What would be the point of a book where the larger army wins. So there are these two sides, and one has the bigger army, and at the end of the book, they do the logical thing and wipe out the smaller army. And then the book is over. Sometimes there are things that happen in most books, and in most instances worth reporting in history. Austerlitz would not be nearly as important a historical battle if Napoleon had had a force a billion times the size of the other guy and crushed them without a second thought. Austerlitz is important because he took his smaller force and won a decisive victory with it. Most books are written about times in the world that are worth reporting, and the larger army doing what it usually does is not worth reporting.
Also, just becuase it is often in books does not mean it is overused. Is the happy ending overused? Maybe, but it isn't going to stop people from using it, or stop people from reading books with happy endings. Most fantasy books are written about important times in another world, just like histories only with dragons. Would you really like to read a book where the bad guys have this massive empire and the good guys are nothing but a pocket of restance to the north; they struggle the entire 700 page book, and then wham, the bad guys press them with the full weight of their force and annihlate them? It's just not fun to read. So evil wins. The larger army won. What is the point?
Also, just becuase it is often in books does not mean it is overused. Is the happy ending overused? Maybe, but it isn't going to stop people from using it, or stop people from reading books with happy endings. Most fantasy books are written about important times in another world, just like histories only with dragons. Would you really like to read a book where the bad guys have this massive empire and the good guys are nothing but a pocket of restance to the north; they struggle the entire 700 page book, and then wham, the bad guys press them with the full weight of their force and annihlate them? It's just not fun to read. So evil wins. The larger army won. What is the point?
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
This message last edited by Napoleon62 on 20/09/2009 at 09:10:27 PM
Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:01:18 PM
1473 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:17:00 PM
1082 Views
Well, usually the bigger army are the invaders. Defence tends to have an edge
- 20/09/2009 04:38:45 PM
1115 Views
It's an essential plot device
- 20/09/2009 04:41:04 PM
1114 Views
Yeah but...
- 20/09/2009 07:38:36 PM
1087 Views
I don't quite agree
- 21/09/2009 01:22:45 AM
1042 Views
I'm sitting here trying to think if I've read any books like that...
- 21/09/2009 01:40:08 AM
993 Views
Fail.
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1177 Views
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1177 Views
Hrmm...guess Miéville failed to follow the script then *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:48:29 PM
408 Views
and a lot of others. But there's a rumour somewhere that it's not the size that matters... *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:53:41 PM
401 Views
It's still a valid point, even if one author doesn't "follow the script." *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:34:48 AM
463 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 08:45:48 PM
1219 Views
That, and...
- 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM
1097 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four, baby!
- 20/09/2009 10:37:05 PM
1037 Views
That is not even fantasy...
- 21/09/2009 12:00:48 AM
1012 Views
IT ISN'T?! *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:42:16 AM
422 Views
Yeah, didn't your dad tell you about the double ungood days of the 80s? *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:52:46 AM
431 Views
Doubleplusungood.
- 25/09/2009 02:09:27 AM
1020 Views
Oops, sorry. Probably a thoughtcrime to put a space in. Rebellious waste of... pixels? Space? *NM*
- 25/09/2009 04:26:14 PM
450 Views
I agree. 1984 is not SF-F. *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:36:46 AM
444 Views
All books should have a point, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point in reading them.
- 25/09/2009 04:32:43 PM
1094 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four is unquestionably Science Fiction. *NM*
- 26/09/2009 04:12:47 AM
479 Views
No, it's not. ScyFy does not lay claim to anything and everything that takes place...
- 26/09/2009 07:05:59 AM
1031 Views
It's a novel which heavily relies upon futuristic technology. How is it not Science Fiction? *NM*
- 28/09/2009 01:43:23 AM
424 Views
I read it years ago and I don't remember any futuristic technology except...
- 28/09/2009 04:16:21 AM
1085 Views
I would say that if a story uses that sort of thing, it has a science fiction element.
- 28/09/2009 05:20:39 AM
877 Views
Because you don't have to root for the huge army that's supposed to win.
- 21/09/2009 04:38:22 AM
1050 Views
Pratchett makes much of this. *NM*
- 21/09/2009 04:11:04 PM
442 Views
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our freedom!" "...wrong!" *NM*
- 21/09/2009 11:02:25 PM
386 Views
