# What are your aesthetic or concept preferences for novels?



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

Now, I know it's common knowledge that regardless of whatever you write, there will always be people that detest it. But this form of novel-rejection is something that is near and dear to me. Let me explain.

When I was a kid (and today, to some extent) I preferred books with certain types of looks, aesthetics, or "graphics" per-say. For example, I detested books in which animals played the roles of main characters. I wanted to have humans playing that role. But think this one is more common than another one. However, there are more extreme examples.

While I wouldn't reject a fantasy book based on what kind of weapon a characters is wielding, I have an unhealthy obsession with sword-wielding protagonists (cliche, I know.). I just really enjoy characters that use swords, and find swords to be cooler than any other weapon. Why? Hell if I know, I just do! I dislike main characters that are either A) not inherently powerful or B) not having a character arc of acquiring power over the course of a book. And on many occasions, this can boil down to some really trivial stuff.

I love characters with unnatural hair colors, others hate that. While they're not my favorite style of setting, I love worlds similar to DnD. And I know for a fact that there are people whom loathe that. I dislike knights whom act like brigands and play the role of main character. There are other people that love this kind of character! I've started to find that settings with corrupted organized religions (usually monotheistic)tend to be very repetitive and cheesy--rarely providing any meaningful social commentary. There are people whom think those kinds of settings are extremely deep and philosophical.

Now the problem is not these tropes or archetypes. Because I would never hate a book just due to this. In fact, I violate my own standards on multiple occasions, but that's because like all tropes, these can be used well. But I think these biases are just a healthy way for us to track down the kind of books we're most likely to enjoy.

So I was wondering, do any of you have these secret preferences? If so, I'd love to here more about it.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> Now, I know it's common knowledge that regardless of whatever you write, there will always be people that detest it. But this form of novel-rejection is something that is near and dear to me. Let me explain.
> 
> When I was a kid (and today, to some extent) I preferred books with certain types of looks, aesthetics, or "graphics" per-say. For example, I detested books in which animals played the roles of main characters. I wanted to have humans playing that role. But think this one is more common than another one. However, there are more extreme examples.
> 
> ...



You're topic is kind of vague but the strange thing is I do know exactly what you're talking about. 

The first thing i notice is that your concept preferences are basically the exact opposites of mine. XD

I love talking animal stories (when done well) and always have (even though my obsession with them was much more profound when i was a kid). I have this dislike of sword-wielding protagonists i can't explain; I think the sword just seems boring to me. HATE D&D or Tolkien-esque worlds, anything traditional like elves, dwarves... except for the obvious exception of my dragon obsession. And since the main enemy in one of my WIP's is an oppressive religion (which i am finding a fascinating antagonist), it's safe to say that we differ significantly in that respect too. 

Now that I have that out of the way... 

I love settings with made-up creatures, especially those that aren't directly nicked from mythology, and those with stat sheets and habitat and diet information and random facts i can memorize. 

Many people on here will hate me for this, but I hate anything with a medieval look and feel. I'm basically allergic to knights and castles. 

Love quirky characters that have eccentric personalities and bizarre traits and clothing. The weirder, the better. A generic cast of characters is a huge turn-off. 

Hate main characters that are special in a way that is completely plot-irrelevant (weird eye colors, etc.) I read a book the other day where the main character had GOLDEN eyes. (I could have forgiven it if she wasn't otherwise as boring as pulped cardboard.) 

I love biopunk (I know it has horror connotations, but it's the same as steampunk really, except using genetically engineering/biological replacements for modern technology.) Love it. Especially bioluminescent lighting. 

Absolutely love complex bad guys with extensive backstories. 

I love books with book-loving protagonists, or with huge libraries, or books about writers and books in general--in theory. I hated InkHeart (I wasn't even able to finish, though i've never been squeamish about DNFing.) 

I love books that teach me something I didn't know before, whether it's about knitting or Roman architecture or taxidermy. Let your useless nerdy knowledge hang out, authors! I love to hear about it. 

Usually, i really dislike books about kings or princesses or royalty of any kind. There's no real reason why, I just don't.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> You're topic is kind of vague but the strange thing is I do know exactly what you're talking about.
> 
> The first thing i notice is that your concept preferences are basically the exact opposites of mine. XD
> 
> ...


Damn, we really are on the opposite side of the spectrum. I have to say, your hatred of the medieval did snap a cord in my heart, but I can understand where you're coming from. As for the oppresive religion, it really depends on execution.

Even as a religious person myself, I've played with the trope of having an oppressive religious figure, and I think it 
Came out nicely. I think it only worked because the oppresive religion actually had a logical reason for existing, and that was because it came at a time were the peolple of the country had low nationalism. So the religion filled the void in people's spirit.

I also like how Dragon age does it, because the religious people are not depicted as nutjobs. The mages in that world can cause some serious damage, so I'd argue that the oppresive church there is understandable.

It's just that overall, I feel it's a trope that people add when they feel like forcing in social commentary into their stories. And it comes off superficial as a result.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> Damn, we really are on the opposite side of the spectrum. I have to say, your hatred of the medieval did snap a cord in my heart, but I can understand where you're coming from. As for the oppresive religion, it really depends on execution.
> 
> Even as a religious person myself, I've played with the trope of having an oppressive religious figure, and I think it
> Came out nicely. I think it only worked because the oppresive religion actually had a logical reason for existing, and that was because it came at a time were the peolple of the country had low nationalism. So the religion filled the void in people's spirit.
> ...



Haha! 

I...Can I call myself a non-religious Christian? Love God, hate organized religion. 

That out of the way...

My organized religion antagonist explicitly is made up. It was invented for the purpose of oppression. Characters in the story do have ideas on whether a god or gods might exist, but otherwise there isn't a significant presence of "organized religion."


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Also, thanks for posting a thing, because I was getting bored. XD.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2016)

I'm with dragon for mostly everything. I can't stand anything d and d or Tolkienesque. You guys will probably hang me, but I didn't even read LOTR until I was well into adulthood because I found is so boring. 

I can't stand anything that seems like it was copied from Oblivion or Skyrim or Fable. Loved the games, hate how that tone and setting dominates fantasy literature right now. 

So yeah, this means I love fantasy but I don't love traditional fantasy. I don't like Tolkien, or Salvatore, or Jordan. I prefer Gaiman, or Marquez. 

I prefer highly character driven stories. I hate stories about heroes and prefer stories about underdogs. I love stories about main characters who surprise me, like disabled people. Or the elderly, or pregnant women. 

I can't stand anything military or military related. Soldiers or warriors make me gag. 

I like urban fantasy, time travel, the supernatural, or magical realism. 

I like stories that will teach me something about humanity. Usually they are literary. 

As far as aesthetic, I love flat book covers. Not glossy. Flat. Something about flat covers screams character driven for some reason.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I'm with dragon for mostly everything. I can't stand anything d and d or Tolkienesque. You guys will probably hang me, but I didn't even read LOTR until I was well into adulthood because I found is so boring.
> 
> I can't stand anything that seems like it was copied from Oblivion or Skyrim or Fable. Loved the games, hate how that tone and setting dominates fantasy literature right now.
> 
> ...


I've always been more of a conservative traditionalist with my fantasy. I embrace the Tolkien, Jordan, and Salvatore, and pay only passing respect toward magical realism.

I also dislike a lot of literary fiction, as I find that much of it tends to be nihilistic drivel in my opinion. Frankly, I think Mark Twain's lighthearted stories would be among the few pieces of literary fiction I enjoy, due to its optimism.

Also, while I love classical Tolkien and Skyrim style fantasy, my favorite settings have a lot in common with JRPGs like final fantasy. I guess that's why I like Wheel of Time, because I feel it mixes classic fantasy with that JRPG feel. Despite Jordan probably never having played one.

So I guess I like optimistic or hopeful literature, which is why I have disdain for the modern Grimdark movement. Which is weird, since my introduction to fantasy reading was Elric of Melnibone.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Time travel! That's a huge pet peeve for me. I actively avoid books with time travel.  

Not that I haven't enjoyed time travel books...


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Time travel! That's a huge pet peeve for me. I actively avoid books with time travel. [emoji14]
> 
> Not that I haven't enjoyed time travel books...


Another thing we defer on! I play with time-travel in my fantasy. Not that they go back to the past, just that they are able to watch it unfold before their eyes during specific portions of the story. This is deliberate, as too much time travel can lead to plot holes!

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2016)

Lol, not so much as an adults, but as a kid. I write middle grades fiction, not adult fiction, so I write the stuff that inspired me as a kid. One of my favourites was The Root Cellar, by Janet Lunn. I also loved The Giver, A Wrinkle in Time, The City of Ember... so many others that were not traditional.

The Root Cellar eBook: Janet Lunn: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> I've always been more of a conservative traditionalist with my fantasy. I embrace the Tolkien, Jordan, and Salvatore, and pay only passing respect toward magical realism.
> 
> I also dislike a lot of literary fiction, as I find that much of it tends to be nihilistic drivel in my opinion. Frankly, I think Mark Twain's lighthearted stories would be among the few pieces of literary fiction I enjoy, due to its optimism.
> 
> ...



I'd have to agree with you about nihilistic drivel. In YA (young adult) there is a huge move toward depressing endings. (The 'in YA everything is light and happy' cliche is utterly wrong.) Most of the recently published popular YA books end with the main character dying or at least not ending up with the love interest. No endings that even approach happy anywhere. 

GRRM seems to have made senseless killing trendy, so...Somethin I've noticed: Its like people respect the guy for being the Grim Reaper. There's this respect they regard him with for having the nerve to kill his characters. 

