Fantasy Book Club discussion

What is your biggest turn off, and does it stop ytou reading on?

personally, I hate the @long lost heir to the throne' syndrome, and have stopped reading 2 books recently where I have found this one.

What do you hate most?

I hate the traditional quest stories. Those are too over done espeically after Tolkien when that is all authors wrote in the 80s, glad that new authors are trying to get away from that.

Clearly the cover art. Often much too violet and shiny and wannabe-heroic. Such covers are suspect and I wouldn't buy this kind of book unless I know the content.

Cover art is a thread on its own...

I'm a bit put off by the "Dark Lord" trope and the inevitable accompanying black and white system of morality. This worked back in the day for Tolkein and Terry Brooks, and is still fun for the younger audience; but it is very one-dimensional. I think a villian based on human greed, desperation, or even insanity, is more interesting than some shadowy embodyment of pure evil. Better yet when there are no "bad guys" or "good guys" and the conflict stems from ideological differences.

helpless women, or women who all but worship the hero. I throw those books against the wall.

Jean wrote: "helpless women, or women who all but worship the hero. I throw those books against the wall."

Ugh yes and seconded. I'm also tired of the female who, in seeking to be different, rejects all tradtional female roles. The princess who longs to fight with a sword but can't work with a needle to save her life. Because traditional female things are bad or something?

And really why can't she do both?

Jean wrote: "helpless women, or women who all but worship the hero. I throw those books against the wall."

What Jean said. And what Melani said.

[I've been rather disappointed by the trailer for "Brave" because the underlying motivation appears to be "princess who doesn't want to be princessy".]

Historically, "traditional female roles" were quite limiting. "Being princessy" and "not fawning sycophantically over the hero" are kind of hard to combine, unless it's a very particular kind of princess in a very particular situation. [In English history, only Margaret of Anjou and Eleanor of Aquitaine spring to mind, and Elizabeth I. Empress Mathilda is more representative of traditional female roles]

Besides, it's harder to write a really exciting novel about sitting at home weaving a tapestry while your husband kills the Dark Lord. Don't get me wrong, it could certainly be done... but it would be a lot more difficult than the normal sort of book.

[She can't be a swordswoman and a seamstress because both things require a lot of training and practice, and because any woman weird and rebellious enough to be a sword-fighter would not be likely to sit still for five years while being taught tapestry-work. It's only natural that those who choose to completely ignore everything their parents and tutors and friends and societies say to them and do something completely unacceptable by every standard known to them... well, they're likely to have to be quite anti-tapestry to do that in the first place, and even if they aren't, the process of total rebellion often has collateral casualties. We see this even today, when social pressures are relatively inconsequential - when people rebel, they generally do so by rejecting as much as possible of what they've been told to do. It's usually only a lot later that they come back as say 'actually, some parts of what my parents forced me to learn weren't so bad after all']

I've started a new thread in our TOPIC IN FOCUS folder for new writers in the group to discuss why they write fantasy and how they go about it:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/7...

Wastrel wrote: She can't be a swordswoman and a seamstress because both things require a lot of training and practice, and because any woman weird and rebellious enough to be a sword-fighter would not be likely to sit still for five years while being taught tapestry-work. It's only natural that those who choose to completely ignore everything their parents and tutors and friends and societies say to them and do something completely unacceptable by every standard known to them... well, they're likely to have to be quite anti-tapestry to do that in the first place, and even if they aren't, the process of total rebellion often has collateral casualties. We see this even today, ...

That is just an exuse for writers to be lazy in their characterizations. It is not that hard to write strong females that try to break free of the roles imposed on them by a patriarchial society without demeaning the traditional female roles in those societies. When you do so all you are doing is short hand for 'girls are icky and the things they like are icky'.

The strong willed princess who wants to break free of princessy stuff has been done and done again. It's a cliche and I'm tired of it. Give me something else please.

Alex wrote: "Very plain divide between "good" and "bad". I'm turned off by good guys that are too altruistic. I prefer grey characters, where good guys do bad things, and bad guys have redeeming qualities.

Al..."

I'm really with you on the checklistthing too. It's been done to death, so why does it keep coming back?

