# What are your storytelling pet peeves?



## Mindfire (Jan 12, 2013)

Mine are the "idiot ball" and "status quo is God".


----------



## Addison (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm not sure I understand your pet peeves. Idiot ball? Status quo is god?


----------



## Ireth (Jan 12, 2013)

Addison said:


> Idiot ball? Status quo is god?



Idiot Ball - Television Tropes & Idioms

Status Quo Is God - Television Tropes & Idioms


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 12, 2013)

Overdone plotlines...

I was SHOCKED that Terry Goodkind, in Wizards First Rule *SPOILER ALERT STOP READING HERE* had the bad guy be the good guys father and Zedd the uncle (or grandfather, or w/e). I just don't even know if it gets any lamer than that.

Oh, and that time Terry Brooks completely ripped off Fellowship of the Ring to write "Sword of Shannara".


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 12, 2013)

Never read the Sword of Shannara. How is it a LOTR ripoff? I keep hearing it is, but what are the similarities?


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 12, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Never read the Sword of Shannara. How is it a LOTR ripoff? I keep hearing it is, but what are the similarities?



It's pretty much: the fate of the world depends on a half elf recovering an artifact of great power which can be used to stop the armies of the evil Warlock Lord from taking over the world. He bands together with elves, humans and dwarves. At some point, they all get split up and the story is told from the perspective of the different bands of characters. There is a wise, mysterious, powerful magic user (Allanon) who comes and goes, but acts as council for them and saves them when they need saving.

The half elf, seemingly lacking any physical prowess or magical ability, saves the day through mostly just courage, determination and sheer willpower.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 12, 2013)

Wow, that's... that's pretty spot on. How on earth did Terry Brooks get away with that? At least Eragon changes the setting it's plot (*cough*Star Wars*cough*) takes place in.


----------



## Kit (Jan 12, 2013)

It drives me nuts when people become warriors of awesome prowess overnight.  That takes years and years of extreme butt-busting. You can't put some farm boy on the road with a retired palace guard who trains him for a couple hours a night after they walk all day, and by the time they get to wherever they're going, the hayseed is a master swordsman.  oop:


----------



## Zireael (Jan 13, 2013)

Yes, the Instant Hero drives me nuts too. As does the idiot ball.


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 13, 2013)

The first thing that gets a chance to tick me off is just ordinary wording-- those sentences that just don't know their basics about how to make an impact, as if the "published novelist" had only been at this a few months.

That and gloom-and-doom with nothing to vary it. People struggling in the face of hopeless odds can be fun; people lying down and moaning for five chapters, not so much.


----------



## Griffin (Jan 13, 2013)

Particular stereotypes of female characters drive me up the wall. The spunky tomboy that says that she can take care of herself, but turns out to be completely worthless. Or the female character whose sole purpose is to fall in love with the hero. I prefer strong female characters, i.e. Ripley from the Alien series or Xena.

Also, I dislike the Gary Stu/Mary Sue complex. I once edited a manuscript for a guy and the piece was teeth grinding. The MC was a tormented soul who fought for the underdog, was extremely good looking, and a super genius. Every (I mean EVERY) female character fell in love with him. And do not get me started on the sex scenes.


----------



## saellys (Jan 13, 2013)

Blunt foreshadowing trauma. (Side-eyeing you, GGK.)


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jan 13, 2013)

* Deus ex machina because the author has written himself into a corner
* Brutality/darkness just for the sake of making it darker/grittier, without any relevance to character or thematic development
* Deliberately hiding information from the reader which would be obvious if the reader was physically present in the scene (e.g. hiding the identity of a character from the reader when all the other characters present know who that character is). This one's not so bad if it's done in a very short scene and the mysterious character is a villain or will be revealed soon (e.g.: The Heroes have a discussion and leave; one other Side Character stays behind. A mysterious figure steps from the shadows and cackles evilly while the Side Character bows and fearfully stutters, "Y-yes, my lord..." Cut back to the oblivious Heroes.)
* Heroes who are incredibly lethal killing machines, forcing the author to invent implausibly powerful opponents
* Heroes who are more powerful than the villain, and can only fail because the author makes them do implausibly stupid things
* Villains who are one step behind the heroes for the majority of the story (villains should always be ahead of the heroes until the very end, when the hero triumphs -- unless it's a tragedy )


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 14, 2013)

I guess mine would be status quo and character who don't live up to their potential. 

A good example of the later would be Draco Malfoy. Dude spends most of his series being a jackass bully, then gets some character development by being placed in a major moral conflict, and he's clearly torn between his loyalty to his family and the increasingly obvious fact that they've chosen the wrong side, and finally... nothing. He doesn't turn completely evil, he doesn't join the fight for good, he just keeps being the same morally weak and kinda cowarly guy he's always been. That, I think, was kind of a letdown.

Also, while on the subject of Harry Potter, another pet peeve I have is minor/supporting characters dying just because it's sad and because the writer wants to prove that "anyone can die." Character death should be important.

I also have a bit of a peeve against professional warriors or soldiers who are very conflicted about killing and/or have been rendered extremely cynical from too much violence. Not to say those people cannot exist, but I dislike the implication that a violent lifestyle will always mess you up emotionally. I like a warrior who is actually comfortable with himself, without necessarily being a psychopath.



Kit said:


> It drives me nuts when people become warriors of awesome prowess overnight.  That takes years and years of extreme butt-busting. You can't put some farm boy on the road with a retired palace guard who trains him for a couple hours a night after they walk all day, and by the time they get to wherever they're going, the hayseed is a master swordsman.  oop:



I'll probably end up doing this with my current project. My heroine just doesn't have time to spend years training to catch up with everyone else. >_>

She's basically a genius, though, and even then it's not so much a matter of "instantly becoming the best fighter around" as much as "getting into fights with people way out of her league and somehow managing to stay alive."



