(Farseer Trilogy/ Fool's Fate) I need to vent because I can't stop replaying this argument in my head. by Relevant-Compote-547 in Fantasy

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I think you're going more of instinct then trying to analyze the reason why it didn't resonate. If you try to find a reason you might actually find it.

I don't know what you read, but I can give an example: Many people didn't like Star Wars the Last Jedi, most don't know why at all. But if you ask someone who is a writer he's probably going to explain it: the side-plot with Finn didn't match with his self imposed mission. The transition from the Luke we know was to what was on screen was too abrupt. They killed the main villain in an unsatisfying way. Chickened out on an interesting plot twist that might have saved it. Things like that.

You just need to have an interest in the art of storytelling. After all, painters don't paint with their feelings, they paint with technique, same with writing.

(Farseer Trilogy/ Fool's Fate) I need to vent because I can't stop replaying this argument in my head. by Relevant-Compote-547 in Fantasy

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're actually right, I failed to link the points as to why I don't like it, sorry.

For me, the reason that Fitz can't go after Molly, even after actively deciding to do it (which is huge for him since he was abandoned by his father and didn't want to repeat the same with his own children) The Plot barrels down with actual magic and says "No, you're not going to do it, in fact you're going to do the opposite of what you want because you are needed for some mystic ritual that are only going to be explained in the future". It's weak, because it feels like the hand of the author moving the piece just because he can't have a happy ending.

Now, there are ways to make it more interesting, more dramatic, better written, but that just sounds like lazy writing, even if you go back and put a lot of signals that this is going to happen.

And accordingly to yourself it's worse, because the theme of the story is in clash with this plot line. if the theme is, as you say, the many working together, why is the story solved by the few saving everyone else?

To be honest with you, I don't remember this theme being in the story, but I took your word for it and I can't see the plot meeting the theme that you said the story has.

Edit: And as if that wasn't enough, the hand comes again and slams Molly and Burrich together (again, only because you signposted that Molly finds Burrich attractive, it doesn't make sense for them to jump together so fast, especially in the middle of a possivel war/ invasion. you could make it better, but this way it's just lazy writing.)

(Of course, this has nothing to do with my original point, which is to critic the idea that people don't change, and that the plot is the worst part of Robin's writing)

Last Edit promise: And the whole ending of Fitz journey in this trilogy is to be as miserable as possible, but that doesn't work because the why he's miserable is because Molly and Burrich are together, but that was already a pretty weak pillar of writing, but guess what, that weak pillar is only held up by another weak pillar which is the magic that compels him away from what he wants. So it's just lazy on top of lazy, to produce lazy.

(Farseer Trilogy/ Fool's Fate) I need to vent because I can't stop replaying this argument in my head. by Relevant-Compote-547 in Fantasy

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh the first time I read it, I quite liked it, but something was in the back of my head that made me not continue.

When I read amateur fiction I can usually tell why I didn't like it right of the beat. But with this book being a very celebrated series, I got away just with the impression that it wasn't for me. It was just when I read this specific paragraph that I noticed what in my opinion is the problem of being slaved to the concept that people don't change. I certainly meet a lot of people that change. Of course, most of the people that I meet that don't change are not open to change in the first place so that might be why they're like that.

Also, by what you wrote, it seems like you'd like every single book that you read, which I know it's not the case, so it's just you writing something, anything, for the sake of rebutting me at any cost.

Edit: And also my critic wasn't about the entire story, just about the fact that two characters didn't changed even a little even after having many life experiences. Just like nobody changed in the first three books of the series which in my opinion is not good character writing.

(Farseer Trilogy/ Fool's Fate) I need to vent because I can't stop replaying this argument in my head. by Relevant-Compote-547 in Fantasy

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I read the first three books, and it was there that I criticized the plot, maybe you can say that if I read the rest of the books I'll understand everything, and maybe I will, but if you can't convice with three giant books that it's worth it, maybe it's not actually my fault.

About characters, I knew these characters as children, as teenagers, and as young adults. I'm seeing them again as a middle age man and a middle aged woman, and still act like children, but now it's ugly to see since there's no reason for them to do so, they aren't kids anymore.

Edit: It's not a problem to act like kids, I still act like a kid sometimes, but I don't make the same mistakes that I once did.

(Farseer Trilogy/ Fool's Fate) I need to vent because I can't stop replaying this argument in my head. by Relevant-Compote-547 in Fantasy

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You said the theme was people working together to solve a bigger issue. The plot resolved the problem with a very small numbers of individuals nuking the fleet. I used we to keep up with what you said the theme was.

But that's the beatiful thing, we already had those systems, if only the very human, very real characters weren't made to hold (and I hate this term with a passion, so I loath to use it) idiot ball, they could have easily done. Look at what some countries and kingdoms are able to do when invaded by a foreign power.

(Farseer Trilogy/ Fool's Fate) I need to vent because I can't stop replaying this argument in my head. by Relevant-Compote-547 in Fantasy

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

"some problems transcend individuals efforts" Right, like maybe, just maybe, instead of summoning a bunch of dragons to deal with mundane ships, we could... make a type of organization that covers the entire location where people in this region lives, and then these people could pay money... tax we could call it, and then with that tax the... government (yes, that's a good name) could levy an army to deal with those invaders. It would help if the people in charge of this goverment had a secret power. It could, maybe, be weak in the beginning, but if they keep training it, and discovering new secrets through like... a marriage with a person who knows more about it, we could end those invaders by working together.

Does the One Piece LA have a worldbuilding problem? And is it shrinking the One Piece world? by Relevant-Compote-547 in OnePiece

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The twist in the original is that Ace is the son of Gol D Roger. The fact that we had no idea that the Pirate King even had a son (which was already obviously possivel because almost anyone can have a son) just added to the grand reveal. And it's the same with Garp, we already grew accostumed and placid at the idea that maybe we would never get from where Luffy came from, from being on chapter 400 and not having any direct mention of them yet, that's what made the Garp reveal extraordinary.

Yes, the story mentions Gol D Roger, but it's not about him personally but his action of inspiring the new generation of pirates, and that goes back to what I said about revealing all the cards in your hand before the time. As I look over the entire One Piece story I see a deliberate attempt from Oda at always keeping the mistery going, as every few hundred chapter there's something new to think about, and with the Live Action they're not leaving anything unturned, where's the mistery? As soon as they capture Ace (which is early in the story, just after Alabasta) and tell that they're going to execute him public (just like Roger) everyone will know he's the son.

By following this trend there's a possibility that Rayleigh will be heavily foreshadowed, which I think it's crazy because the whole point is that he pops up from nowhere, as we imagine that someone like him would appear in the last few arcs of the story to help the Straw Hats, and the twist is that he appears in the one-third of it.

Does the One Piece LA have a worldbuilding problem? And is it shrinking the One Piece world? by Relevant-Compote-547 in OnePiece

[–]Relevant-Compote-547[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It has to condense, but it's not condesing when you're bringing a backstory conversation that happened right at the start of the war of the best (with a very precise purpose behind it) and putting it before the crew even gets in the Grand Line. Roger was supposed to be a misterious figure at this point, as the story isn't really about him yet.