Stupid heroes.

I'm a barely trained (insert whatever the character is) and as a barely trained (whatever) I will get myself into idiot situations where I will need to be saved by the older, wiser, (whatever).

See Luke Skywalker.

I can take this once per story line before I want to slap the Hero silly.

Melani wrote: "Wastrel wrote: She can't be a swordswoman and a seamstress because both things require a lot of training and practice, and because any woman weird and rebellious enough to be a sword-fighter would ..."

Well, as I say, it's hard to make the alternative (tapestry weaving, being married off at a young age) into an exciting story. the sort of authors who might do well with that story are off writing Serious Literary Works.

Not to mention that, male or female, having a weak-willed main character makes it difficult to have an exciting book in any case. [And if the heroine is strong-willed, it's hard to have her spend the entire book doing exactly what she's told like a good little princess].

Personally I love a story where the female lead is a strong and traditionally female character. Granted this works best if you split the story between the female and male lead. He's off fighting. She's watching his back, making sure his supply lines and armies are functional.

I like seeing Queen Kick-Ass take charge, keep the castle running, make sure the rebellions are dealt with, the taxes paid, her subjects protected, and if hubby gets captured gets on a damn horse and leads the troops in his stead.

Sure, she's not swinging a sword around while she's on that horse, she's there as a bit of political theater, making sure everyone knows her husband is not out of the game.

Agreed with all the things said about female characters and how it seems to be either/or and not both/and. They can do both you know....

I also dislike heroes/main character who are just insanely talented because they can be (or learn things better/faster than people who have trained all their lives for something) and people just love them and never do any wrong. I tend to describe them as too "shiny" to be a real person.

Pauline wrote: "Agreed with all the things said about female characters and how it seems to be either/or and not both/and. They can do both you know....

I also dislike heroes/main character who are just insanely ..."

Yeah, the only time you can get away with a shiny character like that is when you're William Goldman and the character in question is Westley from The Princess Bride.

If the dialog hadn't been as good, he would have been an annoying character, but with that dialog, he's probably one of the top ten fantasy characters ever.

Wastrel wrote: "Well, as I say, it's hard to make the alternative (tapestry weaving, being married off at a young age) into an exciting story. the sort of authors who might do well...

I think you're deliberately misreading what I'm saying. I'm not asking for a weak willed princess who stays at home and does nothing. All I'm asking for is that writers stop using traditional female roles as scapegoats and have their heroine reject those roles as a short hand to make her cool. It's lazy writing, full stop.

Patricia Briggs does this fairly decently in some of her fantasy novels. Those novels tend to suffer from 'lone female' syndrome, they do have strong female characters (ie strong characters who happen to be female as opposed to characters that are 'manly' females). Brandon Sanderson also does it fairly well as does Patricia McKillip and quite a few others. It's not hard, but unfortunately there are far too many authors who take the cliché route. And those novels don't get finished by me.

Melani wrote: "I think you're deliberately misreading what I'm saying. I'm not asking for a weak willed princess who stays at home and does nothing. All I'm asking for is that writers stop using traditional female roles as scapegoats and have their heroine reject those roles as a short hand to make her cool. It's lazy writing, full stop. "

In The Curse of Chalion the princess is early on described as being quite handy with her needlework, and goes on to become a strong ruling Queen.

Alex wrote: "Very plain divide between "good" and "bad"."

I am also tired with the divide between "good" and "evil", be it characters, gods or just the concepts themselves. And why "evil" must almost always turn onto itself and get "defeated" in the end. What is considered as an evil action, it can be considered as good action by the one who takes it. I prefer stories where characters and their actions are simply listed without trying to sway the reader towards a specific judgement.
And finally, I cannot read books that go deep into TOO many details in every description. I prefer clever and substantial dialogues that get the plot unfolding and describe the inner worlds of the characters.
As for female characters, I don't mind female superheroes, as long as there is an interesting story to frame them. What Marc says about The Curse of Chalion picks my interest.

