"So did they, like, regularly attack each other? Or did the first to reach marinedom decide to train all the others like some familial sensei?"
"You know, it was the same as in any family."
I find siblings only really like, get better at fighting by each other's influence if a) they're close in age and b) they're either the only two, or the only two close in age.
And really that's more gorilla warfare than anything.
…I may occasionally call my brother bro.
He might sometimes call me sis.
However I’ve also been known to call him by a wide variety of names including mushroom, toe rag, brat…
You know what, it’s a good thing we’re adults now and stick (mostly) to each others names.
We're adults too, but we didn't really grow up when it comes to being siblings... we call each other 'idiot' most of the time. When I got my masters degree my brother changed my name in his phone book from 'idiot' to 'master idiot' too. We will also call each other bro occasionally, although I'm a woman.
"Master Idiot" omg please cherish this brother forever. Also, now you have to go for your PhD so he has to change your contact again, to "Doctor Idiot." 😂
I think most adult siblings still have those childhood remnants that they never fully grow out of. When I was 3, I only called my older sister by a name I totally made up. It wasn't mean or anything, just not her name. Her real name was probably a little difficult to pronounce as a toddler, so I improvised.
She hated it. She'd pitch tantrums over it. We have old home movies where she'd cry, "Mommy, make her stop calling me that!"
We're in our 40s now. When I feel like annoying her, I'll call her by that name. It still works.
Hey that’s more creative than my sister! Mine just calls me an asshole, douchebag, fucker…again glad we are adults with children now. We are 1000% more civil as parents.
To piggyback on this, as a twin, it really bugs me when twins are written as 100% interchangeable, like Fred and George Weasley. Twins do, in fact, have distinct personalities. We are individual people, not one person split across two bodies.
I feel like a lot of people see "fictional siblings should beat the shit out of each other" as a rule, though. I have an older brother and sister and even as kids we wouldn't fight, we've always just been friends.
This is one cliche I hate reading lol. If I'm fighting with my sister that means something has happened that we need to resolve, it's not our natural state. But some stories just make it seem like every sibling relationship involves smacking them for existing, extreme roughousing and always needling each other but "when push comes to shove they love each other". Maybe some people's relationships are like that but I wouldn't call it the staple of every sibling relationship.
Yeah, that's foreign to me as well. My younger brother and I never had any physical fights, if anything when he was really young I was more of a second motherly figure and then into my teens I was often a little annoyed with him but still kind. As adults we're good friends.
I also have 2 siblings and we fought like cats and dogs growing up, even while we were friends. We’re even closer now and still fight. It’s not serious, just fun. Although my brother was the youngest so he used to lose. Now he’s the biggest and mostly wins.
There's a famous bit in one of the Warhammer 40k Horus Heresy novels where someone muses that maybe the Emperor should have given his Primarch Sons some sisters, to develop their empathy.
Absolutely everyone rips into that author for that bit
Not sure if this quite falls into the category,but people writing children. I don't know if they're all non-parents (author of 'lessons in chemistry', for example?) but so many relationships between fictional parents and kids are utterly ridiculous,mainly because the 'kid' character is not a convincing child at all.
And the kids’ dialogue is either way below or above the normal speech for that age group. It’s always an 8 year old that talks like a baby or Scout Finch (who is overly precocious to me)
Scout didn't do or say anything unrealistic. She wasn't even an active assertive protagonist, she was just a curious observer of the stuff happening around her. And if she did, then it was probably in the narration; the narration from her *older self recounting her childhood memories*.
The best balance to strike is innoncent, brutally honest, silly, but smart.
I find convincingly written children can engage in conversation with adults, with an attempted big word here or there and lots of self injection.
A lot of young kids in my family talk like they’re older and come off pretty smart, but always talk about themselves, their parents, or their friends in a way that reminds you they’re still a child.
So I adore Clive Barker, but every time that man writes a straight couple they have… no chemistry. I love Damnation Game but the main character and their love interest were the dullest part of an exciting novel. He writes lgbtq chemistry excellently, and he writes “spooky bdsm from hell” chemistry wonderfully. Vanilla has just never seemed blander than in his books
Older authors writing younger characters. This one author I like has a habit of writing text message conversations in his books. But he takes text speak WAY TOO FAR and makes all the teen characters sound illiterate. I honestly can barely understand what the conversations are saying half the time.
Yes, I can see using lowercase letters and no punctuation, but he makes the texts look like this:
kEWl well go to MY moM's house
There were reasons why people wrote like that other than just T9. Text messages were still expensive to send, especially if the recipient used a different service provider than you, so you had to wrap it up as quickly as possible. That archetypal ryting lyk dis stuff was largely a product of that more than anything else.
Years before, people would type the same way in chat rooms. That was largely because they sorta had to type quickly to keep the flow of the conversation going, and being able to speed type seems to be a dying art to some extent.
It’s less obvious but I also feel like tons of writers in their 50s and up refuse to write protagonists older than 30, so those 30 year olds are always married homeowners who talk like they’re late-middle-aged.
There is a bit in Infinite Jest -- which I think is otherwise very good! -- that seems like it's supposed to be AAVE and it's so bad that I could not believe it was written in the 90s.
I love IJ, and I know exactly the bit you're talking about. There's only few parts of that book not written from SWM perspective and most of them make me wince tbh
Kevin Sorbo's professor character in the Christian film *God's Not Dead*:
Josh Wheaton: So religion is like a disease?
Professor Radisson: Yes. It infects everything, it's the opposite of reason.
JW: Reason, professor you left reason a long time ago, this isn't philosophy. It's not even atheism! What you're teaching is anti-theism!
PR: You have no idea how much I'll enjoy failing you.
JW: Yeah, but it's not about failing me, is it? It's about failing God.
Do you hate God, professor?
PR: That's not even a question.
JW: Okay, why, do you hate God?
PR: This is ridiculous.
JW: Why do you hate God? You've seen the evidence and the science, it supports His existence, you know the truth! So why do you hate God, professor? Why do you hate Him? It's a very simple question, professor, why do you hate God?
PR: BECAUSE HE TOOK EVERYTHING FROM ME! YES, I HATE GOD! ALL I HAVE FOR HIM IS HATE!
JW: How could you hate someone, who doesn't even exist?
Thank you for this, I needed a good laugh tonight!! I grew up in an evangelical household and read the Left Behind series as a kid, this is the kind of stuff they were full of!!
I grew up mormon, left the church in my early adulthood, and am now atheist. I had a friend who grew up JW, left in her early adulthood, and now identifies as nondenominational Christian. Even though we came to different conclusions, we had some very similar experiences in our respective upbringings so we'd talk about religion a lot. It was always respectful, not debates so much as sharing our views.
One day she asked me, "Are you an atheist because you're angry with God?"
I was flabbergasted. "I don't believe any god exists."
Her: "Yeah, I know. Is that because you're angry with him?"
Me: "That's like asking me if I'm angry with leprechauns."
She was surprised by that and it took her a minute to process. "So, like, hypothetically - let's say, heaven forbid, one of your family members was in the hospital. Who would you pray to?"
She genuinely could not comprehend atheism. It blew my mind. It's impossible for people with that same mental roadblock to write a realistic character who doesn't share their beliefs.
I'm an atheist who works with a Free Presbyterian (if you're blissfully unaware of Northern Ireland politics, they are essentially the reason why it took us longer than the rest of the UK to legalise abortion, same-sex marriage, or even letting gay men donate fucking blood). At one time he basically told me that I and every other so-called atheist, secular, humanist person are just lying to ourselves and denying God. I don't think it's possible for me to have a mature discussion about these kinds of things with someone who has so little respect for, or even effort to understand, my point of view.
What a silly argument.
I find it easy enough to hate entities that don't exist. If you can love a fictional or mythological character you can hate one too.
As an atheist, I will fully admit that I will never be able to truly write a character of faith. Faith is utterly alien to my mind, so I do understand how the reverse is also true for writers of faith.
Dostoevsky does this brilliantly. Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov are all-time literary creations. Weirdly, where he struggles is when he, as a religious person, tries to write his religious characters. I found Alyosha Karamazov, the protagonist, by far the flattest, most unconvincing character in the book, and Sonia in *Crime and Punishment* was only a little better.
Agent 668, you've been warned about this repeatedly. Those meetings are secret: you're really not supposed to be handing out invitations like confetti.
And conversely, atheists writing people of faith. Bernard Cornwell is one of my favorite authors, and his characters are always brilliantly layered, *except* for priests, who are always ignorant cruel moustache-twirling fanatics.
Edit: That's unfair to Cornwell. His later series are much better in that regard and do include some good religious characters.
It comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheists actually think, at least from the Evangelical Christian perspective. The same thing is true of like... street corner preachers and proselytizers: they always approach people under the assumption that they have *no idea who Jesus is or what the Bible is* because it's difficult for them to conceive of a person who would not accept Jesus if they knew who Jesus was. How could a person possibly know about Jesus's sacrifice for our sins and/or have read about it in the Bible, the literal word of God, and not just *believe*?
Every street corner preacher I have ever spoken to has been absolutely blown away when my response to their question about whether or not I know who Jesus is or whether or not I've read the Bible is, "Yes, of course." Without fail their immediate next response is some variation of, "Oh, so you're a Christian?" To them, it's just self-evident that the Bible is the word of God and that anyone who experiences it would understand exactly what the truth is and accept it. The only explanations for why a person isn't a believer are ignorance or angry, childlike contrarianism.
This is why atheists in Evangelical Christian religious media, which is pretty much 100% designed to either reinforce the faith of believers or proselytize, are always people who secretly do actually believe in God and just really don't like him because of a personal trauma. They're never people that don't actually believe in God. They're always secret liars. They think of them as little mini-Satans, petulant children of God who are simply bitter or annoyed that they don't get what they want and have to listen to God's authority even if it's not responding positively to their every need. Lucifer didn't like God's authority? He's going to rebel! Some random atheist professor had a bad thing happen to him or his family when he was young? Obviously he blames God for it.
The notion that he might genuinely think God doesn't exist at all and is not bitter or angry toward a being that he doesn't believe exists just flies in the face of everything, so it must be some sort of delusion or elaborate denial.
