I was idly wondering what irritates all the fantasy buffs on SP when it comes to fantasy literature?


One of my pet peeves is Robert Jordan resurrecting Forsaken - obviously realised that there wouldn't be enough of them to last thirty odd books if he killed them off at a rate of one or two per novel.

The general dullness of the genre - what I tend to call 'standard fantasy' - it has all the elements of fantasy but completely lacks the wonder of good fantasy. Generally comes with an assortment of pointless elves, dwarves, dragons, etc. and is not written by Tolkien (who had all this but is certainly not standard).

Fantasy that tries too hard to be different - like having frolicking dwarves or somesuch.

Fantasy "trilogys" that end in the middle of a story line. The latest was the Hunters Blade series by Salvatore. He is abviously leading into more books which is fine, but then he shouldn't have called it a trilogy. I am not sure how much more mileage he can get out of Drizzt anyways.

Anything by Terry Brooks that is just a ripoff of Lord of the Rings.

I hate books that has someone from our world dragged, somehow, into a fantasy world. As much as it'd be nice if it was true, I read fantasy to escape our world, I don't want any mention of it tainting the fantasy worlds the authors create. But that's just me.

Also, I can't get on very well with books that use magic as a way of creating modern technology. Salvatore's Canticle is an example of this. Cadderly makes a torch out of a glowing crystal and a tube. Feasible, but pointless. Fiery torches are more atmospheric :D

[ December 29, 2005, 21:32: Message edited by: Sir Farivald ]

I personally disliked how an author would detail the inanimate objects or belongings of a character, especially his/her weapons, over characterization.

Another thing that bothered me (but this could apply anywhere) is that fantasy novels sometimes seem to have the quick, easy solution to a problem - invading hordes of zombies? Turn undead! Angry dragon? No problem, because McStabby the Fighter can cut anything to shreds! Feeling the meaningless void and emptiness that is modern life chip away at your sanity? Magic spell!

And, finally, just making someone a dwarf or an elf or a gnome for no good reason.

Space Ships in otherwise medieval-fantasy settings. I've just come across this (I think) in Honoured Enemy by R. Feist. Unless ocean borne vessels can crash into hills now...

The book also speaks of Alien Invasions. It's taking a lot for me to keep reading after this... someone dispell my hopefully-unnecessary disdains!

There is a Dragonlance book I read once that has a spaceship in it, built my gnomes no less, that visited the moon. It was completely ridiculous.

They mention minor details to start with; say, unlocking a door, then don't bother to state whether the person(s) open the door or not. :almostmad:

Writing with several different perspectives.

Kenders should be wiped out from the face of any planet they habit... and so should their creators.

Anything to do with modern technology such as machines or guns, time travel of modern day people into a fantasy world, comedy overdone, relentless dialogue and a story that crawls along at a miniscule pace(see Robert Jordan), any obvious borrowing of Earth cultures (Scottish Highlanders, Norse mythos, Roman empires, French Revolution: it's become way too cliche.)

Fantasy should be escapism at it's best with little to do with our world. I was not much for political intrigue either until I read Erikson and Keyes, but they make it grim and brutal with assassinations and disturbed, power hungry megalomaniacs not the slow, manipulation crap.

[ January 13, 2006, 23:04: Message edited by: Newfie ]

I was not much for political intrigue either until I read Erikson and Keyes And George R. R. Martin!

Haven't started him yet Harbourboy, but that is soon being remedied with my next trip to the library.

Writing with several different perspectives. Ditto here.

Reading the first few pages of a book and then suddenly we have a flash-back that continues for the rest of the story. Or jumping back and forth between NOW and flash-back.

For me an author should start at the beginning and continue on to the end. A character may remember something but please let's not re-live it.

Dream stories. You read the story only to find out it was all a dream...maybe.

