forum Things You Want LESS Of In Books

Started January 21, 2019 by @evastardust groupRRAAAARRL

tune

Is that not how you spell it?

No. Milquetoast is correct I think.

Autocorrect doesn't get mad at me for it, but then again autocorrect tries to autocorrect itself
And also my character names lmao, I'll be writing something and see The Dreaded Red Line and lowkey panic, and then realize it's just mad about how I spell Nich's name

you can just add his name to your personal dictionary and it won't do that anymore

Is that not how you spell it?

I’m just confused.

you can just add his name to your personal dictionary and it won't do that anymore

skdfjdgjh thank you!!! I've been using Google Docs for years I'm just Big Dumb

you can just add his name to your personal dictionary and it won't do that anymore

skdfjdgjh thank you!!! I've been using Google Docs for years I'm just Big Dumb

np! If you left click on the underlined word, there should be the dictionary option :)

Also can we talk about the name schemes? "A thing of A and B" or "Thing of Thing" is so overused, every single book is an edgy combination of something. I get there were some successful titles (back @ Sarah J Mass) in the YA books, but it seems every single book is named the same now and the acronyms are getting hard to tell apart. I get it in contexts of the books, like Lord of the Rings, is Technically Thing of Thing, but the title actually means something. It seems like so many books just aim for edgy or dark words and shove them in the title.

LotR is such a great title. Especially when you consider that scene where Gandalf reproaches Merry and Pippin for hailing Frodo as “Lord of the Ring”. Really ends up imo referring to the corruptive power of evil that is one of the biggest plot points and philosophical statements in the book.

I approve of this analysis.

So do I. Even more do I like that I went from literally analytics to saying milk toast in a confused manner.

this is media in general but..

“Everything your parents do is the best for you”

No it fucking not, acknowledge that parents can do shitty things
In fact have shitty parents that aren’t just the cliche

Parents that you can get along with, but as soon as you do something wrong all he’ll breaks loose, and then a week later everything’s back to normal

And your not sure wether you should stay or go

I saw someone pointing out that Disney did that nicely in Moana and Coco. The parents had good reasons for having the fears they did, but still ended up being wrong.

Conceptually, I don't think the idea of vampires not mentally maturing makes any sense. I don't see how you can gain a bunch of experiences and…not ever learn from them. Why would you turn a teenager if you know you're going to be stuck parenting a whiny 16 year old who's never going to learn for the rest of eternity? I don't like it and it's usually a flimsy excuse for ancient immortal beings getting with mortal teenage girls
Also the idea of vampires turned as children in the 16th century and rising in the ranks and modern day middle aged men vampires taking orders from 7 year old girl vampires who could kill them with a pinky is just much cooler than "pale boi is old but emotionally stupid"

Agree.

I'd much rather see vampires who look 17 but are mentally hundreds of years old, and struggling to keep up the act. Like vampires who were turned in the 1800s not realizing that 80s slang is no longer in style and stuff. Like you said, I can't see someone living for hundreds of years and not learning anything, especially considering how much we can grow in just a few months.

pre-quarantine Pickles intensifies

Not to mention that a vampire who was turned a long time ago confronting and overcoming their prejudices could be a really interesting book and have good character development and internal conflict.

twilight

I saw someone pointing out that Disney did that nicely in Moana and Coco. The parents had good reasons for having the fears they did, but still ended up being wrong.

I would like to add Barbie Pegasus to this. I appreciated how both the parents and the child were in the wrong and they both apologized each other and promised to do better.

"I ditched you and treated you horribly to further my popularity? And now you're calling me out? You're just jealous of me!" especially when they become friends again at the end. It's boring and stupid and I hate every character who's ever said this

"I ditched you and treated you horribly to further my popularity? And now you're calling me out? You're just jealous of me!" especially when they become friends again at the end. It's boring and stupid and I hate every character who's ever said this

Yes, as someone who has had this happen to them, yes I hate these characters.

This is more of something that I'd like to see less when discussing books but not every book that takes place in the future is a dystopia.
Dystopia= Everything is terrible
Utopia= Everything is fine.
It's almost 2021 and some people still don't know the difference.

This post was about everyone who called Scythe by Neal Shusterman a dystopia. But I'm honestly more concerned about the person who I found on Goodreads who had the Hunger Games, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451 listed as utopian books. Are you ok?

On that note though, there's been so many dystopias that came out after the success of the Hunger Games, and I honestly think seeing more utopias would be a nice breath of fresh air.

See, I always had a problem with this. How do you write a utopia? Where’s the conflict?

Usually a utopia becomes a dystopia is the thing. It seems perfect, but not everyone fits the mold, or something sketchy happens to maintain order.

Yeah but then it’s not a real utopia.

The idea of most utopian stories is that there's no such thing as a true utopia.
Besides, if you look at the origin of the word, Utopia was first seen in Thomas More's Utopia, and while I haven't read it, I know enough to say it fits that "no such thing as a true utopia" outline. In fact, it was the original.

Ah.

Usually a utopia becomes a dystopia is the thing. It seems perfect, but not everyone fits the mold, or something sketchy happens to maintain order.

The Giver is a good example.

Usually the Idea behind a utopia set up is if every one lives in ignorance that there is a better way to live they will think their way of living is perfect.
I would argue that wither it is a utopia or dystopia is depends on the perspective the world is written from. If The Hunger games were written in the perspective of an individual from district one we would be presented with a utopia instead of a dystopia and when the games are introduced we see that utopia facade crack, and then shatter. Same with 451, It's all about perspective, If the book was written from Guy's wife's perspective (Pardon, I forget if she has a name or not) we would get a series of events presented as if they were part of a utopia but we the reader would be able to see it as a dystopia, if written correctly this can be a very interesting situation.
In the Giver everything is presented as a Utopia and we see everyone being content because they are ignorant of what could be. Looking at the dystopia that basically birthed all other dystopias, 1984 could be written as a utopia for the same reason, the people live in ignorance and so they do not know how awful their life is.
Perspective is everything. Propaganda is everything, we need only look back a generation so see how effective it is. Sorry I will stop here because I will go on a rant about this stuff.

I guess a better way of putting it is:

Dystopia= everything is terrible
Utopia= everything is fine (but only on a surface level).

And The Giver is a great example.

Edit: I know it's been months, but I've thought about this some more and I feel like the bigger difference is more the intent of the author and the story that they're trying to tell. Like, yeah to a random background character in 1984 it might see the world as a utopia, but I don't think Orwell was trying to write a book about a perfect society.