Fantasy Aficionados discussion

Olga wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "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...."

..."

ACK!!!!!! Spoiler!

MrsJoseph wrote: "Olga wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "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 tri..."

It's not a spoiler. It's in the blurb. ;)

It's still a spoiler. I haven't even started the series yet, so I'm obviously not going to read a blurb on a book quite a ways into the series. But thanks for taking it upon yourself to decide what is and isn't a spoiler to other people..

I do think it is a spoiler though -- even if it is in the blurb. Sorry! I know you didn't mean it, but people who are starting to read 1, 2 and 3 likely won't read the blurb for River Marked.

I don't think Mercy is a tough guy at all. I think she is just well balanced. :)

Dawn wrote: "It's still a spoiler. I haven't even started the series yet, so I'm obviously not going to read a blurb on a book quite a ways into the series. But thanks for taking it upon yourself to decide what..."

Yup, I purposely never read the summaries for books further on in series if I am not there yet.

ETA: But I don't think Olga meant to spoil -- do you know how to add the spoiler tags?

Regina wrote: "I do think it is a spoiler though -- even if it is in the blurb. Sorry! I know you didn't mean it, but people who are starting to read 1, 2 and 3 likely won't read the blurb for River Marked.

I ..."

Yep. Cause I specifically don't read the blurbs for books I haven't gotten to yet. I just buy and shelve without reading.

I've only finished book 2.

Sorry if I upset people with my comment. The moderators can always remove it.

Olga, I don't think you meant to -- do you know how to spoiler tag? It is pretty easy to edit comments and add tags (just remove the spaces):

< spoiler > text here < / spoiler >

I think it's interesting that people consider book jacket blurbs spoilers. I always read them, and don't feel like it takes away from the story. Maybe we should start a discussion thread on it--bet it could be lively :)

I think the moderators.. Like MrsJ who pointed it out... Are giving you a chance to edit your comment, rather than downright deleting it.

I don't consider book blurbs spoilers. And in the case mentioned, I don't really feel it is for that book, or even the two preceding it. If you haven't read the series at all, maybe it is, but I think it's not fair to expect that people mentioning a long series won't reference any events that happen. That's like me expecting people not to mention the resolution of Wuthering Heights, since I haven't read it.

Regina wrote: "ETA: But I don't think Olga meant to spoil -- do you know how to add the spoiler tags? "

Actually I don't. How?
I always read blurbs and spoilers - I like to know what happens. Even more: I often take a peek into the last pages to know how the story ends. It's like a teaser for me; it adds to the pleasure.
Although sometimes, the blurb has little to do with the story. In some books I read, I think people who wrote the blurb didn't read the book. They are just marketeers doing their job from a synopsis or even from a logline. Their goal seems to be to incite readers, not to give correct info.

I think blurbs from later books in the series can most definitely contain spoilers for things that happen earlier in the series.

I know some people who don't read blurbs at all 'cause they don't even want to know that much about a book - but reading the blurbs is how I end up picking books, so I'm good with reading current blurbs.

But I purposely avoid reading blurbs later on in a series precisely because I've been spoiled by doing so in the past. I will only read the blurb for the first book in a series, if it's a series I haven't started, or for whatever book in the series I'm currently on.

Carol wrote: "I don't consider book blurbs spoilers."

If it's for book six in the series? Definitely a spoiler... Book one? No.

The thing is that oftentimes librarians here on GR write those blurbs, but even if not in my opinion if a major plot line is revealed in a book blurb that it is spoiler. For the first three books who Mercy will choose is a major point of tension and plot line. Then in books 4 and 5, what Mercy will do with her relationship is a major point of the plot line - -thus saying that Mercy ends up with X and goes somewhere with him is a plot spoiler.

I accidentally read a blurb on book 2 in a different series, it revealed that the heroine was now a vampire, married and a queen -- well what is the point of reading #1 if now I know all that is resolved by the end? I did read it, but knowing all of that seriously spoiled the book for me.

