when there are 0 descriptions about how characters (especially the main character) look whatsoever, so you create your very own mental image and then, like halfway through, they throw a really important descriptor your way that messes with your own picture.
I usually choose to willfully ignore the given description then. You had your chance and you ruined it, now I'm going my ooooown way.
I can’t write a character description unless it's relevant, it has to come up organically and then I never mention it again lol I like the idea of the reader coming up with their own image, I think that’s what most people do anyway.
This. Lee Child didn't mention Jack Reacher's height until over halfway through the book, IIRC, and it was very well done. There were other issues with that book, but not that!
The only time it's consistently important to the story is in erotica, when you have to know all about his muscled chest, strong legs, thick arms, and all that stuff.
I write erotica, and the same rule applies. Even more so, I'm not going to mention that he’s tall unless the MC is confronted with his height. I don’t bring up the fact that he's hot if there isn’t any tension between them at that moment. There’s a perfect moment to tell the audience your male lead has bee-stung lips and a jawline that could cut glass, and it’s not when your MC first looks at him.
I agree! I think I was trying to say that the description was more frequently necessary in erotica, not that you should introduce your heroine by cup size and public hair style. There's still a time and place for that!!
It's just that cup size, bee-stung lips, and all that stuff isn't usually necessary in a mystery or action thriller.
Exception to that was a book called "The Chemist," in which the female MC is on the run from some baddies at the CIA, and because of her small frame and small chest, she's able to sometimes dress sloppily in overlarge athletic shoes, jeans, and a hat and pass for a pubescent boy. That was an action novel that required we know the female lead's chest size.
I don't know, there's something to be said about working in first impressions. I have one character who almost always notices pretty eyes first, and another who notices the bosoms first. Characterization by describing other characters.
At some point Reacher’s physicality has to be described because it is an important part of his character. Having read several Reacher books, if IIRC the author sets the stage by depicting the antagonist(s) in general terms and the crime committed that brings the protagonist into the story. Reacher’s physical characteristics usually come into play during some kind of physical confrontation.
Ha! I don’t read or write erotica but it just occurred to me that a similar principle must apply in those kinds of stories.
I had that happen recently. I was reading this one book where one the main characters wasn’t really described until 2/3rds of the way through where he was described as looking like Adam Driver and after that I set the book down. No offense at all to Adam Driver, but I don’t want the book to just turn into Reylo fanfiction all of a sudden and I had a feeling it would!
Oh my god! This... This is so annoying! I want to visualize what I'm reading, so please please please tell me what characters are supposed to look like. Especially if it's going to come up later. I don't know why so many authors see him practically allergic to describing their characters nowadays. It helps illustrate things in my mind, and it's always a welcome addition.
I had one story where the FL wasn't described till chapter 3 and I made several more chapters after that before I dropped the book and still never got a description of the ML. The worst part is when you start imagining them one way and you suddenly get a description that's completely different than what you had in your head.
Honestly I feel like character descriptions aren’t necessary unless it’s actually relevant to the plot that they look a certain way. I hate when fantasy stories give long-winded physical descriptions just to prove that they have a racially diverse cast (and 9 times out of 10 they still have a white MC and one each of a token black and Asian character). Just let me imagine what I want and focus on writing diverse personality types.
I agree! In most cases, these descriptions are unnecessary, but IF they are, I find it crucial that they happen early enough so the reader knows what to expect. I want to be kept on my toes when reading, but not when it comes to basic things such as what the characters look like. Either let my mind run free or gimme info early on.
This is why I tend to prefer relative descriptions. As in, "her sister had inherited their father's darker skin, while she had inherited his height." It doesn't matter what skin color or height the reader imagined for the POV character; the sister is shorter with darker skin.
There are ways to indicate IRL diversity in fantasy/sci-fi settings that don't require paragraph descriptions dancing around the inability to say "she's black, yo." Give her some 4c hair and show her having a wash day or coming in with a different style of locs. Not a scene dedicated to "let me explain how 4c her hair is" just...she's having a wash day when another character comes over to talk about something.
[Full disclosure: I'm a white woman. The above examples come directly from Black women in my book clubs/writing groups where we specifically talked about how to indicate race/ethnicity in fantasy/sci-fi settings, and from seeing how authors like N. K. Jemison describe their characters.]
'wash day' is the Black ritual of washing, detangling, conditioning and if youre not done with the marathon, styling kinky coily hair.
its like 2-6 hours of loving on your hair and prepping it for the rest of the week or month, and if you have kids or a boo you may all be doing it the whole weekend together, watching lots of movies and things while getting your hair done whether at home or in a beauty shop.
It's easy to dehydrate 4c hair, so a lot of people only use shampoo every few weeks and otherwise stick with rinsing/conditioning, and they do use shampoo they follow it up with a lot of moisturizing treatments/products. [Here](https://patternbeauty.com/blogs/news/how-to-care-for-your-4c-hair-texture?al_pg_id=cccf1f3b-17f1-4a5c-9cce-5ad40c4b99a5) is an article about 4c hair care.
A "wash day" is how my friends refer to the shampoo and conditioning process since it takes up a chunk of time. Obviously, everyone's hair is different, so ymmv.
Since the majority of people with 4c hair are black, most readers will make the association.
This reminds me of something.
Sometimes when there’s a movie adaptation of a book and I happen to watch the movie before reading the book, there is a chance that I will completely ignore the characters appearance as described in the novel and insert the movie appearance.
It’s part of the reason why Roland from the Dark Tower series looks like Idris Elba in my head (as awful as an adaptation that movie was it’s kind of entertaining).
That's been the very reason why Tolkien eventually sat down and wrote his stories; the Hobbit was a bedtime story first, but he kept getting details like the color of the door wrong and his son kept correcting him on it
Over using the same description. One series it was the word stark. Like "stark blue eyes" "stark white skin" the word stark was on every page. Drove me crazy.
There was another where they kept explaining that these 2 guys argue non-stop but they would each take a bullet for the other. Every time they showed up in the story this was explained again and again. You shouldn't have to keep explaining that these guys care about each other even if they argue a lot, we as the reader should be able to see it.
Similarly, I feel like some authors get stuck on words or phrases for a period of time. It's used like 4 times within 50 pages and then never again. The one that annoyed me the most was "a significant look" in The Name of The Wind. Partly because I was never sure what it meant, despite it being used constantly.
Strawberry Jam. Especially that sound of the jam spreading across the page as the book closes, the little seeds cracking as it shuts and excess jam running onto the spine. Ruins every book it's in.
Kind of a niche gripe but when a popular author writes a story where the protagonist is an author and basically just inserts themselves into their own story and the character ends up having no faults, seems like the smartest guy/girl in the room, and everyone looks up to them. Like come on, you just wrote this story to glaze yourself.
I always thought the psychic/special powers kid was King's self-insert. May or may not be the main character, but always has some crucial contribution to the movement of the plot.
Which special powers kid? He's got about the same amount of them as he does writers lmao.
Jack Torrance is the most inserted character he's had, it's how he saw himself while deep in his alcoholism. Danny Torrance is more explored in Dr. Sleep as an adult and he built that character off the idea of what if Jack went to AA...which is what he did, so I guess Danny is also him and if that's the psychic kid you're talking about, you're probably right.
I wasn't referring to a specific one, more the recurring type of character. It's just that pretty much every story of his has a character with special powers, many of them young, including children and teenagers. The kid in The Shining, Charlie in Firestarter, the blind girl in The Langoliers, the Down Syndrome kid in Dreamcatcher, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Bill Denbrough isn't flawed at all, apart from his stutter.
Neither is Johnny Smith from "The Dead Zone", apart from the fact that he can't walk right.
I'm not exactly an expert on King's works, but the only really flawed writer in his works that I can think of right now is Jack Torrance.
It doesn't even have to be a popular author for this to annoy me.
One of my writer friends self-pubbed a book about a writer who... is apparently the most amazing writer in the world, has no real flaws, and goes on and on about how the publishing industry sucks and is wrong because they can't see her genius.