Except that he's not edgy anymore. He's average.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I'd have to agree with you about nihilistic drivel. In YA (young adult) there is a huge move toward depressing endings. (The 'in YA everything is light and happy' cliche is utterly wrong.) Most of the recently published popular YA books end with the main character dying or at least not ending up with the love interest. No endings that even approach happy anywhere.
> 
> GRRM seems to have made senseless killing trendy, so...Somethin I've noticed: Its like people respect the guy for being the Grim Reaper. There's this respect they regard him with for having the nerve to kill his characters.
> 
> Except that he's not edgy anymore. He's average.


Your words about GRRM are exactly my thoughts on him.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Lol, not so much as an adults, but as a kid. I write middle grades fiction, not adult fiction, so I write the stuff that inspired me as a kid. One of my favourites was The Root Cellar, by Janet Lunn. I also loved The Giver, A Wrinkle in Time, The City of Ember... so many others that were not traditional.



Never heard of The Root Cellar, but I loved (or still love) the other three. 

I'm not *that* far past being a kid myself, ya know. I haven't read GRRM or many of the popular writers in the modern adult market. (I do have a distaste for pointless, gratuitous gore, so...that may be the reason.)


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 29, 2016)

Ok cool, so you know what I mean by non-traditional fantasy  sometimes I find it hard to explain. The other three are no less fantastical, even though they don't have dragons and a medieval setting. And they are so optimistic and inspiring, and they do touch on large themes about humanity without being 'drivel'. 

I love fiction like that. That's the stuff I love to write.

Those are the books that inspired my imagination so much as a kid and I hope to be able to do the same.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Ok cool, so you know what I mean by non-traditional fantasy  sometimes I find it hard to explain. The other three are no less fantastical, even though they don't have dragons and a medieval setting. And they are so optimistic and inspiring, and they do touch on large themes about humanity without being 'drivel'.
> 
> I love fiction like that. That's the stuff I love to write.
> 
> Those are the books that inspired my imagination so much as a kid and I hope to be able to do the same.


Don't get me wrong, not all literary fiction is bad. (I'd say most is, but that's a different story.) I've read the Wrinkle in Time and it is a great tale. I guess my goal as a writer is to transplant characters like those found in good literary fiction into settings that are more fun to digest in my opinion. I want the character complexity of literary fictiin without the pretentious tones that  permeate so many (so many!) Of those works.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 29, 2016)

I dislike more things than I like and too lazy to make a list. I'm old and crotchety, heh heh.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I dislike more things than I like and too lazy to make a list. I'm old and crotchety, heh heh.


Don't worry, laziness happens to the best of us 

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> Don't get me wrong, not all literary fiction is bad. (I'd say most is, but that's a different story.) I've read the Wrinkle in Time and it is a great tale. I guess my goal as a writer is to transplant characters like those found in good literary fiction into settings that are more fun to digest in my opinion. I want the character complexity of literary fictiin without the pretentious tones that  permeate so many (so many!) Of those works.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk



As do I...but the difference is, to me, D&D and medieval type settings aren't as much fun as boring, lol...

I'm much more into the deadly, parasite-filled jungles and flying cities.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Ok cool, so you know what I mean by non-traditional fantasy  sometimes I find it hard to explain. The other three are no less fantastical, even though they don't have dragons and a medieval setting. And they are so optimistic and inspiring, and they do touch on large themes about humanity without being 'drivel'.
> 
> I love fiction like that. That's the stuff I love to write.
> 
> Those are the books that inspired my imagination so much as a kid and I hope to be able to do the same.



It annoys me when people are unable to think of fantasy as anything other than "medieval with dragons and wizards." Fantasy is SO MUCH MORE.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 29, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> As do I...but the difference is, to me, D&D and medieval type settings aren't as much fun as boring, lol...
> 
> I'm much more into the deadly, parasite-filled jungles and flying cities.


I'm with you on flying cities. My setting has a few of those. Also the Forgotten realms dnd setting has an empire made up of flying cities so...

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 29, 2016)

Medieval jungles are just fine then, heh heh. I like low-tech, medieval castle or jungle doesn't matter. If there are guns, there better be cowboys or pirates, or I'm not reading it.  



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> As do I...but the difference is, to me, D&D and medieval type settings aren't as much fun as boring, lol...
> 
> I'm much more into the deadly, parasite-filled jungles and flying cities.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Medieval jungles are just fine then, heh heh. I like low-tech, medieval castle or jungle doesn't matter. If there are guns, there better be cowboys or pirates, or I'm not reading it.



No guns, but there do happen to be pirates. 

The technology level is a bit mixed. It's about on the level of Ancient Rome overall, but certain cultures and areas have better medicine and some pretty cool alternative technologies (as stated before, biopunk) 

Just...Knights, castles, armor, sieges, kings, swords...not fond of any of it...

Settings based on England tend to irk me as well. I want, if not something quite otherworldly, either the tropics or within the Arctic Circle, ideally! Or some kind of futuristic society. Or a flying city. Or an underwater city. Just don't do Europe.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> I'm with you on flying cities. My setting has a few of those. Also the Forgotten realms dnd setting has an empire made up of flying cities so...
> 
> Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk



Flying cities are my favorite, lol. I have a flight obsession, so...dragons, winged people, flying/floating creatures of every kind.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 29, 2016)

Well my current book is in the frozen north, clan setting, but moving into a migration to the tropics to avoid genocide through books 2 & 3, heh heh. 

But I would tend to say it depends on all those points. Everything you mention is extremely generic. A siege, all you need is a walled city, or heck, sieging a flying city... castles are just forts, and are all over the world, Rome had fortresses, and sieged Masada for instance. A knight is just heavy cavalry, really.

If I have a problem with a setting, it's most likely how it's written rather than the setting itself. For instance, there was a sci-fantasy book with a vampire in the woods on an alien planet with magic... can't recall the series, which has all the potential in the world for me to hate the setting, but I enjoyed it. No idea what I'd think now, but it was fun back then.

The more I've aged, the less tolerance I have for garish hair, mutants, bell & whistle magic systems, pretty much anything including the word punk (unless it's The Clash or Sex Pistols), and anything where a wizard wields a wand. 

Really, I want The Name of the Rose where the magic and devil are real, heh heh, but I don't care whether the culture is euro or not.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> No guns, but there do happen to be pirates.
> 
> The technology level is a bit mixed. It's about on the level of Ancient Rome overall, but certain cultures and areas have better medicine and some pretty cool alternative technologies (as stated before, biopunk)
> 
> ...


----------



## Malik (Oct 29, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Except that he's not edgy anymore. He's average.



This is actually a fascinating angle, though. With a flood of writers trying to emulate GRRM, your audience doesn't know if you're going to whack a character they love. The stakes are back up. Every danger scene counts if you do it right.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 29, 2016)

Senseless killing? GRRM? Nah, not at all. The killings make perfect sense in GRRM. 

EDIT: What is seen far more often is senseless survival, characters making it through things they should never survive, the only "sense" being they need to survive for the story to go on, LOL.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I'd have to agree with you about nihilistic drivel. In YA (young adult) there is a huge move toward depressing endings. (The 'in YA everything is light and happy' cliche is utterly wrong.) Most of the recently published popular YA books end with the main character dying or at least not ending up with the love interest. No endings that even approach happy anywhere.
> 
> GRRM seems to have made senseless killing trendy, so...Somethin I've noticed: Its like people respect the guy for being the Grim Reaper. There's this respect they regard him with for having the nerve to kill his characters.
> 
> Except that he's not edgy anymore. He's average.


----------



## Malik (Oct 29, 2016)

I may have a scene in a future book where a badass hero character gets snuffed when a tree falls on his house or a kiln explodes as he's picking up a custom-made goblet or something. Just, completely out of nowhere.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Malik said:


> This is actually a fascinating angle, though. With a flood of writers trying to emulate GRRM, your audience doesn't know if you're going to whack a character they love. The stakes are back up. Every danger scene counts if you do it right.



It can be a good thing. I hate when i have the sense there's a force field of some kind around the core cast, protecting them from harm while secondary characters die all around. What I want from a book is to honestly believe that anyone could die. I don't like to have that sense of safety surrounding the main characters just because they're the main characters. 

But, when it comes to killing, more is not necessarily better, nor is killing your main characters something you necessarily should do. I prefer quality over quantity. Make me care about them, then kill them. Make the deaths count. 

Not just that, make me care about them so much that it doesn't take a death to hurt me. A life-altering injury or a failed goal or a devastating loss in a character's life can be very painful, and you can make me scared of those things occurring if I care about the character. 

It's my opinion that you have to be a bit sparing with the deaths to make them have the proper impact. If you kill 75% of the people I like, eventually i'll become numb to it and stop caring.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Malik said:


> I may have a scene in a future book where a badass hero character gets snuffed when a tree falls on his house or a kiln explodes as he's picking up a custom-made goblet or something. Just, completely out of nowhere.



I would go with a gruesome illness or something.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 29, 2016)

Hi,

For me I love traditional epic fantasy and Tolkein. I loathe grimdark. It's no more realistic than epic fantasy and much less nice. Not all people are evil bastards who'll happily kill you for a nickle. I'm not, so why would I want to read about a world full of arseholes?!

As for so called literary fiction, for the most part I dislike it. Depending on what makes it literary of course. Love Catch 22 - but it's literary for the insight into war and the human struggle against the military bureaucracy more than anything else. Any book where the writer spends too much effort telling me what an expert he is with a turn of phrase annoys me. Often the very best prose is prose that's good enough to get out of the way so I can enjoy the story.

As to what I really love in a story is a complex plot, characters I can root for and enjoy, a world build that fascinates, and maybe something that makes me think. I really love plot twists, where everything you thought you knew, you suddenly realise you don't.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 29, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I can't stand anything that seems like it was copied from Oblivion or Skyrim or Fable. Loved the games, hate how that tone and setting dominates fantasy literature right now.


