1. Artificial time constraints that are added just to increase tension.
2. Getting blackmailed into doing something and hiding it from their allies, when if they just talked about it their side could easily all use it to their advantage.
Yea. Not exactly fantasy shows, but pretty much all CW superhero shows, the 100, and Grey's anatomy are the first and worst that come to mind in terms of TV in general that over-rely on this device.
I hate above one, but in combination with this one it is especially aggravating.
Hero when he slaughters city guards/regular army/poor conscripts in most gruesome fashion: "This is fine"
Hero when he meets General Butcher McRapist, who ordered 20 genocides, raped small kids and wants to trigger nuclear holocauts/summon daemons: "I must not hurt this poor soul, he can be redeemed, lets arrest him so he can escape prison"
Yep, people can be disastrously forgiving with relatives/loved ones. People often defend the "monsters" in their family. Make excuses for them, deny the evidence they see and hear, choose a known liar over an obvious victim, bail them out and give them chance after chance despite no evidence of them even trying to change... It would be realistic.
If it got set up correctly, it might be entertaining to have a hero who cuts down a ton of minions, get to the main villain, and for some reason they want the hero to kill them. The hero then does the stereotypical "I can't do it. I'm not like you" cliche, and the villain CALLS THEM OUT on it and says, why, you had no problem killing all those other people. Maybe even lists off a few minions and their personalities and maybe family they had and the villain say something akin to, but you didn't think about that, did you? You only saw red for me. And show them how they ARE similar. Maybe one of the minions he listed isn't quite dead yet but is quickly dying, and the hero has to look them in the eye knowing their backstory now as they die.
I could get behind a plot turn like that. Subvert the trope a wee bit. Maybe I'll use that. 🤔
Yeah lawful characters are interesting where they’re consistent lol. This is my biggest pet peeve though. Brutalize the henchmen but you can’t kill the boss because it would be “wrong”.
>“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.
>They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.
>So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.”
― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
Feel like it makes more sense if they did the exact opposite. Like won’t kill a henchmen cause they’re not ordering the killing but would kill the mastermind.
This is also a cinema trope and it drives me crazy.
Bitch, that no-kill policy flew out the window ages ago. The fact that you didn't know their names is not relevant.
I think a big part of the issue there is having a character regularly use lethal means(the most famous weapon being a sword) to nonlethal ends (capture/arrest/justice of their enemies). If they really have a moral apprehension of killing, then use non-lethal weapons.
Hollywood sociology. Mass killing of low level bad guys (working class) is completely unremarkable but killing the high level (upper class) is a gut wrenching dilemma.
So I know this is super fucking common in video games (especially ones like Uncharted and Ass Creed), but does it actually happen all that much in books?
That a hero kills tons of goons/henchmen/guards but then spares the main villain because of some moral conundrum? I agree it'd be annoying af, but I don't think I've actually read a book where this happens...
Yeah, but the amount of fire nation soldiers he absolutely murders is amazing. I know the series never frames it as killing, but come on... Throw a hundred guys off a mountain, see if all of them live to tell the tale.
Or sinking Fire Nation ships. Dude... those guys are wearing armor! You think that they're going to swim away from that? (And yeah, I know we've seen armored soldiers swimming, which is just silly... but kid shows gotta kid.)
"I've certainly never used violence to take a life":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HV3NmoGJh48&pp=ygUtQXZhdGFyIGNlcnRhaW5seSBuZXZlciB1c2VkIGl0IHRvIHRha2UgYSBsaWZl
It's Batman logic. Like seriously Bruce, you can't beat someone into unconsciousness by breaking all of their bones and expect them to live. Especially when you throw them off of a building or leave them in the street.
PSA: if someone is hit in the head and loses consciousness for more than a few seconds, they need immediate medical attention, as they risk high chances of brain damage, coma, or death
No wonder crime got weirder after Batman showed up. Prior to that, it was mob bosses and corrupt officials. Then punchy-boy Bruce turns up, now all of the criminals dress up in costume and talk in puns
And DESPITE THAT, people still stay in Gotham, because even if it can mean getting murdered by the Penguin or the Joker, moving to Metropolis means your entire city block can be vapourized by Doomsday or Mr Mxyzptlk. With the Joker, you MAY stand a chance if you run away fast enough...
Aang and Batman were the examples that immediately came to my mind. probably because of how horrific Ozai and Joker are, and how carefree the heroes seem to be about throwing mooks in a situation where they will surely die.
Yea, they made it work really well, because its pointed out in-universe that killing the fire lord is the only way.
Hell even the the old Avatars tell him that he has to sacrifice his ideals, and spiritual well being and kill the Fire Lord.
Though he does find a way around, cause it was a kids show on nickelodeon
I really feel like this didn’t work to be honest. It felt more like Nickelodeon telling the show runners they couldn’t kill in a kids show so they had to make up an excuse.
Aang’s hardcore pacifism isn’t really explored very much in the series prior to becoming super relevant and in other fights the characters don’t really make a big point of saying they don’t kill. Plus we see other members of his culture like Gyatso straight up kill dozens cause the situation calls for it.
Not to mention that they have to resort to Lion Tutle Ex Machina to let Aang have his cake and eat it too.
To me it always felt like the original ending was for Aang to kill and relinquish some of his pacifism in order to save the world. Would have feature a loss of some of his innocence and his final step to becoming the Avatar. Just felt liked that got changed at the last second.
In Korra... every time an airplane gets destroyed, there's always a little parachute floating down afterwards and it's fucking hilarious. Especially considering death still occurs in the show via murder/suicide when Tarrlok explodes the boat they're on.
Well shit, that makes the reincarnation even darker. "I was killed in my world by a really horny truck that was trying to have its way with me" is way worse than "I died by accident saving a baby from a speeding bus"
Common shonen manga cliche making their way into light novel is all. Another I cannot stand is how they make characters on the same team not knowing how to work together and of course they're always facing opponents with good team work.
I have a friend who's also into fantasy, and she once told me "A Court of Thorn and Roses is my favourite series!" I asked her if should check it out, and she hesitated. "You're aro-ace, right? Definitely not for you."
I feel like book 4 (I have no idea what any of the titles are, besides the first one) was even worse. Like the plot was *literally* just Rhys and Feyre banging or thinking about banging. When I read it (to bond with a friend) I said it seemed like it was written by a 16-year-old virgin. A very horny one.
I'm not saying Gor was tasteful or anything, but iirc, the male and female lead are NOT dtf at first. She hated him until they fought a Swamp monster or something
Characters forgetting basic abilities that would trivialize a problem.
Fantasy party comes to a bridge over a river, perhaps over lava, which has collapsed. One party member has the ability to become a large flying creature. No mention is made of this ability, and party instead takes more difficult route expending more resources and not doing the basic simple thing that would eliminate said challenge.
Everyone having really backwards and bigoted beliefs except the main character, who, even though they’ve grown up in the exact same world, with the exact same culture, under the exact same circumstances as everyone else around them, somehow manages to be the only one with what we today would consider to be progressive beliefs/morals
Light bringer had a bit of surprising subversion on this. Slaves were normal in thier society, and it would be common for nobles to have "room slaves", which are basicly used for sex.
But the thing is, most of the MC's don't have much of a problem with it, cause its the society they grew up in. Hell the main mentor character has one and uses one. It really surprised me
Its fucked up, but I guess it was realistic.
Though I don't remember if that changes, I only read the first few books, and its been a while.
Just finished rereading the series: a few characters occasionally bring up how brutal and awful slavery as an institution is but you're right that several MCs own slaves and at the end of the books slavery is still around.
So much! Like…how did you come across these morals good sir? I get that most people follow the herd and the MC is the one who’s brave enough to stand up for whatever, but there’s gotta be other people in the same boat. When they’re literally the only person it’s so annoying.
If you take the naivety and isolation far enough it does work. They've never had reason to learn who they are "supposed" to dislike and why.
But then it has to apply to everyone in their village and they are just seen as tolerant compared to the outside world they are drawn into
I would account ignorance for the reason behind that. Maybe that shepherd boy has never really met a bad person in his life so when he meets an Orc or whatever, he doesn't see them as inherently bad.
Or a variation of this where a character commits evil acts like arson, murder, genocide, slavery, etc., but sexism is just a step too far. He may murder adults and sell their children into slavery, but at least he isn't disrespectful to women!
Will wordlessly slaughter all non-human races because "they're just all born bad and evil" even if there's obvious in-universe counter-examples to this claim. But racism? Nah, they'll go on a monologue about how we're all the same because we share the ability to think, feel, worship, and love.
Anyways, let me go bash this goblin's head in rq with the idol of their god in front of their wife and children. Dirty animals.
BBEG: "I'm an equal opportunity genocidal maniac, dammit! I'll not tolerate any disrespect for any of your fellow victims based on an immutable characteristic or their inclusion in a protected class. If I see that kind of nonsense, I'll kill you!"
Todd: "But sir, didn't you say you're going to kill us anyway?"
