Blightsong he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Author Posted July 16, 2015 Oh and another pet peeve of mine is when fantasy is overly sexualized, for no good reason. Oh my lord yes, I really enjoyed Peter V Brett's work but it's just getting worse and worse because the oversexualization used in the first couple books is just creating drama that he is basing the entire plot around now. I liked the awesome fantasy, I now hate the stupid drama novels. 2
Blightsong he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Author Posted July 16, 2015 Nope! I do have some plans for trope-busting. There are some tropes that I haaaaate, but they're not fantasy-limited tropes. They're just general storytelling tropes that almost every story wanders into. Feel free to post general trope hate as well 1
Kaymyth she/her Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The Brave Heroine is facing the Dastardly Villain! He is irredeemably evil, and she has the upper hand. She has a weapon pointed at him, but he's not worried, because she is good and pure, and could never do something so horrible as kill a person. So he can just say, "Haha, you're too good, you can't kill me," and walk away scot-free to create more mayhem. No. No, no, no, no, no. He is going to go back out there and murder people, and you're just going to let him get away?! Shoot him! It doesn' thave to be a lethal shot! Shoot him in the butt if you have to, just SHOOT HIM! 6
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Feel free to post general trope hate as well If you say so… One trope I never realized I hated (until I saw it brilliantly subverted) is one that I unfortunately can't find a name for, so I'll summarize it: Girl meets guy. Guy isn't really Girl's type, but he follows her around, writes her love poems, gives her gifts, the whole bit. Nearly all of Girl's friends and acquaintances think she and Guy would be an adorable couple, but Girl doesn't believe them. Finally, in a moment of frustration, Girl accepts Guy's invitation for a date….and learns he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares an insane level of chemistry. Alternatively, she finds he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares no chemistry, but they part ways as friends. Analysis and subversion below, as it contains Season 1 spoilers for Gravity Falls: In "The Hand that Rocks the Mabel," Mabel meets Gideon, her Grunkle Stan's business rival. Everyone who meets him adores him, because he's, well, adorable. He shows up on Mabel's doorstep one day and asks her out on a date to a fancy French restaurant. She accepts, although she feels things are moving a bit too fast. However, on the date, she learns that practically everyone in town is already enchanted by the idea of adorable Gideon dating adorable Mabel Pines. Gideon continues to lavish gifts and attention on her, even though they are unwanted at this point, but she feels too much pressure to keep the relationship going to tell him to stop. So she enlists Dipper to do it, after he volunteers to help her. It is at this point that most shows would let us see Gideon pining for Mabel, in a moment that would be played for laughs. Gravity Falls instead takes a moment to show us Gideon by himself, obsessing over Mabel and terrorizing his parents. Things only become more horrifying when Dipper confronts Gideon, Gideon assumes Dipper "has come between" him and Mabel (who he seems to genuinely believe is in love with him) and tries to murder Dipper. This subversion made me realize just how messed-up that trope is, and how many awful messages it sends to young girls. "If a guy lavishes attention on you, give him a chance! Don't listen to your instincts! They're just getting in the way of twu wuv. And if it's not true love, you'll leave with an awesome friend—but it'll probably be true love, who are we kidding." But on Gravity Falls, it turns out that Mabel's instincts were right. Gideon is not only creepy, but dangerous. Had she gone along with what he and the rest of the town wanted, she probably would have been seriously endangered at some point. Yet the episode ends with her standing up for herself, saving her brother, and forcing Gideon to back off. It was the best sort of "girl power" moment, and one I wish more stories would add. 8
Quiver he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Protagonist-centred morality. It's hardly exclusive to fantasy, but there are some fantasy books I can think of where it is a very big aspect that offends me. 5
Guest Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I do not think there is a single trope I hate enough to steer may away from any potential book. I do believe all tropes have potential, when well executed, though there are a few I'd rather we skip for a while... However, the one thing I currently get overly annoyed with is the tendency to rate an author's quality by the number of characters he (or she) is willing to kill. Grim fantasy now calls for blood such as to remove the sentient of comfort found in classical tales. Whereas grims fantasy has its merits, I do not see why characters have to die in EVERY book... I personally like to root for my characters and I hate to fear for their death. When I read Epic Fantasy, I want to keep on reading about my favorites, not see them die and be replace by others I have no attachment to.