Whoa well...you would absolutely hate my stories then.  To be fair, Tamriel-esque settings have been around since pre-Tolkien ie. medieval style fantasy. Tolkien wasn't the first, Dungeons and Dragons wasn't necessarily original, and I'm sure the creators of Tamriel played the OG pen and paper games.

What turns me on in fantasy stories? My secret obsessions are magic and romance. I don't know why...but a love story full of magic and monsters and plenty of emotion makes me weak at the knees. And dragons. Boy, oh boy do I love dragons. It sucks that nowadays, there really aren't many fantasy books that I like with dragons in them. I also love any stories steeped in mythology, no matter what the culture. I read a really awesome short ages ago based on this Hawaiian myth and it was so, so good. I'd have to say mythology is probably my favorite.


EDIT: After reading some of the other responses, I'd like to say that I'm all for medieval style fantasy to continue on as it is. In the fantasy genre, that shizz existed long ago, and there have been other types of fantasy as well, not just medieval. I don't understand why it gets put down here so often "oh, it's just lame medieval fantasy iccck gag me" and other modern fantasy gets sprung as being so great. 

Well, everyone likes their own thing. I, for one, love medieval fantasy because I grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons with my dad and it's something we bonded over. I don't read YA, I don't like urban fantasy or ripped abs and werewolf stories...but you know what? There are others out there who love that sort of stuff and I don't want them to feel the lesser for reading and loving it, you know? Sometimes it seems that just because medieval fantasy is old and Tolkien has been done right/wrong/sideways I get the vibe around these parts that therefore, it shouldn't exist.  J/s


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 29, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Whoa well...you would absolutely hate my stories then.  To be fair, Tamriel-esque settings have been around since pre-Tolkien ie. medieval style fantasy. Tolkien wasn't the first, Dungeons and Dragons wasn't necessarily original, and I'm sure the creators of Tamriel played the OG pen and paper games.
> 
> What turns me on in fantasy stories? My secret obsessions are magic and romance. I don't know why...but a love story full of magic and monsters and plenty of emotion makes me weak at the knees. And dragons. Boy, oh boy do I love dragons. It sucks that nowadays, there really aren't many fantasy books that I like with dragons in them. I also love any stories steeped in mythology, no matter what the culture. I read a really awesome short ages ago based on this Hawaiian myth and it was so, so good. I'd have to say mythology is probably my favorite.



Where are all the GOOD dragon books?! 

And, I tried to write a mythology based story, but i got bored 30 minutes into researching and now it's a zombie story. Mythology based is fun to read but writing it isn't for me, apparently.


----------



## glutton (Oct 29, 2016)

I prefer settings with relatively low magic so physical fighters won't be too overshadowed by magic users and for at least one of the main characters to be a kick-ass female melee fighter who isn't just a 'token female warrior' but legit one of the toughest and most impressive warriors in the story (or if she is inexperienced so that wouldn't make sense, at least one of the most impressive in her peer group). I also like for said female badass to be depicted in an over-the-top manner to some degree eg. able to trade punches evenly with a huge guy on the low end of the scale, up to being able to beat up kaiju sized monsters with just a nonmagical melee weapon on the high end XD)


----------



## Chessie (Oct 30, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> It annoys me when people are unable to think of fantasy as anything other than "medieval with dragons and wizards." Fantasy is SO MUCH MORE.



Seriously? What if it's just that we LIKE reading and writing that type of fantasy? So we're not creative because that's what we prefer? :/ 

I've read all kinds of fantasy but I do have my preferences. It kind of stings a little to see other writers call medieval fantasy boring, uninspiring, and generic. I don't like GOT but I respect that my friends love it and at least it gets them reading books. 

All I know is that I work hard, really, really hard to infuse my stories with good characterization, structure, emotion, and the elements of fantasy that I love and have inspired me to write. I do write about elves. I write all human worlds, too. I use mythology in my stories. Heavily so. I care about my target audience and what they want. So I guess if that makes me boring, uninspiring and creative to write stories set in medieval Russia using their mythology...so be it. *shrug*


----------



## valiant12 (Oct 30, 2016)

I love nono bots and bio punk. My first attempt at writing a novel has a lot of bio punk and all kind of nano base technology. It’s not yet finished , but someday I will finish it. 



> Just...Knights, castles, armor, sieges, kings, swords...not fond of any of it...



All of these are very fun. Swords are overused though. Halberds are really used in fiction, yet very cool and effective weapons. Crossbows are really underused. My favourite original character uses a crossbow as her main weapon.
I can't understand how you can dislike kings. Kings, emperors, queens, princess. chiefs, bosses, leaders, presidents, prime ministers, dictators, high priests, captains, mayors, lords that just words for people on top of the social hierarchy. Innless the story is about complete anarchy, it will have a person who is on top of the hierarchy ( or a group of people). 


I don't like walking\travelling on foot. (In books, movies and video games, I like walking in real life). Walking speed really limits the scope of the story, and walking is the most clichÃ© and boring form of travailing. I just one to see a heroes failing his quest, not arriving  on time to stop the main villain, because he didn’t  take  proper care of his horse which resulted in the horse dyeing, which resulted in longer travelling time. I also dislike slower than light space travel. 
 If a story have a lot of interesting and\or fast forms of transpoertation thats a huge plus for me. 
And I like worlds in which there a lot of people with purple hair.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 30, 2016)

glutton said:


> I prefer settings with relatively low magic so physical fighters won't be too overshadowed by magic users and for at least one of the main characters to be a kick-ass female melee fighter who isn't just a 'token female warrior' but legit one of the toughest and most impressive warriors in the story (or if she is inexperienced so that wouldn't make sense, at least one of the most impressive in her peer group). I also like for said female badass to be depicted in an over-the-top manner to some degree eg. able to trade punches evenly with a huge guy on the low end of the scale, up to being able to beat up kaiju sized monsters with just a nonmagical melee weapon on the high end XD)


That's my favorite part of low-magic settings, it allows the melee battles to take precedence over magic battles. I just find that flinging swords and trading blows is more fun than watching lazers come out of people's fingers. Of course, I still love magic...I guess that's why I mixed swordfighting and magic in my book.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 30, 2016)

Halberds and crossbows are specific to certain periods and combat styles and don't really lend themselves well to the typical fantasy tale, which is about an individual or small group. The halberd is awesome for certain things, and at the peak of plate armor became a dueling weapon, as armor was so good the shield became expendable. But, as a personal side arm... not so much. It is comparable to why people will pack a Glock instead of a Barrett .50 cal. The Barrett and halberd only make sense in certain conditions, they are more suited to war than personal defense, and they're awkward to pack around everywhere you go. The sword is popular to pack around in fantasy for the same reason it was popular in reality, it was one hell of a weapon that combined offensive and defensive abilities into a fairly light and compact space. 

Now, some types of swords are over overrepresented in fantasy, see the broadsword (arming sword), the greatsword, and the longsword, although not every writer understands these well either... the arming sword would be the best to pack around, but once the armor comes off, in cities, lighter swords, such as rapiers and smallswords would dominate, depending on period and setting of course.

The crossbow, again, isn't well suited to the typical fantasy tale. Great weapon of war, and for hunting, you bet! And while a light crossbow has a decent rate of fire, anything really capable of punching bolts through heavily armored critters or men is going to be slow and more suited to warfare. Of course, neither bow and crossbow are really suited to city-scapes. I've owned both, and even with a modern crossbow, I'm sticking to the simplicity and relative speed of the longbow. 

Good old spears could use more scene time in fantasy. Awesome weapons.

Now, in a realistic D&D style monster filled fantasy setting, the pole-arms really should be better represented in group combat. If in a small group fighting a fifteen foot 2 ton troll, a reach weapon to keep that troll at point is a good idea, LOL.





valiant12 said:


> I love nono bots and bio punk. My first attempt at writing a novel has a lot of bio punk and all kind of nano base technology. It’s not yet finished , but someday I will finish it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 30, 2016)

I'm with Chesterama, part way.

Not liking a sub-genre hardly means that someone can't think of fantasy as something else. People like what they like, and on this Earth we have limited time. I just don't care about anything outside my tastes.  Why in God's name would I read werewolf stories if I think they're stupid? Cyberpunk? Spoon meet gag reflex. Wizarding school? Large-spoon meet gag reflex. I love that other people get into these things, but ah, hell no, not me. 

It's funny to see someone disparaging castles and knights while complaining about people not "open" to other things. 

On the other, I disagree with Chesterama on it stinging... people being bored by medieval settings is as natural as my being bored to frigging tears by Harry Potter and its ilk. Or, I think the Wheel of Time was a wheel of drudgery. Twilight and paranormal romance? Oh dear God, shoot me now, spoons shoved under my fingernails. Should that sting people who love those? Nope. That's just my taste, LOL.



Chesterama said:


> Seriously? What if it's just that we LIKE reading and writing that type of fantasy? So we're not creative because that's what we prefer? :/
> 
> I've read all kinds of fantasy but I do have my preferences. It kind of stings a little to see other writers call medieval fantasy boring, uninspiring, and generic. I don't like GOT but I respect that my friends love it and at least it gets them reading books.
> 
> All I know is that I work hard, really, really hard to infuse my stories with good characterization, structure, emotion, and the elements of fantasy that I love and have inspired me to write. I do write about elves. I write all human worlds, too. I use mythology in my stories. Heavily so. I care about my target audience and what they want. So I guess if that makes me boring, uninspiring and creative to write stories set in medieval Russia using their mythology...so be it. *shrug*


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 30, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Seriously? What if it's just that we LIKE reading and writing that type of fantasy? So we're not creative because that's what we prefer? :/
> 
> I've read all kinds of fantasy but I do have my preferences. It kind of stings a little to see other writers call medieval fantasy boring, uninspiring, and generic. I don't like GOT but I respect that my friends love it and at least it gets them reading books.
> 
> All I know is that I work hard, really, really hard to infuse my stories with good characterization, structure, emotion, and the elements of fantasy that I love and have inspired me to write. I do write about elves. I write all human worlds, too. I use mythology in my stories. Heavily so. I care about my target audience and what they want. So I guess if that makes me boring, uninspiring and creative to write stories set in medieval Russia using their mythology...so be it. *shrug*



No...it's not that that kind of fantasy isn't or can't be interesting. I'm referring to how many people don't seem to think of fantasy as anything else. They think that fantasy is always medieval with elves and wizards. There's nothing wrong with that, just I really appreciate variety and out-of-the-box thinking.

