Literary Pet Peeves

[Koroviev]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Koroviev]

In most cases: "Show, don't tell."

Because embracing the former leads to purple prose, which while hilarious is not good writing.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of purple prose... Every writer who uses 'orbs' in stead of 'eyes' or 'raven' in stead of 'black' needs to be shot.

I'm thinking of H.P. Lovecraft. They need to publish a version for people who aren't purists, because his prose can be atrocious. I realize that he had a thing for language, but that doesn't change the fact that it feels like I'm reading the work of some ultra-pretentious shut-in.

 

['Aredor]

Inconsistencies, or when characters act like idiots. "The doctor, being a man of science, had never believed in God. But now this guy had fallen out of the sky into the river and survived it. He decided to go to church first thing in the morning." What? How... Why would you even...? Did he fall onto your head? I still wonder how I made it through not only one but two whole Dan Brown novels... the things we do to be able to voice an informed opinion.

snip

F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby
Mark Tawin's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Max Frisch's Homo Faber
Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights (although that one's a bit cheating, to be fair)

 

[TraderJimmy]

The Bulwer-Lytton contest is a pet peeve for me. I like Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

In all fairness, the people running the contest do usually provide some context about Bulwer-Lytton beyond mocking that one opening sentence. They don't hate him.

Is it even POSSIBLE for a kiss to be perfect?

Oh yes. (EDIT: Trouble is it's really hard to describe the perfect kiss in a way that doesn't sound cliched; one will often wind up overusing words like "sweet" and "melting." Falling back on "perfect" is of course a cop-out.)

I do envy you.

 

[Kuroneko97]

I hated in the Series of Unfortunate events where the author wrote something about anything to relate it to the story, or not at all. Like defining "Deja Vu" when right after that the characters feel deja vu. Or in the fourth book; it talks about self-esteem, and that it is often blamed on the person. Then it goes to say how the children felt about themselves, how they had a good self-esteem and what they thought of themselves. Then it ends the paragraph with "But it didn't matter what they thought of themselves, because they were trapped." What the fuck? Why say that then? They wasted two pages on that.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Any sort of character that exists purely for exposition.

 

[AlexMitu]

There's two types of first person I've noticed, and one of them irritates me so much, that if I find a book written with it, I won't give it even a chance to prove itself worthy of my eyes.

The one I like: 'Kill me now', I said in a half jokingly, half serious tone. I then went to my bed, and crashed upon it, it was going to be a touch year.

The one I hate: 'Kill me now', I say, in a half jokingly, half serious tone. I go to my bed and crash upon it, this year is going to be a touch one.

I hope you can tell the difference.

 

[AvsJoe]

It was a dark and stormy night.

I HATE this line! It takes very little effort to describe a storm and set the mood. This line just screams laziness.