Apparently I mixed up Adverb and Adjective... that's embarrassing. Also, youtube glitched and messed up my audio. I now dub this video a podcast

I think people misunderstand what “show don’t tell” actually means. It doesn’t mean pack the book with flowery language, it means if this character is tough you add a bit to the plot showing them being tough instead of saying “oh that’s character, they’re really tough”. I read a book recently where protag was apparently a thief but she stole nothing the entire book, or did nothing that a thief’s skills might be useful for, the author just kept saying “she was a master thief” yet…

I think I prefer romance as a supblot because far too many stories where romance is the major storyline resort to manufacturing drama in order to add stakes or drag out the runtime or whatever when 95% of issues in these sorts of stories could be resolved in three minutes if the people involved had even an ounce of communication skills. If romance is a subplot, relationships can develop naturally without feeling forced to add unnecessary manufactured drama that hinges on the main characters acting like they've never heard of a conversation before.

I HATE when I review uses “the character was not relatable” as a negative, because whyyyy do you need to have the main character be just like you??

14:23 as a romantic who absolutely HATES the way romance books treat a love story, romance sub-plots literally save me. I can't stand reading something where whether the main characters end up together is the whole point of the book. I want more, much much more, because it feels a lot more realistic. So say, when the main plot is about a magical world and there's something deeper going on, but at some point two characters slowly develop feelings for each other, I eat that up (not in ya smutty fantasy though, I hate that)

I think romances as subplots have the benefit of not needing to follow the rules of a story as much. If the romance is the main plot, you kinda have to introduce some bumps in the relationship to fit a romance into a story structure, and end it on some sort of climactic scene. If the romance is a subplot, it can exist as something that just develops naturally between two characters while they're working on more important stuff.

I actually disagree with you about villains. I feel like Hisoka is a great example of a relatively "simple" villain. Like we literally know nothing about him and we can't sympatize with him either. He has no backstory and no reedeming qualities. Even his motivation is fairly simple. He just spends all his time looking for the next fight. It's literally all he cares about. And yet he's one of the most memorable and fascinating characters in Hunter X Hunter.

I think 3:22 ‘s argument wasn’t that they want more morally grey characters, but that the people we call morally grey usually aren’t.

It's funny, but if you want a soft-magic feel modern sci-fi is your best bet. Sci-fi is moving away from the "everything must be scientifically explained or feasible" stage while fantasy is moving more toward explaining every aspect of the magic system.

I would personally argue that we have an over saturation of morally Grey characters and too many complex villains where people go out of their way to give some sort of a reasoning motivation or excuse for why the villain is doing a bad thing. More often than not, it feels like the whole backstory given is just to make us feel like “oh they aren’t really bad, they’re just misunderstood or misguided!“ The problem is, there have been plenty of people in the real world and throughout history who just do bad things because they are bad people. And the statement that simple villains aren’t memorable is, I’m afraid, not true. Everyone remembers maleficent, Cruella Deville, Darth Sidious, Nute Gunray, and many more. People have been taught by literature teachers for decades that only complex characters are good characters and they’ve also been pushed towards this idea that “because people are complicated, you always need to show that there’s a reason for why people do bad things.“ This idea comes from a philosophical idea, to be honest, that people are ultimately good and just do bad things because of bad situations. But that’s not always the case. People are greedy, people are selfish, and people can very much be hedonistic seeking out their own desires no matter the expense. Sometimes people do things that hurt others and they just don’t care. You don’t need to write a villain coming up with justification for why they’re doing bad things or have some complex network of events in their backstory that makes them think that what they’re doing is the only way to live. You can just simply have a backstory where somebody grew up with parents that were overly accommodating and never taught them to reign in their selfishness greed or personal desire. A person raised like that is likely to believe that they shouldn’t have to control those feelings and so they go through life without expressing any empathy for those they hurt while following those desires and that makes a pure evil and/or simple villain. Are real people complex to where you can’t reduce them down to any one thing? Yes. But you can make a simple character that is realistic. If you make them realistic, then there are multiple parts of their personality, but what makes them simple is the fact that what you see is what you get. They can have their own personal interests or hobbies like anybody else. They can have their own personal values and beliefs. But the difference between a complex and a simple character is that a complex character will be multifaceted and layered to the point that you have to dig deeper in order to understand them whereas a simple character will be someone who you understand on face value and there are plenty of people in the real world to fit both. A lot of people are not so easily understood and you do have to put forth the effort to dig deeper to understand what they think and believe. There are other people who are so Earnest and confident that they just display themselves as they are. Either way, the point is that being simple or complex is not the defining trait of a good character and we need to understand that there are people who do bad things just because they want to do that bad thing. There are people who simply think “so what if it’s bad? Why shouldn’t I do it anyway?” These types of villains are those who are dominated by a key personal flaw such as pride, greed, or envy. There are people who haven’t learned to control these vices about themselves and don’t see a need to control those vices.

