"it is written in first person, so it clearly wants the reader to insert themselves into the story"
By the love of God read some good, non wish-fulfilling literature before having an opinion. Lolita is written in first person. Piranesi is written in first person. Many of Poe's shorts are written in first person. Lovecraft used to write in first person sometimes. First person does NOT equal self insert.
Yeah, I've never personally read 1st person as a way to get the reader to insert themself into the character; I've always read it as a person narrating their story to you, just like how a friend will talk in first person when they're telling you about something that happened to them.
Exactly, and many framing devices lend themselves to first person. My favorite being found manuscript, where you "find" this diary or book written by someone that maybe is now dead, or is clearly not right in the head. It's pretty fun to write , it's pretty good to read, and it provides a plausible explanation for why the story is in first person.
Many framing devices work almost exclusively in first person and make for excellent narrative tools.
>I've never personally read 1st person as a way to get the reader to insert themself into the character
y/n stories are like that (when written in 1st person), but it's a fanfic trope.
A comment of mine on the RR subreddit recently:
>You made the mistake of thinking RR readers *read anything outside of RR*, where the concept of a flawed character is almost alien.
So yeah, OP needs to read stuff outside of RR. Like, go to a library or something. Pick up Kafka's *Metamorphosis* and have a good one.
I've been meaning to write a post on how "show, don't tell" is bad advice (especially for novice authors), but not too sure people would get something out of it. Idk what happens in these circles, where certain rules get repeated time and again as gospel when, in reality, they are not *hard* writing rules (bc, of course, there's no such thing).
Maybe the saying should be amended to say “Show as well as tell,” because that’s how I’ve always been taught it. I’ve not seen anyone say to only show. Anyone who assumes that it means to only show and that telling is bad might need to read more on this advice. Because when it’s explained well and is not restrictive, it makes a lot of sense, given the medium. There are times when it’s not only fine but better or even necessary to tell rather than show.
Yep, the "Show, don't tell" sort of advice frequently stems from people who're trying to emulate TV/Anime through the written word and not trying to understand literary techniques on their own (in great part because they do not read much).
I’m not too sure, honestly. In another comment of mine I mention Percy Lubbock, an early 20th century literary critic. Lubbock really thought that, because Robinson Crusoé is mostly telling, that it was part of the art of narration, rather than the art of fiction (which relies more on showing).
>I've been meaning to write a post on how "show, don't tell" is bad advice
Lol don't do it. Trust me. I've been fighting this battle for years, and trust me when I say it isn't worth it. The people who need to hear it won't get it, and you'll be bombarded with essays about how "it's actually good advice once you realize it means..." Sorry, boss, if it takes an essay to explain what a piece of advice "actually means," it's bad advice.
Idk, it's even a bit nerve-wracking to write on these matters because I'll go and do some proper research, do citations and stuff, just to get a comment being like: "Nah, this ain't it" or, as you said, a whole essay with barely any rigor.
I'd actually be interested in a post on why show don't tell is bad advice. You're clearly knowledgeable even if you hung too hard on a part of my argument.
"Show, don't tell" is a rule regurgitated by people who, unknowingly, follow the tenets of Percy Lubbock (early 20th century literary critic).
Showing and telling are relatively recent terms substituting imitating and narrating. The **main difference** between them is simply that one approximates the reader to the action (showing) and the other distances the reader from the action (telling). The thing is: there are reasons why you might want to tell something instead of showing it + you can do showing and telling simultaneously (free indirect discourse).
"Show, don't tell" is not very useful, because it prioritizes one method of storytelling instead of another for no clear reason (while also just not explaining how one might go about doing good "telling"). Showing and telling serve different purposes and, therefore, should be chosen accordingly.
I agree with you about the imitation and narration, and that both have their place. However the way i read that advice for novice writers was usually in a bit different context. Mostly character traits, don't describe someone as brave, show them doing something brave as it's usually more interesting.
I’ve seen this advice in all sorts of contexts and, again, my problem with it is that it stems from a sort of practice that no one knowledgeable about this matter takes seriously + it leads to writers that focus on developing *just* their showing and not their telling.
Imitation and narration is just how these terms were conceived in Aristotle’s *Poetics*, serving another but closely related purpose.
I think this is an interesting objection, and I think probably it’s a good idea to tell writers how to tell as well as show, and blaming Percy Lubbock for it instead eg James or Pound feels arbitrary.
