What cliché’s do you dislike?

[richardanthonyc]

Yeah but I assume it was in RJ's plan to kill a load of em off. Brandon Sanderson even said the final chapter was written by RJ and a whole loads peops died in it

At the risk of defending Twilight... why do so many people have problems with the types of Vampires in it? They don't conform to the stereotype which is better than the cliche dark mansion, huge teeth and stake to the heart nonsense

[OverLoad]

At the risk of defending Twilight... why do so many people have problems with the types of Vampires in it? They don't conform to the stereotype which is better than the cliche dark mansion, huge teeth and stake to the heart nonsense

Granted it tried something... new, I suppose. But for vampires, it didn't capture the essence of them, which is where (along with the terrible writing) Twilight failed.

[richardanthonyc]

Don't say that to all the Twi hards out there

[AK_Brickster]

If it weren't for the sparkling in the sunlight thing, they'd almost be tolerable.

[Karalora]

The problem with Twilight vampires isn't that they sparkle in the sun instead of spontaneously combusting. (The latter was a Hollywood invention anyway. Prior to that, vampires couldn't use their powers during the day or just didn't appear except at night. Either portrayal is valid, I think.) No, the problem with Twilight vampires is that they have all the advantages of being vampires that have come to be considered staples in vampire folklore--and then some!--but no disadvantages whatsoever. They have to drink blood, but it can be animal blood, so there's no ethical issue with being a vampire. They aren't harmed or inconvenienced by sunlight, garlic, stakes, fire, running water, or poppy seeds. They don't have to sleep in coffins or underground--don't have to sleep at all. They look completely human, in fact they look like the most beautiful humans in existence. They live in happy little functional family units and have awesome sex lives and play superhero baseball. There is literally no downside to being a vampire in the Twilight continuity.

And that? Ruins vampires. The legend of the vampire has come to symbolize the conflict between certain very human desires--the desire for power, for immortality, for freedom from the constraints of human society--and the suspicion that in order to have those things, you would lose the parts of your humanity that you would rather keep. You can't live forever unless you steal life (blood) from others. If you are the lord of the night in your remote castle, then you have no friends and no love and keep company with rats and bats, and daylight itself is your enemy. You transcend your human frailties only by abandoning humanity altogether and becoming a loathsome monster.

Without that angle, vampires become shallow and pointless. The Twilight creatures are called vampires because vampires were already kinda trendy when Stephanie Meyer was writing, but they aren't really vampires in any meaningful sense of the word.

[AK_Brickster]

Nice analysis!! I guess I didn't get into the books/movies enough to recognize all of those points. Well said

[Karalora]

Confession time: I haven't actually read the books or seen the movies. I refuse to. My information about how the Twilight vampires "works" comes secondhand...but the sources are consistent, so I have no reason to doubt them.

I do analyze stuff to death, however. And then I drink its blood.

[Ferretclaw]

Confession time: I haven't actually read the books or seen the movies. I refuse to.

Same. I strongly dislike the interest its following has in it. WATCH LOTR PEOPLE! AND THEN READ THE BOOKS! THEN YOU SHALL HAVE A TASTE OF THE TRUE ESSANCE OF THE WORDS "HIGH FANTASY" AND "EPIC"!



If I have offended any persons on this forum with this post, or said persons relatives or friends, I take no responsibility for injuries in the physical or emotional sense that may occur following the reading of said post to the angered parties or above mentioned friends and relatives. My apologies all around to any die hard Twilight fans for insulting your fandom. If you have any further issues, please call 1800-fake-numb#r. If this is an emergancy, please hang up and call nine one one. Thank you for your time. Lol.

[Maedhros]

WATCH LOTR PEOPLE!!! AND THEN READ THE BOOKS!!!!

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

On a more serious note we are drifting way off topic, people, and there's no need to go bashing anything here, nor its fans. Keep it friendly and thoughtful, and happy posting!

[Ferretclaw]

WATCH LOTR PEOPLE!!! AND THEN READ THE BOOKS!!!!

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

On a more serious note we are drifting way off topic, people, and there's no need to go bashing anything here, nor its fans. Keep it friendly and thoughtful, and happy posting!

