Book/Reading Pet Peeves

[BroSCFischer]

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,

BLASPHEMY! (see my sig.)

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.

but I love to watch. One of the histories with actors who know what they're doing is a thing of beauty.

In all seriousness, MoonCat and Arctic Chicken, it's perfectly understandable that you may not like to READ Shakespeare. A play is usually much better WATCHED. That way you can hear and see the characters emotions. It also takes a certain mindset to be able to read a play, especially ones in Elizabethan english. Try watching one or two of the plays. Maybe start with Macbeth or Comedy of Errors (2 of the shortest).

And ArcticChicken, I know I would be interested to hear your point of view on the Henriads or any other Shakespeare play. Feel free to open a discussion.

Uh, sorry about getting so

SC

[sms001]

Jay, Arctic, Bro: I'm a hardcore Shakes junkie. Any way, shape, or form. A "Riverside" is the one volume that is ALWAYS in my bedside bookshelf.

I totally understand not being too enthralled with reading him straight from the 17th century page. As Arctic and Bro point out, they're meant to be watched, not read. (That keeps us On Topic I think.) So I never push anyone to read him.

That said, I would absolutely encourage anyone with any interest at all in the English language and/or history (Either the 15th century as the topic or the late 16th, early 17th century as revealed by the presentations themselves.) to read and re-read him as much as possible.

The innate quality of reading is being able to stop and ponder at the precise moment you need to in order to broaden your understanding, which is hard to achieve while watching. Watching also introduces the filters of the actors and directors.

As a final endorsement toward reading him, I can say that Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters or Lords and Ladies wouldn't be nearly as amusing or thought provoking without the foundation of Macbeth and Midummer Night's Dream to build from.

(Off Topic: Finally saw the McKellen RIII just last week. Interesting take, and wonderful sets.)

[Lace Neil Singer]

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.

In that case, don't read any of the Brian Jacques books. Yes, I did read a lot of those, but I found that the earlier books were far more readable than the later cuz of that trait. It annoyed me that every single weasel, ferret etc was automatically painted as being bad; there was only one who did end up doing something good, and he ended up dying for it. -.-

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.

"Said" works better with something discriptive afterwards; just a plain "said" is a bit boring, as in the example you gave.

"I don't know who did that," Bob said, in a puzzled kind of way.
"I think it was Ted," Mary said, screwing up her face as she thought the answer over.
"No, Ted was getting water," Bob said, pleased that he knew that fact at least.
"Oh," Mary said, cheerfully. "I didn't know that."

You know what's worse than "said"? This!

"How are you?"
"Fine thanks, you?"
"Absolutely great."
"So, what do we do now?"
"Not a clue. Let's ask Sasha."
"Where's Sasha?"
"Think she's upstairs."
"Great, let's go ask her!"

In other words, speech with no dialogue tags so you have no idea who's speaking. -.- Doesn't happen in published work that often, but I've seen that in fanfics a lot.

[Antares]

In that case, don't read any of the Brian Jacques books. Yes, I did read a lot of those, but I found that the earlier books were far more readable than the later cuz of that trait. It annoyed me that every single weasel, ferret etc was automatically painted as being bad; there was only one who did end up doing something good, and he ended up dying for it. -.-

Thanks for the warning.

"Said" works better with something discriptive afterwards; just a plain "said" is a bit boring, as in the example you gave.

Exactly. I'd actually written out something like that as an example, then delete it. Still, I prefer something like

"I don't know who did that," Bob said, in a puzzled kind of way.
"I think it was Ted," Mary screwed up her face as she thought the answer over.
"No, Ted was getting water," Bob was pleased that he knew that fact at least.
"Oh," Mary smiled. "I didn't know that."

We already know they're talking. We know that they're "saying" what is in quotes. You don't have to tell me.

You know what's worse than "said"? This!

"How are you?"
"Fine thanks, you?"
"Absolutely great."
"So, what do we do now?"
"Not a clue. Let's ask Sasha."
"Where's Sasha?"
"Think she's upstairs."
"Great, let's go ask her!"

In other words, speech with no dialogue tags so you have no idea who's speaking. -.- Doesn't happen in published work that often, but I've seen that in fanfics a lot.

I don't mind a line or two with no tags, but long exchanges where it happens like this is problematic for me.

[Andara Bledin]

In other words, speech with no dialogue tags so you have no idea who's speaking.

I have a bit of that in my NaNo story.

However, context makes it quite clear who is saying what to whom.