While I am a firm believer in Orwell's assertion that all writing has a political component to it, when that political component is heavy handed and overdone, I lose interest quickly. I am, of course, talking about my good friend Terry Goodkind. His whole Sword of Truth series has some really excellent ideas and some really disgusting sexual content, all of which I like. ;) However, the "too cute" parallels between modern American politics and all the enemies of his stunningly unrealistic right winger Richard Rahl are just too much for me.

Some fantasy that aims to trick you by telling you later that this is really our world in the far-future is OK, but that trick has been done so often that unless it's REALLY well done, it seems hokey and stale.

Ah, first tmie I have seen a right-winger being annoyed at Goodkind's blatant political propaganda in his "novels". They are nothing but political pamphlets in my opinion and seeing as I find the ideas proposed to be quite repulsive I caught up on it and found it quite low but people on the other side of the political spectrum either dont catch up on it or find it refreshing.

What annoys me is the including of 15 century onward technology and detailed sexual encounters. Sure sex is nautral, but do we have to devote good sections of the novel to quasi-pornography (Whoever wrote that Clash of Swords really did way to much of this)?

Also the feminist or abolitionist in a medieval setting. I know you want your hero to be moral by today's standards, but really, it's more appropriate for the average human protagonist to take his culture for granted. If the protagonist is a natural rebel, it is also fine, but I'm sick and tired of the likes of knights and such who have a burning passion against unequal treatment of women.

I've done a lot of fantasy writing when I was younger because I wanted flawed (tragic) heros or anti-heros instead of morally perfect characters. Doesn't mean the characters are evil if they aren't moral pillars, one of my favorite characters to write was a young knight who strived to be of a force of good, but his pride, honor and firm belief in the feudal social structure always got in his way. I always found characters like this easier to relate to, I could never relate to the neutral good, 18 points of wisdom heros I've encountered in so many fantasy stories.

I also tend to be annoyed by truly evil main characters as wholely evil characters are rare. I can't say I've ever made even an anti-hero who is purely evil, they have to have some piece you can relate to other "I simply want to follow a character who kills alot of people.". It also makes then unfun from a purely writing standpoint. A character who cares only of themselves has no real weakness and destroys plot twists, even my anti-heros have a few others that they'd give their life to protect.

In otherwords non-realistic characters as main characters bother me, a character isn't an ideology.

Goodkind's novels are political? Was that true of Wizard's First Rule? I remember disliking it on the (lack of) strength of Goodkind's character and world building, but I don't recall noticing any political messages within the novel.

It didnt start to be exceedingly blatant until the fourth or fifth book, the first few were quite entertaining generic fantasy which maybe stole a bit too brashly from other authors but not much worse than many others.

Dragon Lance, and other "childish" fantasy (Terry Brooks "Shannara" series as a good example)

I have to admit, I would never have associated the sword of truth series with current American politics. Rahl is a good guy for starters!

I've done a lot of fantasy writing when I was younger because I wanted flawed (tragic) heros or anti-heros instead of morally perfect characters. Doesn't mean the characters are evil if they aren't moral pillars, one of my favorite characters to write was a young knight who strived to be of a force of good, but his pride, honor and firm belief in the feudal social structure always got in his way. I always found characters like this easier to relate to, I could never relate to the neutral good, 18 points of wisdom heros I've encountered in so many fantasy stories.
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! :mad:

Anyway, I get annoyed by character death, especially at the end of a book. Especially especially if it is a romantic character. 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 hate books that has someone from our world dragged, somehow, into a fantasy world. 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 :p ), 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! :rolleyes:

anyway /rant :D

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).

Zenastin - ever read Ender's Game? Betcha you'll rethink your hatred of child heroes.

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 :)

Writing with several different perspectives.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 :D

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).

Which is why we read Martin, Erikson, and HobbI 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?

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.

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.

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. 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!

their female sado-masochist SS psycho-sluts.
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.

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 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. :sosad:

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

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

who was Martin's little Princess way off in the far east who's brother "sold" her to some Khan?

Can't think of her name off hand, but did anyone else find detailed sexual encounters a 14 year girl had to be rather disturbing?

