of Ellen Kushner's novel _Swordspoint_, though it's not everyone's cup of tea (it has a fair bit of homosexual content, nothing particularly graphic IMHO, but some folks may not be on board for that in their fantasy fiction).

To my mind, George R. R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_ generally avoids the traps that I find annoying (yeah, Jon is a bit of a farmboy, but even he has depth).

I have a soft spot in my heart for Michael Reaves' _The Shattered World_ as well, for all its D&Dishness.


----------



## Argent Favrelauch (Sep 15, 2004)

Theron said:
			
		

> First, let me say no.  Second, still no.  I've handled and fought in replica medieval armour for nearly 20 years.  I've held authentic medieval swords.  The average weight of a medieval longsword was about 3.5 lbs.  A full kit of gothic plate armour (not tourney plate) weighs about 65 lbs, tops.  That's less weight than a WWII US Paratrooper carried into battle and a whole heck of a lot better distributed.//
> 
> 
> 3.5 lbs *is* heavy. Especially after several minutes of waving it around, or smacking it into shields and armor, or through flesh and bone. Not that that obviates your point.
> ...




Part of the problem is that rapiers are a post gunpowder devlopment, after armor started to go out of style since it couldn't reliably protect you from bullets. Not that it couldn't stop bullets...it just didn't do so reliably..and even when it did you got hurt.  So you wouldn't see the two together very often anyway.
 But your points are quite valid.


----------



## Theron (Sep 15, 2004)

Argent Favrelauch said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is that rapiers are a post gunpowder devlopment, after armor started to go out of style since it couldn't reliably protect you from bullets. Not that it couldn't stop bullets...it just didn't do so reliably..and even when it did you got hurt. So you wouldn't see the two together very often anyway.
> But your points are quite valid.



The biggest problem with armour is mobility and heat buildup.  Even in the high middle ages, unmounted warriors tended to leave their arms and legs unarmoured, and tended towards unvisored helms unless they knew they were facing massed archers.  The additional risk seems to have been considered worth the trade-off in overall mobility.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 16, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I agree with most everyone here.  Which is cool.
> 
> Does anyone know of a story that does not have any of the above annoyances?  I would really like to read that if its well written.
> 
> Aaron.




I like China Mieville's Bas-Lag novels - Perdido Street Station and The Scar.  (I've not had a chance to read Iron Council, which just came out.)  They're defiantly wierd and jammed packed with ideas, sub-plots, and strangeness.  

I'm currently reading Gregory MacGuire's Wicked, which is the re-telling of Wizard of Oz sympathetic to the Witch.  It's quite good.

And of course, you can always go back and read the old classics prior to everyone (starting with Brooks) trying to mimic Tolkien - Moorcock's Elric stories, Howard's Conan stories, Vance's Dying Earth stories, Lieber's Newhon stories, etc., etc.

R.A.

R.A.


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 18, 2004)

Hey, I really love this thread. You've all pointed out really intolerable archetypes (should I say clichees?) - especially the one with farmboy-turned-hero and "standard issue fantasy". I really hate Eddings' _ Belgariad _ for that matter. 
To these, I would add:
-Relative ethics. (George Martin, _ A Song of Ice and Fire_, an otherwise fine book)
-Excessive blood, gore, and sadistic tortures. (Robert Newcombe, _ The Fifth Sorceress_).
-Gratuitious sex (ditto).


----------



## Ferret (Sep 18, 2004)

Knowing which one is the hero (not just protaginist) from the get go, a la Drizz'l. Damn, levitating, 5 year old, drow...

Other perfect character, that have to shoulder burdons! Drizz'l again.

The tear that brings the hero back to life. Mainly from disney though, drizz'l hasn't crossed this one...


And still I like the books he's in...


Also when things just happen (usually unlikely stuff) that make the story go along.

Wow I'm full of hate.


----------



## Sado (Sep 19, 2004)

LizardWizard said:
			
		

> -Excessive blood, gore, and sadistic tortures. (Robert Newcombe, _ The Fifth Sorceress_).
> -Gratuitious sex (ditto).




Don't forget the "Chosen One" syndrome (only one who can fulfill the prophecy and save the whole world).  And I'm not crazy about brutal torture and rape either, but it was an interesting twist to have females as the perpetrators of such acts.