I never said that medieval type stories are boring or uncreative...they just might seem boring to me, lol. And that's okay because I don't have to read them.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 30, 2016)

valiant12 said:


> I love nono bots and bio punk. My first attempt at writing a novel has a lot of bio punk and all kind of nano base technology. It’s not yet finished , but someday I will finish it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I mean by disliking kings is I don't like stories that either focus on them as characters, or focus on large scale conflicts such as those between countries. I prefer my stories to be about average people who somewhat blend into the larger scheme of things. I like my conflicts to be personal, not country-sized.

Not saying a king can't have personal conflicts...I just would rather read about those on bottom than those on top.


----------



## La Volpe (Oct 30, 2016)

I don't care for grimdark, and anything terribly gritty, really. Most politics in books bore me a bit, so if it goes on too long, it loses me. I generally thought that I don't like urban fantasy, but I like Jim Butcher's Dresden Files and Dan Wells's John Cleaver books, so there's that. I like some YA, but a lot of it (these days, at least) makes me do eye rolls occasionally throughout the book; but I do finish them.

But besides that, I generally give pretty much anything a chance. Bring on castles, ninjas, pirates, swords, halberds, guns, FTL travel, zombies, vampires, werewolves, dinosaurs, dragons, time travel, dragons that time travel (ala P.E.R.N.), etc.

Some examples: I couldn't manage to get through _Neuromancer_ or _Assassin's Apprentice_, despite both being regarded as great books. And I never bothered with Game of Thrones, because 85% of it seems to be boredom and politics.

I've found that I like books that concern themselves with being enjoyable to read, rather than focusing on being realistic or meaningful (both of those aspects are, of course, necessary, but I don't think they should be the focus).


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2016)

I think the op was meant for us just to state our preferences to show how different we all are. My personal preferences are not an attack on anybody. 

Cheesie, I would love to read your work because it's your work and I like you. I would read your work as a friend and be fascinated by it and probably enjoy it emensly. I followed your story on your blog and really enjoyed it. But when I only have $12 in my hand and I have to pick a book off the shelf at the book store I have certain preferences that I love, as do you.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 30, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I think the op was meant for us just to state our preferences to show how different we all are. My personal preferences are not an attack on anybody.
> 
> Cheesie, I would love to read your work because it's your work and I like you. I would read your work as a friend and be fascinated by it and probably enjoy it emensly. I followed your story on your blog and really enjoyed it. But when I only have $12 in my hand and I have to pick a book off the shelf at the book store I have certain preferences that I love, as do you.


Exactly, we should avoid jumping to conclusions on other people's messages. As the connotation, meaning, or tone could come off as different due to us having this disscussion in text. It's all friendly fun times [emoji1] 

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 30, 2016)

Yes, exactly, much like I'd read a pirate in the subway story by Helio... but in the store? Nope, not really. I will read anything if I have an interest, but once in the book store where the writer's name on the spine might as well be XYZ, my tendency is going toward what I know I like...

And I'm reading Malik's book (here and there, time is a tricky thing) because he's on these boards. Otherwise, a portal story... highly likely I skip it. 



Heliotrope said:


> I think the op was meant for us just to state our preferences to show how different we all are. My personal preferences are not an attack on anybody.
> 
> Cheesie, I would love to read your work because it's your work and I like you. I would read your work as a friend and be fascinated by it and probably enjoy it emensly. I followed your story on your blog and really enjoyed it. But when I only have $12 in my hand and I have to pick a book off the shelf at the book store I have certain preferences that I love, as do you.


----------



## glutton (Oct 30, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Now, some types of swords are over overrepresented in fantasy, see the broadsword (arming sword), the greatsword, and the longsword, although not every writer understands these well either... the arming sword would be the best to pack around, but once the armor comes off, in cities, lighter swords, such as rapiers and smallswords would dominate, depending on period and setting of course.



Hmm well if the character travels around a lot and their primary weapon is a great/long/broadsword, you wouldn't really expect them to trade it in for a lighter sword when they enter cities.

As for packing around a halberd/.50 cal that would also depend on how much heavy fighting the character expects to be in or what type of opponents they feel a need to be prepared for no? Like if they might fight big monsters on the road they probably won't feel as safe just carrying a rapier, knives or other small personal defense weapons. And also if the big weapon is their primary weapon or a big part of their image as a leader or famed figure etc. XD


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 30, 2016)

Hmm, apparently I did a poor job of getting my point across, which really wasn't in line with the rest of this thread anyhow, LOL. The notion of a primary weapon is interesting, and rapiers wouldn't even exist in many settings. But, instead of derailing this thread, I'll just move on rather expanding. 



glutton said:


> Hmm well if the character travels around a lot and their primary weapon is a great/long/broadsword, you wouldn't really expect them to trade it in for a lighter sword when they enter cities.
> 
> As for packing around a halberd/.50 cal that would also depend on how much heavy fighting against what types of opponents the character expects to be in no? Like if they might fight big monsters on the road they probably won't feel as safe just carrying a rapier, knives or other small personal defense weapons. And also if the big weapon is their primary weapon or a big part of their image as a leader or famed figure etc. XD


----------



## glutton (Oct 30, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Hmm, apparently I did a poor job of getting my point across, which really wasn't in line with the rest of this thread anyhow, LOL. The notion of a primary weapon is interesting, and rapiers wouldn't even exist in many settings. But, instead of derailing this thread, I'll just move on rather expanding.



Ah, I guess you probably meant more 'as armor becomes obsolete' technological era-wise more than 'when the characters take off their armor'.

I would still disagree with the halberd point considering you said yourself halberds made a good dueling weapon in heavy armor, there are plenty of 'typical' fantasy stories that lend themselves to a lot of fighting in heavy armor/against heavily armored opponents. How many 'dark lords' don't have heavily armored troops? XD 'Typical' fantasy commonly features war scenes anyway.

As one might expect characters in my stories tend to go around prepared to fight big monsters or armored opponents at a moment's notice, they would feel pretty bad if they saw a family being attacked on the road by a 20' ogre or something and weren't ready to jump in and help lol.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 30, 2016)

I was only reacting to the comment made about medieval style fantasy being boring, uninspiring, and dull. I mean, heck...there are many fantasy subgenres I dislike but I don't go saying that about them. People like what they like and I respect their tastes. These are public forums and I think it's just common courtesy to not diss other people's preferences. If I had $12 to spend on books, I wouldn't go to a bookstore. I'd hit up my $10 Kindle Unlimited subscription and get 10 ebooks for that price in genres I enjoy reading, by authors I enjoy reading. Granted, I do read more Indie than trade books not just because they're cheaper but I have found some favorites by stepping outside the box. But I don't go saying that people who still go to bookstores are dinosaurs now, do I? 

And sometimes, authors surprise us. I accidentally bought a werewolf paranormal book once and out of curiosity read it all the way through. It was good! Not my first choice but I'm glad that I accepted the challenge. Kings and queens and castles have their own charm for those of us who still love that stuff.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 30, 2016)

Well, I was throwing many things together while contemplating the under represented weapons in fantasy and why some might be under represented, and why swords were heavily represented in reality over time... they were the sidearm, easy to carry and extremely effective.  But it's all neither here nor there really, LOL.



glutton said:


> Ah, I guess you probably meant more 'as armor becomes obsolete' technological era-wise more than 'when the characters take off their armor'.
> 
> I would still disagree with the halberd point considering you said yourself halberds made a good dueling weapon in heavy armor, there are plenty of 'typical' fantasy stories that lend themselves to a lot of fighting in heavy armor/against heavily armored opponents. How many 'dark lords' don't have heavily armored troops? XD 'Typical' fantasy commonly features war scenes anyway.
> 
> As one might expect characters in my stories tend to go around prepared to fight big monsters or armored opponents at a moment's notice, they would feel pretty bad if they saw a family being attacked on the road by a 20' ogre or something and weren't ready to jump in and help lol.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Oct 30, 2016)

I don't have any preferences, I don't think. I mostly go on kicks of particular authors/genres/etc. My current obsession is xianxia, probably gonna get bored and move on to something else when ISSTH gets translated completely.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 30, 2016)

TheKillerBs said:


> I don't have any preferences, I don't think. I mostly go on kicks of particular authors/genres/etc. My current obsession is xianxia, probably gonna get bored and move on to something else when ISSTH gets translated completely.


I've been thinking of starting ISSTH but I don't know how long it takes till the story picks up. So far, it's been taking way too long. I hear that later on, it's kind of like if a Dragonball novel was written.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## TheKillerBs (Oct 30, 2016)

I have seen in many places that ISSTH starts slow but I never thought so. The beginning was fine for me; it was the second book that felt boring and slow.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Oct 30, 2016)

This is actually a very interesting question for me right now because I've been thinking about it a lot and I think that I've sort of outgrown my old tastes without realizing it. Awhile ago I picked up a book I'd been reading but took a long break from due to life getting in the way and realized I had no desire to finish it and that while I've read plenty of books I've enjoyed in the past I'd have trouble coming up with a top 10 that I really loved. Thus began my search to figure out what exactly I want to read and write. I feel as though I'm discovering fantasy all over again to be honest. 

