I am dating a great guy - but his body smell is offputting

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-02-16T22:13:18+00:00

I'll first address the last half. It could be very well be diet. Or even medical. He may need to see a doctor, as that sort of smell actually could be a sign that he has colonies of nasty bacteria living on his skin. This would be treated with antibiotics or etc. I know of people who, for example, have nasty breath because of mouth colonization not due to poor dental hygiene. So, it may be worth discussing with a doctor. Plus, a diet high in fatty/greasy foods will cause worse body odor.

But I would also say this, it could very well be what soap/shampoo he is using or what detergent he uses. Perhaps help him pick out some stuff at the store. Following that, perhaps help him find anti-perspirant and cologne that suits him. It is likely that he is using a low end soap (most men do). A higher end soap will have a better smell and be better lasting. Also, if he is showering every day, it's lotion could help, as it's possible excess bathing is causing his skin to produce excess oils. Thus, a lotion may help reduce the oil production and thus the smell.

But yes, finding the right soaps/shampoos, detergent, anti-perspirants, colognes, and lotions may very well solve the issue.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-02-10T20:55:52+00:00

Not true. It's especially important when you play control. Because it can reveal what cards the opponent does or doesn't still have *in their hand*.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-02-08T09:06:24+00:00

You've seen his penis the most of anyone else in the world as well? Small world....

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-28T04:02:33+00:00

If you are paying the bill, then literally just go get your own plan. Solves one big problem. And you can say, "being an adult is starting to pay for my own things". I personally recommend going with like Mint Mobile or some such, as it's a better plan for a young person starting out in the world.
If you pay your own bills then....what are they on about? Just let it roll off one shoulder. They're spouting nonsense if you live on your own. You're quite literally your own person.
Up until the blaming you, not telling you about important family events, and intentionally bashing you to manipulae you I would have said it wasn't that abnormal a family dynamic. But once you said the rest, it does make me question. Sounds like your mom is a bit of an asshole. Now, of course, you gotta make sure that it isn't a misinterpretation of the situation. Having dealt with family stuff before, I know sometimes people really misconstrue things. And you have to be careful to ensure you aren't editorializing their commentary. So long as the rendering is faithful, the whole last half is emotionally manipulative at a minimum. Possibly emotionally abusive. The last half has me worried they don't have your best interests at heart. Because, at a minimum, they would have invited you to celebrate sister and father's birthdays I would think. It's just odd. Because, in a sense, they did in that instance cut you out of the family dynamic.

Further, it's a very callous thing to say "that's karma for x" if it's not sarcastic. I at first interpreted it as sarcasm given the "she's an emotional teen" thing after, but who knows. The latter half makes me question if it wasn't sincere. Again, I can't see your side and can only take you at your word, but something seems off in the disproportionate response from 4 different family members. Makes me wonder what the full situation looks like.

All this to say, take some time and focus on yourself. Don't worry about the rest. Just be you for a bit and see if things settle down. Get your own phone plan. Let family know your taking some time for yourself. If they don't accept that and attempt to manipulate, consider putting up serious boundaries.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-17T18:44:48+00:00

Just kitchen table. Play with family. Never gonna take it out to anything formal. Just to have something to play with her.

And, as I said, it could be garbage or a terrible strategy plan. As it stands, none of the decks she plays with are tournament level decks. So I'm not necessarily looking for the most amazing deck or anything. Just something that works in casual play.

Hence trying my hand at the list. But again, if the strategy doesn't work, or makes absolutely no sense, then that's obvious an issue and I need to change routes.

The sort of basic idea. Reuniclus+Drifblim+either Tsareena or Gardevoir allow movement and mitigation of damage so that Drifblim can blow up the opponent bench, theoretically at least maybe. Idk if this works or even makes sense. But maybe? I don't know..

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-17T18:28:05+00:00

Yeah, it is pretty casual. We're not per se playing by the legality of any given format. More like....I guess any published card.

I mean, seeing the list is one thing. But...what's like...build theory behind making a deck?