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 19, 2004)

Sado said:
			
		

> Don't forget the "Chosen One" syndrome (only one who can fulfill the prophecy and save the whole world).  And I'm not crazy about brutal torture and rape either, but it was an interesting twist to have females as the perpetrators of such acts.



Yeah, the Chosen One syndrome is also pretty annoying - especially in conjunction with the Farmboy syndrome . But it'd been mentioned so many times that I decided not to include it as something self-evident. 
Females as main villains is a very interesting idea, hearkening back to very archaic myths depicting sorcerous, voluptuous and sadistic female beings (e.g., the hag archetype, Sphinx (in the myth of Oedipus, it is female!), Circe, Medea, etc.) On the back cover of the Russian edition of the book, it says: "In the politically correct United States, the publication of the novel provoked a veritable scandal. R. Newcombe was accused of going against a commonly aссepted opinion and portraying men as a personification of good and women as truly diabolical beings". 
Being a Russian and a misogynist, I certainly don't mind much .


----------



## Ghostknight (Sep 19, 2004)

Theron said:
			
		

> First, let me say no.  Second, still no.  I've handled and fought in replica medieval armour for nearly 20 years.  I've held authentic medieval swords.  The average weight of a medieval longsword was about 3.5 lbs.  A full kit of gothic plate armour (not tourney plate) weighs about 65 lbs, tops.  That's less weight than a WWII US Paratrooper carried into battle and a whole heck of a lot better distributed.




Hmm, then our experiences differ.  I have handled some replica and authentic medieval weaponry.  Don;t know the exact weights, but aside from gladius type swords they weigh well over 1.5 kg (3.5 lbs).



> Medieval armies were also seldom composed of untrained conscripts.  Most of the foot were townsmen and members of the guilds whose military duty was akin to being in the National Guard.  They trained at least once a month.  The pay records are all there.  You don't conscript your peasants and farmers unless you're desperate, because 1) they can't fight worth a darn, and 2) when they die or run off everybody starves.




Not completely of conscripts, but they did form a lot of the rank and file (why do you think so many farm implements got turned into weaponry and medieval wars were fought in winter when no one was working the fields?)



> Your point about a knight being better trained is rather self-evident.  The _conrois_ of the 13th century Kingdom of Syria trained as a unit three to four times a week.  That's a pretty impressive standard of preparedness even by the standards of today's military.




Not really.  A lot of fantasy literature seems to equate a well trained soldier to a knight.  Reality differed.  Knights were an elite class whose role in society was fighting.  Very little fantasy literature takes cognisance of this fact.



> However, I am not speaking strictly of the battlefield, nor am I everyone is wearing the best possible protection.  Typically medieval/renaissance people did not truck around in armour all the time. Which is one major reason why the sword remained the most popular weapon among the upper classes, particularly as a symbol and for civilian wear.  Walking around in field plate in a city was a major no-no.  Carrying a sword was just your right according to your station.




Absolutely!  And something I try to enforce in games.  People did not run around in armor.  On the battlefield the armor of the typical soldier was well below that of the knights and other ranked nobility.  The conscripts faired even worse if their lord did not outfit them decently.

Heh, we all have our own pet buggaboos!


----------



## Theron (Sep 19, 2004)

Ghostknight said:
			
		

> Hmm, then our experiences differ. I have handled some replica and authentic medieval weaponry. Don;t know the exact weights, but aside from gladius type swords they weigh well over 1.5 kg (3.5 lbs).



Out of curiosity, did you actually weigh them? The reason I ask is that I've learned over the years that people tend to overestimate the weights of objects, especially metal ones, especially after swinging them around a bit.

I loathe and detest ARMA as an organization, but this essay addresses the matter quite well:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

Additionally, here's some data on weights of medieval/renaissance broadswords. The article is somewhat dated (it was used to successfully argue against an unrealistic length to weight ratio required in some areas in the SCA) but the numbers it presents are valid (it also has data on the few surviving shields known at the time).

- medieval weapons pedant TB


----------



## Uzumaki (Sep 19, 2004)

Any description of eyes as 'orbs.' I think I've chucked a book through a window because of that one. An open... window.