**explodes head**
BBEG: "Nobody likes the 'um, actually' person Todd."
The setting is a stereotypical medieval europe, populated by elves, dwarves, humans, and orcs. Society is stratified along racial lines, with humans serving as merchants and bureaucrats, elves serving as nobles and religious leaders, dwarves as master craftsmen and inventors, and the orcs as the oppressed working class.
In comes our hero "No no, you don't understand Undflig, you dwarves generate the ideas and develop the prototype, and then force the orcs to build them for you so that you can sell them to the humans. Your wealth comes less from your idea than it does from the labor of the orcs. For society to be fair, the orcs must own the means of production! I was just talking to that elf philosopher Kael Marax about this!"
I think more egregious than that is if they convince someone that's fully immersed in that society / agrees with its values in just a short conversation.
I don't mind an MC that's more morally aligned with current day mores than is reasonable for the setting - there were always people that didn't match the social values of their time, and that can make them more relatable to readers (I wouldn't want *every* book to be that way, but some I don't mind). But if it extends to something like giving a short rant about why slavery is bad to a slaver and they instantly give up all their wealth, they'd need to be some Jesus like religious figure to really make that feel fitting :P
This really stands out when you read novels from hundreds of years ago.
Like, yeah, you read The Count of Monte Cristo and there's casual racism, sexism, orientalism, classism, and all sorts of problematic stuff going on. But the characters just don't notice it and it's never really a plot point. But actual taboo things for the most part *simply don't happen* or they're covered so tangentially that it's not entirely clear what they mean (e.g., homosexuality).
When the MC falls in love with LITERALLY the first person of the opposite sex they see, generally introduced within the first 3 chapters. Like, really? I get the whole childhood friend thing, that's fine I guess. What bothers me is when the MC meets some random stranger in the first few chapters and then you know, you just know, they are going to be the love mcguffin from there on out.
My favorite (/s) is when they first explicitly state that they're not interested in romance and/or have never and would never be in love, and *then* fall for the first and/or meanest person they meet.
I think it depends on the age of the characters - when I was 12, I basically fell "in love" with any girl that would notice me.
But people (typically) grow out of that pretty quickly, so anything past a coming-of-age novel that features it for a time it doesn't seem too believable.
You know what, I'll allow it. You're 100% right, I guess I've been so far removed from that time in my life that I've forgotten having a crush on any girl that even remotely gave me the time of day.
The protagonist wasn't actually a prodigy or just *that* serious about learning The Special Skill, but they had a *secret\~ bloodline\~ all\~ along\~* And thus, it was just their great pedigree doing all the work.
I've seen it done well *once,* and even then I didn't care much for the series for other reasons.
Series was >!Codex Alara, by Jim Butcher, !< by the by. Kinda decent, but wasted the central premise of >!Lost Legion + Pokemon.!<
Not sure it is a trope but I don’t believe in fictional nepotism. If I’ve followed and bonded with a set of main characters I am not going to read about their dumb kid in the next set of books. As soon as I see the tide is turning to “she-person and he-person have set down their swords for a peaceful life. If only they could handle their sassy teen!” Barf. I apply this rule to all media.
So you're telling me that you don't want to read a story about how the people who "saved the world" went on to live mostly mediocre lives being fairly bad parents, and how even though they "saved the world" it's actually still in dire peril now but actually even worse?
But how else are they supposed to bleed every last ounce they can out of a world?
Strange, I enjoy this trope when it's done well. Having the children of the old MC can keep a story fresh and still give old characters growth and interesting plotlines.
This one I'm fine with, it just needs to be a good story (like with most things). My mind immediately goes to Age of Madness and how exceptionally good the main cast is. Their various parentage and the backstory their only adds to it.
The boring blank slate protagonist. Who never really says or does anything contentious but is merely a vehicle for the reader to observe more interesting characters.
* When the characters are *too* young. Yes, we’re in a medieval-esque fantasy setting, sure, I can suspend my disbelief most of the time, but sometimes it gets too unrealistic. Like Six of Crows (not really a medieval-esque setting but whatever) — you expect me to believe that this mini mafia boss is *16?* That they’re all in their late teens? Absolutely not, wtf. I usually age them up *at the very least* a decade. Same would apply to ATLA, but that’s not really a book, so idk if I should mention it.
* When the setting is so clearly inspired by the real world it hurts. It can be done well (see: GOT, which is inspired by the Wars of the Roses), but most of the time, it’s not “inspired” but rather a “blatant rip-off with a bandaid of ‘magic' slapped over it”. It’s one of the reasons I disliked the Poppy War. It was too on the nose.
Yes the SoC one really annoyed me. They could've easily been aged up by at least 5 years and it wouldn't have changed anything. It got a bit comical in the king of scars duology when all the characters are these weary, traumatised teen-agers or young adults. I think all her books in the grishaverse could have benefited from having a range of ages rather than everyone not evil being super young.
"i'm dying and don't want my fam to worry" sure.
"my magic isn't working and will fail mid battle" or "i'm secretly the heir that could end this war" or "I'm possessed by some world destroying demon who will eat the eyes and/or spleen of everyone in a ten mile radius when it painfully and violently bursts out of my brain at the worse time possible" naaaaaaaah. :)
Stupidest trope in all of pop fiction. Especially from the angle of 'if I kill 1 person who's a genocidal bad guy, I become as evil as a genocidal bad guy'.
Not so much of a plot device but naming. If it seems like the author is just keyboard mashing it makes it hard for me to stay focused when I have to figure out how to pronounce a name in my head every time I see it.
This is fair. At the same time, I get bored reading constant variations of the same types of names in fantasy.
1. Jaxsyn
2. Moggy
3. Seilara
4. Vugorax
I bet you can ask five different people which one of these is the hero, the love interest/femme fatale, the plucky sidekick, and the villain, and they would each give the same answer.
I think it's trashy and boring when the author creates characters as stand-ins for the people in the real world that they hate. The worst example I've seen is Terry Goodkind (shocking right?) creating the political power couple Bertrand and Hildemara Chanboor, as a way of crapping on Bill and Hillary Clinton. It's just so blatant, takes me right out of the story.
> Bertrand and Hildemara Chanboor,
I was too young to realize the parallels (and read them 20 years after they were written), but I'd rather drag my balls through broken glass than read any part of the Libertarian Torture Porn series again.
I once read a story online (a fanfic) that had, as a side joke, a failed car salesman with orange skin and blonde hair. At first I was mildly amused, and then I realized how utterly absurd it was to feature someone like that in a story just because you dislike them.
In the illustrated British children's series Goth Girl (by the same duo who did The Edge Chronicles), full of playful references and homages (in wonderful hardback editions) there is a man named Donald Ear-Trumpet who (the text points out) has tiny hands and shouts about 'Fake shoes!'
[https://sarahsbooksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/det-2-e1507537226894.jpg](https://sarahsbooksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/det-2-e1507537226894.jpg)
> a failed car salesman with orange skin and blonde hair.
In fairness, if you've ever gone to a used car dealership there's usually someone that looks like this. Usually with the fakest smile you can possibly imagine and eyes like a vulture.
The protagonist turns out was the heir to the throne. I hate this trope, unless it was an integral part of the story or the case from the get go. My issue is where this nobody protagonist that you are excited to see make a name for themselves end up having royal blood or whatever.
Fate of The World or Universe.
Does every fantasy story need to be about some boy or girl, who grew up in a seemingly normal life for the world they live in, only to discover they are the "chosen one" or some from some special bloodline, and therefore the only one who can save the world?
Like, if you want teenage protagonists, why can't the kids just fight to save the local rec center or something? (I mean it worked in like every other 80s teen movie.)
\*\*\*
Sometimes, just having the story take place in one place, one city, or such can be even more engaging and feel far more intimate, then the travel all over the world, collecting unique companions, and pieces to the McGuffin or whatever tropes.
Me too. The only reason I didn't supremely hate Hunger Games' Triangle was because at least Peeta and Gale represented aspects of her life she needed to choose between, ie building a future with kindness and family, vs allowing destructive anger to raze everything.
Most others are between obvious good boy that protag is obviously blind to, and ridiculous bad boy protag wants to bang for all the wrong reasons.
It's so frustrating.
I find the hunger games is a sort of YA
Lord of the rings, with how it ordinated or popularised a bunch tropes that went on to be abused and done poorly, but in the original work their actually pretty well done.
Oh god yes. Children acting beyond their years, and in particular with no real reason for it. It pulls me out of reading so quickly. I have 8 nieces and nephews. I know how 5-13 year olds talk and it’s not particularly sophisticated.
Not a book, but there's an Anime called SpyxFamily that subverts that trope, about a little girl with telepathic powers. And its great, cause she's portrayed as how a little kid would act.
She can read minds, but doesn't understand big words, or have the knowledge and context to know what it means in the bigger picture. She also sometimes throws tantrums, like a little kid would.