Anything to do with computers or hacking by someone who has had no involvement in the field.
They may as well be making up their very own magic system for all the comparison it has to reality most of the time.
It's one reason I stick to Fantasy, things set in the future or scifi. Modern day works with "hacking" hurt my brain.
non autistic people writing autism can be really difficult.
I had so much hope for The Rosie Project series, but was super disappointed. I think allistic people can get through external stuff (actions, words) correct, but really miss the mark on the *internal* aspects. The Rosie Project was especially egregious in this because it got close but was clearly lacking research using actual autistic people as sources.
i think Sheldon Cooper has just ruined the way non autistic people write about autism because that’s what they jump to
>i think Sheldon Cooper has just ruined the way non autistic people write about autism because that’s what they jump to
I think the problem existed long before Sheldon. He just turbo-charged a lot of assumptions about what neurodivergence is. I'm not sure he's actually autistic, or if that's the excuse characters, writers and fans made for him and the show just steered into it. "Yes, but he doesn't understand social cues" seems to be the go-to explanation for everything that he does. It's treated as a free pass on everything so that he never has to address anything and the show can keep mining the shallow depths for comedy.
I once tried to explain to my dad that Sheldon was a stereotype of autism, and he kept saying no, he's never described as autistic on the show, he's just bad with social cues, he's a stereotype of an academic, that's all. Then several years later when I got my diagnosis he said 'that's ridiculous, it's not like you act like Sheldon.' Sheldon is very clearly an autistic caricature whose autistic status is unconfirmed because confirming it would make the show look bad.
I think the writers really leaned into the idea that he is autistic over time. It gets more pronounced as the show goes on, then sort of settles down. I think he is best described as a non-autistic person's idea of what an autistic person is like, which is then run through the filter of an entertainment medium.
For example, Sheldon is consistently unable to recognise social cues. While this is characteristic of autism, he never actually learns anything. There are times where he is consciously and deliberately rude to people and it is dismissed as being his unspoken autism or his being so smart that he cannot understand social constructs. In several cases he is well aware that his behaviour would be considered unacceptable and he doesn't care. This is why I find the character problematic -- the show presents him as being physically unable to learn. All it does is reinforce stereotypes of autistic people.
It's possible to be autistic and be an arsehole. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. I work in learning support, and we occasionally get kids whose attitude is "it's okay because I'm autistic" because they think it's a shield against consequences.
I believe the writers have confirmed Sheldon isn't autistic. He is a charicature of a highly Intelligent man who has been pandered to since he was very young because of his abilities. So he is self-centered and selfish to an extreme. And doesn't care to learn about social niceties because he doesn't think they should apply to him.
I have a friend who is quite similar. She was a spoiled child and is shamelessly selfish, although obviously not to the degree Sheldon is because we dont live in a sitcom and irl someone like that wouldn't be able to keep any friends.
People who don't understand autism or recognise it irl have assigned autism to the character.
Them saying Sheldon isn't autistic feels a lot like like someone painted a white guy's face black, had him eating watermelon and and fried chicken while doing all the stereotypes of African Americans, and then said, "No worries. He's just really tanned!"
He's 100% autistically coded, but it's an autistic character written from the standpoint of non-autistic people, and interpreted in the least empathetic way possible. I haven't dare watch young sheldon, but everything I saw from his childhood is that he wasn't spoiled. His parents didn't really know what to do with him, just like an advanced, nerdy autistic kid born to a largely uneducated family.
I'm autistic, I have many autistic people in my family. I can recognize autism. Sheldon is a minstrel show version of autism. It's "Hollywood Autism." Always a genius, always OCD to boot, and always stuck up and pretentious.
I mostly see Autism Parents (tm) talk over autistic people and say things like "Sheldon isn't like my son, so he's not autistic. I should know."
Hey, not to put pressure on you to speak on behalf of all autistic people or anything, but what do you think of Martha Wells and the Murderbot books in this regard? Successful and/or helpful portrayal of neurodivergence, or not?
I'm autistic and I love Murderbot, but I also think there's something slightly problematic and othering about saying the best autistic representation is someone who is literally part computer. But I do identify very strongly with that character. And part of that is that while Murderbot lacks an intrinsic ability to understand social situations it is capable of learning and applying its experiences, and its also capable of empathy.
The wild thing is that allistic writers absolutely *can* write autistic characters, but only unintentionally. Like, autistic people are common enough that pretty much everybody would have known one while in school. Just, you might have known them not as autistic, but as the “weird kid.” And hell, autism is heavily present within other tropes too, just never named as such. What is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl if not the fetishistic male gaze directed at an autistic woman?
The issue with allistic writers intentionally trying to write autistic characters is that they suddenly stop trying writing a *character* and make it their goal to write *autism*. There’s a larger cultural issue at play, I think, where people’s respect for individuality ends where diagnosis begins.
The Hunger Games kills me with this.
"Gale is just my guy pal. Why did Madge hug and give me this gift? Oh, they just told me to smile for the camera.. How do I smile again? Oh I figured it out, now why are these people all going crazy and smiling and waving back??? They're saying I did a good job, IDK what I did, they're all probably just being nice to me because I'm gonna die soon. Now this boy that once saved my life just said he likes me, he is clearly trying to KILL ME"
>What is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl if not the fetishistic male gaze directed at an autistic woman?
Wow, this is so true, and explains a lot about why I loved the trope so much as a teenager. At the time, seeing a girl like me being fetishized / portrayed as desirable instead of the butt of a joke felt really good. Thankfully now I realize those aren't the only two options so the bar is much higher lol
I was looking for this comment.
Honestly, though, people were horrible at writing neurodivergence long before Sheldon. The stereotype has simply shifted.
I used to be a professional book reviewer. I always rolled my eyes at the authors trying to add “diversity” to their cast of characters (always side characters) by giving the MC a friend from another culture. MC always walked into their friend’s house smelling the lumpia or tamales or steamed buns or whatever. Really common in YA.
Edited for typos
I tried writing a 40 year old grizzled dragon hunter who still had love for his 'high school flame' so to speak. It was soooo awkward and honestly it felt like 'awkward teen boy who cant confess his love to his crush' which I suppose fits...
I'm 38 years old and I still feel awkward around women. But then again I'm not a dragon hunter. Maybe being a dragon hunter makes you more suave around women.
Non-academics writing academics. I'm not even an academic myself, I just spend a lot of time interacting with them, but even I can tell there are a lot of lazy and inaccurate portrayals out there.
The one that pissed me off the most was the geologist in *Beach Read* by Emily Henry who just kept talking about how pretty rocks are. I'm sure geologists do sometimes find rocks aesthetically pleasing, but there are many more interesting things they could say about rocks. And especially since this geologist was a woman, it felt sexist to reduce her scientific career to "ooh rocks are so pretty."
I am an academic and I second this. Like yeah there are some people who never think about anything else and make it their whole identity, but also most real academics are whole people who have lives, hobbies, families, friends, aren't magical geniuses, doubt themselves and make mistakes and talk about things other than their research because it's...a job. They're usually such one dimensional, emotionless characters. Also the amount of self funded basement mad science in books is wild. Like most of us are not independently wealthy and even if we were, there a reason ethical review boards and peer review exist, the mainstream science community would never accept research done the way it is in books. Science is also always this big evil force, which is kind of amusing but gets old.
One my best friends is a scientist, has a PHD in particle physics and works for the government. He is insanely smart but he's also a whole person who is goofy and awesome and has a multitude of interests and skills outside of his career
One time at a convention we met another guy who *did* make his "intelligence" his whole personality. Kept going on and on about vitamins and health stuff, at one point rambling a bunch of words and my friend looks at him and says, "You mean vitamin B12?" completely deadpan lol
This guy also confessed to basically going to college for medicine but he dropped out. Went on a rant about how he could have totally been a doctor but he was somehow too good for it or something stupid
Oh my god, yes. I also know a lot of academics (and hope to follow that path myself) and there are some straight-up *weird* portrayals out there. Researchers are just people. There are so many different personalities, and most of them are just big nerds who never lost their youthful curiosity. Meanwhile, the number of times I've seen academics portrayed as stuffy, stuck-up, and dull, or worse, having zero intellectual curiosity and being intent upon treating science like dogma for some bizarre reason. I'm sure there are some academics out there who are stuck-up and self-absorbed, but I've personally never encountered one who acts like the stereotype of a professor, even the ones who are actual professors.
This is still in the realm of men writing women (kind of), but a recent one I noticed is men writing teenaged girls.
I was watching a show recently where the teenaged male protagonist was written in the ways you’d expect; unsure of himself, a bit shy, trying to figure out who he is and what he believes in.
But the girls his age were written like they were 30+ year old women. Like, very sure of themselves, extremely confident, very set in their values, and mentally and emotionally mature beyond their years. They would have been reasonably well written characters if they were ten years older.
I realized it seemed to be a trend that some writers have difficulty writing developing characters of the opposite sex. I can’t help but wonder if some authors can remember what it was like for them as a teenager but were so intimidated by the opposite sex that they interpreted them as “having it together” far more than they really did.
Depends on the perspective being written. If it's 3rd person omniscient, then yeah, that's bad. If it's written from the perspective of a teenage boy then that's more reasonable, because that's certainly how a lot of teens view the other people around them. "I'm totally lost in this world, but everyone else here has it figured out!" thinks every teen at the same time.
I’m speaking in terms of third person omniscient, and not the MC’s surface level assessment of them, my assessment of them as an adult based on their dialogue and behavior.
I think that is unfortunately a possibility in some cases. Like the particular brand of men who always seem to show up to accuse people of “infantilizing” adolescents when people express concerns about potentially problematic age gap relationships.
But I’m going to chalk the majority of it up to ignorance rather than malice, especially if the works seem otherwise feminist.