ThirdGen Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 If you say so… One trope I never realized I hated (until I saw it brilliantly subverted) is one that I unfortunately can't find a name for, so I'll summarize it: Girl meets guy. Guy isn't really Girl's type, but he follows her around, writes her love poems, gives her gifts, the whole bit. Nearly all of Girl's friends and acquaintances think she and Guy would be an adorable couple, but Girl doesn't believe them. Finally, in a moment of frustration, Girl accepts Guy's invitation for a date….and learns he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares an insane level of chemistry. Alternatively, she finds he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares no chemistry, but they part ways as friends. At the risk of eating up loads of site members' time if they haven't heard of this, your trope is described here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StalkingIsLove 1
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 At the risk of eating up loads of site members' time if they haven't heard of this, your trope is described here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StalkingIsLove Thank you. I knew it had a name, but I had no idea what it might be called or what to look for. 1
Kobold King he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I do not think there is a single trope I hate enough to steer may away from any potential book. I do believe all tropes have potential, when well executed, though there are a few I'd rather we skip for a while... However, the one thing I currently get overly annoyed with is the tendency to rate an author's quality by the number of characters he (or she) is willing to kill. Grim fantasy now calls for blood such as to remove the sentient of comfort found in classical tales. Whereas grims fantasy has its merits, I do not see why characters have to die in EVERY book... I personally like to root for my characters and I hate to fear for their death. When I read Epic Fantasy, I want to keep on reading about my favorites, not see them die and be replace by others I have no attachment to. I really don't get why so many people complain about Doctor Who--or Disney movies, for Calamity's sake--not killing off enough major characters. Loss sucks. Reality sucks. Sometimes it's good to read a book that can prepare you for the bleakness of the world, but I hardly want to bawl my eyes out every time I watch a piece of wholesome family entertainment. 4
Quiver he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 If you say so… One trope I never realized I hated (until I saw it brilliantly subverted) is one that I unfortunately can't find a name for, so I'll summarize it: Girl meets guy. Guy isn't really Girl's type, but he follows her around, writes her love poems, gives her gifts, the whole bit. Nearly all of Girl's friends and acquaintances think she and Guy would be an adorable couple, but Girl doesn't believe them. Finally, in a moment of frustration, Girl accepts Guy's invitation for a date….and learns he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares an insane level of chemistry. Alternatively, she finds he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares no chemistry, but they part ways as friends. Analysis and subversion below, as it contains Season 1 spoilers for Gravity Falls: In "The Hand that Rocks the Mabel," Mabel meets Gideon, her Grunkle Stan's business rival. Everyone who meets him adores him, because he's, well, adorable. He shows up on Mabel's doorstep one day and asks her out on a date to a fancy French restaurant. She accepts, although she feels things are moving a bit too fast. However, on the date, she learns that practically everyone in town is already enchanted by the idea of adorable Gideon dating adorable Mabel Pines. Gideon continues to lavish gifts and attention on her, even though they are unwanted at this point, but she feels too much pressure to keep the relationship going to tell him to stop. So she enlists Dipper to do it, after he volunteers to help her. It is at this point that most shows would let us see Gideon pining for Mabel, in a moment that would be played for laughs. Gravity Falls instead takes a moment to show us Gideon by himself, obsessing over Mabel and terrorizing his parents. Things only become more horrifying when Dipper confronts Gideon, Gideon assumes Dipper "has come between" him and Mabel (who he seems to genuinely believe is in love with him) and tries to murder Dipper. This subversion made me realize just how messed-up that trope is, and how many awful messages it sends to young girls. "If a guy lavishes attention on you, give him a chance! Don't listen to your instincts! They're just getting in the way of twu wuv. And if it's not true love, you'll leave with an awesome friend—but it'll probably be true love, who are we kidding." But on Gravity Falls, it turns out that Mabel's instincts were right. Gideon is not only creepy, but dangerous. Had she gone along with what he and the rest of the town wanted, she probably would have been seriously endangered at some point. Yet the episode ends with her standing up for herself, saving her brother, and forcing Gideon to back off. It was the best sort of "girl power" moment, and one I wish more stories would add. Quoted for truth. "Nice Guy Syndrome" is one of the most toxic tropes in fiction - you pointed out the girl power thing but, looking at it from a guy's point of view... "Keep stalking her! She's just playing hard to get, she'll realise how awesome you are eventually!" Which...kind of leads to the "Nice Guy" thing I mentioned. "I'm nice to girls, so why don't any of them want to date me! I deserve it, damnation it!" 5
