Things in books that make you angry.

[Stone-Made-Soft]

Another thing I'm sick of is basing magic systems on the four elements. It's tired. Come up with something else.

Agreed.

I thought Flesh and Fire by Laura Anne Gilman had a unique magic system. The Vinearts, magicians, got their powers from the wine they had vinified. The effect was determined by the type of grapes, the soil they grew in, the climate of the vineyard, and the vinification process itself. I'm going to have to read the sequel Weight of Stone, which was released on October 19th.

Sanderson creates great magic systems. "Biochromatic Breath" was awesome in Warbreaker.

[Galactus]

Agreed.

I thought Flesh and Fire by Laura Anne Gilman had a unique magic system. The Vinearts, magicians, got their powers from the wine they had vinified. The effect was determined by the type of grapes, the soil they grew in, the climate of the vineyard, and the vinification process itself. I'm going to have to read the sequel Weight of Stone, which was released on October 19th.

Sanderson creates great magic systems. "Biochromatic Breath" was awesome in Warbreaker.

Whoah, it was released already? I just got the first book.

Neat, going to have to order the sequel in the same batch as Towers of Midnight then.

Story was kind of meh, but the magic system was pretty cool. (also flashbacked me to the Great Champagne Debate)

[WhiteHaven]

Actually, what bothered me about Harry Potter was that the wizards contempt for 'Muggles' should have worked the other way around. Because modern technology is pretty much better than any of their stupid little spells.

I mean seriously. Think about how much that avara kevara thing sucks as a weapon. First you have to really really want to kill someone when you cast it. Secondly, you still have to aim the damn thing. So, if you actually manage to cast the spell, and it does actually manage to hit the target, it kills them.

Congratulations wizards! You have the wepapons equivalent of a crossbow. Now say hello to my little friend, the sub machine gun. See, I dont have to feel shit when I squeeze the trigger. I just squeeze it. And I can kill about a dozen of you fuckers before you can even point your wands at me. I've never used a gun before, and have no training, yet I'm more dangerous than the deadliest, most skilled battle wizard you got. WHO'S A MUGGLE NOW, HUH? WHO'S A MUGGLE NOW?

I love you.

Edit: Most of the time, I hate little children saving the world.

[GuybrushThreepwood]

The books all take place 1991-1998. It's just the setting. And yeah there's stuff in the books that can be used to tell what the year is, like the Prime Minister stuff.

Huh. Well, I suck at reading comprehension, then. Oh well. If I ever reread the series I'll keep an eye out for clues.

Still, I think my broader point, that muggle technology would greatly improve the magical life, still stands. The examples I gave would have to be different, though. Just shift the technology frame of reference back a few years.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

How would muggle technology improve the quality of their lives?

I mean sure, it would add to it, but are muggles better off? I'd certainly rather be a wizard.

You also have to take into account that they've lived like that for thousands of years. Its pretty well established that their world is their world and the muggle world is the muggle world. Not much else to say, though you could certainly call it bigoted if you wanted too.

Literally every book in existance has a plothole however, its not something which bothers me.

Far worse are shitty made up names. Hate that stuff.

[Tears of Lys]

Harry getting resurrected, and a chat with Dumbledore in Purgatory/Heaven/Whatever was pretty damn pathetic. Ruined the series for me.

This - Totally. I know why Rowling went there, but I didn't like it.

It makes me larf to hear people disparaging the HP series as childish, yet they'll defend the WoT series to the death. There, I said it. And I DID enjoy parts of WoT immensely, but it was not written for an adult audience, IMO.

[Derfel Cadarn]

We don't know what Harry Potter wizards are capable of in relation to guns. What people need to remember is, the HP books are set in Britain. As a general rule, few people in Britain have guns. And it's not like the army is rounding up wizards.

If the books were set in America then guns would be an issue. Maybe the American wizards use guns? Maybe they use specific anti-bullet spells?

[AverageGuy]

Incompetent evil. Seriously, how did these people manipulate events in the first place?

[Grack21]

Incompetent evil. Seriously, how did these people manipulate events in the first place?

FoxNews!

[Poobah]

FoxNews!

Well played ^_^

[The Marquis de Leech]

The books all take place 1991-1998. It's just the setting. And yeah there's stuff in the books that can be used to tell what the year is, like the Prime Minister stuff.

The dating is derived from Nearly Headless Nick's 500th Death Day - since Nick died in 1492, his death day dates the relevant book as being set in 1992, and so on.