Book blurbs are not excepted from being a spoiler just by their position, but if they reveal plot lines and devices -- then yes, they are spoilers.

Olga wrote: "Actually I don't. How?
I always read blurbs and spoilers - I like to know what happens. Even more: I often take a peek into the last pages to know how the story ends. It's like a teaser for me; it adds to the pleasure..."

See message 112...

And just because you like blurbs and spoilers, doesn't mean everyone else has to agree.

Olga wrote: "Regina wrote: "ETA: But I don't think Olga meant to spoil -- do you know how to add the spoiler tags? "

Actually I don't. How?
I always read blurbs and spoilers - I like to know what happens. Even..."

My later post shows how.

Regina wrote: "Book Blurbs are not excepted from being a spoiler just by their position, but if the reveal plot lines and devices -- then yes, they are spoilers. ."

But asking people to censor references to material that is readily available is excessively controlling, in my opinion.

Carol wrote: "I don't consider book blurbs spoilers."

IT depends on what they say. THey can be spoilers if its a series and you're not there yet.

Think about what I already knew compared to what I just learned:

Knew:(view spoiler)[ Both Adam and whathisface wanted to date/mate Mercy. They were in the midst of a love triangle with whathisface living with Mercy while she tried to figure out her feelings. The blurb for book 3 (that I was getting ready to start) said that the two wanted her to make a decision before they made a decision. (hide spoiler)]

Just learned: (view spoiler)[Whathisface will not mate Mercy but Adam and Mercy are getting married and going on a honeymoon. (hide spoiler)]

Oh I strongly disagree. It may be readily available (as is the book itself), but it is about choice. Most forums have rules about spoilers, I thought this one did too? But maybe that was an assumption. If I choose to read a blurb or a review with a spoiler or a thread that notes there are spoilers present, then I have made that choice and am prpeared for it. But a thread that doesn't note there will be spoilers that suddenly just has one appear and a reader is not warned of the spoiler or prepared for the spoiler has the choice and the power of the decision removed from them. It comes down to choice and power by the reader and social etiquette from a poster. The spoiler tags are a perfect solution. The information can still be shared but the reader has the option to click or not.

My point: if you looked at the jacket, you would know. Therefore the information is readily available. Like I said, I've never read Wuthering Heights--am I to consider every reference to what happens in the book a spoiler? Sophie earlier mentioned The Host and three spirits and two bodies. Is that a spoiler? I have no idea what the book is about, so now one of the presumably critical plot devices is 'spoiled.'

And Regina, I would say you 'spoiled' Mercy series yourself by saying "one interest is her soul mate..." etc. earlier in the thread. People who haven't read the series don't know what the romantic situation is.

My point remains that we can't be responsible for what people haven't read. We can try to be considerate, sure.

I know what your point is, but you still make the choice to A) look at the jacket; and B) potentially be spoiled. That is not made in this thread.

Additionally, your analogy is not applicable. You are talking about reading a book blurb for the book you are about to read. Not the same as reading a book blurb for book 6 in a series and getting spoiled on books 1-5.

THis is the thing, Carol. It really is a spoiler. I do not read the blurbs, dust jackets or summaries of books later in the series until I get to them.

It's not being controlling in the least to request spoiler tags. Its not like I'm saying "Don't discuss at all!"

Carol wrote: "My point remains that we can't be responsible for what people haven't read. We can try to be considerate, sure. "

And one possible way to be considerate, imo, is when multiple people tell you something you said spoils a series you could edit your post to put in a spoiler tag instead of starting an argument about it.


Carol wrote: "My point: if you looked at the jacket, you would know."

Which is why some people purposely don't read jackets/blurbs for books later in a series than where they're at.

If you all think that is a spoiler, I have no problem marking it. I am not adverse to re-evaluating my decisions to post. :)

I just spoiler marked it, thanks for letting me know - -I had not thought it was. Sorry if I ruined it for anyone.

