No worries. People make mistakes. If you didn't then I wouldn't care for your videos. I don't know if my opinion is unpopular and it isn't about a book, but how books are labeled. At this point I just want all fiction listed by author in bookstores. A good portion of 'Urban Fantasy' is placed in 'Romance' and vice versa. I once found a book by Kim Harrison in Mystery, Sci-Fi/Fantasy, Romance, and General Fantasy. The spine had the 'correct' label for each section. Some of the Urban fantasy is more Erotica and some in Romance have little romance but are far more suited to Mystery or Fantasy or even Sci-Fi. I hate this.
I think people misunderstand what “show don’t tell” actually means. It doesn’t mean pack the book with flowery language, it means if this character is tough you add a bit to the plot showing them being tough instead of saying “oh that’s character, they’re really tough”. I read a book recently where protag was apparently a thief but she stole nothing the entire book, or did nothing that a thief’s skills might be useful for, the author just kept saying “she was a master thief” yet…
@@Cashman9111 The Schooling system is designed to make people obey commands not think on their own, the people have become so used to being reprimanded for using their heads that they just do what they're told. That is without taking into account the fact that these are teenagers and younger sitting for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week for most of 5 years of their lives. IE: the teacher says show don't tell with no context every time a creative writing assignment comes up (which is actually said since creative writing assignments come into the academic career), it is safe to assume even by adult standards that simply stating things is a no no 90 percent of the time.
I've never encountered anyone who would think "show, don't tell" means using flowery language in the book, it's literally the opposite of what the phrase says. Even your example doesn't showcases that apparent misconception. Do you have any other examples?
I think I prefer romance as a supblot because far too many stories where romance is the major storyline resort to manufacturing drama in order to add stakes or drag out the runtime or whatever when 95% of issues in these sorts of stories could be resolved in three minutes if the people involved had even an ounce of communication skills. If romance is a subplot, relationships can develop naturally without feeling forced to add unnecessary manufactured drama that hinges on the main characters acting like they've never heard of a conversation before.
Have you watched Eternal sunshine. I think it doesnt do that whole will they wont they etc. It expresses relationships like they should, messy and fun. Were all still changing even as were in a relationship.
As an asexual, I actively swerve away from books where the description make it clear that the romance is a *major* plot point. Not being interested in romance, it would be nice to find more books without it,
That or the drama is the love interest being an abusive pos. And romanace in other fictions just feel forced. At least when it comes to movies and tv shows. I mainly read romance. Which is why I decided to start making a romance story that is also an action story, but it is a romance first. The biggest issue I see with romance, is that people are literally just uncreative and clearly can't think of things that can put stress on the relationship. They just go wtih an abusive love interest, or some times ex, and miscommunication that would not happen in any way in real life. And instead of looking to real life, they just recycle the same crap that is in every romance there is. Money is a massive one that puts relationships to the test. Maybe main character had an ex cheat on them and now are untrusting of their new partner, which will cause stress on the relationship and maybe said partner helps them get over their issue. Someone gets into a tragic accident or gets a dangerous illness and the issues that come up from that, which was done in the TV show Hannibel with that one FBI guy that I can not remember his name and his wife having cancer and her hiding it. There are lots of ways people can be doing romance and what do we get stuck with? Crap. :/
I think romances as subplots have the benefit of not needing to follow the rules of a story as much. If the romance is the main plot, you kinda have to introduce some bumps in the relationship to fit a romance into a story structure, and end it on some sort of climactic scene. If the romance is a subplot, it can exist as something that just develops naturally between two characters while they're working on more important stuff.
👆 Yes! I have started to get sick of romances because they are everywhere, so I really enjoy subtle romances (or just stories about people in aleeady existing healthy relationships because not many of those exist.)
I agree. I was thinking of berserk (I won't spoil) but anyone that's read it can attest to how impactful, beautiful and disgusting romance can be portrayed
I wanted to write the exact comment! Couldn't agree more. Main plot romances are unnecessarily complicated and they have to introduce conflict to make it interesting. But a subplot is where the healthy relationships live.
I agree completely. I really enjoy a romance that develops naturally due to interactions. It seems like authors are much better about exhibiting healthy relationships when it is not the main focus of the story. They don't over do stupid miscommunications or have various family members objecting for ridiculous reasons. The ex-whatever doesn't come back suddenly after 5 years to interfere. And, authors are seemingly less likely to use the death of a romantic partner for cheap plot progression when it is a subplot. I am totally done with death of a loved one as the motivation for the main protagonist's, story, etc... advancement.
14:23 as a romantic who absolutely HATES the way romance books treat a love story, romance sub-plots literally save me. I can't stand reading something where whether the main characters end up together is the whole point of the book. I want more, much much more, because it feels a lot more realistic. So say, when the main plot is about a magical world and there's something deeper going on, but at some point two characters slowly develop feelings for each other, I eat that up (not in ya smutty fantasy though, I hate that)
Agreed! Totally, if a book has a romantic genre then you obviously know what will happen in the end. Ik a lot of romance books end with sad ending and all, but mostly the purpose of them is to tell the story of a romance between two people. It's waay too obvious for my liking. A fantasy book or a literary mystery book with romance as a subplot is definitely more interesting in my opinion.
Be that romantic or non-romantic, I prefer there to be more substance in coexisting with my partner than just simply being together. And the same applies to the couples in the stories I read. While I acnowledge the benefits of someone to share experiences with, I still think those experiences should be worth something to begin with.
I actually disagree with you about villains. I feel like Hisoka is a great example of a relatively "simple" villain. Like we literally know nothing about him and we can't sympatize with him either. He has no backstory and no reedeming qualities. Even his motivation is fairly simple. He just spends all his time looking for the next fight. It's literally all he cares about. And yet he's one of the most memorable and fascinating characters in Hunter X Hunter.
He exemplifies how a character doesn't have to be relatable, as long as they're entertaining. The wild card characters that give you anxiety in any scene because no one knows what they want or how they'll react.
While a morally gray character can be great, there is a reason purely evil villain's exist. they reflect the worst of real people. You can find numerous stories of people are do the most heinous things out of pure selfishness and hate. People who no matter what they went through cannot be justified. Take the recent shooters who go into elementary's and kill innocent children if you want an example
@@assimilater-quicktips and then proceeded to say “Actually morally grey characters” you can’t just single out two words from a sentence and ignore the rest of it.
See if romance is the main plot I know I’m gonna be bored as hell cause that’s never enough to keep me interested. But I almost always love seeing side-plot romances since they can consist of all the best that the romance genre has to offer while not beating me over the head with it and still giving me dragons.
Side plot romances are the only reason I realized romances could be something I could actually _like_. Main plot romances (especially in YA, where I started seeing them first) are either really fucked up in some way (immortal & teen romance), or enjoy giving awful "problems" for the couples to go through which more than not end up turning into bright red flags that they shouldn't actually be together at all. Side plots though..... you can see friendships and bonds forming, healthy ways of going through difficult patches of life together, ongoing relationships, etc. Its great.
My favorite romances are from books with little to no romance, I also tend to get bored if the book is romance only, give me a brush of a hand before a deadly battle and I'll captain that ship
I would personally argue that we have an over saturation of morally Grey characters and too many complex villains where people go out of their way to give some sort of a reasoning motivation or excuse for why the villain is doing a bad thing. More often than not, it feels like the whole backstory given is just to make us feel like “oh they aren’t really bad, they’re just misunderstood or misguided!“ The problem is, there have been plenty of people in the real world and throughout history who just do bad things because they are bad people. And the statement that simple villains aren’t memorable is, I’m afraid, not true. Everyone remembers maleficent, Cruella Deville, Darth Sidious, Nute Gunray, and many more. People have been taught by literature teachers for decades that only complex characters are good characters and they’ve also been pushed towards this idea that “because people are complicated, you always need to show that there’s a reason for why people do bad things.“ This idea comes from a philosophical idea, to be honest, that people are ultimately good and just do bad things because of bad situations. But that’s not always the case. People are greedy, people are selfish, and people can very much be hedonistic seeking out their own desires no matter the expense. Sometimes people do things that hurt others and they just don’t care. You don’t need to write a villain coming up with justification for why they’re doing bad things or have some complex network of events in their backstory that makes them think that what they’re doing is the only way to live. You can just simply have a backstory where somebody grew up with parents that were overly accommodating and never taught them to reign in their selfishness greed or personal desire. A person raised like that is likely to believe that they shouldn’t have to control those feelings and so they go through life without expressing any empathy for those they hurt while following those desires and that makes a pure evil and/or simple villain. Are real people complex to where you can’t reduce them down to any one thing? Yes. But you can make a simple character that is realistic. If you make them realistic, then there are multiple parts of their personality, but what makes them simple is the fact that what you see is what you get. They can have their own personal interests or hobbies like anybody else. They can have their own personal values and beliefs. But the difference between a complex and a simple character is that a complex character will be multifaceted and layered to the point that you have to dig deeper in order to understand them whereas a simple character will be someone who you understand on face value and there are plenty of people in the real world to fit both. A lot of people are not so easily understood and you do have to put forth the effort to dig deeper to understand what they think and believe. There are other people who are so Earnest and confident that they just display themselves as they are. Either way, the point is that being simple or complex is not the defining trait of a good character and we need to understand that there are people who do bad things just because they want to do that bad thing. There are people who simply think “so what if it’s bad? Why shouldn’t I do it anyway?” These types of villains are those who are dominated by a key personal flaw such as pride, greed, or envy. There are people who haven’t learned to control these vices about themselves and don’t see a need to control those vices.
This. It goes hand in hand with advice I often see: "No one thinks of themselves as a bad guy, so you need to write them in a way that makes it logical for the character to take a morally bad action or allows them to justify it to themselves." And I'm just like....what? Where is this idea even coming from? Lots of people have the self-awareness to know what they are doing is despicable. Heck, half of mental illnesses are tied to an extremely negative self image, of people hating themselves BECAUSE they think of themselves as greedy, lazy, not compassionate, etc. Where did this abstract idea come from that no one sees themselves as the villain?
Yeah, morally grey has turned into the new edgy...im exaggerating but people tend to like certain ideas or tropes in different eras or times. Thats why im alittle easier on stories that arent "good for out time" or arent "correct" or "don't hold up" since stories take time to produce and even if you release at the zeighist...you were either predicting or lucky or just good lol.
It's funny, but if you want a soft-magic feel modern sci-fi is your best bet. Sci-fi is moving away from the "everything must be scientifically explained or feasible" stage while fantasy is moving more toward explaining every aspect of the magic system.
I remember 20 years ago or so when I wrote Sci-Fi for the first time, getting called out for it and being told that what I'm writing is "Future Fantasy", not Science Fiction, because it HAS to have clearly laid out scientific explanations for everything. Reading Science Fiction nowadays is like "He pressed a button and shapeshifted into a cat." and I'm like...what 🙃
As a writer, I loved this. Hearing what people like and then comparing it to my own story or asking myself “how would my story change if I applied that” was a fun exercise.
Murph: I hate people telling me to wait till the 4th book Also Murph: Finish out chimera ant arc and wait till the second book of First Law. I think these are fair opinions I just found it funny and wanted to poke fun.
Most upvoted comments Sometimes a villain... 1:09 We need morally grey... 3:00 I know prologues... 5:02 We need more books... 6:32 You don't have to finish... 7:53 The idea of "relatability"... 10:45 Healthy relationships in books... 11:44 I love a... 12:16 Romance as a subplot... 13:27 Most recent comments I love Hunter x Hunter... 15:19 I don't think... 17:36 What skill has Joe Abercrombie... 18:10 Merphy loses it over adding extensions... 20:02 Why is this hard... 20:08 Random comments Complex literature... 20:09 Prepare yourself... 21:05 Having a "good" ending... 22:39 Maps... 23:14
Joker is "shallow" when it comes to his backstory an motives and he is a enigma. Same for Hisoka in Hunter x Hunter. We don't understand why they are the way they are but the moment they are in the story they take over. And they are great because of the mystery and personality they bring and not their backstory.
I wouldn’t say that the Joker or Hisoka are "shallow" but rather tjat we don’t know their depths. But we know - or suspect - that they have a lot of depth. And one of the reasons why we love those villains is that, at least in the back of our minds, we always wonder "what happened to that person to make it that way "
@@tithannisk7470 I put shallow in parenthesis because I dont agree with using shallow. They are written like an Iceberg and under the suface there is a lot of substance we just don't see it and the mistery adds to the character. But if you only go by what you see you could argue that they are shallow and you can't truly understand where they come from. So I Agree with you just wanted to clarify that I'm not really calling them shallow. just implying that by the definition of, understanding a characher and having a backstory is depth they would be shallow.
Actually, using adverbs well and effectively becomes increasingly more frustratingly tedious as more people inform me repeatedly about the bemoanably ridiculous 'adverb rule`. The more that people irksomely complain about my heinous use of adverbs, the more I shall attempt spitefully to slyly slip them in.