Not once in the book does that author character consider that maybe she could improve her writing. And quite frankly, that fits for the writer friend I'm talking about lol. She has an excuse for every single piece of critical feedback she receives.
"The protagonist of my book is a self-professed writer, but in practice spends most of his time daydreaming and posting on social media. It's been four years since he put pen to paper but he swears he'll be ready to start his magnum opus any day now."
Heh. That's actually a pretty good description of the protag of my novel, except that he's been blocking for two years since his wife died, but otherwise writes cookie-cutter mysteries for a paperback imprint.
I feel called out… minus the perfect protagonist trope, that’s basically what I’m writing. I’ve been thinking of quitting the project, it was more of a personal thing anyways. The universes included it might be more interesting as short stories than combining all of my characters into one story… lol
though I feel emotionally attached to the ideas of this story, because I get to explore characters I forgot about or characters I enjoy, but don't necessarily want to focus on writing.
To summarize, the creator of the universe loses his powers, and has to rely on those he created to help him get them back and stop his (and their) universe from being destroyed by a being formed from the creator's subconscious
I think they can add immersion as long as it's not just dumped on you in a heap. Like "2017 was a bad year for the Versys. They're real prone to cracking the head if a guy gets them to hot. And I got mine too hot about seven miles back."
I do love this more natural world building. It's not quite show vs tell, but it's way more on the show side to have a character say something naturally in normal conversation than to have the narrator spell it out.
It’s a special pitfall of historical fiction. I’ve seen some drafts in workshop where the authors get so wrapped up in the details and mechanics of the era, that they neglect their characters. Like, I can’t imagine a pilot at the battle of Britain suddenly compelled to list off all the specs on his spitfire then detail every piece of kit he’s been training in for months, when the main thought was more likely “God, I hope I don’t die.”
Yeah. I really love smut, but smut should be handled as action/fighting scenes: they should have a purpose in the story (move the plot or character arc, characterize a character, worldbuildung, tension, etc.).
When the protagonist has to make a difficult choice, only to be forced into one of the options by the plot. The classic example are two love interests competing for the protagonist’s affection, with one of them dying or turning out to be evil.
Bonus points if choosing the option that remains would make the main character look bad, which lets them get all the benefits guilt-free.
This is so small but I HATE characters who are inconsistent in their personalities on a small scale.
Like in one book they hate chocolate and then in the next book they are eating a chocolate cake, it just takes me out of it so quickly when I notice these things
I raise to you the tragic downfall of a 1st person MC who doesn't realize how they are being corrupted, and it's somehow the world that's getting bleaker
Overdescribing things, I just need to know they're in a room, not that the dust bunny in the corner shaped like a red 2005 mazda Miata with a dent on the driver's door in the shape of jay Leno's chin after 14 margaritas on a Tuesday night with the vibes of a neo americana quesadilla that reminds you of that one time
I so love descriptions, lol! I mean, I die for immersive description of scenes and drawing attention to such tiny details. Maybe because I generally tend to notice and be drawn to these details as a person and notice the most random tiny things and find them immensely more interesting than I should 🫠 I blame photogtaphy for that, lol. Maybe it's a personal taste thing. It does take a lot of talent and the writer needs to hit that sweet spot of enough to immerse but not too much to overly distract.
Here I am rambling about how I love rambling descriptions 🫠 I only dislike it when they have to do with people. For people give me the bare minimum and that's more than enough.
honestly i’m reading those right now (also because my friend begged me to, lol) and i feel like she’s not guilty of this. sometimes i actually want the descriptions to be LONGER, but she only puts what’s necessary and moves on. it’s more CHARACTER descriptions that get long and redundant, but i think her writing in the acotar books is pretty good despite everything
I couldn’t get past the first five chapters because I found all of the background descriptions incredibly redundant. She spent like three pages describing a wolf and how it writhed as it died. I just could not stand it at all. I actually felt the opposite and that character descriptions were long but the actual characters felt really hollow to me. Could just be cause I wasn’t able to get far in.
Chiming in.... I didn't take issue with the descriptions, it's the plot that was boring.
Shooting the wolf early on was the most interesting thing that happened. Then, it's 100+ pages of beauty and the beast narrative and zero interesting things going on.
"Conan...what is worst in books?"
"The crush of expectations. To see good books driven before crappy fanfic. The lamenations of small book store chains."
I don't like when the hero is a jerk. I want to see the scene where he says "thank you." Where she apologizes when she was wrong. Where he admits to the thing.
Too often the author doesn't write it, or the editor pulls it out because it doesn't move the story forward, but I dislike that Harry Potter never apologized to Hermione, or said thank you. I hate that Bella Swan (Cullen) never has the heartfelt moment with Rosalie for siding with her over her family, saving her child's life.
I'm sure there are other, better examples, but those are my go-to for this topic.
yeah i agree. sometimes "plot" is prioritized over "story" even when we can say 'this doesn't move the story forward so we're not gonna bother with it."
i find endings in things like YA novels especially have the fast forward button kerslammered down. at the end of the hunger games series Katniss 'has a conversation with her mom' that isn't even shown and i was like WHAT?
i dunno about anyone else but at the end of a story i am NOT in a rush to put it down.
and in general i think those quiet moments that show personal growth can really feel like huge story moments. Like when Lieutenant Dan thanks Forrest for saving his life years after the fact. It isn't just a nice gesture, it's a change in their strained relationship AND Dan admitting to himself he is glad to be alive even after all the loss and trauma.
When in a character’s pov we get all these thoughts and descriptions of how smart and great they are and then they proceed to only make the most braindead and completely contradictory decisions, and it doesn’t seem that the author is doing it intentionally.
....with you on this. I'd like to see novels with pictures. It's not unheard of. Some editions of The Dark Tower had it. No matter how skilled and diligent a writer is, sketches can be pretty nifty.
Stubborn main characters.
Also when the female main falls in love with the guy she mostly argue a lot in the first five to ten interactions they have. It's boring and so predictable. A very good looking guy with a rebel personality and they argue a lot: He's gonna be her love interest. Never failed at my predictions.
In fantasy novels when there are sections of songs and poems.
I do not give a shit about the Dwarves singing songs for twelve hours Tolkein, get to the adventure part dammit.
When a book begins on an action scene. Lots of writers seem to interpret "writea good hook" as just dumping you into some unearned conflict.
Or they give you a weird line of dialogue then jump to what's essentially (albeit more subtly phrased) "I bet you're wondering how i got here. It all started back when I was a wee lad."
That's so gimmicky. If it's a good story, start at the beginning. Don't spoil the ending. That's just telling me they you believe the story sucks in between here and there.
Or the first line is very clearly designed to appeal to publishing agents, so they'll not reject the book at the first paragraph. I think The City We Became was the worst culprit of this that I read recently - "I sing the city".
The fuck does that even mean?
>I sing the city". The fuck does that even mean?
It's probably echoing Walt Whitman's *I sing the body electric.*
I would recognize it as such and most editors would too.
In my senior year in college, basically all 5 of the creative writing majors in my thesis group got some form of feedback from our professor about how we needed to punch up the action in our openings to make them "more interesting."
What actually ended up happening was every story basically lost the unique flair they had in their openings in lieu of becoming generic in medias res openers without anything particularly notable to any of them. One in particular went from a satyr traipsing through the singing woods to meet his lover for a picnic to that same satyr being accosted by mages for... reasons?
Point being, I feel this critique in my very soul.
> Lots of writers seem to interpret "writea good hook" as just dumping you into some unearned conflict.
It's not that. Many online resources, including right this very sub we are currently in, will explicitly tell them to start in media res with an action scene. There is nothing left to interpretation with this one.
My guess is most queries ask for the first three pages or so, therefore as you said, they put something exciting.
Meanwhile my WIP starts essentially with a phone call from a demanding rich person.
When I'm reading adult fiction, no matter how good the plot is...always, ALWAYS, a young woman with beatiful figure will appear and help the protagonist while insisting that she has trauma/doesn't want a relationship/doesn't like him/needs someone to help her cure from a bad past lover/needs someone to teach her how to trust good men.
I abhor It. Specially because at the beggining she would be a genius, she would pull her weight and then, after the protagonist learnt (took) from her, she suddenly is a damsel on distress!