Lettif wrote: "As for female characters, I don't mind female superheroes, as long as there is an interesting story to frame them. What Marc says about The Curse of Chalion picks my interest. "

It's not the heart of the story by any means. Iselle starts as the sister of the prospective heir, expecting just to be married off somewhere else. A twist of fate makes her the heiress and she rises to the challenge, but the story is about the man who makes it all possible in her service.

Wastrel wrote: "Well, as I say, it's hard to make the alternative (tapestry weaving, being married off at a young age) into an exciting story. the sort of authors who might do well with that story are off writing Serious Literary Works. "

You are implying really good writers (as a writer that can make a weak-willed character interesting) only write big literary books? So basically you're saying fantasy writers are secondary writers that we shouldn't expect that much from. Huh.

There are a lot of fantasy cliches, but it can be hard to avoid them all. No matter how new and inventive we as readers want our stories, I think it can be hard to fit into a genre without falling into the use of some of those cliches. No matter how many times the quests, good vs. evil, or shiny hero might be employed, those are the things that originally drew me into a love of fantasy. I think I'd feel cheated if I couldn't still read books that had those cliches.

I do think writers can help distinguish themselves by finding ways to break those bounds and to use them in new ways. The beauty of fantasy is that while you can find comfort with the cliches, you just never know what other surprises might lurk within the pages.

Well, that's sort of the issue of the cliche. It's not that the same tropes get used over and over again. If memory serves there's something like seven standard myth archetypes, and pretty much all fantasy is derived from one of them.

It's how they get used, and the characters that people them.

I'll read a high quest over and over if the author gives me characters I can fall in love with. I'll go through yet another epic battle if the dialog is sharp and tight. I'll happily read about yet another world of Elves, Dwarves, Humans and Ogres if the author builds that world well and gives me a decent spin on any of the usual plots.

So it's not that being a cliche is the problem. It's that taking the cliche and packaging it the exact same way we saw it the other thirty times we read it, that's the problem.

The one I'm reading now has a scene that's almost a copy of Yoda and Luke talking about Luke not really being ready and the power of the force. If these were standout characters, I wouldn't much mind. It's realistic, anyone who's met a teen boy knows they're under the impression they're invincible. But not only is the scene borrowed, the characters are fairly flat, and that's a recipe for blah.

Keryl wrote: "Well, that's sort of the issue of the cliche. It's not that the same tropes get used over and over again. If memory serves there's something like seven standard myth archetypes, and pretty much all..."

I agree that a great story of any genre is about the characters. I want to bond with them, worry over them and feel some sort of emotion with them. A plot, world, or conflict is just dressing when I read. I want great characters that can stick with me beyond the close of the book.

I get tired of female characters too. Either they are there to fall in love with and or rescue. Or they are they to betray the hero and be basic witches ( or ryhmes with anyway ).

I'm mostly tired of traditional quest fantasy but I'll read a few. I think the new trend of darker fantasy might be heading towards becoming a new cliche. Although I'm not tired of it yet.

Right now, I've read it in the past, I have no interest in reading the urban fantasy/paranormal romance books. You know the ones. To me they are even more cliche than cliche.

Celine wrote: "You are implying really good writers (as a writer that can make a weak-willed character interesting) only write big literary books?"

I took it as a joke, myself.

I'll go through yet another epic battle if the dialog is sharp and tight. I'll happily read about yet another world of Elves, Dwarves, Humans and Ogres if the author builds that world well and gives me a decent spin on any of the usual plots.

Those are the tropes that need most to get stood on their heads.

I agree with you so much. I don't outright reject books with those sorts of cliched female characters, but it is getting old. Why can't they be feminine and cool?

In The Enchantment Emporium the heroine is usually the dominant partner, yet she requires her male partner to anchor and focus her power, and they spend a great deal of their time making pie. They're very domestic, and spend their time protecting what they claim as theirs.

Traci wrote: "I get tired of female characters too. Either they are there to fall in love with and or rescue. Or they are they to betray the hero and be basic witches ( or ryhmes with anyway ).

I'm mostly tire..."

Could have not agreed with me or said it better myself.

I sometimes fantasize about buying caselots of The Tough Guide to Fantasyland and anonymously mailing them to various authors after doing some selective highlighting.