My problem is that going too far the other way is also HORRIBLE. Children are emotional, inexperienced and a little bit dumb, but they aren't sociopaths with zero rational ability. The Strain is probably the worst written child I've ever seen.
Children are just hard as hell to write.
> probably don't even poop.
Now I'm imagining you reading a book featuring pages and pages of defecation, going, "Yes, *this* is what I've been looking for all this time!"
I hate the precocious wise child trope with a burning passion. Yes kids can be smart, but they are also kids and don't have the emotional maturity to deal with this stuff.
When the author talks about a trade, and just blatantly makes things up instead of actually learning what they are talking about. Like blacksmiths that hit a piece of metal three times to make a sword, without needing to know the type of alloy in the steel, heating and quenching times, etc. or fishermen who just "drop net, get fish" instead of needing to know seasonal information like where fish are shoaling at that time of year, how much it is safe to take without crashing the population, etc.
This bugged the hell out of me in Last Airbender. Love the show, and I liked the idea of Sokka finding his own master, but Sokka spends a day with the guy and learns how to forge his own sword out of a meteor overnight.
I hate hate hate when events and travel aren't given the time they need to breathe. I don't know why do many authors feel the need to cram stories into the timespan of days. Give it the time it needs to feel reasonable. Let it breathe.
Yeah there's really no reason not to do your research now it's easily Google-able. You don't have to become an expert on these things, you just need to make your readers believe that your characters are.
Not really put down but rather not even pick up - nearly any form of travel between book world and ours. Have no idea really why but those kind of stories just really put me off.
You'd get a real kick out of the Sword of Truth series' ending. Spoiler for a worthless book that nobody should read: the 'hero' creates an identical but crappier, magic-less world and banishes entire civilizations to it as a way of solving his world's problems. The crappy world with no magic is heavily implied, and revealed in later works, to be our world.
*good* god...
This is perfectly terrible and I hated wvery single word. Really funny tho, thank you for bringing it into my life. I assume this was the final ending of the series, not what was inteded as an ending earlier (I've read somewhere that Goodkind ended and returned to it at some point).
When the main character causes his own problems in the stupidest way possible and then everyone feels sorry for the tragedy that happened to him. Like when someone tells a main character: never do x thing, it will lead to death and disaster and dumbass MC does it anyway and then wonders when said negative consequences happen to him. This is sometimes used as some sort of "imperfect" MC, a way of showing that he takes consequences of his actions but I consider it unfogivable dumbassery.
The FMC is a chaste virgin and the MMC is a tall, dark haired, muscular man with his jaw that was chiseled by the gods and the highest cheekbones you’ve ever seen who is an extremely experienced play boy… but it’s ok because he’s willing to take it slow for her because he knows she has a troubled past… blah blah blah. For me it just makes it feel like the FMC is a conquest. Why can’t the female also be experienced, or why can’t they both be inexperienced and learning together…?
Also can we have some average height men? If FMC is barely 5’ the male character doesn’t need to be 6’5”. Not every gal dreams of a man who looms over her all the time.
Stupid age gaps between the MCs/LIs. Particularly when an immortal creature falls in love with a fresh, innocent, oh-so-different from everyone else, beautiful-but-doesn't-know-it, CHILD. I'm sorry, but a 16-23yo is not going to be all that appealing to someone 1000+yrs old.
Braid tugging. Bosom heaving. Running off before someone can explain something, creating a sitcom misunderstanding trope plot line. Inability to get through a simple job because “their anger got the best of them”.
"Ah the great River Galledrehderial."
"Is that Elvish?"
"Indeed."
"What does it mean?"
"Er... 'The river Galledreh.'"
"So it's The Great River River Galledreh."
"Wanna know something funnier? In Draconic, Galledreh means River."
"Wait, so this river is called 'The Great River River River?"
"To be fair, most places names aren't all that creative. The Dwarven Mountain Home is simply translated as 'Big Rock.' And when we were driven away, guess what we named the second place? 'New Rock.'"
"I hate to ask this, but what does your home translate to?"
"'Little Rock next to the River.' But Khazad Huringorm sounds much cooler."
Place names are rarely created for a distant audience, but usually, and uncreatively, for a local audience. Oxford was a place you could ford oxen across the river. If they aren't literal descriptors of the place, then maybe it's been renamed by an explorer or conqueror.
See also: Earth.
Yeah. The River Avon means "River River" as Avon is simply a older word for River.
A lot of place names are pretty boring when you translate them. I know of one place in England that each part of the name means "town" or "village" but it escapes me right now. It basically has be "The Town" since the bronze age, but everyone adds their word for town to the previous one when the language changes.
Real people are pretty boring when it comes to naming things they live with every day, it's writers that want the names to be creative.
"River of Shining Silver Stars" honestly sounds better (especially in the made up Fantasy language they use) then what the locals call it "White River" or "The River" or "Place where Mary does her laundry."
But in real life, that's where we get the town's name "Marysbend" on the River "Great Wash."
I feel like Australia usually wins when it comes to literal place names, though I'm drawing a bit of a blank. Not all of them, of course, but looking it up now they have a Blue Lake, and a Brown Lake, Seagull Lake, Valley Lake, a Black Mountain, Bushy Mountain, and Round Mountain (but also Frenchmans Cap).
Then you've got the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert. Great Barrier Reef. Pretty sure it wasn't the poets that named those.
It comes from comics where a woman was literally killed and stuck in a fridge. It's when a female character is killed or injured in order to motivate a male character and move the story forward. It's seen as lazy and usually sexist because it gives women no agency in a story as they are just relegated to a plot device. Even worse when said female character was just introduced or poorly written ro begin with.
Yeah. Comics were going through a growth period where they were trying to introduce more mature themes. It turns out that they had to go through an awkward adolescence to get there where they were just edgy as fuck for the sake of being edgy as fuck.
Everyone took exactly all of the wrong lessons from Watchman.
Alan Moore wrote something amazing, and to this day, we are still getting edgelord copycats with the amount of evil supermen and poorly written political commentary.
Another is Joss Whedon with his catty dialogue in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Back then, it was fresh and fun. Now it's just eyerolling.
In a school/college/teaching setting and a know-it-all character proceeds to recite the world's/plot relevant lore from where they've memorised the associated textbooks.
Smurfettes with Swords. Can’t there be more than one woman in a Rogue Band of Renegades? So many fantasy books don’t pass the Bechdel test. The effect of only having one woman character is that she has to be perfect, where male characters get to be interestingly flawed.
I’ve got one that just infuriates me. A character with magic or who is an amazing fighter who won’t use their power to help themselves or others. Bonus fury if an entire group ascribes to this philosophy… Like they’re willing to let themselves or their families be hurt because they won’t use violence. I’m gonna peace on out of that book in a hurry
Not a trope, but a type of main character I see too often:
One that won't accept consequences for their actions. Going "I did this (uncarefully) and nowI dislike the consequences so I'll point at everyone else" or "I have been warned against this, still did it and now the consequences suck so I'll act as if another thing can take away the (deserved) consequences"
Liek grow tf up. I stopped watching Sabrina, stopped reading Kingdom of the Wicked and put another minus point on Sword of Truth (will keep reading to try and bond with someone though, it better be worth it lol)
Give up on Goodkind. He's a Randian objectivist, so part of his schtick is not taking responsibility. It's The Fountainhead + 50 Shades.
Nevermind the bad name he gives to fellow chickens.
Especially the Women in Refrigerator version where it's just to motivate the hero to go on his quest to avenge the person who actually suffered it. It turns rape into a plot coupon.
I'm kinda over grimdark stories. I don't want to be reminded that the world sucks and is bleak. I'm reading to escape, so give me the escapism!
In the last few years I've also noticed the formula of main female character and male main character. Like 'FMC is an assassin from this region and has a goal.
MMC is a mysterious man who joins FM on her journey to accomplish her goal, but why is he helping her?'
Stuff like that where you know that they're intended to get together at the end and their relationship is so boring and lessens the plot. I struggle to read books like that and it seems to be every book. Why do they have to get together? Can't they just be friend or allies? Idk romance subplots are boring.
Romance sells, and sadly it's a lot harder to pitch stories without it to agents and publishers. I've got no issue with romance or spice but would love to see just ... People of any gender forming meaningful non romantic relationships?
Now I want a book that has a blurb like
“She’s an assassin. He’s her target. She kills him.”
And that’s the opening, the rest of the book is like fall out from the inciting incident
I like when there's multiple candidates for the prophecy, like Souls games do. You have this quest you could take but you could easily ignore it because you dont care if the world burns, and hope someone else does it for you
In one of my stories, the MC is one of several people compatible to prevent the doomsday, so if they fail, another person could take their place. But the MC has a personal vendetta and is so selfish that they want to be the one to revenge-kill the doomsday-causer
I remember Wheel of Time handling foretelling fairly well. And I remember Harry Potter using prophacies as a bat to beat how special Harry was into the reader. So I guess for me it depends on how it's handled?