When it comes to villains, Merphy makes the same mistake that a lot of people do in thinking that a villain can either be sympathetic OR one-dimensional, and that's just not true. A good villain, like any character, is nuanced. But all that means is that they should have distinct motivations and personalities that change based on the situation. I really like this way of putting it: "the villain doesn't have to be the hero of their own story...but they should be the _protagonist_ of their own story." A great example of this is Agent Smith from The Matrix. Agent Smith is not a sympathetic character. You don't want to see him redeemed, you want to see him defeated. And yet Agent Smith is absolutely a nuanced character! He has clearly defined motivations that sometimes pull him in different directions. We see him be angry, afraid, joyful. Sometimes he's cold and calculated, and sometimes he's filled with blind rage. BUT he's not a sympathetic character because his motivations are completly selfish! He doesn't think that he's morally justified, he couldn't care less! He's only in it for himself, and that makes him an intimidating antagonist. Now you could argue that giving him that kind of nuance does make him a little more sympathetic (he feels trapped in a miserable life, what's more relatable?). But he's not a "misunderstood" good guy. He is a true villain, and I think we could use more of those.
That's a great point and there is a lot of people who don't realize this. Or, more precisely, don't realize you don't have to sympathize with the villain in order to understand them. Which is essentially what you are saying, villain should have discernible motivations and well-rounded personality and act accordingly, so we can understand what are they doing and why. However, that absolutely doesn't mean we have to agree with them or like them.
I agree with you on this. While I love a good analysis of a villain's psyche, I also think that you can have a villain that's just a villain and still have them be an interesting and well-rounded character., they just need defined motivations. Like you said, they don't need to have any redeemable qualities, they don't need to be like, for them to be a good villain (good in the sense of being well-written). I think so many 'villains' these days are just morally grey or claimed to be 'misunderstood' (as much as I love these character types too) that sometimes having a villain just be a villain can be a nice change of pace.
I heard this somewhere and thought it was interesting: “the only difference between the hero and the villain is that the villain doesn’t change”. I’ve taken that to means they both have goals and motivation and obstacles, but one develops in character and the other chooses not to and stays rigid.
@@ErmenBlankenberg I think that attitude comes from the environemnt you're in. Booktube and online book culture is skewed to YA where anything semi-different is treated as revolutionary and the idea of villains has to be traced to an understanding of trauma and reasons for their actions. They don't understand that good writing is nuanced and that's what makes characters good not whether you can relate or find them sympathetic.
5:20 I think the rule they're referring to is that adverbs like "very" can be seen as sloppy/lazy. If you've watched Dead Poet's Society, the example I remember is "a man is not very tired, he is exhausted". Or "said quietly" would be better replaced with "whispered". Basically just that adverbs are a lazy way of modifying one word when there is likely a whole other word that directly means that thing.
I think this goes out the window when adverbs are used in more like… whimsical books? Like when the narrator’s tone is almost confidential, and they say like “he was already terribly exhausted” terribly gives the exhaustion itself a bit of personality
With the adverb rule, I think it’s because a lot of adverbial phrases can just become a different verb, unless they’re used in contradiction to what the verb means For example: “She ran fast,” can become “she sprinted,” or “they smiled happily,” can be “they beamed,” Personally, the second options sound better. BUT, adverbs come in useful when you need to describe the opposite of a verb, but still want the basic meaning of the verb there. For example: “she smiled sadly,” does not have the same impact as “she frowned,”. The connotations of “smiled sadly” means that there is still some happiness from “smiled” creating a more bittersweet effect overall. But with “frowned,” it’s more extreme in the negative emotions. These two phrases can’t be used the same way, and therefore here adverbs are really effective.
Most of the time, I personally prefer adverbial phrases, because... depending on how common the specific verb is, simpler english is generally easier for most people to understand without grabbing a dictionary, or increasing their vocabulary (not a bad thing, but shouldn't necessarily be required for reading a story.) Also also, and and, you can get a lot more specific with adverbial phrases than specific verbs, that can accomplish what you described in your example, as well as more finely detailed levels of intensity and action that most accurately conveys what the writer had in mind.
I think there should be a button for DNF when you review things. I think it is very valuable to have a review from someone who gave up for the reason you gave. You should be able to click DNF as a review instead of picking a star rating on reviewing sites. Then it doesn't have to count towards the star rating but you get an idea of how many people didn't like it enough to stop reading.
Yes, I get that DNFs are important for when you consider buying a book, however DNFs shouldn't have a star rating. If there had to be some categorisation similar to stars, I would make it categories like "Not my writing style", "Problematic Content" (for things like torture scenes), "Annoying Tropes", "Boring start", "Overly complicated introduction" and "Personal Disinterest". If you didn't finish it, you can only judge what you have read. So giving it a bad rating is only applicable in a fraction of the DNF reviews. Many others are for for reasons of personal taste, tropes and/or missing content warnings
On StoryGraph there actually is. They also give you the option to say why you didn't like it. On goodreads I just made myself a dnf shelf (the same kind that to-read, read, currently reading are) and just leave the rating empty (I don't think it affects the book's rating).
But if there is no low star all that would be left afterwards would be good reviews and people who are only looking at the final star rating before reading the book would not know that there may be an issue with the book. Low stars give the book a more honest face.
I don't think that is the issue. Most people I hear say it's because of the redemption arcs that a lot get and are "getting redemed" over things that no one can ever be redemed for. They all want a Zuko, but Zuko never did anything so bad that it couldn't be forgiven and I think people forget that. Zuko was a good person who was born on the wrong side, but came to realize this later. But instead, we get Vegeta's. (don't know if you know who he is but I will explain things he has done.) Which, Vegeta has killed off planets of people to clean them out and sell, viewed killing as fun, and killed even his friends. To which, we later find out that he works for this big bad guy and if he didn't do all of this, he would of been killed. Even though there are clips of him finding out his home world was destoryed and laughed about it and basically said " good riddance". Nope, all of that gets forgiven because he becomes a dad and suddenly starts working with the good guys for his own self interest. So many villians have gotten this treatment. I don't think people really know what redemption means or understand what actions one could of done and be redemed later. Another issue I see is that the back stories are done in a way to make us feel bad for the villian, rather than just showing us that this was how they became what they became. Instead it is framed in a way that the actions they are doing should just be forgiven because of their up bringing and we should just feel sorry. Rather than still holding them accoutable but then trying to make a change in the world so it doesn't happen to someone else. Could it be due to the fact that people are simping? Maybe a little. But they will do that so long as the villian is hot. Being evil for the sake of being evil won't make them not be simped over if they are attractive.
Gotta disagree. While a complex villain can be fun, I LOVE a villain who's just GLEEFULLY evil for the sake of being evil, and have fun doing Like Jack Nicholson's Joker. Those are the most memorable villains to me.
Joker is different cause he has so much personality. Sure he's just evil but he's fun. But most villains who are evil for being evil's sake is just plain and boring imo, like Sauron and Ozai from ATLA.
not always true, frieza and crocodile are some of the most iconic villains from their series. Frieze’s iconic even beyond dragon ball. People also love Bill cipher from gravity falls or Him from ppg
My story has 3 villains. One is deeper than first expected. One is shallow but forward. The final is... existential. Having 3 seems like it'll be a bit messy, but also explore all those aspects of villainy.
I mean if the second one has fun being evil, that's fine. Xenoblade 1 (because Xenoblade is relevant) is a favourite JRPG story of mine and Metal Face as a sick villain having too much fun stands out as much as "Mechonis's leader" being a badass who has a sympathetic background as the story progresses. Also while acting, especially localized, usually would not guide story. Metal Face has such ham in his role it's spicy.
I've got the same going on in mine. A Kafkaesque beaurocracy, a violent sadistic person who uses vague commands by their superior as an excuse to do what they want, and a ideologue who recognises the flaws in their actions but believes it's a necessary for the greater good. So I absolutely love you're exploration of different types of villainy and the different tactics they might employ or motivations that have. I'd be super interested in a read when it's finished. It doesn't sounds messy at all, if it all makes sense for the world and characters, and the story can flow well with all three I say go for it!
The prologue thing blows my mind! One of my favourite parts of a new Stormlight Archive book is reading a new perspective of a certain event in every new prologue!
@@annmoore321 Right! I love it so much because it’s just so unique! And I just KNOW the prologue for stormlight ten is going to be from gavilars pov. It’s just one of those things in the series that feel predestined, like Shallans final truth being something about accepting herself for who she is.
Though I think they’re usually warranted, I think a DNF review has an obligation to say that they DNF, and I think it’s unfair to contribute to the rating average unless you’ve read more than 1/2 of it.
For the first one, I found myself nodding going 'yeah, yeah!' but then as you were discussing it I realized the thing that I was really having that gut agreement reaction to was my hatred for woobie villains. Villains where the story tries too hard to endear them to you, to get you to sympathize and empathize with them, to the point where I'm questioning why the villain isn't the protagonist, or where I'm just annoyed by how pathetic the villain is, or where it's completely obvious they were created just to have a redemption arc and I'm over here rolling my eyes like 'just get it overwith already so we can MOVE ON'. I'm tired of people writing their villains as the protagonists they actually want to be writing. I want a layered evil character, sure, but I want them to be evil. Like, Umbrage is a good example I think. She's evil on every level, she's a disgusting human being. But she's also so well layered and her reasons for doing what she does mirror actual real life people and real life things that happened in the past and are happening today. She's evil for the desire of control and power, which to me is evil for the sake of evil.' Edit for safety: I'm not against redemption arcs. I'm just tired of poorly written villains who only exist because someone wanted to write a redemption arc without putting in the effort.
Romance subplots are great imo. Idk it just provides some moments of levity, and if it's not the main plot it's just cute to get some romance sprinkled in there.
I so understand the comment about spoilers. Sometimes if I can't get into a book I'll read the last chapter and epilogue. It tells you the ending, yes, but it can tell you a lot about the story without really spoiling much. For me, how you get to the end is the important part. Spoiling that would ruin things. Reading the end first just gives motivation.
I love it when books of maps, I love flipping to the map every time a new location is mentioned to see where the characters are and where they may be going.
I can go either way with villains. A perfect example of character redemptions done right is Zuko from Avatar and Shutendouji/Anubis from Yoroiden Samurai Troopers/Ronin Warriors. They struggled and earned their second chances (several in Zuko's case). I like these villain to hero character, but sometime I just need a OG Maleficent 'Mistress of All Evil' without a backstory (I still hate the live action treatment of her) that takes away what made her enjoyable. Disney villains specifically is where I want simplicity back ToT
As something of an opposite to the one about needing more meaningful multiple POVs to get invested in, I enjoy it when authors dedicate some chapters to abandoning the protagonists or usual POVs for incidental/episodic characters. Especially with longer works, it helps the story feel like it's not just a world inhabited by the protagonists and set dressing. Some instances of what I mean would be the intermissions between major acts in Stormlight, all the "little people" chapters in The First Law and the Age of Madness (e.g., constantly switching POVs in battle chapters), or those bits early on in Stephen King's "The Stand" with random people's drama ending in someone showing the symptoms.
I think that you will really like Kingdom. It's a war story manga. It's just like every war that have existed, but like no war story that have ever been told
A character page is useful to consult later during the story if the characters are difficult to remember, which can result from their sheer number of too short time to get to know them.
I like both types of villains, but I do wish there were more menacing, maniacal, evil-because-they're-evil antagonists in modern media. The main example I usually think of is Maleficent. Maleficent from the animated Sleeping Beauty is one of my favorite villains of all time, and a lot of that is because of the fantastic presence she gives off like you talked about. She's just bad, and they do such a good job of portraying that. This is also why I was confused by/uninterested in the Angelina Jolie live action movies about her, because I personally don't need a tragic backstory or complex motivations for Maleficent, imo she's just one of the best "pure evil" villains in fiction, and making her "the good guy" just didn't make sense in my book.
Was just gonna write a similar comment using Maleficent as an example. Seeing someone else got to her as a villain for the sake of being a villain shows it works
Me, tearfully about one of my favorite characters in a still-running series: he is, and she was the romantic subplot for 16 books. What more do you want from me?
It's probably an unpopular opinion but I absolutely LOVE waiting for the release of the next book in a serie ! I understand that waiting can be very frustrating, especially when there is a lot a suspens. And though I am not a very patient person I think that having the time to really process what you just read, to imagine theories for the next book, and most of all to get really excited about it makes you enjoy the reading experience sooo much more than if you just read all the books in one go.