Murph: I hate people telling me to wait till the 4th book Also Murph: Finish out chimera ant arc and wait till the second book of First Law. I think these are fair opinions I just found it funny and wanted to poke fun.

See if romance is the main plot I know I’m gonna be bored as hell cause that’s never enough to keep me interested. But I almost always love seeing side-plot romances since they can consist of all the best that the romance genre has to offer while not beating me over the head with it and still giving me dragons.

"Get romance out of here, I just want to ride the dragon." - Merphy Napier

Joker is "shallow" when it comes to his backstory an motives and he is a enigma. Same for Hisoka in Hunter x Hunter. We don't understand why they are the way they are but the moment they are in the story they take over. And they are great because of the mystery and personality they bring and not their backstory.

Gotta disagree. While a complex villain can be fun, I LOVE a villain who's just GLEEFULLY evil for the sake of being evil, and have fun doing Like Jack Nicholson's Joker. Those are the most memorable villains to me.

I think there should be a button for DNF when you review things. I think it is very valuable to have a review from someone who gave up for the reason you gave. You should be able to click DNF as a review instead of picking a star rating on reviewing sites. Then it doesn't have to count towards the star rating but you get an idea of how many people didn't like it enough to stop reading.

I think people want simple villains back because they're tired of fans simping for and excusing villains because they have a tragic backstory.

Most upvoted comments Sometimes a villain... 1:09 We need morally grey... 3:00 I know prologues... 5:02 We need more books... 6:32 You don't have to finish... 7:53 The idea of "relatability"... 10:45 Healthy relationships in books... 11:44 I love a... 12:16 Romance as a subplot... 13:27 Most recent comments I love Hunter x Hunter... 15:19 I don't think... 17:36 What skill has Joe Abercrombie... 18:10 Merphy loses it over adding extensions... 20:02 Why is this hard... 20:08 Random comments Complex literature... 20:09 Prepare yourself... 21:05 Having a "good" ending... 22:39 Maps... 23:14

When it comes to villains, Merphy makes the same mistake that a lot of people do in thinking that a villain can either be sympathetic OR one-dimensional, and that's just not true. A good villain, like any character, is nuanced. But all that means is that they should have distinct motivations and personalities that change based on the situation. I really like this way of putting it: "the villain doesn't have to be the hero of their own story...but they should be the _protagonist_ of their own story." A great example of this is Agent Smith from The Matrix. Agent Smith is not a sympathetic character. You don't want to see him redeemed, you want to see him defeated. And yet Agent Smith is absolutely a nuanced character! He has clearly defined motivations that sometimes pull him in different directions. We see him be angry, afraid, joyful. Sometimes he's cold and calculated, and sometimes he's filled with blind rage. BUT he's not a sympathetic character because his motivations are completly selfish! He doesn't think that he's morally justified, he couldn't care less! He's only in it for himself, and that makes him an intimidating antagonist. Now you could argue that giving him that kind of nuance does make him a little more sympathetic (he feels trapped in a miserable life, what's more relatable?). But he's not a "misunderstood" good guy. He is a true villain, and I think we could use more of those.