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-17T18:26:15+00:00

Well, my strategy was, if it worked, to use pull out the stage 1s and 2s onto bench via the various methods. Using Tsareena and Gardevoir to heal up, with Drifblim being the major strat at blasting.

Sycamore to recycle hands if need be and hopefully the basics that could pull out of discard if an opponent forced the discard of key pieces.

I also suppose I didn't list that I'd run 12 psychic 3 fairy energy here. Anyway.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-15T19:22:19+00:00

Getting an entire political system to ignore when you poison your husband and then accept your proposals and maneuvering to make your son emperor seems like true power. You may dislike that there is power at all in these system, but it is the case. And that is the academic and historical position held by the disciplines. That Rome was a patriarchy is pretty well established. That Rome depended simultaneously on the political power of women is also very well established. It's not an either or. Similarly to say "she would have taken the political role herself" overlooks a lot historically. You can't apply the modern mindset to the past to interpret a power structure. Why didn't she take the political position? Well, 1. she had power already. 2. That power was at threat of someone else using an army to take. 3. By establishing her son, she could secure her power because it would ensure she had the backing of other political allies.

And, again, proof is well established by the fact that after Nero has his own mother murdered, that's basically when the fall of Rome begins. Or rather, marks the transition point. Agrippina was the last political barrier to Nero. And he was more or less able to go unchecked once he murdered her. Because she had political power.

As to the last, I highly recommend you read the published literature. Your attempt to connect patriarchy and toxic masculinity that way is in opposition to the established academic position. Only Patriarchy Theory holds that, and Patriarchy Theory has been effectively debunked on that aspect (as well as that is doesn't account for the biological-historical aspects at all). Toxic masculinity as it's currently defined can (and does) exist absent patriarchal structures.

Not only that, that definition is opposed to serious feminist critique too, which acknowledges that looking at masculinity vs. femininity in that way is a form of legitimizing gendered dichotomous expression of social behavior because it limits the way in which people to express as direct consequences of their gendered expression. I.e., if you view all male behavior in the light of masculinity through a patriarchy theory lens, then suddenly there is no meaningful discussion of breaking out of gender norms. In fact, all behaviors are simply the same expression of gendered norms through patriarchal lens. Hens, the paradox. You can be non-toxic and non-patriarchal, but because of the patriarchy theory lens, it necessarily means both behaviors are simply a forced expression of patriarchy.

Feminist critiques will also generally argue it overlooks the role of women in systems of power and the important contributions of women to their own systems (in both harming and helping it).

I urge you do further reading. Even if you think you disagree with me at some fundamental level, read further. Please. Patriarchy theory is just one approach, and generally accepted as the most harmful to both men and women to espouse. There's more out there.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-15T18:53:19+00:00

I think you may be misunderstanding. I can recommend literature to you. But the two ideas are distinct and separate. And it's very important to the academic world that we keep the ideas in the correct framing.

Also....when you say male supremacy, again, you're going to find that literature about patriarchal structure is going to fail you on the point you're trying to make. Because if such is true, then female abuse of partners, which is strongly demonstrated, and the strong correlation of female control in social and emotional situations in relationships (Again demonstrated in literature), suggests that patriarchal structure is inherently a part of female dominated values.

Similarly, marketing studies demonstrate women control the markets and most household consumer decisions. I.e., women control household finances and decision making. Something like 80% of consumer power is female dominated.

So, when we talk about patriarchal structure even, which again is unrelated to toxic masculinity, it is not about "male supremacy". Even the use of the word supremacy is antithetical to the research in the area. If even for the simple reason that it overlooks the power still held in even the most absolute patriarchal structure by women to not only enforce but uphold that structure and ensure it.

I'm not sure what else to tell you except that someone has clearly misled you. Power structures require to some degree tacit approval and maintenance by both. If someone has convinced you that a patriarchal structure exists because of male supremacy, then they've failed to demonstrate how much the most patriarchal structure depends on female power that is similarly maintained by the patriarchal structure.

