SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
The trouble with (fantasy) series
You state it well enough for me. Lol. I agree with everything here. I will add one though...(if you don't mind)
5. The popular villain: You know the ones, the everyone loves them and the writer must find a way to keep them around. Either by turning them good, or into a love interest, or sometimes both.
Although, for the record, I love (view spoiler) from Dragon Ball. I thought it was a great way to keep a villain around but keep him true to himself.
6. Plot Coupon Exhaustion. The characters have a list of things They Have To Do -- find true love, pull sword from stone, liberate Gondor, you know. Eventually, if the series goes on long enough, they redeem all the Plot Coupons. Then the author has to either take a coupon or two away (oh noes! Gondor invaded by Dark Forces AGAIN!) or retread them (Gondor invaded by forces just like previous Dark Forces, only worse!).
Wonderful! - and so true. I'm adding one I find quite annoying:7. There are no coincidences: Nothing is noted unless it's relevant to the story. If the main character notes that his/her neighbor has a strange habit of leaving the house in the middle of the night it is for sure that the neighbor meddles with the dark powers instead of just enjoying nightly walks. Hence, if something like this happens you know it's important just because it was mentioned. I find this extremely annoying and applaud to all authors who have remembered that coincidences do actually happen!
8. Very small population. Wherever they go, whatever they do, the characters are always running into a Lost Heir, disgruntled relatives of same, people who they pissed off the last book but three, or former girlfriends, spouses, roommates, work cohorts or teammates. It is as if the fictional universe is actually only about the size of a small office building.
Armand wrote: "I'm a big fan of continuing series and am currently into The Dresden Files (14 books, I think, and ongoing) and Charlie Huston's "Joe Pitt Case Books" (5 books), as well as some TV shows, but they ..."Funny that you mention Dresden Files in light of your rule #1
Im currently reading Memory Sorrow Thorn series by Tad Williams.. im enjoying it but its soooooo slow, the first book took the hero 220+ pages to leave the castle!in To Green Angel Tower, Part 1 which im currently reading its taken 300 pages for the hero to leave the camp they made it to in the last book!
when this is over im looking forward to a 200 page sci-fi book.
oh, now Pickle, come on, you can come up with the silly tropes of sci-fi, too!
Oooh I'll add a couple more :p. I must admit that I love fantasy as the entire whopping genre that it is but that said sometimes it's fun to point out the flaws in things you love: 9. Tangents: Often authors lose track of how massive their world is (see the Wheel of Time for instance) and then end up adding in more detail than is necessary. I'm a fan of detail but sometimes you can know too much. Which is when people complain about authors mentioning every blade of grass or every tree or going off and mentioning the type of tea a certain race likes to drink. Which leads to the idea of 'races' in fantasy.
10. Races: the whole elves, dwarves, hobbits, half-men, goblins, orcs and so on can tend to be used to bits. Or it can be used in ways where it just seems that the author is dragging out their prejudices and dumping them to form stereotyped classes
11. Disposable characters: Often authors in trying to make such a massive world throw in characters who seem important and/or powerful and then they just get rid of them with an arrow, a spell or an accident. Isn't it frustrating having characters just appear for no reason in a book and then die? It's almost as bad when you have characters who have shifting allegiances. You start liking them and they turn out to be enemies.
12. Hero flaws: many fantasies make the hero too powerful and then they have to come up with some kind of 'Achilles heel' for them. Take Rand from The Wheel of Time and his insanity. Or they have a hero and make the villain more powerful so the hero becomes more powerful and they have to temper his power with little things which are like kryptonite or make his power not work under certain conditions. They often just make plots more convoluted too...
13. Foolishly general descriptions. The classic example of this is the opening line of a Flash Gordon story: "It was raining on Mongo that day." If you said, "It was raining on Earth that day" it immediately becomes clear how silly this is. This is allied to #10, BTW. It's only in very dated books that you get the 'typical Frenchman drinking wine' or 'hearty German with big mustaches' tropes.
Samuel wrote:Funny that you mention Dresden Files in light of your rule #1 ..."I know- I know, but it's kind of like dating someone who you are in love with, but they have a few annoying habits...