I absolutely hate reluctant protagonists. They’re in soooo many books, but the reluctant hero usually makes me wanna scream 🙃

With the adverb rule, I think it’s because a lot of adverbial phrases can just become a different verb, unless they’re used in contradiction to what the verb means For example: “She ran fast,” can become “she sprinted,” or “they smiled happily,” can be “they beamed,” Personally, the second options sound better. BUT, adverbs come in useful when you need to describe the opposite of a verb, but still want the basic meaning of the verb there. For example: “she smiled sadly,” does not have the same impact as “she frowned,”. The connotations of “smiled sadly” means that there is still some happiness from “smiled” creating a more bittersweet effect overall. But with “frowned,” it’s more extreme in the negative emotions. These two phrases can’t be used the same way, and therefore here adverbs are really effective.

As a writer, I loved this. Hearing what people like and then comparing it to my own story or asking myself “how would my story change if I applied that” was a fun exercise.

“Let’s focus on the people that just died, can we?” -Merphy Napier, on romance sub-plots

Totally agree on the maps. It adds to the story and makes it easier to imagine journeys and stuff like that.

Actually, using adverbs well and effectively becomes increasingly more frustratingly tedious as more people inform me repeatedly about the bemoanably ridiculous 'adverb rule`. The more that people irksomely complain about my heinous use of adverbs, the more I shall attempt spitefully to slyly slip them in.

5:20 I think the rule they're referring to is that adverbs like "very" can be seen as sloppy/lazy. If you've watched Dead Poet's Society, the example I remember is "a man is not very tired, he is exhausted". Or "said quietly" would be better replaced with "whispered". Basically just that adverbs are a lazy way of modifying one word when there is likely a whole other word that directly means that thing.

For the first one, I found myself nodding going 'yeah, yeah!' but then as you were discussing it I realized the thing that I was really having that gut agreement reaction to was my hatred for woobie villains. Villains where the story tries too hard to endear them to you, to get you to sympathize and empathize with them, to the point where I'm questioning why the villain isn't the protagonist, or where I'm just annoyed by how pathetic the villain is, or where it's completely obvious they were created just to have a redemption arc and I'm over here rolling my eyes like 'just get it overwith already so we can MOVE ON'. I'm tired of people writing their villains as the protagonists they actually want to be writing. I want a layered evil character, sure, but I want them to be evil. Like, Umbrage is a good example I think. She's evil on every level, she's a disgusting human being. But she's also so well layered and her reasons for doing what she does mirror actual real life people and real life things that happened in the past and are happening today. She's evil for the desire of control and power, which to me is evil for the sake of evil.' Edit for safety: I'm not against redemption arcs. I'm just tired of poorly written villains who only exist because someone wanted to write a redemption arc without putting in the effort.

Murphy: Don't tell people that it gets good at book 4. Also Murphy: The plot doesn't really start until book 2!

My story has 3 villains. One is deeper than first expected. One is shallow but forward. The final is... existential. Having 3 seems like it'll be a bit messy, but also explore all those aspects of villainy.

I like both types of villains, but I do wish there were more menacing, maniacal, evil-because-they're-evil antagonists in modern media. The main example I usually think of is Maleficent. Maleficent from the animated Sleeping Beauty is one of my favorite villains of all time, and a lot of that is because of the fantastic presence she gives off like you talked about. She's just bad, and they do such a good job of portraying that. This is also why I was confused by/uninterested in the Angelina Jolie live action movies about her, because I personally don't need a tragic backstory or complex motivations for Maleficent, imo she's just one of the best "pure evil" villains in fiction, and making her "the good guy" just didn't make sense in my book.

I love evil because they’re evil villains. To me, they’re so entertaining because they’re usually so bombastic. Maleficient in the animated Sleeping Beauty is regarded as one of Disney’s best villains. And a lot of people didn’t like the turn the live action took her for that reason. I think it basically boils down to simple motives can be just as compelling. Some people do evil things because they get a thrill out of hurting other people. And those people absolutely exist.

The adverb rule is that you should say “He shouted” instead of “He said loudly.” People apply it broadly though, which is extremely annoying. The problem usually lay with using a bad verb, and poor adverbs get all the blame. A well used verb-adverb combo is one of the most pleasant things to read.

