Book/Reading Pet Peeves

[BroSCFischer]

There's a difference between historical fiction (where real events and people are portrayed, but may or may not feature fictional persons, usually in a minor roles), and alternate history (which features historical figures in new and different situations than what actually occurred during their time).

Examples of historical fiction would be the movies Titanic and Pearl Harbor, and novels by Jeffrey Shaara, and the Killer Angels by Michael Shaara.

Examples of Alternate History: Novels by Harry Turtledove and by Newt Gingrich & William Forstchen, and the movie "Inglourlious Basterds".

SC

[Ironclad Alibi]

I agree with many things already said. I dislike two that haven't been mentioned.

1. Conversations in dialects are fine, but don't write the narrative in that dialect. It makes the book unreadable. I haven't seen a book like that, but a friend wrote a manuscript that was entirely in black English, and totally unreadable.

2. I have several books that end in a way, including cliff hangers, that promises a sequel. The sequels have never been published. This includes a trilogy from a popular author that never had the third volume, and she has written many novels since then.

[sms001]

I am familiar enough with plot and characters to realize that it is just not my cup of tea.
Where the problem comes in are the people who insist I must read it, and that my life is without meaning until I do read it. THAT is when my stubborn streak really kicks in.

I kinda thought that's what you meant, 'cause BTDT. On a couple of occasions I had to actually read the damn thing just to argue constructively with my "helpful" friends. (Jonathon Seagull anyone?)

I'm on board w/ the historical inaccuracies, the overly convoluted made up names and the super-protagonist, for sure. ALL long standing pet peeves. Boiler plate series don't do much for me either. (Tarzan, 'nuff said.)

Thinking of the history and uber-character angles, I also don't care for writing that has contemporary people innately "smarter" than our ancestors. Sure, more proven science facts are part of our culture and background, but that doesn't mean previous generations couldn't think.

One more: pointless sub-characters. Sure, it fleshes out the protagonist to know she has a sister. Or even in passing, something along the lines of ". . .and stared down at the rifle her sister Julie had given her for her 13th birthday." But when I read on to find out that Julie is Julie Owens nee Browbeat and her four boys are Tim and Bob and Jim and Rob and her current husband was married to Patty Oldwife and they have kids named.........................

argggh!

Virginia DeMarce is my number one culprit, but WAY too many authors pad this way, and it's more frustrating than detailed scenery because you often don't know if these characters will have some meaning eventually.

[Eireann]

Have you read 'Her Majesty's Dragon'? It's about if, during the Napoleonic wars, each side had a dragon 'air force.' I like how they go into how different countries specialize in breeding certain types of dragons; France for size, China for intelligence, English for speed, etc.

No; generally, I don't read fantasy, because it's not my genre, but Clarke can really grab my attention. It's as if Dickens had written fantasy, though there are some parts that he wouldn't have thought of writing. I also love the way she uses the spellings that were common during that time period, though I have noticed a few goofs.

[XCashier]

Pointless exposition, which I guess can go in as a subset of detail overdose. Zelazny got into this with his Amber series, with the pages upon pages of walking through Shadow that were great for padding his word count, but didn't really add anything at all to the stories. I seem to recall skipping entire pages just to get back to the action.

I did the same thing with Les Misèrables. Victor Hugo wrote a really good story with believable characters, and he'd get it going at a good pace, only to stop it dead and go into pages and pages of exposition about the Napoleonic Wars or the sewers of Paris. A paragraph or two would've been sufficient!

[ArcticChicken]

2. I have several books that end in a way, including cliff hangers, that promises a sequel. The sequels have never been published. This includes a trilogy from a popular author that never had the third volume, and she has written many novels since then.

That's often a money decision. I was going to paraphrase, then I realized it's just easier to link a post that explains it very well.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

A paragraph or two would've been sufficient!

I just have to respond to this;

In that era it wouldn't have been.

[XCashier]

I just have to respond to this;

In that era it wouldn't have been.

