[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 19 KB, 540x339, 24485168._SX540_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12952119 No.12952119 [Reply] [Original]

Why do Fantasy fans review books like this?

>> No.12952136

Because they're braindead idiots who take these categories seriously.

>> No.12952140

D&D and video games

>> No.12952147

>>12952119
>Can't read this masterwork of fiction, shit magic system.

>> No.12952155

>>12952119
The books aren't worth any real analysis, this is a good little handy book so long as you trust the taste of the reviewer.

>> No.12952156

>>12952147
magic not being handled well can ruin the belivability of the world. it should probably just be a part of worldbuilding but they probably couldn't think of an alternative sixth point to use in the hexagon.

>> No.12952169

>>12952147
you joke but I have friends who are into fantasy and dnd and shit and I have unironically been recommended books for their magic systems

>> No.12953328

>>12952156
They could simply use a pentagon.

>> No.12953360

>>12952147
To be fair, magic is the most abused trope in genre fiction. It's usually employed as an appallingly cheap plot device. Instigating consistent rules for magic would help to mitigate this (not that many authors do it.)

>> No.12953365

>>12953328
Fuck you

>> No.12953442

>>12952119
So, uh, what if there’s no “magic system” or magic at all?

>> No.12953462

GOTTA TICK ALL THE BOXES

>> No.12953537

>>12953442
Then what makes it a fantasy?

>> No.12953590
File: 7 KB, 250x241, 1464183983787s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12953590

>>12952119
>Reading any works of fiction at all that utilize "magic" as a plot device beyond the age of twelve

>> No.12953591

>>12953537
300 year old elves and shit?

>> No.12953596
File: 97 KB, 1200x627, 57958-genesis-ThinkstockPhotos-465501246.1200w.tn[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12953596

>>12953590
>>Reading any works of non-fiction at all that utilize "magic" as a plot device beyond the age of twelve

>> No.12953601

>>12953596
Kek.

>> No.12954580

>>12952147
the only redeeming feature of Sanderson is his magic systems, and that was enough for me to read several of his books

>> No.12954662

>>12952119
Because writing is a completely subjective medium and as such is of infinite utility

>> No.12954729

>>12954580
>Sanderson

Why do people like Sand so much?

>> No.12954762

>>12954580
what the fuck dude
I started to read one of his series where they "flare metals" or some shit and it was so fucking terribly written and soaked in exposition there was no way in hell I could make it to the end.
>oh look he can fly but only if there's a coin under his foot for him to push off
I don't care and I don't need 10 minutes of exposition to explain the shit

>> No.12954778

>>12954729
because he has interesting magic systems>>12954580

>>12954762
the whole point of the book is that that shit is kinda cool, it's not like it's real literature

>> No.12954819

>>12953591
Jews basically

>> No.12954831

>>12954762
the exposition is the fun part tho
it's more about theorycrafting the rules of the world, less about actual literature
maybe I'm just an autist idk

>> No.12954960
File: 37 KB, 193x266, 235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12954960

>>12953596

>> No.12955314

>>12952119
they can't read

>> No.12955364

>>12952119
the genre has become so formularic that you can reduce every new book to a few essential segments and pit them against each other like soccer teams.
writers try their best to fulfill preset goals rather than expressing their creativity, so actually segmenting their product and comparing it against other similar ones just comes.
like, could you imagine doing such a thing for a comparison between wallace and kafka? their usage of symbolism and characters is so wildly different that it can't simply be projected on a flat four point scale - art, after all, is in the eye of the beholder.
fantasy, on the other hand, is objective and solved. there's one ideal, and books get measured based on how well they hold up against the ideal. a dumb scale is well suited for that task.

>> No.12955387

>>12952119
Do you not know why people read fantasy? Hint: it's in the name of the genre.

>> No.12955706

>>12953596
not magic

>> No.12955825

>>12952119
There's a significant overlap between fantasy fans and "sciency" people who think the seriousness of some endeavor is directly related to how measurable it is. This sort of strange charts invariably follows.