Book blurbs on series most definitely are spoilers. For example in one YA series ( I am certain some of you could guess which one!)I was reading there was a couple who looked like they were not going to get together and when I looked up the other books, the two were on the cover in a embrace! Spoilers do not bother me personally as I also have the bad habit of peaking ahead

I've recently come across something that I cannot stand in a book. The main female character has suffered some traumatic event that comes up five pages in, and is heavily referred to and has made her push everyone away and basically ruin her own life. I got about 30 pages in and quit, because this event (whatever it is) drives everything and I just didn't care after a while. I will not slough though bucket-loads of angst and not know why. Most likely to go on my DNF shelf, which sucks, because I accidentally bought the sequel. I really wish you could return e-books *sigh*

I don't know if it is a trope or a stylistic thing, but I figure it is a spin on the "If only we'd had this conversation sooner..." problem.

If bought from amazon in the last seven days you can return an ebook.

Sophie wrote: "I've recently come across something that I cannot stand in a book. The main female character has suffered some traumatic event that comes up five pages in, and is heavily referred to and has made h..."

I hate, hate, hate that!!! One of the books I tried to read this year stars a set of twins. The girl was in constant angst about some horrific event THAT SHALL NEVER BE NAMED and was on constant suicide watch over it. The boy was horribly scarred in the event THAT SHALL NEVER BE NAMED that left shrapnel in his hands??

Obviously the pair were due for greatness, lol. But I couldn't be arsed...but I have to admit that the event THAT SHALL NEVER BE NAMED helped to turn me off quite a lot.

Did you ever see the movie Cold Comfort Farm? Grandma lived a recluse in her room because..."she saw something nasty in the woodshed" as a child...

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Did you ever see the movie Cold Comfort Farm? Grandma lived a recluse in her room because..."she saw something nasty in the woodshed" as a child..."

I don't think I've ever heard of that one...let me go check it out.

Sophie wrote: "I've recently come across something that I cannot stand in a book. The main female character has suffered some traumatic event that comes up five pages in, and is heavily referred to and has made h..."

Isn't that the truth! The (trauma + PTSD/scarring)*multiple references trope makes me nuts--it's one step above paper cut-out on my character creation scale.

Carol wrote: "Isn't that the truth! The (trauma + PTSD/scarring)*multiple references trope makes me nuts--it's one step above paper cut-out on my character creation scale. "

But...but...unexplained trauma shows the cardboard character has depth!

Uh, sure. About 1/8th of an inch worth.

Sympathetic Sue :>

I recall seeing a made-for-tv movie once where a smart, successful, and, of course, beautiful woman was running her own business and apparently getting by on two or three hours' sleep a night. One scene had her faithful assistant telling her that she should slow down, especially after (insert terrible traumatic incident here) happened to her. She simply laughs it off and thanks him for his concern. This was apparently meant to show that the female character had had some trauma in her life, and yet she never gave any hint of it having affected her in the least. In fact, I don't think it was even mentioned again. This is an inverse of the trauma/PTSD/trauma trope, and annoying in its own way.

Most tropes and cliches don't bother me unless the book is badly written. I'm of the opinion that at this point, there is nothing original out there. It's all been done in some form already. Now, it's a matter of presentation. Maybe that's why I like reading Sanderson because I like the magic systems or any other book where I get to see an interesting world. I can't think of a plot or character that hasn't been done. However, worlds tend to offer something new and gets my imagination working.
The one thing that I can say I would be like 'you had me until' would be ... you killed off every character I cared about. To wit: If Tyrion dies, I'm done with ASOIAF.

Terry wrote: "Most tropes and cliches don't bother me unless the book is badly written. I'm of the opinion that at this point, there is nothing original out there. It's all been done in some form already. Now, i..."

well, the subjects and such have been done before... it is for the writers to take them on in a new way, and it is not just presentation... things were processed before, but new takes on subjects can create interesting points of view and ideas on certain subjects

Terry wrote: "Most tropes and cliches don't bother me unless the book is badly written. I'm of the opinion that at this point, there is nothing original out there. It's all been done in some form already. Now, i..."