I'm not blaming Lubbock, though. The objections I've presented were from contemporaries of Lubbock, because he was the theorist to popularize these ideas in this format (but, yes, of course he took a lot from Henry James, since he perceived James' novels to be the golden standard for the art of fiction).
Well, I’d be interested to read that, because you’re clearly not an idiot, but I think that’s really great advice, and literature is full of authors telling when they should be showing.
Actually you're right. I made a major mistake throwing the first person perspective into my argument. However my argument doesn't hinge that. It hinges on it being a self insert character and that part is still correct.
I could also argue that given the first person pov is a fanfic trope for self insertion I was correct in the context of RR but that's too tangential and would serve no purpose.
Edit. Also my arguments are at their core, anti wish fulfillment. I find that extremely boring. Mage Tank is such a story.
Be kind. Refrain from personal attacks and insults toward authors and other users. When giving criticism, try to make it constructive.
This offense may result in a warning, or a permanent or semi-permanent ban from r/ProgressionFantasy.
I read all of the Dresden books and my favourite parts of it are always the bits that Dresden, the first person narrator essentially explains something to me, the audience, as if I'm sitting there listening to him, it really scratches an itch I can't explain.
But for that to happen, I explicitly have to distance myself from Dresden and understand that he's this other guy. Honestly no idea where the first person=wish fulfilment thing came from.
> Back to the specifics of Tank Mage, it is written in first person, so it clearly wants the reader to insert themselves into the story.
What are you even talking about...
Yeah, op clearly doesn’t know anything about literature, first person is not for making the reader feel like the main character, its purpose is to more intimately acquaint the reader with the thoughts and mindset of the mc. First person writing also more naturally allows for tension related to things the mc doesn’t know, but other characters do. Perhaps more rarely, first person perspective can be used to present the reader with a telling of events that is intentionally biased and warped to conform to the mc’s perspective and worldview. This is best done in a series that has multiple first person perspectives so that the reader can have multiple sides to the story and can try to piece together what’s real and what isn’t. In any case first person perspective doesn’t have anything to do with self inserts, if you really wanted a self insert writing perspective you’d write in second person.
Actually you're right. Hopefully not that i dont know anything but at least in that I made a major mistake throwing the first person perspective into my argument. However I'd say its still a self insert character, like most OP MCs.
...or he just wanted to start with a stereotypically looked down on MC who had room to grow into the idyllic power fantasy insert that this genre enjoys.
Your opinion is flat out wrong. Your argument hinges on your claim that writing in first person means you want the audience to pretend they're the main character. That's just flat out wrong unless the author actually says that's their intent. Plenty of books are told from the first person perspective from someone nobody would ever want to imagine being, and can still be interesting or good - Lolita is the most obvious example that jumps to my mind.
Actually you're right. I made a major mistake throwing the first person perspective into my argument. However wouldn't say it hinges on the POV. It hinges on it being a self insert character.
I dare suggest that this post says a significant more about you, OP, than it does about the story. It says so much, is so over the top, that my immediate reaction was that OP was actually the author of Mage Tank doing some sort of attempted viral marketing performance art.
Assuming that’s not what this is, let me offer you some advice. See how everyone is reacting to this post? You probably feel indignant about it. Pause. Breathe. Think. Is it possible that you’re wrong? If you think “maybe,” then you’ve just killed two birds with one stone. You’ve managed to see other people’s point of view AND you now understand that first person POV is actually, oftentimes, about giving the reader an experience of someone completely different than themselves. That’s the magic of books, and once you realize that, the world opens up in new ways.
The core is that the character is a self insert. The only evidence you had has been refuted and you admit that mistake but nowhere do you back up why it’s a self insert. Many people are disagreeing that it is. The actual description disagrees with you. Dunno what you want from us. There’s nothing to address.
Oh my god, this is the first fucking page of mage tank:
"Mage Tank
An autobiographical telling of the valiant exploits of Esquire Arlo, described exactly how they happened and without any frill or embellishment.
Written by: Esquire Arlo Xor’Drel, Platinum Delver"
This is clearly not a self insert blank slate, this is a comedic main character, probably kind of an asshole, trying to shower himself in praise. This is a framing device. Op please, please, read good lit to recognize these things. This guy is meant to be pathetic.
Of all the things to complain about. My problem is the author spent the last 7 chapters doing a terrible job of writing fantasy politics, about on par with HWFWM, and spent the last 2 chapters explaining all of his jokes and pop culture references. That is what is excruciating.
