This sounds so old fashioned maybe but I love the stories where its the prince or the male love interest that had to swoop in and save the girl. I don’t like it when its overdone (ahem Lois Lane anyone?) but i still think its a classic trope that shouldn’t be subverted. Just in my head the idea of a muscular, sword fighting, strong girl saving her boyfriend? – nooo. Not the way it should be. And besides there are so many other ways girls can save guys without turning into a full on Black Widow. I don’t know, those are just my thoughts. I guess what I’m saying is that i agree with u
I totally see what you mean! To the author’s credit, the MC wasn’t what I expected, she wasn’t a “STroNG FEmaLE ChARacTEr” ™. She was actually quite girly, which I appreciated. Though… she had about as much personality as a wet washcloth XD
I must say, I enjoy both. XD I love a good classic “The heroine is hopelessly trapped and the love interest swoops in and helps her” but I also like the two alternatives! “The heroine is hopelessly trapped, but somehow rescues herself.” and “The love interest got himself in trouble and the heroine helps him.”
As long as all characters have agency, I love nothing more than a rescue mission. It’s one of my favorite tropes!
I want to understand the villain’s reasons and motivations, but I also think writing a villain and then justifying their terrible deeds isn’t good writing.
Yes, I agree about the sympathy. Just because the villain’s parents were killed in a raid doesn’t mean the protagonists should feel bad for him after they massacre a village.
Sooo… the ideal attitude toward the villain should be “Cool motive, still murder”? XD
Wholeheartedly agree with both of you 🙂 Redemption arcs are their own thing, and villains shouldn’t be excused for their terrible actions. Their backstory explains it, but it doesn’t excuse it.
I have never read a book in the romance genre before, and frankly, they have never interested me. Now, to clarify, I really enjoy romance in books, I just don’t like books whose whole plot is romance.
Same. I don’t even like romance as a subplot, 90% of the time. It has potential, but it’s poorly executed most of the time.
I have never gotten through an Austen book XD I really want to, but I haven’t gotten to it XD
In fact, I plan to make a post on this sometime soon, but I think using the word magic greatly hurts a book (I won’t get into that right now)
Make the post! I’ll be there to back you up XD I do not have words to describe how much I hate that. Honestly.
Listen up everybody: We don’t always need to see the coming of age tale of your character, especially in the most slow, boring way possible.
LOL, I saw that book once or twice, but it looked exactly like the half-dozen other medieval coming-of-age books I’d read, so I skipped it XD Glad I did XD
The worst book of this variety that I’ve read was the “Youngest Templar” series. Those books make me laugh, they’re the most cliche things I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. It had all of it, a mentor death, a MacGuffin that needed to be toted across an entire continent with no purpose, and Robin Hood was there.
I’m not necessarily against two characters kissing before marriage in some specific circumstances, but two characters “showing their love for each other” by kissing here, there, and everywhere, is foolish and plants wrong ideas the reader’s mind.
First of all, hard agree. I make a point to use the ‘kiss rule’. If two characters have to kiss for the reader to know they’re in love, start over. It’s cute the first time, and annoying every time after.
On that note, let’s move on to the next book I learned a lot from!
Divergent series, Veronica Roth. 1/5 stars.
For anyone who heard this was a cheap Hunger Games knockoff, you’re absolutely right, but it’s even worse.
Dystopias exist to criticize a specific part of society by exaggerating it. What is Divergent criticizing? MBTI tests?
I can repeat what everyone else has said and it’ll all be true. Illogical worldbuilding, blandest of the bland main character, forced romance with no chemistry, and unsatisfying ending. (Fun fact, I didn’t finish the books XD I couldn’t bear to suffer anymore but I heard about the ending and decided it was a cheap trick.)
But what this book especially taught me was: Don’t cut corners. Just don’t.
The premise had potential, but I think the author didn’t spend enough time with it. It had plot holes and the editing felt… spotty. The book could have used two or three major rewrites. To fix the worldbuilding plot holes, cut out extra characters and scenes and clear up character arcs. (Or actually just to write them in the first place XD The only development was continual disillusionment and more Chosen-one-ness)
What Hunger Games had and Divergent lacked was thoughtfulness. The author didn’t think the worldbuilding through, didn’t spend enough time with the characters to discover who they truly were, had no particular message or theme (Besides maybe… be brave? Like, wow. Deep.) and wrote the three books separately without any idea of where she was headed. (You can really, really tell. She introduces a side character, then kills them off in the next book because she didn’t know what to do with them. There were like… two survivors.)
Don’t get me wrong, I rather liked the first book while I was reading it. The second book had me a bit lost, but I was still on board. The third book lost me. If you asked me what the books were about, I’d tell you someone told a girl she had a personality and she spent the next three books proving it was a lie.
Wow, this was critical. I totally understand if someone likes the books because not everything has to be deep, heavy reading material. I just personally think the premise could have been fulfilled better with some edits.
I could go on about Divergent for a really long time because it’s such an excellent case study XD But I’ll stop here XD
Without darkness, there is no light. If there was no nighttime, would the stars be as bright?