Waiting makes it even more satisfying read/watch. That's why i read one piece weekly. Binge watching is not that much fun as it is being able to dissect chapter weekly and discuss with others
I think it really depends on how long you have to wait. If it's a month, that's fine, but I've been waiting on winds of winter for so long now that I've forgotten how the last book ended.
my opinions (don't know if they're unpopular but whatever): 1. I actually enjoy books with the "chosen one" trope. They can be really interesting if done correctly. I know its really overdone, but still I find it cool to see all the powers and abilities of the protagonist. 2. I like it when my favorite characters die or suffer, because then I share the trauma and grief of the other characters and can grow closer to them because of that. 3. Show don't tell is a really good tip, but authors don't always have to show. Some stories do good with a lot of purposeful telling to convey that the characters aren't exactly telling the truth about their abilities. It also makes things so much less complicated if you tell a little while still having plenty of showing. 4. If the first few books aren't my favorites but are bearable I'll keep reading. I did that with The Unwanteds and the last three books were amazing the others were fine just a little boring. But I consider it one of my favorite series just for those last three books 5. Okay I'm kinda scared to write this, because this is REALLY contreversial and I'm sure so many people are going to hate me but here goes (also this isn't a book unpopular opinion, its a show one): Avatar The Last Airbender is slightly overrated in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, its still really good. But I had trouble getting through it because it had a lot of filler episodes and it was a little young in my opinion. Still an amazing show with amazing characters but it didn't capture my interest as much as The Dragon Prince or Arcane
My favorite villains are the ones that are simple, with little to no character development, who are mostly if not completely evil. The more the story starts adding those things, the less the character feels like a villain and feels more like a person doing bad things. The most poignant example I can think of is from the Dark Knight movie. The Joker is incredibly memorable and most certainly a villain and we know practically nothing about him and he has no redeeming qualities. Constrast that with Two Face, who is also technically a villain, but because we spent so much time with the Harvey Dent version of him, the feeling I'm left with is that of the tragic fate of someone who was trying to do the right thing but circumstances and his own failings drove him away from that path. Both characters are memorable to me, but for entirely different reasons
I think a trend that the first opinion is referring too is sometimes a tragic backstory feels shoehorned into the story because it's just expected to be there AND I think often times it's done in ways that try to make the villain more sympathetic, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sympathetic villains but you often get some dissonance if the villain has done some particularly heinous things but is still portrayed sympathetically, there are certain actions where I feel like no tragic backstory should be attempting to emotionally manipulate you into feeling sorry for someone so monstrous
I love evil because they’re evil villains. To me, they’re so entertaining because they’re usually so bombastic. Maleficient in the animated Sleeping Beauty is regarded as one of Disney’s best villains. And a lot of people didn’t like the turn the live action took her for that reason. I think it basically boils down to simple motives can be just as compelling. Some people do evil things because they get a thrill out of hurting other people. And those people absolutely exist.
Tell = The woman looked nervous. Show = She wrung her hands and looked everywhere but his eyes. The 2nd is better because it lets the reader decide what they think is going on, just like they'd do if they were in the room. The second, "shows" the scene to the reader. The first fails the reader, because you have to guess what's happening, based on the emotion. What does her nervous look like? What is informing the narrator that she's nervous?
The comment about overly flowery writing reminds me of the writing style of the old pulp stories - writers like Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Arthur Conan Doyle. They wrote very well, but they were also straight to the point.
There's an interesting crossover idea between the concepts you discussed of "villains should be 3 dimensional" and "characters don't have to be relatable". As you pointed out, the villains you can relate to in some degree are far more memorable. Wouldn't the same apply to any other character? Now, there's the complaint that I've seen here and elsewhere that the character doesn't have to be exactly like you. And that's also true. But "relatable" doesn't mean "exactly like you." According to Oxford Dictionaries (I know that using dictionaries is an unpopular practice these days) it means "enabling a person to feel they can relate to someone or something" and relate means "feel sympathy with; identify with." So on the one side, I'd say that stories and characters need to be relatable in order to grab the reader's interest. But on the other side there is also the fact that people who too often can't "identify" with a character or story are simply expressing a weakness in themselves that they can't sympathize or identify unless something is exactly like them. So it's a kind of bigger subject really.
I feel like relatability is more about relating to some aspects of a character's life, struggles, ambitions, thoughts, fears, morals, emotions... even if they are completely different from you, seeing some part of the human experience we all share in the characters we read than it is about seeing yourself in them.
Absolutely agree with you definition of relatability, but I wonder if the person who wrote the unpopular opinion was talking about the "blank slate" characters that some authors make so readers can identify themselves with the character. I hate those, but I think that's a different can of worms from relatability.
Definitely agree about villains sometimes an evil person is just an evil person there’s not always some deep dark reason behind they’re crap lol and if I’m supposed to hate you why can’t I just hate you without having to feel sorry for you mid story?? Lol
"No Adverbs" refers, I believe, to modifiers or descriptors attached to actions--carrying someone lovingly, or lifting an object tiredly. It's just clunkier prose a lot of times, so English teachers don't bother to teach a lot of kids the nuances of when to use it, and just go "none, until you're more experienced." The rule has a place, but it isn't perfect.
A lot of times the problem lies in that the chosen adverb adds nothing to the sentence. "Quickly ran" is unnecessary as the "quickly" can be inferred. If you say "clumsily ran", the addition of "clumsily" adds more context to the sentence and is pefectly acceptable.
I think the recent opinion of mine that might not be popular is that understanding a villains motivations is NOT a redemption arc. Just because I know how Voldemort or Mrs. Coulter think or came to their current standing does not mean that their actions are not reprehensible.
The adverb rule is that you should say “He shouted” instead of “He said loudly.” People apply it broadly though, which is extremely annoying. The problem usually lay with using a bad verb, and poor adverbs get all the blame. A well used verb-adverb combo is one of the most pleasant things to read.
The issue here is less what words are chosen, but authors trying actively to not repeat words too much. If you have 'shouted shouted shouted shouted' all in a row, it can lose a bit of the charm of the prose.
7:52 I agree with this up to a point. I read a review of way of kings where they were complaining that not all their questions about the magic system or spren and stuff where awnsered. Or they wanted Fabrials to play a bigger role. Had they continued reading they would've gotten their awnsers. I dont think its fair to complain about unsolved mysteries in a 10 book series when you stop at the first book.
The Joker in The Dark Knight is the perfect epitome of an unknown backstory for an infamous villain. All that needs to be said of him is “some men just want to watch the world burn,” and his lack of motivation ultimately teaches something to the protagonist. In Batman Begins, Bruce believes that criminals aren’t complicated, they are reduced to weak motivations of selfish desire. Whereas the joker is all about sending a message. He is the opposite symbol to the Batman, a lesson for him to learn, and the ultimate obstacle of the trilogy.
in regards to the first comment: scar & darth vader (b4 the prequels) have been such amazing villains, no matter the lack of backstory. Sometimes less is more.
“Just wait until you get to book 4” I’m sorry but I immediately thought of The Legend Of Korra. I’ve tried to get through season 1 several times and I’m just not into it. And my best friend is always telling me the last season is the best. I’m like, no offense, but I really don’t care. 🤷♀️ Sorry not sorry. Don’t hate me internet, I’m happy with just ATLA
Imo each season of Korra kind of stands for itself, vibe-wise. If the first one is not your cup of tea, pushing through might be worth it. I personally preferred season 3 over 4 and 1 and thought the second one to be the weakest, but because they all have their own theme and tone to them it's hard to tell which one you'd enjoy. I recommend giving it a chance but if you have to force yourself it's probably not going to spark any joy anyways
Korra was in no way as good as ATLA and most of the time of Korra is used on a stupid love triangle no one cares about and destroying the Lore established in ATLA. In other words: you are not missing anything imo
I wonder whether the relatable part is a mix up with being unable to get invested in a character for some reason and calling it unrelatable? I cannot relate to a dragon rider or a soldier with PTSD, but get invested. Still, there are certainly personality traits that will make it impossible for me get invested in a MC and as a result drop the book. For example, there are very few MCs with anger issues that I can get invested in and I have dropped books because of it even when I can actually relate to and empathize with the anger issues
@@ashleymartin8093 Mostly personal taste, but it is not helped by the fact that it is often used as an easy way to make a character appear flawed. It is relatively easy to recognize situations that would irritate somebody and an exaggerated angry reaction is also easy to spot by the reader. So it often feels like lazy writing.
@@pietersleijpen3662 that makes sense. My character's anger issues are rooted in trying to bottle up her emotions and keep people at a distance so it mostly stems from frustration and not really knowing how to express herself. I didn't like my character at first cause she felt too one-dimensional like anger was her only trait but I feel like she's a lot better now. What would make you more invested in a character with anger issues? :)
Im curious on your take on “power scaling” in anime some people love it some people hate it and then there’s the ones who do hypothetical matchups that won’t happen (for example Naruto vs Luffy)
Unpopular opinion : Long series of books can actually be really great ! I know most people likes the standalones or short series better because long series can be very discouraging...and I agree with that. But when I am invested in a story I love following the plot and characters during many books, I love the growth that you can see from the first to the last book. I feel so much more connected with the story when it last longer, the characters becomes like a second family. And that what I love about reading, finding another home in the book and another family in the characters ❤️
I think with long series it depends on what sort of story it is. Say with Harry Potter, a long series but each book is sort of semi-self-contained. But when you get huge book series where it's just one single continuous tale, that can be irritating. Feels more like you're reading 400-page chapters than something more unique.
I agree to the romance part with the comment :D - I love romance in a subplot. I don't read pure romances. I want the romanc being challenged with a gruesome plot, growing stronger or falling apart tragically.
"Dont judge a book by its cover" !! This is something I live by. Its wild that people actually do judge. Some of my favorite books I ever read were just random pickups I made at the library. Totally just a weird book with a worn off cover but inside...it was a treasure.
Unpopular opinion 1: action/fight scenes in books make me bored (even in thrillers). Unpopular opinion 2: not every well written protagonist must have an ark. They can be same person from start till the end.
Agree with your second opinion. If the protagonist is already super interesting and the story occurs over a short timeframe, I'm perfectly fine with them not really changing at all. I especially like it when instead of an arc where they change, the focus is intead on getting the reader to understand what makes the character what they are; what makes them "tick" so to speak.
If I’m well into a book when I get bored with it (and especially if it seems predictable) I might turn to the back and read the last chapter. If it surprises me I may go back and finish the book just to see how the author got there. I’m 72. Life is too short to finish things you aren’t enjoying.
I've done something similar since I was a kid. I usually read the last page and if that makes me curious I'll either continue reading backwards until I'm convinced to continue the story, or satisfied to know the ending and not care enough to continue the book. Only very rarely have I been burned by this, and usually it gives me a twist ending because I didn't actually understand understand what happened at the end, so I go through it expecting one outcome and see it spun on its heels. There's only so much time any of us has to read, may as well spend it with a book that's worth it for you.
I feel like my favorite is the hard magic system disguised as a soft magic system. Where there are rules and laws, but they're not shown until the character discovers them throughout the book. So little by little, we learn how the magic system works as the Character earns the information through some kind of quest or whatever.
Regarding spoilers: I avoid them like the plague! Yet I reread books all the time and usually enjoy them most on the later readings 😂😂 Why am I like this?
The prologue to Wheel of Time is one of the greatest chapters ever written. Even as i read it first and didnt fully understand it, the ending of lews therin killing himself just seemed so cool to me.
The DNF one is difficult for me because I simply can't DNF anything. I could read the worst book ever, watch the worst movie ever or play the worst video game ever, but I'll still finish it because I can't leave things unfinished :D. The only things in my life I DNF is food, cause I have a small stomach and in restaurants they usually give me a waaay bigger portion than I can eat. The relatability thing. I feel like people don't really necesseraily want a character that's exactly like themselves, but someone who has at least some attribute they can relate to. For example, if I had to read a book about a rich guy who can have anything he wants and the story is about him having trouble to decide what to buy first, I'd hate that. Why? Because I can't relate to a single thing from that. However, if he was the same guy but his issue would be that he doesn't buy a lot of stuff because he's introverted and is too shy to go buy things, I'd like that a lot more. Cause even though the guy is nothing like me, we are alike in this one thing, therefore I can understand him a little better and I'm more invested in him. I mean it works the same in real life too. You usually befriend people that have something in common with you. If you have nothing in common with this guy, you probably won't really have any relationship. Also I love how Merphy complains about the "just wait until book 4!" thing and then kinda does it herself at 19:10. I know you didn't really mean it that way but I just found it hilarious :D
Honestly, the fact that the ending of a book can make me love a story I hated or hate a story I loved tells me it must matter more to me than the actual story. An ending can really change EVERYTHING. When a book I was really enjoying has a terrible ending I won't recommend it, even if the ending was a few pages out of hundreds. 😬
I ignored the video glitch... it's ok. I agree with several of the points you make, especially around the "wait till you get to book 3". If the first book is not good, I don't generally read more.
To be fair: A plot not kicking in for a period of time doesn't mean the beginning has to be bad. It can still be good while being more episodic or character driven.
