Annoying Fantasy Trends

[Dannyalcatraz]

Or how about the ubervillain who, despite being successful in the past (as evidenced by his position as ubervillain), never experiences success again, once the storyline begins- also regardless of the odds.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Under-developed bad guys. - Who cares if the bad guy is uber-powerful and evil if all he is is another notch in your sword? Give me some background! Make me torn over who is the real bad guy, or why? (GRR Martin has done some great work in this respect)

Smallville the Superman pre-series.
Indian steals mystic knife, becomes uber-Indian, like Clark, thinks hes a legendary figure from American Indian mythology.
The story tells of the hero, and a villain who opposed him.

[almost quoting here]

"Lex: [Hero] is very powerful, so much so he could rule to world if he were left unchecked. Think about what it would take for someone to face [Hero]. That person would have to pretty brave, to stand up against someone so powerfu. So maybe, the hero isn't [Hero] but really is [Villain]."

I though that was a very good point by the writers.

 

[s/LaSH]

Smallville the Superman pre-series.
Indian steals mystic knife, becomes uber-Indian, like Clark, thinks hes a legendary figure from American Indian mythology.
The story tells of the hero, and a villain who opposed him.

[almost quoting here]

"Lex: [Hero] is very powerful, so much so he could rule to world if he were left unchecked. Think about what it would take for someone to face [Hero]. That person would have to pretty brave, to stand up against someone so powerfu. So maybe, the hero isn't [Hero] but really is [Villain]."

I though that was a very good point by the writers.

To veer slightly off-topic: That's very much the modern Lex's approach to Superman in the post-Crisis comics, actually. Lex isn't 'hahaha I'm an evil genius'; he's a businessman who thinks he's the best person to run the world, and if that means breaking a few laws, well, he can get away with it. And then along comes this alien with superpowers who wants to do things his way, serve the law, and he gets the heeby-jeebies.

Back on-topic, that's a good motivation. All too often in fantasy there're villains who're just sick in the head; the brilliant, opinionated, agenda-ised genius who's gradually lost sight of his benevolent goals is far more compelling, and allows you to ask interesting questions about redemption and the like. Because the best villains aren't petty, mentally ill psychopaths - Vader went astray and because of his redeemableness he's remembered as an all-time great villain.

Oh, there was a book called Monolith that came out recently. I can't remember the author. It features a monolithic church, amongst other things. It's vaguely stereotyped... but by the time it ends, it isn't. Anyone else read this? What do you think?

 

[vulcan_idic]

I don't really have that many pet peeves, and none particularly specific to Fantasy. My one big one is poor editing. I hate having to go back and read a sentence five times to parse it's meaning when once should have been enough. And part of editing is spelling, really got to watch that. It's not fantasy, but a very nice example of that is a review I remember reading of some transportation sim talking about controlling an empire of, "plains, trains, and automobiles." The point of language is to communicate with your audience... make sure that (a) you're communicating clearly and concisely and (b) you're communicating what you think you're communicating

 

[mythusmage]

...an empire of, "plains, trains, and automobiles."...

I bet laying track was real easy.

 

[Orius]

The first is when the main character is the "chosen one" spoken of in some old prophecy who is the only one who can rid the world of the BBEG and/or recover the magic dingus.

Not so much annoying as horribly cliched.

The second is when characters in a fantasy setting have names like William or Peter, ie normal Earth names.

Not bad unless the names seem horribly common, are names that have been popularized within say the last 30 years or so, or colloquial names (like Billy instead of William). Real but uncommon old-fashioned names or name with a real historical basis sometime work better than the "fantasy" names some authors use. Some made-up names look even worse than John Smith in a book.

 

[Orius]

I hate it when writers try to make a book feel more fantasy-like by having dialogue written in Ye Old Flowery Englishe. It's fine to have a specific character talk with thees and thous if the author's making that a character trait (like Mandorallen in The Belgariad), but don't make it a standard feature.

The Ye Olde Flowery Englishe of the Days of Yore should really be banished from fantasy altogether. Even in cases like Mandorallen. Most writers simply don't know to use it properly and it shows. Tolkien used archaic formal Enlgish well, but that's because he studied and taught medieval lit. He understood the idiom. It's not the same when an author just slaps in thee and thou to make it seem fantasic and all that, when it doesn't come natural.