Orlion Blight he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The Brave Heroine is facing the Dastardly Villain! He is irredeemably evil, and she has the upper hand. She has a weapon pointed at him, but he's not worried, because she is good and pure, and could never do something so horrible as kill a person. So he can just say, "Haha, you're too good, you can't kill me," and walk away scot-free to create more mayhem. No. No, no, no, no, no. He is going to go back out there and murder people, and you're just going to let him get away?! Shoot him! It doesn' thave to be a lethal shot! Shoot him in the butt if you have to, just SHOOT HIM! Or, similarly, The Protagonist and Villain are fighting TO THE DEATH, when the Villain slips on a banana peel and is now hanging on for dear life on the edge of a PRECIPICE OF DEATH. The Protagonist, being so darn pure, says something along the lines of "Take my hand!" because all of a sudden, he's concerned with the Villain's mortality, when the Villain decides, "No, I'm going to somehow try to kill you from this position! Whoops, I lost my grip and caused my own death, thus absolving the Protagonist of any responsibility in such an unsavoury action as killing the clearly evil bad guy!" 2
Kobold King he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Or, similarly, The Protagonist and Villain are fighting TO THE DEATH, when the Villain slips on a banana peel and is now hanging on for dear life on the edge of a PRECIPICE OF DEATH. The Protagonist, being so darn pure, says something along the lines of "Take my hand!" because all of a sudden, he's concerned with the Villain's mortality, when the Villain decides, "No, I'm going to somehow try to kill you from this position! Whoops, I lost my grip and caused my own death, thus absolving the Protagonist of any responsibility in such an unsavoury action as killing the clearly evil bad guy!" Doctor Who Season 4 spoilers: Nowhere do I object to this trope more than at the end of the Davros two-parter, where the Doctor tries to rescue a genocidal lunatic bent on destroying reality, but leaves this guy... ...to die in a fiery explosion. What. The. Sparks. Dalek Caan is the only Dalek to have had a legitimate Heel Face-Turn! He was redeemed! He was all-knowing! He was insane, but he willingly sacrificed himself for the fate of all creation! Instead, the writers have the Doctor offer his hand to Davros, an irredeemable pile of omnicidal rage given physical form. A man so evil, the only thing that keeps him from kicking pug puppies across red-hot floors is the fact that he doesn't have legs. A man so evil, the only thing that delays him from detonating his patented Reality Bomb™ at a strategic moment is his desire to torture the protagonists first. Yet when the Dalek ship explodes, the Doctor desperately begs Davros to let him save his life, completely ignoring the squid that just saved the cosmos. Where the Skaro is the logic in that? In my headcanon the Doctor saved Caan and instituted him into the finest mental hospital in the universe, because that is more fitting of a man who calls himself "the Doctor" then the man who puts murderous psychopaths above those who have put their lives on the line to save him. 6
Kaymyth she/her Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 If you say so… One trope I never realized I hated (until I saw it brilliantly subverted) is one that I unfortunately can't find a name for, so I'll summarize it: Girl meets guy. Guy isn't really Girl's type, but he follows her around, writes her love poems, gives her gifts, the whole bit. Nearly all of Girl's friends and acquaintances think she and Guy would be an adorable couple, but Girl doesn't believe them. Finally, in a moment of frustration, Girl accepts Guy's invitation for a date….and learns he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares an insane level of chemistry. Alternatively, she finds he is a sweet, sensitive person with whom she shares no chemistry, but they part ways as friends. Analysis and subversion below, as it contains Season 1 spoilers for Gravity Falls: In "The Hand that Rocks the Mabel," Mabel meets Gideon, her Grunkle Stan's business rival. Everyone who meets him adores him, because he's, well, adorable. He shows up on Mabel's doorstep one day and asks her out on a date to a fancy French restaurant. She accepts, although she feels things are moving a bit too fast. However, on the date, she learns that practically everyone in town is already enchanted by the idea of adorable Gideon dating adorable Mabel Pines. Gideon continues to lavish gifts and attention on her, even though they are unwanted at this point, but she feels too much pressure to keep the relationship going to tell him to stop. So she enlists Dipper to do it, after he volunteers to help her. It is at this point that most shows would let us see Gideon pining for Mabel, in a moment that would be played for laughs. Gravity Falls instead takes a moment to show us Gideon by himself, obsessing over Mabel and terrorizing his parents. Things only become more horrifying when Dipper confronts Gideon, Gideon assumes Dipper "has come between" him and Mabel (who he seems to genuinely believe is in love with him) and tries to murder Dipper. This subversion made me realize just how messed-up that trope is, and how many awful messages it sends to young girls. "If a