I agree with the map comment. Sometimes I just want to read a story instead of trying to puzzle out where they currently on the map, the roads they are traveling on, etc.
While the Chimera Ant arc is great, I can see why some people take issue with it. It’s quite a deviation from the arcs beforehand. It kind of exemplifies Togashi’s ability to just kinda say “Okay I’m gonna do this now and I’ll figure out how to tie it into the other stuff” And, despite it being a master-crafted story, it takes practically a third to a half of the series. Which I feel like led to some things being given a little less than they could have
The prologue and epilogue in each Ascendance of a Bookworm volume is from the perspective of different characters which sets up the following book and the next volume respectively.
I wish authors would diversify their subplots. Most authors SEEM TO always go to a romantic subplot, which often takes over the entire narrative, but there are so many that could be utilized instead. The Haunting of Hill house show and the Danganronpa games and shows are great examples that use other types of subplots to complement the narrative. They were less conventional and less predictable, and I enjoyed the media far more as a result.
@@Frogface91 The Haunting of Hill House show is a horror show about a family coping with having lived in a haunted house while they were younger. The episodes switch back and forth. I’m about half of them, the horror and mystery are the main plot while the present day family drama is the subplot , while in others it is reversed. Generally, the siblings’ relationships with people other than each other are subplots. Steven had a subplot with his estranged wife, with the reason for their imminent separation hinted at throughout the season while often in the background. Shirley’s husband is keeping a secret, etc. Each sibling had a different subplot that worked well with their character (their individual episodes were kind of sub genres of horror). Danganronpa is a whodunnit with smaller mysteries leading up to the main one. Each “chapter” has a different subplot. They focus most heavily on the murder, but there are other elements and side plots. For the first one, chapter one has a romantic subplot, chapter two is more slice of life with the main character witnessing the other characters forming friendships and rivalries, the third chapter’s subplot is kind of science fiction with a heavy focus on the trauma of the characters. Chapter four is a tragedy, with the subplots being the protagonist’s closest friend/love interest icing him out and the tentative friendship and peace of the other students fracturing. Chapter five is a mystery with a thriller-like subplot. Chapter Sux completely focuses on the mystery. Each game follows a similar formula while switching up the subplots.
The ONLY thing that bothers me about DNF reviews is when the reviewer complains that the author never explains this or that character or plot point. In most instances I’ve seen, the author did, the reviewer just didn’t get to that point. DNFing and then telling others why you DNFed is fine, up until you end up misrepresenting the book because you just didn’t read far enough. (Thinking of one instance in particular where the person gave a one star review, every single criticism was “the author never explains such and such,” and then when rightfully confused people pushed back and said “wait, all those questions were answered, did you actually read it?” The person finally added a comment that they DNFed.) Basically, it comes down to the review not feeling like fair criticism because the criticism they have is factually inaccurate.
This. I think a DNF review is fine, even giving it a low star is fine, as long as you don't make assertions about the part you didn't read. The beginning is part of the book too and if it was bad enough or uninteresting enough to DNF then I think a rating is fair, but you should be up front that you DNF and should speak only from the perspective you actually have.
I do agree that a reviewer should state straight-up if they DNF’d, though to this particular point I would potentially argue that the author did not do a good enough job of foreshadowing or promising answers. Mystery is good and should drive the reader to want to know more, but mystery for mystery’s sake leads to frustration. However, each to their own, and different readers have different thresholds for how much mystery is too much.
I agree SO MUCH with One Autumn Leaf’s opinion… while world building is great, usually, all the excess details wants to put me to sleep. I’m way more interested in what’s happening and especially well written dialogue between characters.
"I just want to read a book where someone rides a dragon." Actually I don't think I've read one of those since Pern/Eragon in grade school and Temeraire six years ago, so I think I would like to know about more books involving cool dragons (riding or otherwise).
I totally agree with the spoiler one, I do it all the time. I was reading this one where some of the characters knew a secret about the girl who died before the book started, the book just kept dragging out this oh so earth shattering secret that was tearing up the main character, and how everyone in the town would be effected if they knew. It was really starting to drag and so I just had to know if this secret would be worth all it's hype so I skipped to the end..... it was the worst secret I've ever heard, so shallow and small, and I'm glad I saved myself the trouble.
I agree with the commenter about the HxH Chimera Ant arc. I didn't like so many of the characters in that arc and I felt it drag on. I greatly prefer the Yorknew and Greed Island arcs.
About the relatable characters thing- they may just mean they can quite understand or accept why the character is making the choices they make. So it's not necessarily about seeing themselves as the character. I feel like I've used that criticism before and that's how I meant it, I just didn't understand why MC was making certain choices, I couldn't relate.
I thought I liked simple prose because I hated flowery writings. But then I read Sanderson and I found the prose somewhat lacking. So, in the end, I'm just a really picky reader who wants simple but still pretty prose.
I've definitely read books with multiple POVs but not multiple protagonists. A recent example I can think of is Xiala in Fevered Star. She'd definitely a protagonist in Black Sun, but in the sequel she isn't. There's generally a lot of vague plotting in that book that won't pay of until the third book. Her POV in particular is just used to show that there's another party clamoring for power, but without revealing a concrete plan or motivation.
I never really understood why some stories clicked with me while others didn't, that was until I watched Act Man's Halo Reach videos. Halo Reach is one of my favorite stories of all time and it was hard to put into words why, but he did it perfectly. Reach is a plot and setting-driven story. We don't spend 10 hours learning the favorite colors and deep emotional backstory of each character, instead we get the bare bones of who they are through their designs and introduction dialogue, and then we're off to the races! The main cast is on the back foot through the entire story, just reacting to the ever-changing situation, and we get all of the characterization we need through how they react. All of this goes to say that I am not a fan of many character-driven stories. If you leave a character in isolation they will be very unlikely to really "do" anything for a very long time. This is why I've dropped The Blade Itself three times already. The characters are fine, but there's no big hook for me to latch onto, only a vague threat of an invasion happening at some point in the future. To add to something else mentioned in this video, I would have dropped the Stormlight Archive almost immediately if we DIDN'T have the prologue with Gavilar's murder. The inciting incident gave me something to latch onto immediately and provided context for why everything was already in chaos when the book proper begins.
Weirdly, Count of Monte Cristo and Lies of Locke Llamora are examples of books that gripped me from the first word all the way to the end. I didn't know people struggled with the beginnings there, I found them instantly fascinating.
Hisoka is a relatively simple villain. We get to know about so many of the other characters and yet nothing of his backstory. But we all know his goal. And its to do anything to get into *that* next battle. And yet I argue he’s one of the most entertaining characters. He’s a good example of how a character can be written entertainingly enough to not need a complicated backstory or much of one at all. Similar to the joker even tho he’s since then had noncanon ones. Plus Hisoka may get one in the near future which excites meZ
Bless the person who called out too much detail. As a person with aphantasia, detailed/flowery writing totally drags down a story for me because absolutely nothing is being created in my head.
I definitely agree with the "tell, don't show" person. Just tell me the thing you want to tell me. Don't make me decipher your meaning from five pages worth of poetry.
I don’t know if it’s so much about poetry or flowery language, it’s more when you’re describing the way something feels, looks, etc., in such a granular way that I have no idea what you’re talking about. OR if it’s something I’ve never heard of bc I haven’t read up on that much historical nonfiction do I don’t know what that weapon is, or I’ve never been to this country so the analogue to represent the thing in your fictional land goes way over my head. What is a “cairn”?????? Can’t you just say it like we do today please. :(
@@mr.e7541 I prefer just simply being told that a guy was angry instead of reading a paragraph about them stomping their feet or a description of the shade of red their face is.
In the romance subplot point: shouldnt books try to emulate life? And isnt romance in some form a part of most people's lives? Im not saying every book should have it but it makes sense that characters fall inove every now and then. Not saying all of them are bad or good
I disagree on “the character doesn’t relatable” because I find whenever I see review that begins with “ The protagonist was unrelatable” It generally means, not that the reader couldn’t relate to the protagonist because the protagonist likes sports and the reader hates sports or something to that vain, it generally means that the protagonists decisions didn’t feel justified or realistic or that the protagonist lacks flaws and dimension. Protagonist are not necessarily relatable, because they share interest with the reader but because the author is able to realistically write to the human condition, if you have failed that then you have made a protagonist that a reader can’t relate to.
'Snowy' and 'cloudy' are adjectives, not adverbs. I have heard a "rule" that says not to use adjectives, but I've never understood its rationale. I've never heard a rule not to use adverbs, but there's probably also a rule that says not to use nouns.
The rule for adjectives is do not use them in excess, not do not use them at all. it can be annoying like consider: the bubbly, giggly, funny, silly girl walked in the room. too many adjectives, just one of those would get the point across
21:04 I agree with this one to some extent. There are certain things I have a really hard time understanding if they try to show me instead of telling me, such as facial expressions and feelings. It frustrates me so much, especially when an author tries to do something new, and isn't straight forward about it, and I just can't picture the expression or feelings they are trying to get across. Having trouble with reading expressions irl already doesn't help. On top of that alot of writers (especially newer ones) get this advice and really overdo it. Telling has always had a place, and no it isn't as rare as people seem to think. Also as someone who is already a pretty blunt straight forward kind of person, yes, please, for my sanity, and possibly yours, get to the point!
See, the Villains that stick with me are the ones who completely go against everything I relate to and/or understand. So hard disagree. I am far more fascinated with what I don’t understand than what is “relatable” or “complex” as you put it.
Apparently I mixed up Adverb and Adjective... that's embarrassing.
Also, youtube glitched and messed up my audio. I now dub this video a podcast
I was wondering what happened. Thought I was glitching
I kept clicking off the video and clicked on a different one to try and get it to sync up. 😆 Still interesting!
Yay you fixed it!
It's all good! 😄
No worries. People make mistakes. If you didn't then I wouldn't care for your videos.
I don't know if my opinion is unpopular and it isn't about a book, but how books are labeled. At this point I just want all fiction listed by author in bookstores. A good portion of 'Urban Fantasy' is placed in 'Romance' and vice versa. I once found a book by Kim Harrison in Mystery, Sci-Fi/Fantasy, Romance, and General Fantasy. The spine had the 'correct' label for each section.
Some of the Urban fantasy is more Erotica and some in Romance have little romance but are far more suited to Mystery or Fantasy or even Sci-Fi. I hate this.
I think people misunderstand what “show don’t tell” actually means. It doesn’t mean pack the book with flowery language, it means if this character is tough you add a bit to the plot showing them being tough instead of saying “oh that’s character, they’re really tough”. I read a book recently where protag was apparently a thief but she stole nothing the entire book, or did nothing that a thief’s skills might be useful for, the author just kept saying “she was a master thief” yet…
Yeah, I thougth the same thing
This is exactly what show and tell means, high school English teachers explain and teach it wrong so most people don't understand.
@@kelseyswanepoel7056 how the hell can you misunderstood that ? it's self explanatory pretty much isn't it ?
@@Cashman9111 The Schooling system is designed to make people obey commands not think on their own, the people have become so used to being reprimanded for using their heads that they just do what they're told. That is without taking into account the fact that these are teenagers and younger sitting for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week for most of 5 years of their lives. IE: the teacher says show don't tell with no context every time a creative writing assignment comes up (which is actually said since creative writing assignments come into the academic career), it is safe to assume even by adult standards that simply stating things is a no no 90 percent of the time.
I've never encountered anyone who would think "show, don't tell" means using flowery language in the book, it's literally the opposite of what the phrase says. Even your example doesn't showcases that apparent misconception. Do you have any other examples?
I think I prefer romance as a supblot because far too many stories where romance is the major storyline resort to manufacturing drama in order to add stakes or drag out the runtime or whatever when 95% of issues in these sorts of stories could be resolved in three minutes if the people involved had even an ounce of communication skills. If romance is a subplot, relationships can develop naturally without feeling forced to add unnecessary manufactured drama that hinges on the main characters acting like they've never heard of a conversation before.
Have you watched Eternal sunshine. I think it doesnt do that whole will they wont they etc. It expresses relationships like they should, messy and fun. Were all still changing even as were in a relationship.
As an asexual, I actively swerve away from books where the description make it clear that the romance is a *major* plot point. Not being interested in romance, it would be nice to find more books without it,
That or the drama is the love interest being an abusive pos. And romanace in other fictions just feel forced. At least when it comes to movies and tv shows. I mainly read romance. Which is why I decided to start making a romance story that is also an action story, but it is a romance first. The biggest issue I see with romance, is that people are literally just uncreative and clearly can't think of things that can put stress on the relationship. They just go wtih an abusive love interest, or some times ex, and miscommunication that would not happen in any way in real life. And instead of looking to real life, they just recycle the same crap that is in every romance there is. Money is a massive one that puts relationships to the test. Maybe main character had an ex cheat on them and now are untrusting of their new partner, which will cause stress on the relationship and maybe said partner helps them get over their issue. Someone gets into a tragic accident or gets a dangerous illness and the issues that come up from that, which was done in the TV show Hannibel with that one FBI guy that I can not remember his name and his wife having cancer and her hiding it. There are lots of ways people can be doing romance and what do we get stuck with? Crap. :/
@@lianneburwell4763I wish there were more asexual main characters in fantasy
I HATE when I review uses “the character was not relatable” as a negative, because whyyyy do you need to have the main character be just like you??
