Fantasy Aficionados discussion

I recently read a book where one character had a diary with all the important info...and she refused to read it. *face palm*

Oh, and don't even get me started on the whole love triangle/quadrangle/gazillionangle thingie! The book had better have a whole lot more going for it plot-wise than just that way overused romance angle to get and keep my attention.

Cheryl wrote: "Oh, and don't even get me started on the whole love triangle/quadrangle/gazillionangle thingie! The book had better have a whole lot more going for it plot-wise than just that way overused romance..."

Me, too. I hate love triangles.

I started a thread on tropes that we love, because I'm a sucker for some tropes.

Hayley wrote: "See, that's the thing that puts me off YA books in general - teenagers and the way they act... or just teenagers in general - been there, done that and they put me off books if they're in them ;D "

I think it tends to crop up more in romances - YA and otherwise - and I tend to avoid straight out romances, in general.

It does come up in various "special snowflake with secret" type books, too...

MAybe that's why I've started taking a shine to alt-u books where magic is normal and things don't have to be all secretive all the time.

The trope of "the force" being with you gets a bit overused, too, especially in Asian movies. Actually, that's where Lucas got his inspiration for Star Wars, the idea of "the force" or chi.

Speaking of which... May the Fourth be with you.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Basically, everything on this list makes me look right past a book:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/s..."

Can't view it 'cause I'm not a member."

Sorry. Here are a few (they are very common story arcs put into query letters) of the best ones"

1. Defied expectations
Mary never expected that ...
Bill is shocked when ...
If you'd have told Robutussin that this would happen, he'd have said you were nuts ...
_______ was never supposed to be like this ...
Katy never planned on ...
Jared never signed up for/wanted/agreed to ...

2. Changed Forever!
If Mr. Character doesn't do such and such, the world/town/faerie kingdom/_____ will change forever!

5. Final Choice isn't a choice at all (Contributed by Queen of Swords)
Jake must now choose between defying the Dark Lord and giving in to his greatest fear.

11. Did I mention there's a prophecy? (Contributed by Lady Ice)
Throughout the query, there's been no mention of a prophecy. In fact, it's pretty unclear what the conflict or stakes are. But in the second-to-last line, we're informed that someone has to fulfil this big major prophecy otherwise the world will blow up.


3. As if that's not bad enough
To make matters worse ...
Things get complicated because ...
As if that's not bad enough ...
Everything gets out of control when ...

Ha! Yes, not obvious, but those are tropes. Another trope that is common is the idea of revenge or avenging as a motivation.

LOL. May the Fourth be with you, too, Colleen.

Maybe it's my interest in the study of folklore (the root of many fantasy-type stories), but I don't have a problem with tropes/motifs/cliches that recur.

Those are just story elements; what matters to me is how they use them.

Sure, "farmboy/orphan goes on a quest, slays the monster, and wins the girl" has been done. But when done well, I don't care if it shares those elements with other previous stories.

Can't say I'm a fan of pointless torture, but few books are going to include that in the blurb. :-)

Exactly so, Robert. I was told many years ago that there are only so many possible plotlines, and any 'new' story must make use of one or the other of them. Likewise, there are only so many tropes/motifs/cliches. Writers must work with the tools that are available. Some use those tools well, so that the reader may barely recognize the tropes, or become so engrossed in the tale that they don't care and keep reading. I suspect that different readers have different levels of tolerance for tropes, so that what bothers one of them immensely doesn't bother another at all.

I don't mind tropes--I mind tropes that lack creativity. Take Neil Gaiman's Graveyard Book. It's basically The Jungle Book with ghosts. But the reason it works is because it brings something new to an old tale, instead of just retelling it for the 2545845437th time.

Funny. Guess I'm reading different books because I hardly ever come across love triangles. The thing with love stories that I'm sick of is the whole I know we've just met but I've never felt this way before and I just know we're soul mates thing. Hate this. A few years ago I was reading a lot of paranormal romance though.

MrsJoseph wrote: "I am really turned off by "dark and gritty."

This, always. I read to be entertained ... if I want dark, depressing and grim I will watch the 10 PM news!

I also try to avoid the vampire/were and human romance situations. Very few authors seem to be able to manage a love/sex scene involving vampire/human or were/human without the addition of blood and violence ... and I simply do not find that entertaining in the least.

Most of the other things that you find ... prophecy, lost heir to the throne, failed magician, orphan and so on, I recognize but don't object to if the plot is done well.

The one thing I find I have lost my taste for to a great extent is the 'search' ... the search for whatever that seems to go on and on, indefinitely, with no real resolution.

Traci wrote: "Funny. Guess I'm reading different books because I hardly ever come across love triangles. The thing with love stories that I'm sick of is the whole I know we've just met but I've never felt this w..."