guy lavishes attention on you, give him a chance! Don't listen to your instincts! They're just getting in the way of twu wuv. And if it's not true love, you'll leave with an awesome friend—but it'll probably be true love, who are we kidding." But on Gravity Falls, it turns out that Mabel's instincts were right. Gideon is not only creepy, but dangerous. Had she gone along with what he and the rest of the town wanted, she probably would have been seriously endangered at some point. Yet the episode ends with her standing up for herself, saving her brother, and forcing Gideon to back off. It was the best sort of "girl power" moment, and one I wish more stories would add. This one is more than a trope, it's a full-blown societal problem. Girls aren't allowed to just not be interested in someone; they have to specifically say that there's something wrong with a guy before they're permitted to choose not to go out with him. Girls have to be "nice" and have to endure pressure from friends and family if they try and assert their autonomy. It's ridiculous and damaging. I do not think there is a single trope I hate enough to steer may away from any potential book. I do believe all tropes have potential, when well executed, though there are a few I'd rather we skip for a while... However, the one thing I currently get overly annoyed with is the tendency to rate an author's quality by the number of characters he (or she) is willing to kill. Grim fantasy now calls for blood such as to remove the sentient of comfort found in classical tales. Whereas grims fantasy has its merits, I do not see why characters have to die in EVERY book... I personally like to root for my characters and I hate to fear for their death. When I read Epic Fantasy, I want to keep on reading about my favorites, not see them die and be replace by others I have no attachment to. Yeah. I'm not above killing a character, but there needs to be a good reason for it. It needs to drive the plot, putting a character onto a specific path. Just having someone die because of Teh Sadz leaves me feeling, well, sad. Quoted for truth. "Nice Guy Syndrome" is one of the most toxic tropes in fiction - you pointed out the girl power thing but, looking at it from a guy's point of view... "Keep stalking her! She's just playing hard to get, she'll realise how awesome you are eventually!" Which...kind of leads to the "Nice Guy" thing I mentioned. "I'm nice to girls, so why don't any of them want to date me! I deserve it, damnation it!" Yep, which leads to a lot of guys engaging in stalkerish behavior because of the same societal pressure that leads girls to give in and date someone they're not really interested in. That's no good for anybody. Another trope that's just been done to death: The classic love triangle. There's the girl, there's the nice but boring guy, and then there's the "bad boy". The girl always, always picks the bad boy, and he's usually hiding a heart of gold. Just once, I'd like to see the girl look at them, think, "Gee, you know? I don't really see it working out with either of them," and telling them both to go fly a kite. 8
+Slowswift Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Doctor Who Season 4 spoilers: Nowhere do I object to this trope more than at the end of the Davros two-parter, where the Doctor tries to rescue a genocidal lunatic bent on destroying reality, but leaves this guy... ...to die in a fiery explosion. What. The. Sparks. Dalek Caan is the only Dalek to have had a legitimate Heel Face-Turn! He was redeemed! He was all-knowing! He was insane, but he willingly sacrificed himself for the fate of all creation! Instead, the writers have the Doctor offer his hand to Davros, an irredeemable pile of omnicidal rage given physical form. A man so evil, the only thing that keeps him from kicking pug puppies across red-hot floors is the fact that he doesn't have legs. A man so evil, the only thing that delays him from detonating his patented Reality Bomb™ at a strategic moment is his desire to torture the protagonists first. Yet when the Dalek ship explodes, the Doctor desperately begs Davros to let him save his life, completely ignoring the squid that just saved the cosmos. Where the Skaro is the logic in that? In my headcanon the Doctor saved Caan and instituted him into the finest mental hospital in the universe, because that is more fitting of a man who calls himself "the Doctor" then the man who puts murderous psychopaths above those who have put their lives on the line to save him. Well said! Um. I hadn't any problem with that episode, really, until I read that. Now I still largely don't have a problem, except perhaps with the ending. (Headcanon accepted, btw) Although I absolutely loved when they all flew the TARDIS. Edited July 16, 2015 by Slowswift 1
