Novels and new sporks.

Nov 27, 2007 00:52

Novels apparently I have to write that take place in Alec's world. Which needs a better name than that ( Read more... )

sporkings, fifth, novels

Leave a comment

Comments 21

cazrolime November 27 2007, 14:54:57 UTC
Also, the wizards (male) are good, while the sorceresses (nearly all the female characters) are evil.

Ever read "The Swan Kingdom"? Don't. It has the same problem, reversed: men are corrupt and selfish tyrants who don't understand the land. Women are good, pure, sometimes nature-magic-endowed rightful rulers. The only exceptions are the villainess, who isn't human (so far as I could tell), and the heroine's Designated Love Interest, who you can tell is different because he's enough in touch with his feminine side to have a little magic, though it's not nearly as good as any woman's, of course.

...It annoyed me. >.>

I'd love to see you spork the Fifth Sorceress book. It sounds terrible. XD

Reply

kippurbird November 27 2007, 17:27:47 UTC
Oi. That is just as bad.

Apparently the sorceress have to have massive amounts of sex by raping victims because of a result of their magic or something... I'm not really sure.

Reply

authoressarktos November 27 2007, 17:59:36 UTC
Is it so bad that I laughed when I imagined you sporking the (almost guaranteed) bad sex scenes?

Reply

kippurbird November 27 2007, 18:03:03 UTC
Nope. It shall be amusing. :D

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

kippurbird November 27 2007, 19:46:48 UTC
Lots of people do that. Harry Potter's world is like that. It's hardly a new or novel approach.

And it sounds like she did it a lot better than this guy, because people's gender didn't determine whether or not they were evil. =P

I never got that one.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

kippurbird November 27 2007, 19:57:47 UTC
Or maybe because women have become victimized by the Vatican into becoming synonymous with the Devil and therefor are automatically evil unless you worship the goddess.

<.

Reply


hungryblackmage November 27 2007, 20:21:28 UTC
Ugh. The Fifth Sorceress is a sexist piece of filth that doesn't deserve to be call a book; it's more like a 200+ page wank-rag for Robert Newcomb. It's not innovative at all, the female characters derive their power from having oodles and oodles of sex, the book reaches Terry Gookind-esque levels of BDSM action at some points, the main character is a Gary Stu on par with Eragon (sorceresses needing sex? Hello attractive main character!), the editor was asleep at the wheel when it comes to spelling/grammar, and it has a positively absurd tacked-on ending that leaves an out for an undoubtedly ridiculous sequel. Not to mention the homo-erotic subtext you could shake a hunk of meat at.

The Fifth Sorceress is the only book I have ever torn the cover from and thrown in the trash. I want my money back. >:|

Reply

kippurbird November 27 2007, 20:24:28 UTC
Sounds like it's right up my alley then, doesn't it?

... I'm a sad, sad, sad individual... Sad, Sad, SAD, sad individual.

Reply

hungryblackmage November 27 2007, 20:40:30 UTC
But that's why we love you. D:

Reply

kippurbird November 27 2007, 21:15:06 UTC
*is luffed. Yay!*

Reply


dracorn_adagio November 27 2007, 20:52:54 UTC
Oh dear. That looks terrible. I'm already looking forward to the spork. Is this bad?

I've seen genetic magic done before. And from the looks of it, done better, too. It can be interesting, but it's not novel.

Reply

kippurbird November 27 2007, 21:15:46 UTC
Almost as bad as I'm looking forward to reading it? =D

Genetic magic is hardly a novel thing.

Reply


anonymous November 28 2007, 05:50:06 UTC
Yeeeess. Kippur spork gooood.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up