Romance subplots are great imo. Idk it just provides some moments of levity, and if it's not the main plot it's just cute to get some romance sprinkled in there.

I've been getting sick of romances, so side plot romances or the adventures of a healthy couple are things I enjoy a lot.

My favorite villains are the ones that are simple, with little to no character development, who are mostly if not completely evil. The more the story starts adding those things, the less the character feels like a villain and feels more like a person doing bad things. The most poignant example I can think of is from the Dark Knight movie. The Joker is incredibly memorable and most certainly a villain and we know practically nothing about him and he has no redeeming qualities. Constrast that with Two Face, who is also technically a villain, but because we spent so much time with the Harvey Dent version of him, the feeling I'm left with is that of the tragic fate of someone who was trying to do the right thing but circumstances and his own failings drove him away from that path. Both characters are memorable to me, but for entirely different reasons

Unpopular opinion 1: action/fight scenes in books make me bored (even in thrillers). Unpopular opinion 2: not every well written protagonist must have an ark. They can be same person from start till the end.

I so understand the comment about spoilers. Sometimes if I can't get into a book I'll read the last chapter and epilogue. It tells you the ending, yes, but it can tell you a lot about the story without really spoiling much. For me, how you get to the end is the important part. Spoiling that would ruin things. Reading the end first just gives motivation.

The prologue thing blows my mind! One of my favourite parts of a new Stormlight Archive book is reading a new perspective of a certain event in every new prologue!

The DNF one is difficult for me because I simply can't DNF anything. I could read the worst book ever, watch the worst movie ever or play the worst video game ever, but I'll still finish it because I can't leave things unfinished :D. The only things in my life I DNF is food, cause I have a small stomach and in restaurants they usually give me a waaay bigger portion than I can eat. The relatability thing. I feel like people don't really necesseraily want a character that's exactly like themselves, but someone who has at least some attribute they can relate to. For example, if I had to read a book about a rich guy who can have anything he wants and the story is about him having trouble to decide what to buy first, I'd hate that. Why? Because I can't relate to a single thing from that. However, if he was the same guy but his issue would be that he doesn't buy a lot of stuff because he's introverted and is too shy to go buy things, I'd like that a lot more. Cause even though the guy is nothing like me, we are alike in this one thing, therefore I can understand him a little better and I'm more invested in him. I mean it works the same in real life too. You usually befriend people that have something in common with you. If you have nothing in common with this guy, you probably won't really have any relationship. Also I love how Merphy complains about the "just wait until book 4!" thing and then kinda does it herself at 19:10. I know you didn't really mean it that way but I just found it hilarious :D

The ONLY thing that bothers me about DNF reviews is when the reviewer complains that the author never explains this or that character or plot point. In most instances I’ve seen, the author did, the reviewer just didn’t get to that point. DNFing and then telling others why you DNFed is fine, up until you end up misrepresenting the book because you just didn’t read far enough. (Thinking of one instance in particular where the person gave a one star review, every single criticism was “the author never explains such and such,” and then when rightfully confused people pushed back and said “wait, all those questions were answered, did you actually read it?” The person finally added a comment that they DNFed.) Basically, it comes down to the review not feeling like fair criticism because the criticism they have is factually inaccurate.

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I absolutely LOVE waiting for the release of the next book in a serie ! I understand that waiting can be very frustrating, especially when there is a lot a suspens. And though I am not a very patient person I think that having the time to really process what you just read, to imagine theories for the next book, and most of all to get really excited about it makes you enjoy the reading experience sooo much more than if you just read all the books in one go.

"No Adverbs" refers, I believe, to modifiers or descriptors attached to actions--carrying someone lovingly, or lifting an object tiredly. It's just clunkier prose a lot of times, so English teachers don't bother to teach a lot of kids the nuances of when to use it, and just go "none, until you're more experienced." The rule has a place, but it isn't perfect.

I think that you will really like Kingdom. It's a war story manga. It's just like every war that have existed, but like no war story that have ever been told

The comment about overly flowery writing reminds me of the writing style of the old pulp stories - writers like Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Arthur Conan Doyle. They wrote very well, but they were also straight to the point.