Here's something that irritates me: Lack of progress.

I actually dumped the Wheel of Time series because there's a point where it just sort of stalls over several books.

Now, you can do a compelling story that ends in the same state it started (some slice-of-life stories work like that), but padding your book count for extra profit does not a compelling story make.

^-.-^

[MoonCat]

Jay, Arctic, Bro: I'm a hardcore Shakes junkie. Any way, shape, or form. A "Riverside" is the one volume that is ALWAYS in my bedside bookshelf.

I totally understand not being too enthralled with reading him straight from the 17th century page. As Arctic and Bro point out, they're meant to be watched, not read. (That keeps us On Topic I think.) So I never push anyone to read him.

That said, I would absolutely encourage anyone with any interest at all in the English language and/or history (Either the 15th century as the topic or the late 16th, early 17th century as revealed by the presentations themselves.) to read and re-read him as much as possible.

The innate quality of reading is being able to stop and ponder at the precise moment you need to in order to broaden your understanding, which is hard to achieve while watching. Watching also introduces the filters of the actors and directors.

As a final endorsement toward reading him, I can say that Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters or Lords and Ladies wouldn't be nearly as amusing or thought provoking without the foundation of Macbeth and Midummer Night's Dream to build from.

(Off Topic: Finally saw the McKellen RIII just last week. Interesting take, and wonderful sets.)

Oh, I enjoyed Wyrd Sisters and Lords and Ladies immensely, knowing just enough about MacBeth and Midsummer Night's Dream to catch the references; but in my view it was the stuff that's purely Pratchett that made those books great. They're two of my favorites. Granny Weatherwax rules!

I do agree, though, that it's probably better to watch the plays than to read them. Let's face it, age 13-14 is not the best time to drop 16th century English on most people.

[fireheart]

I've gotten to the point in my education that any networking stuff drives me nuts in movies. It's a problem because I nearly started yelling at Skyfall. In the theater.

Uh oh....I think I'll have to warn my boyfriend about this.

You mean like 50 Shades of Shit?

While I do have copies of the 50 Shades books....I haven't read them since I finished them. Then it gets better....now they have released them in hardback

My boyfriend's mother was there when I bought the copy of 50 Shades of Grey (they were only like $10 each). When I got back to my boyfriend's place and showed her, she proceeded to hold it up to her husband ad loudly proclaims "this is the book they're calling Mummy Porn!"

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.

The point of Shakespeare IIRC is to watch it, or at least read it out loud. We got lucky when I was in Year 11: Macbeth had been released (in the same vein as Romeo + Juliet done by Baz Lurhman) so we got a private showing.


OK, now for my pet peeves with stories:

-For stories where one of the characters has a disability of some kind, I've noticed that some writers tend to emphasise ALL traits of that disability, even if in real life, people with said disability do not have all of those traits. Jodi Picoult's "House Rules" is one example.

-Pointless sex and/or pointless violence. A couple of novels I've encountered have just involved sex as being "tacked on" into the story and not having any particular point in the storyline. (Southern Vampire Mysteries is one of those, but sex is not part of every single novel thank god)

-Movie tie-in novels that change the course of the story completely or add parts that weren't in the film.

-Books that are initially released in paperback, then released in hardback 2 months later. Alternately, the reverse. The content of the story is exactly the same, just WHAT is the point of releasing the exact same book in two different formats? (Harry Potter is admittedly one of these). A variation of this is books that are reissued with different covers, same title: Jodi Picoult novels seem to be guilty of this: the last 3 novels she's released I've bought as soon as they came out. They are much bigger (a bit smaller than A4 size) than her other books I own (which are about A5 size).

-On a similar note, reprints that "adapt" the story to modern times. While I know it's a "teen" novel, I picked up a couple of the Babysitters Club books the other day (to find something suitable for one of my students). They were written in the 80's and 90's. Now they're reissuing them and updating certain points. Most of the updates are absolutely pointless-for example, one of the books had the Babysitters taking care of 14 kids the week before a wedding. Originally they were each going to be paid $120 for their work (for the whole week). Straight after the client makes the offer, the client's second oldest son offers to take care of all fourteen kids for $500. The modern version has them being paid $200 for their work and the offer is for $800.
Admittedly, a couple of them are replacing cassette with CD or changing some of the fashions and one of the better updates has been that they do not spend 1 chapter of the book describing the club members in detail. (which occurred in every book)

[ArcticChicken]

A variation of this is books that are reissued with different covers, same title:

This drives me bonkers in long series, because I like to have all my books in a series look the same, so when they change the style midway through the series and stop issuing books in the old style, I have to fight the urge to buy new copies of the older books.

