Wallbangers Literature Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

02:57:30 PM Dec 13th 2014
edited by
I think that people are missing the point of this. This should be about moments that, for some readers, ruin what they would have otherwise thought as decent, but, despite the note, there are still many examples of works that people claim to be bad right from the start. It makes the complaints seem less effective when they're about works that would be considered as "bad" without even without those moments, because are people really going to be mad at stupid moments that happen in works they wouldn't enjoy anyway?
09:54:37 AM Nov 15th 2012
  • Ray Bradbury seems perfectly fine, until you spot a label "science fiction classics". There are hardly any science in his works. Everything in his universes runs exclusively on A Wizard Did It rule. How is that even close to a genre, where author must rationally and plausibly explain every tiny bit of his setting?

Apparently, Harlan Ellison and Dan Simmons don't write science fiction.
02:03:50 PM Oct 29th 2013
edited by
People really seem to want to point out Bradbury's lack of science on this page. I got rid of it, but it was added again (by someone who removed all of The Witcher Wallbangers without explanation. He previously made a lot of Justifying Edits for the series is well). Though mostly likely it's the same person with a different user name, since his the style of writing is suspiciously similar.

This page is supposed to be for complaining about specific stupid moments in someone's work, not your personal opinions on an author.
09:19:23 PM Jun 16th 2012
edited by kraas
Am I the only one who thinks the criticism of A Song of Ice and Fire is a bit unfair? I'm going to pick out this one specifically:

  • It's got even worse due to Critical Research Failure about what "Honor" is. The most egregious example is the reason behind Red Wedding. While historically monarchs had bastards on a regular basis, often admitting them as their offspring and granting them lands and titles, the whole concept of sovereign entering misalliance, which also directly harms the dynasty's political interests only because he made a girl pregnant would sound like absurd starfish alien logic to literally every feudal society in human history.

Lord Walder Frey is a subordinate vassal seeking to rise higher on the social pyramid. Nothing would please him more than to have one of his grandsons be a king. His Grace Robb Stark marrying (not simply impregnating, *marrying*) Jeyne Westerling was the deathknell for the Stark/Frey marriage pact. Lord Walder was already incredibly bitter about how his (relatively young) house has been treated as upstarts, and when Lord Tywin Lannister gets wind of the falling out between House Frey and House Stark, he makes his offer to Lord Walder and Lord Roose Bolton (the Boltons already had a grudge against the Starks going back hundreds of years). Combine this with the resounding victory of the Lannister/Tyrell alliance over Stannis Baratheon and the Starks' loss of Winterfell, and the idea of switching sides starts looking pretty good to Lord Walder. And I would attribute the way that the Red Wedding went down to the fact that Lord Walder is so old and bitter that he just doesn't give a shit anymore, he's probably going to die soon of old age anyway, so why not take bloody vengeance against this stripling boy who has so insulted him? It's obvious Lord Walder can't stand his family so he doesn't care what his actions mean for them down the line.
09:40:25 PM Jun 16th 2012
Oh, and this:

  • The death of the protagonists. Often perceived as a sign of "realism". Until you realize that Martin have never tried to give his story any development that is not "kill the main characters at the end of the tome, create a bunch of new ones, repeat the process", and those deaths are nothing more, than Ass Pulls to move the plot.