Unpopular opinion : Long series of books can actually be really great ! I know most people likes the standalones or short series better because long series can be very discouraging...and I agree with that. But when I am invested in a story I love following the plot and characters during many books, I love the growth that you can see from the first to the last book. I feel so much more connected with the story when it last longer, the characters becomes like a second family. And that what I love about reading, finding another home in the book and another family in the characters ❤️

I can go either way with villains. A perfect example of character redemptions done right is Zuko from Avatar and Shutendouji/Anubis from Yoroiden Samurai Troopers/Ronin Warriors. They struggled and earned their second chances (several in Zuko's case). I like these villain to hero character, but sometime I just need a OG Maleficent 'Mistress of All Evil' without a backstory (I still hate the live action treatment of her) that takes away what made her enjoyable. Disney villains specifically is where I want simplicity back ToT

As something of an opposite to the one about needing more meaningful multiple POVs to get invested in, I enjoy it when authors dedicate some chapters to abandoning the protagonists or usual POVs for incidental/episodic characters. Especially with longer works, it helps the story feel like it's not just a world inhabited by the protagonists and set dressing. Some instances of what I mean would be the intermissions between major acts in Stormlight, all the "little people" chapters in The First Law and the Age of Madness (e.g., constantly switching POVs in battle chapters), or those bits early on in Stephen King's "The Stand" with random people's drama ending in someone showing the symptoms.

Honestly, the fact that the ending of a book can make me love a story I hated or hate a story I loved tells me it must matter more to me than the actual story. An ending can really change EVERYTHING. When a book I was really enjoying has a terrible ending I won't recommend it, even if the ending was a few pages out of hundreds. 😬

I wish authors would diversify their subplots. Most authors SEEM TO always go to a romantic subplot, which often takes over the entire narrative, but there are so many that could be utilized instead. The Haunting of Hill house show and the Danganronpa games and shows are great examples that use other types of subplots to complement the narrative. They were less conventional and less predictable, and I enjoyed the media far more as a result.

List of characters with a sentence or two of introduction at the beginning of the book is the best!

I love it when books of maps, I love flipping to the map every time a new location is mentioned to see where the characters are and where they may be going.

The Joker in The Dark Knight is the perfect epitome of an unknown backstory for an infamous villain. All that needs to be said of him is “some men just want to watch the world burn,” and his lack of motivation ultimately teaches something to the protagonist. In Batman Begins, Bruce believes that criminals aren’t complicated, they are reduced to weak motivations of selfish desire. Whereas the joker is all about sending a message. He is the opposite symbol to the Batman, a lesson for him to learn, and the ultimate obstacle of the trilogy.

Merphy: "One of my biggest pet peeves is talking animals." Also Merphy: "HxH's Chimera Ant arc is nearly flawless!" 😂

in regards to the first comment: scar & darth vader (b4 the prequels) have been such amazing villains, no matter the lack of backstory. Sometimes less is more.

Definitely agree about villains sometimes an evil person is just an evil person there’s not always some deep dark reason behind they’re crap lol and if I’m supposed to hate you why can’t I just hate you without having to feel sorry for you mid story?? Lol

There's an interesting crossover idea between the concepts you discussed of "villains should be 3 dimensional" and "characters don't have to be relatable". As you pointed out, the villains you can relate to in some degree are far more memorable. Wouldn't the same apply to any other character? Now, there's the complaint that I've seen here and elsewhere that the character doesn't have to be exactly like you. And that's also true. But "relatable" doesn't mean "exactly like you." According to Oxford Dictionaries (I know that using dictionaries is an unpopular practice these days) it means "enabling a person to feel they can relate to someone or something" and relate means "feel sympathy with; identify with." So on the one side, I'd say that stories and characters need to be relatable in order to grab the reader's interest. But on the other side there is also the fact that people who too often can't "identify" with a character or story are simply expressing a weakness in themselves that they can't sympathize or identify unless something is exactly like them. So it's a kind of bigger subject really.

"Dont judge a book by its cover" !! This is something I live by. Its wild that people actually do judge. Some of my favorite books I ever read were just random pickups I made at the library. Totally just a weird book with a worn off cover but inside...it was a treasure.

maps are amazing!!!!!