I think I've always had a strong preference for fantasy that evokes a sense of place. I love stories about creepy woodlands, magic schools, bizarre cities. I don't really care that much what it is so long as the setting itself is a character and comes to life. I think this is why Tolkien works so well for me but none of his successors really have. They take his setting but they don't make it come alive the way he did.

I like a certain type of urban fantasy where the magical realm isn't really hidden, just most people fail to see it for whatever reason. I absolutely hate government cover up stories. I like the idea of there being something magical about the dangerous parts of the city people don't like to talk about. I guess that ties into another of my preferences. I like magic to be a hostile thing. I want it to be something wild and dangerous and generally I'm not a fan of the 'friendly wizard' character with the exception being I really like magical school stories.

I confess I avoid books with main characters who are teenage and female. I will read books with female MCs and books with teenage MCs but stories that have an MC that is both tend to either just not be my cup of tea or the MC is written poorly or they're technically a teenager but read as older. I also avoid books chosen one plots and dragon rider stories.

I have a soft spot for certain tropes. I love the dark brooding assassin/spy, the drug addicted anti-hero. I'm a huge fan of political intrigue that is not centered around the royal succession. I also seem to really enjoy military fantasy. I really like to read about the grim reality of the everyday fantasy world dweller. In general I'm not a huge fan of portal fantasy. There are exceptions, but this is the one place where I don't want the MC to be an average Joe. I tend to prefer smaller scale, urban based fantasy to sweeping travel epics. I prefer my fantasy stories to either be low technology or low magic or both. I'm not a huge fan of science vs magic stories.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 30, 2016)

Oh man I forgot about the chosen one trope!! I love that one. There is something about the thought of here I am minding my own business when Bam! Destiny comes calling. I know people hate that but I love it.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 30, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Oh man I forgot about the chosen one trope!! I love that one. There is something about the thought of here I am minding my own business when Bam! Destiny comes calling. I know people hate that but I love it.


Don't worry. I love it too [emoji6] 

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 30, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Oh man I forgot about the chosen one trope!! I love that one. There is something about the thought of here I am minding my own business when Bam! Destiny comes calling. I know people hate that but I love it.



Me? I can't stand the chosen one trope. I feel like it completely undermines the idea that you have to *choose* to be a hero, to challenge the status quo, to fight against evil, instead of just staying in your comfort zone. It makes the outcome have a predetermined feel. Destiny is uninteresting to me. When characters have to choose for themselves whether to be a hero or a villain, when there is no saying how things will turn out...that is far more interesting to me.


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 30, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Me? I can't stand the chosen one trope. I feel like it completely undermines the idea that you have to *choose* to be a hero, to challenge the status quo, to fight against evil, instead of just staying in your comfort zone. It makes the outcome have a predetermined feel. Destiny is uninteresting to me. When characters have to choose for themselves whether to be a hero or a villain, when there is no saying how things will turn out...that is far more interesting to me.


I don't think destiny is necessarily as dry-cut as you describe it, there can be alterations along the way, that onw wasn't expecting. Also, the Chosen One usually ends up choosing to accept his role in the universe, despite probably hating it in the beginning. It can be a narrative of acceoting responsibilities and duties that have been thrusted upon you, rather than being selfish and ignoring them. I also feel it really is a natural character type that is ingrained to the human psyche, as a natural antithesis to the concept of evil.

I think the chosen one has a symbollic edge when it comes to narrative, and I enjoy the trope most when people play around with it. Like in Wheel of Time where Rand discovers that being the Chosen One kind of sucks. Sucks REAL bad.

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 30, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> I don't think destiny is necessarily as dry-cut as you describe it, there can be alterations along the way, that onw wasn't expecting. Also, the Chosen One usually ends up choosing to accept his role in the universe, despite probably hating it in the beginning. It can be a narrative of acceoting responsibilities and duties that have been thrusted upon you, rather than being selfish and ignoring them. I also feel it really is a natural character type that is ingrained to the human psyche, as a natural antithesis to the concept of evil.
> 
> I think the chosen one has a symbollic edge when it comes to narrative, and I enjoy the trope most when people play around with it. Like in Wheel of Time where Rand discovers that being the Chosen One kind of sucks. Sucks REAL bad.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk



Personally, I think it's been played around with, subverted, and sub-subverted so much we should just let it be. 

It does seem to be a theme the human heart is naturally attracted to. Not mine, lol, but throughout history...


----------



## Netardapope (Oct 30, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Personally, I think it's been played around with, subverted, and sub-subverted so much we should just let it be.
> 
> It does seem to be a theme the human heart is naturally attracted to. Not mine, lol, but throughout history...


I dunno, I think it gives a romantic view of heroism that modern fantasy has abandoned. (And which I consequently, would like to see return)

Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Personally, I think it's been played around with, subverted, and sub-subverted so much we should just let it be.
> 
> It does seem to be a theme the human heart is naturally attracted to. Not mine, lol, but throughout history...



Yep. My human heart is  

I think maybe because I'm in my 30's, I have two kids, I have a job I go to every day. I wake up with the same man (I love) every day. I do the same chores in the same order every day... And one day I would love it if some random alien showed up and said "Oh! Helio! We have been searching for you across the galaxy for two thousand years! You and only you can save us from destruction!" 

There is just something about that. Breaking up the monotony. Learning I'm special in some way I never knew. That was always very appealing to me as a kid and is still appealing to me now. 

Harry Potter is sort of a "chosen one", in that he really is the only one who can destroy Voldemort, and I think that was what I loved best about the stories. Here is this kid, nothing special, going about his sucky daily life, then BAM! He is suddenly special and important. I think a lot of people sort of wish for that a bit sometimes. 

And I think you are probably right about it being a heart tug theme through history. The lives of most people in history would have been pretty monotonous. The same chores on the same farm every day. No hope of leaving the village. Destined to marry the boy who lives down the lane because he is the only boy your age in the entire county. I can see how a story about a bigger destiny would have appeal.


----------



## glutton (Oct 31, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Me? I can't stand the chosen one trope. I feel like it completely undermines the idea that you have to *choose* to be a hero, to challenge the status quo, to fight against evil, instead of just staying in your comfort zone. It makes the outcome have a predetermined feel. Destiny is uninteresting to me. When characters have to choose for themselves whether to be a hero or a villain, when there is no saying how things will turn out...that is far more interesting to me.



I like the type of twist where the chosen one fails because the villain is so awesome they spit in the face of destiny, but then the actual protag succeeds and overcomes the villain because they are even more awesome. Which I've done in one of my books XD


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Oct 31, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Oh man I forgot about the chosen one trope!! I love that one. There is something about the thought of here I am minding my own business when Bam! Destiny comes calling. I know people hate that but I love it.



My problem with the chosen one trope is that there's usually no good reason why the main character is the only person who can do x and also in my experience with those types of books the MC often has no stakes in the conflict until after he/she is dragged into it.  

If all of those things can be avoided then chosen one plots are fine with me. After all I loved Harry Potter and I'm a sucker for a reluctant hero. Sadly most of the chosen one stories I've read have done one of the above.


----------



## La Volpe (Oct 31, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Personally, I think it's been played around with, subverted, and sub-subverted so much we should just let it be.
> 
> It does seem to be a theme the human heart is naturally attracted to. Not mine, lol, but throughout history...



But all tropes have been played around with, subverted, and sub-subverted lots of times. There's nothing new under the sun, and all that.

I think the Chosen One is about the ordinary becoming extraordinary. I.e. this normal person who is just doing normal person things now suddenly has to go on a trip to save the world. So in almost all the Chosen One stories, you'll have a person being thrown into a world they're unfamiliar with. A farmboy becomes a warrior kind of thing.

While if a person just chooses to fight against evil, several things are in play. One, they're probably not that ordinary (or they're not going to make a huge difference/the badguy isn't all that strong), and two, they have have no idea what needs to be done. I.e. A "destiny" or "prophecy" or whatever is going to give them direction. And often in Chosen One stories, the evil is hidden. I.e. some symptoms are present (e.g. evil spectres spotted every now and then), but while the evil badguy regains his power, most people don't know what's really going on.

Ergo, if you want a story with a powerful badguy who is still waiting to make his move, and a brown-haired everyman main character thrown into a plan to save the world, then the Chosen One trope (to whatever extent) is a very good option to go with (not the only one, but a fairly solid one, I'd expect).

While I can understand not liking the whole theme of mundane to extraordinary, I don't understand your reasoning. The hero still chooses whether or not to go save the world. There's just more information available. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Also, since the Chosen One trope is essentially about the ordinary becoming extraordinary, just like the Portal Fantasy, I'd expect that people who hate one will hate the other as well (and vice versa).


----------



## Chessie (Oct 31, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Me? I can't stand the chosen one trope. I feel like it completely undermines the idea that you have to *choose* to be a hero, to challenge the status quo, to fight against evil, instead of just staying in your comfort zone. It makes the outcome have a predetermined feel. Destiny is uninteresting to me. When characters have to choose for themselves whether to be a hero or a villain, when there is no saying how things will turn out...that is far more interesting to me.



They do choose for themselves. The inciting incident? The first plot point? Yeah...those are the places where the main character chooses to follow the path that's been presented to them. They can say no. And the chosen one trope (which I also adore) comes hand in hand with character development. Story relies on character arc. The chosen one is a plot trope. Two completely different things that work hand in hand. At no point in time does a chosen one trope mean that the character isn't doing anything. If that's the case, then the author doesn't know a basic element of story structure.

Idk if I mentioned this but I'm not into realism when it comes to fantasy. That's why I read historical fiction (to get my realism fix on). But in fantasy? Anything goes. I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched Return Of The King. I love magic heavy worlds where there's no explanation for anything...it just happens. I don't need to know the science behind the magic. I just want to know that it's there and it's dangerous. I love magic so much that I won't read fantasy books that have little of it (looking at you GOT). I mean...Joe Abercrombie gets a pass because he's hot a great writer but anyone else...shafted lol.