That's kind of inaccurate. The only POV characters who have been confirmed as dead are Eddard, Catelyn, and Quentyn Martell (not counting prologue/epilogue Sacrificial Lambs, or Lion in at least one case, c wut i did thar). The vast majority of them are still kicking. And "Martin have never tried to give his story any development that is not..." etc.? lol. lol, I say.
12:29:41 AM Jul 5th 2012
edited by Nomen
  • His Grace Robb Stark marrying (not simply impregnating, *marrying*) Jeyne Westerling was the deathknell for the Stark/Frey marriage pact.
The point is, Robb Stark would never, never marry Jeyne Westerling in a first place. The concept "you overslept with that girl, therefore you must marry her" didn't exist in the Middle Ages. And don't forget breaking the promise to your potential ally, insulting and humiliating him in process. In a given situation Robb Stark's acts like some crazy evil overlord, and it is Lord Frey who actually did a honorable thing by killing him. Not avenging such insult - that's what would marked Lord Frey as a honourless coward.
03:47:21 PM Jul 10th 2012
What marks Frey as an honourless coward is the Red Wedding. If he had openly stated, "You broke our marriage pact, my House shall now join the Lannisters" then no one could have faulted him for it. As to whether or not Robb marrying Jeyne after sleeping with her is realistic, I can believe it, though there probably isn't much precedent for noblemen sleeping with a noble lady and then deciding to marry her because it's the honorable thing to do. But it fits Robb's characterization: he's a stupid kid who has no idea what he's doing outside of battle.
05:39:04 AM Oct 25th 2011
Kiloton starfighters? Based on a single scene of an X-Wing causing a massive explosion? One that wasn't even the class of fighter that was being described in the book? What about all those other shots of the X-Wing shooting the hull and producing nothing more than sparks? What about the TIE-Fighter strafe that only produced glowing bits on the hull? What about the dozen or so shots on the deflection tower that didn't do anything until the final shot? What about the secondary explosions mentioned in the ANH novelization? What about Anakin's discharge inside the Naboo and Trade Federation hangar? Why would Anakin "dial down" his starfighter guns inside the Trade Federation ship? Why would he "dial down" his torpedoes inside that ship? Plus, there are all those missiles that managed to mess up the landed Separatist ships in AOTC despite being nowhere near those levels of firepower.

Slave-I's 600 gigajoule tail guns? Weapons that when fired don't do more than throw Obi-Wan back a few feet? That the novelization mentioned as being drained after that incident? Meanwhile, those "megaton" main guns that don't do more than fracture some planetary ring debris that may in fact be dirt clods.

Multi-kiloton point defense turbolasers? Weapons that are supposed to be able to hit small, fast moving, maneuverable, and sensor jamming starfighters? And yet they have a terrible rate of fire, comparable to, or lower than, when the capital ships are slugging it out with each other (the last duel the Invisible Hand engaged in was pretty noteworthy). Not to mention they have terrible spread, given that they couldn't keep up with the small number of asteroids in that asteroid popping scene. And given that later on, a Star Destroyer's bridge tower gets blown to scrap by the impact of a larger, but if the weapons were as powerful as were touted, still easily dealt with asteroid?

200 gigaton capital ship cannons? For weapons that never actually fire in the movies?

4.8 megatons of heat for point defense ion cannons? Weapons that by any right should be the weakest on the ship due to them being designed to disable enemy craft? Meanwhile, the main broadsides of the Invisible Hand don't do more than throw clones somewhat farther than Obi-Wan was by Slave-I's tail guns, even though they impact right next to them.

Quintillions of droids? Even though the AOTC movie novelization gives us definitions of what the Kaminoans meant by the term "unit". Chapter 16 has Obi-Wan's internal monolog about the dehumanization of the terminology ("units" and "final product"), while chapter 18, Mace Windu flat out says in response to the million more well on the way with "a million clone warriors".

The new Star Wars: The Clone Wars does more to undermine this guy's work.

Why is this guy given a free pass?
10:04:17 AM Nov 15th 2012
edited by Scardoll
Who the hell are you even responding to.

EDIT Admin notice: You guys have officially bugged everybody else cross-eyed with the Star Wars Expanded Universe stuff. Do not put it back in. Doing so will get you suspended. — Fast Eddie

You got a freaking admin notice and you're still trying to argue this? What are you, five?
08:19:12 AM Nov 16th 2012
You realize Peteman's post is well over a year old, right?
02:35:12 PM Nov 19th 2012
edited by Scardoll
Yes. It doesn't mean I can't get pissed off at him wanting to continue his nerd wankery here after the shit was removed from the main page.

If something causes too many flame wars and edit wars on the main page, how on Earth did he think it would be okay here?
11:47:38 AM Jan 31st 2011
Really, this is like the third time I've taken something out about the Sword of Truth's banning fire bit from the first book. And each entry for it talks about exactly the same things as Richard and Kahlan do when they pass through such a village. They get to the village, Kahlan mentions that Darken Rahl has banned fire, and the two of them discuss exactly why it's a terrible thing, concluding that Rahl is out of his gourd for making the order in the first place.

I'm getting the sense that the people who add that here haven't actually looked at the book themselves.
10:34:28 AM Feb 10th 2011
Did a little more clean-up on it; one entry said the protagonists "regularly" torture and kill civilians, which simply isn't the case. The torturing happens, but it's to active enemy combatants (and only on one or two occasions).