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> * Heroes who are incredibly lethal killing machines, forcing the author to invent implausibly powerful opponents



Wait, how is this a problem? Normally, the complaint is that the heroes are so overpowered, the villains cannot actually put up a realistic fight without some kind of deus ex machina. (See: Superman, kryptonite.) But if the antagonists are legitimately powerful enough to still be a threat, that ought to be a good thing, right?

I mean, what is an "implausibly powerful opponent" in a fantasy setting, anyway?


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 14, 2013)

Here's a list of what makes me angry:
- When Human encounter other _sapient_ (anyone who uses 'sentient' in this case should be shot) species, they must be human in all aspect except for perhaps pointy ears, short stature, or at tail. And every single member of the said race conform to one stereotype . Also known as "Hats" method of race creation.

- When the hero is said to be an everyman yet is capable of feats only those with specialized training could perform. While I'm at it, heroes that don't work to get where they are (e.g.: He is a rich business man, yet the author never even mention him worrying about stock prices or his business)

- When every character the hero encountered fell in awe on the "Chosen One" status if he had one.

- To quote Yahtzee: "Supercilicous badass action girl showing off more flesh than a surgeon's convention." Also while I'm at it, impractical female armour that aim to show off skin rather than actually protect.

- Female characters conforming to one body type: model-thin with big boobs. Also while I'm at it, Female characters that don't serve any other purpose other than be paired off, suffer at the hand of the protagonist, need rescuing, or die.

- Sex scenes that blindside me with its abruptness and will be never mentioned again.

- Gary Stu/Mary Sue characters, especially if the antagonist is shown to be massively outgunned by them. 

- Impossibly tragic back stories just to make us sympathize with your character. Especially if an author uses rape or sexual abuse for this purpose without showing the consequence of such events.

- Deus Ex Machina/Diabolus in any kind. While I'm at it, plot points that never have any foreshadowing.

- Exposition dump to explain your overall plot. While I'm at it, exposition dumps about things that the readers should be able to put together unless they are lobotomized and having a stroke.

- An Author that deliberately make his character do something stupid so s/he could further the plot AKA "Idiot Plot".

I still have a lot more but they invoke pity rather than anger. This is something that I acquire after my years of trawling through fictionpress .com and fanfiction .net


----------



## Chilari (Jan 14, 2013)

Wanara, that's quite a list you've got there. Can't say I disagree with any of those. I especially hate tragic back stories, or as it is refered to in the writing circles my fiance is in, having something bad happen to the protagonist "for the feels". It's so transparent.


----------



## Devora (Jan 14, 2013)

Taking several chapters to get from one side of a mountain to the other. (Read The Graceling)


----------



## Addison (Jan 14, 2013)

My pet peeve would have to be incomplete promises. When writing a story, especially in the beginning, you make promises to the reader. A promise of high adventure, great conflict, secrets and surprises. These promises we, as the writers, are obligated to keep. If I pick up a book and see a promise of the hero discovering something earth-shattering, or great on some scale, but find out the secret was just that he or she really does have a crush on someone, then I'm disappointed. 

And as stated earlier with examples of "Sword of Shannara" and "Eragon", it would have to be lack of originality. Not saying that Eragon wasn't original, but if a writer takes a theme and outline of one thing (Star Wars, LotR, etc) and just puts in their own setting and cast of characters. something new and great would be, well, great.


----------



## Zireael (Jan 14, 2013)

Wanara - that's a pretty good list, one most people will agree with.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 14, 2013)

Zireael said:


> Wanara - that's a pretty good list, one most people will agree with.



Well, to be fair, most of it is just bad writing. It sorta goes without saying, I think.

I kinda assumed this was about "things we can technically get away with, but which still kinda annoys us."


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 14, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, to be fair, most of it is just bad writing. It sorta goes without saying, I think.
> 
> I kinda assumed this was about "things we can technically get away with, but which still kinda annoys us."



Anders, don't get me wrong. There are a lot of work I liked that commits one or more things in the list I made. The way I see them, they are a mark of bad writing, yes, but that doesn't mean a work containing them can't be good.

There are authors that can get away with what I listed though. One of the best example I could think of Gary Stu character is Batman. Yes, _that_ Batman. Remember, Batman isn't just a vigilante trained in all manner of martial art, he is also a genius, and a detective. If we go certain incarnations outside the comics, I say he's about 20-30 years old, certainly not enough time to develop all those skills to the degree he exhibited. Yet I sometimes pick up Batman material and liked it, despite the Gary Stu characteristic.

An example of Deus Ex Machina I liked can be found the Power Ranger Wild Force (yes, I like Power Rangers--stop laughing--but stopped watching after Wild Force) where a Zord is introduced and beat the arc's antagonist. Even though it annoyed the hell out if me, I liked the overall story of the season to make me to forgive it.

I think most of my pet peeves are things writers, bad or good, can get away with. It's just I can bring myself to forgive good writers because they can execute it well. If a bad writer try to do it though, the only way to execute them is with a firing squad.


----------



## VanClash (Jan 15, 2013)

I've only really seen my pet peeve in TV - but I guess thats a form of storytelling.

I hate it when the MC tries something and then they fail by just doing something stupid (e.g. not waiting for some glue to dry), but instead of just trying it again, they do some other elaborate scheme. That's then the whole plot of the story. It really annoys me.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't have pet peeves when reading anything.  If I don't like something, I stop reading it.  Therefore, I'm not exposed to anything long enough for it to affect me in anyway.  That said, I rarely pick up anything that I don't like.  I've been lucky in my choices I suppose.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 15, 2013)

I have a few, but only because they're so damn common these days I can't turn my back on writers for a second.

I also managed to debunk them all on my blog. Practical upshot, it's just like Wanara009 said: Just because a piece of fiction has one or more of my peeves in it doesn't mean it has to fail. Look at the recent top three most successful YA books turned movies. Need I say more. Someone liked them enough to shower the writers with "untold riches" (or not, but I think you get my point). 