Personally, I like balance when it comes to gender or better when gender is irrelevant. But, I particularly putdown's of males, testerone jokes etc.

Joseph wrote: "I sometimes fantasize about buying caselots of The Tough Guide to Fantasyland and anonymously mailing them to various authors after doing some selective highlighting."

That looks really good, Joseph. Thanks.

Actually, regarding stereotypical characters, whether they be male or female, are annoying to me. What matters to me is depth and authenticity in anything I read. Cliche or not in plot doesn't bother me as much if the characters and setting and writing are well done. Although I must say, the whole 'school of magic' thing has thoroughly been done, and IMO no one has done it as well as Rowling in the HP series.

So if I read that in a book description, I am not apt to read it.

Celine wrote: "You are implying really good writers (as a writer that can make a weak-willed character interesting) only write big literary books? So basically you're saying fantasy writers are secondary writers that we shouldn't expect that much from. Huh."

Well yes, obviously. I don't think anyone could seriously say that the fantasy genre is as well-stocked with brilliant writers as 'literary' fiction is. There are very, very few brilliant writers in fantasy, if any [I certainly doubt there are any in epic fantasy, though I've not read enough to be sure].

That's not an inherent problem with fantasy - personally, I wish some of those literary writers would see that they could write books that were even better if they embraced the genre - but at the moment, fantasy (and to a lesser extent science fiction, horror, etc) have quite a stigma attached in literary circles, and most really brilliant writers stear clear of fantasy. I'd love to read a good tapestry-weaving-while-husband-sorts-everything-out novel, but I don't trust fantasy authors to write it. [Maybe Le Guin might be persuaded?].

I think the fanboy desire to say that fantasy is as well written as anything else is as short-sighted and extreme as the geek-hating desire to say that there is nothing good in fantasy. And I say this as a fantasy reader. There are plenty of fantasy authors who are bad but kinda enjoyable, and quite a few who are OK, and even some who are actually quite good... but brilliant?

----

Adrienne et al: these days, of course women (and men) can pick and choose their lives - I'll this bit of this role, and that bit of that expectation, and so forth. That's great. But it's not representative of most of history. Most of history, it was "this is what you have to do. If you don't, you'll experience a fate worse than death". When you're offered a choice between cake or death, you have to be really, seriously pissed off and cake-hating to choose death. You don't say "i'll have death please! but could I have just a little slice of the cake while I'm at it?" - because the whole point of choosing death is avoiding the cake. If you don't REALLY want to avoid the cake, you don't pick death.

Likewise, women don't tend to rebel against gender roles and cast off the love and protection of their family, and defy the religious authorities and infuriate the secular authorities, because they happen to feel like it that morning. The women who did that, historically, were the ones who really felt that they couldn't cope with the traditional gender roles, that they HAD to rebel. Which makes them unlikely to try to keep hold of the bits of those roles that they like.

And of course, even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to. Even if you look back and think 'you know, I actually liked weaving tapestries', it's not really possible to weave a tapestry while also being an sword-wielding adventuress who sleeps under a bush. In life, there are a lot of either/or choices. And before the current age of agreeable societies and limitless wealth, life was even more either/or than it is now.

Keryl: taking charge as Queen Kick-Ass is not a traditional gender role. Some queens have been able to do it, but very few. The classic example is Margaret of Anjou - she was able to kick ass because her father was immensely powerful but in another country, and her husband was immensely authoritative, but a dimwit who spent most of the time in periodic bouts of dribbling insanity. And even she died in poverty, having lived only through the charity of her cousin, the King of France.

Which reminds me of the other reason why women couldn't 'do both': because being strong requires other people to take you seriously and think of you as strong. And you can't be considered strong and be considered a woman as well, in medieval times, since 'woman' and 'strong' were more or less opposites. Hence Elizabeth: "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king". Elizabeth survived by being a king, not a queen. It's not a coincidence that she died a virgin - you couldn't be a wife and a serious political figure. Look at Mary Stuart, queen of scotland yet virtually imprisoned by her husband; look at Mary II, known to history as the "and Mary" suffix to the name of William III. [Mary was the heir, but her husband had all the power]. If a woman was trying to be strong and carve out her own future, she couldn't ALSO try to uphold female gender roles where possible - because whether she was a soldier or a politician, the moment she let people realise that she was 'just a woman', she was done for.