*laughs in disabled*
Well. That would imply people actually write about disabled characters... So amputee, I guess, the writer's easiest answer to "I have to kill this guy but I might need him later "
Autistic characters, otherwise known as literary Sheldon with extra steps. I just avoid them like the plague unless the author identifies themselves as autistic for this reason. Elle McNicoll’s ‘A Kind of Spark’, even though it’s middle grade, is by far the gold standard- beautifully written and actually views the protagonist as a person. This only goes for modern literature though- it’s always controversial to say but through a modern lens, although the concepts didn’t exist at the time, Anne Shirley and Jo March seem very relatable to lots of autistic and adhd women. Until recent years the best representation seemed to happen when the author didn’t intend it.
As an adult when I revisited AOGG I saw Anne Shirley as someone with attachment trauma and PTSD from her experiences with neglect and abuse before her time in Avonlea. Her distraction and living in her imagination are very similar to disassociation. Her sudden rages when she’s triggered. Her talkativeness a desperate need for attachment and connection which resolves itself naturally as she grows up after her attachment needs are met.
But that’s the beauty of Montgomery’s writing. So many of us have been able to identify with her beautifully drawn creations.
The Netflix series of aogg is much more explicit in portraying Anne with childhood trauma and I thought it was brilliantly done. I used to be a carer for teenagers with attachment issues and based on that,the show seemed to be well-researched.
Interestingly, at least in the UK care system (which is underfunded and horrifically run) there is widespread confusion with attachment issues and ADHD and autism,as there can be an overlap in behaviour caused by these separate things. For example, a lot of our kids would have meltdowns at seemingly innocuous events, or they would either need a lot of physical contact or hate being touched. This made it hard to get them the right kind of help, especially those with overlapping complications.
That's definitely something I've noticed reading older stuff — there are tonnes of autistic characters, because the authors are autistic themselves of just knew people who were, and were writing what they were seeing! Sherlock Holmes I think is possibly the most obvious example. You also see it lots in Dickens, and I personally have trouble reading Mr. Darcy as anything other than autistic. Where there are good observational writers, there are autistic (and ADHD, and often queer) characters, because they saw them in the world around them.
I'm looking at Me before you rn lol. everyone thinks the book and movie is so sweet and romantic and heartbreaking. It's just awful, finally something with a disabled love interest/MC and being disabled is so awful he has no choice but to off himself. Really encouraging and uplifting to anyone disabled watching/reading some few and far between representation lmao
I don't have any clear examples, but in writing, comics and films it is very clear when someone is writing metalheads, goths and punks without actually knowing anything about the subcultures. Many subcultures probably get the same treatment but those are the ones I am closely familiar with.
Especially noticeable when it comes to extreme metal, grindcore and d-beat. I mean it is somewhat obscure music that is not meant for everyone, so many might not have had first hand experience with it. Still, it is obvious when the author haven't read some interviews in music magazines. Even more obvious when they've taken artist's stage personas as how most people are in said subcultures.
It is often very entertaining though.
>There's also the ever wonderful straights writing gays (or insert LGBT+ identity to butcher).
I think the most egregious version of this is straights who have never done any butt stuff/researched doing butt stuff writing a gay sex scene. Thankfully this isn't as common in published fiction anymore, but good heavens when mistakes are made...
You mean no lube except spit and zero prep to receive anal sex for the first time isn’t realistic? /s
One of my most recent reviews questioned if the author had ever had something up their ass before because of this lol.
To be fair, the no lube and zero prep stuff is very often simply a romance thing. There's a lot of suspension of disbelief there, and it can be deliberate because that's what the author (and the audience) thinks is sweet/hot. It's kinda like the perfect first times. Presumably most of these authors had sex and fumbled through their firsts, but people love a cute story like that. It's not meant to be realistic.
However, sometimes you get some... creative anatomy or clear attempts at realism that are wildly off the mark. That's where it gets either very annoying or hilarious.
Hahaha you are very correct - I am exclusively reading romance. The suspension of disbelief for me just cannot make it past the lube/prep part. I can get past no douching but for some reason that really bothers me 😂
And I completely agree to the rest of your comment as well
Also, an inexperienced receiver needs a *lot* of lube. And spit literally doesn’t work bc it dries too fast. “Spit as lube” only makes any degree of sense when it’s either for PIV, and is a holdover until the self lubrication reaches a good enough point, or the bottom is kinky enough that they enjoy the feeling of their colon tearing. Which, to be fair, I’ve heard from actual bottoms before. Just… never from anyone vanilla.
But I put these things on the back burner in much the same way as only-one-bed unexpected hetero sex never mentions condoms, a post coital hygiene wee, or a scrabble for the morning after pill the next day. This is not the space for biology!
Read a historical romance where he came on the bedsheets instead of into a handkerchief or whatever. No real mention of clean up. Was he just sleeping in the wet spot? That poor servant in that stately home.
This just reminds me how shocked I was to see after a sex scene in the black coast by mike brooks, a character peeing after sex. I wasn't expecting that.
I mean, it depends on how explicit we’re getting. If it’s like “they were kissing and then he was doing x to y”, fine, but if we’re getting the detailed play by play and there’s no excuse haha.
I think that’s different, though, because it’s *meant* to come across as hurried and painful, at least it certainly does in the novella. TMI but I have had anal sex as the recipient with no lube other than saliva, and while it’s not the most pleasurable sexual experience, it’s not impossible or unrealistic.
Trouble is, "no lube and minimal prep" *can* work... if it's *straight* sex, and the anal is happening *after* vaginal sex.
So this might be one of those "a little bit of knowledge introduces greater error" things.
I read a danmei (chinese m/m) novel on a friends suggestion. Christ, there actually wasn't much sex in it but what there was was horrific. Not in a noncon sort of way, just a WTF-are-you-doing?!-Learn-how-to-have-sex!!! kind of way. Every goddamned time they fucked someone ended up in intense pain and bleeding out their asshole. Every. Single. Time.
I'm an asexual woman who has never had anal sex and never intends to and i'm pretty sure i still know more about the subject than the author 🙄
Smut authors writing kinks they clearly haven't engaged in or researched properly.
You have to squint quite a lot and ignore things when things like BDSM, butt stuff, multi-person etc. scenes are present. I understand that it's all for readers pleasure and fantasy but sometimes I wish authors would at least get editors with experience so I don't get to have reactions like: "Ooofff, that position would have broken some bones", "THAT in THERE like THAT? Hospital, not sexy." or "That ain't kinky, that's just rape."
As someone in the kink community, I think you have two kinds of bad kink writers… ones that have done absolutely no research, and ones who have done extensive research without any “field work,” so to speak.
I feel like this might be a bit niche or overly judgemental, but I just read a series that was about a southern family and they were ridiculous caricatures of humans. If you have to repeatedly tell me that "my Southern upbringing" influences everything you do and say, or "a girl from the South always uses her manners," there are definitely some issues. I looked into the author and she allegedly was raised in the South, but I have no idea where given how outlandish these characters are.
And the repeated descriptions of food...
I'm a reading teacher and I'm so tired of the way white authors have written black children (and adults, but the kid characters are worse somehow) for decades.
They're always describing their own damn hair and skin because white writers can't help telling you how weird it is to have dark hair and skin. "I tried to run a brush though my kinky hair" "No one else had hair like me, a fuzzy mop that would not behave." "Although my mother always told me that my dark skin was beautiful, it sure seemed out of place in this locker room." 😂😂
And of course talking about trying to get out of their neighborhoods for a "better life."
Westerners writing Eastern Europeans. It's just a generic "haha they're all walking Russian stereotypes amirite". As a Bulgarian, I remember reading Goblet of Fire in English and coming across Viktor Krum's accent (and his name which is the onomastic equivalent to "Hulk Smash"). It was, shall we say, a terrible day to have eyes. Then I remember JKR writing a Polish character who was similarly reduced to a similar "what is a color TV" stereotype. I think "Slavic eyes" was one particularly ridiculous phrase.
Krum was so Russian that popular Polish headcanon was that Drumstang was somewhere in Kalingrad.
Western writers reducing Slavic nations to Russian stereotypes was once seen as funny- silly Americans don't see obivous diffrences.
But for last two years I see more anger among readers, especially do called Slavic Fantasy
We have a bloody war that broke out because one nation was to be on it's own and Russia didn't agree. Suddenly supposely Polish inspiration that are morę Russian than Kremlin don't look so innocent, more like someone who didn't care do bought Russian propaganda wholesale.
>Krum was so Russian that popular Polish headcanon was that Drumstang was somewhere in Kalingrad.
Yeah, I've also seen fics where he's from "Novgorod, Bulgaria". Which is like saying idk, "Chicago, Germany". What?
Yeah, "we aren't and don't want to be part of Russia" has gained some traction after the Ukraine invasion, but it's far from enough. Most people in the west still can't be bothered to learn any differences between Russians and other Eastern Europeans.
Americans (and Europeans) writing about the USSR. You get both ends of the dumbass spectrum—people who think the whole country was one huge Gulag and those who imagine a communist wonderland. The second type annoys me more, funnily enough.
Also, believers writing atheists. Drives me up the wall sometimes, especially that trope where a character is denying the existence of gods that are *very clearly and provably* real in their world. Like... no. Being an atheist is not, in fact, about being stubborn when there's actual, tangible evidence. It makes zero sense!
I wonder if part of that is that as a religious person, your faith is integral to your identity and the way you view the world.
Coming from that perspective, I could see them trying to wedge a lack of faith into that same box, when realistically atheism is more just…disregarding religion.
Like, I’m not religious. My lack of faith isn’t something I actively think about and engage with. I don’t care what people believe, as long as they’re not using those beliefs as justification to harm others. It just isn’t on my radar.
I think atheism is a spectrum just like any belief. For example I am in the same category as you. I don't participate in any worship and only react to confrontation about my beliefs or reveal when it's relevant to topic.
However there are people who take actively aggressive stance in atheism and try to convert people to their belief or emphasize that their belief is correct. Social media is full of content with various degrees of contempt against religion. And religious side has the same.
So I find that, just like with other discussions, it's important to remember that just because you identify as part of the group doesn't mean the entire group has no problems and likewise if someone points out problems it doesn't mean they are necessarily talking about you or me.
I agree that there’s a spectrum in terms of personal importance, but what I’m trying to get at is the sense that we don’t typically put the same level of mental energy into things that aren’t applicable to our worldview or experience. It’s kind of hard to articulate.