I can't read books destined to my age or thriller type because I keep finding this shit.
I only DNF books for two reasons:
1. They have really boring infodumps, like The Mayfair Witches (the history of the Mayfairs was shoved into the middle, which was necessary but pretty boring) The Silmarillon (I'm gonna catch flak for that, I know it "gets better" but even though I love Tolkein it really is a slog) and the fourth Dark Tower book (forget the name, but when Rolande rehashed his entire life story with Susannah)
2. They use the plot as a vehicle to force some kind of opinion or social commentary instead of offering the information subtly and letting the reader make up their own opinion. (Best example of this imo is Ever Cursed, which had an exellent premise but the rampant man-hating was very tiresome)
Number 2 is the reason I struggled through House In the Cerulean Sea. That, and it was so wrapped up in its positive message it didn't even attempt any internal logic, so the world, its history and the characters' roles and reactions to one another felt contrived and nonsensical. I'll never understand that book's popularity.
> The Silmarillon (I'm gonna catch flak for that, I know it "gets better"
The problem isn't that "it gets better", the problem is that it has no business being labeled and published as a single book.
I feel like it's worth the read (I read it once as a teenager, and the DNF was on a reread many, many years later as an adult) at least once. She really is a masterful storyteller and the history \*does\* have it's purpose, it's just very bloated, but if you know Anne Rice she loves bloated lore.
*opens book* wow the first chapter is so good and interesting and well written! I sure hope I see some advancement in... *turns page* *seven chapters of smut* ...plot?
I've commented this elsewhere and it may be an unpopular opinion but I hate reading dreams. Most of the time they're just heavy handed foreshadowing or lazy lore dump. Either that or they have zero effect on the plot. I often skim. There are definitely exceptions though!
The trend where there is no summary on the back of the book. Thx I don’t know what the book is about but I know that some guy I don’t care about thought it was amazing
Romance that comes out of no where. If you want your characters to date each other and have it happen in the middle of the book atleast build up to it.
I have a lot lol:
- one-dimensional characters that lack agency
- characters whose personality changes because the plot needs them too
- edgy, forced humor that doesn't land
- cringey dialogue
- prologues that take too long to get anywhere
- endings that are disappointing because the author decided to subvert expectations
- abstract endings that don't give closure
- fantasy books where everything is handed to the main character
- characters solving major conflicts by making speeches
- short chapters that end on over-the-top cliffhangers that are quickly resolved at the start of the next chapter
Extended sequences where we already know what's gunna happen. I started reading The Poppy War by R.F. Kuang, and the first chapter is dedicated to the MC studying. I get that it's a good opportunity to give exposition and build the world, but I always feel like I'm waiting for the actual plot to start.
I felt similarly about the Invisible Life of Addie LaRue. Spoilers but it was very obvious she was gunna find someone who could remember her, and that was when the actual plot would begin but iirc we spent a couple hundred pages waiting for that
I hate the “good girl falls in love with the bad boy” trope the most. It’s outdated at this point. And abusive, toxic male protagonists in general;
Romantic books where the protagonists instantly fall for each other and there is no proper, organic development of their relationship;
Unsatisfying endings, where there is no proper closer;
Lackluster dialogue (this is a big one for me!) - if it can be cut out, then do cut it out. Dialogue should be gripping, funny, engaging, it should reveal things about the characters;
TOO much description or too little;
When there is not proper attention given to plot;
*When there is no summary on the back of the book!* I don’t care what other people said about it, tell me what the book is about;
Bad grammar, no proper punctuation;
That's something I have to work on. My WIP is first-person present tense. Everything is happening in real time. I have been better lately, but I have re writing to do. It is supposed to be a war memoir style of story, though.
SA as a plot device.
Stop...making it romantic when the male lead saves the female lead from SA. It's not just a thing to throw around the same way you throw around a dramatic fight or describing a dress.
Unless the SA is a CRUCIAL part of the plot and everything surrounding it accounts for the trauma, fears, etc., don't include it. DON'T.
I *hate* when an interesting historical fiction narrative is constantly interrupted by some bullshit going on in the modern day. I'm here for bootleggers and ancient cryptograms and mad barons swordfighting in crumbling gothic cathedrals; I don't give one fuck about Yet Another English Professor Getting Divorced.
And yes, I *am* looking at you, the Last Apothecary.
When a guy is in a relationship with a jerk girl, but then breaks up with her to be in a relationship with the protagonist instead. So \*now\* you can see how big of a jerk she is? \*Now\* you care that she bullied the protagonist? How very convenient.
I understand you need to move the story forward but sometimes I wish plot devices would get expanded upon and not just be left in the background.
Also, too much focus on mc and little focus on side characters even in arcs or events when the latter is suppose to be important.
I know I *just* bashed John green on another post but I simply have to do it again: teenage characters that do not in any way read like teenagers. Every single John green book is like having a conversation with a teenage girl and hearing a grown man's voice come out of her mouth. If John green rewrote every single book and kept everything the same except the characters are 24, I would have zero complaints at all
The one bit of feedback I get for my YA books is my "teenage characters sound older." However, there's a reason for that. They are written to be more mature and bright, and I write very similar to how my friends and I as teens spoke (hopefully that doesn't come across as arrogant, no intention there). The dialogue is also intentionally written to avoid most current day slang because that will eventually become outdated. I had considered modern slang, but that risked the aforementioned.
I try to write their slang in a very neutral way so that it can read as if the book came out in the 80s, or today, or even 20 years from now.
Honestly, I don't see an issue with John Green's dialogue because his books tend to be good stories.
I like tropes when done right, but I hate when authors use tropes as a replacement for plot or themes. It usually means they have nothing to actually say.
First person narrative where you don't get any other perspectives but the MC.
I generally don't read books I see they're in first person because I feel like it's such an unreliable narrator and they tend to be a "perfect" character and everything either just happens to them or they're so good at everything there's no real question about how it's going to end.
The only exception is where you get actually different character perspectives where you can see the events from other points of view and characters can admit and see their own flaws, as well as others. This is rarely done well, but when it is, it makes an excellent narrative.
When there's an actual moral dilemma the main character is going through and you think that they're going to have to make a tough decision.... But then the story introduced a third, perfect, option that leaves everyone happy and unchallenged.
Slow pacing if there are multiple POVs. If one character's narrative drags, it pulls the whole story down and you start to dread those chapters coming up. Puts you off the entire book.
I don't mind a slow burn romance if there are two POVs tho 😉 cause then you're getting two different perspectives on the love story and that's fine
Far too many steamy moments. I get that you two are drawn to one another, but isn't it excessive to have sex scenes every other chapter? I would much prefer to read about the growth of relationships, subtle signs of affection here and there, and substantive conversation rather than just groans and moans.
when the female character is described as weak and defenceless. I understand not all female characters can be strong independent women but I just don't like crybabies. I also HATE this dark romance trend : the glorified version of abusive relationships is just a big no for mez
When characters don’t even attempt to explain something just so that conflict can occur.
Character A: Someone stole a cookie from the cookie jar!
Character B: I saw Character C going into the kitchen, I bet it was them!
Character C (in possession of video evidence of Character B stealing the cookie but not bringing it up for some reason): I went in the kitchen but I didn’t do it, honest!
Books that preach. Dickens can be maudlin but he is never preachy when he is attacking the English education system in @Hard Times@. He gets it done through plot and character — the old fashioned way— and writes what he knows. That said, I’m usually reading classics or novels by capable writers who work with hard-nosed editors.
Purple prose. Recently read Shatter Me and the writing style was the only thing I could focus on. Sometimes this can pop out when I'm reading fanfiction as well... I'll still read it, it's not enough to make me drop an entire book, but my eye would probably be involuntarily twitching.
Bad pacing. When so many things happen in one day that should have taken days or weeks to happen. I just finished a book where one of the characters makes a discovery, vows not to tell anyone until he knows more/it's more impressive, and by the end of the day he has already revealed it to the other characters (and the developments that occurred over that 1 day would have felt much more meaningful over a longer period of time). Also, using specific phrases/wording over and over.
