Really? What's wrong with the first person? I think you're the first person I've seen to have that objection. I'm curious.burntheartist said:
Literary Pet Peeves
- Thread starter tkioz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The OP and others who enjoy dissecting bad prose in books might be interested in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction contest (just type in Google "It was a dark and stormy night contest")
It's part picking at things in books (under sticks and stones), purposefully written bad lines and a link to possibly the worst Sci-Fi story ever written. Ever.
For my own literary gripes, I dislike it when the author goes on and on to paint a picture of a certain attribute (cleverness, stupidity, quickness) by constantly using that word. I actually stopped reading an author that I really liked before because of this.
What I really can't stand is a book that presents an interesting situation that might put the main character into a less than favorable light. However, in the context of the story it would be a realistic choice. Then the situation is quickly resolved because oh no, we can't have the main character do that. FFFFT.
It's part picking at things in books (under sticks and stones), purposefully written bad lines and a link to possibly the worst Sci-Fi story ever written. Ever.
For my own literary gripes, I dislike it when the author goes on and on to paint a picture of a certain attribute (cleverness, stupidity, quickness) by constantly using that word. I actually stopped reading an author that I really liked before because of this.
What I really can't stand is a book that presents an interesting situation that might put the main character into a less than favorable light. However, in the context of the story it would be a realistic choice. Then the situation is quickly resolved because oh no, we can't have the main character do that. FFFFT.
A major pet peeve of mine is when there is no indentation for the pages. It was quite common in older literature and made the story seem even longer. Mainly I speak of this from when I decided to read An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser in the 8th grade because it was worth a lot of points if I took a test on it. Another pet peeve that annoys me is when the main character isn't really a rounded character and thus never seem to change. This is a tad rare in what I've read but some small stories I've had to read for English did have characters that seemed like that they were stoic instead of rounded.
I don't like fantasy or sci-fi books that introduce too many made up words right off the bat. Try to keep the language grounded in reality, or at least add new made up terms gradually. This is one of the main things that made it so difficult for me to read Dune. I had to flip to the glossary every 10 seconds to figure out what the fuck everyone was talking about.
One thing that gets to me EVERY time is when an author (usually an old man I noticed) tries to emulate the main character as themselves following a set genre for it. Usually slasher Horror and the main character is usually an oldish man in his 40's with a 20-30 year old girlfriend with the added tragic past.
Every time. <_<
Every time. <_<
Of course film noir belongs in film. Books that use the "noir" style are often referred to as neo-noir. Thinking that the term film noir is applied to books is just silly.burntheartist said:
OT: I don't have much of a problem with anything in literature, i suppose. I like dialects, I like first and third person narration, I like post-modern style broken narratives...WAIT, I just thought of something; I hate it when a character has a completely absurd reaction to things that don't seem to matter, but it becomes quite a large subplot anyway.
EXAMPLE: Some of the love stories in The Wheel of Time series. "Oh noes, the world is relying on me to save them , I may end up goind mad and people are trying to kill me left, right and center, but whatever...I have to understand women!!!" It drages on and on and on and on and on and on and on.... *sigh* As much as I love that series, it makes me a little touchy lol.
BLOODY ORBS! ARGH!!! *ehem* yes, I feel rather strongly about that too. I also hate the word perfect. I once read a book where someone kissed someone 'perfectly' and thought to myself what a waste it was. Perfectly doesn't describe a goddamned thing.Spinozaad said:
I don't like it when it starts with the "It was just another day" into and makes me sit through the whole generic modern day dull normalcy that I normally read books to escape. The same applies to movies.
I also can't stand a book that is just a hurricane of tragedy, even if it eventually builds up to a very satisfying conclusion. If a book crushes my soul too much, I won't even make it to the satisfying conclusion. No David Copperfield for me.
I approve of the Dresden Files love in this thread... *points to custom title*
And before I read Codex Alera, another series by the same guy that wrote the Dresden Files, I couldn't get into high fantasy. I just never really gave it a chance. I didn't feel like learning about a whole new world when I already knew so much about Middle Earth. Needless to say, after I'm done with this series, I'll be looking for more fantasy.
I don't like books that take too long to start, either. Have some opening that grabs my attention!