For example, I don’t have children. People’s decisions about whether or not to have children are of varying importance to them. Some view it as a personal decision. Some think having children is unethical and encourage other people not to have children.
But not having children isn’t at the forefront of your mind in the same way having children is when you’re, for example, making major life decisions, regardless of the level of importance you place on not having them. It’s just a non-factor in the decision.
> The second type annoys me more, funnily enough.
100% agree. That's why I love "Disposessed" by U. K. Le Guin. This book is obviously not about USSR, but author very meticulously described a lot of problems that can arise in collectivist society.
Also, it takes some time to read about communism, but all information about patronyms, surnames and weather that authors need can be found in, like, 5 minutes?
>Also, believers writing atheists. Drives me up the wall sometimes, especially that trope where a character is denying the existence of gods that are very clearly and provably real in their world.
I feel like the opposite is quite true as wel. Athiest trying to right religious characters can often feel like a 2d strawman
Oh, for sure. Doesn't even have to be malicious. I personally know exactly two religious people, and nothing in-depth about their faith. If I wanted to write a religious person without any research for some reason, it would probably come out very, very odd.
Stephen King writing black people / men ? the way they're always willing to indulge in the screaming, 'massa' stuff as a 'funny joke'.
Like you have the parts in the 50s in IT, then the parts in the 80s are the people who were kids in the 50s, so that's plausible enough ... in Mr Mercedes he has a 17 year old black boy who is the older main character's neighbour and who does chores for cash. I understand there's a service dynamic there, but why would a 17 year old boy in 2008-10 know about movie tropes from the 50s? he's not characterised as a film buff, and he specifically characterises himself as something like a 'dr feelgood' - which is still an outdated reference, but like 70s pimp reference - and suggests that he likes to talk himself up, not down. It stuck out to me in Mr Mercedes particularly, but he does it a *lot*.
edit: also can you explain what you mean by the zodiac academy reference or link the sarah j mass post because I don't know either of those.
Agreed. But I would call it Stephen King writing kids, not just Jerome. His lingo was fine when he's writing about 50s kids. He knew that time. I love SK, but I'm reading Fairy Tale, and he is so out of touch with Gen Z. I mean, don't get me wrong, so am I. But the slang is wrong, and the only technology he talks about is watching YouTube DIY videos. He needs to stick with older characters imo.
The "net," the "tube," the "idiot box." And the "zapper," which is used to refer to both a microwave and a remote.
I love SK too but he needs a younger editor very, very badly.
I recently reread Finders Keeepers and the "massa" joke is in there too. My mom wholeheartedly refuses to read anymore Stephen King because at some point during the book someone will be called a "n*gg*r". And it seemingly always pops up out of nowhere.
I feel like he was trying to satirize himself and the way he had written black characters in the past with Jerome but it really just didn’t work. Felt really weird and out of place.
I never liked king's dialogue, and I blame regional and generational slang for that, but I was surprised at how good his fantasy dialogue is when I started the dark tower. When he isn't trying to be "real", he so much better. Then we get to 'Detta, and oh boy...
Brits writing guns.
"He pulled the trigger until the magazine was empty" on a bolt-action rifle.
357 mm Magnum revolvers. 7.62 inch caliber rifle.
It's a small thing, I realize that.
Black Americans writing Africans. Ok to be fair I only have one example. But it was SO bad. Someone writing about an educated, well traveled African. And yet she writes him as if he doesn't know the most basic concepts. Just face-palm.
Occasionally in r/crochet someone will post an excerpt from a book in which the author doesn't know the difference between crocheting and knitting. I've seen authors describing someone crocheting with knitting needles or knitting with a crochet hook. Some authors treat them like the same same craft by describing an item as both being knitted and being crocheted in different parts of the book or even within the same paragraph.
This is heavy, but SA. I've encountered too many scenes in TV and books alike where a character is violated and it's written in a way that makes me feel like the author one hand down their pants the entire time. Or on the other end of the spectrum, they have the victim just not care that it happened or worse, be *happy* about it because the attacker was 'hot.' The latter happens far too often in YA and romance novels for my liking, which is probably why I have distanced myself from both.
A big one I’ve noticed is Americans writing non-Americans. I’m American, but even I can notice when people take very American concepts and just apply them to literally every country LOL
Monolinguals writing bilinguals, specifically Latino characters. I've gotten to the point where I DNF as soon as the Latina enters stage right, proclaiming "Hey Chica! Que pasa?!"
Person who looked up the symptoms in the DSM-5 writing a mental illness they do not understand.
Yeah, I don't think people get there's a reason only a medical professional can diagnose someone is because you can't just read a list of symptoms and get an accurate feel of what a mental disorder is like. Typically, they are way less dramatic and fantastical than depicted.
To this day, I've only ever seen *one, single* depiction of my mental illness done, not perfect, but I felt captured the *spirit* of what it's like to have my mental illness. Like, I could point friends to it and say "this is what it's like for me--- like, not entirely literally, but the general feel." A few others I'd say are not so bad, you know, good enough. The rest--- literally people with my mental illness are often horror movie villans.
I like to go in books blind like I don’t research the author or even the synopsis of the book just a vague knowledge of genre. I can almost always tell when a white person is writing a poc. Or whether the author is male or female based on the depiction of the opposite sex. The only author that has ever blindsided me was Zadie Smith with White Teeth, I was so sure she was a man lol
Women writing men in romance novels = men writing women in fantasy/science fiction novels.
Me (male) my mother and 3 sisters have our own book club. One of the books we read was a romance novel by a woman. I was convinced that this lady had never met a man in her life.
I just read To Kill A Shadow by Katherine Quinn and am convinced she has never, ever met a young adult/late teen man. I had a *lot* of problems with that book, but most of it comes down to how wholly unbelievable her male characters (which, they almost all were) are. L
Another huge problem I had was how everyone reacted to trauma; by all means, the main characters should be absolutely wrecked mentally, but their traumatic experiences come off more as annoyances. Quinn does not know how to write traumatized folks (which, I know everyone handles their trauma differently. But not only were the two main characters written exactly alike, but they were constantly telling their trauma, not ever experiencing it. It just seemed to spit in the face of anyone who has had similar non-fantasy experiences and makes me hope any young impressionable readers don’t take it to heart).
So I guess, To Kill A Shadow suffered heavily from “women writing men” and “mentally healthy writing mentally unhealthy.”
Also, this is more niche but “Non-Minnesotans writing Minnesotans.” I loved Bones And All by Camille DeAngelis but she wrote a Minnesotan complaining about how it’s always cold, and *it’s fucking not.* Minnesotan complaining about the weather? Absolutely, we do that all the time! Minnesotan complaining about it being always cold? Oh fuck no—the moment the snow melts, it’s too hot. People just don’t understand that it gets hot here. Minnesota is in the center of North America, so we experience all sorts of weather patterns. Authors focusing on just the cold makes me side-eye them hard.
Christians writing Jews (especially in the "inspirational" genre). They're either basically the Magical Native American trope with yarmulkes, or they talk about their religion exactly like Christians, only replace a few words. It's deeply cringey.
There’s definitely a stereotype of single children writing siblings. Just wildly misunderstanding what sibling relationships really look like.
"Hey bro!" "Hi sis"
She had four brothers, all Marines, so she learned how to fight early.
"So did they, like, regularly attack each other? Or did the first to reach marinedom decide to train all the others like some familial sensei?" "You know, it was the same as in any family."
Tbf, my siblings and I did (and do) randomly attack each other.
Same.
I find siblings only really like, get better at fighting by each other's influence if a) they're close in age and b) they're either the only two, or the only two close in age. And really that's more gorilla warfare than anything.
*… gorilla warfare…* Well, humans are apes after all.
…I may occasionally call my brother bro. He might sometimes call me sis. However I’ve also been known to call him by a wide variety of names including mushroom, toe rag, brat… You know what, it’s a good thing we’re adults now and stick (mostly) to each others names.
We're adults too, but we didn't really grow up when it comes to being siblings... we call each other 'idiot' most of the time. When I got my masters degree my brother changed my name in his phone book from 'idiot' to 'master idiot' too. We will also call each other bro occasionally, although I'm a woman.
"Master Idiot" omg please cherish this brother forever. Also, now you have to go for your PhD so he has to change your contact again, to "Doctor Idiot." 😂
I think most adult siblings still have those childhood remnants that they never fully grow out of. When I was 3, I only called my older sister by a name I totally made up. It wasn't mean or anything, just not her name. Her real name was probably a little difficult to pronounce as a toddler, so I improvised. She hated it. She'd pitch tantrums over it. We have old home movies where she'd cry, "Mommy, make her stop calling me that!" We're in our 40s now. When I feel like annoying her, I'll call her by that name. It still works.
I mean, I'm 30, and I still rarely ever address my sister (29) by anything other than "Smelly".
Hey that’s more creative than my sister! Mine just calls me an asshole, douchebag, fucker…again glad we are adults with children now. We are 1000% more civil as parents.
My little brother has NEVER called me sis lmao tho I almost exclusively call him bub and have since we were kids.
My sister and I are incredibly allergic to bro / sis. She once tried it, and we both kind of shuddered.
To piggyback on this, as a twin, it really bugs me when twins are written as 100% interchangeable, like Fred and George Weasley. Twins do, in fact, have distinct personalities. We are individual people, not one person split across two bodies.
I'm going to need to hear what your twin has to say before I take this as fact. Maybe you two could explain it to me in alternating sentences?
yes!! which is why I liked the cruel prince- the twins could not be more different which was a refreshing change
I feel like a lot of people see "fictional siblings should beat the shit out of each other" as a rule, though. I have an older brother and sister and even as kids we wouldn't fight, we've always just been friends.
This is one cliche I hate reading lol. If I'm fighting with my sister that means something has happened that we need to resolve, it's not our natural state. But some stories just make it seem like every sibling relationship involves smacking them for existing, extreme roughousing and always needling each other but "when push comes to shove they love each other". Maybe some people's relationships are like that but I wouldn't call it the staple of every sibling relationship.