Bad writing is bad writing, and while our peeves are more common in bad writing than good writing the two aren't mutually exclusive. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 15, 2013)

Wanara009 said:


> Anders, don't get me wrong. There are a lot of work I liked that commits one or more things in the list I made. The way I see them, they are a mark of bad writing, yes, but that doesn't mean a work containing them can't be good.



No no, I got what you meant. My comment was directed less at you and more at Zireael - _of course _we all agree with your peeves, because they're all things we're not supposed to do. I just thought it was kinda obvious.



> There are authors that can get away with what I listed though. One of the best example I could think of Gary Stu character is Batman. Yes, _that_ Batman. Remember, Batman isn't just a vigilante trained in all manner of martial art, he is also a genius, and a detective. If we go certain incarnations outside the comics, I say he's about 20-30 years old, certainly not enough time to develop all those skills to the degree he exhibited. Yet I sometimes pick up Batman material and liked it, despite the Gary Stu characteristic.



Batman isn't really a Mary Sue (usually) because he's normally portrayed with a mix of likable and unlikable traits, and he doesn't enjoy much out-right admiration even by superhero standards. 

I've mentioned this before (many times, and at lenght), but Mary Sue does not mean "extremely skilled/poweful" or "impossibly perfect." That can be a _trait_ of the Mary Sue but it's just a symptom, not the disease itself. What makes a character a Mary Sue has more to do with how the rest of the characters relate to her, and how she relates to the author.



> An example of Deus Ex Machina I liked can be found the Power Ranger Wild Force (yes, I like Power Rangers--stop laughing--but stopped watching after Wild Force) where a Zord is introduced and beat the arc's antagonist. Even though it annoyed the hell out if me, I liked the overall story of the season to make me to forgive it.



Eh, I've seen amazingly blatant deus ex machina that I absolutely loved. But then I don't hate anything on principle.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 15, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Mine are the "idiot ball" and "status quo is God".


Never knew what an "idiot ball" was before, but now that I know that is the WORSE THING EVER!!!

I mean, I don't particularly care for people being stupid even when they are stupid, but when people are uncharacteristically stupid for no reason other than the writer's will--that really grinds my gears. 

Still, that's more of a consistency thing. I feel that characters and settings and everything else should be internally consistent. 



Anders Ã„mting said:


> I guess mine would be status quo and character who don't live up to their potential.
> 
> A good example of the later would be Draco Malfoy. Dude spends most of his series being a jackass bully, then gets some character development by being placed in a major moral conflict, and he's clearly torn between his loyalty to his family and the increasingly obvious fact that they've chosen the wrong side, and finally... nothing. He doesn't turn completely evil, he doesn't join the fight for good, he just keeps being the same morally weak and kinda cowarly guy he's always been. That, I think, was kind of a letdown.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ghost (Jan 15, 2013)

I hate when the character is rendered unconscious. While he's sleeping his situation changes dramatically. Sometimes, important choices are made for the character and when he wakes up he tells us through his reflections on the events or another character tells him. It's lazy. I'm sure it can be done successfully, but the way I've seen it done is always lacking.

I recently watched two movies where the main characters were passive nitwits, which is bad enough, but they kept abandoning people. There'd be a battle, and the MC would just leave people to fend for themselves. There'd be a monster approaching and someone defends the MC, which is a poor choice because the MC just leaves the other person hanging to save her own skin. ARGH! I'd chalk it up to poor characterization, but the author/moviemakers try to tell us these are good people when really they're spineless jerks.

One of those was a horror movie and this complaint is more applicable to that genre and medium. Why does an entire plot have to hinge on people doing stupid, reckless things? If they'd just stick together, they'd be fine. But no, MC has a "solution" that even a 4-year-old would find idiotic. As a viewer, I want to root for the characters. They can make smart decisions that backfire or things can spiral out of their control, but watching them make mistake after mistake for the sake of tension is not fun.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't quite understand people's obsession with this whole Gary Sue/Mary Sue thing.  I always see that everywhere.  If a character resonates with people in some way, then it doesn't matter if they're cliche' or overpowered or whatever.  There may be tons of characters or story plots that fit perfectly into the TV Tropes Method of Identification (TM), but some work and some don't.  There is no perfect character and there is no perfect story.  Someone will find fault with something one way or another.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 15, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Never knew what an "idiot ball" was before, but now that I know that is the WORSE THING EVER!!!



Joss Whedon made an interesting attempt to explain the horror movie idiot ball in "Cabin in the Woods."


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 15, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I don't quite understand people's obsession with this whole Gary Sue/Mary Sue thing.  I always see that everywhere.  If a character resonates with people in some way, then it doesn't matter if they're cliche' or overpowered or whatever.  There may be tons of characters or story plots that fit perfectly into the TV Tropes Method of Identification (TM), but some work and some don't.  There is no perfect character and there is no perfect story.  Someone will find fault with something one way or another.


Originally, Mary Sue characters were seen as "wish-fulfillment" for the author. Basically, you write yourself into the story, but instead of you, it's a super-awesome version of you that is just awesome at everything for the sake of being awesome. If done poorly, which I think the actual trope when done is hard to do un-poorly, then people are going to get their backs up about it. On the other hand, characters that are naturally talented or charismatic do not necessarily fall into this trope. In fact, just by labeling something a "Mary Sue", you are basically saying that it is done badly. 

That's my takeaway anyway.



Steerpike said:


> Joss Whedon made an interesting attempt to explain the horror movie idiot ball in "Cabin in the Woods."


I haven't seen it, although I've heard nothing but good things. Does he do that with the movie itself or in the documentary to the movie?


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 15, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I haven't seen it, although I've heard nothing but good things. Does he do that with the movie itself or in the documentary to the movie?



It's within the context of the movie itself.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 16, 2013)

I think my biggest pet peeve in storytelling are the parts where the writing becomes transparent, especially when the plot seems contrived just to create tension instead of a natural outgrowth of the characters and situation.