Use some imagination 😅
Have some empathy 🎉
Lol true all people are unique
@@Jellybeansatdusk lol
I think that relatability is how relatable they are in the decisions they make which are sometimes questionable.
I think romances as subplots have the benefit of not needing to follow the rules of a story as much. If the romance is the main plot, you kinda have to introduce some bumps in the relationship to fit a romance into a story structure, and end it on some sort of climactic scene. If the romance is a subplot, it can exist as something that just develops naturally between two characters while they're working on more important stuff.
👆 Yes! I have started to get sick of romances because they are everywhere, so I really enjoy subtle romances (or just stories about people in aleeady existing healthy relationships because not many of those exist.)
I agree. I was thinking of berserk (I won't spoil) but anyone that's read it can attest to how impactful, beautiful and disgusting romance can be portrayed
Emphasis on that:
_it can exist as something that just_
_1) develops naturally_
_2) while they're working on more important stuff_
I wanted to write the exact comment! Couldn't agree more. Main plot romances are unnecessarily complicated and they have to introduce conflict to make it interesting. But a subplot is where the healthy relationships live.
I agree completely. I really enjoy a romance that develops naturally due to interactions. It seems like authors are much better about exhibiting healthy relationships when it is not the main focus of the story. They don't over do stupid miscommunications or have various family members objecting for ridiculous reasons. The ex-whatever doesn't come back suddenly after 5 years to interfere. And, authors are seemingly less likely to use the death of a romantic partner for cheap plot progression when it is a subplot. I am totally done with death of a loved one as the motivation for the main protagonist's, story, etc... advancement.
14:23 as a romantic who absolutely HATES the way romance books treat a love story, romance sub-plots literally save me. I can't stand reading something where whether the main characters end up together is the whole point of the book. I want more, much much more, because it feels a lot more realistic. So say, when the main plot is about a magical world and there's something deeper going on, but at some point two characters slowly develop feelings for each other, I eat that up (not in ya smutty fantasy though, I hate that)
Agreed! Totally, if a book has a romantic genre then you obviously know what will happen in the end. Ik a lot of romance books end with sad ending and all, but mostly the purpose of them is to tell the story of a romance between two people. It's waay too obvious for my liking. A fantasy book or a literary mystery book with romance as a subplot is definitely more interesting in my opinion.
Be that romantic or non-romantic, I prefer there to be more substance in coexisting with my partner than just simply being together. And the same applies to the couples in the stories I read. While I acnowledge the benefits of someone to share experiences with, I still think those experiences should be worth something to begin with.
Yes! Please can someone recommend some books like this? 🥺
@@macarenadazasaez4407 mistborn series, warbreaker, elantris basically anything by Brandon Sanderson
This sums up everything I've ever wanted to say.
I actually disagree with you about villains. I feel like Hisoka is a great example of a relatively "simple" villain. Like we literally know nothing about him and we can't sympatize with him either. He has no backstory and no reedeming qualities. Even his motivation is fairly simple. He just spends all his time looking for the next fight. It's literally all he cares about. And yet he's one of the most memorable and fascinating characters in Hunter X Hunter.
He exemplifies how a character doesn't have to be relatable, as long as they're entertaining. The wild card characters that give you anxiety in any scene because no one knows what they want or how they'll react.
Not all villains have to be sympathetic they just have to be entertaining and fit their role as a villain.
Nothing redeemable what about "The properties of both Rubber and Gum!"
@@SamTheGumMan117 OH MY RUBBER NEN
While a morally gray character can be great, there is a reason purely evil villain's exist. they reflect the worst of real people. You can find numerous stories of people are do the most heinous things out of pure selfishness and hate. People who no matter what they went through cannot be justified. Take the recent shooters who go into elementary's and kill innocent children if you want an example
I think 3:22 ‘s argument wasn’t that they want more morally grey characters, but that the people we call morally grey usually aren’t.
This! I agree with that person.
Basically yeah, but its fine 🤣
Like a mass murderer who saves a little girl because she looks like his dead sister isn't enough to be morally gray
But their first two words were "we need"
@@assimilater-quicktips and then proceeded to say “Actually morally grey characters” you can’t just single out two words from a sentence and ignore the rest of it.
See if romance is the main plot I know I’m gonna be bored as hell cause that’s never enough to keep me interested. But I almost always love seeing side-plot romances since they can consist of all the best that the romance genre has to offer while not beating me over the head with it and still giving me dragons.
Side plot romances are the only reason I realized romances could be something I could actually _like_.
Main plot romances (especially in YA, where I started seeing them first) are either really fucked up in some way (immortal & teen romance), or enjoy giving awful "problems" for the couples to go through which more than not end up turning into bright red flags that they shouldn't actually be together at all.
Side plots though..... you can see friendships and bonds forming, healthy ways of going through difficult patches of life together, ongoing relationships, etc. Its great.
My favorite romances are from books with little to no romance, I also tend to get bored if the book is romance only, give me a brush of a hand before a deadly battle and I'll captain that ship
I would personally argue that we have an over saturation of morally Grey characters and too many complex villains where people go out of their way to give some sort of a reasoning motivation or excuse for why the villain is doing a bad thing.
More often than not, it feels like the whole backstory given is just to make us feel like “oh they aren’t really bad, they’re just misunderstood or misguided!“ The problem is, there have been plenty of people in the real world and throughout history who just do bad things because they are bad people.
And the statement that simple villains aren’t memorable is, I’m afraid, not true. Everyone remembers maleficent, Cruella Deville, Darth Sidious, Nute Gunray, and many more.
People have been taught by literature teachers for decades that only complex characters are good characters and they’ve also been pushed towards this idea that “because people are complicated, you always need to show that there’s a reason for why people do bad things.“
This idea comes from a philosophical idea, to be honest, that people are ultimately good and just do bad things because of bad situations. But that’s not always the case. People are greedy, people are selfish, and people can very much be hedonistic seeking out their own desires no matter the expense.
Sometimes people do things that hurt others and they just don’t care. You don’t need to write a villain coming up with justification for why they’re doing bad things or have some complex network of events in their backstory that makes them think that what they’re doing is the only way to live. You can just simply have a backstory where somebody grew up with parents that were overly accommodating and never taught them to reign in their selfishness greed or personal desire.
A person raised like that is likely to believe that they shouldn’t have to control those feelings and so they go through life without expressing any empathy for those they hurt while following those desires and that makes a pure evil and/or simple villain.
Are real people complex to where you can’t reduce them down to any one thing? Yes. But you can make a simple character that is realistic. If you make them realistic, then there are multiple parts of their personality, but what makes them simple is the fact that what you see is what you get.
They can have their own personal interests or hobbies like anybody else. They can have their own personal values and beliefs. But the difference between a complex and a simple character is that a complex character will be multifaceted and layered to the point that you have to dig deeper in order to understand them whereas a simple character will be someone who you understand on face value and there are plenty of people in the real world to fit both.
A lot of people are not so easily understood and you do have to put forth the effort to dig deeper to understand what they think and believe. There are other people who are so Earnest and confident that they just display themselves as they are.
Either way, the point is that being simple or complex is not the defining trait of a good character and we need to understand that there are people who do bad things just because they want to do that bad thing.
There are people who simply think “so what if it’s bad? Why shouldn’t I do it anyway?”
These types of villains are those who are dominated by a key personal flaw such as pride, greed, or envy. There are people who haven’t learned to control these vices about themselves and don’t see a need to control those vices.
Good content... horrible formatting... paragraphs, please.
Who the fuxk remembers Nute Gunray XD
This. It goes hand in hand with advice I often see: "No one thinks of themselves as a bad guy, so you need to write them in a way that makes it logical for the character to take a morally bad action or allows them to justify it to themselves."
And I'm just like....what? Where is this idea even coming from? Lots of people have the self-awareness to know what they are doing is despicable. Heck, half of mental illnesses are tied to an extremely negative self image, of people hating themselves BECAUSE they think of themselves as greedy, lazy, not compassionate, etc.
Where did this abstract idea come from that no one sees themselves as the villain?
Yeah, morally grey has turned into the new edgy...im exaggerating but people tend to like certain ideas or tropes in different eras or times. Thats why im alittle easier on stories that arent "good for out time" or arent "correct" or "don't hold up" since stories take time to produce and even if you release at the zeighist...you were either predicting or lucky or just good lol.
It's funny, but if you want a soft-magic feel modern sci-fi is your best bet. Sci-fi is moving away from the "everything must be scientifically explained or feasible" stage while fantasy is moving more toward explaining every aspect of the magic system.
basically they are swapping places! (at least according to Orson scott card's definition)
I remember 20 years ago or so when I wrote Sci-Fi for the first time, getting called out for it and being told that what I'm writing is "Future Fantasy", not Science Fiction, because it HAS to have clearly laid out scientific explanations for everything.
Reading Science Fiction nowadays is like "He pressed a button and shapeshifted into a cat." and I'm like...what 🙃
@@sleepysera That is hilarious
As a writer, I loved this. Hearing what people like and then comparing it to my own story or asking myself “how would my story change if I applied that” was a fun exercise.
Murph: I hate people telling me to wait till the 4th book
Also Murph: Finish out chimera ant arc and wait till the second book of First Law.
I think these are fair opinions I just found it funny and wanted to poke fun.
I noticed the same but difference is between finishing a book or books vs a chapter.
I just finished "Before They are Hanged" I loved it.
I enjoyed the First Law well enough, but the ending of book 2 really cemented it that I really, really like it.
Totally agree on the maps. It adds to the story and makes it easier to imagine journeys and stuff like that.
Most upvoted comments
Sometimes a villain... 1:09
We need morally grey... 3:00
I know prologues... 5:02
We need more books... 6:32
You don't have to finish... 7:53
The idea of "relatability"... 10:45
Healthy relationships in books... 11:44
I love a... 12:16
Romance as a subplot... 13:27
Most recent comments
I love Hunter x Hunter... 15:19
I don't think... 17:36
What skill has Joe Abercrombie... 18:10
Merphy loses it over adding extensions... 20:02
Why is this hard... 20:08
Random comments
Complex literature... 20:09
Prepare yourself... 21:05
Having a "good" ending... 22:39
Maps... 23:14
Joker is "shallow" when it comes to his backstory an motives and he is a enigma. Same for Hisoka in Hunter x Hunter. We don't understand why they are the way they are but the moment they are in the story they take over. And they are great because of the mystery and personality they bring and not their backstory.
Hisoka don’t need a backstory, adding a backstory to him while take from his charm and mystery
I thought Joker's backstory is intentionally obscured by DC?
I wouldn’t say that the Joker or Hisoka are "shallow" but rather tjat we don’t know their depths. But we know - or suspect - that they have a lot of depth. And one of the reasons why we love those villains is that, at least in the back of our minds, we always wonder "what happened to that person to make it that way "
@@tithannisk7470 I put shallow in parenthesis because I dont agree with using shallow. They are written like an Iceberg and under the suface there is a lot of substance we just don't see it and the mistery adds to the character. But if you only go by what you see you could argue that they are shallow and you can't truly understand where they come from.
So I Agree with you just wanted to clarify that I'm not really calling them shallow. just implying that by the definition of, understanding a characher and having a backstory is depth they would be shallow.
@@MM-ko1qz true. the mystery around him adds to the tension he brings to every situation he is in.
Actually, using adverbs well and effectively becomes increasingly more frustratingly tedious as more people inform me repeatedly about the bemoanably ridiculous 'adverb rule`. The more that people irksomely complain about my heinous use of adverbs, the more I shall attempt spitefully to slyly slip them in.
When it comes to villains, Merphy makes the same mistake that a lot of people do in thinking that a villain can either be sympathetic OR one-dimensional, and that's just not true. A good villain, like any character, is nuanced. But all that means is that they should have distinct motivations and personalities that change based on the situation. I really like this way of putting it: "the villain doesn't have to be the hero of their own story...but they should be the _protagonist_ of their own story."
A great example of this is Agent Smith from The Matrix. Agent Smith is not a sympathetic character. You don't want to see him redeemed, you want to see him defeated. And yet Agent Smith is absolutely a nuanced character! He has clearly defined motivations that sometimes pull him in different directions. We see him be angry, afraid, joyful. Sometimes he's cold and calculated, and sometimes he's filled with blind rage.
