Annoying Fantasy Trends

[LizardWizard]

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

 

[Ferret]

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

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

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


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


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

Wow I'm full of hate.

 

[Sado]

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

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

 

[LizardWizard]

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

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

 

[Ghostknight]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heh, we all have our own pet buggaboos!

 

[Theron]

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

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

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

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

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

- medieval weapons pedant TB

 

[Uzumaki]

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

 

[Gundark]

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

I think wheel is the keyword here

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Ghostknight

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

I'm going to have to agree with Theron.

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

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

 

[Ghostknight]

Originally Posted by Ghostknight


I'm going to have to agree with Theron.

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

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

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

Heh, guess you learn something new all the time!