----------



## glutton (Oct 31, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Idk if I mentioned this but I'm not into realism when it comes to fantasy. That's why I read historical fiction (to get my realism fix on). But in fantasy? Anything goes. I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched Return Of The King. I love magic heavy worlds where there's no explanation for anything...it just happens. I don't need to know the science behind the magic. I just want to know that it's there and it's dangerous. I love magic so much that I won't read fantasy books that have little of it (looking at you GOT). I mean...Joe Abercrombie gets a pass because he's hot a great writer but anyone else...shafted lol.



I like low realism but without a high amount of magic ie. physically over the top heroes like Beowulf who can swim for a week and rip off the arm of Grendel who carried away 30 men because he has that much God-given strength lol. My non-newbie MC girls tend to be much that way, able to match or overpower huge men, battle giant monsters in melee, deflect crossbow bolts or bullets with a sword, move faster than normal people can track, survive being impaled etc. with no explanation other than they're just that stronk XD

Also if my settings were high magic I would have to boost their superhuman abilities even more to not be overshadowed by magic lol. Melee fighters forever!


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2016)

I agree with you Chessie, in terms of traditional fantasy. If I am going to read traditional fantasy, like LOTR, or my all time guilty pleasure, the Sword of Truth Series (so bad! I know, I read it when I was 14 and absolutely loved it so it will forever be my guilty pleasure) I also love when it is over the top with no need for explanation. I think that was why I was not super interested in the Silmarillion because it tried to explain everything that was perfectly fine with no explanation. 

Sword of Truth was so fun because of this... I'll never forget my favorite character the 'Silph". She was a gorgeous woman made entirely of quicksilver who lived in a well hidden at the very bottom of the vast Wizard's keep. When you hop into the well she will, in a seductive voice, tell you to breathe her in. When you do that the well becomes a sort of portal to other places in the world that her well is connected to, so she will carry you to another well hidden somewhere in the world. The only explanation for her was that thousands of years ago she was a prostitute and the wizards needed a quick way to travel so they used magic to turn her into the Silph. 

That was all I needed. I was so captivated by the whole idea of it that I bought in hook line and sinker. lol.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 31, 2016)

Well, magic in GoT grows constantly, and it's always there subtly, similar to LoTR where magic really isn't that prevalent. Both of these worlds are magic in themselves... the long winters are magic, not science, according to GRRM. LoTR the biggest magic is subtle, background, or it's already happened (the creation of the One Ring). 

One of the funniest quotes I remember from GoT starting on HBO was from Peter Dinklage (apparently before they filmed the first season and before he read the whole first book) where if I recall correctly he looks at GoT as a realistic fantasy and it doesn't have dragons... Uh, what? wait? So, I have a similar reaction to people saying there is little magic in GoT. It's all over the damned place, it kills people, brings them to life, powers the undead... etc etc. Of course some folks love fireballs exploding and lightning bolts flying, yeah, me too, but I also appreciate really subtle magic systems. Mine is a tweener, there's pyrotechnics but most of the time magic is subtle, until there is a giant whamo. But all the time, magic is everywhere... It just fades into the reality of the setting as with LoTR and GoT.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 31, 2016)

And the smart ass in me just has to say it... all heroes in fiction are the chosen one... by the writer! heh heh. Not a damned thing those po' smucks can do about it, neither.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2016)

^^^^^ So true! 

I remember as a kid wondering why it was always the main character who ended up being the hero. How did the author know to pick that character and not another character? lol. I was so dumb. 

I also wondered why no one ever had to stop to pee in stories.


----------



## glutton (Oct 31, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I remember as a kid wondering why it was always the main character who ended up being the hero. How did the author know to pick that character and not another character? lol. I was so dumb.



In my newbie-MC stories the MC doesn't necessarily get to be the 'hero' in terms of being the main person to save the day or beat the biggest opponent, sometimes I have an older/more experienced supporting character fight the strongest enemies while the MC might fight a weaker opponent or do something else in the final confrontation. Like in one the MC beats the main villain, but when the godlike being the villain is trying to revive awakens anyway, the super strong mercenary girl who she met earlier steps in or in my most recent WIP the princess supporting character fights the toughest opponents, the MC just talks her down from doing a wrong thing in the end. I like to avoid the 'inexperienced MC surpasses all the more established characters just by being the MC' trope' most of the time.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 31, 2016)

Also, the Chosen One trope is in fact the Hero's Journey. I guess when Joseph Campbell says it, it's profound, but when others use it, it's ordinary.

It's been said a hundred times in these forums but it bears repeating: there are no bad tropes, there is only bad writing.

The corollary of this is: people use the word "trope" as a shorthand way of saying "I have read far too many badly written stories that use this."


----------



## Chessie (Oct 31, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> ^^^^^ So true!
> 
> I remember as a kid wondering why it was always the main character who ended up being the hero. How did the author know to pick that character and not another character? lol. I was so dumb.
> 
> I also wondered why no one ever had to stop to pee in stories.



Hey! I though that, too! Of course now we probably all choose our heroes for different reasons. Btw I'm currently watching a Star Wars marathon with my husband and just had to make the comment that Luke is the greatest chosen one of all time. Lol. Oh, and Frodo as well. The chosen one trope has been used in some of our favorite all time stories. And to end on an interesting sidenote, I think it was last year or the year before where my Indie author group tried figuring out why a particular poorly written chosen one trope fantasy book had made it to the top of the Amazon lists. We all agreed that readers love the chosen one. I know I do. It's why I was so freaking obsessed with Skyrim and played 2000+ hours. We all like to imagine we're THE one.

Edited to add that to me, the word "trope" means a specific element of story depending on genre. Cliche is more along the lines of "ugh, I've seen this done soooo many times". At least that's how I differ them in my mind.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 31, 2016)

When threads like these pop up, I often feel like I don't know my preferences well enough to really articulate them. I know what I like to read, and I know what I like to write, and the two don't necessarily mix.

Well, I do like urban fantasy - both reading and writing - but that's a pretty vague concept. 
 - The main draw is the mixture of the modern and the fantastic and I really enjoy the contrast between the two.
 - I enjoy reading stories with a female protagonist, but I don't know that I prefer either gender over the other.
 - I like a bit of romance, but I'm happier when that's not the main focus of the story.
 - I don't mind if I'm not the target audience for the story, but if I'm too far off the chart it becomes difficult to enjoy it.
 - I like when I discover some new concept or a new take on some otherwise familiar concept.
 - I like happy endings - but I don't necessarily write them myself.
 - I'm not too keen on sadness and misery - but that doesn't mean I don't write it.
 - I want things to be believable, but they don't have to be realistic.

There's obviously exceptions to all of the above, but in general I think it's  fairly decent indication of my preferences.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 31, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> ^^^^^ So true!
> 
> I remember as a kid wondering why it was always the main character who ended up being the hero. How did the author know to pick that character and not another character? lol. I was so dumb.
> 
> I also wondered why no one ever had to stop to pee in stories.



Wondering why nobody pees in books isn't a dumb question


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 31, 2016)

Svrt brought up something important. Do you write the things you love to read about, or is there difference? 

In my case, I think there is. I think I try to write tropes I haven't liked because I've never seen them done in a way that suits me, but in my own writing I can make myself like it. I also think some things are fun for me to write, but not to read. 

I know for sure there are things I love to read, but would never enjoy writing.


----------



## glutton (Oct 31, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Svrt brought up something important. Do you write the things you love to read about, or is there difference?
> 
> In my case, I think there is. I think I try to write tropes I haven't liked because I've never seen them done in a way that suits me, but in my own writing I can make myself like it. I also think some things are fun for me to write, but not to read.
> 
> I know for sure there are things I love to read, but would never enjoy writing.



I write stuff that I don't read much of because there isn't much of it out there, at least not easily found.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 31, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Hey! I though that, too! Of course now we probably all choose our heroes for different reasons. Btw I'm currently watching a Star Wars marathon with my husband and just had to make the comment that Luke is the greatest chosen one of all time. Lol. Oh, and Frodo as well. The chosen one trope has been used in some of our favorite all time stories. And to end on an interesting sidenote, I think it was last year or the year before where my Indie author group tried figuring out why a particular poorly written chosen one trope fantasy book had made it to the top of the Amazon lists. We all agreed that readers love the chosen one. I know I do. It's why I was so freaking obsessed with Skyrim and played 2000+ hours. We all like to imagine we're THE one.
> 
> Edited to add that to me, the word "trope" means a specific element of story depending on genre. Cliche is more along the lines of "ugh, I've seen this done soooo many times". At least that's how I differ them in my mind.



I love Star Wars. Some of my favorite stories have involved a Chosen One. However, I usually don't like the trope when I come across it. 

I just think it impedes the realism. Or something. I always hated the Chosen One aspect of Harry Potter, though I love Harry Potter. I often don't like protagonists that are special, or anything more than average, really, which is one reason it can irk me (there's something different or special about this person that makes them the only one qualified to beat the bad guy). I also hate prophecies (haaaate them). And royalty reveals. (Royalty reveals are the worst.) and special snowflake powers. (I'm kind of guilty of this in my WIP, admittedly. Lots of the characters have powers. But hers is kind of rare, and scary.) 

I don't know...I just prefer my protagonists to be people who are trying to make their way in the world and pursue their goals without some Destiny hanging ponderously over their heads. Just people with lives that could take any direction, and aren't guaranteed to come to anything or not meet a bloody end tomorrow. 

But there is the fact that I can like practically anything if done well. There are just some things I tend not to like in stories. 

I could see myself enjoying a chosen one story where the 'chosen one' wasn't the protagonist. 

