As an avid fantasy reader and a beginning fantasy writer, I'm curious to see what you guys all hate to see/are sick of seeing in the genre. It can be tropes you're tired of, concepts you've never gotten the point of, POV structures that drive you up the wall, character archetypes (or traits in general) that make you cringe... you get the idea. Just thought it might be interesting to get some varying opinions on this!
"We need this artifact/relic/jewel to break the spell! IT'S THE ONLY WAY." Also, evil beings demanding virgin sacrifice. Like how the hell do you know, evil being? What is the actual difference? edit to add: Enough with the wise sentient dragons holding the keys to your plot's success. May I have a really brutish lizard once in a while?
Haha yes, between the dragons and the vampires it certainly has become fashionable to make traditionally dark creatures not so scary, hasn't it?
The trend of making a 'fantasy name' by just changing one character of a contemporary name. Bonus hate-points when it involves adding a Y. (E.g. Rebecca becomes Rybecca.) I think this is a particularly bad peeve to have because it stalks me through the whole story. Ooh, I just watched the best vampire movie I've seen in ages. It explained the motivation here pretty well: Spoiler Deacon: I think we drink virgin blood because it sounds cool. Vladislav: I think of it like this - if you are going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew no-one had fucked it. - What We Do in the Shadows
I hate it when every minor conversation has to have enormous, earth-shaking implications. For example: (Normal conversation) Fred: Looks like it's going to rain. George: Yep. Gotta make sure the top's up on the convertible. (Fantasy conversation) Fred: Looks like it's going to rain. Gandalf: There's a storm coming ... from Mordor!!
Magic, without consistent rules or used as a deus ex machina. But I also agree with Minstrel- needlessly portentous conversations.
Overly long-winded story-telling. I've not delved too much into "classic" Fantasy style or works, but what I have read always leaves me feeling like the book could have been better told in half the pages. When the writer takes me on some excursion that seems meant only for the sake of look at the grand and majestic world I have built, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story at hand, all I can think is, look at the grand and majestic way I now use your unfinished book as a door-stop or a trivet or a coaster or kindling.
I agree! Since I'm stubborn I will generally muscle through and finish the book, but excessive description for the mere sake of it does get exhausting as a reader.
Can my pet peeve in the genre be with readers? Because it's readers who consistently seek out and read a very narrow sliver of the genre, all of which is fairly similar, and then complain that the genre is all the same. See it all the time in forums, and my thought is always "You need to be better read in the genre." If the only thing you read are LoTR knock-offs, then don't complain that there are LoTR knockoffs
No pet peeves as I haven't read that much of a variety but here's what I'd like - sweet dragons - like Puff ( from the song ) No epic battles - maybe one little battle a narrower view ( instead of someone wanting to save their entire world which is at stake why not one creature trying to make his life better i.e. E.T.- sort of like any other general story ) a lowly sidekick's pov - I loved Without a Clue ( in which Ben Kingsley played the harried but smart Watson to Michael Caine's ditzy Sherlock. ) fluky magic - like the suit in Greatest American Hero - he didn't know how to work it, so he could never count on his/its abilities. X-men drove me up the wall with their paper-rock-scissors fights. Something besides gods, and mythological creatures - I prefer when someone invents their own like the Borrowers or the oompa loompas or Oz's creatures.
Yanno, I'm starting to get really tired of characters where everything seems to happen to them. Like Eragon. He finds this egg, then his cousin leaves, his farm gets burnt down, his uncle dies, he gets attacked constantly, the evil bad guy is his father, so his friend is his brother, then his friend turns on him, and his mother did this, that, and the other thing. It's like they take every possible thing that could happen and throw it at him. It's annoying to me. Can't an MC have a good family, with no mysterious ties, where not every twist is launched at them, one single person? I think that's why I like the Percy Jackson and Heroes of Olympus series. Not everything happens to Percy. Annabeth has her own struggles in the first series, so does Grover and Clarisse and other minor characters. Then the second series, everyone has their own storyline with bad things happening to each of them equally. I don't know if anyone knows what I'm talking about... But it makes sense to me!
Agree. In real life the people that get involved in adventures/disasters make decisions that take them in that direction. Sure the people that get hit by a storm climbing Everst didn't want to be on the edge of death...but they knew that it was a possibility when the decided to make the trip. Reporters in civil war torn countries understand that getting taking hostage is a potential reality. Its very rare to have things simply "happen" to you without some level of responsibility falling on you.
I can name a few: 1. To create a monopoly on the world wide supply of root vegetables and thus become rich. 2. To enable them to repeat the endeavors of Phileas Fogg without need for visas. 3. So that they can have their gurning face emblazoned on a new currency. So many reasons...
The fact that when we've exploited our non-renewables to the end, we're all going to die. The fact that we're abusing anti-biotics, and someday they'll be useless, and most of us are going to die. The fact that many scientists are playing God without knowing what they're doing, and someday they'll make a mistake, and most of us are probably going to die. The fact that someday we'll get somebody even more unstable than Putin, and with the press of a button, we're all going to die. Compared to these scenarios, is a villain wanting to conquer the world to stop any one of these quite so bad?
But what if this villain were the one who wants to exploit our non-renewable resources, abuse anti-biotics, play God with things they know not what they're doing with and are more unstable than Putin? We'd want this villains stopped at all costs, no?
I don't know about anyone else, but I would be terrified- terrified- if I was apprehended by a villain trying to force anti-biotics on me. I shudder at the thought of such a world.
Hmmmmm off the top of my head and so it might not be that good. This villain in this story or well this antagonist is making major headway on the issues. Ya know? I'm digging it he's doing right by the Earth and he's standing up to corrupt forces he's very much got the support of the public behind him. Now our protagonist is I don't know an employee, detective or whatever etc (just whatever ya want in this hypothetical story) But this protagonist uncovers that our antagonist is a rather vile person when not in the limelight and lets say he's some sort of organized crime boss or he murdered his wife in cold blood or something. I don't know. Not very good ideas. But the point is we could do a conflict like where the villain really could make the world a better place but they are up to something bad anyway and thus the conflict could be, do you stop the man that can make the world better or do you let him go with his crimes for the betterment of many? Now that scenario I pitched probably wasn't well thought out or nothing (just being random XD) but I I'm into that concept. similar things have always worked for good tension. To work with or work against the necessary evil in the long run?
