# Easter Egg or Poison Pill?



## ShortHair (Aug 6, 2012)

What will totally put you off a story? The best example may be _Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,_ where it turns out (spoiler) 



Spoiler: IJKCS



the unknown force is people from between dimensions aliens


. If that had been a book, I'd have thrown it across the room.

Are there lines that shouldn't be crossed? Are there lines you won't cross? Are there gimmicks you can't stand?

To put it another way, are there outrageous gimmicks that shouldn't work but do?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 6, 2012)

The _Indiana Jones_ example you cite didn't bother me, because I was expecting it. It is standard Crystal Skull lore (by which I mean fictional pseudo-history that some people believe).

I can't think of any lines that I would say absolutely can't be crossed. I'm open to a writer doing anything so long as it is done well, and I think anything _can_ be done well. There are plenty of cases where writers jump the shark, of course.


----------



## Kit (Aug 6, 2012)

I am really tired of The Great Magical Object that will give anyone vast power, that we are all going to have to quest for and fight over. 

In my story, you have to **WORK** and study and practice to get power. There are not going to be any magic gum machine trinkets.


----------



## shangrila (Aug 6, 2012)

I can give an example, though I'm not sure how exactly to word what he did wrong. Spoilers ahead for the Malazan series, so stop reading if you don't want to know them.

Throughout the entire 9th book, they keep talking about going "unwitnessed", how they're all going to die for a cause that no one will remember them for. It ends with them facing an army of humanoid lizards that have electric bazookas, more or less, and as you can imagine they get mauled. One of their generals dies in the opening moments and a lot more go down when they start fighting hand to hand.

Naturally I assumed most of the characters would have died. It's understandable, since Erikson names about 80 of the sappers and they were right at the front during the battle. But no, they all survive. ALL OF THEM. Well, ok, not all of them. But all of the ones that had been developed as characters, even if only a little. Even the guy who tore his mind to shreds by possessing an insane amount of these bird like creatures manages to survive and, not only that, remain sane. It just felt so stupid I wanted to barf.

But, ok, I can live with that. Even though having them die would make sense, keeping them alive is ok too, 'cause I like most of them. They go on to cross a desert that everyone says is uncrossable. And, surprise, they run out of water about three quarters of the way through. They're all going to die and it's so sad they didn't get to complete their mission and everyone is suddenly falling in love with everyone else (another thing I thought was so contrived...)...but no, these people are named characters, so they can't die. Luckily they have a Deus Ex knife that can raise water up from an underground stream. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

And the cherry on this cake happens right at the end, when all the sappers go off to defend a hill against an army of brainwashed soldiers. They're fighting, and dying, though it turns out they're just buying time for a giant dragon that literally rots the earth it flies over. Naturally, I assumed this was it. This was the place where they'd go unwitnessed, where they'd save the world through their sacrifice.

Yeah...no. 20 sappers make it out and, to my annoyance, they were all of the freaking characters Erikson had bothered to write scenes about. It was just such a letdown and, like I mentioned above, just felt so utterly contrived as to be unbelievable. That, to me, is a line you shouldn't cross. As soon as it all becomes unrealistic, when I realise I'm reading a book, when actions don't lead to consequences and the heroes are never in danger.

Also, using ill-defined magic to solve problems. The Malazan series is guilty of this as well. The last two books, things just...happened. There was no explanation for why this god could do this, or why another couldn't do that. Everything just felt like it was jammed into the box that was the plot.

So, yeah, long rant over. Sorry, I've been holding that in for a while


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 6, 2012)

I once bought a book on a whim at an airport (years before I started using an E-reader). It was an adventure story about a former special forces soldier saving the world & a little girl all at once... can't remember the title. The first chapter was about some object he had to retrieve from a temple, inside a volcano. By the chapter's end, this MC reached into molten lava to pull on a lever that allowed him and a few others to escape a trap. It was meant to be back story to explain why he now had a prosthetic arm.

It was totally unbelievable for me. There's just no way your muscles and tendons would last long enough to grip and pull anything, let alone to ungodly amount if pain from having an entire appendage burnt completely off. Plausibility sent out the window in the first couple of pages. My willing suspension of disbelief soon followed.

The book was left in the magazine storage pocket of the seat in front of me... I never got through the first chapter.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 6, 2012)

> Also, using ill-defined magic to solve problems. The Malazan series is guilty of this as well. The last two books, things just...happened. There was no explanation for why this god could do this, or why another couldn't do that. Everything just felt like it was jammed into the box that was the plot.



But.....I liked the Malazan series!

I do agree that Steven Erikson uses a lot of Dues Ex solutions.  This is the problem with soft magic, without rules you can make anything do whatever you want.  But I don't agree with the "preserving MCs."  



Spoiler: Warning, dead people coming.  Don't click if you've never read the Malazan Series because you will.



All I need to point to is Rake!  There is Dujek One-Arm, Toc the Younger, Whiskey Jack, Gruntle and the most crushing of them all, Coltaine.