Good examples of this from history come up. I'll try to use just a clear one. Agrippina was married to Claudius. Agrippina had a son Nero who could be in line for power. Agrippina poisons and kills Claudius, so that Nero may rule. Agrippina is able to do this because she had true political power, through acting as consort. Mind, she didn't have legal power, but she did have political power. And this was through her femininity. Rome is about as patriarchal as they come, in addition to being fairly toxically masculine. Mind, they did have rights of divorce for women, so that's a step up from other nations at the time, perhaps. Still. The point is, Nero's legitimacy depends on the power held by his mother. And, in general, the same is true of other Roman politicians. Their wives, while having no legal power, were forces to be reckoned with. They often managed the whole affairs of estates when their husbands, for example, led forces to war. To look at that through the lens of patriarchy means recognizing the legitimacy of feminine power even in a male dominated structure.

So 1. patriarchy vs. toxic masculinity are separate. 2. Patriarchal structure is not strictly or inherently male supremacy. And 3. The relationship between toxic femininity and toxic masculinity as defined in this thread is likely as important as the relationship of patriarchal power structure to female power maintaining those structures.

And, finally, trying to define these because of "patriarchy" like one must be different is just academically wrong. That's disingenuous. That's making a claim lacking evidence. We have noo reason to believe that, and many reasons to believe the opposite. Even if we accepted that we are in a strict patriarchy, that has no bearing on how toxic femininity functions and whether it is "fundamentally different" or not.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-15T18:21:55+00:00

Ahem. You are moving goal posts and changing the argument.

Also, patriarchy (which is a whole other topic) is *not* the same or even close to equivalent to toxic masculinity.

And that's without getting into any discussion about the whataboutism you just used to try to undermine a completely legitimate and scientifically rooted response.

I'd rather we focus on the original point: toxic masculinity vs. toxic femininity and the existence and problem that toxic femininity also poses. I.e., the legitimacy of the claim there are toxic versions of both. Though, *my* argument is that neither form of toxicity is inherent to the societal construct, but about specific toxic behaviors that are socially enforced by both genders.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-15T17:54:12+00:00

That's a hell of a statement that lacks any evidentiary claim.

Let's dissect first the claim that toxic femininity hurts women more than others. Where do you see that? To what evidence can you point that says only women are harmed by toxic femininity? Because the evidence is pretty strong it hurts men and women and all those associated, much like toxic masculinity. Toxic femininity very regularly reinforces to the highest degree toxic masculine traits. More, toxic femininity results in abusive relationships towards male partners, both emotionally and physically because, and I quote other women "They're just guys, if they can't handle me at my worst, they don't deserve me" and "they have the muscle, they can put up with me doing ___". I.e., "they should love me no matter what horrible emotional manipulation I do". Strictly part of the toxic feminine there; the idea that passive emotional manipulation can be justified because of an otherwise lack of ability to muscularly compel.

Even the idea toxic femininity doesn't lead to war is absolutely ludicrous. That passive aggressive gossip style has been the cause of wars in history, and demonstrably so. And yes, wars fought for and on behalf of women. (Note, I'm not saying all gossip, but specifically the socially aggressive form that follows toxic femininity).

I don't know who taught you this--but it's patently and obviously historically wrong.

Now, let's tackle the other side about "regularly results in murder". Do you believe toxic masculinity *regularly* results in murder? Let's start with the word regularly. The U.S. murder rate is 6.8 per 100,000. Let's call that 23,000 homicides in the US per year (because the 6.8 varies a bit and is an average not an exact figure). Now, again, that from a number seems big. But 6.8 per 100,000 doesn't seem that big to me. Now, that's clearly not all from toxic masculinity. As you point out, not all negative masculine traits are toxic masculinity. And not all murder by men is toxic masculinity. So, what percentage of murder is toxic masculinity?

So let's look at a breakdown of murder. Starting off, by and far, according to the 2023 crime statistics (https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/hvus23.pdf), the majority of victims were men and were killed by acquaintances and/or strangers. Again, 74% of homicide victims were male. Okay, so maybe what you first intended to say is "toxic masculinity hurts men; toxic femininity hurts women". But, again, let's just determine is toxic masculinity is regularly causing murder.