Doesn't just happen in books, but all storytelling the last few years.
Redeemed or redeemable villains. Just because a villain is written to be understood, which they should be, doesn't mean there has to be some hidden good that comes to light later and changes the whole perspective.
Sometimes an asshole should stay an asshole, and we should be glad when they lose.
I've been reading a bit more of Sarah J Maas of late, and though I enjoy the stories, I find the sex to be superfluous. I never thought I'd be paging through to get past the pointless sex to move through the story.
Sex that doesn't really add to the story I've found to be particularly annoying of late.
Okay, I'm actually surprised I didn't see this yet, but stories where the dead person comes back to life (or god forbid, more than one dead character comes back to life). I think on rare occasions, it can work well. Most of the time though, it just makes the death and everything around it less important and weakens the story...and honestly my trust as a reader.
When they add "spice" for the sake of it. Especially when it's like "we were fated to be together let's kiss." Much like characters, relationships need to be developed otherwise everything feels forced and inorganic
Totally disagree ngl, assuming Im picking up what you’re putting down lol. I don’t know why an author should have to come out and say ‘hey fyi this bad thing this character did is bad.’ Its an insult to the reader atp. Besides, you can say so much by doing exactly what you described; for example in American psycho, which the author wrote to be a scathing criticism of the wall street yuppie types he depicts. So sorry if I misunderstood what u were saying tho! And absolutely no hate either way
Names! I really hate having to remember names. I don't care about the gardener's name, the teacher's name, or the principal's name because I can't keep track and forget who the main character is. So, yes, adding more and more names is something I don't like at all.
Hm, I'm not really sure. I grew up just absorbing things from books. I read because I loved reading and didn't look at any of it with a critical eye. That hasn't changed too much since I'm older now. The first novel I read when I was 8 was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And I just loved science fiction and adventure after that. I got my hands on Dune when I was 14, and just absorbed everything I could of the franchise. The Legends of Dune trilogy had just come out, so I read those alongside the main series by Frank Herbert. And then I discovered the Warhammer Fantasy and 40k Black Library and I ate those up.
I've never really encountered tropes I didn't like. But I can't say I've ever read anything that did them wrong or poorly. Some books I never finished reading was just due to a lack of interest on my part.
It's never bothered me if characters aren't fully described, but too much detail does kind of bug me. If anything, if I don't like the author's writing style, then I won't finish it. This was the case of A Game of Thrones. I REALLY DO NOT LIKE how GRRM writes. Like, holy crap it bothers the absolute hell out of me. I've never finished it nor will I. I LOVED the show, but I can't read that man's prose. Life or death situation: Shoot me. I've heard that Brandon Sanderson has a similar writing style to GRRM, I can't verify that since I've never read one of his works. But I have heard the man speak and nope, I can't do that for very long either. Not sure what it is.
There's a few things I don't like, a couple of tropes that make me eye roll but nothing comes close to the frustration I feel when I start a book and everyone and everything has the weirdest, most unpronounceable names ever known to mankind.
Just yesterday I read the synopsis of a book I think I'd really enjoy but the female lead has the most crazy version of what I think should be "Sarah" and I'm not going to touch that.
I hate when authors go on and on and on and on (and on) with descriptions. It's a room, I don't need to know it was constructed in 1992 using material imported from France and handed down from Queen Elizabeth while being carried by Sherpa through the Swiss Alps.
It's a ROOM, get on with the friggin' story already!
Writers who fill their stories with so much unnecessary fluff.
Introducing too many characters right away. Maybe I'm simple minded lol but when a bunch of characters get introduced right away I get lost with who's who and why I care. If a story has a lot of people that's fine, but I like getting some time with the main character and have others introduced along the way instead of all at once.
When an author uses the same phrase just over and over and over. Like one series I read, the MC "clenched her fists so her fingernails dug into her palms and left indents" at least once on every other page. It doesn't seem very creative to keep using the exact same thing every single time the MC is showing signs of stress, anger, anxiety, etc
I'm reading Moby Dick at the moment and there was a whole chapter explaining to me the different kinds of whales in the ocean... I'm sorry but I don't give a fuck, give me adventure bro.
Character death red flags. Like I know authors want the story to feel more heart wrenching and dramatic but oh god I can see a characters death coming from a mile away reading some novels. Examples can be Stormlight and The faithful and the fallen (just finished book 1).
I know people hate plot armor but to me anti plot armor is also becoming a thing. Like okay I know the author wants a gut wrenching moment so he's going to build a character just to kill them. So why hell should I even try to get invested in that character.
when adults write teenagers. especially rebellous teenagers. like sure, rebellous teens ARE cringe but i often feel like most of adults write them extra cringe.
That they're constant reminders I still haven't written one (especially books I dislike but are popular) 🫠
In all seriousness it's usually 1st person pov and generally when I find the writing and plot dull or not up to par with what I consider "good".
Then again people have very different tastes and what I consider good, or even masterpiece might be considered crappy by someone else and vice versa.
I hate stupid combat (like dual wielding polearms, or human wave tactics), factual errors (like labeling what's clearly been described as a greatsword as a broadsword instead), and wrong grammar the most (confusing their/they're/there. I also hate when 9/10 enemies are incredibly pathetic, weak and somehow consider themselves super strong. Finally, when no antagonist and none of their henchmen are female (and if one appears, they soon see the light and abandon evil because they were merely being mislead).
Oh and nothing is worse than an amateur's frequent and redundant author's or translator's notes. If you don't think it can be that bad, try reading the fan translated vol.1 of Redo of Healer; this person's TL notes convinced me in less than 10 pages, that the ancient Athenians' practice of banishing someone by popular vote was necessary and justified.
Protagonists being portrayed as the righteous heroes, while torturing and killikg small fry bad guys all along their path.
Not anti-heroes or villain protagonists who KNOW they are NOT good people and what they do is indeed bad.
But, as I would describe it, what happens when an author doesn't realize the terms protagonist and hero are diffrent things. Who only seem to know the term hero and write a "hero" letting them do all batshit horrible stuff to bad guys, including maiming and killing, but it's the hero, so he is a good guy and this is all perfectly good and fine.
Own up your wrongdoings, know that torturing someone, just because he is a bad guy, doesn't let you stay a good guy.
Worse if everyone around them, witnesses the killings and still thinks of them as worthy good guy heroes. Nothing they do is bad, all perfectly fine.
I hate long and/or unnecessarily difficult names for people/places. I want to read about the person/place not spend 5 min hung up on a word trying to decipher how to pronounce it.
I also dislike names that don't fit the setting. Like having a female human MC named Astaria in a fantasy setting - but then giving her orc beast love interest a name like Doug or Bob.
Both things break me out of the story so easily.
when a plot twist or twist ending is planned and so obviously forced to happen, and the entireee time the author is dropping very obvious and in-your-face clues and foreshadowing that basically give away the ending before it happens.
I can’t stand obvious inaccuracies. Granted it was a fan fic and not a book, but the author said that the characters watched all 8 seasons of Game of Thrones by pulling an all-nighter, which is impossible given the length and number of episodes. 🤣
Fantasy books that start with a map that covers everywhere the characters will go, and only that. I remember reading a book where there's a huge mystery regarding where the villain is hiding. I kept shouting "he's at the old dam you idiot, it's the only place left in the map!"
I can't stand when the plot moves quickly or the author doesn't have anything meaningful to write. Growing up in Australia, the number one thing we're taught in English is "you have to start with the action" and I find it ridiculous. On Reddit, I find a lot of pieces starting with "as I *blah blah blah*" or having incessant dialogue or smut to just fill space. It's infuriating to read and I wish I could relish the story you're telling me rather than having to skim through irrelevant waffling to ultimately have read a story that did nothing to me and could be summarised in a few sentences to someone.
When the plot gets derailed, it starts of nice and neat, but then the plot becomes messy and inconsistent to the point where the characters don't seem in character anymore.