Like, if the chosen one was the best friend or the antagonist. Or maybe it would be told like the Sherlock Holmes stories where the real protagonist is the chosen one, but the best friend narrates. Or the antagonist narrates. 

Or, if the chosen one wasn't the first chosen one and he finds out his mentor was the one before him, who failed, (and who was mentored by another failed chosen one, and so on down the line) and there's nothing to suggest the current chosen one will do any better. 

*story lightbulb brightens steadily*  

And the mentor is this nasty, crotchety old guy who hates the hero and is really impatient with him and hates his duty of training him, and thinks of throwing in the towel and selling out to the bad guys...

I mean, I could get on board with it, if it was done well enough. *casual shrug*


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 31, 2016)

Prophecy can be done well or poorly, it all depends. It can be a very effective story telling tactic. The typical use, something akin to oh, say, Matrix, is mostly done poorly. It works well for the Matrix because of all the questions of fate and reality surrounding the character and setting. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to remember bad uses of prophecy because I have a bad memory for bad, but I know I've read them. Is Potter prophesied or just chosen one? I didn't read far enough to know, LOL.

When prophecy can make the reader ask WTF in a good way, it's fine or great. Also, consider that a prophecy can give hints to a reader for what to expect from a story: If you've got a genre bending ending or you want to set expectations in the back of the reader's mind so they aren't overly shocked by events (expectation breaking is typically bad in a commercial fiction, recall) a prophecy can be extremely effective for layering plot points into the subconscious of the reader, hopefully making sure the expectation break works.

I have to echo Skip, no trope is inherently bad, hell, no cliche is inherently bad, but lots of ways they are used are. I mean I could say I hate any book with snot-nosed twits waving wands, but that would be an injustice to Potter and snot nosed twits waving wands, I loathe Potter for many more reasons ;P But still, that only means Potter is bad for me, more power to all the folks who love snot-nosed twits waving wands. 

In a sense, the bad guy (a non POV character) is the chosen one in my novel. But, readers may or may not ever get that. He also "wins", but readers may or may not get that either, LOL.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 31, 2016)

It ruins the pages, duh. 



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Wondering why nobody pees in books isn't a dumb question


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2016)

OMG Deme you are on a roll today. 

I love prophesy stories for the same reason I love mysteries or treasure hunt stories... the clues!! Oh my gosh, nothing makes me more excited than being given a few clues and trying to figure out what they mean. I love when a prophecy is abstract, and then by the end, it means something totally different then what I originally thought, or a new twist in wordplay changes the direction entirely. 

Honestly, those are my favorite stories. Favorite. Hands down.

Which brings me to another of my favorite examples of 'fantasy'... Indiana Jones types stories!

I love goofy fantasy adventures like Indiana Jones, or The Mummy, or Lara Croft...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 31, 2016)

Fantasy adventures, yeah, those are just a lot of fun. Indiana's first few flicks were awesome, I recall getting pre-opening tickets to Temple of Doom when I was... young... awesome stuff. Back in my youth, Piers Anthony had a bunch of just plain fun novels. Good stuff.



Heliotrope said:


> OMG Deme you are on a roll today.
> 
> I love prophesy stories for the same reason I love mysteries or treasure hunt stories... the clues!! Oh my gosh, nothing makes me more excited than being given a few clues and trying to figure out what they mean. I love when a prophecy is abstract, and then by the end, it means something totally different then what I originally thought, or a new twist in wordplay changes the direction entirely.
> 
> ...


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 31, 2016)

Yeah, Piers Anthony is awesome. I sort of miss that style. The fun, didn't take itself too seriously style. A style when you could still have sacrificial virgins being rescued by muscle bound adventurers without it being politically incorrect.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 31, 2016)

I volunteer to be rescued by Harrison Ford any day. Carry on. *whistles*


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 31, 2016)

More back to the original intent of this thread... I was just perusing Netflix and certain things just make me say "no" and I suspect they would carry over to novels. If the summary involves:

Vampires, werewolves, super heroes, or zombies... or worse, more than one of the above, I'm pretty much done. I just can't even get into Walking Dead, and it's good... I just can't do these anymore, burnt out.


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 1, 2016)

My preferences are more ... I dunno ... generic, I guess. Give me a hero who is in some way interesting. A supporting cast that moves me--makes me laugh or cry or wring my hands. I'm less interested in villains _per se_; just set before the hero obstacles that are interesting to me and challenging for the hero ("hero" here is independent of gender, race, religion, etc.). I didn't sign up for the antagonist's story, I signed up for the protagonist's story. But the opposition has to be worthy of the hero and of the plot and theme.

Give me a setting that contributes to my love of being swept away. This is why I don't care for "literary" novels. Real life bores me. Take me elsewhere, elsewhen. And if the writing itself is beautiful, that's just pure, delicious icing.

Almost any sort of literature can do these things. Tolstoy does this. Joseph Conrad does this. But when a fantasy author can hit all the bases, that's just plain magical, and that's not a pun. Le Guin. Tolkien. Moorcock. Bradbury (and consider, for a moment, the role of villains in Bradbury's works).

When everything clicks, great fantasy literature resonates more deeply with me than does any other form of literature.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 1, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> My preferences are more ... I dunno ... generic, I guess. Give me a hero who is in some way interesting. A supporting cast that moves me--makes me laugh or cry or wring my hands. I'm less interested in villains _per se_; just set before the hero obstacles that are interesting to me and challenging for the hero ("hero" here is independent of gender, race, religion, etc.). I didn't sign up for the antagonist's story, I signed up for the protagonist's story. But the opposition has to be worthy of the hero and of the plot and theme.
> 
> Give me a setting that contributes to my love of being swept away. This is why I don't care for "literary" novels. Real life bores me. Take me elsewhere, elsewhen. And if the writing itself is beautiful, that's just pure, delicious icing.
> 
> ...



+1  My husband and I were talking about Dostoyevsky and Hugo last night. We agreed that their novels are absolute masterpieces...but nothing strokes the fires within our hearts like fantasy (for me) and post-apocalyptic (for him). Literary fiction has its place in the fiction world. Some of the best books I've read have been literary. Except for the Scarlet Letter but that's another discussion entirely. I do find some literary works interesting but I rather read genre fiction for the simple fact that I read to be entertained. Given a choice between a literary classic and a fantasy...guess what I'm choosing.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 1, 2016)

I believe this may be relevant to the topic of discussion (though maybe not the actual original topic): Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Path of a Hero


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 1, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> I believe this may be relevant to the topic of discussion (though maybe not the actual original topic): Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Path of a Hero



Heeheehee...


----------



## Caged Maiden (Nov 2, 2016)

This is fun...

I LOVE "every person" characters and I hate superman characters.

I'm neutral about talking animals.

I dislike D&D-type settings and characters. If I get the slightest whiff of a "class" or "alignment"...I'm outie. (I did however write a paladin...but "paladin" is a thing from nursery rhymes in my world, and he's both a soldier and a religious fanatic, so...he wants to be a paladin). I promise, it's more interesting than it sounds right now 

I also love religious antagonists. I use both organized religion and cultists as antagonists, and of the two, I think the religious leader of the organized religion is the stronger. Of course, those two things are set in different worlds/ novels, so I have time to rewrite the cultists with more flair. HA.

I hate mention of eye and hair colors so much I rarely mention them at all and it makes me sigh whenever I read them in books. And I could group skin colors into that category, too. I purposefully never mention skin colors, other than saying that a shadow fell over someone's face, or that they were hard to see in the darkened alley. Mostly, because I want a reader to be able to picture whatever they like when they read. My characters could be any skin tone, with a huge range of feature colors, because I tend to describe tone and texture, and leave out color unless it's critical to the story (which is rare). I don't find it distracting if it's a brief mention in a story, but if it's outlandish, it's an immediate immersion-breaker for me. And I have a purple-black mohawk right now...

I don't like humanoid races, especially if they feel like hobbits, argonians, or orcs. I do write a few elves, but I think a more true description would be dryads. I write werewolves and dragons, but don't have a ton of other magical creatures. Pixies, which are carrion-eating pests found in only the wildest places, and once, risen corpses (including dragons). I guess that leads into my next thing...

I don't write monsters because most of my stories take place in towns. I like Historical urban stories. Not modern, but somewhere between the Renaissance and Steampunk. Yeah, that's my thing. So...I hate historical inaccuracy with a passion, and so most of the misinformation in "medieval" settings really makes me put books down. I choose to write a later period because I think they offer more of what I'm looking for. More personal independence for the characters, more opportunity to write about concepts and issues that are pertinent today, and I can use all my weird knowledge to deepen my work and character experiences.

Speaking of nerdy knowledge, I also like to read about things I didn't know. Those moments last with me for ever, I guess. I also like to write them into my books. Good fun.

I'm a sucker for love stories, so every book I write has a love story accompanying the adventure. I don't mind reading stories that don't include romance, but it's my preference. However, I expect a sort of realistic progression. If I have to sit through endless pining, and a couple stolen kisses is supposed to satisfy my need for resolution, there had better be an awful lot of deep moments and emotional gratification attached to the relationship. Not that I expect stories to turn erotic...but I do feel like a balance needs to be reached. I also appreciate romance that unfolds slowly and focuses on friend-love in the end, or letting go, or setting a bird free and having it return. I mean, those are all splendid concepts that can be magical and emotional..and there's no sex. But whatever it all ends up as, I need to have that expectation along the way. A turn for the erotic when you're reading what feels like a light-hearted adventure rife with sexual tension...well, it doesn't feel right, I suppose.

I avoid stories about saving the world, and prefer stories about the human condition. 

I enjoy both quick reads and books that are beautifully written and complex. 