Well, I haven't read one in a while...but its one of the reasons I haven't finished the Mercy Thompson series. I'm pretty sure she'll end up with one guy but the other guy is a sweetheart, too. :-( That's what I hate about love triangles.

In romance I am rather tired of the "insta-love/lust" in romance. I'm starting to think of it as poor character development and lazy writing. Not every freaking person will find their soul mate. It's beyond lazy that every.single.person. drops into insta-love and there is no real courtship.

Hell, even if people *do* find their soulmates, I don't buy the whole "you saw them across a room and knew" stuff.

I mean, I kinda get insta-lust, but when it turns into the whole "I'll die without you" after knowing each for 5 minutes, I want to start smacking people upside their damn heads.

I agree, lust is one thing but not love and bonding. I also don't buy into the soulbonding unless people have actually had some in-depth and substantive conversations and experiences. I am not a PNR fan though either.

MrsJ, the love triangle in Mercy seemed to me to be a different kind of triangle. This has a vague reference to the resolution of the love triangel in the series without specifics (view spoiler)[Mercy had a pull from her past and a glimpse into her future. It becomes clear who she should choose and the person not chosen accepts it b/c he actually is not in love with her, he wants her for a specific purpose. They continue to be very close and very important to each other. His story doesn't end with Mercy's choice -- which is another reason I think that the triangle is different in this series. (hide spoiler)]Anyway, I think you would enjoy pushing on, it is resolved wonderfully and the best books in the series are 4, 5, and 6. :)

It seems like in so many series that use the triangle, one part of the triangle shows himself to be bad or evil, just a frustrating trope in my opinion.

I don't mind true love or soul mates. And some books can sell it better than others. But one of the last romance books I read was JR Ward. The guy stalked the girl, watching her through her windows and when she caught him in her house she didn't yell for help, didn't reach for the phone, didn't run, no she took him right on the sofa. No name. No nothing. But it's okay cause they were meant to be.
I do get tired of full blown triangles of I love him but I love you too. But I don't mind if the main character has two choices.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "Hell, even if people *do* find their soulmates, I don't buy the whole "you saw them across a room and knew" stuff.

I mean, I kinda get insta-lust, but when it turns into the whole "I'll die withou..."

Yeah. This. And its starting to happen a lot in YA.


ANd I will hand you the extra baseball bat... ;-)

Traci wrote: "I don't mind true love or soul mates. And some books can sell it better than others. But one of the last romance books I read was JR Ward. The guy stalked the girl, watching her through her windows..."

OMG. I read one like that recently. (view spoiler)[Guy meets girl, kidnaps girl, performs non-con sexual activity on girl...she loves him. Cause he knew as soon as he saw her. He'd waited hundreds of years. *eye roll* Spare me. (hide spoiler)]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Traci wrote: "I don't mind true love or soul mates. And some books can sell it better than others. But one of the last romance books I read was JR Ward. The guy stalked the girl, watching her throu..."

Isn't that the plot of every Christine Feehan books ever?

Regina wrote: "I agree, lust is one thing but not love and bonding. I also don't buy into the soulbonding unless people have actually had some in-depth and substantive conversations and experiences. I am not a ..."

I definitely got that feeling...but both guy's emotions seemed to be pretty sincere. I hate to see good guys (people) get hurt. It's different when the "other love interest" is a bad guy.

If I had to pick the most annoying YA romance trope, it wouldn't be, "Instant soul-mate, just add water," but "Oh my god, we're in a life-or-death situation! I just saw my whole village wiped out be monsters! I wonder if Bobby likes me?" The first one is stupid, but teenagers really are naive enough to believe it. The second one ... I'm sorry, once the characters start acting that dumb, I'm rooting for the bad guys.

Yes, definitely. One of them is sincere in loving Mercy as a person, but not as a mate/love interest. And Mercy loves him similarly. So in the end, it really does work out.

Traci wrote: "I don't mind true love or soul mates. And some books can sell it better than others. But one of the last romance books I read was JR Ward. The guy stalked the girl, watching her through her windows..."

I think JR Ward is an author that does this theme really really well.

I like the soulmate concept. Love at first sight does happen, even if it's not often. From a romance standpoint, I like the fated to be mated concept. They are actually big draws for PNR for me. When I read PNR I don't want to read something that's everyday realism. I read them for the escape, so I'm okay with having the 'this would never happen in real life' moment.

Well, if you're going to fantasize, fantasize big. In a world with paranormal creatures, why shouldn't there be such a thing as love at first sight?

Lady D, I love romance. I do believe in soul mates. I do believe in true love. And I want to believe in love at first sight. I do think there are moments where you meet someone and something just clicks. And not just in a romantic way. Could be someone destined to be a new best friend. But in my opinion a lot of romance today is instant lust not romance. I grew up watching my grandmother's favorite black and white movies so that might be a strong influence.