I agree for the most part. 99% of all of it has been done before. So it's up to the author to put a new voice and a fresh take on an old idea.

Which is why I enjoyed the hell out of the Demon Cycle until the end.

Which means to say: You had me until...you decide that rape is necessary in a fantasy work because it's "realistic." No more Peter Brett for me.

Razmatus wrote: it is not just presentation... things were processed before, but new takes on subjects can create interesting points of view and ideas on certain subjects ..."

Isn't that part of presentation? Hope I'm not being obtuse here.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Think about In the Name of the Wind. Technically, it's farm boy coming into his own, changing the world, seeking revenge on his murdered parents. Done dozens of times. The man even breaks many 'rules' of writing. Example: his incessant use of adverbs.

Yet, for me, (note I said for me) the story was so well told, I could care less what rules he broke or what in it might have been cliche. I loved the character and how the magic worked. I also loved how he used the old device of stories within the stories to give us information and build on the plot. To me, that's part of the presentation on a set of tropes or devices that does well to hide what it is and keeps a reader engrossed despite any flaws.

Terry, I agree with you. It's not the tropes that make a book fail, it's the writing. A good writer can make almost anything seem new, fresh, and interesting.

Terry wrote: "Razmatus wrote: it is not just presentation... things were processed before, but new takes on subjects can create interesting points of view and ideas on certain subjects ..."

Isn't that part of ..."

yep, I mean, the basic core plot might be the same... but as you know even in life there are these basic stories, but they happen to different people, in different environment, under different conditions and circumstances... if I was to use a fantasy analogy, I would say that swords are just swords, yet they end up in so many kinds and shapes and can be used in so many ways... basic plot outlines are just the ore, language and other skills are the tools... those plots can be shaped in so many different ways, and even though the same or similar core resides in the midst, you cant really say they are the same... like people, people are all just ppl, yet they are all so different in the end :)

I hope it makes sense lol

MrsJoseph wrote: "Which means to say: You had me until...you decide that rape is necessary in a fantasy work because it's "realistic." No more Peter Brett for me."

Ugh, seriously. :/ This is also why I stay away from most works described by fans/publishers as GRITTY (TM). Thank you, but no...

Razmatus wrote: "Terry wrote: "Razmatus wrote: it is not just presentation... things were processed before, but new takes on subjects can create interesting points of view and ideas on certain subjects ..."

Isn't..."

But isn't that what Terry just said?

MrsJoseph wrote: "Which is why I enjoyed the hell out of the Demon Cycle until the end.
Which means to say: You had me until...you decide that rape is necessary in a fantasy work because it's "realistic." No more Peter Brett for me."

Agree with you there. If I wanted a mirror of real life that includes sexual assault, blatant sexism/racism/homophobia, etc, I'd read literary fiction (and I do, just not much of it). If you are going to be imaginative enough to write in fantasy, try also to be imaginative enough to flaunt the -isms we already know so well. I'm much better with reading assault/rape/etc if it has a purpose or is part of the storyline--say, Deerskin, which was a re-imagining of a classic myth (although it was not a comfortable book), or The Left Hand of Darkness, which is about gender identity and relationships. But just because the author can't conceive of something beyond is not acceptable to me, as I recently discovered the in Night Angel series. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Valerie wrote: "Ugh, seriously. :/ This is also why I stay away from most works described by fans/publishers as GRITTY (TM). Thank you, but no..."

EXACTLY!!!!!!


I don't know WHY my fantasy is suddenly chock-full of reality. WTF is up with that?? Last I checked, there was so much going on in fantasy that I almost feel insulted as a reader when the author feels the need to get "realistic."

Ummmm, I hate to say this authors...but the last I checked fantasy was the exact wrong place for realism. I didn't pick up a book with a cover showing a 8 ft tall man carrying a burning sword while beating back the demons of hell to get in touch with reality. Take that crap to the "novel" where it belongs. KTHANXBY

^lol

so what do you then think of ASOIAF and Malazan book of the fallen?