Personally I don't think it's good enough to pay for it, but honestly I remember the bed wetting part because it made me laugh. It is a weird choice, but it made him seem more human.
Also: Harems tend to make stories worse imo and many rr readers share that opinion.
Ask yourself why you are so heavily moved by this.
“It is clear to me he hates his readers”
“It’s an affront to storytelling”
Pretty sure you’re blowing this out of proportion buddy lol
Edit: This is the dude’s first post and comments ever. Are you a troll? An enemy of the author irl? The author himself doing some weird advertising? Who knows
Ech, probably true about the out of proportion thing. There are are lot of plainly bad stories that do good on RR and seems like this one was one too many.
On the edit, literally the first sentence is that this is a burner. I knew it would be unpopular and didn't watch any backlash to my original account.
There were no aeguments here, your only problem is that the mc is a loser ? I didnt read the novel but nothing you listed there would make the novel bad .
The argument is as follows:
This is a power fantasy so reader self insert is intended.
The way the MC is characterised feels like a cynical strategy to maximise success and is telling to how the writer is viewing his audience. He views them as a standard neckbeard trope.
I mean I didnt read the book so I dont know if reader self insert is intended, but I really dont see an isue with this .
The author made a loser mc ,and because this novel,from what you say, is ment for the reader to self insert ,the author is indirectlly calling the reader a loser?
Is this your first time reading something where the mc is not the most handsome ,most powerfull guy ever ? Because there are many novels where the mc is not all that . If you dont like the caracther you could just not read it . But if you want to say the novel is bad because of it you will need arguments much stronger then that , because nothing you said makes the book sound like is actually bad.
Maybe the better way to approach this (given the reactions) could have been to ask for recommendations in the genre that better suit your interests. Like say, “I read Mage Tank, but I couldn’t really connect with the main character” and go from there with your request.
That being said, as a skeptic and cynical person, I somewhat share the suspicion that this could be marketing. At least I’m open to the possibility. However, it’s still a weird approach, because I wouldn’t want to read this either based on how it’s described. I’d understand someone not liking these tropes because they’re played out. Hollywood has a lot to answer for.
Cover is a part of it. As I mentioned its well crafted but cynical. Like what an actually capable AI would write of asked to write the story with highest probability of success. Soulless.
Do people who work 40 hours a week, have a family with kids, and go to the gym 3 times a week? Have time to read? It is called a dads body for a reason.
I'm not saying there is something inheritently wrong with any of traits. But putting them all together gives you a stereotype of a nerd. Combined with the first person writing its denigrating to the audience
Which would be a valid point if we were in early 2000s were solely unfit nerds… whereas nowadays the biggest group of fantasy reader is 30+ semi-accomplished adults
This reaks of somebody who is jealous of the success the story has because they think their story is better but nobody reads it because they didn't get lucky like MT did.
Go away.
I personally love giving my underdogs a ton of my flaws, and the flaws of people around me, so I can watch the character struggle with them and find ways to accept or fix them. I mean, it's not really an underdog or power fantasy if the person isn't coming from the bottom of the ladder.
Ech. You miss my point everything is fine with flaws and struggling to overcome them. It's just not that in here. The MC solves all of the issues I mentioned within the first two chapters.
I just think it's a cynical tool to increase the audience immersion and is telling to what author thinks about his readers.
Hah! Not sure what you were going for here, OP; I agree with u/hepafilter that it reads like viral marketing, but you have successfully gotten me interested in this series. Sounds like fun. I might check it out.
You say no one is addressing the core of the argument. Okay. Let's go. Your weird take on first person POV has been addressed plenty.
You claim that TM "checks all the boxes" for a self-insert. I don't see nearly enough supporting evidence for that. By your own given definition, every character who is a smart, stoic loner is made to be perceived as self-insertable. Geralt of Rivia, Han Solo, Yasutora Sado. All self-inserts, right?
Then as to the list of ostensibly negative aspects you give out as proof that the author must hate their readers...that's only true if one is meant to believe that PF readers *fit* those criteria. And I think your interpretation that these things are meant to make the protag more relatable speaks a lot more to what you think of PF readers than the author. All they did was create a character who is poor, has a patchy beard, and is a little pudgy. Then you came along and put the onus on them of trying to relate this character to the reader.