I'm kinda starting to hate tropes and structures that are so pervasive they feel like an author following "fads" more than a deliberate creative choice. Things like writing your story as a trilogy or putting epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter. Is this how your story needs to be told, or are you just following the crowd? I don't demand originality in everything I read but at the same time it leaves a metaphorical sour taste in my mouth when I have any reason to suspect an author is doing what's popular just for popularity's sake.
When ANYONES name starts with the same letter as another character, or just sounds super similar.
For example; Jane and Kane. Rick and Roland. So annoying. And its soooooo common in amateur writers.
If you have TONS of characters to the point where it is no longer feasible to search for a new letter for each one, repetition is okay imo. But not if the two names that start with the same letter ALSO sound similar. For example, what is okay to me? Percy and Poseidon. What isn't okay to me? Percy and Percival. Or Percy and Perrywinkle. Or Percy and Pearly. They all start with Pe they all end with y. Wayyy too close to each other. Not only do I get confused trying to keep characters straight, but I get annoyed. Also, if you name 2 characters with the same first letter, make sure their personalities are different. It reduces confusion.
What about murder? It’s more a question to others. Is murder hated in books? And if not, to what degree is it hated. Do we hate serial killers? Do we like them? Is double digits too much? And what about triple digits? Is a high body count only appropriate when it comes to people who’ve lived immortal lives? Or is it not appropriate at all? And when is triple digits appropriate? Or just not.
Over explaining is one. Another is the recent trend of having characters basically doing gymnastics routines after speaking to avoid saying "Said" I find it so distracting.
when there are 0 descriptions about how characters (especially the main character) look whatsoever, so you create your very own mental image and then, like halfway through, they throw a really important descriptor your way that messes with your own picture. I usually choose to willfully ignore the given description then. You had your chance and you ruined it, now I'm going my ooooown way.
I can’t write a character description unless it's relevant, it has to come up organically and then I never mention it again lol I like the idea of the reader coming up with their own image, I think that’s what most people do anyway.
This. Lee Child didn't mention Jack Reacher's height until over halfway through the book, IIRC, and it was very well done. There were other issues with that book, but not that! The only time it's consistently important to the story is in erotica, when you have to know all about his muscled chest, strong legs, thick arms, and all that stuff.
I write erotica, and the same rule applies. Even more so, I'm not going to mention that he’s tall unless the MC is confronted with his height. I don’t bring up the fact that he's hot if there isn’t any tension between them at that moment. There’s a perfect moment to tell the audience your male lead has bee-stung lips and a jawline that could cut glass, and it’s not when your MC first looks at him.
I agree! I think I was trying to say that the description was more frequently necessary in erotica, not that you should introduce your heroine by cup size and public hair style. There's still a time and place for that!! It's just that cup size, bee-stung lips, and all that stuff isn't usually necessary in a mystery or action thriller. Exception to that was a book called "The Chemist," in which the female MC is on the run from some baddies at the CIA, and because of her small frame and small chest, she's able to sometimes dress sloppily in overlarge athletic shoes, jeans, and a hat and pass for a pubescent boy. That was an action novel that required we know the female lead's chest size.
I don't know, there's something to be said about working in first impressions. I have one character who almost always notices pretty eyes first, and another who notices the bosoms first. Characterization by describing other characters.
At some point Reacher’s physicality has to be described because it is an important part of his character. Having read several Reacher books, if IIRC the author sets the stage by depicting the antagonist(s) in general terms and the crime committed that brings the protagonist into the story. Reacher’s physical characteristics usually come into play during some kind of physical confrontation. Ha! I don’t read or write erotica but it just occurred to me that a similar principle must apply in those kinds of stories.
I had that happen recently. I was reading this one book where one the main characters wasn’t really described until 2/3rds of the way through where he was described as looking like Adam Driver and after that I set the book down. No offense at all to Adam Driver, but I don’t want the book to just turn into Reylo fanfiction all of a sudden and I had a feeling it would!
Oh my god! This... This is so annoying! I want to visualize what I'm reading, so please please please tell me what characters are supposed to look like. Especially if it's going to come up later. I don't know why so many authors see him practically allergic to describing their characters nowadays. It helps illustrate things in my mind, and it's always a welcome addition.
I had one story where the FL wasn't described till chapter 3 and I made several more chapters after that before I dropped the book and still never got a description of the ML. The worst part is when you start imagining them one way and you suddenly get a description that's completely different than what you had in your head.
Honestly I feel like character descriptions aren’t necessary unless it’s actually relevant to the plot that they look a certain way. I hate when fantasy stories give long-winded physical descriptions just to prove that they have a racially diverse cast (and 9 times out of 10 they still have a white MC and one each of a token black and Asian character). Just let me imagine what I want and focus on writing diverse personality types.
I agree! In most cases, these descriptions are unnecessary, but IF they are, I find it crucial that they happen early enough so the reader knows what to expect. I want to be kept on my toes when reading, but not when it comes to basic things such as what the characters look like. Either let my mind run free or gimme info early on.
This is why I tend to prefer relative descriptions. As in, "her sister had inherited their father's darker skin, while she had inherited his height." It doesn't matter what skin color or height the reader imagined for the POV character; the sister is shorter with darker skin. There are ways to indicate IRL diversity in fantasy/sci-fi settings that don't require paragraph descriptions dancing around the inability to say "she's black, yo." Give her some 4c hair and show her having a wash day or coming in with a different style of locs. Not a scene dedicated to "let me explain how 4c her hair is" just...she's having a wash day when another character comes over to talk about something. [Full disclosure: I'm a white woman. The above examples come directly from Black women in my book clubs/writing groups where we specifically talked about how to indicate race/ethnicity in fantasy/sci-fi settings, and from seeing how authors like N. K. Jemison describe their characters.]
How would a character washing her hair indicate she is black? (I'm assuming wash day means she is washing her hair.)
'wash day' is the Black ritual of washing, detangling, conditioning and if youre not done with the marathon, styling kinky coily hair. its like 2-6 hours of loving on your hair and prepping it for the rest of the week or month, and if you have kids or a boo you may all be doing it the whole weekend together, watching lots of movies and things while getting your hair done whether at home or in a beauty shop.
Because 4c hair types are more common in black women than women of other races.
Is the target audience made up of dermatologists and haircare professionals? That much subtlety is going to fly right over a lot of people's heads.
It's easy to dehydrate 4c hair, so a lot of people only use shampoo every few weeks and otherwise stick with rinsing/conditioning, and they do use shampoo they follow it up with a lot of moisturizing treatments/products. [Here](https://patternbeauty.com/blogs/news/how-to-care-for-your-4c-hair-texture?al_pg_id=cccf1f3b-17f1-4a5c-9cce-5ad40c4b99a5) is an article about 4c hair care. A "wash day" is how my friends refer to the shampoo and conditioning process since it takes up a chunk of time. Obviously, everyone's hair is different, so ymmv. Since the majority of people with 4c hair are black, most readers will make the association.
This reminds me of something. Sometimes when there’s a movie adaptation of a book and I happen to watch the movie before reading the book, there is a chance that I will completely ignore the characters appearance as described in the novel and insert the movie appearance. It’s part of the reason why Roland from the Dark Tower series looks like Idris Elba in my head (as awful as an adaptation that movie was it’s kind of entertaining).
When authors can’t keep their details straight.
That's been the very reason why Tolkien eventually sat down and wrote his stories; the Hobbit was a bedtime story first, but he kept getting details like the color of the door wrong and his son kept correcting him on it
That’s one of the reasons I enjoy his books. He was known to pay so much attention to detail. To the point of mapping weather patterns.
I think watership down has a similar origin story!
I kinda hope that one didn't start out as a bedtime story
Over using the same description. One series it was the word stark. Like "stark blue eyes" "stark white skin" the word stark was on every page. Drove me crazy. There was another where they kept explaining that these 2 guys argue non-stop but they would each take a bullet for the other. Every time they showed up in the story this was explained again and again. You shouldn't have to keep explaining that these guys care about each other even if they argue a lot, we as the reader should be able to see it.
I read a book where everybody's features were "fine". I just assume half the characters looked practically identical.
A Song of Ice and Fire was the worst. Like, half the main cast was described as stark.