I think the biggest issue for me in a series is the 'cliff hanger' ending.It's strictly a personal prejudice on my part, dating back to my childhood when we only got to town maybe once a month during good weather. I got to see the "Saturday afternoon matinee" at the local theater and at that time they always had a short section of a 'serial movie'. I got so I hated them ... I never saw the beginning of one and never saw the ending of one ... just disconnected bits through the middle, or so it seemed.
Then, as an adult, this prejudice got set in stone when the first trilogy I read (other than LOTR) ended with the second book of the series, which had a cliff-hanger ending. The author lived another 20 or so years and never did write the third and final book.
He died several years ago and although I was not responsible as I'd threatened to be many times, if he happens to show up in my afterlife, I may still try to inflict serious damage of some kind!
@ Sharon, Lol. What was the book? OMG, that would drive me crazy.
Traci wrote: "@ Sharon, Lol. What was the book? OMG, that would drive me crazy."I think I'm a bit 'crazed' on the subject. The author was Sterling Lanier. He wrote Hiero's Journey in 1973. I think I read it in the 70s, but it can be read as a stand-alone, it had a beginning/middle/end and if you never read any more, it was a good book.
I 'discovered' the second book, which was written in 1983 (maybe that gap should have given me a warning) and it was NOT a stand-alone, it was a definite cliff-hanger ending.
He died in 2007 ... never wrote the third book. And I still have those first two on my bookshelf, go back and re-read them when I'm feeling masochistic ... get to the end of the second book ... and curse the author all over again!
Absolutely infuriating! and the reason I rarely begin a series before it is DONE if it is to be a trilogy. If it is to be an ongoing series, I will try first/second books but no cliff-hangers if an author wants me as a consistent reader. Give me a cliff-hanger ending and I don't care how much I enjoyed the series, I won't go back to it.
Armand wrote: "1. Really hard to kill off the hero: (esp if written in first person). I know that we want our hero to live and go on to her next adventure, but also knowing the hero will live no matter what robs some dramatic tension."Kind of hard to get around this. The only way you really can is misdirection: present a character in the first book as "the hero", kill him off, and then someone else becomes "the hero". There's two very popular series I can think of that pulled it off (won't name them though as that spoils it.)
How pointless would a book/series be if the hero died quickly or without accomplishing anything? That's not a hero. That's some schmuck who couldn't cut it. And they don't write stories about those people, nor should they. So yeah, when you read a fantasy story, there is the expectation that the hero will succeed. Because otherwise, what's the point?
A good author will find other means to make the story dramatic and tense.
Mike? wrote: "Kind of hard to get around this. The only way you really can is misdirection: present a character in the first book as "the hero", kill him off, and then someone else becomes "the hero". ..."yes, or the "bittersweet" ending where the hero lives but there is a tradeoff.
Mike? wrote: "Kind of hard to get around this. The only way you really can is misdirection: present a character in the first book as "the hero", kill him off, and then someone else becomes "the hero". There's two very popular series I can think of that pulled it off (won't name them though as that spoils it.)How pointless would a book/series be if the hero died quickly or without accomplishing anything? That's not a hero. That's some schmuck who couldn't cut it. And they don't write stories about those people, nor should they. So yeah, when you read a fantasy story, there is the expectation that the hero will succeed. Because otherwise, what's the point?
A good author will find other means to make the story dramatic and tense. "
In Song of the Beast by Carol Berg the "hero" was tortured for 17 years prior to the start of the book. So, he makes it but his experiences really color the book and up the tension.
If they kill off the hero they have them rise from the dead, or reincarnated in a new body, the last resort is the dead hero has a child, usually they didn't know of, that becomes the new tragically conflicted hero. It's kind of like country music we know the plot, but if the are good they can still make you cry.
Sometimes the main character vanishes by mistake. A friend of mine wrote a novel; about halfway through she decided to change the name of the hero. Unfortunately she forgot to use 'global search and replace' and go back to change all the old Robert to Michael (or whatever names it was). Nobody noticed; it went right through the copyedits and proof processes and was published. Then readers complained: "But I was so into Robert and his adventures, and suddenly it was all Michael and we never went back to the Bobster at all!"