Yes it should, but ironically many people are much more willing to try them in the order I mentioned.

Again, apologies all around and no hard feelings, I am strongly patriotic in my love of my fandom... In case you had not noticed.

Back on topic, another cliche i dislike is when the heroes are traveling somewhere, there is a random piece of food which the sidekick or someone will goe for, and the whole gang is tied up in a huge net. Then there is always a coniniently placed method of getting out somewhere (i.e. a sword, knife, teeth)

[OverLoad]

I tend to get bored of the "hero fights off 20 guys at once without a scratch" scenario more often than not. If it's a group vs. a group, and the heroes succeed fairly well, that's fine.

I'll mention George R. R. Martin here, who once said something along the lines of "I like my readers to fear for my character's life when in battle, I want them to know that the hero might not win." More often than not, the hero does not win in A Song of Ice and Fire. I think more writers could pick up on that, it really shakes things up and makes for a very interesting story to have the "main" character die midway through the book.

[ottoatm]

I tend to get bored of the "hero fights off 20 guys at once without a scratch" scenario more often than not. If it's a group vs. a group, and the heroes succeed fairly well, that's fine.

I agree here! This is quite popular in China now - with a hero taking on mobs and armies with Kung Fu craziness.

I disagree with the George R.R. Martin angle in the sense that I think he takes it way too far... even in the real world (which is no picnic) things aren't as bad as they are in his series! If Bilbo had been stabbed and died (for example) the book would have been no good.

That said some of that is indeed good - and we should worry about our hero dying in a battle. Just not ALL the heroes!

[Ferretclaw]

I tend to get bored of the "hero fights off 20 guys at once without a scratch" scenario more often than not. If it's a group vs. a group, and the heroes succeed fairly well, that's fine.

I agree here! This is quite popular in China now - with a hero taking on mobs and armies with Kung Fu craziness.

I disagree with the George R.R. Martin angle in the sense that I think he takes it way too far... even in the real world (which is no picnic) things aren't as bad as they are in his series! If Bilbo had been stabbed and died (for example) the book would have been no good.

That said some of that is indeed good - and we should worry about our hero dying in a battle. Just not ALL the heroes!

Agreed.

I also like stories that have no deffinitive "hero" so to speak. That have many different characters that the story from their view is told, slme of which that die.

[AK_Brickster]

Here's one that drives me crazy in popular action movies - Two hugely muscle-bound dudes get into a brawl (see Vin Diesel vs The Rock) and they are just pummeling each other. Smashing through walls, crashing through windows, getting punched repeatedly in the face, etc.

The next scene, both are walking without limps, and neither one of them has any sort of facial swelling, or bruises to any part of their bodies. I mean, I know these guys are tough, but their skin isn't titanium, for crying out loud.

[Karalora]

For me, it's certain character types that get overused:

* The naive farmboy who turns out to be the heir to the kingdom.
* The hot-tempered girl who is skilled and confident but nonetheless keeps getting endangered so Farmboy can rescue her and they can fall in love.
* The wise old eccentric wizard who knows what's going on but won't just tell anyone despite the trouble it would save.
* The good young king being led astray by his evil counselor.
* The evil king secretly being controlled by the Dark Lord.
* The Dark Lord who has no motivation for what he does besides lol!evil.
* The sexy female lieutenant of the Dark Lord who dresses like a dominatrix, tries to seduce Farmboy, was actually in love with the Dark Lord all along, turns good at the last minute, and gets killed for it.
* The sexy sorceress who is implied to have vast magical powers but seems to use them for only two things: 1) keeping herself young and beautiful forever, and 2) seducing heroes. (Bonus points if her magic fails toward the end of the scene where she appears, revealing that in reality she's--EEEEEWWWW!!!!--old!)
* The grizzled old veteran of The Last War, who has a heart of gold underneath it all.
* The haughty member of the nobility who insists upon joining the party and fancies themself the leader but is useless at everything (can be male or female).

I could keep going like this all day.

Has anyone else read Diana Wynne Jones's "The Tough Guide to Fantasyland"? It's all about fantasy cliches.