----------



## Gundark (Sep 19, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Book series' that go on and on. *cough WHEEL OF TIME cough* "It will only be two more books, I promise": RJ, Right.    :\





I think wheel is the keyword here


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2004)

Originally Posted by Ghostknight


> Hmm, then our experiences differ. I have handled some replica and authentic medieval weaponry. Don;t know the exact weights, but aside from gladius type swords they weigh well over 1.5 kg (3.5 lbs).




I'm going to have to agree with Theron.

I once had a similar discussion with a buddy of mine about the weight of a particular weapon.  So I checked out the Oakeshott Institute ( http://www.oakeshott.org/ ) , Bjorn's Sword Page ( http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/swords.htm ), Sword Forum ( http://swordforum.com/ ), the inventories of some antique/museum replica arms dealers (
http://www.armor.com/2000/index.html ) and a couple of museum armories, particularly Leeds.  The very helpful Phillip Abbot ( Philip.Abbott@armouries.org.uk ), one of the curators from the British Royal Armories, said that even 2 handed swords rarely exceeded 6 pounds.

From what I gathered from these various sources, weapons massing more than that were usually either display/presentation pieces, executioners' weapons, or the actual rare weapon intended for use- either by "giants" or people who didn't know any better.


----------



## Ghostknight (Sep 20, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Ghostknight
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to agree with Theron.
> ...




Quite possibly.  The authentic weapons I have seen were family heirlooms of a friend of mine (only 635 in line to the throne in Scotland!)  So they probably were display pieces rather than battlefield weapons.  

Heh, guess you learn something new all the time!


----------



## Ferret (Sep 20, 2004)

Can we focus the thread please? Not wanting to be a drag but I'm liking that I'm not the only one who is fussy with their novels.


----------



## Ibram (Sep 20, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with that one. If you're going use classic fantasy names for races, then they should fit the archetype (generally speaking; individual exceptions are okay, but they should clearly be the exception, not the rule), or at least be descended from people who did. Don't call your tall, thin, aloof, nature-loving race "dwarves" just to be contrary. By the same token, if you're going to use a race that conforms to a classic fantasy archetype, then you should use the classic name for it. Don't call your big, ugly, stupid race "trollocs" just to be contrary (yes, trollocs don't look exactly like orcs and are the result of a mad scientist's genetic engineering experiment that wasn't a complete success, but that's hardly important to the backstory of _The Wheel of Time_).




Its not the names its the concepts...

Race A is a tall, nature loving, race that lives in the Forest of ABC
Race B is a race of short gruff people who live under the Mountains of HIJ
Race C is a race of ugly but strong barbarians who hate A and B for no particular reason.  Oh and A and B dont like each other for some reason as well.


----------



## Scarbonac (Sep 20, 2004)

_Deus ex machina_.


----------



## Chimera (Sep 21, 2004)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> _Deus ex machina_.




Yup, hate that with a passion.

...and then Harry Potter touched Professor Quirrel and he fell to pieces for no apparent reason...

Ugh.  Love the stories and especially the setting, hate all the constant DEM stuff.



> 1. The young orphan and the ditzy old man turn out to be a decoy so the bad guys will concentrate on trying to find and kill them while the competent folks half a continent away actually do the stuff that sets things right. Neither knows they're a decoy. The powers that be don't care because, hey, who is going to miss one orphan and a half-senile old man, right?




I love this idea.



> No one cared about the long, angst-ridden journey Bruce Willis's character went on to became such a badass before he finally showed up at the Nakatomi Tower in Die Hard.




_Sheepishly tears up his spec script for _Die Hard: The Prequel... 


I know it's a product of history in that no one really mattered unless they were nobility or royalty, but I really _hate_ it when the hero or turns out to be a noble or a prince/ss.


----------



## Felix (Sep 21, 2004)

> 1. The young orphan and the ditzy old man turn out to be a decoy so the bad guys will concentrate on trying to find and kill them while the competent folks half a continent away actually do the stuff that sets things right. Neither knows they're a decoy. The powers that be don't care because, hey, who is going to miss one orphan and a half-senile old man, right?




Chevy Chase + Dan Akroid.
_Spies Like Us_
Brilliant execution of the Hero-diversion story.