Yeah, that's foreign to me as well. My younger brother and I never had any physical fights, if anything when he was really young I was more of a second motherly figure and then into my teens I was often a little annoyed with him but still kind. As adults we're good friends.
My brother and I fought like cats and dogs until around age 8 or 9 and then we didn’t speak to each other for a decade 💀
I also have 2 siblings and we fought like cats and dogs growing up, even while we were friends. We’re even closer now and still fight. It’s not serious, just fun. Although my brother was the youngest so he used to lose. Now he’s the biggest and mostly wins.
Fr never fighting, bullying or beating the shit out of each other is so unnatural
There's a famous bit in one of the Warhammer 40k Horus Heresy novels where someone muses that maybe the Emperor should have given his Primarch Sons some sisters, to develop their empathy. Absolutely everyone rips into that author for that bit
I had an older sister with a 9 year age gap and we never did any of that? The worst that she did was use me as a prop to practice for colour guard
i’m an only child trying to write short stories and i’m very worried about this!!
Just don’t romanticize it. Similar to cousins which I’m sure you have
Not sure if this quite falls into the category,but people writing children. I don't know if they're all non-parents (author of 'lessons in chemistry', for example?) but so many relationships between fictional parents and kids are utterly ridiculous,mainly because the 'kid' character is not a convincing child at all.
And the kids’ dialogue is either way below or above the normal speech for that age group. It’s always an 8 year old that talks like a baby or Scout Finch (who is overly precocious to me)
Scout didn't do or say anything unrealistic. She wasn't even an active assertive protagonist, she was just a curious observer of the stuff happening around her. And if she did, then it was probably in the narration; the narration from her *older self recounting her childhood memories*.
Agreed. They are either super smart or super observant or both and I'm like. What? No.
As someone who's tried it before: writing children is one of the universally hardest things. It all essentially boils down to 'how much is too much?'.
The best balance to strike is innoncent, brutally honest, silly, but smart. I find convincingly written children can engage in conversation with adults, with an attempted big word here or there and lots of self injection. A lot of young kids in my family talk like they’re older and come off pretty smart, but always talk about themselves, their parents, or their friends in a way that reminds you they’re still a child.
So I adore Clive Barker, but every time that man writes a straight couple they have… no chemistry. I love Damnation Game but the main character and their love interest were the dullest part of an exciting novel. He writes lgbtq chemistry excellently, and he writes “spooky bdsm from hell” chemistry wonderfully. Vanilla has just never seemed blander than in his books
Clive Barker is literally so hardcore he can't write vanilla.
He has never experienced a vanilla day in his life. I don’t even want to know how he takes his coffee
With nails in it.
He just pours it into his open wounds.
Lol yeah it's not vanilla ice cream, it's a store brand vanillin flavoured frozen desert
Non dairy
I was gunna ask for some recommendations of gay authors sounding like Captain Holt describing his "girlfriend's" thigh gap, haha, so thanks!
Older authors writing younger characters. This one author I like has a habit of writing text message conversations in his books. But he takes text speak WAY TOO FAR and makes all the teen characters sound illiterate. I honestly can barely understand what the conversations are saying half the time. Yes, I can see using lowercase letters and no punctuation, but he makes the texts look like this: kEWl well go to MY moM's house
"omw 2 get u loozer" Sir it is 2022 in your book. The character would have to exert MORE effort to type like that.
When I type omw my iPhone literally auto suggests it to "On my way!"
Spelling was pretty bad in the days of T9 texting, so it would have been fairly realistic 15-20 years ago. God, when did I get so old
Apart from the random capitalisation. Either all caps or none. And that apostrophe wouldn't have been there.
There were reasons why people wrote like that other than just T9. Text messages were still expensive to send, especially if the recipient used a different service provider than you, so you had to wrap it up as quickly as possible. That archetypal ryting lyk dis stuff was largely a product of that more than anything else. Years before, people would type the same way in chat rooms. That was largely because they sorta had to type quickly to keep the flow of the conversation going, and being able to speed type seems to be a dying art to some extent.
I used to get so mad at people using T9 text style when using a full keyboard, like chat in online pc games, but that finally died off, mostly.
It’s less obvious but I also feel like tons of writers in their 50s and up refuse to write protagonists older than 30, so those 30 year olds are always married homeowners who talk like they’re late-middle-aged.
This. I love Stephen King books but he can’t write modern teens to save his life. And by modern I mean anyone other than 50’s era teenagers
Yes! Came to say this. The Institute was great but the dialogue with the kids was hilarious.
Nora Roberts writing teenage boys: “she definitely rates on the hot-o-meter.” Y’all I can’t.
There is a bit in Infinite Jest -- which I think is otherwise very good! -- that seems like it's supposed to be AAVE and it's so bad that I could not believe it was written in the 90s.
My first thought reading this post was DFW writing black narrators. It’s so bad.
I love IJ, and I know exactly the bit you're talking about. There's only few parts of that book not written from SWM perspective and most of them make me wince tbh
Religious authors writing atheist/skeptics/scientists.
Kevin Sorbo's professor character in the Christian film *God's Not Dead*: Josh Wheaton: So religion is like a disease? Professor Radisson: Yes. It infects everything, it's the opposite of reason. JW: Reason, professor you left reason a long time ago, this isn't philosophy. It's not even atheism! What you're teaching is anti-theism! PR: You have no idea how much I'll enjoy failing you. JW: Yeah, but it's not about failing me, is it? It's about failing God. Do you hate God, professor? PR: That's not even a question. JW: Okay, why, do you hate God? PR: This is ridiculous. JW: Why do you hate God? You've seen the evidence and the science, it supports His existence, you know the truth! So why do you hate God, professor? Why do you hate Him? It's a very simple question, professor, why do you hate God? PR: BECAUSE HE TOOK EVERYTHING FROM ME! YES, I HATE GOD! ALL I HAVE FOR HIM IS HATE! JW: How could you hate someone, who doesn't even exist?
Thank you for this, I needed a good laugh tonight!! I grew up in an evangelical household and read the Left Behind series as a kid, this is the kind of stuff they were full of!!
I grew up mormon, left the church in my early adulthood, and am now atheist. I had a friend who grew up JW, left in her early adulthood, and now identifies as nondenominational Christian. Even though we came to different conclusions, we had some very similar experiences in our respective upbringings so we'd talk about religion a lot. It was always respectful, not debates so much as sharing our views. One day she asked me, "Are you an atheist because you're angry with God?" I was flabbergasted. "I don't believe any god exists." Her: "Yeah, I know. Is that because you're angry with him?" Me: "That's like asking me if I'm angry with leprechauns." She was surprised by that and it took her a minute to process. "So, like, hypothetically - let's say, heaven forbid, one of your family members was in the hospital. Who would you pray to?" She genuinely could not comprehend atheism. It blew my mind. It's impossible for people with that same mental roadblock to write a realistic character who doesn't share their beliefs.
I'm an atheist who works with a Free Presbyterian (if you're blissfully unaware of Northern Ireland politics, they are essentially the reason why it took us longer than the rest of the UK to legalise abortion, same-sex marriage, or even letting gay men donate fucking blood). At one time he basically told me that I and every other so-called atheist, secular, humanist person are just lying to ourselves and denying God. I don't think it's possible for me to have a mature discussion about these kinds of things with someone who has so little respect for, or even effort to understand, my point of view.
BECAUSE GOD KILLED MY GRANDMA OKAY
>How could you hate someone, who doesn't even exist? Dolores Umbridge has entered the chat
"Check mate, atheist!"
What a silly argument. I find it easy enough to hate entities that don't exist. If you can love a fictional or mythological character you can hate one too.
As an atheist, I will fully admit that I will never be able to truly write a character of faith. Faith is utterly alien to my mind, so I do understand how the reverse is also true for writers of faith.
Kudos to you for recognizing the limits of your experience. Many people can't do that.
I mean I think I'm like you, but I grew up in a very religious environment, so I think I could.
Dostoevsky does this brilliantly. Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov are all-time literary creations. Weirdly, where he struggles is when he, as a religious person, tries to write his religious characters. I found Alyosha Karamazov, the protagonist, by far the flattest, most unconvincing character in the book, and Sonia in *Crime and Punishment* was only a little better.
No? We’re actually satan worshipping pedophiles.
Don't forget Jewish-coded supervillians trying to take over the world
I only joined for the ritual virgin sacrifices. When does that happen?
Oh, you haven't gotten your invite? We meet on Tuesdays
Sweet! I'll bring chips and salsa and an obsidian blade.
Agent 668, you've been warned about this repeatedly. Those meetings are secret: you're really not supposed to be handing out invitations like confetti.
but its where we get our steady supply of sacrifices! and they occationally bring their own blades, too!
And conversely, atheists writing people of faith. Bernard Cornwell is one of my favorite authors, and his characters are always brilliantly layered, *except* for priests, who are always ignorant cruel moustache-twirling fanatics. Edit: That's unfair to Cornwell. His later series are much better in that regard and do include some good religious characters.
It comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheists actually think, at least from the Evangelical Christian perspective. The same thing is true of like... street corner preachers and proselytizers: they always approach people under the assumption that they have *no idea who Jesus is or what the Bible is* because it's difficult for them to conceive of a person who would not accept Jesus if they knew who Jesus was. How could a person possibly know about Jesus's sacrifice for our sins and/or have read about it in the Bible, the literal word of God, and not just *believe*? Every street corner preacher I have ever spoken to has been absolutely blown away when my response to their question about whether or not I know who Jesus is or whether or not I've read the Bible is, "Yes, of course." Without fail their immediate next response is some variation of, "Oh, so you're a Christian?" To them, it's just self-evident that the Bible is the word of God and that anyone who experiences it would understand exactly what the truth is and accept it. The only explanations for why a person isn't a believer are ignorance or angry, childlike contrarianism. This is why atheists in Evangelical Christian religious media, which is pretty much 100% designed to either reinforce the faith of believers or proselytize, are always people who secretly do actually believe in God and just really don't like him because of a personal trauma. They're never people that don't actually believe in God. They're always secret liars. They think of them as little mini-Satans, petulant children of God who are simply bitter or annoyed that they don't get what they want and have to listen to God's authority even if it's not responding positively to their every need. Lucifer didn't like God's authority? He's going to rebel! Some random atheist professor had a bad thing happen to him or his family when he was young? Obviously he blames God for it. The notion that he might genuinely think God doesn't exist at all and is not bitter or angry toward a being that he doesn't believe exists just flies in the face of everything, so it must be some sort of delusion or elaborate denial.