I think a trend that the first opinion is referring too is sometimes a tragic backstory feels shoehorned into the story because it's just expected to be there AND I think often times it's done in ways that try to make the villain more sympathetic, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sympathetic villains but you often get some dissonance if the villain has done some particularly heinous things but is still portrayed sympathetically, there are certain actions where I feel like no tragic backstory should be attempting to emotionally manipulate you into feeling sorry for someone so monstrous

7:52 I agree with this up to a point. I read a review of way of kings where they were complaining that not all their questions about the magic system or spren and stuff where awnsered. Or they wanted Fabrials to play a bigger role. Had they continued reading they would've gotten their awnsers. I dont think its fair to complain about unsolved mysteries in a 10 book series when you stop at the first book.

While the Chimera Ant arc is great, I can see why some people take issue with it. It’s quite a deviation from the arcs beforehand. It kind of exemplifies Togashi’s ability to just kinda say “Okay I’m gonna do this now and I’ll figure out how to tie it into the other stuff” And, despite it being a master-crafted story, it takes practically a third to a half of the series. Which I feel like led to some things being given a little less than they could have

If I’m well into a book when I get bored with it (and especially if it seems predictable) I might turn to the back and read the last chapter. If it surprises me I may go back and finish the book just to see how the author got there. I’m 72. Life is too short to finish things you aren’t enjoying.

The problem with adverbs is that they tell more than they show. But before I say anything more, I have to clear somethings first: 1. Adverbs are inevitable, you can't write a whole book without them, and sometimes they are necessary. The "rule" is not to eliminate them but to minimize them. 2. There are no rules in writing, only axioms. And whatever you call them, you have to know them before you break them. Many successful authors love using adverbs, and this can be a deliberate stylistic choice. When reading or writing, some hate adverbs and some love them, and others don't even care. Anyhow, often using adverbs means you haven't found the right verb. For example, instead of saying "they closed the door firmly," it's better to say "they slammed the door." And instead of saying "they were running slowly," it's better to say "they were jogging." Also, trying to convey emotions with adverbs can feel cheap. Like saying "they walked home happily," when you can show this by saying "they walked home, singing and dancing." Another problem is when they are in dialogue tags. For instance, "Are you joking!" He said unbelievingly. There are two issues with this sentence. First, since it's a question with an exclamation mark, we already know he's unbelieving, so the adverb here is redundant. And second, it draws attention to the tag while the focus should be on the dialogue itself. This is why writing "said" is best. When reading, you recognize the word said immediately; you don't even read it, you just scan it. A dialogue tag with just "said" feels like a conversation, but once you add an adverb, it feels like a narration. To give another example: "Tom, come here!" She said angrily. And "Tom, come here, you brat! She said. The second sentence is better because a) it's more showing and b) more immersive: all the emotions and information are within the dialogue, not the tag.

In Star Wars, Emperor Palpatine is a great villain. I never needed to know his back story.

I feel like relatability is more about relating to some aspects of a character's life, struggles, ambitions, thoughts, fears, morals, emotions... even if they are completely different from you, seeing some part of the human experience we all share in the characters we read than it is about seeing yourself in them.

Regarding spoilers: I avoid them like the plague! Yet I reread books all the time and usually enjoy them most on the later readings 😂😂 Why am I like this?

I feel like my favorite is the hard magic system disguised as a soft magic system. Where there are rules and laws, but they're not shown until the character discovers them throughout the book. So little by little, we learn how the magic system works as the Character earns the information through some kind of quest or whatever.

I definitely agree with the "tell, don't show" person. Just tell me the thing you want to tell me. Don't make me decipher your meaning from five pages worth of poetry.

As someone who makes maps for fantasy books, thank you for loving them!