Fair point, but sheesh, how much exposition does a sewer need?!

[Geek King]

There are three little words that will make me drop a text like a hot potato.

"As you know."

If whoever is being adressed already knows this, why the hell are you them it again!?

There's a couple of good reasons to do this in real life. First, you might do that to recount the full list of facts/events involved in a complicated situation that occurred over a time span in one go, so everything is in mind at the same time and everyone on the same page. You might also say it when you know everyone listening doesn't actually know it, but really should, so you can bring them up to speed without embarrassing the person publicly.

Of course, there is also the third, story-only, reason, which is that the author knows the reader doesn't know all this stuff, and there is no other way to get it to the reader outside of using a block explanation.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Of course, there is also the third, story-only, reason, which is that the author knows the reader doesn't know all this stuff, and there is no other way to get it to the reader outside of using a block explanation.

Aka, infodump. XD I always find that a very crude way of getting information accross, personally. Tho it can be done properly, a lot of authors just dump a load of information in, usually from the mouth of a character designated the infodumper.

Another thing I hate is people who disobey the rule of "Show, don't tell". Smeyer is very guilty of telling when she should be showing, and so are a lot of badfic authors.

[BlaqueKatt]

Exactly that. Basically, Christian is being painted as "omg the most perfectest man evar!1!eleventy", yet his actions lead me to believe that he's a complete psycho who ought to be put in prison.

A friend of mine has refered to stories like twilight and 50 shades as belonging to the " my magic vagina" genre. The main male character is a horrible person/bad boy, but as soon as he gains entrance to the female "protagonist's" magic vagina, it "cures" him. He may have had numerous other women, but she is "special".

[MoonCat]

I'm going to do the unforgiveable here, but this is the truth: I can't stand Shakespeare. A page and a half to describe a rose??? Gimme a break. Of course, it's been decades since I read him so maybe I'd enjoy his work now, but when I was in HS I loathed it. I made a notch on my English lit book for every character in Romeo & Juliet who died because it meant we were getting close to the end of the story.

[Antares]

I've been reading a couple of books from a series where all the good guys are noble and righteous while all the bad guys are inhuman, soulless monsters. I find that kind of characterization boring.

One of the Clive Cussler books I read made me swear off ever having a character chuckle. I think that's all the character ever did.

Overly descriptive text. Give me one well written paragraph rather than a page of inane blathering about something. And if you want to go into more description, break it up over a page or two.

While said is a perfectly valid word, it's overuse is just as bad.


"I don't know who did that," Bob said.
"I think it was Ted," Mary said.
"No, Ted was getting water," Bob said.
"Oh," Mary said. "I didn't know that."

If I see something like that I generally think that the author has a very limited vocabulary and not much imagination. Tell me what is happening as these people speak. This makes me think that they're just standing there staring at each other spitting out dialog.

[Jay 2K Winger]

While said is a perfectly valid word, it's overuse is just as bad.


"I don't know who did that," Bob said.
"I think it was Ted," Mary said.
"No, Ted was getting water," Bob said.
"Oh," Mary said. "I didn't know that."

If I see something like that I generally think that the author has a very limited vocabulary and not much imagination. Tell me what is happening as these people speak. This makes me think that they're just standing there staring at each other spitting out dialog.

Exactly. Using said now and then is fine. But don't overdo it.

The few examples I can think of where it worked were in one of the Discworld books. The first was in The Truth, when the Committee to Unselect the Patrician were musing on all the things that weren't being said. The other was in one of the books with the Auditors, where they were discussing the situation. It fit in the latter situation because the Auditors ARE boring entities, who ARE just standing there (or floating there, or whatever), spitting out dialog. (Albeit without actual spit, because they don't have bodies.)

[ArcticChicken]

I'm going to do the unforgiveable here, but this is the truth: I can't stand Shakespeare.

I don't like to read Shakespeare, but I love to watch. One of the histories with actors who know what they're doing is a thing of beauty.