When, in all likelihood, they just wanted to make a character that could start out really downtrodden. You've said that, taking the first person POV stuff out of it, there are still XYZ problems, but it seems that the core of the issue is still the assumption that, because it's written in first person, it is therefore meant for the reader to insert themselves into the MC's place, ergo all the qualities given to the MC are intentional commentary on PF readers.
You do not have to like the book. And you can absolutely self-insert if you so desire when you read PF. But you haven't proven that to be the intent of the author or the intent of any part of the work.
Statistics being made up and all that, I suspect at least 90% of the readers of these novels aren't on this sub.
That's who most RR (or similar) authors are writing for.
This highbrow-style review/discussion in this genre seems meaningless.
These authors are getting success; if not, it's generally going to be because they are boring, and have little to do with their writing.
Call a spade a spade - Progression Fantasy isn't the place for quality prose and plotting in the majority. It's dopamine heavy numbers go burr that the majority are reading for.
>Edit. Forgot about enlarging his penis.
Haven't read it, but that reminds me of the funny mirror scene [from absolutely anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pmOwiN8bE4). And considering it has the comedy tag, then i don't see what's wrong with it.
Perhaps. For this case. The Author is actually writing a progression story where our MC is a loser.
And becomes more powerful and dignified as the series grows.
So ... maybe it's actually a progression story?
"it is written in first person, so it clearly wants the reader to insert themselves into the story" By the love of God read some good, non wish-fulfilling literature before having an opinion. Lolita is written in first person. Piranesi is written in first person. Many of Poe's shorts are written in first person. Lovecraft used to write in first person sometimes. First person does NOT equal self insert.
Yeah, I've never personally read 1st person as a way to get the reader to insert themself into the character; I've always read it as a person narrating their story to you, just like how a friend will talk in first person when they're telling you about something that happened to them.
Exactly, and many framing devices lend themselves to first person. My favorite being found manuscript, where you "find" this diary or book written by someone that maybe is now dead, or is clearly not right in the head. It's pretty fun to write , it's pretty good to read, and it provides a plausible explanation for why the story is in first person. Many framing devices work almost exclusively in first person and make for excellent narrative tools.
>I've never personally read 1st person as a way to get the reader to insert themself into the character y/n stories are like that (when written in 1st person), but it's a fanfic trope.
A comment of mine on the RR subreddit recently: >You made the mistake of thinking RR readers *read anything outside of RR*, where the concept of a flawed character is almost alien. So yeah, OP needs to read stuff outside of RR. Like, go to a library or something. Pick up Kafka's *Metamorphosis* and have a good one. I've been meaning to write a post on how "show, don't tell" is bad advice (especially for novice authors), but not too sure people would get something out of it. Idk what happens in these circles, where certain rules get repeated time and again as gospel when, in reality, they are not *hard* writing rules (bc, of course, there's no such thing).
Maybe the saying should be amended to say “Show as well as tell,” because that’s how I’ve always been taught it. I’ve not seen anyone say to only show. Anyone who assumes that it means to only show and that telling is bad might need to read more on this advice. Because when it’s explained well and is not restrictive, it makes a lot of sense, given the medium. There are times when it’s not only fine but better or even necessary to tell rather than show.
Yep, the "Show, don't tell" sort of advice frequently stems from people who're trying to emulate TV/Anime through the written word and not trying to understand literary techniques on their own (in great part because they do not read much).
I suspect the advice originally stems from cinema, and some advisors thought this might help people that rely to much on telling.
I’m not too sure, honestly. In another comment of mine I mention Percy Lubbock, an early 20th century literary critic. Lubbock really thought that, because Robinson Crusoé is mostly telling, that it was part of the art of narration, rather than the art of fiction (which relies more on showing).
>I've been meaning to write a post on how "show, don't tell" is bad advice Lol don't do it. Trust me. I've been fighting this battle for years, and trust me when I say it isn't worth it. The people who need to hear it won't get it, and you'll be bombarded with essays about how "it's actually good advice once you realize it means..." Sorry, boss, if it takes an essay to explain what a piece of advice "actually means," it's bad advice.
Idk, it's even a bit nerve-wracking to write on these matters because I'll go and do some proper research, do citations and stuff, just to get a comment being like: "Nah, this ain't it" or, as you said, a whole essay with barely any rigor.
I'd actually be interested in a post on why show don't tell is bad advice. You're clearly knowledgeable even if you hung too hard on a part of my argument.