-----------

An interesting idea, though: you could probably have more nuanced female characters in a non-European setting?

Wastrel wrote: ...There are very, very few brilliant writers in fantasy, if any [I certainly doubt there are any in epic fantasy, though I've not read enough to be sure]...."

I disagree, but it's probably a matter of taste. What speaks to the reader is what makes writing good or bad, not the venue they perform in.

I'm in agreement with Wastrel that it is difficult to have gender role defying female character in a fantasy world based on medieval Europe. It is possible to have more nuanced characterisation of gender in settings that are either based on modern society, or that are completely different from any Earth society.

The fantasy cliche I dislike the most is a very clear distinction between good and evil. I really can't like a hero/heroine that is too perfect.

This "fangirl" completely disagrees that there are no brilliant fantasy writers.

Betelgeuze wrote: "I'm in agreement with Wastrel that it is difficult to have gender role defying female character in a fantasy world based on medieval Europe. It is possible to have more nuanced characterisation of ..."


Because you can have dragons and magic and so many other fantastical things but the one thing you don't change is the patriarchial society? Give me a break.

Also I'd place quite a few writers of fantasy fiction up against the so called 'literary' writers any day. LeGuin for one. The Left Hand of Darkness is probably among the best books to come out of the second half of the 20th century. Speculative fiction? Yes. Literary fiction? Oh yes.

I think you've missed my point, (and the point of fantasy), Wastrel.

Queen Kick-Ass is defying the traditional stereotype of a female using the traditional spheres of female power. She is strong, confident, in charge, and doesn't have to put on armor or a sword to do it. Sure, it's not historically common, (of course, neither is magic, being a king, or knowing how to read, pick locks, or handle a sword. None of the traditional fantasy tropes are historically common. Being a peasant barely doing better than surviving is historically common.) but we aren't talking about writing historical fiction, now are we?

I have to adamantly disagree that there aren't fantasy writers as good as literary fiction writers. I've read a lot of literary fiction crap. Try Carol Berg's Lighthouse Duology which is so rich as to practically be fattening; or try Janny Wurts' Wars of Light and Shadow series, which is written in a rich bardic style with a language and rhythm all its own; or try C.J. Cherryh's Fortress series, which is written in an almost stream of consciousness to rival Faulkner. Or read Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin, or Guy Gavriel Kay's Lions of al Rassan or Catherine Valente's Palimpsest - a masterpiece of poetic, lyrical, disorienting sentence structure and subject matter. Give me a break.

Sure, there are a lot of hack fantasy writers, just as there are a lot of hack literary fiction writers. But there are many fine ones as well.

Melani wrote: "Betelgeuze wrote: "I'm in agreement with Wastrel that it is difficult to have gender role defying female character in a fantasy world based on medieval Europe. It is possible to have more nuanced c..."

Sure you can change the patriarchal mores of society. But you can't have medieval europe AND change the patriarchal mores of society, because if you try to combine the two of those you'll only become incoherent. Patriarchy is essential to the nature of the setting that most fantasy chooses. That's why I said that you could have more interesting female roles in fantasy based on some other cultures (or distinctly unearthly). If your fantasy novel is set in Sparta, or Egypt, or Cambodia, or the Caliphate, sure, you can have strong women who don't defy their gender roles. But in medieval Europe, traditional gender roles for women pretty much mandated weakness.

(I do think that many fantasy books that add elves and dragons and magic do so in a way that is incoherent with their settings and forces the reader to keep their eyes shut so as not to see the holes, yes - that's exactly why these elements are so often seen as cliche. Too many fantasy worlds look like earth except, oh, there are wizards and dragons, but they have no apparent impact on the way the world works.)