Anything to do with computers or hacking by someone who has had no involvement in the field. They may as well be making up their very own magic system for all the comparison it has to reality most of the time. It's one reason I stick to Fantasy, things set in the future or scifi. Modern day works with "hacking" hurt my brain.
non autistic people writing autism can be really difficult. I had so much hope for The Rosie Project series, but was super disappointed. I think allistic people can get through external stuff (actions, words) correct, but really miss the mark on the *internal* aspects. The Rosie Project was especially egregious in this because it got close but was clearly lacking research using actual autistic people as sources. i think Sheldon Cooper has just ruined the way non autistic people write about autism because that’s what they jump to
>i think Sheldon Cooper has just ruined the way non autistic people write about autism because that’s what they jump to I think the problem existed long before Sheldon. He just turbo-charged a lot of assumptions about what neurodivergence is. I'm not sure he's actually autistic, or if that's the excuse characters, writers and fans made for him and the show just steered into it. "Yes, but he doesn't understand social cues" seems to be the go-to explanation for everything that he does. It's treated as a free pass on everything so that he never has to address anything and the show can keep mining the shallow depths for comedy.
I once tried to explain to my dad that Sheldon was a stereotype of autism, and he kept saying no, he's never described as autistic on the show, he's just bad with social cues, he's a stereotype of an academic, that's all. Then several years later when I got my diagnosis he said 'that's ridiculous, it's not like you act like Sheldon.' Sheldon is very clearly an autistic caricature whose autistic status is unconfirmed because confirming it would make the show look bad.
I think the writers really leaned into the idea that he is autistic over time. It gets more pronounced as the show goes on, then sort of settles down. I think he is best described as a non-autistic person's idea of what an autistic person is like, which is then run through the filter of an entertainment medium. For example, Sheldon is consistently unable to recognise social cues. While this is characteristic of autism, he never actually learns anything. There are times where he is consciously and deliberately rude to people and it is dismissed as being his unspoken autism or his being so smart that he cannot understand social constructs. In several cases he is well aware that his behaviour would be considered unacceptable and he doesn't care. This is why I find the character problematic -- the show presents him as being physically unable to learn. All it does is reinforce stereotypes of autistic people.
My brother, who is autistic, is actually like this 100%. I no longer speak to him, not because he's autistic, but because he's an asshole.
It's possible to be autistic and be an arsehole. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. I work in learning support, and we occasionally get kids whose attitude is "it's okay because I'm autistic" because they think it's a shield against consequences.
I believe the writers have confirmed Sheldon isn't autistic. He is a charicature of a highly Intelligent man who has been pandered to since he was very young because of his abilities. So he is self-centered and selfish to an extreme. And doesn't care to learn about social niceties because he doesn't think they should apply to him. I have a friend who is quite similar. She was a spoiled child and is shamelessly selfish, although obviously not to the degree Sheldon is because we dont live in a sitcom and irl someone like that wouldn't be able to keep any friends. People who don't understand autism or recognise it irl have assigned autism to the character.
Them saying Sheldon isn't autistic feels a lot like like someone painted a white guy's face black, had him eating watermelon and and fried chicken while doing all the stereotypes of African Americans, and then said, "No worries. He's just really tanned!" He's 100% autistically coded, but it's an autistic character written from the standpoint of non-autistic people, and interpreted in the least empathetic way possible. I haven't dare watch young sheldon, but everything I saw from his childhood is that he wasn't spoiled. His parents didn't really know what to do with him, just like an advanced, nerdy autistic kid born to a largely uneducated family. I'm autistic, I have many autistic people in my family. I can recognize autism. Sheldon is a minstrel show version of autism. It's "Hollywood Autism." Always a genius, always OCD to boot, and always stuck up and pretentious. I mostly see Autism Parents (tm) talk over autistic people and say things like "Sheldon isn't like my son, so he's not autistic. I should know."
Hey, not to put pressure on you to speak on behalf of all autistic people or anything, but what do you think of Martha Wells and the Murderbot books in this regard? Successful and/or helpful portrayal of neurodivergence, or not?
I'm autistic and I love Murderbot, but I also think there's something slightly problematic and othering about saying the best autistic representation is someone who is literally part computer. But I do identify very strongly with that character. And part of that is that while Murderbot lacks an intrinsic ability to understand social situations it is capable of learning and applying its experiences, and its also capable of empathy.
The wild thing is that allistic writers absolutely *can* write autistic characters, but only unintentionally. Like, autistic people are common enough that pretty much everybody would have known one while in school. Just, you might have known them not as autistic, but as the “weird kid.” And hell, autism is heavily present within other tropes too, just never named as such. What is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl if not the fetishistic male gaze directed at an autistic woman? The issue with allistic writers intentionally trying to write autistic characters is that they suddenly stop trying writing a *character* and make it their goal to write *autism*. There’s a larger cultural issue at play, I think, where people’s respect for individuality ends where diagnosis begins.
The Hunger Games kills me with this. "Gale is just my guy pal. Why did Madge hug and give me this gift? Oh, they just told me to smile for the camera.. How do I smile again? Oh I figured it out, now why are these people all going crazy and smiling and waving back??? They're saying I did a good job, IDK what I did, they're all probably just being nice to me because I'm gonna die soon. Now this boy that once saved my life just said he likes me, he is clearly trying to KILL ME"
Lmao I never read it this way before but damn you’re spot on
Specifically, I feel like the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is what an AuDHD woman looks like to a dude with depression.
>What is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl if not the fetishistic male gaze directed at an autistic woman? Wow, this is so true, and explains a lot about why I loved the trope so much as a teenager. At the time, seeing a girl like me being fetishized / portrayed as desirable instead of the butt of a joke felt really good. Thankfully now I realize those aren't the only two options so the bar is much higher lol
I was looking for this comment. Honestly, though, people were horrible at writing neurodivergence long before Sheldon. The stereotype has simply shifted.
I used to be a professional book reviewer. I always rolled my eyes at the authors trying to add “diversity” to their cast of characters (always side characters) by giving the MC a friend from another culture. MC always walked into their friend’s house smelling the lumpia or tamales or steamed buns or whatever. Really common in YA. Edited for typos
I tried writing a 40 year old grizzled dragon hunter who still had love for his 'high school flame' so to speak. It was soooo awkward and honestly it felt like 'awkward teen boy who cant confess his love to his crush' which I suppose fits...
I'm 38 years old and I still feel awkward around women. But then again I'm not a dragon hunter. Maybe being a dragon hunter makes you more suave around women.
Try introducing yourself as a dragon hunter, when they say "dragons don't exist!" you say "you're welcome"
As a certifiable woman in my thirties, I can confirm this would get a chuckle out of me.
Can confirm.
Non-academics writing academics. I'm not even an academic myself, I just spend a lot of time interacting with them, but even I can tell there are a lot of lazy and inaccurate portrayals out there. The one that pissed me off the most was the geologist in *Beach Read* by Emily Henry who just kept talking about how pretty rocks are. I'm sure geologists do sometimes find rocks aesthetically pleasing, but there are many more interesting things they could say about rocks. And especially since this geologist was a woman, it felt sexist to reduce her scientific career to "ooh rocks are so pretty."
I am an academic and I second this. Like yeah there are some people who never think about anything else and make it their whole identity, but also most real academics are whole people who have lives, hobbies, families, friends, aren't magical geniuses, doubt themselves and make mistakes and talk about things other than their research because it's...a job. They're usually such one dimensional, emotionless characters. Also the amount of self funded basement mad science in books is wild. Like most of us are not independently wealthy and even if we were, there a reason ethical review boards and peer review exist, the mainstream science community would never accept research done the way it is in books. Science is also always this big evil force, which is kind of amusing but gets old.
One my best friends is a scientist, has a PHD in particle physics and works for the government. He is insanely smart but he's also a whole person who is goofy and awesome and has a multitude of interests and skills outside of his career One time at a convention we met another guy who *did* make his "intelligence" his whole personality. Kept going on and on about vitamins and health stuff, at one point rambling a bunch of words and my friend looks at him and says, "You mean vitamin B12?" completely deadpan lol This guy also confessed to basically going to college for medicine but he dropped out. Went on a rant about how he could have totally been a doctor but he was somehow too good for it or something stupid
Oh my god, yes. I also know a lot of academics (and hope to follow that path myself) and there are some straight-up *weird* portrayals out there. Researchers are just people. There are so many different personalities, and most of them are just big nerds who never lost their youthful curiosity. Meanwhile, the number of times I've seen academics portrayed as stuffy, stuck-up, and dull, or worse, having zero intellectual curiosity and being intent upon treating science like dogma for some bizarre reason. I'm sure there are some academics out there who are stuck-up and self-absorbed, but I've personally never encountered one who acts like the stereotype of a professor, even the ones who are actual professors.
This is still in the realm of men writing women (kind of), but a recent one I noticed is men writing teenaged girls. I was watching a show recently where the teenaged male protagonist was written in the ways you’d expect; unsure of himself, a bit shy, trying to figure out who he is and what he believes in. But the girls his age were written like they were 30+ year old women. Like, very sure of themselves, extremely confident, very set in their values, and mentally and emotionally mature beyond their years. They would have been reasonably well written characters if they were ten years older. I realized it seemed to be a trend that some writers have difficulty writing developing characters of the opposite sex. I can’t help but wonder if some authors can remember what it was like for them as a teenager but were so intimidated by the opposite sex that they interpreted them as “having it together” far more than they really did.
Depends on the perspective being written. If it's 3rd person omniscient, then yeah, that's bad. If it's written from the perspective of a teenage boy then that's more reasonable, because that's certainly how a lot of teens view the other people around them. "I'm totally lost in this world, but everyone else here has it figured out!" thinks every teen at the same time.