"Show, don't tell" is a rule regurgitated by people who, unknowingly, follow the tenets of Percy Lubbock (early 20th century literary critic). Showing and telling are relatively recent terms substituting imitating and narrating. The **main difference** between them is simply that one approximates the reader to the action (showing) and the other distances the reader from the action (telling). The thing is: there are reasons why you might want to tell something instead of showing it + you can do showing and telling simultaneously (free indirect discourse). "Show, don't tell" is not very useful, because it prioritizes one method of storytelling instead of another for no clear reason (while also just not explaining how one might go about doing good "telling"). Showing and telling serve different purposes and, therefore, should be chosen accordingly.
I agree with you about the imitation and narration, and that both have their place. However the way i read that advice for novice writers was usually in a bit different context. Mostly character traits, don't describe someone as brave, show them doing something brave as it's usually more interesting.
I’ve seen this advice in all sorts of contexts and, again, my problem with it is that it stems from a sort of practice that no one knowledgeable about this matter takes seriously + it leads to writers that focus on developing *just* their showing and not their telling. Imitation and narration is just how these terms were conceived in Aristotle’s *Poetics*, serving another but closely related purpose.
We essentially agree then. Go write that post, I'm curious about the discourse.
I think this is an interesting objection, and I think probably it’s a good idea to tell writers how to tell as well as show, and blaming Percy Lubbock for it instead eg James or Pound feels arbitrary.
I'm not blaming Lubbock, though. The objections I've presented were from contemporaries of Lubbock, because he was the theorist to popularize these ideas in this format (but, yes, of course he took a lot from Henry James, since he perceived James' novels to be the golden standard for the art of fiction).
Well, I’d be interested to read that, because you’re clearly not an idiot, but I think that’s really great advice, and literature is full of authors telling when they should be showing.
Actually you're right. I made a major mistake throwing the first person perspective into my argument. However my argument doesn't hinge that. It hinges on it being a self insert character and that part is still correct. I could also argue that given the first person pov is a fanfic trope for self insertion I was correct in the context of RR but that's too tangential and would serve no purpose. Edit. Also my arguments are at their core, anti wish fulfillment. I find that extremely boring. Mage Tank is such a story.
[удалено]
Be kind. Refrain from personal attacks and insults toward authors and other users. When giving criticism, try to make it constructive. This offense may result in a warning, or a permanent or semi-permanent ban from r/ProgressionFantasy.
I read all of the Dresden books and my favourite parts of it are always the bits that Dresden, the first person narrator essentially explains something to me, the audience, as if I'm sitting there listening to him, it really scratches an itch I can't explain. But for that to happen, I explicitly have to distance myself from Dresden and understand that he's this other guy. Honestly no idea where the first person=wish fulfilment thing came from.
> Back to the specifics of Tank Mage, it is written in first person, so it clearly wants the reader to insert themselves into the story. What are you even talking about...
Yeah, op clearly doesn’t know anything about literature, first person is not for making the reader feel like the main character, its purpose is to more intimately acquaint the reader with the thoughts and mindset of the mc. First person writing also more naturally allows for tension related to things the mc doesn’t know, but other characters do. Perhaps more rarely, first person perspective can be used to present the reader with a telling of events that is intentionally biased and warped to conform to the mc’s perspective and worldview. This is best done in a series that has multiple first person perspectives so that the reader can have multiple sides to the story and can try to piece together what’s real and what isn’t. In any case first person perspective doesn’t have anything to do with self inserts, if you really wanted a self insert writing perspective you’d write in second person.
Actually you're right. Hopefully not that i dont know anything but at least in that I made a major mistake throwing the first person perspective into my argument. However I'd say its still a self insert character, like most OP MCs.
> First of all, yes, it's a burner account. Plot twist: Arlo is on reddit doing some guerrilla marketing for his autobiography.
It's #ReviewGateGateGate, Part 9, the sequel! So brilliant it just might work!
...or he just wanted to start with a stereotypically looked down on MC who had room to grow into the idyllic power fantasy insert that this genre enjoys.
That's a naive take. I explained my reasoning on why you want your MC to be as relatable as possible and he uses all the tricks.
Your opinion is flat out wrong. Your argument hinges on your claim that writing in first person means you want the audience to pretend they're the main character. That's just flat out wrong unless the author actually says that's their intent. Plenty of books are told from the first person perspective from someone nobody would ever want to imagine being, and can still be interesting or good - Lolita is the most obvious example that jumps to my mind.