----------



## SeverinR (Jan 16, 2013)

Wanara009 said:


> Here's a list of what makes me angry:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Female hot skimpy outfit warrior, thin revealing princess type, are irratating, but also the opposites:
the plump he-woman that is lovable but not appealing to anyone, the female equivalent to an ogre that people are happy to see get killed.
"Now really, it's rude enough being alive when no one wants you..."
the dark evil intelligent woman that has no options but to use sexuality to trap the good characters, and they can't see through the plot/ploy.

Most recent is the plot driving the story rather then the characters.  Chars do something stupid or totally ooc so they arrive at spot the author wanted in an unrealistic turn of events. (like fleeing a fight you are winning. or going against common sense or training to do something just to get person killed or captured.)

The invincible warrior that killed more then 10 men by himself surrenders to equal number or less men for no obvious reason. (playing to plot rather then to realism.)  Author wants them captured so hero surrenders.

Sex scenes; it is gratuitous sex scenes, just to see women getting naked or partially naked, not much different then the scantly dressed armored female fighter. It's not to further the story it's just to throw some erotic moments into a story.  
I might even consider it an abuse of power by the writer, I can make anyone have sex I want for no reason.  

Just thought of another;
the virgin slayer lottery; any woman of virtue can be sacrificed to god or dragon in a lottery.  Why would a woman remain virtuous if it might get her killed? Why wait for marriage when it might cost them their lives.  Seems like a loving father would make sure their daughter never qualified for the lottery. 


***Very few virgin stories ever say how they know without looking, and even that could be fallable.
I have one way in my stories, the unicorn, or its horn can tell a virgin.  The unicorn is nauseated around unpure, and if a unicorn horn touches one unpure it makes them severely nauseated.  (My unicorns comunicate with touch telepathy, to communicate the being must touch, so the unpure really can't "hear" the unicorn mentally speak.)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 16, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I don't quite understand people's obsession with this whole Gary Sue/Mary Sue thing.  I always see that everywhere.  If a character resonates with people in some way, then it doesn't matter if they're cliche' or overpowered or whatever.  There may be tons of characters or story plots that fit perfectly into the TV Tropes Method of Identification (TM), but some work and some don't.  There is no perfect character and there is no perfect story.  Someone will find fault with something one way or another.



It's because most people misundertand what a Mary Sue is, so they complain about characters they think are Mary Sue but actually aren't. It's really a _very _specific type of bad writing.



Zero Angel said:


> Originally, Mary Sue characters were seen as "wish-fulfillment" for the author. Basically, you write yourself into the story, but instead of you, it's a super-awesome version of you that is just awesome at everything for the sake of being awesome.



Close, but not _quite._ Writing a Mary Sue isn't just a power fantasy. Power fantasies can be enjoyable, after all, if written well. And even bad power fantasies don't _necessarily _make your self-insert a Mary Sue.

Writing a Mary Sue is more about boosting your own ego via copious amounts of self-gratification, usually in a very heavy-handed and obvious way. It's about giving yourself everything that you feel you deserve. Rather than writing your self-insert as a better person than you are, you downplay your flaws an exaggerate (what you consider to be) your good sides. You skew the story to put your self-insert in a better light.

Mary Sue isn't popular and loved because she is perfect and good and powerful and all-around likable. Because, you know, that actually makes sense. No, Mary Sue is popular because she is you and _you believe that you deserve to be that popular._ Not some theoretical better version of you, but you the way you actually are. 

Alternatively, when you write about things that makes you angry or anything you consider unfair ("Why can't I get a girlfriend!?") you write Mary Sue is a victim of some great injustice, because you feel victimized. Nothing bad that happens is ever Mary Sue's fault, because that means admitting you yourelf are to blame, even partially. No, Mary Sue is clearly being oppressed by corrupt authorities or bullied by bad people who obviously have no good sides whatsoever. This in turn serves as justification for the (often disproportional) revenge Mary Sue will then administer. (The same revenge you wish you could administer yourself in real life if you weren't such an amazingly nice person.) 

It goes on like that. Everyone in the story agrees Mary Sue has excellent taste and profound opinions, because they are _your _taste and opinions. Mary Sue is a mysterious loner/special snowflake who is difficult to approach but a great person when you get to know her, because that makes you feel better about being kind of a social pariah at your high school. Mary Sue was unjustly beaten by her cruel guardians, because you figure that is roughly the emotional equivalent of you being grounded, etc. 

And yes, Mary Sue may indeed be amazingly powerful or talented, especially if the writer happens to feel weak and powerless and has generally bad confidence. But there's a differance between that and writing a character who is ligitimately impressive for narrative reasons, and you can usually tell.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 16, 2013)

SeverinR said:


> Just thought of another;
> the virgin slayer lottery; any woman of virtue can be sacrificed to god or dragon in a lottery.  Why would a woman remain virtuous if it might get her killed? Why wait for marriage when it might cost them their lives.



Oh God, I really reacted to that in the movie Dragonslayer.

So the virgins of the kingdom must all take part in a lottery where the winner gets to be eaten by a dragon. The female love interest goes as far as dressing up as a boy to dodge her social responsibility. About halfway through the movie she and the hero are pretty obviously in love, but she is found out and forced to take part of the lottery. They're like: "Oh no! What do we do?"

I was like: "Look, you two. You're young, you're reasonably attractive, you clearly like each other very much and will probably get married down the line anyway... What I'm trying to say is, there is a _pretty obvious solution _to this problem, okay?"

Why is it still even possible to find virgin women in this kingdom? For goodness sake, at the very least any healthy straight male would have figured this out. And if pre-marital sex isn't acceptable, well, _get married first. _It's better than being eaten.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 16, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Why is it still even possible to find virgin women in this kingdom? For goodness sake, at the very least any healthy straight male would have figured this out.



Heh. I can see the pick-up lines now.

"Look, babe. I wanna get laid, you don't wanna get eaten. Let's help each other out."

 This could be the makings of a great comedy.


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 16, 2013)

Or, "It is better to marry than to burn."