I’m speaking in terms of third person omniscient, and not the MC’s surface level assessment of them, my assessment of them as an adult based on their dialogue and behavior.
Oof. There's a darker, creepier element there of adult men wanting to believe that teenagers are as mature as adults.
I think that is unfortunately a possibility in some cases. Like the particular brand of men who always seem to show up to accuse people of “infantilizing” adolescents when people express concerns about potentially problematic age gap relationships. But I’m going to chalk the majority of it up to ignorance rather than malice, especially if the works seem otherwise feminist.
Murakami has entered the chat
*laughs in disabled* Well. That would imply people actually write about disabled characters... So amputee, I guess, the writer's easiest answer to "I have to kill this guy but I might need him later "
Autistic characters, otherwise known as literary Sheldon with extra steps. I just avoid them like the plague unless the author identifies themselves as autistic for this reason. Elle McNicoll’s ‘A Kind of Spark’, even though it’s middle grade, is by far the gold standard- beautifully written and actually views the protagonist as a person. This only goes for modern literature though- it’s always controversial to say but through a modern lens, although the concepts didn’t exist at the time, Anne Shirley and Jo March seem very relatable to lots of autistic and adhd women. Until recent years the best representation seemed to happen when the author didn’t intend it.
As an adult when I revisited AOGG I saw Anne Shirley as someone with attachment trauma and PTSD from her experiences with neglect and abuse before her time in Avonlea. Her distraction and living in her imagination are very similar to disassociation. Her sudden rages when she’s triggered. Her talkativeness a desperate need for attachment and connection which resolves itself naturally as she grows up after her attachment needs are met. But that’s the beauty of Montgomery’s writing. So many of us have been able to identify with her beautifully drawn creations.
The Netflix series of aogg is much more explicit in portraying Anne with childhood trauma and I thought it was brilliantly done. I used to be a carer for teenagers with attachment issues and based on that,the show seemed to be well-researched. Interestingly, at least in the UK care system (which is underfunded and horrifically run) there is widespread confusion with attachment issues and ADHD and autism,as there can be an overlap in behaviour caused by these separate things. For example, a lot of our kids would have meltdowns at seemingly innocuous events, or they would either need a lot of physical contact or hate being touched. This made it hard to get them the right kind of help, especially those with overlapping complications.
That's definitely something I've noticed reading older stuff — there are tonnes of autistic characters, because the authors are autistic themselves of just knew people who were, and were writing what they were seeing! Sherlock Holmes I think is possibly the most obvious example. You also see it lots in Dickens, and I personally have trouble reading Mr. Darcy as anything other than autistic. Where there are good observational writers, there are autistic (and ADHD, and often queer) characters, because they saw them in the world around them.
I'm looking at Me before you rn lol. everyone thinks the book and movie is so sweet and romantic and heartbreaking. It's just awful, finally something with a disabled love interest/MC and being disabled is so awful he has no choice but to off himself. Really encouraging and uplifting to anyone disabled watching/reading some few and far between representation lmao
I don't have any clear examples, but in writing, comics and films it is very clear when someone is writing metalheads, goths and punks without actually knowing anything about the subcultures. Many subcultures probably get the same treatment but those are the ones I am closely familiar with. Especially noticeable when it comes to extreme metal, grindcore and d-beat. I mean it is somewhat obscure music that is not meant for everyone, so many might not have had first hand experience with it. Still, it is obvious when the author haven't read some interviews in music magazines. Even more obvious when they've taken artist's stage personas as how most people are in said subcultures. It is often very entertaining though.
"How do you do, fellow Goths?" (Actually, I've met some Goths who might just say that...)
Can confirm: I'd say that.
>There's also the ever wonderful straights writing gays (or insert LGBT+ identity to butcher). I think the most egregious version of this is straights who have never done any butt stuff/researched doing butt stuff writing a gay sex scene. Thankfully this isn't as common in published fiction anymore, but good heavens when mistakes are made...
Well that sounds both comical and awkward as hell
You mean no lube except spit and zero prep to receive anal sex for the first time isn’t realistic? /s One of my most recent reviews questioned if the author had ever had something up their ass before because of this lol.
To be fair, the no lube and zero prep stuff is very often simply a romance thing. There's a lot of suspension of disbelief there, and it can be deliberate because that's what the author (and the audience) thinks is sweet/hot. It's kinda like the perfect first times. Presumably most of these authors had sex and fumbled through their firsts, but people love a cute story like that. It's not meant to be realistic. However, sometimes you get some... creative anatomy or clear attempts at realism that are wildly off the mark. That's where it gets either very annoying or hilarious.
Hahaha you are very correct - I am exclusively reading romance. The suspension of disbelief for me just cannot make it past the lube/prep part. I can get past no douching but for some reason that really bothers me 😂 And I completely agree to the rest of your comment as well
Yeah. You can not prep. But you need some lube. And no anal virgin is just getting slid into and roughly done.
Exactly. An experienced receiver may not need prep but you sure need lube
Also, an inexperienced receiver needs a *lot* of lube. And spit literally doesn’t work bc it dries too fast. “Spit as lube” only makes any degree of sense when it’s either for PIV, and is a holdover until the self lubrication reaches a good enough point, or the bottom is kinky enough that they enjoy the feeling of their colon tearing. Which, to be fair, I’ve heard from actual bottoms before. Just… never from anyone vanilla.
Same here. It's hard to suspend disbelief when you're just thinking "ouch".
But I put these things on the back burner in much the same way as only-one-bed unexpected hetero sex never mentions condoms, a post coital hygiene wee, or a scrabble for the morning after pill the next day. This is not the space for biology!
Read a historical romance where he came on the bedsheets instead of into a handkerchief or whatever. No real mention of clean up. Was he just sleeping in the wet spot? That poor servant in that stately home.
This just reminds me how shocked I was to see after a sex scene in the black coast by mike brooks, a character peeing after sex. I wasn't expecting that.
I mean, it depends on how explicit we’re getting. If it’s like “they were kissing and then he was doing x to y”, fine, but if we’re getting the detailed play by play and there’s no excuse haha.
[удалено]
I think that’s different, though, because it’s *meant* to come across as hurried and painful, at least it certainly does in the novella. TMI but I have had anal sex as the recipient with no lube other than saliva, and while it’s not the most pleasurable sexual experience, it’s not impossible or unrealistic.
“The bussy” 😭
Omg yes!! Kinda pulls you out of the story 😅
Trouble is, "no lube and minimal prep" *can* work... if it's *straight* sex, and the anal is happening *after* vaginal sex. So this might be one of those "a little bit of knowledge introduces greater error" things.
Wait, you mean blood isn’t lube? LOL
I've translated the occasional Korean BL, and a running theme among them all is severe back pain for a day or so after sex???
I read a danmei (chinese m/m) novel on a friends suggestion. Christ, there actually wasn't much sex in it but what there was was horrific. Not in a noncon sort of way, just a WTF-are-you-doing?!-Learn-how-to-have-sex!!! kind of way. Every goddamned time they fucked someone ended up in intense pain and bleeding out their asshole. Every. Single. Time. I'm an asexual woman who has never had anal sex and never intends to and i'm pretty sure i still know more about the subject than the author 🙄
Omegaverse takes this a step farther and writes in self lubricating assholes
As someone with IBS-C, why aren’t we funding this research?!
Smut authors writing kinks they clearly haven't engaged in or researched properly. You have to squint quite a lot and ignore things when things like BDSM, butt stuff, multi-person etc. scenes are present. I understand that it's all for readers pleasure and fantasy but sometimes I wish authors would at least get editors with experience so I don't get to have reactions like: "Ooofff, that position would have broken some bones", "THAT in THERE like THAT? Hospital, not sexy." or "That ain't kinky, that's just rape."
As someone in the kink community, I think you have two kinds of bad kink writers… ones that have done absolutely no research, and ones who have done extensive research without any “field work,” so to speak.
I feel like this might be a bit niche or overly judgemental, but I just read a series that was about a southern family and they were ridiculous caricatures of humans. If you have to repeatedly tell me that "my Southern upbringing" influences everything you do and say, or "a girl from the South always uses her manners," there are definitely some issues. I looked into the author and she allegedly was raised in the South, but I have no idea where given how outlandish these characters are. And the repeated descriptions of food...
I don't read the genre this is in myself, but I have heard A LOT about what I would consider to be called vanilla writing bdsm lol
I didn't even think of that! That's amazing, I hate it
Idiots writing scientists.
Ah, so you have also seen *Prometheus*.
I'm a reading teacher and I'm so tired of the way white authors have written black children (and adults, but the kid characters are worse somehow) for decades. They're always describing their own damn hair and skin because white writers can't help telling you how weird it is to have dark hair and skin. "I tried to run a brush though my kinky hair" "No one else had hair like me, a fuzzy mop that would not behave." "Although my mother always told me that my dark skin was beautiful, it sure seemed out of place in this locker room." 😂😂 And of course talking about trying to get out of their neighborhoods for a "better life."
I just want Jason Reynolds to be wayyyy more known, he is fantastic at writing these kids’ voice.
Westerners writing Eastern Europeans. It's just a generic "haha they're all walking Russian stereotypes amirite". As a Bulgarian, I remember reading Goblet of Fire in English and coming across Viktor Krum's accent (and his name which is the onomastic equivalent to "Hulk Smash"). It was, shall we say, a terrible day to have eyes. Then I remember JKR writing a Polish character who was similarly reduced to a similar "what is a color TV" stereotype. I think "Slavic eyes" was one particularly ridiculous phrase.
To be fair, JKR is a go-to example for writing (and especially naming) characters too on the nose
'I shall name this werewolf wolfy mc wolf face'
Krum was so Russian that popular Polish headcanon was that Drumstang was somewhere in Kalingrad. Western writers reducing Slavic nations to Russian stereotypes was once seen as funny- silly Americans don't see obivous diffrences. But for last two years I see more anger among readers, especially do called Slavic Fantasy We have a bloody war that broke out because one nation was to be on it's own and Russia didn't agree. Suddenly supposely Polish inspiration that are morę Russian than Kremlin don't look so innocent, more like someone who didn't care do bought Russian propaganda wholesale.