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The nice guy stalker trope is a HUGE societal problem. Not only does it encourage guys to think they "deserve" notice from girls who are being told to ignore their instincts, but when it inevitably goes down in flames, who is blamed? The girl. "You should have seen it! You should have known what he was hiding! Why didn't you ask for help while you still could?" Um, she did? You--you parents, friends, and everyone else who saw them together--were too busy drawing hearts around their pictures to hear him being creepy and her veiled cries for help. Well said! Um. I hadn't any problem with that episode, really, until I read that. Now I still largely don't have a problem, except perhaps with the ending. Although I absolutely loved when they all flew the TARDIS. I think Heroes Don't Kill is one maxim that could use some serious examination. Not because I'm against it in principle; I think it's a fine idea to promote heroes who value human life. Equally fine is the idea of giving villains a second chance. However, it's gotten to the point where heroes will spare genocidal maniacs and sci-fi serial killers, effectively dooming countless people to death and torture. And this is never addressed! Heroes are commended for sparing someone evil, when in reality they just sentenced untold innocents to death. I'm not saying we need every hero to be the Punisher; I'm just saying I'd appreciate it if writers made this more of a grey area instead of the black-and-white morality it's treated as. 3
SmurfAquamarineBodies he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The nice guy stalker trope is a HUGE societal problem. Not only does it encourage guys to think they "deserve" notice from girls who are being told to ignore their instincts, but when it inevitably goes down in flames, who is blamed? The girl. "You should have seen it! You should have known what he was hiding! Why didn't you ask for help while you still could?" Um, she did? You--you parents, friends, and everyone else who saw them together--were too busy drawing hearts around their pictures to hear him being creepy and her veiled cries for help. I think Heroes Don't Kill is one maxim that could use some serious examination. Not because I'm against it in principle; I think it's a fine idea to promote heroes who value human life. Equally fine is the idea of giving villains a second chance. However, it's gotten to the point where heroes will spare genocidal maniacs and sci-fi serial killers, effectively dooming countless people to death and torture. And this is never addressed! Heroes are commended for sparing someone evil, when in reality they just sentenced untold innocents to death. I'm not saying we need every hero to be the Punisher; I'm just saying I'd appreciate it if writers made this more of a grey area instead of the black-and-white morality it's treated as. That has to be my main issue with the Batman and Joker relationship. 2
Kestrel she/her Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 - also the trope that the male always has to be the strong one. 2
+Slowswift Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The nice guy stalker trope is a HUGE societal problem. Not only does it encourage guys to think they "deserve" notice from girls who are being told to ignore their instincts, but when it inevitably goes down in flames, who is blamed? The girl. "You should have seen it! You should have known what he was hiding! Why didn't you ask for help while you still could?" Um, she did? You--you parents, friends, and everyone else who saw them together--were too busy drawing hearts around their pictures to hear him being creepy and her veiled cries for help. I think Heroes Don't Kill is one maxim that could use some serious examination. Not because I'm against it in principle; I think it's a fine idea to promote heroes who value human life. Equally fine is the idea of giving villains a second chance. However, it's gotten to the point where heroes will spare genocidal maniacs and sci-fi serial killers, effectively dooming countless people to death and torture. And this is never addressed! Heroes are commended for sparing someone evil, when in reality they just sentenced untold innocents to death. I'm not saying we need every hero to be the Punisher; I'm just saying I'd appreciate it if writers made this more of a grey area instead of the black-and-white morality it's treated as. Yes. But I do like when characters offer the villain a chance, and he refuses it, so he has to kill them anyways, a la Harry and Voldemort. Instead of "I'm so stupid noble so I'm gonna spare you because reasons". Although I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the Bilbo/Gollum thing. It's not quite to the usual extent, but it's a similar thing. 1
Adamir he/him Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 However, it's gotten to the point where heroes will spare genocidal maniacs and sci-fi serial killers, effectively dooming countless people to death and torture. There's that, and there's the hypocrisy. Dear Action Movie Hero No. 21950 You murdered thousands of henchmen who were only there because they didn't have any other jobs and were continually re-assured that they wouldn't be in danger. But you only carted their evil, maniacal psychopathic boss off to a cardboard prison for him to break out of during the sequel. We are pressing a lawsuit. Yours Truly, The families of Henchmen 124516 through to 741893 4
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Yes. But I do like when characters offer the villain a chance, and he refuses it, so he has to kill them anyways, a la Harry and Voldemort. Instead of "I'm so stupid noble so I'm gonna spare you because reasons". Although I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the Bilbo/Gollum thing. It's not quite to the usual extent, but it's a similar thing. I think the dialed-down nature of Bilbo sparing Gollum is what makes it work, and work well. When Bilbo spares Gollum, he isn't choosing to spare Sauron or Morgoth or the Witch-King. He isn't making the unilateral decision to give a remorseless mass-murderer a chance to reform--a chance that all evidence suggests he will use to continue down the same dark path. Bilbo is choosing to spare one small, pathetic creature who has