----------



## Kit (Jan 17, 2013)

I dunno, if we're talking about my ex boyfriend, I think I'd rather take my chances with the dragon.


----------



## Wynnara (Jan 20, 2013)

I know this is a fantasy hallmark, but I've always hated prophecy as a storytelling device. 

For one thing, I don't like essentially being told at the beginning how the story is going to end. I also dislike the notion of removing people's free will. I like the idea that you really don't know what happens next... no one does... and that the action or inaction of one person can radically alter the story.

Again, don't shoot me... just personal preference...


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 20, 2013)

Wynnara said:


> I know this is a fantasy hallmark, but I've always hated prophecy as a storytelling device.
> 
> For one thing, I don't like essentially being told at the beginning how the story is going to end. I also dislike the notion of removing people's free will. I like the idea that you really don't know what happens next... no one does... and that the action or inaction of one person can radically alter the story.
> 
> Again, don't shoot me... just personal preference...



It... depends a bit on how you use the prophecy, I'd say, and how prophecies actually work in your setting. 

It varies a bit depending on wether you are taking the strictly fatalistic approach ("This is what's going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it.") or using prophesies are warnings for something avoidable. ("Do this, but don't do this, or something bad will happen.") It also varies depending on what kind of culture you are dealing with: For example, the vikings were extremely fatalistic in general so a viking-inspired culture would take prophecies very seriously. Additionally, there are various ways to subvert the trope.

Over-all, I think it can be a useful plot device - my current project will probably involve prophecies in order to set up some events that need to have occured. Another idea I had involved prophecy as a by-product of time travel. Then I had a short-lived comic project where prophecies were essentially backwards memories: They would always come true, but there where a lot of them and they were about as reliable as someone trying to recall a childhood event. The plot started with a character trying to make a prophecy come true on purpose, failing, and accidentally fullfilling a _different _prophecy.

On the other hand, one should take care not to resort to it out of simple lazyness. ("This ordinary farm-boy is the hero who will defeat Lord Dark, because the prophesy said so.")

One thing I do object to is stories where the plot heavily relies on a prophesy, but prophecies and prophets are not a thing in the setting otherwise. I think that if there's an actual prophecy at work, that implies some people in this setting can actually predict the future with some accuracy and that needs to be taken into consideration.


----------



## Ireth (Jan 20, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> It... depends a bit on how you use the prophecy, I'd say, and how prophecies actually work in your setting.



Agreed. Harry Potter did this well, I think, with the ambiguous nature of the prophecy surrounding the one who could defeat Voldemort, and having Harry *choose* to go forward and try to fulfil it.

That said, one of my biggest pet peeves is the love triangle wherein one of the hero/heroine's choices is clearly far better for him/her than the other, yet he/she still chooses the one who's bad for him/her. If you're going to have a triangle, at least make it an equal-sided one, amirite?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 20, 2013)

Ireth said:


> Agreed. Harry Potter did this well, I think, with the ambiguous nature of the prophecy surrounding the one who could defeat Voldemort, and having Harry *choose* to go forward and try to fulfil it.



What I like about it is that Trelawney is supposed to be a terrible fortune-teller, yet even here "fake" predictions tend to come true in some way. (Including predicting Dumbledore's death in an insanely roundabout but absolutely correct way.)


----------



## Chilari (Jan 21, 2013)

Yes, prophecies can be a tool. I prefer to model them on the Greek system, where one legend has an oracle tell a king that if he goes to war against a powerful enemy a great army will be defeated. It was his army that got defeated. The prophecy was ambiguous. Then there's another one in which a Spartan general is told he will capture Argos. He assumes the city is meant, but after he captures a sacred grove of the same name, decides not to go after the city because the prophecy has been fulfilled. The Spartan government put him on trial for cowardice, but after hearing of the prophecy they find him not guilty because attempting to defy the gods is a very bad idea.

In fantasy, I like to see this kind of prophecy: a prediction is made but there's some ambiguity about it. It is technically fulfilled, but not in the way the characters hoped or expected. Then there's the double bluff: the characters, knowing that prophecies can be tricky things, attempt to think of all the ways the prophecy can be fulfilled and aim for the one they want while guarding against those they don't. The prophecy is fulfilled in a manner that is the straightforward, most obvious way, but with negative and unexpected fallout because of the actions the characters took in trying to guard against the other ways.


----------



## iWant iStrive (Jan 21, 2013)

I was toying with the idea of a prophet in my novel, but am still struggling with how to incorporate it.

I essentially want the prophet to tell the main character to that he should go out and try to change the world, and he will, but not in such an explicit way. Acting more as a guide than a fortune teller.


----------



## wordwalker (Jan 21, 2013)

One fun thing about prophecies: according to the Rhine Institute, and the founder's wife and partner Dr. Louisa Rhine, of about sixty precognitive flashes people reported where they'd tried to change "the future" and it wasn't something far out of reach, the only ones who didn't succeed in it were the ones who hadn't forseen enough information to make the change right. Everyone else *did* change it.

Then again: Buffy, Season One finale, _Prophecy Girl_.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Jan 21, 2013)

Kit said:


> I dunno, if we're talking about my ex boyfriend, I think I'd rather take my chances with the dragon.



Why isn't there a button on this forum for 'Like' or thumbs up or 'I just spat <beverage of choice> all over my keyboard'. I mean, 'thanks for a useful post' seems kinda inadequate for a line like this.

Made my day, anyway.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 21, 2013)

Chilari said:


> Yes, prophecies can be a tool. I prefer to model them on the Greek system, where one legend has an oracle tell a king that if he goes to war against a powerful enemy a great army will be defeated. It was his army that got defeated. The prophecy was ambiguous.



That... sounds kinda stupid, though. That's like saying: "If you go to war, someone will win." That's not divination, it's ordinary logic. _Anyone _can make that prediction. 