BUT he's not a sympathetic character because his motivations are completly selfish! He doesn't think that he's morally justified, he couldn't care less! He's only in it for himself, and that makes him an intimidating antagonist. Now you could argue that giving him that kind of nuance does make him a little more sympathetic (he feels trapped in a miserable life, what's more relatable?). But he's not a "misunderstood" good guy. He is a true villain, and I think we could use more of those.
That's a great point and there is a lot of people who don't realize this. Or, more precisely, don't realize you don't have to sympathize with the villain in order to understand them. Which is essentially what you are saying, villain should have discernible motivations and well-rounded personality and act accordingly, so we can understand what are they doing and why. However, that absolutely doesn't mean we have to agree with them or like them.
I agree with you on this. While I love a good analysis of a villain's psyche, I also think that you can have a villain that's just a villain and still have them be an interesting and well-rounded character., they just need defined motivations. Like you said, they don't need to have any redeemable qualities, they don't need to be like, for them to be a good villain (good in the sense of being well-written). I think so many 'villains' these days are just morally grey or claimed to be 'misunderstood' (as much as I love these character types too) that sometimes having a villain just be a villain can be a nice change of pace.
I heard this somewhere and thought it was interesting: “the only difference between the hero and the villain is that the villain doesn’t change”. I’ve taken that to means they both have goals and motivation and obstacles, but one develops in character and the other chooses not to and stays rigid.
@@ErmenBlankenberg I think that attitude comes from the environemnt you're in. Booktube and online book culture is skewed to YA where anything semi-different is treated as revolutionary and the idea of villains has to be traced to an understanding of trauma and reasons for their actions. They don't understand that good writing is nuanced and that's what makes characters good not whether you can relate or find them sympathetic.
Missing the point
5:20 I think the rule they're referring to is that adverbs like "very" can be seen as sloppy/lazy. If you've watched Dead Poet's Society, the example I remember is "a man is not very tired, he is exhausted". Or "said quietly" would be better replaced with "whispered".
Basically just that adverbs are a lazy way of modifying one word when there is likely a whole other word that directly means that thing.
thats precisely what he was referring to
I think this goes out the window when adverbs are used in more like… whimsical books? Like when the narrator’s tone is almost confidential, and they say like “he was already terribly exhausted” terribly gives the exhaustion itself a bit of personality
With the adverb rule, I think it’s because a lot of adverbial phrases can just become a different verb, unless they’re used in contradiction to what the verb means
For example:
“She ran fast,” can become “she sprinted,” or “they smiled happily,” can be “they beamed,”
Personally, the second options sound better.
BUT, adverbs come in useful when you need to describe the opposite of a verb, but still want the basic meaning of the verb there.
For example: “she smiled sadly,” does not have the same impact as “she frowned,”. The connotations of “smiled sadly” means that there is still some happiness from “smiled” creating a more bittersweet effect overall. But with “frowned,” it’s more extreme in the negative emotions. These two phrases can’t be used the same way, and therefore here adverbs are really effective.
Most of the time, I personally prefer adverbial phrases, because... depending on how common the specific verb is, simpler english is generally easier for most people to understand without grabbing a dictionary, or increasing their vocabulary (not a bad thing, but shouldn't necessarily be required for reading a story.)
Also also, and and, you can get a lot more specific with adverbial phrases than specific verbs, that can accomplish what you described in your example, as well as more finely detailed levels of intensity and action that most accurately conveys what the writer had in mind.
I think there should be a button for DNF when you review things. I think it is very valuable to have a review from someone who gave up for the reason you gave. You should be able to click DNF as a review instead of picking a star rating on reviewing sites. Then it doesn't have to count towards the star rating but you get an idea of how many people didn't like it enough to stop reading.
Yes, I get that DNFs are important for when you consider buying a book, however DNFs shouldn't have a star rating. If there had to be some categorisation similar to stars, I would make it categories like "Not my writing style", "Problematic Content" (for things like torture scenes), "Annoying Tropes", "Boring start", "Overly complicated introduction" and "Personal Disinterest".
If you didn't finish it, you can only judge what you have read. So giving it a bad rating is only applicable in a fraction of the DNF reviews. Many others are for for reasons of personal taste, tropes and/or missing content warnings
On StoryGraph there actually is. They also give you the option to say why you didn't like it. On goodreads I just made myself a dnf shelf (the same kind that to-read, read, currently reading are) and just leave the rating empty (I don't think it affects the book's rating).
@@bluegreen5377 oh really! That's awesome!
But if there is no low star all that would be left afterwards would be good reviews and people who are only looking at the final star rating before reading the book would not know that there may be an issue with the book. Low stars give the book a more honest face.
It's like Howlongtobeat has a retirement rate for games
I think people want simple villains back because they're tired of fans simping for and excusing villains because they have a tragic backstory.
It’s probably because those villains look attractive that fans simp for them lol
People will still do that if the villains are simple and attractive though. Plenty of older Disney Villains are simped over.
This is a good point. Sometimes, in human behaviour, a psychopath is just a psychopath.
I don't think that is the issue. Most people I hear say it's because of the redemption arcs that a lot get and are "getting redemed" over things that no one can ever be redemed for. They all want a Zuko, but Zuko never did anything so bad that it couldn't be forgiven and I think people forget that. Zuko was a good person who was born on the wrong side, but came to realize this later. But instead, we get Vegeta's. (don't know if you know who he is but I will explain things he has done.) Which, Vegeta has killed off planets of people to clean them out and sell, viewed killing as fun, and killed even his friends. To which, we later find out that he works for this big bad guy and if he didn't do all of this, he would of been killed. Even though there are clips of him finding out his home world was destoryed and laughed about it and basically said " good riddance". Nope, all of that gets forgiven because he becomes a dad and suddenly starts working with the good guys for his own self interest. So many villians have gotten this treatment. I don't think people really know what redemption means or understand what actions one could of done and be redemed later.
Another issue I see is that the back stories are done in a way to make us feel bad for the villian, rather than just showing us that this was how they became what they became. Instead it is framed in a way that the actions they are doing should just be forgiven because of their up bringing and we should just feel sorry. Rather than still holding them accoutable but then trying to make a change in the world so it doesn't happen to someone else.
Could it be due to the fact that people are simping? Maybe a little. But they will do that so long as the villian is hot. Being evil for the sake of being evil won't make them not be simped over if they are attractive.
@@klausd.6285 but that's the same thing I said, they get excused for their backstories even though they're not realistically reedemable
Gotta disagree. While a complex villain can be fun, I LOVE a villain who's just GLEEFULLY evil for the sake of being evil, and have fun doing Like Jack Nicholson's Joker. Those are the most memorable villains to me.
Joker is different cause he has so much personality. Sure he's just evil but he's fun. But most villains who are evil for being evil's sake is just plain and boring imo, like Sauron and Ozai from ATLA.
not always true, frieza and crocodile are some of the most iconic villains from their series. Frieze’s iconic even beyond dragon ball. People also love Bill cipher from gravity falls or Him from ppg
@@rodvincetolosa9386 I wouldn't say Sauron needs a personality. He's never *here*, in person in LotR, so he doesn't need one.
@@rodvincetolosa9386 Yall should read silmarillion
Any book recs with those villains?
My story has 3 villains.
One is deeper than first expected.
One is shallow but forward.
The final is... existential.
Having 3 seems like it'll be a bit messy, but also explore all those aspects of villainy.
Would love to read it!
I mean if the second one has fun being evil, that's fine.
Xenoblade 1 (because Xenoblade is relevant) is a favourite JRPG story of mine and Metal Face as a sick villain having too much fun stands out as much as "Mechonis's leader" being a badass who has a sympathetic background as the story progresses.
Also while acting, especially localized, usually would not guide story. Metal Face has such ham in his role it's spicy.
I've got the same going on in mine. A Kafkaesque beaurocracy, a violent sadistic person who uses vague commands by their superior as an excuse to do what they want, and a ideologue who recognises the flaws in their actions but believes it's a necessary for the greater good.
So I absolutely love you're exploration of different types of villainy and the different tactics they might employ or motivations that have. I'd be super interested in a read when it's finished. It doesn't sounds messy at all, if it all makes sense for the world and characters, and the story can flow well with all three I say go for it!
The prologue thing blows my mind! One of my favourite parts of a new Stormlight Archive book is reading a new perspective of a certain event in every new prologue!
I was thinking of this too! I’ve never seen prologues in a series written that way before, and it’s so cool!
@@annmoore321 Right! I love it so much because it’s just so unique! And I just KNOW the prologue for stormlight ten is going to be from gavilars pov. It’s just one of those things in the series that feel predestined, like Shallans final truth being something about accepting herself for who she is.
Though I think they’re usually warranted, I think a DNF review has an obligation to say that they DNF, and I think it’s unfair to contribute to the rating average unless you’ve read more than 1/2 of it.
For the first one, I found myself nodding going 'yeah, yeah!' but then as you were discussing it I realized the thing that I was really having that gut agreement reaction to was my hatred for woobie villains. Villains where the story tries too hard to endear them to you, to get you to sympathize and empathize with them, to the point where I'm questioning why the villain isn't the protagonist, or where I'm just annoyed by how pathetic the villain is, or where it's completely obvious they were created just to have a redemption arc and I'm over here rolling my eyes like 'just get it overwith already so we can MOVE ON'. I'm tired of people writing their villains as the protagonists they actually want to be writing. I want a layered evil character, sure, but I want them to be evil. Like, Umbrage is a good example I think. She's evil on every level, she's a disgusting human being. But she's also so well layered and her reasons for doing what she does mirror actual real life people and real life things that happened in the past and are happening today. She's evil for the desire of control and power, which to me is evil for the sake of evil.'
Edit for safety: I'm not against redemption arcs. I'm just tired of poorly written villains who only exist because someone wanted to write a redemption arc without putting in the effort.
I love that you described them as the protagonists authors want and I agree, they should make MCs that morally grey and have the villain as just that
I absolutely hate reluctant protagonists. They’re in soooo many books, but the reluctant hero usually makes me wanna scream 🙃
Romance subplots are great imo. Idk it just provides some moments of levity, and if it's not the main plot it's just cute to get some romance sprinkled in there.
Gosh dang it missed out again!!! Kidding I'm not fussed lol awesome video, hope all is well.
I so understand the comment about spoilers. Sometimes if I can't get into a book I'll read the last chapter and epilogue. It tells you the ending, yes, but it can tell you a lot about the story without really spoiling much. For me, how you get to the end is the important part. Spoiling that would ruin things. Reading the end first just gives motivation.
And here I thought I was the only one that reads the last chapter first 😂
I usually read the end around 1/4 to 1/3 into the book. I'm just bad at being hold in suspense.
I love it when books of maps, I love flipping to the map every time a new location is mentioned to see where the characters are and where they may be going.
I can go either way with villains. A perfect example of character redemptions done right is Zuko from Avatar and Shutendouji/Anubis from Yoroiden Samurai Troopers/Ronin Warriors. They struggled and earned their second chances (several in Zuko's case). I like these villain to hero character, but sometime I just need a OG Maleficent 'Mistress of All Evil' without a backstory (I still hate the live action treatment of her) that takes away what made her enjoyable. Disney villains specifically is where I want simplicity back ToT
"Get romance out of here, I just want to ride the dragon." - Merphy Napier
As something of an opposite to the one about needing more meaningful multiple POVs to get invested in, I enjoy it when authors dedicate some chapters to abandoning the protagonists or usual POVs for incidental/episodic characters. Especially with longer works, it helps the story feel like it's not just a world inhabited by the protagonists and set dressing.
Some instances of what I mean would be the intermissions between major acts in Stormlight, all the "little people" chapters in The First Law and the Age of Madness (e.g., constantly switching POVs in battle chapters), or those bits early on in Stephen King's "The Stand" with random people's drama ending in someone showing the symptoms.
I think that you will really like Kingdom. It's a war story manga. It's just like every war that have existed, but like no war story that have ever been told
List of characters with a sentence or two of introduction at the beginning of the book is the best!
A character page is useful to consult later during the story if the characters are difficult to remember, which can result from their sheer number of too short time to get to know them.
I've been getting sick of romances, so side plot romances or the adventures of a healthy couple are things I enjoy a lot.
I like both types of villains, but I do wish there were more menacing, maniacal, evil-because-they're-evil antagonists in modern media. The main example I usually think of is Maleficent. Maleficent from the animated Sleeping Beauty is one of my favorite villains of all time, and a lot of that is because of the fantastic presence she gives off like you talked about. She's just bad, and they do such a good job of portraying that. This is also why I was confused by/uninterested in the Angelina Jolie live action movies about her, because I personally don't need a tragic backstory or complex motivations for Maleficent, imo she's just one of the best "pure evil" villains in fiction, and making her "the good guy" just didn't make sense in my book.