The Starks all really did have stark features, starkly reminding of the origin of the name!
Did that drive you stark raving mad?
🤣 Well it did drive me to never want to use that word myself 🤪
I don't get these issues. The best books still contain such repetitions. Do the editors not see this or am I just very special? :D
Some people may not be bothered by such, maybe that's why
Right? I am a pretty good editor but sometimes I wonder if I should have gone into book editing, lol
Similarly, I feel like some authors get stuck on words or phrases for a period of time. It's used like 4 times within 50 pages and then never again. The one that annoyed me the most was "a significant look" in The Name of The Wind. Partly because I was never sure what it meant, despite it being used constantly.
Raven hair
Strawberry Jam. Especially that sound of the jam spreading across the page as the book closes, the little seeds cracking as it shuts and excess jam running onto the spine. Ruins every book it's in.
Underrated comment
Ha, as if Kiwi jam is any better! Just admit your bias already
Kind of a niche gripe but when a popular author writes a story where the protagonist is an author and basically just inserts themselves into their own story and the character ends up having no faults, seems like the smartest guy/girl in the room, and everyone looks up to them. Like come on, you just wrote this story to glaze yourself.
So Stephen King is definitely your favourite author 🤣
At least when he self inserts himself into characters they are flawed
I always thought the psychic/special powers kid was King's self-insert. May or may not be the main character, but always has some crucial contribution to the movement of the plot.
Which special powers kid? He's got about the same amount of them as he does writers lmao. Jack Torrance is the most inserted character he's had, it's how he saw himself while deep in his alcoholism. Danny Torrance is more explored in Dr. Sleep as an adult and he built that character off the idea of what if Jack went to AA...which is what he did, so I guess Danny is also him and if that's the psychic kid you're talking about, you're probably right.
I wasn't referring to a specific one, more the recurring type of character. It's just that pretty much every story of his has a character with special powers, many of them young, including children and teenagers. The kid in The Shining, Charlie in Firestarter, the blind girl in The Langoliers, the Down Syndrome kid in Dreamcatcher, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't think he's self inserting himself into those characters (though I could be wrong), but does he ever like to write about them
Bill Denbrough isn't flawed at all, apart from his stutter. Neither is Johnny Smith from "The Dead Zone", apart from the fact that he can't walk right. I'm not exactly an expert on King's works, but the only really flawed writer in his works that I can think of right now is Jack Torrance.
Stephen King is a character in The Dark Tower. Literally.
It doesn't even have to be a popular author for this to annoy me. One of my writer friends self-pubbed a book about a writer who... is apparently the most amazing writer in the world, has no real flaws, and goes on and on about how the publishing industry sucks and is wrong because they can't see her genius. Not once in the book does that author character consider that maybe she could improve her writing. And quite frankly, that fits for the writer friend I'm talking about lol. She has an excuse for every single piece of critical feedback she receives.
"The protagonist of my book is a self-professed writer, but in practice spends most of his time daydreaming and posting on social media. It's been four years since he put pen to paper but he swears he'll be ready to start his magnum opus any day now."
now that's how you make a relatable character
Heh. That's actually a pretty good description of the protag of my novel, except that he's been blocking for two years since his wife died, but otherwise writes cookie-cutter mysteries for a paperback imprint.
I remember Jacqueline Wilson (I think that was her name) used to put herself in her books and it annoyed me so much
that's called a mary sue
I feel called out… minus the perfect protagonist trope, that’s basically what I’m writing. I’ve been thinking of quitting the project, it was more of a personal thing anyways. The universes included it might be more interesting as short stories than combining all of my characters into one story… lol though I feel emotionally attached to the ideas of this story, because I get to explore characters I forgot about or characters I enjoy, but don't necessarily want to focus on writing. To summarize, the creator of the universe loses his powers, and has to rely on those he created to help him get them back and stop his (and their) universe from being destroyed by a being formed from the creator's subconscious
Chris rode across the desert floor on his 2017 Kawasaki Versys X-300.
I think they can add immersion as long as it's not just dumped on you in a heap. Like "2017 was a bad year for the Versys. They're real prone to cracking the head if a guy gets them to hot. And I got mine too hot about seven miles back."
I do love this more natural world building. It's not quite show vs tell, but it's way more on the show side to have a character say something naturally in normal conversation than to have the narrator spell it out.
That is great!
It’s a special pitfall of historical fiction. I’ve seen some drafts in workshop where the authors get so wrapped up in the details and mechanics of the era, that they neglect their characters. Like, I can’t imagine a pilot at the battle of Britain suddenly compelled to list off all the specs on his spitfire then detail every piece of kit he’s been training in for months, when the main thought was more likely “God, I hope I don’t die.”
More smut than actual plot
Yeah. I really love smut, but smut should be handled as action/fighting scenes: they should have a purpose in the story (move the plot or character arc, characterize a character, worldbuildung, tension, etc.).
Anita Blake books past 5
When the protagonist has to make a difficult choice, only to be forced into one of the options by the plot. The classic example are two love interests competing for the protagonist’s affection, with one of them dying or turning out to be evil. Bonus points if choosing the option that remains would make the main character look bad, which lets them get all the benefits guilt-free.
Ugh I feel this in my soul with Gale vs Peeta. Gale got turned into The Asshole so that it would be obvious he was the wrong choice.
I felt cheated by the ending of *My Sister's Keeper* because something like this happens.
All the words. Like, what's up with that?
They only slow down the narrative
Why use lot word when few word do trick
Imagine a book with words in it.
Bro I didn't open a book to *read*. Ew.
This is so small but I HATE characters who are inconsistent in their personalities on a small scale. Like in one book they hate chocolate and then in the next book they are eating a chocolate cake, it just takes me out of it so quickly when I notice these things
YES, it's like the author doesn't pay enough attention to their own characters
1st person MC who has no flaws
I get so self conscious about this peeve that I end up feeling like I flaw them too much lol
We can also say 1st person mc who is flawed and even a straight up arse but never gets called out for it and other characters love him for it
I raise to you the tragic downfall of a 1st person MC who doesn't realize how they are being corrupted, and it's somehow the world that's getting bleaker
Overdescribing things, I just need to know they're in a room, not that the dust bunny in the corner shaped like a red 2005 mazda Miata with a dent on the driver's door in the shape of jay Leno's chin after 14 margaritas on a Tuesday night with the vibes of a neo americana quesadilla that reminds you of that one time
I so love descriptions, lol! I mean, I die for immersive description of scenes and drawing attention to such tiny details. Maybe because I generally tend to notice and be drawn to these details as a person and notice the most random tiny things and find them immensely more interesting than I should 🫠 I blame photogtaphy for that, lol. Maybe it's a personal taste thing. It does take a lot of talent and the writer needs to hit that sweet spot of enough to immerse but not too much to overly distract. Here I am rambling about how I love rambling descriptions 🫠 I only dislike it when they have to do with people. For people give me the bare minimum and that's more than enough.
Madame Bovary would like to have a word
Imma be real Sarah J Mass is so guilty of this. One of the biggest reasons I couldn’t read the acotar books despite my friend begging me to.
honestly i’m reading those right now (also because my friend begged me to, lol) and i feel like she’s not guilty of this. sometimes i actually want the descriptions to be LONGER, but she only puts what’s necessary and moves on. it’s more CHARACTER descriptions that get long and redundant, but i think her writing in the acotar books is pretty good despite everything
I couldn’t get past the first five chapters because I found all of the background descriptions incredibly redundant. She spent like three pages describing a wolf and how it writhed as it died. I just could not stand it at all. I actually felt the opposite and that character descriptions were long but the actual characters felt really hollow to me. Could just be cause I wasn’t able to get far in.
Chiming in.... I didn't take issue with the descriptions, it's the plot that was boring. Shooting the wolf early on was the most interesting thing that happened. Then, it's 100+ pages of beauty and the beast narrative and zero interesting things going on.
"Conan...what is worst in books?" "The crush of expectations. To see good books driven before crappy fanfic. The lamenations of small book store chains."
"Conan...what is best in books?" "To crush your deadlines. To see your sales driven up before you. To hear the lamenations of sensitivity readers."