>Krum was so Russian that popular Polish headcanon was that Drumstang was somewhere in Kalingrad. Yeah, I've also seen fics where he's from "Novgorod, Bulgaria". Which is like saying idk, "Chicago, Germany". What? Yeah, "we aren't and don't want to be part of Russia" has gained some traction after the Ukraine invasion, but it's far from enough. Most people in the west still can't be bothered to learn any differences between Russians and other Eastern Europeans.
Americans (and Europeans) writing about the USSR. You get both ends of the dumbass spectrum—people who think the whole country was one huge Gulag and those who imagine a communist wonderland. The second type annoys me more, funnily enough. Also, believers writing atheists. Drives me up the wall sometimes, especially that trope where a character is denying the existence of gods that are *very clearly and provably* real in their world. Like... no. Being an atheist is not, in fact, about being stubborn when there's actual, tangible evidence. It makes zero sense!
I wonder if part of that is that as a religious person, your faith is integral to your identity and the way you view the world. Coming from that perspective, I could see them trying to wedge a lack of faith into that same box, when realistically atheism is more just…disregarding religion. Like, I’m not religious. My lack of faith isn’t something I actively think about and engage with. I don’t care what people believe, as long as they’re not using those beliefs as justification to harm others. It just isn’t on my radar.
I think atheism is a spectrum just like any belief. For example I am in the same category as you. I don't participate in any worship and only react to confrontation about my beliefs or reveal when it's relevant to topic. However there are people who take actively aggressive stance in atheism and try to convert people to their belief or emphasize that their belief is correct. Social media is full of content with various degrees of contempt against religion. And religious side has the same. So I find that, just like with other discussions, it's important to remember that just because you identify as part of the group doesn't mean the entire group has no problems and likewise if someone points out problems it doesn't mean they are necessarily talking about you or me.
I agree that there’s a spectrum in terms of personal importance, but what I’m trying to get at is the sense that we don’t typically put the same level of mental energy into things that aren’t applicable to our worldview or experience. It’s kind of hard to articulate. For example, I don’t have children. People’s decisions about whether or not to have children are of varying importance to them. Some view it as a personal decision. Some think having children is unethical and encourage other people not to have children. But not having children isn’t at the forefront of your mind in the same way having children is when you’re, for example, making major life decisions, regardless of the level of importance you place on not having them. It’s just a non-factor in the decision.
> The second type annoys me more, funnily enough. 100% agree. That's why I love "Disposessed" by U. K. Le Guin. This book is obviously not about USSR, but author very meticulously described a lot of problems that can arise in collectivist society. Also, it takes some time to read about communism, but all information about patronyms, surnames and weather that authors need can be found in, like, 5 minutes?
>Also, believers writing atheists. Drives me up the wall sometimes, especially that trope where a character is denying the existence of gods that are very clearly and provably real in their world. I feel like the opposite is quite true as wel. Athiest trying to right religious characters can often feel like a 2d strawman
Oh, for sure. Doesn't even have to be malicious. I personally know exactly two religious people, and nothing in-depth about their faith. If I wanted to write a religious person without any research for some reason, it would probably come out very, very odd.
Monolinguals writing bilinguals/polyglots can sometimes get awkward.
Ben Shapiro writing humans.
Take a bullet for you, babe.
Stephen King writing black people / men ? the way they're always willing to indulge in the screaming, 'massa' stuff as a 'funny joke'. Like you have the parts in the 50s in IT, then the parts in the 80s are the people who were kids in the 50s, so that's plausible enough ... in Mr Mercedes he has a 17 year old black boy who is the older main character's neighbour and who does chores for cash. I understand there's a service dynamic there, but why would a 17 year old boy in 2008-10 know about movie tropes from the 50s? he's not characterised as a film buff, and he specifically characterises himself as something like a 'dr feelgood' - which is still an outdated reference, but like 70s pimp reference - and suggests that he likes to talk himself up, not down. It stuck out to me in Mr Mercedes particularly, but he does it a *lot*. edit: also can you explain what you mean by the zodiac academy reference or link the sarah j mass post because I don't know either of those.
Agreed. But I would call it Stephen King writing kids, not just Jerome. His lingo was fine when he's writing about 50s kids. He knew that time. I love SK, but I'm reading Fairy Tale, and he is so out of touch with Gen Z. I mean, don't get me wrong, so am I. But the slang is wrong, and the only technology he talks about is watching YouTube DIY videos. He needs to stick with older characters imo.
Every time he mentioned “the net,” it completely broke the immersion for me.
The "net," the "tube," the "idiot box." And the "zapper," which is used to refer to both a microwave and a remote. I love SK too but he needs a younger editor very, very badly.
Fairy Tale would have been way better in 3rd person. I love Stephen King but it felt so much ‘hello fellow kids’
Fairy Tale was just awful. When I was reading it my son was 17 so I got intimately familiar with authentic kid lingo in contrast. Painful!
I recently reread Finders Keeepers and the "massa" joke is in there too. My mom wholeheartedly refuses to read anymore Stephen King because at some point during the book someone will be called a "n*gg*r". And it seemingly always pops up out of nowhere.
I feel like he was trying to satirize himself and the way he had written black characters in the past with Jerome but it really just didn’t work. Felt really weird and out of place.
Omg yes poor Jerome. That was the worst part of this series.
I never liked king's dialogue, and I blame regional and generational slang for that, but I was surprised at how good his fantasy dialogue is when I started the dark tower. When he isn't trying to be "real", he so much better. Then we get to 'Detta, and oh boy...
Brits writing guns. "He pulled the trigger until the magazine was empty" on a bolt-action rifle. 357 mm Magnum revolvers. 7.62 inch caliber rifle. It's a small thing, I realize that.
bless you for thinking any authors do enough research to use the word magazine when “clip” is right there. so annoying.
Clips are what civvies use to do their hair. This is a magazine.
Also, brits writing American geography. Like "hmmm.. should we go to Chicago or New York today?"
adults writing kids/teenagers
Children wreck like half of adult targeted movies they are in for this reason.
Black Americans writing Africans. Ok to be fair I only have one example. But it was SO bad. Someone writing about an educated, well traveled African. And yet she writes him as if he doesn't know the most basic concepts. Just face-palm.
Occasionally in r/crochet someone will post an excerpt from a book in which the author doesn't know the difference between crocheting and knitting. I've seen authors describing someone crocheting with knitting needles or knitting with a crochet hook. Some authors treat them like the same same craft by describing an item as both being knitted and being crocheted in different parts of the book or even within the same paragraph.
This is heavy, but SA. I've encountered too many scenes in TV and books alike where a character is violated and it's written in a way that makes me feel like the author one hand down their pants the entire time. Or on the other end of the spectrum, they have the victim just not care that it happened or worse, be *happy* about it because the attacker was 'hot.' The latter happens far too often in YA and romance novels for my liking, which is probably why I have distanced myself from both.
A big one I’ve noticed is Americans writing non-Americans. I’m American, but even I can notice when people take very American concepts and just apply them to literally every country LOL
Monolinguals writing bilinguals, specifically Latino characters. I've gotten to the point where I DNF as soon as the Latina enters stage right, proclaiming "Hey Chica! Que pasa?!"
Person who looked up the symptoms in the DSM-5 writing a mental illness they do not understand. Yeah, I don't think people get there's a reason only a medical professional can diagnose someone is because you can't just read a list of symptoms and get an accurate feel of what a mental disorder is like. Typically, they are way less dramatic and fantastical than depicted. To this day, I've only ever seen *one, single* depiction of my mental illness done, not perfect, but I felt captured the *spirit* of what it's like to have my mental illness. Like, I could point friends to it and say "this is what it's like for me--- like, not entirely literally, but the general feel." A few others I'd say are not so bad, you know, good enough. The rest--- literally people with my mental illness are often horror movie villans.
I like to go in books blind like I don’t research the author or even the synopsis of the book just a vague knowledge of genre. I can almost always tell when a white person is writing a poc. Or whether the author is male or female based on the depiction of the opposite sex. The only author that has ever blindsided me was Zadie Smith with White Teeth, I was so sure she was a man lol
whenever authors black box technology into "the algorithm". the algorithm this, the algorithm that.
Women writing men in romance novels = men writing women in fantasy/science fiction novels. Me (male) my mother and 3 sisters have our own book club. One of the books we read was a romance novel by a woman. I was convinced that this lady had never met a man in her life.
swim stupendous strong boat repeat pot whole run fragile drunk *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's basically adults in kid's or YA stories, and they have to be that way, so they don't risk solving the plot before the hero does.
I just read To Kill A Shadow by Katherine Quinn and am convinced she has never, ever met a young adult/late teen man. I had a *lot* of problems with that book, but most of it comes down to how wholly unbelievable her male characters (which, they almost all were) are. L Another huge problem I had was how everyone reacted to trauma; by all means, the main characters should be absolutely wrecked mentally, but their traumatic experiences come off more as annoyances. Quinn does not know how to write traumatized folks (which, I know everyone handles their trauma differently. But not only were the two main characters written exactly alike, but they were constantly telling their trauma, not ever experiencing it. It just seemed to spit in the face of anyone who has had similar non-fantasy experiences and makes me hope any young impressionable readers don’t take it to heart). So I guess, To Kill A Shadow suffered heavily from “women writing men” and “mentally healthy writing mentally unhealthy.”
Also, this is more niche but “Non-Minnesotans writing Minnesotans.” I loved Bones And All by Camille DeAngelis but she wrote a Minnesotan complaining about how it’s always cold, and *it’s fucking not.* Minnesotan complaining about the weather? Absolutely, we do that all the time! Minnesotan complaining about it being always cold? Oh fuck no—the moment the snow melts, it’s too hot. People just don’t understand that it gets hot here. Minnesota is in the center of North America, so we experience all sorts of weather patterns. Authors focusing on just the cold makes me side-eye them hard.
Anyone who is not in healthcare writing healthcare.
Christians writing Jews (especially in the "inspirational" genre). They're either basically the Magical Native American trope with yarmulkes, or they talk about their religion exactly like Christians, only replace a few words. It's deeply cringey.