I don't tend to write weapons or fighting, but when I do, I have swords, bows, guns, magic, war horses, randomly grabbed objects...I like it all equally, I suppose. Whatever's right for a scene. And I agree, swords get boring, but that's mostly because most fights I've read were done in books that had D&D themes, and it all felt sort of choreographed and impractical--swinging 20-pound swords around and lopping heads off monsters. In my favorite books, there is little actual fighting, and no one's great with any weapon. In most of the books I write, it's pretty much the same. Some fist fights, a little bit of sword play or the drawing of a pistol...and maybe a werewolf tearing someone up. HA! I much prefer arguing to fighting, anyways. I'm a sword-fighter, so I guess I avoid it a little because I worry I might overdo it if I'm not careful.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 2, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> This is fun...
> 
> I LOVE "every person" characters and I hate superman characters.
> 
> ...



We have quite a bit in common.  

Your Mohawk sounds amazing. Ive been dyeing my hair for over a year...its blue right now. I keep having the urge to do crazier and crazier things with it. I kind of want to do it jet black with flame blue highlights, but I feel like it would look like dishwater after a couple weeks of showers, lol...

Your thing on skin/hair/eye colors: I like to have a clear image of what characters look like, and I like to describe my own. However, I've chosen not to describe my MC's in my current WIP other than than my heroine is short with long, dark hair and my hero has messy hair and a scruffy beard. My readers can imagine them however they want. I like it best that way.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 2, 2016)

As a reader, I am agnostic on character descriptions, so to speak. They can be as detailed or as vague as necessary, particularly with the MC. However, if there are multiple POV characters and they come into contact, it would seem odd that the POV doesn't notice hair, or skin color if it's different. If a POV doesn't note a mohawk, or worse, a purple-black mohawk in a room full of blonds, something is wrong with that. If everybody in a room or culture is blue-skinned and black haired... a POV probably isn't going to note that about every person in the room. 

So, I think it's a note not only what matters, but what makes since for the POV to notice. A character such Sherlock Holmes as a POV probably is likely to notice a lot of details about everybody, so...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Nov 2, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> As a reader, I am agnostic on character descriptions, so to speak. They can be as detailed or as vague as necessary, particularly with the MC. However, if there are multiple POV characters and they come into contact, it would seem odd that the POV doesn't notice hair, or skin color if it's different. If a POV doesn't note a mohawk, or worse, a purple-black mohawk in a room full of blonds, something is wrong with that. If everybody in a room or culture is blue-skinned and black haired... a POV probably isn't going to note that about every person in the room.
> 
> So, I think it's a note not only what matters, but what makes since for the POV to notice. A character such Sherlock Holmes as a POV probably is likely to notice a lot of details about everybody, so...



My POV characters will probably describe other characters. But I doubt they will describe each other. They are brother and sister, they've known each other forever, I doubt they would think it's important to note their sibling's eye color.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 2, 2016)

True, which goes to when it makes sense. My POV's see each other for the first time, so, they note things. It makes sense. 



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> My POV characters will probably describe other characters. But I doubt they will describe each other. They are brother and sister, they've known each other forever, I doubt they would think it's important to note their sibling's eye color.


----------



## spectre (Nov 3, 2016)

I like any plot with a complex society. I also like adventures and while dwarves and such do give me pause, I don't despise those stories. Loved the Giver and found LOTR a bit stretched out. Love Jordan but it takes some willpower to read. I hate the schtick repetitions, I don:t like to be told what I know unless in a quick dramatiic rehash.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Nov 10, 2020)

I like  books to have  bearded characters, representation of minorities, lots of magic, an epic feel, and non-human main characters.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Nov 10, 2020)

Demesnedenoir said:


> broadsword (arming sword),


Broadsword and arming sword aren't the same thing. A broadsword is a basket hilted sword.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 10, 2020)

My one quibble with nonhuman characters (and it doesn’t mean I won’t like them) is that no matter what a writer does they’re still written from a human perspective and therefore more human than not, no matter the quirks. It’s unavoidable. There is no way to not humanize when the writer is human. In this sense, that’s why I hesitate to write from the perspective of a character of a race so inhuman that it’s impossible to write it correctly. In my books the Edan are a sort of alien/elf being, and while I COULD write from their POV, I think it would humanize them too much. i enjoy books from nonhuman POV, but at the same time, it’s just a reskin. Now, when I was younger I was more apt to really get into the nonhuman story.



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> I like  books to have  bearded characters, representation of minorities, lots of magic, an epic feel, and non-human main characters.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 10, 2020)

Again, this is going to depend on who is defining it. There is no hard definition for these things.

I would also add that in general, saying arming sword will confuse a lot of people. The term is becoming more common, but the average reader would probably still blink and not know tif he reference. In fact, if reading a fantasy book and I come across the term broadsword I’m not going to assume a basket hilt. If it’s a sword collector using the term, then I am more likely to think that way, LOL.



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> Broadsword and arming sword aren't the same thing. A broadsword is a basket hilted sword.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Nov 10, 2020)

Demesnedenoir said:


> My one quibble with nonhuman characters (and it doesn’t mean I won’t like them) is that no matter what a writer does they’re still written from a human perspective and therefore more human than not, no matter the quirks. It’s unavoidable. There is no way to not humanize when the writer is human. In this sense, that’s why I hesitate to write from the perspective of a character of a race so inhuman that it’s impossible to write it correctly. In my books the Edan are a sort of alien/elf being, and while I COULD write from their POV, I think it would humanize them too much. i enjoy books from nonhuman POV, but at the same time, it’s just a reskin. Now, when I was younger I was more apt to really get into the nonhuman story.


Well, no. 
1. You could write their psychology as different then a human's
2. Having functioning similar to a human's does not make them human. Nonhuman simply means that their species is not human. It has nothing to do with how "human" they are as a character. I find that most humans tend to equate any characteristics of a person to something human-centric, which I find egotistical on our part. Being a person does not make one "humanized".


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 10, 2020)

We will have to agree to disagree, and it’s a quibble. But, a human cannot write outside of a human psychology as far as i’m concerned, but we’d run into definitions here as well. No matter how hard a human might imagine life from a feline point of view, we cannot. I loved Tad Williams’ Tailchaser’s Song, but... it’s a human imagining the POV of a cat. It isn’t egotistical. it’s more egotistical to think we CAN think as nonhumans. I love that in nature movies. These narrators have no idea what the hell a lion is thinking. Of course humanoids have a wide latitude, which is why I write from the POV of various peoples, and they are “humanized” to one degree or another, but if I want a people to remain foreign and alien, I stay out of their head. In truth, it’s possible to argue that not only can you not write from a nonhuman’s perspective, but you are unable to write from any other human’s perspective. The moment you assign a motivation to any living being, you are interpreting through your own human perspective as influenced by your culture and personal experience. Even writing from the POV of some cultures on Earth... heck, some of those are more alien than a helluva lot of nonhuman cultures in books.

Serial killers are more alien than most aliens. Why did that guy kill that woman? The normal human brain might come up with all kinds of motivations. Heck, we’re pretty much hard wired to do so, but when asked the killer might say something like “her shoes turned me on”. Whoa! I (literally) can’t imagine being turned on by a pair of shoes, let alone that motivating murder.



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> Well, no.
> 1. You could write their psychology as different then a human's
> 2. Having functioning similar to a human's does not make them human. Nonhuman simply means that their species is not human. It has nothing to do with how "human" they are as a character. I find that most humans tend to equate any characteristics of a person to something human-centric, which I find egotistical on our part. Being a person does not make one "humanized".


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Nov 10, 2020)

Being a human and being a person are not the same thing. Just because another species thinks similarly to us does not mean the're 'humanized.' If anything, we're 'elfized'!


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 10, 2020)

Agree to disagree, there are no elves. We as a species created them.



Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> Being a human and being a person are not the same thing. Just because another species thinks similarly to us does not mean the're 'humanized.' If anything, we're 'elfized'!


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Nov 10, 2020)

Fine. Unless the Vikings were correct, elves don't exist. But what about aliens? Aliens exist, and humans sure as heck didn't create them! 























_Also, there is a small chance that elves really did exist, to some degree. _


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 11, 2020)

SF provides richer fodder for this topic. There have been some excellent SF stories with an alien viewpoint. But, at least for me, the more successfully alien, the less engaging was the story. Truly alien means I have no point of reference. Honor, love, treachery, hatred, and so on are meaningless terms, or are rendered so differently that they sound nonsensical, not "true."

I'm fine with non-human characters, but their ethics and emotions should fall fairly close to human, or else their triumphs and failures will mean little to nothing for this reader. At the same time, their physical appearance, their social structures, their religion and politics, their recreations and occupations, these can all vary pretty wildly. They do, in fact, provde the richest ground for the fantasy writer to explore. Tie some aspect over to human emotion, and things get really interesting. Presume, for example, an orc society or a dwarf society. Structure it differently, give it different dynamics. Then ask the question, what does betrayal look like? What does loyalty mean? Now we're talkin'.

As a postscript to my own post, one of the ethics that could really use some exploration is: what would chivalry mean to elves or dwarves or gnomes or trolls? And how might the ethic of one culture clash with another?


----------



## The Dark One (Nov 12, 2020)

skip.knox said:


> SF provides richer fodder for this topic. There have been some excellent SF stories with an alien viewpoint. *But, at least for me, the more successfully alien, the less engaging was the story.* Truly alien means I have no point of reference. Honor, love, treachery, hatred, and so on are meaningless terms, or are rendered so differently that they sound nonsensical, not "true."


Interesting point, and this is a little bit of an obsession with me - to write an alien race profoundly different from our own but also tell an engaging story. I've tried to do that in my next two books, coming out in 2021 and 22.

Mind you, if you imagine a race that has achieved interstellar travel there are certain aspects of their culture that are guessable. They must have some form of co-operative culture, science, personal relationships, superego values and obsessions, economic values and goals etc


----------