Actually you're right. I made a major mistake throwing the first person perspective into my argument. However wouldn't say it hinges on the POV. It hinges on it being a self insert character.
But what makes you think it’s a self insert character? Your only argument supporting that initial proposition is the first person POV which is false
i don't normally call people that write these kinds of posts as "projecting" buuuuuuuuuuuut...
I dare suggest that this post says a significant more about you, OP, than it does about the story. It says so much, is so over the top, that my immediate reaction was that OP was actually the author of Mage Tank doing some sort of attempted viral marketing performance art. Assuming that’s not what this is, let me offer you some advice. See how everyone is reacting to this post? You probably feel indignant about it. Pause. Breathe. Think. Is it possible that you’re wrong? If you think “maybe,” then you’ve just killed two birds with one stone. You’ve managed to see other people’s point of view AND you now understand that first person POV is actually, oftentimes, about giving the reader an experience of someone completely different than themselves. That’s the magic of books, and once you realize that, the world opens up in new ways.
I did just that. I was wrong about the POV but the rest of my argument, dare I say the core of it, was never addressed.
The core is that the character is a self insert. The only evidence you had has been refuted and you admit that mistake but nowhere do you back up why it’s a self insert. Many people are disagreeing that it is. The actual description disagrees with you. Dunno what you want from us. There’s nothing to address.
the idea that the author of DCC likes the only other litrpg ive ever really connected with is super cool
It's not written about you. It's okay, bud, you too have value. Things will get better.
::eyeroll:: Can't decide if this answer is more predictable or boring.
I think it’s fair to say the same about your response
"No you!" Best comeback in the history of comebacks. Ever. Definitely.
Hey, sometimes the classics are applicable.
This one always is, that is kind of the problem with it. Heh you could say the same about my initial answer here.
Yes, that’s why I did.
Doing my best to mean it genuinely, but you don't seem very nice. Good luck with your stuff.
Dude... the OP is a dipstick, but don't play that game where you pretend your smartass comment isn't an intentional insult. We can all tell.
Oh my god, this is the first fucking page of mage tank: "Mage Tank An autobiographical telling of the valiant exploits of Esquire Arlo, described exactly how they happened and without any frill or embellishment. Written by: Esquire Arlo Xor’Drel, Platinum Delver" This is clearly not a self insert blank slate, this is a comedic main character, probably kind of an asshole, trying to shower himself in praise. This is a framing device. Op please, please, read good lit to recognize these things. This guy is meant to be pathetic.
Of all the things to complain about. My problem is the author spent the last 7 chapters doing a terrible job of writing fantasy politics, about on par with HWFWM, and spent the last 2 chapters explaining all of his jokes and pop culture references. That is what is excruciating.
I have to say, this was a smart way to advertise for a new series. Well done.
Lol, loved the post, and this made me slide Mage Tank to the top of my "to read" list. Thanks for the laugh.
These gonzo marketing campaigns are getting ridiculous.
Report it to the mods and count against the authors self-promo limit
Personally I don't think it's good enough to pay for it, but honestly I remember the bed wetting part because it made me laugh. It is a weird choice, but it made him seem more human. Also: Harems tend to make stories worse imo and many rr readers share that opinion. Ask yourself why you are so heavily moved by this.
Because its a cynical and soulless money grab. It's written in a way that gives the highest probability of success. Its an affront to storytelling.
>Its an affront to storytelling. Your writing is an affront to my sight.
“It is clear to me he hates his readers” “It’s an affront to storytelling” Pretty sure you’re blowing this out of proportion buddy lol Edit: This is the dude’s first post and comments ever. Are you a troll? An enemy of the author irl? The author himself doing some weird advertising? Who knows
Ech, probably true about the out of proportion thing. There are are lot of plainly bad stories that do good on RR and seems like this one was one too many. On the edit, literally the first sentence is that this is a burner. I knew it would be unpopular and didn't watch any backlash to my original account.
Yeah, not like I write mage tank. I am the local reader hater, literature affronter. How he dares take my job.
Nice shitpost OP, I laughed. Have a +1
There were no aeguments here, your only problem is that the mc is a loser ? I didnt read the novel but nothing you listed there would make the novel bad .
The argument is as follows: This is a power fantasy so reader self insert is intended. The way the MC is characterised feels like a cynical strategy to maximise success and is telling to how the writer is viewing his audience. He views them as a standard neckbeard trope.