Jaq wrote: "I'm currently about halfway through The Difference Engine and wondering what happened to a main character that seemed to be the primary focus at the beginning of the book. Haven't seen a sign of he..."i plan to read this soon but im in two minds about it.... my pal who loaned me the book said it seemed obvious it was written by 2 people and didnt care for it much.
Pickle wrote: "i plan to read this soon but im in two minds about it.... my pal who loaned me the book said it seemed obvious it was written by 2 people and didnt care for it much. "It took me two attempts to get through, and I'm a major Gibson fan. The first part was slow as molasses, and I think the first 50 pages was as far as I got on my first attempt. It picked up the pace after the slow beginning, but I didn't keep the book after finishing and I've felt no great need to pick up anything else by Bruce Sterling...
I was reading The Dragonbone Chair and I was thinking of another to add:14. The need for pseudo medieval names and speaking. Does it annoy anyone else when fantasy authors feel the need to make up a name like Ser Edoward or have the characters speak in thous and thys?
An allied complaint: apostrophes. Names should not have apostrophes.
That's actually a different issue -- Series Slump. There are many series that do not suffer from this hardly at all. (Almost all the Horatio Hornblower books are great, for instance. Or Nero Wolfe.)
Scott wrote: "Every book after the first one or two usually suck..."That's a problem with modern publishing. A new author works for years on his/her first book, polishing it up, but when finally gets a contract it is for three books in a short time. So the next books are done in a rush and the author probably doesn't have the craft yet to do this right.
I'll tolerate names with apostrophes if they don't otherwise look or sound stupid. (Names that sound stupid is generally a deal-breaker to me. I realize this is subjective, but ... just sayin'.) Or wrong, if they're based on a real world language I'm familiar with. (People seem to love to put apostrophes in French-based last names. Like (making this up) d'Poubeille. And my brain spasms because argh that's not how it's supposed to work.)
That's a problem with modern publishing. A new author works for years on his/her first book, polishing it up, but when finally gets a contract it is for three books in a short time. So the next books are done in a rush and the author probably doesn't have the craft yet to do this right. "I also suspect it is difficult to maintain the level of interest in all of the books. You 'hook' your group of readers with the first book or two, but in a series there are always going to be plots/storylines that don't appeal as much to some of the regular readers.
I have several long-running series in my favorites and have read all the books but some of them end up being a read to keep up with the series but not something that grabs me enough to want to re-read. I don't know that they are not as well written, exactly, just that the plot or storyline isn't as interesting to me personally.
Then unfortunately there are those series that can't maintain the quality after the first book or two.
Oh, it's not a new phenomenon. Nor is the author always to blame. Look at Sherlock Holmes. Conan Doyle was ready to move on, and to prove it he shoved Holmes off of Reichenbach Falls. No joy: readers forced a resurrection. He kept on grinding them out, and they are of decidedly varying quality.
Then you also have the idea of having the love interest often turn out conveniently to be royalty.
I love series, whether a long story broken into segments like Janny Wurtz's War of Light and Shadow, a series of separate novels with common characters like [Alan Dean Foster's] Pip and Flinx seres orJack McDevitt Alex Benedict stories, or a series which occurs in the same universe or world with varying characters like the Dune and Pern books or even the Star Wars extended universe books. I do hate to wait for next book, though, so most often wait for a series to complete esp. if it's one long story, before reading. Big exceptions have been Cherryh's Foreigner series and Janny's WoLaS.
Evil for evil's sake. (I'm not sure what number weakness the thread is on ;) ) I'm sure I have committed a few of the infractions listed above, or at the very least I've danced close to violation, but my own pet peeve involves motivation.Why would countless hordes follow and obey despots and dark lords? Are they mindless? If so, the danger they present becomes diminished by their lack of intelligence.
Don't get me wrong. Certainly the minions of the main antagonist can follow him/her, but I enjoy fiction that fleshes out a motivation for their evil other than they simply are evil.
The thoughts behind why an Orc lord follows the will of Saruman might prove as interesting as why Frodo chooses to carry the ring. In fact, in my own work I found writing from this perspective both a challenge and a pleasure.