----------



## fujaiwei (Sep 21, 2004)

iblis said:
			
		

> Stampy-footed and vicious but cute and sexy yet ('lovably') annoying fiery-haired princesses.
> 
> hmm...
> 
> ...





You must despise most Japanese anime, eh?


----------



## beeber (Sep 23, 2004)

at least when it's in anime, you can sit through a half-hour episode or so and the cliches become relatively painless.  now, reading that sort of thing for 300+ pages. . . .


----------



## LiKral (Sep 24, 2004)

LizardWizard said:
			
		

> To these, I would add:
> -Relative ethics. (George Martin, _ A Song of Ice and Fire_, an otherwise fine book)



I like that book, and I would not say the ethics are very relative. Westeros has a clear code of ethics for those of the knightly caste, and much of the book is about the people who cannot live up to them. Very few of the book are pure good or evil, but some are (Jon is pure good I think, Gregor pure evil). It is one of the things that make the book so interesting to me. It reminds me of the tales of King Arthur in many ways. Lancelot and Guinevere and all that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2004)

Here's a heads up...

Clive Barker wrote a book called _Imajica_ that has a couple of the clichees, but handled them nicely.  I'm not going to spoil them, either.

I bring this up because he has a new book (first in a new series) _Abarat_ that is best described as _Imajica_ for the Harry Potter set.  Similar clichees as in _Imajica_, and still handled well.


----------



## Obfuscated (Sep 24, 2004)

What kind of cliches do I hate?
Let's see.....

Uber-powerful person/object coming into play at the exact moment needed. (See Deus Ex Machina)

The 'stubborn female' stereotype.  - Particularly Nynaeve al'Meara (Robert Jordan writes the most aggravating female characters)

Under-developed bad guys. - Who cares if the bad guy is uber-powerful and evil if all he is is another notch in your sword?  Give me some background!  Make me torn over who is the real bad guy, or why?  (GRR Martin has done some great work in this respect)

The mystical 'guide' that appears to lead the hero through a new land - why can't the hero figure things out for themselves?  Why must they be led by the nose...

Heroes who never suffer loss, even against impossible odds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 25, 2004)

Or how about the ubervillain who, despite being successful in the past (as evidenced by his position as ubervillain), never experiences success again, once the storyline begins- also regardless of the odds.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 25, 2004)

Obfuscated said:
			
		

> Under-developed bad guys. - Who cares if the bad guy is uber-powerful and evil if all he is is another notch in your sword?  Give me some background!  *Make me torn over who is the real bad guy, or why? * (GRR Martin has done some great work in this respect)




_Smallville_ the Superman pre-series. 
Indian steals mystic knife, becomes uber-Indian, like Clark, thinks hes a legendary figure from American Indian mythology. 
The story tells of the hero, and a villain who opposed him. 

[almost quoting here]

"Lex: [Hero] is very powerful, so much so he could rule to world if he were left unchecked. Think about what it would take for someone to face [Hero]. That person would have to pretty brave, to stand up against someone so powerfu. So maybe, the hero isn't [Hero] but really is [Villain]."

I though that was a very good point by the writers.


----------



## s/LaSH (Sep 25, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> _Smallville_ the Superman pre-series.
> Indian steals mystic knife, becomes uber-Indian, like Clark, thinks hes a legendary figure from American Indian mythology.
> The story tells of the hero, and a villain who opposed him.
> 
> ...




To veer slightly off-topic: That's very much the modern Lex's approach to Superman in the post-Crisis comics, actually. Lex isn't 'hahaha I'm an evil genius'; he's a businessman who thinks he's the best person to run the world, and if that means breaking a few laws, well, he can get away with it. And then along comes this alien with superpowers who wants to do things his way, serve the law, and he gets the heeby-jeebies.

Back on-topic, that's a good motivation. All too often in fantasy there're villains who're just sick in the head; the brilliant, opinionated, agenda-ised genius who's gradually lost sight of his benevolent goals is far more compelling, and allows you to ask interesting questions about redemption and the like. Because the best villains aren't petty, mentally ill psychopaths - Vader went astray and because of his redeemableness he's remembered as an all-time great villain.

Oh, there was a book called Monolith that came out recently. I can't remember the author. It features a monolithic church, amongst other things. It's vaguely stereotyped... but by the time it ends, it isn't. Anyone else read this? What do you think?


