I don't run into this often, but if I never read another book where the main character dies in the end I'd be 100% ok with that. I always feel so cheated like, I got so invested in what the MC was going through, but none of it mattered anyways because they just died?
.jpg)
I think a certain book trilogy ruined the protagonist dying at the end for good. A certain book series that will not be named.
Anyway, I totally agree on that. I think it could possibly be done in a meaningful way, but it's really hard to do. Usually it's a shock value thing, especially in YA, which is cheap.
I think a certain book trilogy ruined the protagonist dying at the end for good. A certain book series that will not be named.
Anyway, I totally agree on that. I think it could possibly be done in a meaningful way, but it's really hard to do. Usually it's a shock value thing, especially in YA, which is cheap.
what trilogy? please name I enjoy making fun of bad YA
It's just Divergent. So mainstream and popular, but at its core it was really… shallow in a lot of ways, if you get what I mean.
And because it was so mainstream (and maybe still is? Idk, I'm a little too old to consistently keep up with YA), it just kind of ruined the concept. It really didn't make me feel anything, which is pathetic because I feel a lot. So for a major character death to have little effect on me? Just. Do better, you know?
(I hardly remember a thing about the books, just that they weren't shit despite all the popularity.)
…i dont even remember reading that series tbh
I just remember "edgy for no reason" as the main character trait and the MC being the Extra Special one with a random love interest
I don't run into this often, but if I never read another book where the main character dies in the end I'd be 100% ok with that. I always feel so cheated like, I got so invested in what the MC was going through, but none of it mattered anyways because they just died?
I actually think there are some books where it one hundred percent is a good move and should happen. It's rarely done well though so I see your point. It's more of a marketing publicity stunt when I see it done these days it's ridiculous. What annoys me more is when they kill off a main character only to plot armor their way into reviving them, that, that is real annoying,
Not you Tolkien you can get away with it
I have Three main character deaths planned currently, the three siblings, they just made sense. they were also to stupidly poetic to not do. The first two really had to happen it's the catalyst for the next chapter of the story and happens at the end of book two of the Sibling trilogy (The whole thing is split into three trilogies, Sibling, Search, and War, all are place holder names) We follow the third sibling for the remainder of the story and when I wrote in the plan that she was going to die I scratched it out because I wanted to giver her the happy ending she deserved, but, every time I went back and tweaked things to somehow make it so she didn't Die at the end didn't seem like the right ending for her character. She's the character I've had for the longest the first one I ever made and by the end of her story, it shows, shes exhausted and ancient quite literally a relic of a much earlier, very different time. Not to mention it's also really freaking poetic. Doesn't change the fact that I'm dreading writing that scene just mapping it out makes me cry. Sorry this turned into me explaining and justifying my writing choices.
But I do think it's a tool used to lightly and it's real hecking annoying to read when done for the shock factor.
Cliches definitely… no more cliques! no more dumb blondes etc
Agreed. Popular girls are stereotyped pretty badly in general - they always seem to be the Pretty Popular Mean Girl, who hates the main charater for no reason whatsoever, and never pays attention in lessons or follow the school rules. Plus, your hair colour doesn't define your intelligence.
Most of the popular clique at my school are really smart, (and pretty much none of them are blonde - most people seem to be dyeing their hair darker at the moment anyway), and so are the two actually blonde people I know.
Cliches definitely… no more cliques! no more dumb blondes etc
Agreed. Popular girls are stereotyped pretty badly in general - they always seem to be the Pretty Popular Mean Girl, who hates the main charater for no reason whatsoever, and never pays attention in lessons or follow the school rules. Plus, your hair colour doesn't define your intelligence.
Most of the popular clique at my school are really smart, (and pretty much none of them are blonde - most people seem to be dyeing their hair darker at the moment anyway), and so are the two actually blonde people I know.
Yeah! I know plenty of REALLY smart people - blondes and otherwise.
I will agree with Rels and say that mc death is pretty great if used properly.
I too agree with Rels!
The girl who ends up changing herself (usually for the worse) for the likes of a male love interest
Oof yeah. Thinking specifically about the trope where she takes off her glasses, and everyone's like "she's so beautiful under there!"
(Partially angry at the objectification, partially angry because I think glasses are lowkey hot)
Oof yeah. Thinking specifically about the trope where she takes off her glasses, and everyone's like "she's so beautiful under there!"
(Partially angry at the objectification, partially angry because I think glasses are lowkey hot)
Same
Oof yeah. Thinking specifically about the trope where she takes off her glasses, and everyone's like "she's so beautiful under there!"
(Partially angry at the objectification, partially angry because I think glasses are lowkey hot)Same
Bro, Glasses can do wonders to a face, Get the right frames on the right face. Like if they changed to trope to "We're getting you a new set of frames" I would be more than ok with it.
That sounds awesome lol
That does sound cool af. As long as it's not to look good for some boy.
Seriously, new glasses can make you feel so good about yourself. Same way that a good outfit can. Got myself 3 new frames in December and I feel cool af. Not even that my old ones were bad. Just wanted to change it up.
That does sound cool af. As long as it's not to look good for some boy.