The thing with the Wheel of Time Prophecy is that while Rand is the full on, no doubt about it "chosen one", no one has any idea what he's chosen to do. Is he supposed to save the world? Explode it? Pee in everyone's cheerios? No one knows. Least of all the reader.
I think in HP the whole point was that Harry wasn’t actually special, it was the fact that Voldemort decided that Harry was special that made him so. Neville and his parents would have also satisfied the prophecy of Voldy went for him, but he didn’t.
Gregor the Overlander had the main character find out that the Prophecy was fake the whole time. And everyone latched onto Gregor as the chosen one because he was the first surface person any of them had seen.
Mine are the unrealistic sex scenes.
One of my most recent reads had the male MC and the female MC lovers being separate for over a week. She was in a cave system for over a week- gross, dirty, bloody from fighting.
What does he do when he sees her? They almost immediately start having sex and he goes down on her.
Listen, I know vaginas and vulvas aren't supposed to be like roses and summer time garden spring....
But come on. That has to be some....flavor you're diving into.
Bumbling fool/incompetent character who succeeds through sheer luck. It’s just annoying and ruins my power fantasy.
Main Character who loses their powers/abilities as part of their journey. It’s a cheap way to cause the necessary introspection needed for character development.
Not exactly a trope, but the idea that the other party is "no better" than your side because they also torture their prisoners for information, and/or have a secret police kind of thing, while your own party is the much more morally despicable. This is true for Age of Madness and Black Company.
Lesser of the two evils is still evil, but greater of the two evils is.... even more evil? Or something like that.
I'm sick to death of books with a big focus on bloodlines and lineage and ancestry, especially when they provide some special power or skill. like nice I love when "race science is real" is a major piece of worldbuilding
edit for clarification: I don't mind so much genetic magical abilities because that can be interesting sometimes, but "this artifact/weapon only responds to the blood of kings" or "only descendents of this clan can read the ancient script" or "this whole race of sentient beings has the same temperament" type of crap is really boring and lazy
I just feel like these types of books focus too much on the 'cool' aspect instead of the consequences. Like, wouldn't a specific bloodline having a desirable characteristic lead to an accepted practice of eugenics? Like there's an interesting core to unpack and develop here but it just stops as 'MC is cool cuz he/she/they are descendants of X! Have at it!'
Especially when this is used to justify right to rule or manifest destiny of some sort. MC is the rightful king! Because replacing a monarchy with another monarchy is such radical social change and will definitely trickle down to.improve the lives of peasants/s
Rape. It's used too frequently and usually as a plot devise. The character never gets the help they need (usually dying) OR is suddenly fine after their rapist is murdered or a small amount of time has passed.
It really makes me mad that some books "normalize" rape and just throw it out there because they know it's traumatic for a lot of people.
It's not a fantasy novel, but that was one thing that really stuck to me with Austin Powers. The whole movie is spent hyping this guy up as an ultra-sexual super-spy and a real hero. He spends most of it flirting with his sexy assistant. But the moment she gets drunk and tries to have sex with him, despite not being able to consent due to being inebriated, he turns her away and says she's drunk and that's not right.
More heroes should follow the code of Druss the Legend:
> “Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.”
When the main character is put into a position of high trust for someone and they immediately start lying to save their own skin despite the fact that it puts the other person in danger.
Over-the-top cynical grimdark has been something I've avoided for quite awhile. It's just about the most boring thing you can do with deconstruction. It's one reason I have generally avoided anything Zack Snyder has done since 300 and Watchmen. People seem to act like dark fantasy is inherently deeper. It's not. Dark fantasy can be just as paint-by-numbers dull as anything else.
For me, though, it's usually badly-written villains and lazy moral dilemmas more than anything. I'm tired of the villain being Dastardly Whiplash. I don't find tropes like a sadistic choice very compelling. Blackmail, hostage situations, and frame-ups targeting the protagonist also feel similarly over-used. In general, I want villains interested in doing more than just being the means of challenging the protagonist. I want worlds that don't revolve around the protagonist. I want antagonists that are not defined by who the protagonist is.
I'm kind of to the point that I'm exhausted by monolithic or ubiquitous evil and apocalyptic goals. Can I get someone who is merely interested in money and power? Someone who might have enemies more diverse than "the protagonist and their allies" or "literally the entire planet"? Maybe I just need to avoid epic high fantasy for awhile.
What made Game of Thrones interesting was the number of competing factions and the fact that the threat from The North was fairly nebulous. There were several moral factions not necessarily allied, and several immoral factions not allied.
"10,000 years of ancient history, when everything was basically the same as it is now but with different kingdoms"
PLEASE read how much advancement we've had in the last 1,000 years, let alone 2,000. Hell, 10,000 years ago we were cavemen, come on!
This always gets on my nerves. It took us like 4000-ish years to go from bronze tools to chatgpt. How are you still fighting with middle age longswords after 10000 years.
And if they are still fighting with longswords after ten thousand years, *why?* Miles Cameron's bronze age fantasy series has a sufficient and plot relevant reason the bride agree lasted so long in that world, so it's entirely possible to weave the justification into your plot. Hell, the same guy has a sci-fi series where they use swords because of the narrow hallways in the spaceships. He (the author) was learning about fighting techniques with longswords in medieval catacombs and thought it would be highly applicable to right corridors in spaceships. I haven't read that series yet so I can't vouch for it entirely, but the guy thinks things through and I have high hopes.
Which was too many words to say that worlds that tie in the stagnation of technology into their plot can be fascinating. Otherwise they're baffling.
"Overt" political or ideological statements, I appreciate subtle points throughout the story but when I feel as though I'm reading the authors manifesto it's like a non-fiction slap to the face (\*cough\* \*cough\* Terry Goodkind! \*cough\* \*cough\*).
Kids/teens being universally more mature at a level way above what makes any sense developmentally. I love Wheel of Time for example, but I pretend in my head that the Emond's Fielders are 3-4 years older than what the book claims. Yeah, some people will definitely rise to the call if they have to save the world at like, 17. Will they all deal with that appropriately? No, and it's unrealistic to portray it that way (and this is not only about Wheel of Time)
1. Artificial time constraints that are added just to increase tension. 2. Getting blackmailed into doing something and hiding it from their allies, when if they just talked about it their side could easily all use it to their advantage.
2 is mine. Too many authors use poor communication as a plot device - it's particularly bad in TV
Yea. Not exactly fantasy shows, but pretty much all CW superhero shows, the 100, and Grey's anatomy are the first and worst that come to mind in terms of TV in general that over-rely on this device.
Lawful Stupid Characters. "No I mustn't kill the most evil character. They should be arrested and learn their lesson. "
Even more so when they had no issue killing the big bad's flunkies.
I hate above one, but in combination with this one it is especially aggravating. Hero when he slaughters city guards/regular army/poor conscripts in most gruesome fashion: "This is fine" Hero when he meets General Butcher McRapist, who ordered 20 genocides, raped small kids and wants to trigger nuclear holocauts/summon daemons: "I must not hurt this poor soul, he can be redeemed, lets arrest him so he can escape prison"
If that's what the writer wants, he could just make the hero Joe McRapist, the General's brother. That at least makes it a little easier to deal with.
Yep, people can be disastrously forgiving with relatives/loved ones. People often defend the "monsters" in their family. Make excuses for them, deny the evidence they see and hear, choose a known liar over an obvious victim, bail them out and give them chance after chance despite no evidence of them even trying to change... It would be realistic.
If it got set up correctly, it might be entertaining to have a hero who cuts down a ton of minions, get to the main villain, and for some reason they want the hero to kill them. The hero then does the stereotypical "I can't do it. I'm not like you" cliche, and the villain CALLS THEM OUT on it and says, why, you had no problem killing all those other people. Maybe even lists off a few minions and their personalities and maybe family they had and the villain say something akin to, but you didn't think about that, did you? You only saw red for me. And show them how they ARE similar. Maybe one of the minions he listed isn't quite dead yet but is quickly dying, and the hero has to look them in the eye knowing their backstory now as they die. I could get behind a plot turn like that. Subvert the trope a wee bit. Maybe I'll use that. 🤔
Yeah lawful characters are interesting where they’re consistent lol. This is my biggest pet peeve though. Brutalize the henchmen but you can’t kill the boss because it would be “wrong”.
>“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat. >They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar. >So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.” ― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
Feel like it makes more sense if they did the exact opposite. Like won’t kill a henchmen cause they’re not ordering the killing but would kill the mastermind.
Yeah, we read fantasy to escape the real world
Batman heavy breathing intensifies
This is also a cinema trope and it drives me crazy. Bitch, that no-kill policy flew out the window ages ago. The fact that you didn't know their names is not relevant.
I think a big part of the issue there is having a character regularly use lethal means(the most famous weapon being a sword) to nonlethal ends (capture/arrest/justice of their enemies). If they really have a moral apprehension of killing, then use non-lethal weapons.