----------



## vulcan_idic (Sep 25, 2004)

I don't really have that many pet peeves, and none particularly specific to Fantasy.  My one big one is poor editing.  I hate having to go back and read a sentence five times to parse it's meaning when once should have been enough.  And part of editing is spelling, really got to watch that.  It's not fantasy, but a very nice example of that is a review I remember reading of some transportation sim talking about controlling an empire of, "plains, trains, and automobiles."  The point of language is to communicate with your audience...  make sure that (a) you're communicating clearly and concisely and (b) you're communicating what you think you're communicating


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 26, 2004)

vulcan_idic said:
			
		

> ...an empire of, "plains, trains, and automobiles."...




I bet laying track was real easy.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

Sado said:
			
		

> The first is when the main character is the "chosen one" spoken of in some old prophecy who is the only one who can rid the world of the BBEG and/or recover the magic dingus.



  Not so much annoying as horribly cliched.



> The second is when characters in a fantasy setting have names like William or Peter, ie normal Earth names.



 Not bad unless the names seem horribly common, are names that have been popularized within say the last 30 years or so, or colloquial names (like Billy instead of William). Real but uncommon old-fashioned names or name with a real historical basis sometime work better than the "fantasy" names some authors use. Some made-up names look even worse than John Smith in a book.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I hate it when writers try to make a book feel more fantasy-like by having dialogue written in Ye Old Flowery Englishe. It's fine to have a specific character talk with thees and thous if the author's making that a character trait (like Mandorallen in The Belgariad), but don't make it a standard feature.



 The Ye Olde Flowery Englishe of the Days of Yore should really be banished from fantasy altogether.  Even in cases like Mandorallen.  Most writers simply don't know to use it properly and it shows.  Tolkien used archaic formal Enlgish well, but that's because he studied and taught medieval lit.  He understood the idiom.  It's not the same when an author just slaps in thee and thou to make it seem fantasic and all that, when it doesn't come natural.

 Formal English should be used,  since lots of colloquialisms and modern slang are jarring as hell too (see: Hercules: The Legendary Journeys).  But archiaisms aren't really necessary. 



> I _really_ hate it when authors slap fantasy settings and names on novels that are all about heaving bosoms and pulsing loins, and try to claim it's a fantasy novel rather than a romance novel. While not _all_ their novels are like this, Anne McAffrey and Mercedes Lackey are both guilty of this charge on multiple counts.



 Well, I suppose some of that crap _could_ be considered fantasy, but they're probably better shelved with those rags that got Fabio's face plastered on the cover.


----------



## Planesdragon (Sep 26, 2004)

Obfuscated said:
			
		

> The 'stubborn female' stereotype.  - Particularly Nynaeve al'Meara (Robert Jordan writes the most aggravating female characters)




To bring some contrast--do you have an example of a fantasy author that writes BETTER females than Jordan?  The classics of fantasy have them as, well, "rarer than dragons", the D&D classics have them as either totally inconsistent or illogical, and the modern fantasy books I've read portray their women in the same range Tolkien does.

Oh, and since I'm already replying:



			
				Obfuscated said:
			
		

> The mystical 'guide' that appears to lead the hero through a new land - why can't the hero figure things out for themselves?  Why must they be led by the nose...




The "guide" is a classic part of the fantasy genre, and it an almost necessary characteristic of literarry fantasy.  No one stands alone, and all that.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> In that case, you'd probably like what Ed Greenwood had to say about trilogies during an interview he gave a while back...
> "Long, long ago (before TSR, Inc., bought the rights to the Forgotten Realms) I'd decided I disliked "preplanned fantasy trilogies." I had nothing against series, or book-after-somewhat-related-book set in the same world, but I had developed a dislike for tales crafted and planned as three-book releases. (The Lord of the Rings was chopped into three books by its original publisher, but its success led to many publishers thinking that fantasies should appear in trilogies.) In my opinion, when these written-to-be-three-books sagas were attempted by most writers, the reader ended up with an unfolding-the-problem-and-introducing-the-cast first book (that sometimes moved very s-s-s-slowly indeed), then an everyone-rushes-everywhere-and-fights-but-nothing-gets-resolved middle book, and then a blast-the-trumpets-save-the-world-great-big-doom concluding book. Instead, I wanted every fantasy book I read to stand alone as a complete tale, so if readers never knew there were others involving the same setting or characters, they could still enjoy the one they had found, all by itself."​



 If I ever were to write fantasy, that's the approach I'd take.  Stand-alone stories that can be serialized.  Trilogies are a cliche, and as much as I like Jordan's WoT, he's running the risk of having it dragged out far too much, so I'd avoid the never-ending story bit too.