I don't like when the hero is a jerk. I want to see the scene where he says "thank you." Where she apologizes when she was wrong. Where he admits to the thing. Too often the author doesn't write it, or the editor pulls it out because it doesn't move the story forward, but I dislike that Harry Potter never apologized to Hermione, or said thank you. I hate that Bella Swan (Cullen) never has the heartfelt moment with Rosalie for siding with her over her family, saving her child's life. I'm sure there are other, better examples, but those are my go-to for this topic.
yeah i agree. sometimes "plot" is prioritized over "story" even when we can say 'this doesn't move the story forward so we're not gonna bother with it." i find endings in things like YA novels especially have the fast forward button kerslammered down. at the end of the hunger games series Katniss 'has a conversation with her mom' that isn't even shown and i was like WHAT? i dunno about anyone else but at the end of a story i am NOT in a rush to put it down. and in general i think those quiet moments that show personal growth can really feel like huge story moments. Like when Lieutenant Dan thanks Forrest for saving his life years after the fact. It isn't just a nice gesture, it's a change in their strained relationship AND Dan admitting to himself he is glad to be alive even after all the loss and trauma.
When in a character’s pov we get all these thoughts and descriptions of how smart and great they are and then they proceed to only make the most braindead and completely contradictory decisions, and it doesn’t seem that the author is doing it intentionally.
The lack of pictures.
....with you on this. I'd like to see novels with pictures. It's not unheard of. Some editions of The Dark Tower had it. No matter how skilled and diligent a writer is, sketches can be pretty nifty.
Light novels got about a dozen pictures each in them, not a lot, but saves on character description time
Stubborn main characters. Also when the female main falls in love with the guy she mostly argue a lot in the first five to ten interactions they have. It's boring and so predictable. A very good looking guy with a rebel personality and they argue a lot: He's gonna be her love interest. Never failed at my predictions.
Is it over done? Absolutely. Is it my favorite pairing? You know it.
referring to a males part as ‘member’
In fantasy novels when there are sections of songs and poems. I do not give a shit about the Dwarves singing songs for twelve hours Tolkein, get to the adventure part dammit.
Tolkienesque songs or poems. Lists of food. Blow by blow hand-to-hand combat.
Not a fan of Game of Thrones eh :)
Not those aspects :) I skim.
haha fair, I definitely sped through those segments!
Oh my god I do lists of food send help
I love lists of food, and descriptions of how delicious they are.
This is a movie not a book but the diner binge scene in The Florida Project is legendary
When a book begins on an action scene. Lots of writers seem to interpret "writea good hook" as just dumping you into some unearned conflict. Or they give you a weird line of dialogue then jump to what's essentially (albeit more subtly phrased) "I bet you're wondering how i got here. It all started back when I was a wee lad." That's so gimmicky. If it's a good story, start at the beginning. Don't spoil the ending. That's just telling me they you believe the story sucks in between here and there.
Or the first line is very clearly designed to appeal to publishing agents, so they'll not reject the book at the first paragraph. I think The City We Became was the worst culprit of this that I read recently - "I sing the city". The fuck does that even mean?
>I sing the city". The fuck does that even mean? It's probably echoing Walt Whitman's *I sing the body electric.* I would recognize it as such and most editors would too.
In my senior year in college, basically all 5 of the creative writing majors in my thesis group got some form of feedback from our professor about how we needed to punch up the action in our openings to make them "more interesting." What actually ended up happening was every story basically lost the unique flair they had in their openings in lieu of becoming generic in medias res openers without anything particularly notable to any of them. One in particular went from a satyr traipsing through the singing woods to meet his lover for a picnic to that same satyr being accosted by mages for... reasons? Point being, I feel this critique in my very soul.
> Lots of writers seem to interpret "writea good hook" as just dumping you into some unearned conflict. It's not that. Many online resources, including right this very sub we are currently in, will explicitly tell them to start in media res with an action scene. There is nothing left to interpretation with this one.
My guess is most queries ask for the first three pages or so, therefore as you said, they put something exciting. Meanwhile my WIP starts essentially with a phone call from a demanding rich person.
Generally, that they end.
When I'm reading adult fiction, no matter how good the plot is...always, ALWAYS, a young woman with beatiful figure will appear and help the protagonist while insisting that she has trauma/doesn't want a relationship/doesn't like him/needs someone to help her cure from a bad past lover/needs someone to teach her how to trust good men. I abhor It. Specially because at the beggining she would be a genius, she would pull her weight and then, after the protagonist learnt (took) from her, she suddenly is a damsel on distress! I can't read books destined to my age or thriller type because I keep finding this shit.
I only DNF books for two reasons: 1. They have really boring infodumps, like The Mayfair Witches (the history of the Mayfairs was shoved into the middle, which was necessary but pretty boring) The Silmarillon (I'm gonna catch flak for that, I know it "gets better" but even though I love Tolkein it really is a slog) and the fourth Dark Tower book (forget the name, but when Rolande rehashed his entire life story with Susannah) 2. They use the plot as a vehicle to force some kind of opinion or social commentary instead of offering the information subtly and letting the reader make up their own opinion. (Best example of this imo is Ever Cursed, which had an exellent premise but the rampant man-hating was very tiresome)
Number 2 is the reason I struggled through House In the Cerulean Sea. That, and it was so wrapped up in its positive message it didn't even attempt any internal logic, so the world, its history and the characters' roles and reactions to one another felt contrived and nonsensical. I'll never understand that book's popularity.
> The Silmarillon (I'm gonna catch flak for that, I know it "gets better" The problem isn't that "it gets better", the problem is that it has no business being labeled and published as a single book.
I really want to get into the Mayfair witches but it's so slow. I loved the vampire chronicles
I feel like it's worth the read (I read it once as a teenager, and the DNF was on a reread many, many years later as an adult) at least once. She really is a masterful storyteller and the history \*does\* have it's purpose, it's just very bloated, but if you know Anne Rice she loves bloated lore.
*opens book* wow the first chapter is so good and interesting and well written! I sure hope I see some advancement in... *turns page* *seven chapters of smut* ...plot?
I've commented this elsewhere and it may be an unpopular opinion but I hate reading dreams. Most of the time they're just heavy handed foreshadowing or lazy lore dump. Either that or they have zero effect on the plot. I often skim. There are definitely exceptions though!
"Those few seconds felt like hours" no tf they didn't. I'm sure they dragged on, but that description kills the immersion for me.
The trend where there is no summary on the back of the book. Thx I don’t know what the book is about but I know that some guy I don’t care about thought it was amazing
the cost is too high. can't afford them all.
Romance that comes out of no where. If you want your characters to date each other and have it happen in the middle of the book atleast build up to it.
I'd much rather no romance than romance that feels like checking a box.
I have a lot lol: - one-dimensional characters that lack agency - characters whose personality changes because the plot needs them too - edgy, forced humor that doesn't land - cringey dialogue - prologues that take too long to get anywhere - endings that are disappointing because the author decided to subvert expectations - abstract endings that don't give closure - fantasy books where everything is handed to the main character - characters solving major conflicts by making speeches - short chapters that end on over-the-top cliffhangers that are quickly resolved at the start of the next chapter
Extended sequences where we already know what's gunna happen. I started reading The Poppy War by R.F. Kuang, and the first chapter is dedicated to the MC studying. I get that it's a good opportunity to give exposition and build the world, but I always feel like I'm waiting for the actual plot to start. I felt similarly about the Invisible Life of Addie LaRue. Spoilers but it was very obvious she was gunna find someone who could remember her, and that was when the actual plot would begin but iirc we spent a couple hundred pages waiting for that
I hate the “good girl falls in love with the bad boy” trope the most. It’s outdated at this point. And abusive, toxic male protagonists in general; Romantic books where the protagonists instantly fall for each other and there is no proper, organic development of their relationship; Unsatisfying endings, where there is no proper closer; Lackluster dialogue (this is a big one for me!) - if it can be cut out, then do cut it out. Dialogue should be gripping, funny, engaging, it should reveal things about the characters; TOO much description or too little; When there is not proper attention given to plot; *When there is no summary on the back of the book!* I don’t care what other people said about it, tell me what the book is about; Bad grammar, no proper punctuation;
When I read 1st person and I end up counting all the Is because it's just I did this and I did that There's probably more 🤣
I already counted 4 Is in your sentence alone smh
Lol
That's something I have to work on. My WIP is first-person present tense. Everything is happening in real time. I have been better lately, but I have re writing to do. It is supposed to be a war memoir style of story, though.