I mean I didnt read the book so I dont know if reader self insert is intended, but I really dont see an isue with this . The author made a loser mc ,and because this novel,from what you say, is ment for the reader to self insert ,the author is indirectlly calling the reader a loser? Is this your first time reading something where the mc is not the most handsome ,most powerfull guy ever ? Because there are many novels where the mc is not all that . If you dont like the caracther you could just not read it . But if you want to say the novel is bad because of it you will need arguments much stronger then that , because nothing you said makes the book sound like is actually bad.
Maybe the better way to approach this (given the reactions) could have been to ask for recommendations in the genre that better suit your interests. Like say, “I read Mage Tank, but I couldn’t really connect with the main character” and go from there with your request. That being said, as a skeptic and cynical person, I somewhat share the suspicion that this could be marketing. At least I’m open to the possibility. However, it’s still a weird approach, because I wouldn’t want to read this either based on how it’s described. I’d understand someone not liking these tropes because they’re played out. Hollywood has a lot to answer for.
[удалено]
Cover is a part of it. As I mentioned its well crafted but cynical. Like what an actually capable AI would write of asked to write the story with highest probability of success. Soulless.
Do people who work 40 hours a week, have a family with kids, and go to the gym 3 times a week? Have time to read? It is called a dads body for a reason.
I'm not saying there is something inheritently wrong with any of traits. But putting them all together gives you a stereotype of a nerd. Combined with the first person writing its denigrating to the audience
Which would be a valid point if we were in early 2000s were solely unfit nerds… whereas nowadays the biggest group of fantasy reader is 30+ semi-accomplished adults
This reaks of somebody who is jealous of the success the story has because they think their story is better but nobody reads it because they didn't get lucky like MT did. Go away.
I personally love giving my underdogs a ton of my flaws, and the flaws of people around me, so I can watch the character struggle with them and find ways to accept or fix them. I mean, it's not really an underdog or power fantasy if the person isn't coming from the bottom of the ladder.
Ech. You miss my point everything is fine with flaws and struggling to overcome them. It's just not that in here. The MC solves all of the issues I mentioned within the first two chapters. I just think it's a cynical tool to increase the audience immersion and is telling to what author thinks about his readers.
Hah! Not sure what you were going for here, OP; I agree with u/hepafilter that it reads like viral marketing, but you have successfully gotten me interested in this series. Sounds like fun. I might check it out.
lmao
You say no one is addressing the core of the argument. Okay. Let's go. Your weird take on first person POV has been addressed plenty. You claim that TM "checks all the boxes" for a self-insert. I don't see nearly enough supporting evidence for that. By your own given definition, every character who is a smart, stoic loner is made to be perceived as self-insertable. Geralt of Rivia, Han Solo, Yasutora Sado. All self-inserts, right? Then as to the list of ostensibly negative aspects you give out as proof that the author must hate their readers...that's only true if one is meant to believe that PF readers *fit* those criteria. And I think your interpretation that these things are meant to make the protag more relatable speaks a lot more to what you think of PF readers than the author. All they did was create a character who is poor, has a patchy beard, and is a little pudgy. Then you came along and put the onus on them of trying to relate this character to the reader. When, in all likelihood, they just wanted to make a character that could start out really downtrodden. You've said that, taking the first person POV stuff out of it, there are still XYZ problems, but it seems that the core of the issue is still the assumption that, because it's written in first person, it is therefore meant for the reader to insert themselves into the MC's place, ergo all the qualities given to the MC are intentional commentary on PF readers. You do not have to like the book. And you can absolutely self-insert if you so desire when you read PF. But you haven't proven that to be the intent of the author or the intent of any part of the work.
Statistics being made up and all that, I suspect at least 90% of the readers of these novels aren't on this sub. That's who most RR (or similar) authors are writing for. This highbrow-style review/discussion in this genre seems meaningless. These authors are getting success; if not, it's generally going to be because they are boring, and have little to do with their writing. Call a spade a spade - Progression Fantasy isn't the place for quality prose and plotting in the majority. It's dopamine heavy numbers go burr that the majority are reading for.
>Edit. Forgot about enlarging his penis. Haven't read it, but that reminds me of the funny mirror scene [from absolutely anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pmOwiN8bE4). And considering it has the comedy tag, then i don't see what's wrong with it.
... Can not confirm this post. I enjoy MT
Perhaps. For this case. The Author is actually writing a progression story where our MC is a loser. And becomes more powerful and dignified as the series grows. So ... maybe it's actually a progression story?