That is a lot of people that I loved, especially the last.  I had to put down the book and do some heavy reflection.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 6, 2012)

Ankari:

I agree with you. I had the same reaction with Coltaine. I am just finishing up book six in the series. The magic so powerful it lends itself to some heavy-handed tactics, but so far (I'm finishing book 6) I haven't felt like Erikson has been out of bounds with it. We'll see.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 6, 2012)

I admit I'm bad about not killing my MCs, though I'm not adverse to putting them through living hell. One of my WIPs seems to be gearing toward the death of one important and loved-by-me character... it's just a matter of choosing between two, which one will face death and which one will face a worse fate.


----------



## Kit (Aug 6, 2012)

shangrila said:


> So, yeah, long rant over. Sorry, I've been holding that in for a while



LOL... George RR Martin has made it so fashionable to kill off characters, I think we are all going to be wading in blood up to our knees for at least the next few years' worth of fantasy fiction!

I am killing people left and right... I've already killed four characters and brain-damaged a fifth today, and it's not even lunchtime. It's important for me to establish right from the outset- and keep reminding everyone- that my MC's are doing a very dangerous job in a very dangerous place... so I need to stack up some serious corpses to prove my point.


----------



## Amanita (Aug 6, 2012)

For me, the Deathly Hallows and they way they were used in Harry Potter had such an effect. To me, this felt like one of those "magic works exactly the way that's needed to make an unlikely character win" situations. Especially the whole story on Harry aquiring ownership of the wand which went against everything established in earlier books and didn't even make sense in the context of the last one. 

I don't mind main characters using their powers in a way that they haven't been able to earlier during the final confrontation but it should make sense within the stories rules. It's a problem of rather "open" magic systems where everyhing may be possible such as the one from Harry Potter though. That's one of the reasons why I'm going for a system with various gifts that have limited uses myself. Less danger of that. Systems with more "free" magic like Harry Potter introduce important concepts going to be used in the final early enough so they don't feel like having been pulled out of thin air. It's not easy but it makes such stories much more satisfying.


----------



## ThinkerX (Aug 6, 2012)

I've seen fairly lengthy lists of 'overused' or 'cheat' endings put forth by publishers which pretty much equal automatic rejection.  Ones I can recollect off hand are:

1) It was all a dream;
2) And they called themselves Adam & Eve
3) And then he was born

and on and on.


----------



## Sandor (Aug 7, 2012)

Hi!

I'm very tired to see "dead ends", like the "it's all a dream" kinda thing described by thinkerX.
More than in medieval-fantasy fiction, you can find this clichÃ© in urban fantasy and thrillers, where you're not able to get the truth, because the truth is out of reach. It's definitely "cheating".
It's like you want to "shock" and you're not really able to do it.


----------



## shangrila (Aug 9, 2012)

Ankari said:


> But.....I liked the Malazan series!
> 
> I do agree that Steven Erikson uses a lot of Dues Ex solutions.  This is the problem with soft magic, without rules you can make anything do whatever you want.  But I don't agree with the "preserving MCs."
> 
> ...


Well, (AGAIN, BIG FREAKING SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!), to be fair half of those characters come back. Rake is the only one you can argue stays fully dead, perhaps Gruntle as well (I have a feeling he just wasn't important enough to come back). Toc, Dujek and Whiskeyjack all end up replacing Hood more or less, while it's heavily implied that Coltaine will be resurrected at some point.

Maybe I should clarify. Eirkson doesn't write like Paolini, where his characters can wade into an enemy army and end up without a scratch. But especially in the last few books, he goes to extroadinary leaps to keep some of his main characters alive. I mean, Bottle literally tears his mind to shreds against the Nah'ruk, but is perfectly fine at the start of the next book. Perhaps that was the problem; he showed no qualms with killing off characters, main or otherwise, earlier in the series that it was just such a stark contrast to the last few books.

Personally, I always got the feeling he was just more attached to the later marines than the original Bridgeburners. I never felt as much of a connection with Mallet and Trotts, for example, as I did with Bottle, Smiles and Tarr.


----------



## Telcontar (Aug 9, 2012)

Characters wearing plot armor is a big turn-off for me as well. I just tried to read an indie book where the central characters (villains and good guys both) are constantly getting themselves into highly disadvantaged and dangerous situations, but nobody ever dies. Heck, nobody even gets hurt that badly - though the wounds described often _sound_ bad, the character is always able to walk/run/swim/fly just fine with them, and is completely well in a couple of pages.