[I agree that Le Guin may be a brilliant writer, by the way. I've not read her fantasy books, but the Left Hand of Darkness is a very good book indeed, and while I wouldn't say she was the greatest writer ever, she's certainly good and possibly brilliant. I even mentioned her by name myself. I think she could write a tapestry-novel. I didn't say there were NO brilliant writers in the genre, only that there were very few. Of living authors, Christopher Priest and Gene Wolfe would be the other obvious examples, I think. I'm also extremely impressed by what I've read of Margo Lanagan - her only serious novel is sort of flawed, but some of her short stories are brilliant. And I'm not well read, so there may well be others also. But if you run your eyes over the genre shelf, and then over the literary shelf, the genre writers can't in general compete. Which was my point - that there are few writers capable of writing good 'literary' books in a fantasy setting. Not none, but few. (Obviously some more if you include magic realism)]


Keryl: yes, please, explain to me what the point of fantasy is. I've only been reading it for twenty years, after all. I guess I've been wasting my time by reading it before asking you to explain what it's for.

Queen Kick-Ass isn't using traditional spheres of female power. You said yourself that she's doing things "taking charge", "keeping the castle running", "making sure the rebellions are dealt with", "making sure the taxes are paid", "making sure her subjects are protected", and "if hubby gets captured getting on a damn horse and leading the troops in his stead." These are all completely outside traditional female spheres of power! [You can tell, because they involve having power]. Women did sometimes do these things, but they didn't get to do them AND stick to traditional gender roles.

Women could choose to act like men in these ways, but it involved sacrifices. I don't think 'the point of fantasy' is to have cool characters who can get everything they want without sacrifices because they never encounter limitations or external pressures. On the contrary, I think what makes a character like Margaret interesting is that to achieve what she achieved she had to lose what she lost. [Or, conversely, what makes Matilda interesting is that to keep what she did not want to lose, she had to give up what she could so easily have had. Now there's a traditional medieval european female sphere of power: winning the war by surrendering, having children, and having your descendents be the only surviving heirs.]

But, I'm clearly in a minority of one here, so i'll be quiet. No point annoying EVERY woman in the group.

Wastrel- you could easily write a fantasy novel in a medieval setting and have it be a matriarchy. 1) India is a matriarchy, you could pull heavily from them for historical context 2) its a fantasy, so you can create the archetype that you want.


Frankly, while I hate the whimpering scared women, I am beginning to equally detest the all-mighty woman. Don't get me wrong, I can be quite a feminist, I spent 8 years in the US Army myself, studied Krav Maga, etc.... but I honestly think that the reason Twilight was so popular is because it reminded women that we don't have to be powerhouses all the time. Sometimes you want to be taken care of, and thats ok, and other times you want to solve the problem on your own, and thats ok too.

Really what I look for is more believablility in character-writing, for both sexes. I hate when any character has a massive, ground changing catharsis. Outside of Euripides and Greek tragedies there is no call for that kind of lackluster character change.

Becky wrote: "Really what I look for is more believablility in character-writing, for both sexes. "

I know many books of that sort. My publisher is small enough that she chooses what she likes, and that's what she likes too. I've read all genres that she produces, because the characters make the book, not the genre.

I hate when any character has a massive, ground changing catharsis.

Unless the groundwork has been well built up, yes. Sudden shifts of that sort are often just bad writing.

Wastrel wrote: "Melani wrote: "Betelgeuze wrote: "I'm in agreement with Wastrel that it is difficult to have gender role defying female character in a fantasy world based on medieval Europe. It is possible to have..."

A medieval-esque fantasy world does not need to be patriarchal to work, it needs to be authoritarian. There's nothing special about a y chromosome in this setting. But to work properly it does need some sort of divine right class (for lack of a better term) who are, by right of their existence, better than everyone else and allowed to rule. The high monarch does not need to be any particular gender or race, but s/he does need to be able to say "Jump" and have the underlings say "How high?" I could write a medieval european looking world with genderless creatures that reproduce by splitting in half, and as long as I built up an appropriate level of church domination, set it up so some segment of the population is chosen to lead, and kept the technology level low, it would work.

As for female power, you might be misreading what I am saying. There are traditional spheres of female power, the main one being an extension of some man. As the voice of her absent husband/too young son a Queen is expected to rule and make sure the kingdom is still there and functional when Hubby returns/Sonny grows up. That is, beyond popping out children, the main job of the Queen. Almost any and every job she may chose to do as a way to secure the throne for her husband/son is acceptable and considered properly feminine. She hasn't stepped out of line or into "masculine" territory until she's arranged to have her male half removed from the picture so she can rule in her own name/name of her lover.