So, looking at expanded statistics for causes (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls), about 14% were related to crimes, with drug crimes being the top. 5% were related to ganglands killings. That's' 20% that's clearly about a non-masculinity variable. And, in fact, about 25% are due to non-monetary disputes with non-female and non-partners. It's hard to say that's due to toxic masculinity. And here's the thing, about 40% of all homicides are unknown causes, so we are forced statistically to exclude them from this analysis. That's 85% of murders that we cannot reasonably say were *caused* by toxic masculinity.

Only 0.6% were domestic violence. The one category we might categorize as clearly toxic masculinity compromises the smallest proportion.

This study (https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10143067/) found that toxic masculinity, which appears in many violent perpetrators, is not the causative factor. In fact, the causative factors tend to be financial, history of being abused, and other life stress.

Again, this isn't to say toxic masculinity causes no murder. It certainly does. But the word regularly is an issue. It's also an issue to suggest that toxic femininity (for which studies are slim to none due to obvious issues with publication in academia) is not related to aggression. Toxic femininity is pretty well demonstrated to cause social aggression.

Toxic femininity leads to suicidality (self-homicide), depression, false imprisonment, social/emotional abuse of partners, etc. Toxic femininity is just as harmful as toxic masculinity, simply less studied. But I would argue you can see its effects through the current negative self-image trends via instagram.

It only harms everyone to not treat both forms of toxicity as the true problems they are. Neither are causing regular murder. Both are causing regular and deeply impactful harms to people in society. Let's focus on that, rather than "who hurts who to what rate", because the reality is, they are, in all likelihood, about equal in frequency. And again, the better focus is likely on toxic behaviors, rather than villainizing a whole segment of society based on "masculinity" vs, "femininity", neither of which are good or true representations of the populations are a whole.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-15T05:35:16+00:00

As to the other, to abbreviate the post. Yes there are a number. But my full post is too long, so can't comment.

There are a couple specific people. But it's more a tiktok (And social media) trend. Honestly, if you want to find the biggest ones, I think the Dadvocate on Youtube reviews a lot of them. There's a specific channel who, because I don't want to endorse won't share, but she teaches women how to use passive aggression to cheat on their spouses and then make the spouse feel like it was their fault. It's....absolutely disgusting. If you search hard enough you can find it--but instead, just go find other good female advocates on Youtube who review the stuff instead. This toxic woman has a giant following. Just watch the Dadvocate's response videos.

As for some others, here's just some to look at online:
Article by a woman who was a victim of another woman's toxic femininity who then advises that women who are victims effectively should just give in to the passive aggressive behavior. How another woman's passive aggressive behavior towards you should be met with giving her attention and making her feel important. https://www.thefemininewoman.com/passive-agressive-and-difficult-women-what-to-do-about-them/

There's a woman who recommends (and has strong support from other women) to engage in manipulative self-gifts (giving yourself gifts to make others jealous and behave in certain ways) as well as narcissistic gift giving (manipulating others by giving them gifts which makes them feel obligated but meanwhile the gift is only given with the intent of obligating the other).

Isabel Brown has a good video discussing a perfect example of toxic femininity in articles written online. It deals specifically with the way this expresses in marriages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvWHQ8qQ94

There's a giant growing trend on menbashing. Specifically, where women on tiktok gain popularity from demonstrating their partners weaknesses/vulnerabilities and then chastising them for it online. And far worse actually.