Now that you all have gone into detail, I have to agree with Regina that the thing I dislike in particular about love triangles is the "good choice" vs "bad choice".

The first Stephanie Meyer book I read was actually The Host and the only reason I picked it up was the dust jackets's promise of an unusual love triangle: three people and only two bodies. I had this strange impression that there was some question of gender issues in the story too -which was not the case- but it wasn't so bad. A very familiar trope that did something slightly different.

Cheryl wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "I hate hate hate the "if only we had an honest conversation sooner" trope! I hate it! If I have a SNIFF that the book's major plots might even think about revolving around "Lack..."

erikson uses it well though, even if it still creates a ton of tension... like sometimes when a secret is about to be revealed, or two chars are engaged in a conversation on an important matter, something startles them and they quit the convo until later :D

Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "I like the soulmate concept. Love at first sight does happen, even if it's not often. From a romance standpoint, I like the fated to be mated concept. They are actually big draws for PNR for me. ..."

I like the fated mates concept, too. But when every single book has the same thing...it makes it old and tired.

You used to get the whole fated mates and STILL get the romance/courtship and watch the couple fall in love. Now they toss out the word "mate" throw in some sex and move on. For most of the authors who I've read who do this...it's laziness. Take this one book i just read. The girl meets the guy because she thinks he could possibly be a killer. She sees him...gets insta-lust...and he decides that she's "the one" and he's going to keep her. The guy literally kidnaps her by flying away (vampire). He force-ably ties her down to a bed and (view spoiler)[performs oral sex on her until she cries. (hide spoiler)] All in the same day they meet. But then suddenly...she's in love with this guy and everything is ok. Where's the courtship?? Where's the romance? Damn, where's the freaking apology for the non-con?

I think that the same thing that irritated you might titillate another reader. For what it's worth, though, I'd be irritated by it myself.

MrsJ what book is that?!!

In any synopsis/cover blurb there are a couple of things that will almost instantly kill my interest. If the description sounds at first like an adventurous book but then switches goes on about the romantic theme I pretty much know it's not for me. Also most of you know that "friendly, romantic, helpful or benign vampires" are not my favorites. So often now in apparent UF there'll be a lead in about someone who is the heroine/hero but then about half wey through we fine that he or she is a vampire...maybe struggling against anti-vampire prejudice.

I also hate the "bad boy" thing. I've seen it too often in reality and romanticizing of it annoys me.

I love a good "bad boy" if they remain bad boys... okay, I don't think that made any sense to anyone except for me. I'm with you on intentionally romanticizing bad behavior though.

Traci wrote: "The thing with love stories that I'm sick of is the whole I know we've just met but I've never felt this way..."

That comes close to being the "you had me until..." deal breaker for me. There's very few stories that pull it off--Daughter of Smoke and Bone is one of the ones that did it well.

Me too, DoSaB is an amazing example of it. But I do think it went beyond just insta love. I don't want to say why though, because it could spoil it for others.

I so prefer my vamps to be true monsters, I agree with that Mike. I have enjoyed books where vamps are not monsters, but when they are monsters (for example Patricia Briggs) it makes the story in my opinion so much richer.

I agree with you about the bad boy trope, in reality I have seen it too many times and it usually doesn't pan out well so it is hard for me to accept the bad boy ideal. However, I am still a sucker for it done well. Which bothers me, but oh well.

I'm not too into the "bad boy" per se...more like the "misunderstood boy." Someone who's not really bad but they just try to project that image.

Great clarification. I think that is where I liked it too.

MrsJoseph wrote: "Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "I like the soulmate concept. Love at first sight does happen, even if it's not often. From a romance standpoint, I like the fated to be mated concept. ..."

Also there's the good old "show it don't tell it", I've had some bad experiences the few times I've tried PNR romances, writing "he was passionately in love with her and wanted her forever" 5 min. after a guy sees a girl is well, lazy. Show us what happened during their first hours/days etc. together that made her special, show us the magic - not just a guy/woman with a lot of hormones and no imagination ;-)

And tension needs to build up! That works better for me anyway :-) Just think how powerful the tension/romance is between Darcy and Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice - long before they even touch eachother.
I think Jim Butcher has a cool angle on the vampire/human love relationship in the Dresden books - have you read those?

Traci wrote: "I love a good "bad boy" if they remain bad boys... okay, I don't think that made any sense to anyone except for me. I'm with you on intentionally romanticizing bad behavior though."

I so agree Traci, I like it when the male is founded in himself, and though not necessarily a bad boy, then a little rough around the edges. Not so quick to conform. I've seen the most inconsistent character developments ever in romance novels! This whole (and yes I'm exagerating a little to prove my point :-))
"he was bad, demonic, rough, never cared about his looks and treated all women carelessly. He had been irresponsible and daring for 20 years - but THEN he met the blond, innocent, female character, and 5 min later he was baking pink cupcakes, wearing bunny slippers, building a white fence and designing their love-u-forever rings before the big church wedding."