The second entry was just not explained, and seems to assume mentioning the vaguest details of it is enough to say why it's a Wall Banger.
06:43:24 PM Nov 5th 2010
No, Voldie wouldn't withstand a direct hit by an AK. But we've seen what happens when he's been "killed" by his own AK before — that's the form he's in for most of the first four books.
02:15:00 PM Aug 14th 2010
edited by AnonymousMcCartneyfan
In the interests of clearing myself from an edit war, I would like to know exactly how plausible the Ginny - Harry - Gabrielle Love Triangle is when Gabrielle is eleven.

I don't see it happening. Ginny does in canon, which is the cited Wallbanger. At least one other troper agrees with Ginny that Gabrielle is a threat and is pointing it out in a justification.

We are not supposed to have justifications in the Wallbanger index, but all attempts to remove them from that part of this page with minimal comment tend to get reverted. I need help.
01:42:08 PM Nov 1st 2010
edited by Vilui
Harry's only 17, and yes, it would be possible for him to be attracted to Gabrielle (and the text is pretty clear that it's merely the possibility of attraction Ginny objects to, even if there's absolutely no intention of going further). She might be one of those 11-year-olds who looks more like 14, which wouldn't be much of an age difference at all (and Harry would only have her appearance to go on; he doesn't have the reader's knowledge of what her actual age is). From when I was in high school, I remember a couple of cases among my friends of relationships with similar age differences; not common, but possible.
09:07:46 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Cut this and put it here for now. Fan Dumb is on at least one side of this argument...

  • The Elder Wand, and the Wand Lore Rule Change it took to make it "work". It made no sense, it was never foreshadowed, and it was a massive Deus ex Machina. Even Rowling couldn't keep it straight for three simple reasons:
    1. The "Elder Wand," by definition, is this "ultimate weapon" that cannot be beaten. But Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald while Grindelwald wielded that wand.
      • Dumbledore's commentary in Tales points out that the wand, by necessity, is just powerful, not unbeatable, as evidenced by the fact that he was able to beat Grindlewald , and the fact that it's previous owners have all been beaten. Also, we know, for a fact, that he couldn't beat Voldemort in the Ministry. The "unbeatable" thing is simply incorrect, as myths often are.
    2. Rowling wants us to believe that Harry was master of the wand from the time he disarmed Draco. Afterwards, when Voldemort kills Harry, Voldemort should have become its master. If Voldemort did not kill Harry, then Harry's "Heroic Sacrifice" shouldn't have worked and the Harry-Horcrux should not have been destroyed....
      • Harry never fought back. You can't defeat someone who's not fighting back. Remember how Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him, to try and exploit exploit that exact same loophole? Then Malfoy screwed it up.
    3. It is presumed that the Elder Wand changed allegiance because Harry deprived Malfoy of a different wand. This was not hinted at before that final AK, and it violates the spirit of its original depiction in "The Tale of the Three Brothers" and of what we learn from Ollivander about wandlore in Chapter 24.
      • They're fairy tales. Even if they're based on real events or objects, there's doubtless been some details lost or simply unknown.
    • The rules of the Elder Wand logically should have made Voldemort its master ... and his Avada Kedavra at the castle should have killed Harry... Ouch.
      • Maybe the fact that Voldemort was also Avada Kedavra-ing himself somehow made the whole "transferring power" thing moot?
      • Harry surrendered. You can't "defeat" an opponent who surrendered, as Dumbledore theorized, but was unable to prove.
01:41:09 PM Jul 23rd 2010
The Justifying Edit to point 3 is nonsense. Yes, there's no reason to expect "Tale of the Three Brothers" to be perfectly factual, but it is still a colossal Ass Pull to throw in extra rules-of-magic at the last moment with no previous hints of them.
03:20:08 PM Jun 15th 2010
Okay, the dihydrogen monoxide thing didn't belong on the page, but there is an explanation for why it was there...

I have read non-Wikipedia pages urging a ban on dihydrogen monoxide, using convincing-looking arguments. They claim that, when polled and told the arguments, a high percentage of those surveyed would have dihydrogen monoxide banned. Since dihydrogen monoxide = H2O = water, that would be why it might have looked relevant...

But somehow, I doubt Darken Rahl & co. were quite so subtle in their campaign to ban fire.
07:06:47 AM Jun 16th 2010
Well, Rahl was more or less a complete dictator. In D'Hara, at least, he didn't need much more of a campaign than, "Fire is banned now because I said so, and if I catch you using fire you're going to die in painful and creative ways." Also, as noted, he was a maniac.