I'm aware that in the 15th and 16th century in Europe that average noble girl was married between 12 and 14 and that the Catholic Church allowed for marriage as soon as the girl had her first "flowering". Martin's stories are generally more medieval then other fantasy stories, but I really could have done without some of the sexual encounters that girl had.

It's fine to dislike Martin because of the sexual content. I can understand that. That is a tangible feature of his books.

Hobb is the master of the one character. Martin is the master of the couple of dozen (plus a zillion hangers-on). Erikson is the master of the 100 characters. Each different. Each great.

Enagonios - nice comparison between Fitz and the Starks, especially Jon Snow. Snow gets stuck between a rock and a hard place where he cannot make easy decisions, just like Fitz. He also sacrifices much for duty. And he also has a wolf for a best friend. I wonder if anyone has ever seen them together in the same place? Maybe they are the same person!

EDIT: Hey! He's also the bastard son of royalty!

Well I suppose fantasy does draw a pretty big high school and middle school audience, putting in sex scenes with younger girls is without a doubt interesting to them.

I try to keep a naturalistic sexual moral code, but it seems I've failed terribly, choosing a Late Hellenic one instead.

I loved Martin's storyline (I actually pillaged the idea of an exiled prince for a story of mine from the prince who gets killed in the first book I believe, my prince of course didn't get killed, instead staying alive to ruin the lives of those around him), his storyline was darker and less superfical then most of the other pop fantasy writers I've read. I prefer magic heavy worlds with obviously evil "NPCs" in the froms of lichs, demon princes, black dragons, etc... as "bosses" because I like metamoral debates, but Martin made an almost entirely world quite enjoyable.

The sex really did turn me off, my late Hellenic moral code doesn't allow me to indentify with characters who engage in "base activities" (even if I may roleplay them). I really liked the plot, but never read the third book (clash of swords right?) because I had so many issues with the base nature of so many of the characters (the actual sexual deviance almost came to seem common place in the book).

Er, I don't think Martin threw in the sex just for kicks and to attract young (though I don't see how age has anything to do with this, really...) people - it's a pretty major plot point that reflects the world and culture it's set in.

I think I've been mis-interpreted so I'll try again as I was not comparing Hobbs and Martin.

1. IMHO I find that I don't care about Martin's characters, I've never read far enough to notice any sex scenes perhaps they might have held my interest; because nothing else did. The plot didn't hold my attention, the charcaters didn't interest me (whether they were good, evil or indifferent); the book just didn't put out a welcome mat for me and say welcome to my world, sit back and enjoy the ride.

2. I used Robin Hobb's the Farseer trilogy as an example of where the welcome mat became well worn as I stepped in and out of that world she created. I used her as an example because almost everybody here seems to have read her, and it makes sense giving a reference that most people can relate to. I could have spoken about Zelazny, Vance, Farmer, Sturgeon, Le Guin, Wolfe, Green etc etc, whose charcters and worlds drag me in; but felt that some people would not know what I was talking about.

3. I don't do comparisons of books unless they're by the same author, it is unfair to compare one author's writing to another's unless they are writing the same story IMO.

4. It is good that we have differences like this after all if we all liked the same books wouldn't it be a boring world. As an example I like reading Louise Cooper a british writer who I met once at a signing; but apart from the people I met there I don't know anyone who has read her books or liked them sad really IMO.

Fantasy that plays too heavily on stereotypes makes me grit my hteeth and go :bang: aklso, fantasy (or any fiction) that is improperly researched - the laws of physics and a lot of other stuff don't stop applying just because it is fantasy.

Also the feminist or abolitionist in a medieval setting. I know you want your hero to be moral by today's standards, but really, it's more appropriate for the average human protagonist to take his culture for granted. If the protagonist is a natural rebel, it is also fine, but I'm sick and tired of the likes of knights and such who have a burning passion against unequal treatment of women.