I think that a little bit of ambiguity (like capturing Argos the grove rather than Argos the city) is okay, but prophecies should still provide a decent prediction of a future event in such a way that the one being given the prophecy can actually anticipate it. They have to be _reliable, _to at least some extent. Otherwise they become kinda pointless - if a prophecy is so vague and ambigious that it can mean pretty anything, you might as well not have prophecies, because after the first three times or so nobody is going to bother listening to the prophets.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 21, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> Why isn't there a button on this forum for 'Like' or thumbs up or 'I just spat <beverage of choice> all over my keyboard'. I mean, 'thanks for a useful post' seems kinda inadequate for a line like this.
> 
> Made my day, anyway.



There's always:  :goodjob: or  

Ok, not exactly the same, but it gets a sentiment across.


----------



## razzazzika (Jan 21, 2013)

Personally, my favorite pet peeve is a whiny main character (e.g. Terry Goodkind's sword of truth) Richard was constantly whining about something or another. "I don't want to be the seeker. I just want to go back home and stay a woods guide." And when like, a ton of people try to explain to him he's a wizard he's like, "No I'm not, I'm just a simple woods guide, not a wizard." Same with "That prophecy isn't about me."

It annoyed me... But I still finished the series cause the plot was good.

I also am a hater of Mary Sues, bad ones at least... The most teeth grinding book was an early Star Trek novel named 'Vulcan!' (Yes I'm a bit of a trekkie) This book had this smart, beautiful, and racist main character. Everything out of her mouth was whining about how she didn't want to work with spock(yes back to the whining) because she had a bad experience with a vulcan in the past and hated them now. But the book went on to have not only Kirk and Bones expressing a love interest in her, but Spock as well. I mean.. what the hell. Kirk I understand, he humps anything, but Bones was like, completely and instantly in love with her when she wanted nothing romantical with him. And then Spock somehow fell in love with her intrigued by her hatred and even broke through her vulcan hatred by saving her life. It just... pissed me off greatly. I'm glad that book is not considered cannon (it had something in it about the neutral zone growing, and the planet was entering romulan territory... it was altogether a bad book)

Anyway... reading this thread has caused me to re-assess some of the things I've been doing in my own novel


Benjamin Clayborne said:


> * Heroes who are incredibly lethal killing machines, forcing the author to invent implausibly powerful opponents
> * Villains who are one step behind the heroes for the majority of the story (villains should always be ahead of the heroes until the very end, when the hero triumphs -- unless it's a tragedy )


In my story I do have an overpowered hero, and an overpowered villain, but I tell the story from both their sides and go on to show their weaknesses and strengths, so I think I'm good, but I see where you're coming from...

I mean, Dragonball Z got riddiculous after what, the 2nd season or so. Goku and Frieza blew up a freakin' planet while fighting, then when they thought there was no one worse, Cell shows up and he's somehow stronger.







Anders Ã„mting said:


> Wynnara said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is a fantasy hallmark, but I've always hated prophecy as a storytelling device.
> ...


Again, Sword of truth was big on prophecy. But it was done right, because the main character basically said F*** prophecy, it's not happening. And well, it did, but not as expected the way the prophecy was written.

I myself have seers in my book, who see things that are going to happen, but the whole point of seeing the future, in my eyes, is that is is only a vision of a _possible_ future and not what _has_ to happen. One of my main characters is a seer, who will get random visions and change things appropriately to make it not happen. (I'm carefully skirting the line of Deus-ex-machina with that one though)


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 21, 2013)

Wynnara said:


> I know this is a fantasy hallmark, but I've always hated prophecy as a storytelling device.
> 
> For one thing, I don't like essentially being told at the beginning how the story is going to end. I also dislike the notion of removing people's free will. I like the idea that you really don't know what happens next... no one does... and that the action or inaction of one person can radically alter the story.
> 
> Again, don't shoot me... just personal preference...


I can't stand prophecies as well. In my books, I have a treatise on how prophecies don't work in my world (although they do exist). Whether they're self-fulfilling or not, prophecies in general annoy me to no end. 



Ireth said:


> Agreed. Harry Potter did this well, I think, with the ambiguous nature of the prophecy surrounding the one who could defeat Voldemort, and having Harry *choose* to go forward and try to fulfil it.
> 
> That said, one of my biggest pet peeves is the love triangle wherein one of the hero/heroine's choices is clearly far better for him/her than the other, yet he/she still chooses the one who's bad for him/her. If you're going to have a triangle, at least make it an equal-sided one, amirite?


Ooh, the stupid love triangle one is something I can't stand either. In anime/manga there is commonly the issue of where there is only one character that the protagonist wants to end up with, but ALL the supporting characters want the main character and the protagonist is too wishy-washy to say no. It can get pretty frustrating.



PaulineMRoss said:


> Why isn't there a button on this forum for 'Like' or thumbs up or 'I just spat <beverage of choice> all over my keyboard'. I mean, 'thanks for a useful post' seems kinda inadequate for a line like this.
> 
> Made my day, anyway.


There is also an "Add to this user's reputation" and you can leave a comment, although no one else can see it except that user (I believe).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

> I can't stand prophecies as well. In my books, I have a treatise on how prophecies don't work in my world (although they do exist). Whether they're self-fulfilling or not, prophecies in general annoy me to no end.



Cue Untouchable theme music: You have become what you beheld, and you are content that you have done right.

I feel you.  I hate dream sequences with a purple passion.  The second scene in my book?  A dream sequence.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Cue Untouchable theme music: You have become what you beheld, and you are content that you have done right.
> 
> I feel you.  I hate dream sequences with a purple passion.  The second scene in my book?  A dream sequence.



Great point, Brian. I guess what I dislike about prophecies is not so much their existence, but rather the railroad-y Deus ex Machina-ness of them all. In my books, I put a mechanism behind prophecies, and understanding of the mechanism should resolve Deus ex Machina concerns and enable characters to "break" prophecies. 

