Active Users:784 Time:22/12/2024 09:15:22 PM
That, and... Napoleon62 Send a noteboard - 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM
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?
*MySmiley*
"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
Reply to message
Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins? - 20/09/2009 01:01:18 PM 1235 Views
It's an essential plot device - 20/09/2009 04:41:04 PM 895 Views
Yeah but... - 20/09/2009 07:38:36 PM 861 Views
I don't quite agree - 21/09/2009 01:22:45 AM 803 Views
I'm sitting here trying to think if I've read any books like that... - 21/09/2009 01:40:08 AM 729 Views
Fail. - 21/09/2009 04:43:24 AM 944 Views
Agreed. - 21/09/2009 04:59:39 AM 836 Views
Well there are plenty of authors not in their right minds - 21/09/2009 05:49:22 PM 757 Views
True. - 21/09/2009 06:50:43 PM 835 Views
Re: Ever notice how in fantasy books the smaller army always wins? - 20/09/2009 08:45:48 PM 1000 Views
That, and... - 20/09/2009 09:08:48 PM 854 Views
Nineteen Eighty-Four, baby! - 20/09/2009 10:37:05 PM 788 Views
That is not even fantasy... - 21/09/2009 12:00:48 AM 787 Views
IT ISN'T?! *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:42:16 AM 334 Views
Yeah, didn't your dad tell you about the double ungood days of the 80s? *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:52:46 AM 324 Views
Doubleplusungood. - 25/09/2009 02:09:27 AM 785 Views
I agree. 1984 is not SF-F. *NM* - 25/09/2009 12:36:46 AM 332 Views
Who knew? ¯\(°O)/¯ *NM* - 25/09/2009 02:07:19 AM 318 Views
I... don't know what those symbols mean. *NM* - 26/09/2009 07:04:13 AM 347 Views
Wheel of Time? - 20/09/2009 11:52:36 PM 760 Views
I have not found that to be always true - 21/09/2009 12:52:00 AM 733 Views
The smaller army doesn't always win - 21/09/2009 02:47:07 AM 763 Views
Because you don't have to root for the huge army that's supposed to win. - 21/09/2009 04:38:22 AM 809 Views
everybody loves an under dog *NM* - 21/09/2009 03:51:12 PM 331 Views
Pratchett makes much of this. *NM* - 21/09/2009 04:11:04 PM 353 Views
Exactly what I was going to say - 27/09/2009 02:55:02 PM 850 Views

Reply to Message