I mean, WHAT?? I agree people can certainly reform/change, a little, over time, but any character who changes their most deep founded personality traits in a few hours/days is not very credible?
It's much more interesting, when both parties in a love story have to change a little and come to grips with each others not so compatible sides :-)

MrsJoseph wrote: "I am really turned off by "dark and gritty."

Word. I used to be really into that stuff, but now it's just... meh.

Louise wrote: "It's much more interesting, when both parties in a love story have to change a little and come to grips with each others not so compatible sides :-)"

Yes, this!

Louise wrote: "Traci wrote: "I love a good "bad boy" if they remain bad boys... okay, I don't think that made any sense to anyone except for me. I'm with you on intentionally romanticizing bad behavior though."

..."

lol agreed and laughing hard now :D

Stalkers in romance novels. I'll be reading a perfectly nice blurb on the back on the book and suddenly in paragraph two, you learn the heroine has a stalker. Makes me put the book down every time.

Psychics in Suspense or Thrillers. They are gifted psychics -- until they aren't. The one thing they really need to see to solve the horrific crime and it is "obscured from them."

The Nick-of-time Rescue. Usually in Suspense or Thrillers. Our intrepid heroine is inside the home of the killer (usually an unassuming person who is a friend or acquaintance of the heroine) when she sees something that causes her to figure out this is the Killer! Her demeanor tips the guy that the jig is up, so he attacks her. Meanwhile across town, at that very moment, the final clue that has eluded the police for months and months has fallen into place and they realize that Unassuming Friend or Acquaintance is the killer and 'Oh, no! the heroine is with him right now!'

Tina wrote: "Stalkers in romance novels. I'll be reading a perfectly nice blurb on the back on the book and suddenly in paragraph two, you learn the heroine has a stalker. Makes me put the book down every tim..."

Yes, i hate that too the chaacters getting saved from death in the last minute is so annoying.

I also hate it when a character passes out and it fades into black like he "died", but the next chapter he/she comes back fom the brink of death. Joe Abercrombie does this alot, it has stopped me from reading anymore of his books.

I have to admit that, if the word 'romance' is in the description of a book, I tend to pass it by. I also hate stories with girls crushing on 'bad boys', defending them against all evidence. Even though ya know the guy's gonna be innocent, stupidity in a heroine always turns me off. Oh, and emo vampires, I really hate emo vampires and zombies make great Romero movies but, frankly, suck more than vampires in books (pun intended).

I agree with the above, but it's entirely possible that some moviegoers and some readers like to experience pretty much the same story over and over again, but with different characters and perhaps a few more really cool CGI manipulations. One of my own complaints stems from it being possible to menace the heroine in almost any way possible, so long as nothing really bad is actually allowed to happen to her.
Alfred Hitchcock pretty much stood that trope on its head and spanked it severely with 'Psycho'.

S.J. wrote: "One of my own complaints stems from it being possible to menace the heroine in almost any way possible, so long as nothing really bad is actually allowed to happen to her."

This kind of thing bothers me also. The tension disappears from a story when you know that, no matter how bad the fight is going, the hero/heroin is going to come out unscathed. By extension I also hate how a character can take massive amounts of damage and only collapses when the fight is over, or they magically heal themselves the next day. Though I find this tends to happen more often in series rather than stand alone novels.

I swear, the story that surprised me the most these last few years was the movie version of How to Train Your Dragon. Even though the end made my little cousins cry, I thought it was genius to have real consequences in a child's movie.

I also have a dislike for faceless bad guys who only show up so that the unbelievable hero can kill them in droves. This is usually a failing of B-movies, or direct-to-video films. Somehow, though, I don't mind so much when the unbelievable hero is played by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Traci wrote: "I love a good "bad boy" if they remain bad boys... okay, I don't think that made any sense to anyone except for me. I'm with you on intentionally romanticizing bad behavior though."

Traci, I feel like a grown woman should know better and not assume that just because a romance hero is redeemed she can redeem a real life guy. When I read a book, it's fiction to me. End of story. I don't like bad boys in real life. I don't even like alpha type guys in real life. I like them in books, and I can separate reality from fiction. Most of my friends who read romances have enough sense to do likewise. I don't want to get into a tirade about the misconception of romance readers, so I'll stop here. But I will say that romance readers are fairly educated women with sense. They don't read romance books for a primer on dating.

I agree with you about romance being too much about instant lust nowadays. But that's not just romance books. I don't watch most romantic comedies because most of them aren't romantic in a true sense to me. They don't reflect my personal values on a romantic relationship and have little to offer me in that sense. I like the older movies where they had to convey romance a lot more cleverly because of the standards of what could be shown in a movie and pass the ratings.