Was just gonna write a similar comment using Maleficent as an example. Seeing someone else got to her as a villain for the sake of being a villain shows it works
@@eduardoramirez969 Absolutely!
“Let’s focus on the people that just died, can we?” -Merphy Napier, on romance sub-plots
Me, tearfully about one of my favorite characters in a still-running series: he is, and she was the romantic subplot for 16 books. What more do you want from me?
It's probably an unpopular opinion but I absolutely LOVE waiting for the release of the next book in a serie ! I understand that waiting can be very frustrating, especially when there is a lot a suspens. And though I am not a very patient person I think that having the time to really process what you just read, to imagine theories for the next book, and most of all to get really excited about it makes you enjoy the reading experience sooo much more than if you just read all the books in one go.
Waiting makes it even more satisfying read/watch. That's why i read one piece weekly. Binge watching is not that much fun as it is being able to dissect chapter weekly and discuss with others
Thoughts on GRRM?
(PS you have the weirdest username i have seen all day. And i was on discord for a couple hours)
How long do books usually come out?
ever waited on a Walter Moers book?
Yeah, you‘ll grow tired.
I think it really depends on how long you have to wait. If it's a month, that's fine, but I've been waiting on winds of winter for so long now that I've forgotten how the last book ended.
my opinions (don't know if they're unpopular but whatever):
1. I actually enjoy books with the "chosen one" trope. They can be really interesting if done correctly. I know its really overdone, but still I find it cool to see all the powers and abilities of the protagonist.
2. I like it when my favorite characters die or suffer, because then I share the trauma and grief of the other characters and can grow closer to them because of that.
3. Show don't tell is a really good tip, but authors don't always have to show. Some stories do good with a lot of purposeful telling to convey that the characters aren't exactly telling the truth about their abilities. It also makes things so much less complicated if you tell a little while still having plenty of showing.
4. If the first few books aren't my favorites but are bearable I'll keep reading. I did that with The Unwanteds and the last three books were amazing the others were fine just a little boring. But I consider it one of my favorite series just for those last three books
5. Okay I'm kinda scared to write this, because this is REALLY contreversial and I'm sure so many people are going to hate me but here goes (also this isn't a book unpopular opinion, its a show one): Avatar The Last Airbender is slightly overrated in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, its still really good. But I had trouble getting through it because it had a lot of filler episodes and it was a little young in my opinion. Still an amazing show with amazing characters but it didn't capture my interest as much as The Dragon Prince or Arcane
My favorite villains are the ones that are simple, with little to no character development, who are mostly if not completely evil. The more the story starts adding those things, the less the character feels like a villain and feels more like a person doing bad things. The most poignant example I can think of is from the Dark Knight movie. The Joker is incredibly memorable and most certainly a villain and we know practically nothing about him and he has no redeeming qualities. Constrast that with Two Face, who is also technically a villain, but because we spent so much time with the Harvey Dent version of him, the feeling I'm left with is that of the tragic fate of someone who was trying to do the right thing but circumstances and his own failings drove him away from that path. Both characters are memorable to me, but for entirely different reasons
I think a trend that the first opinion is referring too is sometimes a tragic backstory feels shoehorned into the story because it's just expected to be there AND I think often times it's done in ways that try to make the villain more sympathetic, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sympathetic villains but you often get some dissonance if the villain has done some particularly heinous things but is still portrayed sympathetically, there are certain actions where I feel like no tragic backstory should be attempting to emotionally manipulate you into feeling sorry for someone so monstrous
I love evil because they’re evil villains. To me, they’re so entertaining because they’re usually so bombastic. Maleficient in the animated Sleeping Beauty is regarded as one of Disney’s best villains. And a lot of people didn’t like the turn the live action took her for that reason.
I think it basically boils down to simple motives can be just as compelling. Some people do evil things because they get a thrill out of hurting other people. And those people absolutely exist.
Tell = The woman looked nervous.
Show = She wrung her hands and looked everywhere but his eyes.
The 2nd is better because it lets the reader decide what they think is going on, just like they'd do if they were in the room. The second, "shows" the scene to the reader. The first fails the reader, because you have to guess what's happening, based on the emotion. What does her nervous look like? What is informing the narrator that she's nervous?
The comment about overly flowery writing reminds me of the writing style of the old pulp stories - writers like Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Arthur Conan Doyle. They wrote very well, but they were also straight to the point.
There's an interesting crossover idea between the concepts you discussed of "villains should be 3 dimensional" and "characters don't have to be relatable". As you pointed out, the villains you can relate to in some degree are far more memorable. Wouldn't the same apply to any other character?
Now, there's the complaint that I've seen here and elsewhere that the character doesn't have to be exactly like you. And that's also true. But "relatable" doesn't mean "exactly like you." According to Oxford Dictionaries (I know that using dictionaries is an unpopular practice these days) it means "enabling a person to feel they can relate to someone or something" and relate means "feel sympathy with; identify with."
So on the one side, I'd say that stories and characters need to be relatable in order to grab the reader's interest. But on the other side there is also the fact that people who too often can't "identify" with a character or story are simply expressing a weakness in themselves that they can't sympathize or identify unless something is exactly like them. So it's a kind of bigger subject really.
I feel like relatability is more about relating to some aspects of a character's life, struggles, ambitions, thoughts, fears, morals, emotions... even if they are completely different from you, seeing some part of the human experience we all share in the characters we read than it is about seeing yourself in them.
Absolutely agree with you definition of relatability, but I wonder if the person who wrote the unpopular opinion was talking about the "blank slate" characters that some authors make so readers can identify themselves with the character. I hate those, but I think that's a different can of worms from relatability.
I would still disagree. Characters I have very little or absolutely nothing in common with often turn out to be the most interesting.
Definitely agree about villains sometimes an evil person is just an evil person there’s not always some deep dark reason behind they’re crap lol and if I’m supposed to hate you why can’t I just hate you without having to feel sorry for you mid story?? Lol
"No Adverbs" refers, I believe, to modifiers or descriptors attached to actions--carrying someone lovingly, or lifting an object tiredly. It's just clunkier prose a lot of times, so English teachers don't bother to teach a lot of kids the nuances of when to use it, and just go "none, until you're more experienced." The rule has a place, but it isn't perfect.
Agreed!
That sucks
She also used adjectives in her examples lol
A lot of times the problem lies in that the chosen adverb adds nothing to the sentence. "Quickly ran" is unnecessary as the "quickly" can be inferred. If you say "clumsily ran", the addition of "clumsily" adds more context to the sentence and is pefectly acceptable.
@@kenfreeman845 There's also the factor of using a word that means running but quicker, like sprint
I think the recent opinion of mine that might not be popular is that understanding a villains motivations is NOT a redemption arc. Just because I know how Voldemort or Mrs. Coulter think or came to their current standing does not mean that their actions are not reprehensible.
The adverb rule is that you should say “He shouted” instead of “He said loudly.” People apply it broadly though, which is extremely annoying. The problem usually lay with using a bad verb, and poor adverbs get all the blame. A well used verb-adverb combo is one of the most pleasant things to read.
The issue here is less what words are chosen, but authors trying actively to not repeat words too much. If you have 'shouted shouted shouted shouted' all in a row, it can lose a bit of the charm of the prose.
So much yes! Verbs are the villains!
7:52 I agree with this up to a point. I read a review of way of kings where they were complaining that not all their questions about the magic system or spren and stuff where awnsered. Or they wanted Fabrials to play a bigger role. Had they continued reading they would've gotten their awnsers. I dont think its fair to complain about unsolved mysteries in a 10 book series when you stop at the first book.
As someone who makes maps for fantasy books, thank you for loving them!
The Joker in The Dark Knight is the perfect epitome of an unknown backstory for an infamous villain. All that needs to be said of him is “some men just want to watch the world burn,” and his lack of motivation ultimately teaches something to the protagonist. In Batman Begins, Bruce believes that criminals aren’t complicated, they are reduced to weak motivations of selfish desire. Whereas the joker is all about sending a message. He is the opposite symbol to the Batman, a lesson for him to learn, and the ultimate obstacle of the trilogy.
in regards to the first comment: scar & darth vader (b4 the prequels) have been such amazing villains, no matter the lack of backstory. Sometimes less is more.
“Just wait until you get to book 4”
I’m sorry but I immediately thought of The Legend Of Korra. I’ve tried to get through season 1 several times and I’m just not into it. And my best friend is always telling me the last season is the best. I’m like, no offense, but I really don’t care. 🤷♀️ Sorry not sorry. Don’t hate me internet, I’m happy with just ATLA
S4 isn’t even that good lol. Not worth it
Imo each season of Korra kind of stands for itself, vibe-wise. If the first one is not your cup of tea, pushing through might be worth it. I personally preferred season 3 over 4 and 1 and thought the second one to be the weakest, but because they all have their own theme and tone to them it's hard to tell which one you'd enjoy. I recommend giving it a chance but if you have to force yourself it's probably not going to spark any joy anyways
Korra was in no way as good as ATLA and most of the time of Korra is used on a stupid love triangle no one cares about and destroying the Lore established in ATLA. In other words: you are not missing anything imo
I wonder whether the relatable part is a mix up with being unable to get invested in a character for some reason and calling it unrelatable? I cannot relate to a dragon rider or a soldier with PTSD, but get invested. Still, there are certainly personality traits that will make it impossible for me get invested in a MC and as a result drop the book. For example, there are very few MCs with anger issues that I can get invested in and I have dropped books because of it even when I can actually relate to and empathize with the anger issues
What about anger issues makes you dislike a book/character? I'm writing a book with one such character so I'm curious :)
@@ashleymartin8093 Mostly personal taste, but it is not helped by the fact that it is often used as an easy way to make a character appear flawed. It is relatively easy to recognize situations that would irritate somebody and an exaggerated angry reaction is also easy to spot by the reader. So it often feels like lazy writing.
@@pietersleijpen3662 that makes sense. My character's anger issues are rooted in trying to bottle up her emotions and keep people at a distance so it mostly stems from frustration and not really knowing how to express herself. I didn't like my character at first cause she felt too one-dimensional like anger was her only trait but I feel like she's a lot better now. What would make you more invested in a character with anger issues? :)
Im curious on your take on “power scaling” in anime some people love it some people hate it and then there’s the ones who do hypothetical matchups that won’t happen (for example Naruto vs Luffy)
Unpopular opinion : Long series of books can actually be really great ! I know most people likes the standalones or short series better because long series can be very discouraging...and I agree with that. But when I am invested in a story I love following the plot and characters during many books, I love the growth that you can see from the first to the last book. I feel so much more connected with the story when it last longer, the characters becomes like a second family. And that what I love about reading, finding another home in the book and another family in the characters ❤️
I think with long series it depends on what sort of story it is. Say with Harry Potter, a long series but each book is sort of semi-self-contained. But when you get huge book series where it's just one single continuous tale, that can be irritating. Feels more like you're reading 400-page chapters than something more unique.
The bigger the book and longer the series the better! (At least when it's something that I'm enjoying obvs 😊)
That's not really an unpopular opinion. Most long series are popular; if they weren't they wouldn't have gotten so long
I agree to the romance part with the comment :D - I love romance in a subplot. I don't read pure romances. I want the romanc being challenged with a gruesome plot, growing stronger or falling apart tragically.
"Dont judge a book by its cover" !! This is something I live by. Its wild that people actually do judge. Some of my favorite books I ever read were just random pickups I made at the library. Totally just a weird book with a worn off cover but inside...it was a treasure.
A lot of new, self published authors, create their own awful covers, and it gives the impression the writing inside will be as equally unrefined.
There is a difference between a 'bland' cover and a truly atrocious one.
5:02...thats my brother that came and dropped the mind twisting question on you. rip adjectives and adverbs.
Unpopular opinion 1: action/fight scenes in books make me bored (even in thrillers).
Unpopular opinion 2: not every well written protagonist must have an ark. They can be same person from start till the end.
Agree with your second opinion. If the protagonist is already super interesting and the story occurs over a short timeframe, I'm perfectly fine with them not really changing at all.
I especially like it when instead of an arc where they change, the focus is intead on getting the reader to understand what makes the character what they are; what makes them "tick" so to speak.
Opinion 2 is just objectively correct. If anyone disagrees they probably haven't spent enough time thinking about it
Love the opinion that it's okay to read spoilers, then decide one way or another on finishing something. Yes!
If I’m well into a book when I get bored with it (and especially if it seems predictable) I might turn to the back and read the last chapter. If it surprises me I may go back and finish the book just to see how the author got there.
I’m 72. Life is too short to finish things you aren’t enjoying.
I've done something similar since I was a kid. I usually read the last page and if that makes me curious I'll either continue reading backwards until I'm convinced to continue the story, or satisfied to know the ending and not care enough to continue the book.