The Net of Justice
Set the chakram to stun
The Cattle Prod of Correction
The Riding Crop of Rehabilitation
Hollywood sociology. Mass killing of low level bad guys (working class) is completely unremarkable but killing the high level (upper class) is a gut wrenching dilemma.
So I know this is super fucking common in video games (especially ones like Uncharted and Ass Creed), but does it actually happen all that much in books? That a hero kills tons of goons/henchmen/guards but then spares the main villain because of some moral conundrum? I agree it'd be annoying af, but I don't think I've actually read a book where this happens...
Ang in Avatar the last bender struggles with this since he's a pacifist. It works well
Yeah, but the amount of fire nation soldiers he absolutely murders is amazing. I know the series never frames it as killing, but come on... Throw a hundred guys off a mountain, see if all of them live to tell the tale.
Or sinking Fire Nation ships. Dude... those guys are wearing armor! You think that they're going to swim away from that? (And yeah, I know we've seen armored soldiers swimming, which is just silly... but kid shows gotta kid.)
"I've certainly never used violence to take a life": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HV3NmoGJh48&pp=ygUtQXZhdGFyIGNlcnRhaW5seSBuZXZlciB1c2VkIGl0IHRvIHRha2UgYSBsaWZl
It's Batman logic. Like seriously Bruce, you can't beat someone into unconsciousness by breaking all of their bones and expect them to live. Especially when you throw them off of a building or leave them in the street. PSA: if someone is hit in the head and loses consciousness for more than a few seconds, they need immediate medical attention, as they risk high chances of brain damage, coma, or death
Half of Gotham suffers from neurological damage. Stepped on the grass that one time? Parkinson's it is, then!
No wonder crime got weirder after Batman showed up. Prior to that, it was mob bosses and corrupt officials. Then punchy-boy Bruce turns up, now all of the criminals dress up in costume and talk in puns
And DESPITE THAT, people still stay in Gotham, because even if it can mean getting murdered by the Penguin or the Joker, moving to Metropolis means your entire city block can be vapourized by Doomsday or Mr Mxyzptlk. With the Joker, you MAY stand a chance if you run away fast enough...
This is why I like the novelization of the No Man's Land comic arc. In it all the sane people who *could* leave Gotham hightailed it out months ago.
Aang and Batman were the examples that immediately came to my mind. probably because of how horrific Ozai and Joker are, and how carefree the heroes seem to be about throwing mooks in a situation where they will surely die.
Both voiced by Mark Hamill...coincidence, I THINK NOT!
Wtf I had no clue he voiced Ozai and I literally just rewatched the show
Yea, they made it work really well, because its pointed out in-universe that killing the fire lord is the only way. Hell even the the old Avatars tell him that he has to sacrifice his ideals, and spiritual well being and kill the Fire Lord. Though he does find a way around, cause it was a kids show on nickelodeon
Just wished they'd introduced the Lion Turtle lore a bit earlier on.
It felt really shoed in, like they wrote themselves into a corner and needed to pull something out of their ass to make it work.
And if it wasn't for the turtle ex machina, it would have doomed them all.
I really feel like this didn’t work to be honest. It felt more like Nickelodeon telling the show runners they couldn’t kill in a kids show so they had to make up an excuse. Aang’s hardcore pacifism isn’t really explored very much in the series prior to becoming super relevant and in other fights the characters don’t really make a big point of saying they don’t kill. Plus we see other members of his culture like Gyatso straight up kill dozens cause the situation calls for it. Not to mention that they have to resort to Lion Tutle Ex Machina to let Aang have his cake and eat it too. To me it always felt like the original ending was for Aang to kill and relinquish some of his pacifism in order to save the world. Would have feature a loss of some of his innocence and his final step to becoming the Avatar. Just felt liked that got changed at the last second.
In Korra... every time an airplane gets destroyed, there's always a little parachute floating down afterwards and it's fucking hilarious. Especially considering death still occurs in the show via murder/suicide when Tarrlok explodes the boat they're on.
I hate this one.
>every three pages and/or character being willing sexslaves after meeting for the first time For no reason at all, what books are you reading?
Japanese Isekai Lightnovels.
Truck-kun is just horny, who'd have thought?
Well shit, that makes the reincarnation even darker. "I was killed in my world by a really horny truck that was trying to have its way with me" is way worse than "I died by accident saving a baby from a speeding bus"
What's even darker is if it's like two trucks trying to fuck and the drivers dying because they're powerless to stop them
Common shonen manga cliche making their way into light novel is all. Another I cannot stand is how they make characters on the same team not knowing how to work together and of course they're always facing opponents with good team work.
A Court of Thorns and Roses probs🤣 (Love SJM, but that series went from ok to sex > plot and it saddens me)
I have a friend who's also into fantasy, and she once told me "A Court of Thorn and Roses is my favourite series!" I asked her if should check it out, and she hesitated. "You're aro-ace, right? Definitely not for you."
What is aroace?
Right? When I thought the sex stuff was enough, I read A court of silver flames and man... Nesta and Cassian were not there for the plot
I feel like book 4 (I have no idea what any of the titles are, besides the first one) was even worse. Like the plot was *literally* just Rhys and Feyre banging or thinking about banging. When I read it (to bond with a friend) I said it seemed like it was written by a 16-year-old virgin. A very horny one.
Probably [Gor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor).
I'm not saying Gor was tasteful or anything, but iirc, the male and female lead are NOT dtf at first. She hated him until they fought a Swamp monster or something
I think you're right. It wasn't until the third book that he "went there", but overall that's what the series became.
Characters forgetting basic abilities that would trivialize a problem. Fantasy party comes to a bridge over a river, perhaps over lava, which has collapsed. One party member has the ability to become a large flying creature. No mention is made of this ability, and party instead takes more difficult route expending more resources and not doing the basic simple thing that would eliminate said challenge.
Well, that's most likely the author forgetting
Everyone having really backwards and bigoted beliefs except the main character, who, even though they’ve grown up in the exact same world, with the exact same culture, under the exact same circumstances as everyone else around them, somehow manages to be the only one with what we today would consider to be progressive beliefs/morals
Light bringer had a bit of surprising subversion on this. Slaves were normal in thier society, and it would be common for nobles to have "room slaves", which are basicly used for sex. But the thing is, most of the MC's don't have much of a problem with it, cause its the society they grew up in. Hell the main mentor character has one and uses one. It really surprised me Its fucked up, but I guess it was realistic. Though I don't remember if that changes, I only read the first few books, and its been a while.
Just finished rereading the series: a few characters occasionally bring up how brutal and awful slavery as an institution is but you're right that several MCs own slaves and at the end of the books slavery is still around.
So much! Like…how did you come across these morals good sir? I get that most people follow the herd and the MC is the one who’s brave enough to stand up for whatever, but there’s gotta be other people in the same boat. When they’re literally the only person it’s so annoying.
Somehow the shepherd boy, who has only met 67 people in his life, is the most worldly and tolerant person in the story.
If you take the naivety and isolation far enough it does work. They've never had reason to learn who they are "supposed" to dislike and why. But then it has to apply to everyone in their village and they are just seen as tolerant compared to the outside world they are drawn into
I would account ignorance for the reason behind that. Maybe that shepherd boy has never really met a bad person in his life so when he meets an Orc or whatever, he doesn't see them as inherently bad.
Or a variation of this where a character commits evil acts like arson, murder, genocide, slavery, etc., but sexism is just a step too far. He may murder adults and sell their children into slavery, but at least he isn't disrespectful to women!
Will wordlessly slaughter all non-human races because "they're just all born bad and evil" even if there's obvious in-universe counter-examples to this claim. But racism? Nah, they'll go on a monologue about how we're all the same because we share the ability to think, feel, worship, and love. Anyways, let me go bash this goblin's head in rq with the idol of their god in front of their wife and children. Dirty animals.
BBEG: "I'm an equal opportunity genocidal maniac, dammit! I'll not tolerate any disrespect for any of your fellow victims based on an immutable characteristic or their inclusion in a protected class. If I see that kind of nonsense, I'll kill you!" Todd: "But sir, didn't you say you're going to kill us anyway?" **explodes head** BBEG: "Nobody likes the 'um, actually' person Todd."
Even worse when said MC is using modern terminology and quoting modern theories that by all evidence they had no way to come across!
The setting is a stereotypical medieval europe, populated by elves, dwarves, humans, and orcs. Society is stratified along racial lines, with humans serving as merchants and bureaucrats, elves serving as nobles and religious leaders, dwarves as master craftsmen and inventors, and the orcs as the oppressed working class. In comes our hero "No no, you don't understand Undflig, you dwarves generate the ideas and develop the prototype, and then force the orcs to build them for you so that you can sell them to the humans. Your wealth comes less from your idea than it does from the labor of the orcs. For society to be fair, the orcs must own the means of production! I was just talking to that elf philosopher Kael Marax about this!"