For those at all interested: The treatise I mentioned is written by the heir of Merlin (a historical/legendary character). Merlin was able to "remember" the future. In War of the Ages, his memory was unfortunately imperfect and he remembered many different futures (on an aside: which is why so many different versions of the King Arthur legends exist). The reasoning behind this is that magick alters reality and each character has, at the least, magick of their life-force. Although Merlin's memories could overcome minor bumps in magickal ability and get the general flow of things that would happen, when multiple magickal signatures of significant power interacted, there was no way to predict even major events. The fact that people possess magick on an inherent level in this world brings the conclusion to the heir who is writing the treatise that free will exists and that prophecy is more of a forecast that can be easily gotten wrong than a done-deal.


----------



## Aravelle (Feb 12, 2013)

Chilari said:


> Wanara, that's quite a list you've got there. Can't say I disagree with any of those. I especially hate tragic back stories, or as it is refered to in the writing circles my fiance is in, having something bad happen to the protagonist "for the feels". It's so transparent.



Wait, what if the tragedy is relevant to the plot? That doesn't count, does it?


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 12, 2013)

Aravelle said:


> Wait, what if the tragedy is relevant to the plot? That doesn't count, does it?



If it's done well, I think most people agree anything is forgivable. Tragic backstories, when done badly, are frequently used to make the "perfect" character have a flaw so that the development is pre-story and the author can point and say, "look he/she is complex. He/she does not have a happy life!"


----------



## Ireth (Feb 12, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> If it's done well, I think most people agree anything is forgivable. Tragic backstories, when done badly, are frequently used to make the "perfect" character have a flaw so that the development is pre-story and the author can point and say, "look he/she is complex. He/she does not have a happy life!"



Good thing to point out. Vincent, the hero of _Winter's Queen_ has a few tragedies in his past -- one, his wife died in childbirth (yes, I know, cliche, but it still happens even in this day and age); and two, his daughter was almost kidnapped mere minutes afterward (unrelated to the death of her mother). The kidnapping attempt winds up setting up the entire plot of _Winter's Queen_, since it leads to Vincent and his family believing in Fae, which is why the villain chooses Vincent's now-teenaged daughter for a bride.


----------



## Alex97 (Feb 12, 2013)

Super morally righteous MC's.  Obviously if your MC is fighting for the 'goodies' he/she needs to be good in most cases, but I'm talking about the irritating goody two shoe types.  For example, there's a massive battle going on and the MC tells his best buddy not to slay the demon because actually deep down he's a nice guy and only murdered thousands of people because he was misunderstood and bullied at school.  Slightly over the top example, but I think overly good good guys are very boring.

Another thing I don't like is super over powered teenage warriors.  How can a 16 year old beat some hench bloke who's been a mercenary for 30 years?' Teenage spies are especially annoying.  I have a few teenage soldiers in my current project, but they've been training since childhood and are still useless when compared to their older companions.



> Wait, what if the tragedy is relevant to the plot? That doesn't count, does it?



I think this can actually be quite good if done well.  The tragedy has to have an active effect on the way the character acts and feels.  If the past tragedy is just something mentioned then it's going to seem like a poor attempt to add a weakness.  I think it's better to show the character behaving in a certain way and gradually reveal the reasons why as opposed to just overtly stating 'Fred's wife died which is why he is so sad' at the start of the novel.


----------



## Zero Angel (Feb 12, 2013)

Alex97 said:


> Super morally righteous MC's.  Obviously if your MC is fighting for the 'goodies' he/she needs to be good in most cases, but I'm talking about the irritating goody two shoe types.  For example, there's a massive battle going on and the MC tells his best buddy not to slay the demon because actually deep down he's a nice guy and only murdered thousands of people because he was misunderstood and bullied at school.  Slightly over the top example, but I think overly good good guys are very boring.



What if the MC fails quite a lot because of this? (PS don't read The Throne of Ao )


----------



## Alex97 (Feb 12, 2013)

If the MC failed as a result of this there could be some quite interesting character development.  A character could change dramatically as a result of failure. 

On a side note I think we all know someone in real life like this.  There's always one prat who thinks he has the authority of righteousness behind him but fails to look at a situation realistically.


----------



## BenGoram (Feb 17, 2013)

As a subset of Status Quo is God, I find the desperate need to maintain the "masquerade" tiresome. And in such works having to run through the same disbelief/explanation/acceptance process every time a new character is introduced to the "secret world".


----------



## Ireth (Feb 17, 2013)

Alex97 said:


> If the MC failed as a result of this there could be some quite interesting character development.  A character could change dramatically as a result of failure.



An excellent point. One of my RP characters, Cadell, is a villain-turned-protagonist who is responsible for creating a temporary truce between Fae and mortals in the face of an impending threat on both worlds, and he is trying to get his queen to uphold the truce in times of peace as well as war, despite knowing that attempting such may very well turn his queen, to whom he is undyingly loyal, against him. He's right -- he is going to be flogged and exiled for his troubles, and it will be a very heavy blow to his spirit. Whether he accepts his exile as freedom or sinks into depression as a result of it is still way up in the air.


----------



## Darkfantasy (Feb 17, 2013)

Bad writing - obviously

But to do with the story or characters:
Promises that don't get for filled.
Writers who have no ideas what they're writing about
The Villain that is just pure evil, and the hero that is just pure good.
Heart-breaking backstories for the characters just to make us sympathise.
Books without much originality, and are just shadows of more famous books.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 18, 2013)

Darkfantasy said:


> The Villain that is just pure evil, and the hero that is just pure good.



I get pure evil, but what's wrong with being pure good?

I mean, "I am evil for the sake of evil" doesn't make sense as a realistic motivation. But being good because that is desirable in and of itself is definitely possible and, indeed, the best reason to be a good person.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 18, 2013)

Darkfantasy said:


> Heart-breaking backstories for the characters just to make us sympathise.