Oh, that is annoying. Especially when the Evil Lord is running around strangling minions (Darth Vader) or murdering them (Bane in the recent Batman movie, and the Joker in the previous one). How do they contrive to hang onto their employees? How is it that all the minions don't flake out and go to work for somebody else? And yet there are plenty of flunkies, always. Mindless hordes everywhere.
Well, as someone who works for Evil Overlords (i.e. Corporate America), sometimes it's just a job/paycheck. ;)
Daniel wrote: "The thoughts behind why an Orc lord follows the will of Saruman might prove as interesting as why Frodo chooses to carry the ring. In fact, in my own work I found writing from this perspective both a challenge and a pleasure. "Have you ever taken a Tolkien class? That is some of the things discussed in the series. The Tolkien Professor has a podcast. http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/wp/
This book isn't about series, specifically, but has everyone read The Tough Guide to Fantasyland? It mentions some of the same things you guys have.
Brenda, I wondered that about Bane. With Darth Vader and the might of the Empire and military discipline it's a little easier to swallow. Though having first watched Star Wars when I was younger and less critical about stuff probably helps.I think in fantasy there's a tendency for the antagonist to not have a motivation beyond "I'm evil because I can." If that's the vibe I get from a book I tend to put it down, or not pick in up in the first place.
MrsJoseph,Actually, I have studied Tolkien. However, not nearly as in-depth as the Tolkien Professor. I used Tolkien as an example due to his universal appeal. The characters in his world possess motivations that are often very difficult to flesh out in the immediate context of the story because those same motivations often derive from the greater and complex history that he held within his head. When you explore the depth and breadth of his world(that includes the works outside of LOTR and The Hobbit), you begin to understand those motivations.
My point was more along the lines of character development. I feel that much of the fantasy genre skimps the development of the evil side. It is very easy (and some might say lazy) to simply say "evil is evil". Brenda addressed the problem above. There has to be some motivation to work for a master whose fickle nature often means you are dead at his slightest annoyance, all the while living in intolerable conditions.
I remember beginning Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series where the main baddie, Darken Rahl, kills people if a rose petal falls from any roses in his father's mausoleum. When the evil becomes so bad that it makes no sense for people to either live under his rule or even work for him, ya lose me.
Melanti wrote: "This book isn't about series, specifically, but has everyone read The Tough Guide to Fantasyland? It mentions some of the same things you guys have."Yeah, I love that book.
Yes, TOUGH GUIDE is essential for anyone who wants to write high fantasy.It is the lazy writer's way out, to make the villain Evil for Evil's Sake. Almost as lazy as making him a homicidal maniac. It is far better, but of course more work, to give everybody a proper motivation. It's more realistic, and it's better style. Note that all real-life villains would not describe themselves that way. In his own mind, Osama bin Laden was a hero, acting with perfect integrity and jsutice. Everybody is the protagonist of his own story.
Brenda wrote: "Yes, TOUGH GUIDE is essential for anyone who wants to write high fantasy.It is the lazy writer's way out, to make the villain Evil for Evil's Sake. Almost as lazy as making him a homicidal maniac..."
Good point. Also, in real life, those who commit evil acts are often caught up in organizations without an exit. Why would thousands of Iraqis ever have joined Saddam Hussein's secret police to torture other people? Why would anyone join a Mexican Drug Cartel? I figure a good mix or paranoia, fear of death, rationalization and some serious trauma would break most of us- or at least break our code of morality.
Brenda wrote: "Yes, TOUGH GUIDE is essential for anyone who wants to write high fantasy.It is the lazy writer's way out, to make the villain Evil for Evil's Sake. Almost as lazy as making him a homicidal maniac..."
This? The Tough Guide to Fantasyland
Good vs Evil— It's rarely so simple, even though we are brainwashed to think and act in these terms from before conception. The best literature, IMO, makes these ambiguous.
Yes. TOUGH GUIDE should be read in conjunction with Jones's DARK LORD OF DERKHOLM. The premise of DARK LORD is there is this alternate world, where they make their living by conducting tour groups through an Epic War Between Good and Evil. You join a group (comprised of a elf, a dwarf, some halflings, a wizard, etc etc) and after Questing through the landscape wind up at the Destruction of Mordor. The people who are living in this world draw straws every year, who gets to be the Dark Lord and get their house and garden trashed. The year that it falls on Derkholm, its lord refuses to take it any more. Hijunks ensue.The TOUGH GUIDE is of course the guidebook that every tourist gets, upon arrival. Full of useful tips, like the significance of black cloaks (bad) or green eyes (musical).