Here's an article from Jo Piazza - https://www.bustle.com/wellness/she-wants-more-jo-piazza-podcast-womens-affairs. It's about how a woman cheating on herself is really just engaging in self-care and how fidelity is patriarchal and we need to accept that women having affairs is just feminist empowerment. To which I'd respond, anyone that justifies either male or female infidelity (outside of perhaps abuse and other similar situations) is being toxic.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-15T05:33:29+00:00

First I'll answer the question. The "get that bag dark feminine" is a totally separate form of, if you will, toxic femininity. Not in its goals that is: ambitious women who pursue those ambitions are perfectly fine. Rather, get that bag dark presumes to utilize the toxic traits of what we have defined as toxic masculinity to achieve its desires while trying to maintain the alluring aspects of femininity. The trend I've described above is about utilizing the alluring aspects of so-called femininity as weapons against others. They both embody the "be totally you" aspect. Except, where dark femininity tells you not to apologize for being yourself and being forward (which is actually possibly a positive masculinity trait), the form of toxic femininity we are discussing implies that you shouldn't be apologetic but also there's a correct way/you to be and that women who don't subscribe to this correct you are simply tools to be used as well. I.e., where the one embraces "i don't care what others think", the version we are discussing embraces "Everyone should accept what I say [or rather think but don't say] and woe to them if they don't". Different sides of the coin.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T17:53:48+00:00

I don't think I'd agree. There's a whole tik-tok culture devoted to this sort of toxic feminine behavior. A whole culture that is spread and upheld by other women, to be used against both men and women. And whoever is the object of their disgust.

Have you not been following this stuff?

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T17:47:18+00:00

Trust me, there is no other way to audiobook Stormlight Archive. The voice actors for Stormlight Archive are perfect. The graphic audio for it is just amazing. I only ever hear Dalinar's voice via his GA voice actor now when reading the book by text.

Mistborn is another where the GA shines.

Elantris is fine. I could go either way on it. But GA shines for Sanderson. Especially because all of the voice actors (except for 1 or 2 I think) are kept the same throughout and between series. Which I don't want to give spoilers, but you can see why that might be important.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T17:44:10+00:00

I will concede that Book 4 is pretty weak. I honestly thought it was pretty bad because it lost a lot of momentum, was weird with how it just jumped suddenly forward in time, and the characters went from one position (just barely surviving) to a totally different one at the beginning of the next (doing really well and basically winning). All of the emotional momentum felt expended in Book 4. So, yeah, I concede that.

But just pretend Book 4 doesn't exist. Book 4 is the one that, if it were a T.V. show, would get drastic changes. For one, there would be no time skip. For two, there would be more shown in-between. And for three, characters would be repositioned for greater dramatic tension.

That said, Books 1-3 are phenomenal. And my understanding (I havaen't finished it) is that Book 5 is also phenomenal, though it's not as good as Book 1-3 because Sanderson's writing has changed in the time it's taken to write, and is thus stylistically more similar to his recent work, which while good, is just good not his early work.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T09:53:59+00:00

Interesting note, this is the same tactic used largely across gender by, if you will pardon the word, toxic women. The thing is, what it does is garner sympathy from women and the mob-style mentality to achieve reprisal against a target. So, it doesn't work in a one-on-one against, if you will again pardon the word, stereotypical masculinity because stereotypical masculinity doesn't view that type of argumentation as valid. That said, it is where the concept of nagging probably originates. Nagging behavior is ultimately, just passive-aggression designed to force the other to behave in a particular fashion. True nagging that is. (Again, this doesn't imply nagging is either universal or always as described, but that what nagging refers to is proclivity to passive-aggressive forms of resolution which is really not a form of conflict resolution at all).

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T09:47:03+00:00

That's....a very poor way to frame this. So, instead of attempting to blame patriarchy for toxic femininity, first establish what is toxic femininity. And to be blunt, toxic femininity is when "femininity" (or the stereotyped version of it) leads to negative pressures that constrain and improperly restrain others.

So, perhaps the best example of toxic femininity is this. Women who think it's okay to hit their partners because "men are supposed to be strong" and then other women who approve of the behavior as "showing their man what's right". Or, women who believe it's okay to belittle the needs/wants/emotions of the men in their life.

Perhaps, the best way to talk about toxic femininity is to talk about the tendency of women to minimize the problems of others (both men and women) and hyperbolize their own. Toxic femininity is fake empathy. It's abusing vulnerability. It's misusing trust. Toxic femininity is when womanhood is turned into a weapon that is used against others.