I wonder whether the relatable part is a mix up with being unable to get invested in a character for some reason and calling it unrelatable? I cannot relate to a dragon rider or a soldier with PTSD, but get invested. Still, there are certainly personality traits that will make it impossible for me get invested in a MC and as a result drop the book. For example, there are very few MCs with anger issues that I can get invested in and I have dropped books because of it even when I can actually relate to and empathize with the anger issues

I think the recent opinion of mine that might not be popular is that understanding a villains motivations is NOT a redemption arc. Just because I know how Voldemort or Mrs. Coulter think or came to their current standing does not mean that their actions are not reprehensible.

I need to see the bad guys win and the story ends there

Maps: they're the best thing in a fantasy book, come on! Romance subs: I actually like them, it is part of life afterall, so why shouldn't these characters get some too Simple villains: sometimes people are just assholes, you know, and that's fine I think Prologues: I actually agree with the person who dislikes them, they bore me and usually I don't care

"I just want to read a book where someone rides a dragon." Actually I don't think I've read one of those since Pern/Eragon in grade school and Temeraire six years ago, so I think I would like to know about more books involving cool dragons (riding or otherwise).

my opinions (don't know if they're unpopular but whatever): 1. I actually enjoy books with the "chosen one" trope. They can be really interesting if done correctly. I know its really overdone, but still I find it cool to see all the powers and abilities of the protagonist. 2. I like it when my favorite characters die or suffer, because then I share the trauma and grief of the other characters and can grow closer to them because of that. 3. Show don't tell is a really good tip, but authors don't always have to show. Some stories do good with a lot of purposeful telling to convey that the characters aren't exactly telling the truth about their abilities. It also makes things so much less complicated if you tell a little while still having plenty of showing. 4. If the first few books aren't my favorites but are bearable I'll keep reading. I did that with The Unwanteds and the last three books were amazing the others were fine just a little boring. But I consider it one of my favorite series just for those last three books 5. Okay I'm kinda scared to write this, because this is REALLY contreversial and I'm sure so many people are going to hate me but here goes (also this isn't a book unpopular opinion, its a show one): Avatar The Last Airbender is slightly overrated in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, its still really good. But I had trouble getting through it because it had a lot of filler episodes and it was a little young in my opinion. Still an amazing show with amazing characters but it didn't capture my interest as much as The Dragon Prince or Arcane

Also, my unpopular opinion is that we need a new visual shorthand for "this is a work of historical fiction set in Nazi Germany" because I feel super self-conscious reading a book with a swastika on the cover.

I thought I liked simple prose because I hated flowery writings. But then I read Sanderson and I found the prose somewhat lacking. So, in the end, I'm just a really picky reader who wants simple but still pretty prose.

I never really understood why some stories clicked with me while others didn't, that was until I watched Act Man's Halo Reach videos. Halo Reach is one of my favorite stories of all time and it was hard to put into words why, but he did it perfectly. Reach is a plot and setting-driven story. We don't spend 10 hours learning the favorite colors and deep emotional backstory of each character, instead we get the bare bones of who they are through their designs and introduction dialogue, and then we're off to the races! The main cast is on the back foot through the entire story, just reacting to the ever-changing situation, and we get all of the characterization we need through how they react. All of this goes to say that I am not a fan of many character-driven stories. If you leave a character in isolation they will be very unlikely to really "do" anything for a very long time. This is why I've dropped The Blade Itself three times already. The characters are fine, but there's no big hook for me to latch onto, only a vague threat of an invasion happening at some point in the future. To add to something else mentioned in this video, I would have dropped the Stormlight Archive almost immediately if we DIDN'T have the prologue with Gavilar's murder. The inciting incident gave me something to latch onto immediately and provided context for why everything was already in chaos when the book proper begins.

Love the opinion that it's okay to read spoilers, then decide one way or another on finishing something. Yes!

18:15 Merphy: …but other than that, just give me a good- Commercial: Raguúúúúúúú! I am entertained by the simple things.

'Snowy' and 'cloudy' are adjectives, not adverbs. I have heard a "rule" that says not to use adjectives, but I've never understood its rationale. I've never heard a rule not to use adverbs, but there's probably also a rule that says not to use nouns.

See, the Villains that stick with me are the ones who completely go against everything I relate to and/or understand. So hard disagree. I am far more fascinated with what I don’t understand than what is “relatable” or “complex” as you put it.