I've done a lot of fantasy writing when I was younger because I wanted flawed (tragic) heros or anti-heros instead of morally perfect characters. Doesn't mean the characters are evil if they aren't moral pillars, one of my favorite characters to write was a young knight who strived to be of a force of good, but his pride, honor and firm belief in the feudal social structure always got in his way. I always found characters like this easier to relate to, I could never relate to the neutral good, 18 points of wisdom heros I've encountered in so many fantasy stories.

I also tend to be annoyed by truly evil main characters as wholely evil characters are rare. I can't say I've ever made even an anti-hero who is purely evil, they have to have some piece you can relate to other "I simply want to follow a character who kills alot of people.". It also makes then unfun from a purely writing standpoint. A character who cares only of themselves has no real weakness and destroys plot twists, even my anti-heros have a few others that they'd give their life to protect.I completely agree with you. It's unrealistic to have all these modern day left wing ideals as commonplace in a medieval setting.

Also, I'd love to read some of your stories, they sound refreshing. David Gemmell is very much like you, in that all his heroes have their dark sides

Also, I'd love to read some of your stories, they sound refreshing. I could try to put an "excerpt" in Creativity Surge, just as soon as I get access to my other computer which has the stories I've written. I have at least one story that has been edited enough to not feel completely raw.

*Cliffhangers to create suspense and drama, but which only serve to irritate because you're going to skip forward to the necessary chapter, and then get back to the boring chapter later anyway.

*Use of magic and/or similar things to create impossible scenarios. This totally kills the atmosphere and immersive quality of a book IMO...as someone mentioned earlier, Jordan resurrecting Forsaken is an example of this.

*Different points of view which are supposed to give you insights into different characters...but just cause unnecessary irritation to the reader because of how completely UNNECESSARY they are!! If anyone's read Robert Jordan...they'll know what I'm talking about.

R.A Salvatore again. Some of his characters have stupidly comical names. Is he trying to be slapstick or not? I can never figure it out, but I wish he would!

What really irritates me are trilogies that don'ty deliver. Best way to explain is to give an example. The riftwar trilogy by Feist, one of the best I ever read. So then came the Serpent war... It started well, and I thought great, typical Feist excelence. But oh no! By the third book he just did a crappy end to it! A character waved his hands and everything as ok. I just hate that build up and then wimping out.

I did kind of like some of the books by weis/hickman, but they are so slow to read through.

I dislike most of the books that try to elaborate too much, and find explaining useless details more important then creating an athmosphere that will really suck the reader in the book, so to speak.

It irritates me that the wheel of time serie will not finish in my lifetime (I am 34) episode eleven, it is really gettin out of hand.

I like Wheel of Time, really I do, but 3 or 4 books got to be the maximum. It is not possible to keep buying books in one serie. (Public Library I know)

second I hate appendixes to keep track of the names and other things. If you need an appendix to keep track, you lost control. I do not want to know what the second son of the king 400 years ago was called.

Third, bad maps.

The Brothers Bouldershoulder.

I hate them! I HATE THEM! :mad: :mad:

What is it with Salvatore and his need to throw some rediculously ****e comedy into his stories? In every book I've read featuring these two cliché Laurel & Hardy-type slapstick retards, they've served only the cheapen the book as a whole. Pikel is a complete moron, not funny in the least, and I find myself wanting to torture him, slowly, amidst a burning forest. Ivan would be a good character on his own, but his fall-guy persona is stupid.

Give me a reason not to give up on Salvatore, because although I enjoyed the Dark Elf Trilogy, all these other books are putting me off purely because of their idiocy. Names like Dagnabbit, etc... are just lame.

[ May 22, 2006, 00:35: Message edited by: Sir Farivald ]

Um ... their pretty good if you're a masochist who enjoys throwing away money...

But they pretty much die quality-wise after Dark Elf...

Salvatore is fantasy for 6th graders...George RR Martin on the other hand...o.O

Unbeatable characters (read: Pug, Rand, Rahl...) who on the last page of the book snap their fingers and make everything ok. I'd rather have many superpowerful characters (like Erikson), or none (like Martin & Hobb).