As for Michael's speech, as I said in the comments, all he actually said was there was a problem with housefires (which there seems to have been, considering most of the room raised their hands when he asked how many people have lost someone to a house fire), and that he was going to form a committee to study the problem. Yes, he was in league with Rahl and thus 'ban fire' was probably the end goal, but it's not what he said in his speech.
08:13:30 AM Jun 8th 2010
Cut this because it's a justification. I'm putting it here because it is beautiful anyway...

  • I had always assumed that Dumbledore had somehow appealed to Grindelward personally, rather than defeating him via some kind of spell. It kind of explains his belief in the power of love this way as well.
09:10:05 PM Jun 5th 2010
Okay. I believe that it is established in The Inheritance Cycle that Galbatroix has a draft going....

10:49:11 AM Apr 29th 2010
Can we resolve this here please and not on the main page:

  • Ron speaking Parseltongue at the end of Deathly Hallows to open the Chamber of Secrets. Parseltongue is a magical skill, and a rare magical skill at that. That is why everybody is shocked that Harry can speak it in book two. It is why only the Heir of Slytherin can should be able to open the chamber to begin with - only the Heir has this skill to begin with. Ron being able to imitate it and have the Chamber open is complete and utter nonsense! (Does he have any other Slytherin traits at all?)
    • Does Ron really "speak" Parseltounge to open the door? Or does he just randomly hiss things he thinks he heard Harry hiss, and hopes one of those things works? If it's the "just randomly hiss things", then that is (YMMV) completely justified... After all, does the door open to a person's Parseltounge-ness, or to the "words" said?
09:40:30 PM Apr 25th 2010
Okay. I deleted an example in the Star Wars Expanded Universe a little carelessly. I know that a species's growth can be influenced genetically, because that has been done to many of our domestic animals. We just used selective breeding and a little environmental goosing. If it can be done that way, then it can be done the direct way.

You don't have to mess with the person as a zygote — for best results, you need to start before then, and mess with the person's parents at the reproductive organs. If Traviss is having people genetically messed with directly, say that directly!

There probably are limits to what a genetic engineer can do with a person, even if that person's a Mandalorian. But if the problem is on the lines of someone effectively being born grown-up. say that!
04:45:23 PM Apr 18th 2010
edited by AnonymousMcCartneyfan
Cut this and put it here for now. We should consider reinstating the main point minus natter, but I'm not 100% sure this isn't Fan Dumb. Certainly, it appears to defy the Anthropic Principle at the single-book level — which doesn't mean it isn't a Wallbanger, but does mean we have to give it extra thought.

  • Why didn't Moody/Crouch simply enchant Harry's pyjamas or brush to be a portkey instead of going through the trouble of rigging the Triwizard Tournament and making one of the handles of the TriWizard Cup a portkey? Portkeying a personal possession of Harry's would have been a good way for Voldie to capture Harry and only Harry. And it wouldn't have needed to take the entire school year.... Okay, so that particular plan is impractical. But the plan used would have gone off-track easily if anyone but Harry won — heck, even a tie ended up disrupting things a little.
    • Voldemort didn't want to reveal his return until he had regained full strength and an army of followers, and also know the full prophesy. This was the main idea of Order of the Phoenix, that people didn't believe Voldemort was back, as he never made any direct and visable move. The plan presumably was that Harry would touch the cup (with Moody doing everything possible to make sure Harry touched it first) and be transported to the Graveyard to be used in the ritual that gave Voldemort his body back. Voldemort would then kill Harry and he would be sent back to the Maze using cup. Harry would have died in a tragic accident, just like Cedric (as was the official line). The fact it was a tie was not a problem, as "the spair" was quickly eliminated. The only thing that jepardised the plan at various stages was Harry's nobility/stupidity (although in the end it actually aided the plan, along with Cedric's own nobility).
    • And when could they do that to the TriWizard Cup so that they could be sure it wouldn't activate on a tournament organizer? This borders on Xanatos Roulette.
      • I think Crouch mentioned that he was the one who brought the Cup into the maze, so that's probably when he enchanted it. And Portkey can be set to activate at a specific time. And during the actual trial, he disrupted the other champions while hexing obstacles out of Harry's path to make sure that he'd get to the Cup in time. As for why they didn't try something simple—well, the plot wouldn't exist.
Collapse/Expand Topics