The prologue to Wheel of Time is one of the greatest chapters ever written. Even as i read it first and didnt fully understand it, the ending of lews therin killing himself just seemed so cool to me.

I agree to the romance part with the comment :D - I love romance in a subplot. I don't read pure romances. I want the romanc being challenged with a gruesome plot, growing stronger or falling apart tragically.

I agree with the commenter about the HxH Chimera Ant arc. I didn't like so many of the characters in that arc and I felt it drag on. I greatly prefer the Yorknew and Greed Island arcs.

People who skip prologues are cowards and fall into the same category as those who skip anything they deem unnecessary as fiction is entirely unnecessary.

Not every person in a story needs a backstory. Even 'important' characters don't need everything to be fleshed out. People that you're spending time with should probably have more than just a few lines, but not everyone needs their story told at the same time. :)

Tell = The woman looked nervous. Show = She wrung her hands and looked everywhere but his eyes. The 2nd is better because it lets the reader decide what they think is going on, just like they'd do if they were in the room. The second, "shows" the scene to the reader. The first fails the reader, because you have to guess what's happening, based on the emotion. What does her nervous look like? What is informing the narrator that she's nervous?

Hisoka is a relatively simple villain. We get to know about so many of the other characters and yet nothing of his backstory. But we all know his goal. And its to do anything to get into *that* next battle. And yet I argue he’s one of the most entertaining characters. He’s a good example of how a character can be written entertainingly enough to not need a complicated backstory or much of one at all. Similar to the joker even tho he’s since then had noncanon ones. Plus Hisoka may get one in the near future which excites meZ

Griffith alone proves Merphy’s point about villains to me

I agree SO MUCH with One Autumn Leaf’s opinion… while world building is great, usually, all the excess details wants to put me to sleep. I’m way more interested in what’s happening and especially well written dialogue between characters.

Berserk is a fantastic example of using a prologue. The first 3 volumes show the current story and you're kept in the dark regarding a lot of the characters introduced. The main character Guts is shrouded in mystery and seems like a bit of a dick at first but then the next arc is the backstory and prologue to the current events "Golden Age". This is where the story really takes off and you get invested in all the new characters and come to understand why Guts is the way he is and how the events in this arc/prologue really affect and change the story to the to the present day in the most heartbreaking, fantastic storytelling way.

I wish books with small or no plots could be more mainstream. The Disastrous Life of Saiki K is a manga/anime slice of life comedy propelled entirely by one of the best main characters I’ve ever come across. The side characters are HILARIOUS, and the show would be weakened with any other formula.

Respectfully, I disagree with your stance on villains. Some of the most iconic villains have little to no backstop or motivation for being evil! Think about most of the early Disney villains, Jafar, Ursula, Gaston, Cruella de Vil! If you want something more modern you have Bill Cipher from gravity falls, one of the most iconic cartoon villians

Though I think they’re usually warranted, I think a DNF review has an obligation to say that they DNF, and I think it’s unfair to contribute to the rating average unless you’ve read more than 1/2 of it.

If the romance has to exist, I'd rather it be a side (truly minimal) plot.

At 5:05 there seems to be divergence between what is shown on screen and the audio. You might want to check how they were synched.

The "no adverb" rule basically goes - "do not use words that modify a verb (running fast, or speaking loudly), but instead use a verb that already carry that implication (sprinting, or shouting, in this example.)" It's one of those rules that are good for newer writers to keep in mind as it is extremely easy to default to adverbs, and your prose is often stronger if you pick the right verb instead. However, the controversial side to it is that some writers take this further as a blanket rule that states that no one should use any adverb, ever. They'd say that you shouldn't write - "She sat quietly on the bench" but insist you either remove the quietly or restructure the sentence altogether. Personally, I think there is a time and place for adverbs. That it's a useful thing to keep in mind if you have a reliance on them, and that picking the right verb is an important skill to learn. But there are situations where adverbs are the best thing to use.

Multiple protagonists with one POV, I think the Heroes of Olympus series by Rick Riordan was written well.

I love these videos. So much fun hearing people’s hot takes AND Merphy’s reactions to them.