The second traditional role of feminine power is the voice behind the throne/puppet master at court. Any good history of almost any royal court will have a ton of ins and outs where the Queen is manipulating what is going on. Usually this is power on the local (throughout the kingdom)level, as opposed to international.

The third traditional scope of female power is the courtesan/hetaira. Manipulation of political reality through sex is quite common in history. (On occasion to the point of even gaining the throne. Justinia, Roxanne, I'm sure there are others, but they aren't springing to mind.)

Women in power may not be common. But a woman doing any of the above is not seen as stepping outside the bounds of traditional women's roles. When Matilda (Stephen's wife, not Matilda his enemy) rides out to gather her forces in her husband's name, she's being a good wife and a good Queen. When Joan of Arc puts on armor and leads armies she's a freakish heretic who has to be executed to keep everything properly in it's place.

I agree with you Keryl.

When mister big King was on the warpath, did his Kingdom stop working? Nope. Because the Queen would oversee everything in his absence. And she would not be shunned. It would be perfectly normal. A woman is perfectly capable to run her own household, so a queen is perfectly capable to rule the kingdom if the King isn't there. Of course, his judgement always comes before hers, but that was just the way it was back then.

I like characters that stand behind their husbands, but who are not afraid to take the reigns if they have to. Those are strong women in my opinion.


And I'm finding it a bit racism (for lack of better word) that Literary Fiction is better than Fantasy. If there are more capable Caucasian writer than there are Asian writers, you wouldn't dare say American-European literature is better than Asian.

Celine wrote: "I agree with you Keryl.

When mister big King was on the warpath, did his Kingdom stop working? Nope. Because the Queen would oversee everything in his absence. And she would not be shunned. It wo..."

Not sure I'd say racist, but I get your point.

For me it's a matter of what you like in a book. I couldn't care less about beauty of language. Don't get me wrong, I like it, but if there isn't a killer plot and great characters, the most gloriously poetic word choices in the history of word choice won't make me a fan.

I like plot. I like dialog. I like happy characters (sure they may go through crap, but I like at least moments of real joy). And none of those things are particularly beloved of the lit fic crowd.

So, for me, lit fic is a short hand for guys who have a good ear for words but couldn't plot their way out of a paper bag. I'd call someone a literary writer when they're so wrapped up in the inner lives of their characters that they forget there's an outer life as well.

For me, lit fic is not a compliment.

I spent a lot of yesterday in a bookshop. It can be a hard life, you know, as a writer.

To the cliches I so want to add magical assassins and everyone who's trying to rewrite Game of Thrones....

Alex wrote: "Have you guys seen this article from SFWA?

It's a list of all the little things aspiring authors should refrain from doing, and includes a lot of the tropes we've become so tired of. It's a great ..."

Alex, that ia na excellent link for us all to read and re read.

When something bad happens to the character. is always physical. for example, tired, beat-up.

every book seems to be learn something, get beat up and then rescue or win something.

Keryl wrote: "... medieval-esque fantasy world does not need to be patriarchal to work, it needs to be authoritarian. There's nothing special about a y chromosome in this setting..."

In this setting, indeed. I think the power of genetics is being underestimated. At present our western civilization is geared towards gender neutrality when it comes to choices, self-actualization and power. It is not only PC, correct and the best for our societies, but legally supported. If there were an apocalyptic collapse of our civilization, say an asteroid strike, plague, world-wide famine—back to basic survival scenarios—I think we'd see social rôles revert to those dictated by genetics. It has happened over and over as civilizations rise and fall.

Will wrote: "I spent a lot of yesterday in a bookshop. It can be a hard life, you know, as a writer.

To the cliches I so want to add magical assassins and everyone who's trying to rewrite Game of Thrones...."

I don't care if a new novel uses standard fare, as long a it is well-written and satisfies me. If I had to wait for something never been done before, there'd be nothing new to read. "There is nothing new under the Sun."