 Which brings me to something else I'd try avoid: having the Hero Save the World.  There's only so many Ultimate Bad Guys the protagonist can defeat before he runs out of serious challenges.  I'd make the victories personal and satisfying for the protagonist, but I'd have to avoid setting up the world as some harsh grim place that is so steeped in evil that no one can make a difference.  That's not the sort of thing I want from fantasy, and it's not the thing I'd write.  Rather, I'd try to portray a setting that seems like a living breathing world.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> The cliched plot of: Young orphan, who's really a king, is taken on a magical quest by a dizzy old man, who's really a mighty wizard to defeat the big evil dude and his unstoppable minions, as fortold by the prophecy. Along the way they join a group of miss-matched travellers including the spunky princess love interest (running away because she didn't want to marry the goofy/homely/evil/old noble with whom her parents were arranging a marriage), the gruff but loveable dwarf/barbarian, the mighty but tragically flawed warrior, the noble and perfect elf, the charming but roguish thief, the seemingly incompetant wizard apprentice who eventually becomes a great wizard, and the matronly old nurse-maid who keeps everyone in line. They are betrayed by one member of the party. Another member of the party (seemingly) dies, making the others resolve that much more to get the job done. The hero wins despite impossible odds, through his faith, honor, charm, kindness, bravery and other good qualities more so than through any actual skill or overt action taken. In the end, it's announced the hero's the King, and he can finally marry the princess.



 That sounds like a cross between the Belgariad and the D&D movie.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

Neumannium said:
			
		

> I completely hate, and will not read books where the protagonist is a farmer who has no idea of his powers or ability.
> 
> This means Rand al'Thor from Jordan, and the loser whatshisname from Goodkind.
> 
> ...



 Frodo _wasn't_ a farmer; he was a wealthy idle hobbit that had the luxury of studying elvish lore and such.  Same thing with Bilbo, he was a well-to-do bachelor before setting out for the Lonely Mountain.  Hell, even Sam wasn't a farmer, he was a gardener .  The only hobbit farmer we meet in the LotR is a minor character .


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I am, to this day, surprised at the number of villians who make an evil overlord mistake.



 I agree, the evil overlord list really should be required reading so aspiring fantasy authors.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 26, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> I agree, the evil overlord list really should be required reading so aspiring fantasy authors.



Err... isn't the hero supposed to _win_?


----------



## Sado (Sep 26, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... isn't the hero supposed to _win_?




He or she is supposed to win in spite of the evil overlord not making dumb mistakes.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 26, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Trilogies are a cliche, and as much as I like Jordan's WoT, he's running the risk of having it dragged out far too much, so I'd avoid the never-ending story bit too.




Oh dear, this struck me as funny. He's "_running the risk of having it dragged out far too much_"?  Heh. If he's only running the risk of it after more than, what, eleven books with no end in sight, what would have made it obvious? 

But then, I was getting fed up in book 4 and gave up on Jordan in the middle of book 5 when I noticed him recycling his own plots. 


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 26, 2004)

Planesdragon said:
			
		

> To bring some contrast--do you have an example of a fantasy author that writes BETTER females than Jordan?  The classics of fantasy have them as, well, "rarer than dragons", the D&D classics have them as either totally inconsistent or illogical, and the modern fantasy books I've read portray their women in the same range Tolkien does.




Try some Guy Gavriel Kay. He's done very well with women characters in my opinion. I would say Glen Cook does pretty well, but while his female characters are usually strong and capable, given that his main series--the Black Company--is about medieval mercenaries, they aren't as prevalent in that work as in some of his others.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 26, 2004)

Good women characters?