been driven insane by a power he doesn't comprehend. Gollum, so far as Bilbo knows, hasn't spent his life setting up a brutal regime that will destroy some races and enslave all others. He's a sad, pitiful soul who spends his days eating raw fish, terrorizing those rare people who cross him, and warbling over his "Precious." To Bilbo, Gollum was a threat, but he was also a special case. There weren't tales of Gollum rampaging through the countryside and murdering everyone who stood in his way; he lived underground and ate raw fish. The thing that drove him insane was to blame, and I think Bilbo believed Gollum could have been successfully rehabilitated. I think he hoped an act of mercy would help Gollum back onto the straight and narrow. He was wrong about that, but Gollum didn't harm large numbers of people in the time between the books. He didn't reform, but he didn't pose the sort of threat to the public posed by someone like the Joker. 4
Sarcasm she/her Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) I second all mentioned above. I also strongly dislike the "love at first sight" cliche. Edited July 17, 2015 by Sarcasm
Guest Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I really don't get why so many people complain about Doctor Who--or Disney movies, for Calamity's sake--not killing off enough major characters. Loss sucks. Reality sucks. Sometimes it's good to read a book that can prepare you for the bleakness of the world, but I hardly want to bawl my eyes out every time I watch a piece of wholesome family entertainment. Sometimes, you just want to read about heroes overcoming their issues and their fears and succeeding at it. What is wrong with that? Another trope that's just been done to death: The classic love triangle. There's the girl, there's the nice but boring guy, and then there's the "bad boy". The girl always, always picks the bad boy, and he's usually hiding a heart of gold. Just once, I'd like to see the girl look at them, think, "Gee, you know? I don't really see it working out with either of them," and telling them both to go fly a kite. YES. It points down directly towards an imply love triangle into SA and why I am so against it. I am so fed up with the bad grumpy penniless overly introspective boy which always ends up winning the girl because he is such a rare person deep down... The girl always falls madly in love with him because, of course, the nice handsome rich guy is always dump, boring or plain evil. It is, of course, impossible to crush on someone decent, you know, with a future ahead of him? And of course, the bad boy always is super smart inside his rags... Gee..... I am also tired of the boy meets girl, girl hates boys, endless bickering, boy falls in love with girl because reasons, girl falls in love because reasons, the end. What is wrong with dating someone and progressively learn to love each other? What is wrong with having a complicity with someone that does not sprout from endless fighting? Since when does fighting means attraction? These. I am tired of these. Not that it cannot be well made, but I wish to read about other kind of unions.
Guest Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I second all mentioned above. I also strongly dislike the "love at first sight cliche." And it rarely happens in real life... In real life, people get to know each other before they fall in love, hence it is called a crush and crushes never last.
Voidus Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I do not think there is a single trope I hate enough to steer may away from any potential book. I do believe all tropes have potential, when well executed, though there are a few I'd rather we skip for a while... However, the one thing I currently get overly annoyed with is the tendency to rate an author's quality by the number of characters he (or she) is willing to kill. Grim fantasy now calls for blood such as to remove the sentient of comfort found in classical tales. Whereas grims fantasy has its merits, I do not see why characters have to die in EVERY book... I personally like to root for my characters and I hate to fear for their death. When I read Epic Fantasy, I want to keep on reading about my favorites, not see them die and be replace by others I have no attachment to. This^. It's still not too common though certain authors have become well known for it (You all know who I'm talking about) but the problem is that the supposed goal (Getting rid of plot armour and letting even major characters die) Is almost never achieved, main characters still live through myriad situations which should have killed them but now at the end they might suddenly get hit with an arrow/bullet/firebolt to the neck and die out of no where just to make the readers upset. 1
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 This^. It's still not too common though certain authors have become well known for it (You all know who I'm talking about) but the problem is that the supposed goal (Getting rid of plot armour and letting even major characters die) Is almost never achieved, main characters still live through myriad situations which should have killed them but now at the end they might suddenly get hit with an arrow/bullet/firebolt to the neck and die out of no where just to make the readers upset. Looking at you, Divergent series. The worst part, I think, is that she didn't develop her characters before she killed them off. Each death was like Roth was a Mafia don, killing underling after underling just to remind us she was serious.
Recommended Posts