Armand wrote: "I'm a big fan of continuing series and am currently into The Dresden Files (14 books, I think, and ongoing) and Charlie Huston's "Joe Pitt Case Books" (5 books), as well as some TV shows, but they ..."I like books like that where you get to see how the dark side is working, as well as the light or the good guys. Sometimes its more difficult to differentiate as when the dark side is presented in a certain way; using whatever reasons or circumstances that blur things. In Dresden files sometimes we read the reasons for someones actions later in the story such as the Sidhe. Then it does not seem as evil. They are doing what is best for them. So sometimes its the circumstance behind the actions. I worked with that on The Return of the Ancient Ones and that book won the Indie excellence award for that last year.
I think the biggest pet peeve I've had with fantasy series--series in general, actually--is when the protagonists find their one true wub...about once per book. I try not to be a prude, but it's a little much to ask me to buy the heroism of (insert name here) as the love interest when they'll be replaced by (insert new name here) by the end of the next book. I don't care if you're screwing chickens, as long as you're fully committed to screwing chickens. Don't move on to ducks without a damn good reason.
Ducks wash more often than chickens. Seems like a good reason to me.
I think the point that Daniel and some others have made about motivation within the context of good and evil is a big problem in fantasy, particularly newer books. It seems like most authors don't take that issue seriously, regardless of whether they're writing from a gray perspective, such as George Martin, or from a black and white perspective. The characters operate from whichever perspective, but there's no real philosophical depth in the stories that provides richness and reason for the perspective.For me, that usually makes a fantasy feel pretty flat. I hate to hark back to Tolkien for this, but that's one of the reasons why his story works so well. He nailed the deep philosophical foundation. I'm trying to think of a modern fantasy writer who has pulled that off, but I can't. If anyone has a suggestion, I'd love to hear it.
Christopher wrote: "...I'm trying to think of a modern fantasy writer who has pulled that off, but I can't. If anyone has a suggestion, I'd love to hear it. "I'd suggest Janny Wurts and CJ Cherryh
Thanks, Kernos. I'll give them a try. I haven't read either of them before. Any particular titles worth trying first?
I think that Lois McMaster Bujold at least came close in The Curse of Chalion and its sequel, Paladin of Souls. (I haven't read them with that question in mind, so I'm not 100% sure.)
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Escape From Hell! (other topics)City of Saints and Madmen (other topics)
The Curse of Chalion (other topics)
Paladin of Souls (other topics)
The Tough Guide to Fantasyland (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
C.J. Cherryh (other topics)Lois McMaster Bujold (other topics)
Janny Wurts (other topics)
C.J. Cherryh (other topics)
Jack McDevitt (other topics)
1. Really hard to kill off the hero: (esp if written in first person). I know that we want our hero to live and go on to her next adventure, but also knowing the hero will live no matter what robs some dramatic tension.
2. Everybody's special: It seems like the longer the series goes on (esp. for fantasy), the more people have powers or special abilities. Suddenly the plain boyfriend is a werewolf, and the neighbor/ comic relief is learning how to do spells. Hardly anybody is normal anymore.
3. Rating skew: By the third or fourth book, the people who don't like the series tend not to read, hence the people who are reviewing the series are already fans. It means there are a lot less 1 or 2 star reviews.
4. Villain power creep: Well, you can't really have weaker villains as a series builds up. That would be anticlimactic. As in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" TV series, you start off fighting powerful vampires, but then drift on to demon/ cyborg hyrbids, and before you know it, you are fighting gods and the earthly incarnation of all evil. Basically, once the writer raises the villain-bar, it's hard to lower it again.
Again, I do love a good, continuing series (even schmaltzy ones like Dresden Files and the TV show, Grimm), and I realize that there are series that rise up and defy expectations (like I suspect the "Joe Pitt" case files will- I have not read the last book yet), but I have noticed these interesting tendencies, these repeating weaknesses that built into the genre. I'm wondering what other people think?
Thanks for reading my mini-rant!