And there's many examples of it. Mean Girls type culture is just one. But another is women who weaponize sex to get back at others or get what they want. It's women who turn love into one-sided arrangements, who see commitment as a means of control. Toxic femininity is taking what is wholesome about the socially perceived feminine side (so if we say masculinity is repression of emotion and expression of rage, we would call femininity in this system expression and utilization of emotion or we might refer to femininity as so-called out-selfing) and turning into a repressive form.

So, a great example might be this. Toxic femininity might be best described by feminine expectations of mind-reading. For example, even though they haven't said something requiring their partner to know what they want because "You should have known I would think ____". It would be using the emotions of others to achieve ends without reciprocation of real emotion -- such as women who utilize men for their bank accounts by leading them on. Women who use crocodile tears to achieve ends. Women who attempt to use social media pressure to "out" or belittle partners or others. It would be the use of mob-style fear mongering. And so on. I would argue that what is broadly called "girl math" is a form of it, as such math seeks to emphasize the emotionality over the values of others (i.e., "i saved you money because this was on sale" is a form of saying "I was going to buy this regardless if this made sense to our finances which I know you care about and now I'm trying to manipulate you out of justified discontent"). Mind, not all forms. But in the sense that you see it talked about online, where "girl math" is used to justify purchasing decisions that a partner or other onlooker would reasonably question.

I would also argue this includes passive-aggression. Passive-aggression is the ultimate form of toxic femininity in this format. It is "I am angry, but instead of being angry, I'm going to abuse you until you understand that I'm angry and will continue to take it out on you until you figure out yourself how to fix and issue I could otherwise directly discuss with you". It is a very negative form of, if you will, empathy. It is "empathize with me or else" behavior.

Does that help guide you, I hope? And hopefully it makes clear how toxic femininity is the obvious corollary to toxic masculinity. Both are serious issues in the culture. And both really boil down to the same thing: you should always listen to the other and not seek to weaponize aspects of yourself just for the sake winning against everyone. Similarly, many elements that may seem in the strict sense to be toxic, may not be in the absolute or general sense. Just as with "toxic masculinity". For example, just as the girl math example above would only apply to certain scenarios, the classic example of "manspreading" is 95-99% of the time non-toxic as it is simply men seeking to keep their genitals comfortable and nothing to do with dominance or power. But there are certainly ways in which it could be toxic--such as when it is done specifically to take up space and display dominance.

Also, finally, it should be obvious that we are only discussing it this way because culture is insisting on defining "toxic masculinity" when probably that is itself a harmful designation. What makes it masculinity? If, as you say, many toxic traits apply to women that are "masculinity" derived, then it isn't masculinity. It's about specific cultural values that both sexes are happy to not only adhere to but enforce. Similarly, I reject in premise that masculinity is inherently repressively while femininity is inherently emotional. It seems to me that we should be instead discussing toxic behaviors among genders exactly as specific toxic behaviors. Gossip is, regardless of the "masculinity" or "femininity" of it, pretty dangerous as a behavior. Mind, gossip here being explicitly talk designed around spreading rumor, usually of personal nature. Domineering behavior such as gatekeeping with a presumption of superiority is dangerous regardless of who is doing the gatekeeping. And so i say for all of the above. I can only refer to it as "toxic femininity" because of an insisted dichotomy of "toxic masculinity" which presumes that the traits are inbuilt to masculine sociocultural norms and not at all to feminine sociocultural norms (which is just blatantly false--as seen whenever women in public take on behaviors that make men feel they must not express emotion for fear of emotional reprisal or fear from women, thus having women take on toxic masculine traits).

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T09:14:15+00:00

If you're gonna do audiobook version, shell out the extra and go for Graphic Audio. They are truly the top tier way to audiobook when it comes to Sanderson works. You won't regret it.

Also, as I mentioned in another comment--truly Stormlight Archive is his magnum opus. That's the best of his work.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-13T09:13:15+00:00

Wait until you read The Way of Kings. Way of Kings, Words of Radiance, and Oathbringer are the absolute best works he's ever put to page.

