Classic-Castle.com

Ferretclaw wrote:I hate it when the entirety of a race is good or evil. Like all elves are good and all orcs are bad, that kind of thing. I also hate it when none of the important good guys die, it makes it seem too easy. I think its lame that the good guys always win and the hero gets the girl, but at the same time I have read very few good stories that don't end like that. Anyway, I am also a writer (Not professionally, just for fun and a bit of extra money) so good luck.

George Martin sure like to kill his good guys... even Robert Jordan after 13 books of not killing good guys decided to make half of the good guys die at the end of the Wheel of Time Series.

Tolkien has plenty of evil men, bad elves (Gondolin ) and even Saruman was a good Maia who turned evil

richardanthonyc wrote:

Ferretclaw wrote:I hate it when the entirety of a race is good or evil. Like all elves are good and all orcs are bad, that kind of thing. I also hate it when none of the important good guys die, it makes it seem too easy. I think its lame that the good guys always win and the hero gets the girl, but at the same time I have read very few good stories that don't end like that. Anyway, I am also a writer (Not professionally, just for fun and a bit of extra money) so good luck.

George Martin sure like to kill his good guys... even Robert Jordan after 13 books of not killing good guys decided to make half of the good guys die at the end of the Wheel of Time Series.

Tolkien has plenty of evil men, bad elves (Gondolin ) and even Saruman was a good Maia who turned evil

Yeah... Just to point something out, the wheel of time series was finished by Brandon Sanderson. Gondolin=

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

richardanthonyc wrote: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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Karalora wrote: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.

Ferretclaw wrote: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!

Maedhros wrote:

Ferretclaw wrote: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)

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.

OverLoad wrote: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!

ottoatm wrote:

OverLoad wrote: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.