----------



## Chilari (Aug 9, 2012)

Similar to what Telcontar says about plot armour, its cousin where the main character has a secret and there are numerous chances for other characters to discover it, but they either never actually do, or if they do, they later forget for whatever reason, or else end up dead. This happens all the time in the BBC Merlin series and it's just so stupid. The worst part is, I thought Arthur finding out Merlin was a warlock while Uther was still alive would have been a really great storyline, Arthur torn between loyalty to his friend (who after all has saved his life so many times) and his father's belief that magic = evil. Great conflict, great drama, and add to Arthur's intenal conflict have Merlin wondering whether to run for his own safety or stay to fulfill his destiny. Potential for others to find out. Potential for big arguments, the number of times Merlin has used magic to save Arthur coming out, maybe Arthur taking a knock to his confidence when he realises how close to death he's been so many times and saved by Merlin of all people. Not to mention the potential to develop their relationship, which hasn't changed in three seasons of the show: Arthur is a dick, Merlin makes witty remark, Arthur makes him clean armour, Merlin saves Arthur's life for some reason.

But no, Merlin's secret somehow remained just that with Arthur and various other characters being conveniently absent, looking the other way, or unconscious (seriously, Arthur has had concussion so many times it's a wonder he can still form coherent sentences.)

The recent (well, most recent) BBC Robin Hood is worse. Robin threatens Sherriff that if he ever hurts anyone he'll kill him, never does, even though the Sherriff overs plenty of motivation and even invites it several times, and Robin frequently has the opportunity, but the Sherriff's plot armour is solid.

The outlaws consist only of those named in the legend - those two outlaws from the first episode that were part of John's gang vanish, as do the faceless others he led, and the only one left dies a few episodes later, the first episode where we learn his name. We also never again see Will Scarlett's brother or their friend from the first episode.

Everything is back to status quo at the end of every episode. It's stupid and full of bad writing. I don't know why I used to enjoy it when it was on TV but recently rewatching it on Netflix has infuriated me and I've finally given up on it.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 9, 2012)

Telcontar said:


> Characters wearing plot armor is a big turn-off for me as well. I just tried to read an indie book where the central characters (villains and good guys both) are constantly getting themselves into highly disadvantaged and dangerous situations, but nobody ever dies. Heck, nobody even gets hurt that badly - though the wounds described often _sound_ bad, the character is always able to walk/run/swim/fly just fine with them, and is completely well in a couple of pages.



Yeah. I'm okay with that for a while (also depends on the tone of the book; a lighthearted adventure romp is different from something that presents itself seriously), but eventually it starts getting old, because there's just no fear that anything bad will ever happen.

And even a protagonist in a long-running series doesn't have to suffer permanent wounds or die; it's okay if they have enough plot armor to always survive to the next book. But they still need to go through adversity, and it still needs to feel like they _could_ die.

For exactly this reason, 



Spoiler: The Queen of Mages



two of the four protagonists in my NIP suffer permanent disfiguring wounds by the end of the book, and I'm planning to kill one of them off eventually  Of course, this series will only run for exactly three books, so it's not like I need to preserve them forever.


----------



## Telcontar (Aug 9, 2012)

It also isn't that bad if main characters simply don't end up in mortal danger much (thereby requiring less suspension of belief due to fewer instances of "surviving" against the odds). Not everyone is a warrior, or the target of assassins. Tension does not need to arise from physical danger.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Aug 9, 2012)

Personally I don't kill off a character if I want to keep writing that character. Other things I don't do: stop reading books I like to read, stop listening to music I like to listen to, and stop kissing my wife.

Seriously, that is "plot armor" to the nth degree, but I could give a--well, the moderators will censor me if I tell you exactly what it is I could give. There's no point telling a story you don't want to tell, and if a character is a reason I want to tell the story then he or she gets to live right up until I change my mind.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 9, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Personally I don't kill off a character if I want to keep writing that character. Other things I don't do: stop reading books I like to read, stop listening to music I like to listen to, and stop kissing my wife.
> 
> Seriously, that is "plot armor" to the nth degree, but I could give a--well, the moderators will censor me if I tell you exactly what it is I could give. There's no point telling a story you don't want to tell, and if a character is a reason I want to tell the story then he or she gets to live right up until I change my mind.



I think this is exactly right. It is important to remember that, as the author, you create the situations the characters find themselves in, and you control the degree of danger. A certain amount of "plot armor" is fine, but if the author puts the character in a situation where survival would strain the reader's credulity to the breaking point, and then has them survive anyway because that's what she wants for plot purposes, I think the author has made a mistake. If you know, for story reason, you want certain characters to survive, then make sure you make their survival realistic. That doesn't mean you can't push everything right to the boundary, and batter, bruise, and torture, them, but in the end you don't want the reader to say "Oh, come on, this is just stupid!"


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 9, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Personally I don't kill off a character if I want to keep writing that character. Other things I don't do: stop reading books I like to read, stop listening to music I like to listen to, and *stop kissing my wife*.



_Ever?_ Man, your lips must be chafing by now.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 9, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:
			
		

> Ever? Man, your lips must be chafing by now.



Even a better question.... How does one do all three simultaneously?


----------



## shangrila (Aug 10, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Even a better question.... How does one do all three simultaneously?


A lot of practice


----------



## Christopher Wright (Aug 10, 2012)

I'll leave any and all speculation to your diseased minds. ;-)


----------