Urgh, tell me about it. Putting a character through some tragedy, either in the story or as backstory, solely in an attempt to get an emotional response from the reader is so annoying. If you're writing something "for the feels" and not because it is what the story needs and what would reasonably and believably happen in the circumstances, then you're writing it for the wrong reasons and it will fall flat. Not to say that tragedy and pain shouldn't happen to characters, just that it should not be aimed primarily at provoking an emotional response in the reader.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 18, 2013)

Alex97 said:


> Super morally righteous MC's.  Obviously if your MC is fighting for the 'goodies' he/she needs to be good in most cases, but I'm talking about the irritating goody two shoe types.  For example, there's a massive battle going on and the MC tells his best buddy not to slay the demon because actually deep down he's a nice guy and only murdered thousands of people because he was misunderstood and bullied at school.  Slightly over the top example, but I think overly good good guys are very boring.



I'm sorta the other way around - I like characters who have principles they don't want to compromise, characters who insist that virtues apply even when they are inconvenient. Those are the characters who are the most interesting because they are the ones who are constantly tested, and also the ones who put others to the test.

To me, the boring characters are the ones who always compromise when faced with a moral dilemma, because they lack the conviction to pick the difficult option - "It's not like I want to execute the prisoners who surrendered, but we can't take them with us." Or: "I don't want to torture this man, but how else are we going to find the villain's stronghold?" Or: "I don't want to kill this innocent person, but if we don't many more will die."

See, if you are a person without strong moral principles, these are all easy choices to make. Unpleasant, perhaps, but usually easy.

But then someone puts his foot down and goes: "No, we're not doing any of those things, because it's wrong and we're better than that. We find another way, or we make another way, but here is where we draw the line and here is where we hold it." _That's _when things get interesting, because now the heroes have to work even harder to win.


----------



## Nihal (Feb 18, 2013)

The Idiot Ball don't bother me _that_ much. People are stupid, sometimes they really do pretty much stupid things even if they aren't complete morons. Of course, it depends on what exactly the character does, but I guess I didn't stumble upon this flaw too many times, I still have a high tolerance to it.

The opposite annoys me. It's how some characters plans works brilliantly on the first try, if not with a small and insignificant adaptation to the ever changing situation. Characters who are lucky genius. They almost never fail, misunderstand a clue, slip and fall on their asses, nothing. They never get fooled by anyone, except for the great villain, but only sometimes and it's not that serious.


----------



## wordwalker (Feb 18, 2013)

Explicit leaps of logic. That is, when a character gets on a stump and says "It can't be A so it absolutely must be C" when there's no reason in the world that B (and D) couldn't exist. And it feels like the author believes the reasoning is good and really wants to show his "work" off. (Now if it's the _character_ who got it wrong, and then pays for it, that's better.)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 19, 2013)

Nihal said:


> The Idiot Ball don't bother me _that_ much. People are stupid, sometimes they really do pretty much stupid things even if they aren't complete morons. Of course, it depends on what exactly the character does, but I guess I didn't stumble upon this flaw too many times, I still have a high tolerance to it.



On another forum I frequent, we tend to talk about CIS and PIS. 

CIS is Character Induced Stupidity. This is whenever the character does something stupid because the story actually establishes this person to be kind of an idiot. This is considered acceptable - of course stupid people will do stupid things.

PIS is Plot Induced Stupidity. This is whenever a character does something stupid because the plot demands it, even though the character has been established to be smart enough to know better. This is considered a type of bad writing, or at least very lazy.


----------



## Nihal (Feb 19, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> On another forum I frequent, we tend to talk about CIS and PIS.
> 
> CIS is Character Induced Stupidity. This is whenever the character does something stupid because the story actually establishes this person to be kind of an idiot. This is considered acceptable - of course stupid people will do stupid things.
> 
> PIS is Plot Induced Stupidity. This is whenever a character does something stupid because the plot demands it, even though the character has been established to be smart enough to know better. This is considered a type of bad writing, or at least very lazy.



Yes! But even when the plot benefits from the smart character's stupidity it can work well enough if done properly. A smart character still isn't foolproof, all the factors involved including his emotional state and how much of the situation he knows can make him act inadequately.

I'm not saying that it's not bad when it's badly done, it is, however I find this more believable than all-knowing characters. People are more likely to misunderstand something than to be almost omniscience _and_ lucky.

The opposite are the explicit leaps of logic (and all it's annoying cousins), mentioned by wordwalker. From all the possibilities the character picks the right one, no matter how crazy it is or how many other better explanations there may be. And he'll be right, of course. Some authors seems to think that "intelligence" include sixth sense and perfect mind reading abilities.

Between the two cases the last one bothers me more, for it's lower probability to happen.


----------



## Mindfire (Feb 19, 2013)

Nihal said:


> Yes! But even when the plot benefits from the smart character's stupidity it can work well enough if done properly. A smart character still isn't foolproof, all the factors involved including his emotional state and how much of the situation he knows can make him act inadequately.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's not bad when it's badly done, it is, however I find this more believable than all-knowing characters. People are more likely to misunderstand something than to be almost omniscience _and_ lucky.
> 
> ...



I'm kinda the opposite. I hate it when a character does something transparently stupid for _any_ reason. (But then again, I hate it when people do stupid things in real life too.) But when it's obviously done just so the plot can move forward, I hate it even more. If a character is going to make a bad decision, I'd prefer it to be because all the facts weren't available (not because they were too lazy to _get_ the facts, like in every romantic comedy ever), or because they knew the decision was potentially bad but thought the possible benefit was worth the risk, or because they didn't have time to think it over, or because they were selfish, etc. Not because they just had a brain fart. 

I'm also wary of having my characters act for purely emotional reasons. Or if they do, it's usually to act as foil for a more logical character.


----------



## BenGoram (Feb 19, 2013)

Does anyone remember _Enemy of the State_? Will Smith's character makes dumb mistakes throughout the movie, never listens to advice he's being given, and then at the end masterfully pulls off a plan that defies the odds and saves the day. More of a case of writing yourself into a corner than Idiot Ball, though.


----------