And before I read Codex Alera, another series by the same guy that wrote the Dresden Files, I couldn't get into high fantasy. I just never really gave it a chance. I didn't feel like learning about a whole new world when I already knew so much about Middle Earth. Needless to say, after I'm done with this series, I'll be looking for more fantasy.
I don't like books that take too long to start, either. Have some opening that grabs my attention!
The Bulwer-Lytton contest is a pet peeve for me. I like Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He has a style no-one else has, which is interesting and joyful to bloody read. Seeing as he was writing for entertainment, it is disingenuous to claim purple prose, the MOST simply enjoyable form of writing (sigh, fine, "imo"), detracts from his work. There's also a reason Victorian readers loved him. He spins a rollicking yarn, which the great huge lengthy sentences really draw you into, they suck you along. It's almost post-modern/modern stream-of-consciousness stuff, except even more revolutionary, it was applied to genre fiction! Fantastic.BelmontClan said:
Also, the author of one of the very first SF novels, and one which influenced a HELL of a lot of the 1880s-20s, the Coming Race. Know where Bovril comes from? That's right.
Hate Bulwer-Lytton at your peril, for I adore him.
Is it even POSSIBLE for a kiss to be perfect? Two slabs of muscle flailing awkwardly at each other?Erja_Perttu said:
Unless you're talking about a fairly chaste kiss. I can understand those being perfect. But they're not very romantic, so I sort of sense you're not talking about that.
Poor Dramatic dialogue. Goodkind was bad about this. Anytime a character speaks, or people interact and it feels off because you know that no one would actually talk like that. It's like the author said "well, this dialogue is less important, so I'm just going to use my first draft on it."
Or plot/character inconsistencies. Also something Goodkind is bad with. These are when a plot point is introduced or a character is described in a certain way, and then later (usually happens in a series) it is inconvenient for the story so, rather than move things around or something, the author simply ignores it and pretends it never happened.
Moralizing. Damn, it seems I just keep picking things that Goodkind sucks at. This is when the author decides they can't get their point across through plot, settings, etc. and bold facedly tell you what it is. Often this can be found as long winded monologues by the author insertion character. Or if you're Goodkind, you fill your story with so much over the top characterization, plot etc, that only a moron wouldn't realize that your message is "Religion is Bad," and then fill the books with excessive moralizing anyway. "And so he did. And then he ate his own shoe."
Now, I liked Wizard's First Rule and Faith of the Fallen. They're really, really good. And the character of Nicci is one of my favorites. But aside from that Goodkind is just a bad novelist. His plots are full of holes. His characters are one-dimensional cut-outs that he randomly changes whenever he wants. And he can't go a single book without a multi-page monologue on moralizing. And he got increasingly obsessed with sex in books 2-5.
Or plot/character inconsistencies. Also something Goodkind is bad with. These are when a plot point is introduced or a character is described in a certain way, and then later (usually happens in a series) it is inconvenient for the story so, rather than move things around or something, the author simply ignores it and pretends it never happened.
Moralizing. Damn, it seems I just keep picking things that Goodkind sucks at. This is when the author decides they can't get their point across through plot, settings, etc. and bold facedly tell you what it is. Often this can be found as long winded monologues by the author insertion character. Or if you're Goodkind, you fill your story with so much over the top characterization, plot etc, that only a moron wouldn't realize that your message is "Religion is Bad," and then fill the books with excessive moralizing anyway. "And so he did. And then he ate his own shoe."
Now, I liked Wizard's First Rule and Faith of the Fallen. They're really, really good. And the character of Nicci is one of my favorites. But aside from that Goodkind is just a bad novelist. His plots are full of holes. His characters are one-dimensional cut-outs that he randomly changes whenever he wants. And he can't go a single book without a multi-page monologue on moralizing. And he got increasingly obsessed with sex in books 2-5.
Really long sentences, pages-long paragraphs, and excessively long chapters all get under my skin. I mean, I can tolerate them depending on the work (I'm looking at you, Kafka), but I prefer when I don't have to deal with them at all. My ideal book is actually exemplified by the one I'm reading now, 2001: a Space Odyssey.
I love Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but I nevertheless think that it is guilty of fumbling on the climax. I mean, it is functional, but it's over way too fast and the supposedly menacing opponent turns out to be no more challenging than swatting a lousy fly.Ldude893 said: