It happens in scifi too. I've noticed that the "good guys" always have the smaller army and somehow miraculously they win against the huge evil army. Not to mention that there are not that many battles that the "good guys" lose anyway. It does make it more dramatic but it is getting kind of over used. Here are some examples.
Star Wars
Eragon(like four times or something!)
Lord of the Rings(sort of)
First battle in the Temeraire series(forgot what it was called)
etc.
There are so many examples. Pleasae tell me some books where this doesn't happen. And also how you feel about constantly reading smallerV. Bigger and smaller winning.
Star Wars
Eragon(like four times or something!)
Lord of the Rings(sort of)
First battle in the Temeraire series(forgot what it was called)
etc.
There are so many examples. Pleasae tell me some books where this doesn't happen. And also how you feel about constantly reading smallerV. Bigger and smaller winning.
Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:01:18 PM
1340 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 01:17:00 PM
949 Views
Well, usually the bigger army are the invaders. Defence tends to have an edge
- 20/09/2009 04:38:45 PM
985 Views
It's an essential plot device
- 20/09/2009 04:41:04 PM
980 Views
Yeah but...
- 20/09/2009 07:38:36 PM
957 Views
I don't quite agree
- 21/09/2009 01:22:45 AM
913 Views
I'm sitting here trying to think if I've read any books like that...
- 21/09/2009 01:40:08 AM
844 Views
Fail. 
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1042 Views
- 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM
1042 Views
Hrmm...guess Miéville failed to follow the script then *NM*
- 20/09/2009 07:48:29 PM
346 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
344 Views
It's still a valid point, even if one author doesn't "follow the script." *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:34:48 AM
396 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins?
- 20/09/2009 08:45:48 PM
1103 Views
That, and...
- 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM
951 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four, baby!
- 20/09/2009 10:37:05 PM
885 Views
That is not even fantasy...
- 21/09/2009 12:00:48 AM
886 Views
IT ISN'T?! *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:42:16 AM
375 Views
Yeah, didn't your dad tell you about the double ungood days of the 80s? *NM*
- 21/09/2009 01:52:46 AM
362 Views
Doubleplusungood.
- 25/09/2009 02:09:27 AM
856 Views
Oops, sorry. Probably a thoughtcrime to put a space in. Rebellious waste of... pixels? Space? *NM*
- 25/09/2009 04:26:14 PM
389 Views
I agree. 1984 is not SF-F. *NM*
- 25/09/2009 12:36:46 AM
372 Views
All books should have a point, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point in reading them.
- 25/09/2009 04:32:43 PM
959 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four is unquestionably Science Fiction. *NM*
- 26/09/2009 04:12:47 AM
420 Views
No, it's not. ScyFy does not lay claim to anything and everything that takes place...
- 26/09/2009 07:05:59 AM
854 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
367 Views
I read it years ago and I don't remember any futuristic technology except...
- 28/09/2009 04:16:21 AM
954 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
740 Views
Because you don't have to root for the huge army that's supposed to win.
- 21/09/2009 04:38:22 AM
911 Views
everybody loves an under dog *NM*
- 21/09/2009 03:51:12 PM
377 Views
Pratchett makes much of this. *NM*
- 21/09/2009 04:11:04 PM
396 Views
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our freedom!" "...wrong!" *NM*
- 21/09/2009 11:02:25 PM
334 Views