Only very rarely have I been burned by this, and usually it gives me a twist ending because I didn't actually understand understand what happened at the end, so I go through it expecting one outcome and see it spun on its heels.
There's only so much time any of us has to read, may as well spend it with a book that's worth it for you.
I feel like my favorite is the hard magic system disguised as a soft magic system. Where there are rules and laws, but they're not shown until the character discovers them throughout the book. So little by little, we learn how the magic system works as the Character earns the information through some kind of quest or whatever.
Regarding spoilers: I avoid them like the plague! Yet I reread books all the time and usually enjoy them most on the later readings 😂😂 Why am I like this?
The prologue to Wheel of Time is one of the greatest chapters ever written. Even as i read it first and didnt fully understand it, the ending of lews therin killing himself just seemed so cool to me.
The DNF one is difficult for me because I simply can't DNF anything. I could read the worst book ever, watch the worst movie ever or play the worst video game ever, but I'll still finish it because I can't leave things unfinished :D. The only things in my life I DNF is food, cause I have a small stomach and in restaurants they usually give me a waaay bigger portion than I can eat.
The relatability thing. I feel like people don't really necesseraily want a character that's exactly like themselves, but someone who has at least some attribute they can relate to. For example, if I had to read a book about a rich guy who can have anything he wants and the story is about him having trouble to decide what to buy first, I'd hate that. Why? Because I can't relate to a single thing from that. However, if he was the same guy but his issue would be that he doesn't buy a lot of stuff because he's introverted and is too shy to go buy things, I'd like that a lot more. Cause even though the guy is nothing like me, we are alike in this one thing, therefore I can understand him a little better and I'm more invested in him. I mean it works the same in real life too. You usually befriend people that have something in common with you. If you have nothing in common with this guy, you probably won't really have any relationship.
Also I love how Merphy complains about the "just wait until book 4!" thing and then kinda does it herself at 19:10. I know you didn't really mean it that way but I just found it hilarious :D
23:21-Are you ok? Pretty sure I could hear your heart breaking on that last comment about the maps
Honestly, the fact that the ending of a book can make me love a story I hated or hate a story I loved tells me it must matter more to me than the actual story. An ending can really change EVERYTHING. When a book I was really enjoying has a terrible ending I won't recommend it, even if the ending was a few pages out of hundreds. 😬
Same!!
I ignored the video glitch... it's ok. I agree with several of the points you make, especially around the "wait till you get to book 3". If the first book is not good, I don't generally read more.
Murphy: Don't tell people that it gets good at book 4.
Also Murphy: The plot doesn't really start until book 2!
To be fair:
A plot not kicking in for a period of time doesn't mean the beginning has to be bad. It can still be good while being more episodic or character driven.
Not comparable statements.
Came here to post this
The plot doesn't start until book 2, but book 1 is still really good
I agree with the map comment. Sometimes I just want to read a story instead of trying to puzzle out where they currently on the map, the roads they are traveling on, etc.
While the Chimera Ant arc is great, I can see why some people take issue with it. It’s quite a deviation from the arcs beforehand. It kind of exemplifies Togashi’s ability to just kinda say “Okay I’m gonna do this now and I’ll figure out how to tie it into the other stuff”
And, despite it being a master-crafted story, it takes practically a third to a half of the series. Which I feel like led to some things being given a little less than they could have
The prologue and epilogue in each Ascendance of a Bookworm volume is from the perspective of different characters which sets up the following book and the next volume respectively.
maps are amazing!!!!!
Geography is everything!
I wish authors would diversify their subplots. Most authors SEEM TO always go to a romantic subplot, which often takes over the entire narrative, but there are so many that could be utilized instead. The Haunting of Hill house show and the Danganronpa games and shows are great examples that use other types of subplots to complement the narrative. They were less conventional and less predictable, and I enjoyed the media far more as a result.
What were the subplots in the examples you mentioned?
@@Frogface91 The Haunting of Hill House show is a horror show about a family coping with having lived in a haunted house while they were younger. The episodes switch back and forth. I’m about half of them, the horror and mystery are the main plot while the present day family drama is the subplot , while in others it is reversed. Generally, the siblings’ relationships with people other than each other are subplots. Steven had a subplot with his estranged wife, with the reason for their imminent separation hinted at throughout the season while often in the background. Shirley’s husband is keeping a secret, etc. Each sibling had a different subplot that worked well with their character (their individual episodes were kind of sub genres of horror).
Danganronpa is a whodunnit with smaller mysteries leading up to the main one. Each “chapter” has a different subplot. They focus most heavily on the murder, but there are other elements and side plots. For the first one, chapter one has a romantic subplot, chapter two is more slice of life with the main character witnessing the other characters forming friendships and rivalries, the third chapter’s subplot is kind of science fiction with a heavy focus on the trauma of the characters. Chapter four is a tragedy, with the subplots being the protagonist’s closest friend/love interest icing him out and the tentative friendship and peace of the other students fracturing. Chapter five is a mystery with a thriller-like subplot. Chapter Sux completely focuses on the mystery. Each game follows a similar formula while switching up the subplots.
@@samkathryn4825 Thanks for replying!
The ONLY thing that bothers me about DNF reviews is when the reviewer complains that the author never explains this or that character or plot point. In most instances I’ve seen, the author did, the reviewer just didn’t get to that point. DNFing and then telling others why you DNFed is fine, up until you end up misrepresenting the book because you just didn’t read far enough. (Thinking of one instance in particular where the person gave a one star review, every single criticism was “the author never explains such and such,” and then when rightfully confused people pushed back and said “wait, all those questions were answered, did you actually read it?” The person finally added a comment that they DNFed.) Basically, it comes down to the review not feeling like fair criticism because the criticism they have is factually inaccurate.
This. I think a DNF review is fine, even giving it a low star is fine, as long as you don't make assertions about the part you didn't read. The beginning is part of the book too and if it was bad enough or uninteresting enough to DNF then I think a rating is fair, but you should be up front that you DNF and should speak only from the perspective you actually have.
I do agree that a reviewer should state straight-up if they DNF’d, though to this particular point I would potentially argue that the author did not do a good enough job of foreshadowing or promising answers. Mystery is good and should drive the reader to want to know more, but mystery for mystery’s sake leads to frustration. However, each to their own, and different readers have different thresholds for how much mystery is too much.
I agree SO MUCH with One Autumn Leaf’s opinion… while world building is great, usually, all the excess details wants to put me to sleep. I’m way more interested in what’s happening and especially well written dialogue between characters.
"I just want to read a book where someone rides a dragon."
Actually I don't think I've read one of those since Pern/Eragon in grade school and Temeraire six years ago, so I think I would like to know about more books involving cool dragons (riding or otherwise).
I totally agree with the spoiler one, I do it all the time. I was reading this one where some of the characters knew a secret about the girl who died before the book started, the book just kept dragging out this oh so earth shattering secret that was tearing up the main character, and how everyone in the town would be effected if they knew. It was really starting to drag and so I just had to know if this secret would be worth all it's hype so I skipped to the end..... it was the worst secret I've ever heard, so shallow and small, and I'm glad I saved myself the trouble.
I agree with the commenter about the HxH Chimera Ant arc. I didn't like so many of the characters in that arc and I felt it drag on. I greatly prefer the Yorknew and Greed Island arcs.
About the relatable characters thing- they may just mean they can quite understand or accept why the character is making the choices they make. So it's not necessarily about seeing themselves as the character. I feel like I've used that criticism before and that's how I meant it, I just didn't understand why MC was making certain choices, I couldn't relate.
I thought I liked simple prose because I hated flowery writings. But then I read Sanderson and I found the prose somewhat lacking.
So, in the end, I'm just a really picky reader who wants simple but still pretty prose.
Short, to the point, but meaningful and impactful at the same time.
I've definitely read books with multiple POVs but not multiple protagonists. A recent example I can think of is Xiala in Fevered Star. She'd definitely a protagonist in Black Sun, but in the sequel she isn't. There's generally a lot of vague plotting in that book that won't pay of until the third book. Her POV in particular is just used to show that there's another party clamoring for power, but without revealing a concrete plan or motivation.
I never really understood why some stories clicked with me while others didn't, that was until I watched Act Man's Halo Reach videos. Halo Reach is one of my favorite stories of all time and it was hard to put into words why, but he did it perfectly. Reach is a plot and setting-driven story. We don't spend 10 hours learning the favorite colors and deep emotional backstory of each character, instead we get the bare bones of who they are through their designs and introduction dialogue, and then we're off to the races! The main cast is on the back foot through the entire story, just reacting to the ever-changing situation, and we get all of the characterization we need through how they react. All of this goes to say that I am not a fan of many character-driven stories. If you leave a character in isolation they will be very unlikely to really "do" anything for a very long time.
This is why I've dropped The Blade Itself three times already. The characters are fine, but there's no big hook for me to latch onto, only a vague threat of an invasion happening at some point in the future. To add to something else mentioned in this video, I would have dropped the Stormlight Archive almost immediately if we DIDN'T have the prologue with Gavilar's murder. The inciting incident gave me something to latch onto immediately and provided context for why everything was already in chaos when the book proper begins.
Weirdly, Count of Monte Cristo and Lies of Locke Llamora are examples of books that gripped me from the first word all the way to the end. I didn't know people struggled with the beginnings there, I found them instantly fascinating.
Hisoka is a relatively simple villain. We get to know about so many of the other characters and yet nothing of his backstory. But we all know his goal. And its to do anything to get into *that* next battle. And yet I argue he’s one of the most entertaining characters. He’s a good example of how a character can be written entertainingly enough to not need a complicated backstory or much of one at all.
Similar to the joker even tho he’s since then had noncanon ones. Plus Hisoka may get one in the near future which excites meZ
Bless the person who called out too much detail. As a person with aphantasia, detailed/flowery writing totally drags down a story for me because absolutely nothing is being created in my head.
I definitely agree with the "tell, don't show" person. Just tell me the thing you want to tell me. Don't make me decipher your meaning from five pages worth of poetry.
Everyone agrees with it, it is the most regurgitated comment in the reading community right now. how did it end up on the list
I only agree if it's something that's not THAT important, so there's no need to dwell on it so hard
I don’t know if it’s so much about poetry or flowery language, it’s more when you’re describing the way something feels, looks, etc., in such a granular way that I have no idea what you’re talking about. OR if it’s something I’ve never heard of bc I haven’t read up on that much historical nonfiction do I don’t know what that weapon is, or I’ve never been to this country so the analogue to represent the thing in your fictional land goes way over my head.
What is a “cairn”?????? Can’t you just say it like we do today please. :(
Show don't tell, means describe, paint a picture in their mind. Don't just tell them.
@@mr.e7541 I prefer just simply being told that a guy was angry instead of reading a paragraph about them stomping their feet or a description of the shade of red their face is.
In the romance subplot point: shouldnt books try to emulate life? And isnt romance in some form a part of most people's lives? Im not saying every book should have it but it makes sense that characters fall inove every now and then. Not saying all of them are bad or good
There are many great morally grey characters in Arcane!
I disagree on “the character doesn’t relatable” because I find whenever I see review that begins with “ The protagonist was unrelatable” It generally means, not that the reader couldn’t relate to the protagonist because the protagonist likes sports and the reader hates sports or something to that vain, it generally means that the protagonists decisions didn’t feel justified or realistic or that the protagonist lacks flaws and dimension. Protagonist are not necessarily relatable, because they share interest with the reader but because the author is able to realistically write to the human condition, if you have failed that then you have made a protagonist that a reader can’t relate to.
'Snowy' and 'cloudy' are adjectives, not adverbs. I have heard a "rule" that says not to use adjectives, but I've never understood its rationale. I've never heard a rule not to use adverbs, but there's probably also a rule that says not to use nouns.
How do you NOT use nouns?!😂
The rule for adjectives is do not use them in excess, not do not use them at all. it can be annoying like consider: the bubbly, giggly, funny, silly girl walked in the room. too many adjectives, just one of those would get the point across
@@henrywayne5724 It was a joke. Although I understand that classical Chinese didn't use them.
21:04 I agree with this one to some extent. There are certain things I have a really hard time understanding if they try to show me instead of telling me, such as facial expressions and feelings. It frustrates me so much, especially when an author tries to do something new, and isn't straight forward about it, and I just can't picture the expression or feelings they are trying to get across. Having trouble with reading expressions irl already doesn't help.
On top of that alot of writers (especially newer ones) get this advice and really overdo it. Telling has always had a place, and no it isn't as rare as people seem to think.
Also as someone who is already a pretty blunt straight forward kind of person, yes, please, for my sanity, and possibly yours, get to the point!
See, the Villains that stick with me are the ones who completely go against everything I relate to and/or understand. So hard disagree. I am far more fascinated with what I don’t understand than what is “relatable” or “complex” as you put it.
I LIKE info dumps sometimes. Especially about the history of a magical or sci-fi world