The Prime Ministers thing is actually a bit grating: the Muggle Prime Minister during the Order of the Phoenix would have been John Major, whose predecessor (Thatcher) was a woman. Yet the Muggle PM thinks of his predecessor as being male.

[Lord of Oop North]

I can't wait for the re-imagined Harry Potter that gets released twenty years from now, where Harry is emotionally scarred by his abusive foster-parents, which causes him to turn into a raging alcoholic and death-seeking dare devil, forcing him to drop out of Hogwarts, and is eventually easily taken out by a sniper hired by Voldemort.

[TrueMetis]

Huh. Well, I suck at reading comprehension, then. Oh well. If I ever reread the series I'll keep an eye out for clues.

Still, I think my broader point, that muggle technology would greatly improve the magical life, still stands. The examples I gave would have to be different, though. Just shift the technology frame of reference back a few years.

You mean like the telephone? Because apparently they haven't got that one figured out.

[Martin Silenus]

I can't wait for the re-imagined Harry Potter that gets released twenty years from now, where Harry is emotionally scarred by his abusive foster-parents, which causes him to turn into a raging alcoholic and death-seeking dare devil, forcing him to drop out of Hogwarts, and is eventually easily taken out by a sniper hired by Voldemort.

Twenty years from now? Bad music, girl pants and Dragonball haircuts are the trip of today's young cattle; I'm gambling on open bi- and trans- sexuality, a race-mixed cast (a Hindu Trelawney), envionmental political correctness and Scott Pilgrim subtlety.

But I'll settle for watching the original Potters MST3K-marathon style, as soon as possible.

[trio]

Characters getting randomly raped.

Oh God yes. I just won't read anything with rape in it. I don't care if "it happens in the real world". I read books for entertainment and relaxation, and don't want to read that shit.

And I don't care if it's a woman or a man getting raped, it's all the same no-no to me. It's the main reason I haven't read the Liveship series yet actually.

I wonder if anyone's ever done a survey of the prevalence of rape sub-plots in fantasy books? Cos you don't see it in other genre's that much, but that's very much an anecdotal opinion at the end of the day.

And if it is more prevalent - WHY?? Or rather WHAT THE HELL??!

(Oh and apparently all a woman needs to recover from the trauma of rape is A Good Man To Have Tender Sex with. See honey? Now you're all better!) :bang:

[kungtotte]

Incompetent evil. Seriously, how did these people manipulate events in the first place?

This is right up there with Arbitrary Evil. Antagonists who are apparently evil just for the sake of being evil. No real motivation behind it like lust for wealth, power or glory, they're just Evil. Killing babies, stealing dogs and raping bibles just for the hell of it.

[Wras]

This is right up there with Arbitrary Evil. Antagonists who are apparently evil just for the sake of being evil. No real motivation behind it like lust for wealth, power or glory, they're just Evil. Killing babies, stealing dogs and raping bibles just for the hell of it.

And

.

[jurble]

This is right up there with Arbitrary Evil. Antagonists who are apparently evil just for the sake of being evil. No real motivation behind it like lust for wealth, power or glory, they're just Evil. Killing babies, stealing dogs and raping bibles just for the hell of it.

If I were an autocrat, I'd definitely be arbitrarily evil.

"Sir, this maid was found to be stealing from her master."

"Does she have children?"

"Yes, two daughters, one four and one seven."

"Flay them alive, tan their skin, make mittens of it, and then sew those mittens onto her hands."

[Poobah]

Oh God yes. I just won't read anything with rape in it. I don't care if "it happens in the real world". I read books for entertainment and relaxation, and don't want to read that shit.

And I don't care if it's a woman or a man getting raped, it's all the same no-no to me. It's the main reason I haven't read the Liveship series yet actually.

A lot of "Serious Literature" has rape in it. Art should challenge you and make you feel uncomfortable. The world is FUCKED UP and just burying your head in the sand and dreaming happy dreams isn't going to make it better.

[Lord O' Bones]

A lot of "Serious Literature" has rape in it. Art should challenge you and make you feel uncomfortable. The world if FUCKED UP and just burying your head in the sand and dreaming happy dreams isn't going to make it better.

So it is. But art is subjective. It should or should not do anything. Except what you want to get out of it.

I think that guy the walks around on canvas pouring paint over his shoulder is shit. Yet many love him as an artist.

If reading is used for relaxation, and reading about rape is not relaxing, than reading shouldn't be enjoyed that way.

Art is. What it isn't is "should or should not" anything.