Find them in:

Mary Gentle's _The Book of Ash_ series

Joel Rosenburg's _Guardians of the Flame_ novels

Larry Niven's _Dream Park_ books

As well as the works of Leigh Brackett, Barbara Hambly, Tanith Lee, and others.


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 26, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> That sounds like a cross between the Belgariad and the D&D movie.



And a horrible one indeed...


----------



## Turanil (Sep 26, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I am, to this day, surprised at the number of villians who make an evil overlord mistake.




I see at plausible that villains make idiotic mistakes. Villains are likely to be direly neurotic or even psychotic guys with very few connection with reality. Their motives are likely to be petty, such as prove to everyone how mighty they are, etc. Just get a look at Hitler's last days: he decided to remain in his blockhaus in Berlin, deceiving himself in pretending that a couple of German armies that didn't exist anymore were going to save the already lost city. In his hate and madness he did things that were obviously opposed to any logic when it became apparent the German were losing the war. The fact is, he was mad and with few connection with reality. The ultimate evil villain. I believe that someone totally sane and rationale in the first place, would see better and easier to do things smoothly, coherently, and wouldn't need to persecute people and perform any evil. Hence, IMO the stupid evil overlord makes sense.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Oh dear, this struck me as funny. He's "_running the risk of having it dragged out far too much_"? Heh. If he's only running the risk of it after more than, what, eleven books with no end in sight, what would have made it obvious?



  That's because I haven't given up on him yet.  The only books I found truely disappointing were 8 and 10.


----------



## Orius (Sep 26, 2004)

LizardWizard said:
			
		

> And a horrible one indeed...



 That goes without saying.  How could a cross between those two be anything _but_ bad?


----------



## Gez (Sep 26, 2004)

About the "Chosen One" syndrom, here's an interesting take on it.


----------



## Abisashi (Oct 10, 2004)

Plot types don't bother me, stupidity does.

I hate when characters refuse to sacrifice 1 innocent child to save 10,000 people. Their excuse is always, "how can we know the potential of one child?" or shomething similar. How can they know about everyone in the city? I hate that so much. Down with Deontology, Utilitarianism forever!

I hate when the main character spends a lot of time in denial about the fact that they are the chosen one. Thomas Covenant especially, but it shows up with every chosen one. If you've got to do something, do it right. And if it's all a dream, why not just play along? It will make the dream more fun.

I hate it when heroes make the wrong choice, but it still works out for them. AKA the girl/world dilemma; the hero saves the girl, and still manages to save the world, too. I want to see heroes suffer for their stupidity and realize the error of their ways.


----------



## Planesdragon (Oct 10, 2004)

Abisashi said:
			
		

> I hate when characters refuse to sacrifice 1 innocent child to save 10,000 people.




That's not stupidity, that's morality.  It's also consistency of character.



> I want to see heroes suffer for their stupidity and realize the error of their ways.




Methinks you just don't like heroic fantasy.  Heroism is, in modern form, being shown two opposite choices and choosing a third.  The Spider Man movie's "save the girl and the busload of kids" captures it perfectly.


----------



## Black Omega (Oct 10, 2004)

This is a general complaint, though R.A.S. is the one who's done this the worst of the books I've seen lately.  If the bad guys are attacking the good guys with an overpowering army, allow the bad guys to win a battle here and there.  Don't give me scene after scene of the good guys wining skirmishes, then cut to the command post where they are saying "The situation is dire, the bad guys are winning."

I gave up on R.A.S. after the book with the drow attacking.  There was a scene where human knights helping were running into the Drow elite and R.A.S. commented that the humans would have had no chance if it was one on one, but they were badly outnumbered.  Later they cut back to the scene and somehow the same humans are holding their own and the losses are even.


----------



## Templetroll (Oct 11, 2004)

iblis said:
			
		

> Stampy-footed and vicious but cute and sexy yet ('lovably') annoying fiery-haired princesses.
> 
> hmm...
> 
> ...




I don't know if the story would be any good, but I'd love to see the cover for it!  especially with a heaving bosom on that "...vicious, cute, sexy, 'lovably' annoying, stampy-footed, fiery-haired princess called Willowblossom or Elfstar or whatever, wielding a hugely powerful awesome magical kewl legendary Piece O Death that goes by the name of Whisperdeath or some such."


----------