[Lace Neil Singer]

-On a similar note, reprints that "adapt" the story to modern times.

That's what they've done to a lot of Enid Blyton's books. For example, any references to "gipsies" or "tinkers" have been changed to "travellers". Also, any references to slapping have been removed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...-five-makeover

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Oh, this really bothers me. Characters who possess "vulcan logic" when they are not vulcans, and they are in the very center of the drama.

Let me give you an example of right and wrong (imho);

If you've read Pride and Prejudice ((SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVE NOT AND YOU ARE PLANNING TO)) you'll know that Wickham lied to Elizabeth to try and make her hate Darcy even more and get her on his side (probably to try and fool around with her, not that she'd stand that for a moment.) ((END SPOILER ALERT)) Later on she goes on a rant to her sister Jane, and Jane explains that Bingley (Darcy's best friend) told her that Wickham isn't a very nice character.

Elizabeth: Does he know Wickham personally?
Jane: Well, no I don't believe so.
Elizabeth: Then he got his entire account from Mr. Darcy! *rant continues.*

This is believable, because Elizabeth is emotion fed and flustered.

What would not be believable would be Elizabeth going, "Then he got his entire account from Mr. Darcy! Well, then again, I only have my account from Mr. Wickham, maybe I'm jumping the gun here." (Though obviously written in Elizabethan/Victorian dialect.)

That would've lowered the stakes, the drama, and pretty much cut out any conflict right out from under the reader. (Since you don't learn the real story until quite a bit later, so all your assumptions up until then are typically against Darcy.) It would also add that dreaded flavor of "Mary Sue/Stu" to Elizabeth.

[worddork]

2. Characters With Hard to Pronounce Names: You'll find these alot in SciFi, Fantasy and Historical Fiction. I understand that names in other langueges are different and I love foreign sounding names in songs/movies, but having to read that hard to pronounce name over and over tends to slow me down.

I tend to just rename the characters as I read, so "Ashiuytfbnsuhiusy" becomes "Bob" or "Sally" depending on the character's sex. (if it's ever mentioned)

[MoonCat]

Naming pet peeves: Names with several apostrophes in them. "Fr'np'zt" is not pronounceable and frankly, looks stupid. I make exceptions for satire, though.

Names that are clearly rip-offs of Tolkien characters. If your fantasy features a king named "Aragon" and an elf named "Ardwen", you're not fooling anybody.

Oh--know what else drives me crazy? Catalogs or other listings of books that get all the important details wrong in their synopsis of the book or description of the product. After the LOTR movies came out, I came across a catalog selling replicas of the swords. They mentioned "the king of Aragone" or something like that, as well as several other stupid errors. And years ago I read a list of fantasy books in which someone referred to Frodo's journey as "a quest to secure a magic ring." Secure as in acquire. Um, no....

[BookstoreEscapee]

Typos.


I have all 3 Fifty Shades books on my desk at work. Our promo manager got 2 cases of the first one from the publisher and put them out for people to take; they didn't last long. Then she requested the other 2 and they sent a case of each so she made sure our department got first dibs. I also have Fifty Shades of Chicken. Yes, this is a real book.

[fireheart]

That's what they've done to a lot of Enid Blyton's books. For example, any references to "gipsies" or "tinkers" have been changed to "travellers". Also, any references to slapping have been removed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...-five-makeover

I was thinking more of very pointless changes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, not so much the PC-type changes or updating modern spellings or name abbreviations. For instance, the Faraway Tree reprints have Jo/Joe, Bessie/Beth, Fanny/Franny and Dick/Rick. Those I can understand since the first two are names that have fallen out of favour in modern times and the last two are somewhat...perverse.

What I'm referring to is for instance, changing cassette to a CD or updating monetary values, or in one particular book, changing belted sanitary napkins to adhesive ones. The changes are pointless (and if they do the same with Sailor Moon.....)

[Kal]

Agreed. Allergy to "said" is one of my pet peeves about both books and fanfiction, cuz sometimes a character really is just saying something. No need to regurgitate a thesaurus; don't be afraid of "said".

Just to explain my point on said. It's not "said" itself, which is fine and some of my favourite books use it. It's books where characters only ever "said" things, without any kind of adverb, or when it's the same one used again.
I suppose it's more repetition that bugs me, but this is one of the more common methods of it.