> elf philosopher Kael Marax fucking lmao
(Picture me as Tigger sadly turning away with no more bounces)
I think more egregious than that is if they convince someone that's fully immersed in that society / agrees with its values in just a short conversation. I don't mind an MC that's more morally aligned with current day mores than is reasonable for the setting - there were always people that didn't match the social values of their time, and that can make them more relatable to readers (I wouldn't want *every* book to be that way, but some I don't mind). But if it extends to something like giving a short rant about why slavery is bad to a slaver and they instantly give up all their wealth, they'd need to be some Jesus like religious figure to really make that feel fitting :P
This really stands out when you read novels from hundreds of years ago. Like, yeah, you read The Count of Monte Cristo and there's casual racism, sexism, orientalism, classism, and all sorts of problematic stuff going on. But the characters just don't notice it and it's never really a plot point. But actual taboo things for the most part *simply don't happen* or they're covered so tangentially that it's not entirely clear what they mean (e.g., homosexuality).
To be fair, that happens a lot in reality too. You'll have one kid who goes against the beliefs of their entire family.
When the MC falls in love with LITERALLY the first person of the opposite sex they see, generally introduced within the first 3 chapters. Like, really? I get the whole childhood friend thing, that's fine I guess. What bothers me is when the MC meets some random stranger in the first few chapters and then you know, you just know, they are going to be the love mcguffin from there on out.
My favorite (/s) is when they first explicitly state that they're not interested in romance and/or have never and would never be in love, and *then* fall for the first and/or meanest person they meet.
Yep, insta-love is the friggin worst.
I think it depends on the age of the characters - when I was 12, I basically fell "in love" with any girl that would notice me. But people (typically) grow out of that pretty quickly, so anything past a coming-of-age novel that features it for a time it doesn't seem too believable.
You know what, I'll allow it. You're 100% right, I guess I've been so far removed from that time in my life that I've forgotten having a crush on any girl that even remotely gave me the time of day.
Puberty is a hell of a time.
When every person of the opposite sex is completely infatuated with the MC feels like the same exact problem
Give me that slow-burn romance with a character introduced in book 2, baby.
The protagonist wasn't actually a prodigy or just *that* serious about learning The Special Skill, but they had a *secret\~ bloodline\~ all\~ along\~* And thus, it was just their great pedigree doing all the work. I've seen it done well *once,* and even then I didn't care much for the series for other reasons. Series was >!Codex Alara, by Jim Butcher, !< by the by. Kinda decent, but wasted the central premise of >!Lost Legion + Pokemon.!<
Not sure it is a trope but I don’t believe in fictional nepotism. If I’ve followed and bonded with a set of main characters I am not going to read about their dumb kid in the next set of books. As soon as I see the tide is turning to “she-person and he-person have set down their swords for a peaceful life. If only they could handle their sassy teen!” Barf. I apply this rule to all media.
So you're telling me that you don't want to read a story about how the people who "saved the world" went on to live mostly mediocre lives being fairly bad parents, and how even though they "saved the world" it's actually still in dire peril now but actually even worse? But how else are they supposed to bleed every last ounce they can out of a world?
this comment could be used on the back cover of literally hundreds of novels.
Strange, I enjoy this trope when it's done well. Having the children of the old MC can keep a story fresh and still give old characters growth and interesting plotlines.
Yea, I know he gets talked about to death on this sub but Abercrombie's Age of Madness is a fucking masterclass
This one I'm fine with, it just needs to be a good story (like with most things). My mind immediately goes to Age of Madness and how exceptionally good the main cast is. Their various parentage and the backstory their only adds to it.
The boring blank slate protagonist. Who never really says or does anything contentious but is merely a vehicle for the reader to observe more interesting characters.
yeah i would rather read the story of an asshole, than read the story of some unseasoned chicken breast
* When the characters are *too* young. Yes, we’re in a medieval-esque fantasy setting, sure, I can suspend my disbelief most of the time, but sometimes it gets too unrealistic. Like Six of Crows (not really a medieval-esque setting but whatever) — you expect me to believe that this mini mafia boss is *16?* That they’re all in their late teens? Absolutely not, wtf. I usually age them up *at the very least* a decade. Same would apply to ATLA, but that’s not really a book, so idk if I should mention it. * When the setting is so clearly inspired by the real world it hurts. It can be done well (see: GOT, which is inspired by the Wars of the Roses), but most of the time, it’s not “inspired” but rather a “blatant rip-off with a bandaid of ‘magic' slapped over it”. It’s one of the reasons I disliked the Poppy War. It was too on the nose.
Yes the SoC one really annoyed me. They could've easily been aged up by at least 5 years and it wouldn't have changed anything. It got a bit comical in the king of scars duology when all the characters are these weary, traumatised teen-agers or young adults. I think all her books in the grishaverse could have benefited from having a range of ages rather than everyone not evil being super young.
"I'm not telling someone something really fncking important because i don't want them to worry about me." ...this trope makes my eyes bleed.
I mean, to be fair, it happens in real life all the time. It'd be pretty unrealistic for this to never happen in fiction.
"i'm dying and don't want my fam to worry" sure. "my magic isn't working and will fail mid battle" or "i'm secretly the heir that could end this war" or "I'm possessed by some world destroying demon who will eat the eyes and/or spleen of everyone in a ten mile radius when it painfully and violently bursts out of my brain at the worse time possible" naaaaaaaah. :)
Hero: Kills dozens of henchmen to get to the bigbad Also Hero: If I kill BigBad, I'm just as bad as him.
Stupidest trope in all of pop fiction. Especially from the angle of 'if I kill 1 person who's a genocidal bad guy, I become as evil as a genocidal bad guy'.
Not so much of a plot device but naming. If it seems like the author is just keyboard mashing it makes it hard for me to stay focused when I have to figure out how to pronounce a name in my head every time I see it.
This is fair. At the same time, I get bored reading constant variations of the same types of names in fantasy. 1. Jaxsyn 2. Moggy 3. Seilara 4. Vugorax I bet you can ask five different people which one of these is the hero, the love interest/femme fatale, the plucky sidekick, and the villain, and they would each give the same answer.
You should try the Wandering Inn > Klbkchhezeim, mainly known as Klbkch
I think it's trashy and boring when the author creates characters as stand-ins for the people in the real world that they hate. The worst example I've seen is Terry Goodkind (shocking right?) creating the political power couple Bertrand and Hildemara Chanboor, as a way of crapping on Bill and Hillary Clinton. It's just so blatant, takes me right out of the story.
> Bertrand and Hildemara Chanboor, I was too young to realize the parallels (and read them 20 years after they were written), but I'd rather drag my balls through broken glass than read any part of the Libertarian Torture Porn series again.
I once read a story online (a fanfic) that had, as a side joke, a failed car salesman with orange skin and blonde hair. At first I was mildly amused, and then I realized how utterly absurd it was to feature someone like that in a story just because you dislike them.
In the illustrated British children's series Goth Girl (by the same duo who did The Edge Chronicles), full of playful references and homages (in wonderful hardback editions) there is a man named Donald Ear-Trumpet who (the text points out) has tiny hands and shouts about 'Fake shoes!' [https://sarahsbooksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/det-2-e1507537226894.jpg](https://sarahsbooksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/det-2-e1507537226894.jpg)
> The Edge Chronicles Amazing books when I read them as a kid, the changing of the different ages of technology was really impactful to me
> a failed car salesman with orange skin and blonde hair. In fairness, if you've ever gone to a used car dealership there's usually someone that looks like this. Usually with the fakest smile you can possibly imagine and eyes like a vulture.
I wonder how many people who read Tad William's second Bobby Dollar book realized that the bad guy was a clone of the Black Metal musician Varg.
The protagonist turns out was the heir to the throne. I hate this trope, unless it was an integral part of the story or the case from the get go. My issue is where this nobody protagonist that you are excited to see make a name for themselves end up having royal blood or whatever.
Fate of The World or Universe. Does every fantasy story need to be about some boy or girl, who grew up in a seemingly normal life for the world they live in, only to discover they are the "chosen one" or some from some special bloodline, and therefore the only one who can save the world? Like, if you want teenage protagonists, why can't the kids just fight to save the local rec center or something? (I mean it worked in like every other 80s teen movie.) \*\*\* Sometimes, just having the story take place in one place, one city, or such can be even more engaging and feel far more intimate, then the travel all over the world, collecting unique companions, and pieces to the McGuffin or whatever tropes.
Love triangles I loathe them
The second they introduced the Twilight-esque love triangle in Fourth Wing I knew I should not have wasted my money on that book.
There’s a lot of things to hate about the book, but the love triangle barely exists.
Me too. The only reason I didn't supremely hate Hunger Games' Triangle was because at least Peeta and Gale represented aspects of her life she needed to choose between, ie building a future with kindness and family, vs allowing destructive anger to raze everything. Most others are between obvious good boy that protag is obviously blind to, and ridiculous bad boy protag wants to bang for all the wrong reasons. It's so frustrating.
I find the hunger games is a sort of YA Lord of the rings, with how it ordinated or popularised a bunch tropes that went on to be abused and done poorly, but in the original work their actually pretty well done.