Seriously, new glasses can make you feel so good about yourself. Same way that a good outfit can. Got myself 3 new frames in December and I feel cool af. Not even that my old ones were bad. Just wanted to change it up.
Exactly! and nothing is better than finally finding, the frames, The ones that fit your aesthetic and face shape just right. I remeber when I found my current pair, best feeling ever
That does sound cool af. As long as it's not to look good for some boy.
Seriously, new glasses can make you feel so good about yourself. Same way that a good outfit can. Got myself 3 new frames in December and I feel cool af. Not even that my old ones were bad. Just wanted to change it up.Exactly! and nothing is better than finally finding, the frames, The ones that fit your aesthetic and face shape just right. I remeber when I found my current pair, best feeling ever
lol. I love how this convo just switched from one random topic to another. <3
When a partner in a couple really wants to have children while the other seriously doesn't, and always the one that doesn't want children changes their mind by the end. It's cute if a fictional couple raises a family, but maybe both should be seriously committed to having children and we shouldn't perpetuate the idea that every couple needs to have kids.
Oof yeah. Thinking specifically about the trope where she takes off her glasses, and everyone's like "she's so beautiful under there!"
(Partially angry at the objectification, partially angry because I think glasses are lowkey hot)
a;lskdjf YES
One of my characters is described as "the diamond among the sapphires" (because where she lives is called the Sapphire State) and she's just really really pretty. She has long, flowing white hair, smooth ebony skin, piercing gray eyes, and full moon glasses. Her friends and stuff are always complimenting her glasses and one of her best friends even goes on a long rant about how they add to her look.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?
Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's really true. The ending should be just as exciting as the rest of the book. Not really worth it if you just cram everything cool into the last 20 pages.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's really true. The ending should be just as exciting as the rest of the book. Not really worth it if you just cram everything cool into the last 20 pages.
pacing is something a ton of books don't really do well. There' so much stuff out there on how to do complex characters and dialogue and world building, but pacing is so important.
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
ESPECIALLY when the first 3/4s of the book is filler and the action at the end is setup for a sequel. Like, you could have just written one good book??
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
ESPECIALLY when the first 3/4s of the book is filler and the action at the end is setup for a sequel. Like, you could have just written one good book??
Blood and Honey by Shelby Mahurin was exactly like this. I mean, it was shitty for other reasons too, definitely, but also because of this
Ok this is something that I've run into a lot this year and I need it to stop like right now. I really, really need less books where all the action happens in like the last 10% of the book. I don't care if the book "gets better towards the end" what about the beginning and middle? A good ending isn't going to be worth it if the first 500 or so pages are a total snoozefest.
Like, I get that most books are going to have their slower points, but their slower points shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm so tired of reading books that feel like very long prologues. Why are there even books like this? How do publishers allow this to happen?
I don't care if a book has the best ending that's ever been written because no ending is going to be good enough to compensate for 500 pages of literally nothing happening. Saying that "it gets better towards the end" isn't reassuring to me, because ideally, a good book should be interesting from the beginning, middle and end. Who tf cares about what happens in the end when the middle part makes up the majority of the book?Anyways, sorry for the long-ish post. This rant has been slowly building up since February when I read Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut, which is like, a prime example of everything happening in the end. And I've read so many books like this this year, that I literally can't take it anymore.
ESPECIALLY when the first 3/4s of the book is filler and the action at the end is setup for a sequel. Like, you could have just written one good book??
Blood and Honey by Shelby Mahurin was exactly like this. I mean, it was shitty for other reasons too, definitely, but also because of this
tbh i think the whole "it gets better towards the end point" is also totally useless too, if the rest of the book is boring enough to make people drop it like mid way
And when they start off with a really good action scene and the rest of the book is just, bleh and bland, hate that, like a good hook is important but the rest of the book has to be good to you know.
Also, I think I might have gone on this particular rant already but lets add authors using their books to show off how woke they are to the list of things that needed to stop yesterday.
Like, don't get me wrong, diversity is great and I'm all for it. But please stop writing the minority character who only exists to tell us that discrimination is bad. Write about social issues all you want, but maybe do better than writing a character who is constantly reminding the reader that racism is bad for 400+ pages. Your reader probably already knows that racism/homophobia/sexism/etc. is bad, so they probably don't need that shoved down their throat.
And if racism is gonna be a thing, don’t make it a central topic. Let people mention it also. Like. Casually. Bc that’s how it is.
^^^^^
There's a difference between, spreading awareness, acknowledging an issue and making social commentary about it, and just including a topic to keep up with the times. I'd rather have a well cooked piece of generic chicken, than a half hecked batch of Pão de Queijo, Like don't make Pão de Queijo if your not going to use tapioca flower it doesn't turn out, trust me it doesn't. And the bad experience might turn people away from trying Brazilian food in the future. As does bad representation and discussion of issues turn people away from reading books that contain them.
I mean how many people do you think read Wuthering heights and never wanted to read a Victorian novel that discussed the frailty of woman's place in the world and their struggle to be independent from men ever again. When "The Tenet of Wildfell Hall" Is right there showing the struggles in a much more raw form, and it doesn't glorify a brooding toxic man.
Honestly I'm just mad Wuthing heights is required reading instead it makes me mad .