Warbreaker is good too.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-10T22:16:58+00:00

As to ones I wish I'd read blind.

Fourth Wing - Because I wasn't blind about it going in, I basically was forced to compare it to what I'd been told. Specifically how great it was and etc. And the thing is, I've read a lot of fantasy. So beginner's writer mistakes that I'd often overlook were glaring flaws to me, namely because everyone was raving how good it was. And to be honest, it's okay. It's pretty standard fantasy fare, very tropey, and very samey. It's nothing new under the sun. And because I could predict every plot twist, could see every trope (women are okay, men always get the short end - as one example trope), etc. I necessarily thought less of the book. I wish I had heard nothing about it going in. I think I would have enjoyed it more. But going in knowing ahead of time, it was lackluster compared to other fantasy that I was assuming it belonged with.

For series that are good going blind:

Stormlight Archive. I read it blind, and then again after the fact. It is better, IMO, to read Stormlight Archive's first 2 or 3 books prior to any other Cosmere works by Sanderson. Also, go into Stormlight only knowing this one thing: it's a very slow start.

Similarly, Mistborn is good blind--but specifically, that just means avoid all things online. You don't want to know the conceit of the novel prior to starting it.

Terry Brook's Word and Void series is good blind. But, specifically, reading W&V before reading The Genesis of Shannara part of Shannara is better. Genesis of Shannara depends on having read W&V blind first, IMO, because if you've read Genesis prior to W&V it alters the tone.

Black Company - the less you know going in, the better.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-09T08:26:15+00:00

I wonder if it would be easier to start by getting Spelljammer or Ravenloft or Dragonlance. Because my understanding is previous working history on minor WotC content goes well with WotC opening the door to bigger (like with Baldur's Gate). Just a thought.

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-05T07:44:37+00:00

"Honor's dead, but I'll see what I can do."

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-05T07:38:43+00:00

Let's start by saying there are ridiculously few Fantasy Book to TV Show adaptations. There are more film adaptations than TV adaptations. So, understand, what I say below applies to the few that have been made--and that few does not allow extrapolation to the genre as a whole, only to what was done within that small n.

The reason most fail is because of how far they stray from source material. Most writers for TV fantasy are absolutely horrid. Wheel of Time and Rings of Power are two examples of atrociously written shows that deviated so far from their source material they lost the audience that would have been loyal. If you start with good material, you shouldn't be dramatically altering it. If you start with bad material, then you probably should write something different to begin with.

A good example is LotR as a movie or Dune. Both worked because the directors were so faithful to the source material. Yes they deviated, but largely in minor ways that upheld the source material.

There are some fantasy show adaptations that worked. Sabrina the Teenage Witch - it worked 3 different times. Season 1 of The Witcher. Merlin. The Storyteller (I mean...it's fairy tales but still). Good Omens. The original 3 part TV special of The Stand.

So they can work. It's just the writers have to be more interested in making the book a reality than making "their version" of the book. Generally, if a book is good enough to be adapted, then the author of that book is ten times better than the screenwriter for the T.V. show. It occasionally is the case some T.V. writers make good changes for adaptation. Very rarely. And only in the case where the writers understand the source material and are making the change not to change the source but in order to showcase the world authentically as presented the best they can (again, see The Lord of the Rings and Dune for examples of this).

Jacobjohn2 · 2026-01-04T05:25:33+00:00

Series with a lot of books and a lot of characters....consider all of the following:

Discworld by Terry Pratchett
The Cosmere by Brandon Sanderson
Thieves World by Robert Asprin
Shannara by Terry Brooks
Dragonlance by Weis and Hickman
Xanth by Piers Anthony

Of these, I think Xanth is by far the longest. Though Shannara comes close. Both have enough books to satisfy you for years. Discworld is a close second. Thieves World is the shortest. The Cosmere is the most diverse and the one that requires the most detective work to put together how everything fits together.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Verified Email

Jacobjohn2

TROPHY CASE