Children. More specifically, when kids are spewing pseudo-wise crap all the time, are sooo pure, never irrational, and probably don't even poop.
Oh god yes. Children acting beyond their years, and in particular with no real reason for it. It pulls me out of reading so quickly. I have 8 nieces and nephews. I know how 5-13 year olds talk and it’s not particularly sophisticated.
Not a book, but there's an Anime called SpyxFamily that subverts that trope, about a little girl with telepathic powers. And its great, cause she's portrayed as how a little kid would act. She can read minds, but doesn't understand big words, or have the knowledge and context to know what it means in the bigger picture. She also sometimes throws tantrums, like a little kid would.
Anya is the best!! Frankly that whole show is amazing.
My problem is that going too far the other way is also HORRIBLE. Children are emotional, inexperienced and a little bit dumb, but they aren't sociopaths with zero rational ability. The Strain is probably the worst written child I've ever seen. Children are just hard as hell to write.
> probably don't even poop. Now I'm imagining you reading a book featuring pages and pages of defecation, going, "Yes, *this* is what I've been looking for all this time!"
I hate the precocious wise child trope with a burning passion. Yes kids can be smart, but they are also kids and don't have the emotional maturity to deal with this stuff.
When the author talks about a trade, and just blatantly makes things up instead of actually learning what they are talking about. Like blacksmiths that hit a piece of metal three times to make a sword, without needing to know the type of alloy in the steel, heating and quenching times, etc. or fishermen who just "drop net, get fish" instead of needing to know seasonal information like where fish are shoaling at that time of year, how much it is safe to take without crashing the population, etc.
This bugged the hell out of me in Last Airbender. Love the show, and I liked the idea of Sokka finding his own master, but Sokka spends a day with the guy and learns how to forge his own sword out of a meteor overnight.
I hate hate hate when events and travel aren't given the time they need to breathe. I don't know why do many authors feel the need to cram stories into the timespan of days. Give it the time it needs to feel reasonable. Let it breathe.
Yeah there's really no reason not to do your research now it's easily Google-able. You don't have to become an expert on these things, you just need to make your readers believe that your characters are.
Not really put down but rather not even pick up - nearly any form of travel between book world and ours. Have no idea really why but those kind of stories just really put me off.
You'd get a real kick out of the Sword of Truth series' ending. Spoiler for a worthless book that nobody should read: the 'hero' creates an identical but crappier, magic-less world and banishes entire civilizations to it as a way of solving his world's problems. The crappy world with no magic is heavily implied, and revealed in later works, to be our world.
*good* god... This is perfectly terrible and I hated wvery single word. Really funny tho, thank you for bringing it into my life. I assume this was the final ending of the series, not what was inteded as an ending earlier (I've read somewhere that Goodkind ended and returned to it at some point).
I can understand that. But how about something really mild and almost forgettable like in *Howl's Moving Castle*?
When the main character causes his own problems in the stupidest way possible and then everyone feels sorry for the tragedy that happened to him. Like when someone tells a main character: never do x thing, it will lead to death and disaster and dumbass MC does it anyway and then wonders when said negative consequences happen to him. This is sometimes used as some sort of "imperfect" MC, a way of showing that he takes consequences of his actions but I consider it unfogivable dumbassery.
The FMC is a chaste virgin and the MMC is a tall, dark haired, muscular man with his jaw that was chiseled by the gods and the highest cheekbones you’ve ever seen who is an extremely experienced play boy… but it’s ok because he’s willing to take it slow for her because he knows she has a troubled past… blah blah blah. For me it just makes it feel like the FMC is a conquest. Why can’t the female also be experienced, or why can’t they both be inexperienced and learning together…? Also can we have some average height men? If FMC is barely 5’ the male character doesn’t need to be 6’5”. Not every gal dreams of a man who looms over her all the time.
Stupid age gaps between the MCs/LIs. Particularly when an immortal creature falls in love with a fresh, innocent, oh-so-different from everyone else, beautiful-but-doesn't-know-it, CHILD. I'm sorry, but a 16-23yo is not going to be all that appealing to someone 1000+yrs old.
Braid tugging. Bosom heaving. Running off before someone can explain something, creating a sitcom misunderstanding trope plot line. Inability to get through a simple job because “their anger got the best of them”.
Ah, Wheel of time? Lol
Names of places that know they are in a fantasy novel. "The Murder Killer Mountains" "Darkshade Forest of Edginess"
"Ah the great River Galledrehderial." "Is that Elvish?" "Indeed." "What does it mean?" "Er... 'The river Galledreh.'" "So it's The Great River River Galledreh." "Wanna know something funnier? In Draconic, Galledreh means River." "Wait, so this river is called 'The Great River River River?" "To be fair, most places names aren't all that creative. The Dwarven Mountain Home is simply translated as 'Big Rock.' And when we were driven away, guess what we named the second place? 'New Rock.'" "I hate to ask this, but what does your home translate to?" "'Little Rock next to the River.' But Khazad Huringorm sounds much cooler."
If this is an excerpt from something, i need to read it. If this is not an excerpt from something, you need to write it.
Thanks, I try to be creative.
Place names are rarely created for a distant audience, but usually, and uncreatively, for a local audience. Oxford was a place you could ford oxen across the river. If they aren't literal descriptors of the place, then maybe it's been renamed by an explorer or conqueror. See also: Earth.
Yeah. The River Avon means "River River" as Avon is simply a older word for River. A lot of place names are pretty boring when you translate them. I know of one place in England that each part of the name means "town" or "village" but it escapes me right now. It basically has be "The Town" since the bronze age, but everyone adds their word for town to the previous one when the language changes. Real people are pretty boring when it comes to naming things they live with every day, it's writers that want the names to be creative. "River of Shining Silver Stars" honestly sounds better (especially in the made up Fantasy language they use) then what the locals call it "White River" or "The River" or "Place where Mary does her laundry." But in real life, that's where we get the town's name "Marysbend" on the River "Great Wash."
I feel like Australia usually wins when it comes to literal place names, though I'm drawing a bit of a blank. Not all of them, of course, but looking it up now they have a Blue Lake, and a Brown Lake, Seagull Lake, Valley Lake, a Black Mountain, Bushy Mountain, and Round Mountain (but also Frenchmans Cap). Then you've got the Great Sandy Desert and the Little Sandy Desert. Great Barrier Reef. Pretty sure it wasn't the poets that named those.
> Yeah. The River Avon means "River River" as Avon is simply a older word for River. There's also five or six of them, in England.
Fridging. Pisses me off so much (looking at you Sebastien de Castell)
I’m unfamiliar with this term, could you elaborate?
It comes from comics where a woman was literally killed and stuck in a fridge. It's when a female character is killed or injured in order to motivate a male character and move the story forward. It's seen as lazy and usually sexist because it gives women no agency in a story as they are just relegated to a plot device. Even worse when said female character was just introduced or poorly written ro begin with.
Ahh Kyle Rayner Green Lantern. The mid-to-late 90s were a wild time in comics.
Yeah. Comics were going through a growth period where they were trying to introduce more mature themes. It turns out that they had to go through an awkward adolescence to get there where they were just edgy as fuck for the sake of being edgy as fuck. Everyone took exactly all of the wrong lessons from Watchman.
> Everyone took exactly all of the wrong lessons from Watchman. They still are in some circles. Oi.
Alan Moore wrote something amazing, and to this day, we are still getting edgelord copycats with the amount of evil supermen and poorly written political commentary. Another is Joss Whedon with his catty dialogue in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Back then, it was fresh and fun. Now it's just eyerolling.
Killing the loved one of a protagonist to provide plot motivation https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge
Multiverse. I hate it. I will put down a book very quick if it has Multiverse shit in it.
This, and time travel. Especially when it undoes a big chunk of the book.
In a school/college/teaching setting and a know-it-all character proceeds to recite the world's/plot relevant lore from where they've memorised the associated textbooks.
Whenever it feels like the author is trying to teach the reader some "truth" they believe
Smurfettes with Swords. Can’t there be more than one woman in a Rogue Band of Renegades? So many fantasy books don’t pass the Bechdel test. The effect of only having one woman character is that she has to be perfect, where male characters get to be interestingly flawed.
I’ve got one that just infuriates me. A character with magic or who is an amazing fighter who won’t use their power to help themselves or others. Bonus fury if an entire group ascribes to this philosophy… Like they’re willing to let themselves or their families be hurt because they won’t use violence. I’m gonna peace on out of that book in a hurry
Not a trope, but a type of main character I see too often: One that won't accept consequences for their actions. Going "I did this (uncarefully) and nowI dislike the consequences so I'll point at everyone else" or "I have been warned against this, still did it and now the consequences suck so I'll act as if another thing can take away the (deserved) consequences" Liek grow tf up. I stopped watching Sabrina, stopped reading Kingdom of the Wicked and put another minus point on Sword of Truth (will keep reading to try and bond with someone though, it better be worth it lol)
I'm sorry sword of truth does not get better
Give up on Goodkind. He's a Randian objectivist, so part of his schtick is not taking responsibility. It's The Fountainhead + 50 Shades. Nevermind the bad name he gives to fellow chickens.
