It's the kind of thing that makes no logical sense (fantasy has a lot of those) but I assume reflects the kind of childhood the writer had. If their parents gave them rules without any explanation, and then in later life they reached back to infancy for the patterns they associated with the fantastical, those enigmatic arsehole mentors are the reflection of arbitrary parents. (I should add I was raised according to the principles of Dr Spock, which includes giving the child the logical reason for each rule, which could be why most fantasy fiction doesn't do anything for me.)
I'm not sure it's a childhood thing, just lazy, tropey writing. It's the same as "because the prophecy said so" or being fated to do something. It's an easy way to add drama and tension to a story by adding some nonsensical foreshadowing.
What I don't understand -- or anyway can't quite accept -- is that audiences don't care that these tropes make no sense. They'll wave them through with a shrug and say, "Oh well, it's only a story." There's nothing "only" about stories!
It's no different to conventions in other media, though. Why's this person singing about their feelings? (Because it's an opera/musical.) Why's the person facing away from the person they're talking to instead of looking at them? (Because it makes for a more dramatic character angle.) Why's this person making ridiculous gestures all the time? (Because it's a silent movie or an old-style theatrical performance.) Audiences know these things are unrealistic, but accept them as part of the way stories are told.
I have no problem with stylization, it's just when plot developments actually make no sense that I get annoyed. Mainly because, as a writer, I see a big part of the job as getting all the pieces to fit. Characters can sing or dance, they can tell jokes, but when tropes are used as a get-out clause for lazy writing -- to borrow a phrase from Dr Smith, it irks me.
It's the kind of thing that makes no logical sense (fantasy has a lot of those) but I assume reflects the kind of childhood the writer had. If their parents gave them rules without any explanation, and then in later life they reached back to infancy for the patterns they associated with the fantastical, those enigmatic arsehole mentors are the reflection of arbitrary parents. (I should add I was raised according to the principles of Dr Spock, which includes giving the child the logical reason for each rule, which could be why most fantasy fiction doesn't do anything for me.)
I'm not sure it's a childhood thing, just lazy, tropey writing. It's the same as "because the prophecy said so" or being fated to do something. It's an easy way to add drama and tension to a story by adding some nonsensical foreshadowing.
I do, however, like the way Eddings handles prophecies in The Belgariad.
What I don't understand -- or anyway can't quite accept -- is that audiences don't care that these tropes make no sense. They'll wave them through with a shrug and say, "Oh well, it's only a story." There's nothing "only" about stories!
It's no different to conventions in other media, though. Why's this person singing about their feelings? (Because it's an opera/musical.) Why's the person facing away from the person they're talking to instead of looking at them? (Because it makes for a more dramatic character angle.) Why's this person making ridiculous gestures all the time? (Because it's a silent movie or an old-style theatrical performance.) Audiences know these things are unrealistic, but accept them as part of the way stories are told.
I have no problem with stylization, it's just when plot developments actually make no sense that I get annoyed. Mainly because, as a writer, I see a big part of the job as getting all the pieces to fit. Characters can sing or dance, they can tell jokes, but when tropes are used as a get-out clause for lazy writing -- to borrow a phrase from Dr Smith, it irks me.