Formal English should be used, since lots of colloquialisms and modern slang are jarring as hell too (see: Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). But archiaisms aren't really necessary.

I really hate it when authors slap fantasy settings and names on novels that are all about heaving bosoms and pulsing loins, and try to claim it's a fantasy novel rather than a romance novel. While not all their novels are like this, Anne McAffrey and Mercedes Lackey are both guilty of this charge on multiple counts.

Well, I suppose some of that crap could be considered fantasy, but they're probably better shelved with those rags that got Fabio's face plastered on the cover.

 

[Planesdragon]

The 'stubborn female' stereotype. - Particularly Nynaeve al'Meara (Robert Jordan writes the most aggravating female characters)

To bring some contrast--do you have an example of a fantasy author that writes BETTER females than Jordan? The classics of fantasy have them as, well, "rarer than dragons", the D&D classics have them as either totally inconsistent or illogical, and the modern fantasy books I've read portray their women in the same range Tolkien does.

Oh, and since I'm already replying:

The mystical 'guide' that appears to lead the hero through a new land - why can't the hero figure things out for themselves? Why must they be led by the nose...

The "guide" is a classic part of the fantasy genre, and it an almost necessary characteristic of literarry fantasy. No one stands alone, and all that.

 

[Orius]

In that case, you'd probably like what Ed Greenwood had to say about trilogies during an interview he gave a while back...

"Long, long ago (before TSR, Inc., bought the rights to the Forgotten Realms) I'd decided I disliked "preplanned fantasy trilogies." I had nothing against series, or book-after-somewhat-related-book set in the same world, but I had developed a dislike for tales crafted and planned as three-book releases. (The Lord of the Rings was chopped into three books by its original publisher, but its success led to many publishers thinking that fantasies should appear in trilogies.) In my opinion, when these written-to-be-three-books sagas were attempted by most writers, the reader ended up with an unfolding-the-problem-and-introducing-the-cast first book (that sometimes moved very s-s-s-slowly indeed), then an everyone-rushes-everywhere-and-fights-but-nothing-gets-resolved middle book, and then a blast-the-trumpets-save-the-world-great-big-doom concluding book. Instead, I wanted every fantasy book I read to stand alone as a complete tale, so if readers never knew there were others involving the same setting or characters, they could still enjoy the one they had found, all by itself."​

If I ever were to write fantasy, that's the approach I'd take. Stand-alone stories that can be serialized. Trilogies are a cliche, and as much as I like Jordan's WoT, he's running the risk of having it dragged out far too much, so I'd avoid the never-ending story bit too.

Which brings me to something else I'd try avoid: having the Hero Save the World. There's only so many Ultimate Bad Guys the protagonist can defeat before he runs out of serious challenges. I'd make the victories personal and satisfying for the protagonist, but I'd have to avoid setting up the world as some harsh grim place that is so steeped in evil that no one can make a difference. That's not the sort of thing I want from fantasy, and it's not the thing I'd write. Rather, I'd try to portray a setting that seems like a living breathing world.

 

[Orius]

The cliched plot of: Young orphan, who's really a king, is taken on a magical quest by a dizzy old man, who's really a mighty wizard to defeat the big evil dude and his unstoppable minions, as fortold by the prophecy. Along the way they join a group of miss-matched travellers including the spunky princess love interest (running away because she didn't want to marry the goofy/homely/evil/old noble with whom her parents were arranging a marriage), the gruff but loveable dwarf/barbarian, the mighty but tragically flawed warrior, the noble and perfect elf, the charming but roguish thief, the seemingly incompetant wizard apprentice who eventually becomes a great wizard, and the matronly old nurse-maid who keeps everyone in line. They are betrayed by one member of the party. Another member of the party (seemingly) dies, making the others resolve that much more to get the job done. The hero wins despite impossible odds, through his faith, honor, charm, kindness, bravery and other good qualities more so than through any actual skill or overt action taken. In the end, it's announced the hero's the King, and he can finally marry the princess.

That sounds like a cross between the Belgariad and the D&D movie.