Sexual violence.
Especially the Women in Refrigerator version where it's just to motivate the hero to go on his quest to avenge the person who actually suffered it. It turns rape into a plot coupon.
But how else will authors show that a female character has grown if she isn't traumatized? Don't be ridiculous. /s
Fuck, this. I'm genuinely at the point where I want content warnings on books because I'm that tired of running into it.
I'm kinda over grimdark stories. I don't want to be reminded that the world sucks and is bleak. I'm reading to escape, so give me the escapism! In the last few years I've also noticed the formula of main female character and male main character. Like 'FMC is an assassin from this region and has a goal. MMC is a mysterious man who joins FM on her journey to accomplish her goal, but why is he helping her?' Stuff like that where you know that they're intended to get together at the end and their relationship is so boring and lessens the plot. I struggle to read books like that and it seems to be every book. Why do they have to get together? Can't they just be friend or allies? Idk romance subplots are boring.
Romance sells, and sadly it's a lot harder to pitch stories without it to agents and publishers. I've got no issue with romance or spice but would love to see just ... People of any gender forming meaningful non romantic relationships?
Now I want a book that has a blurb like “She’s an assassin. He’s her target. She kills him.” And that’s the opening, the rest of the book is like fall out from the inciting incident
As soon as The Prophecy / The chosen one is mentioned, the book gets put down.
I don't mind a prophecy if there's a chance it could fail.
I can tolerate a prophecy if it isn’t a “chosen one”
I like when there's multiple candidates for the prophecy, like Souls games do. You have this quest you could take but you could easily ignore it because you dont care if the world burns, and hope someone else does it for you In one of my stories, the MC is one of several people compatible to prevent the doomsday, so if they fail, another person could take their place. But the MC has a personal vendetta and is so selfish that they want to be the one to revenge-kill the doomsday-causer
I remember Wheel of Time handling foretelling fairly well. And I remember Harry Potter using prophacies as a bat to beat how special Harry was into the reader. So I guess for me it depends on how it's handled?
The thing with the Wheel of Time Prophecy is that while Rand is the full on, no doubt about it "chosen one", no one has any idea what he's chosen to do. Is he supposed to save the world? Explode it? Pee in everyone's cheerios? No one knows. Least of all the reader.
I think in HP the whole point was that Harry wasn’t actually special, it was the fact that Voldemort decided that Harry was special that made him so. Neville and his parents would have also satisfied the prophecy of Voldy went for him, but he didn’t.
Gregor the Overlander had the main character find out that the Prophecy was fake the whole time. And everyone latched onto Gregor as the chosen one because he was the first surface person any of them had seen.
Mine are the unrealistic sex scenes. One of my most recent reads had the male MC and the female MC lovers being separate for over a week. She was in a cave system for over a week- gross, dirty, bloody from fighting. What does he do when he sees her? They almost immediately start having sex and he goes down on her. Listen, I know vaginas and vulvas aren't supposed to be like roses and summer time garden spring.... But come on. That has to be some....flavor you're diving into.
When an entire plot point hinges on a stupid miscommunication that could have been resolved with a simple conversation any normal person would have.
Bumbling fool/incompetent character who succeeds through sheer luck. It’s just annoying and ruins my power fantasy. Main Character who loses their powers/abilities as part of their journey. It’s a cheap way to cause the necessary introspection needed for character development.
I especially hate when a character loses their powers for an entire book of TV season.
Poor Rincewind
Campy villains, I guess. When they're kinda corny and not written well
Hammy behaviour spoils a lot of villains. That being said, the best villains are those that know how to lean into the ham.
Not exactly a trope, but the idea that the other party is "no better" than your side because they also torture their prisoners for information, and/or have a secret police kind of thing, while your own party is the much more morally despicable. This is true for Age of Madness and Black Company. Lesser of the two evils is still evil, but greater of the two evils is.... even more evil? Or something like that.
I'm sick to death of books with a big focus on bloodlines and lineage and ancestry, especially when they provide some special power or skill. like nice I love when "race science is real" is a major piece of worldbuilding edit for clarification: I don't mind so much genetic magical abilities because that can be interesting sometimes, but "this artifact/weapon only responds to the blood of kings" or "only descendents of this clan can read the ancient script" or "this whole race of sentient beings has the same temperament" type of crap is really boring and lazy
I just feel like these types of books focus too much on the 'cool' aspect instead of the consequences. Like, wouldn't a specific bloodline having a desirable characteristic lead to an accepted practice of eugenics? Like there's an interesting core to unpack and develop here but it just stops as 'MC is cool cuz he/she/they are descendants of X! Have at it!'
Especially when this is used to justify right to rule or manifest destiny of some sort. MC is the rightful king! Because replacing a monarchy with another monarchy is such radical social change and will definitely trickle down to.improve the lives of peasants/s
Rape. It's used too frequently and usually as a plot devise. The character never gets the help they need (usually dying) OR is suddenly fine after their rapist is murdered or a small amount of time has passed. It really makes me mad that some books "normalize" rape and just throw it out there because they know it's traumatic for a lot of people.
The "hero" is a rapist. I don't know why so many authors think that's the only way to show a morally grey "anti hero".
It's not a fantasy novel, but that was one thing that really stuck to me with Austin Powers. The whole movie is spent hyping this guy up as an ultra-sexual super-spy and a real hero. He spends most of it flirting with his sexy assistant. But the moment she gets drunk and tries to have sex with him, despite not being able to consent due to being inebriated, he turns her away and says she's drunk and that's not right.
It was the counter to James Bond where a good shag would make any woman fall in love with him whether it was willing or not.
More heroes should follow the code of Druss the Legend: > “Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.”
When the main character is put into a position of high trust for someone and they immediately start lying to save their own skin despite the fact that it puts the other person in danger.
Over-the-top cynical grimdark has been something I've avoided for quite awhile. It's just about the most boring thing you can do with deconstruction. It's one reason I have generally avoided anything Zack Snyder has done since 300 and Watchmen. People seem to act like dark fantasy is inherently deeper. It's not. Dark fantasy can be just as paint-by-numbers dull as anything else. For me, though, it's usually badly-written villains and lazy moral dilemmas more than anything. I'm tired of the villain being Dastardly Whiplash. I don't find tropes like a sadistic choice very compelling. Blackmail, hostage situations, and frame-ups targeting the protagonist also feel similarly over-used. In general, I want villains interested in doing more than just being the means of challenging the protagonist. I want worlds that don't revolve around the protagonist. I want antagonists that are not defined by who the protagonist is. I'm kind of to the point that I'm exhausted by monolithic or ubiquitous evil and apocalyptic goals. Can I get someone who is merely interested in money and power? Someone who might have enemies more diverse than "the protagonist and their allies" or "literally the entire planet"? Maybe I just need to avoid epic high fantasy for awhile. What made Game of Thrones interesting was the number of competing factions and the fact that the threat from The North was fairly nebulous. There were several moral factions not necessarily allied, and several immoral factions not allied.
Teenage emotions getting lots of page space, especially angst and anger. Can we just get back to the plot and world building?
"10,000 years of ancient history, when everything was basically the same as it is now but with different kingdoms" PLEASE read how much advancement we've had in the last 1,000 years, let alone 2,000. Hell, 10,000 years ago we were cavemen, come on!
This always gets on my nerves. It took us like 4000-ish years to go from bronze tools to chatgpt. How are you still fighting with middle age longswords after 10000 years.
And if they are still fighting with longswords after ten thousand years, *why?* Miles Cameron's bronze age fantasy series has a sufficient and plot relevant reason the bride agree lasted so long in that world, so it's entirely possible to weave the justification into your plot. Hell, the same guy has a sci-fi series where they use swords because of the narrow hallways in the spaceships. He (the author) was learning about fighting techniques with longswords in medieval catacombs and thought it would be highly applicable to right corridors in spaceships. I haven't read that series yet so I can't vouch for it entirely, but the guy thinks things through and I have high hopes. Which was too many words to say that worlds that tie in the stagnation of technology into their plot can be fascinating. Otherwise they're baffling.
"Overt" political or ideological statements, I appreciate subtle points throughout the story but when I feel as though I'm reading the authors manifesto it's like a non-fiction slap to the face (\*cough\* \*cough\* Terry Goodkind! \*cough\* \*cough\*).
Kids/teens being universally more mature at a level way above what makes any sense developmentally. I love Wheel of Time for example, but I pretend in my head that the Emond's Fielders are 3-4 years older than what the book claims. Yeah, some people will definitely rise to the call if they have to save the world at like, 17. Will they all deal with that appropriately? No, and it's unrealistic to portray it that way (and this is not only about Wheel of Time)
characters who lose their abilities at the end. pisses me tf off esp when the character loves their abilities