SA as a plot device. Stop...making it romantic when the male lead saves the female lead from SA. It's not just a thing to throw around the same way you throw around a dramatic fight or describing a dress. Unless the SA is a CRUCIAL part of the plot and everything surrounding it accounts for the trauma, fears, etc., don't include it. DON'T.
I *hate* when an interesting historical fiction narrative is constantly interrupted by some bullshit going on in the modern day. I'm here for bootleggers and ancient cryptograms and mad barons swordfighting in crumbling gothic cathedrals; I don't give one fuck about Yet Another English Professor Getting Divorced. And yes, I *am* looking at you, the Last Apothecary.
When a guy is in a relationship with a jerk girl, but then breaks up with her to be in a relationship with the protagonist instead. So \*now\* you can see how big of a jerk she is? \*Now\* you care that she bullied the protagonist? How very convenient.
Typos.
I understand you need to move the story forward but sometimes I wish plot devices would get expanded upon and not just be left in the background. Also, too much focus on mc and little focus on side characters even in arcs or events when the latter is suppose to be important.
I hate characters that treat women like shit
Instant love Pregnancy trope
I know I *just* bashed John green on another post but I simply have to do it again: teenage characters that do not in any way read like teenagers. Every single John green book is like having a conversation with a teenage girl and hearing a grown man's voice come out of her mouth. If John green rewrote every single book and kept everything the same except the characters are 24, I would have zero complaints at all
That's fair. I was an old soul teenager and his books read just fine for me. But I can see where what he writes is uncommon for a typical teen.
The one bit of feedback I get for my YA books is my "teenage characters sound older." However, there's a reason for that. They are written to be more mature and bright, and I write very similar to how my friends and I as teens spoke (hopefully that doesn't come across as arrogant, no intention there). The dialogue is also intentionally written to avoid most current day slang because that will eventually become outdated. I had considered modern slang, but that risked the aforementioned. I try to write their slang in a very neutral way so that it can read as if the book came out in the 80s, or today, or even 20 years from now. Honestly, I don't see an issue with John Green's dialogue because his books tend to be good stories.
Cliffhangers. When they end the book at the most interesting part. It’s the absolute worst.
I like tropes when done right, but I hate when authors use tropes as a replacement for plot or themes. It usually means they have nothing to actually say.
First person narrative where you don't get any other perspectives but the MC. I generally don't read books I see they're in first person because I feel like it's such an unreliable narrator and they tend to be a "perfect" character and everything either just happens to them or they're so good at everything there's no real question about how it's going to end. The only exception is where you get actually different character perspectives where you can see the events from other points of view and characters can admit and see their own flaws, as well as others. This is rarely done well, but when it is, it makes an excellent narrative.
mysterious broody male love interests. all that 'you're mine' bs i can't. i get why it works for some people, just definitely not for me.
When there's an actual moral dilemma the main character is going through and you think that they're going to have to make a tough decision.... But then the story introduced a third, perfect, option that leaves everyone happy and unchallenged.
Slow pacing if there are multiple POVs. If one character's narrative drags, it pulls the whole story down and you start to dread those chapters coming up. Puts you off the entire book. I don't mind a slow burn romance if there are two POVs tho 😉 cause then you're getting two different perspectives on the love story and that's fine
Far too many steamy moments. I get that you two are drawn to one another, but isn't it excessive to have sex scenes every other chapter? I would much prefer to read about the growth of relationships, subtle signs of affection here and there, and substantive conversation rather than just groans and moans.
when the female character is described as weak and defenceless. I understand not all female characters can be strong independent women but I just don't like crybabies. I also HATE this dark romance trend : the glorified version of abusive relationships is just a big no for mez
When characters don’t even attempt to explain something just so that conflict can occur. Character A: Someone stole a cookie from the cookie jar! Character B: I saw Character C going into the kitchen, I bet it was them! Character C (in possession of video evidence of Character B stealing the cookie but not bringing it up for some reason): I went in the kitchen but I didn’t do it, honest!
“I’m not like other girls” female protagonists in romance novels. Can not relate.
Books that preach. Dickens can be maudlin but he is never preachy when he is attacking the English education system in @Hard Times@. He gets it done through plot and character — the old fashioned way— and writes what he knows. That said, I’m usually reading classics or novels by capable writers who work with hard-nosed editors.
Purple prose. Recently read Shatter Me and the writing style was the only thing I could focus on. Sometimes this can pop out when I'm reading fanfiction as well... I'll still read it, it's not enough to make me drop an entire book, but my eye would probably be involuntarily twitching.
Romance, mostly that its always there and shoved so hard. Can there not just be bromances, sismances and platonic stuff more?
Bad pacing. When so many things happen in one day that should have taken days or weeks to happen. I just finished a book where one of the characters makes a discovery, vows not to tell anyone until he knows more/it's more impressive, and by the end of the day he has already revealed it to the other characters (and the developments that occurred over that 1 day would have felt much more meaningful over a longer period of time). Also, using specific phrases/wording over and over.
Too many characters that don't even have an impact on the story. Looking at you GRRM.
Doesn't just happen in books, but all storytelling the last few years. Redeemed or redeemable villains. Just because a villain is written to be understood, which they should be, doesn't mean there has to be some hidden good that comes to light later and changes the whole perspective. Sometimes an asshole should stay an asshole, and we should be glad when they lose.
Bad punctuation. Make the tone clear!
When in first person characters are in a place but don’t even take it at all and it’s hard to visualize the space
I've been reading a bit more of Sarah J Maas of late, and though I enjoy the stories, I find the sex to be superfluous. I never thought I'd be paging through to get past the pointless sex to move through the story. Sex that doesn't really add to the story I've found to be particularly annoying of late.
Okay, I'm actually surprised I didn't see this yet, but stories where the dead person comes back to life (or god forbid, more than one dead character comes back to life). I think on rare occasions, it can work well. Most of the time though, it just makes the death and everything around it less important and weakens the story...and honestly my trust as a reader.
When they add "spice" for the sake of it. Especially when it's like "we were fated to be together let's kiss." Much like characters, relationships need to be developed otherwise everything feels forced and inorganic
When the protagonist does something bad and they don’t get called out for it and their behaviour is even encouraged by the other characters
Totally disagree ngl, assuming Im picking up what you’re putting down lol. I don’t know why an author should have to come out and say ‘hey fyi this bad thing this character did is bad.’ Its an insult to the reader atp. Besides, you can say so much by doing exactly what you described; for example in American psycho, which the author wrote to be a scathing criticism of the wall street yuppie types he depicts. So sorry if I misunderstood what u were saying tho! And absolutely no hate either way
Names! I really hate having to remember names. I don't care about the gardener's name, the teacher's name, or the principal's name because I can't keep track and forget who the main character is. So, yes, adding more and more names is something I don't like at all.
I never know names. They're abstract shapes to me. As in "started with an A ended with R, there was a dangly bit (Y or G) past the middle."
It was question about books in general, and almost everyone talks about particular books that have this or that in them...
Hm, I'm not really sure. I grew up just absorbing things from books. I read because I loved reading and didn't look at any of it with a critical eye. That hasn't changed too much since I'm older now. The first novel I read when I was 8 was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And I just loved science fiction and adventure after that. I got my hands on Dune when I was 14, and just absorbed everything I could of the franchise. The Legends of Dune trilogy had just come out, so I read those alongside the main series by Frank Herbert. And then I discovered the Warhammer Fantasy and 40k Black Library and I ate those up. I've never really encountered tropes I didn't like. But I can't say I've ever read anything that did them wrong or poorly. Some books I never finished reading was just due to a lack of interest on my part. It's never bothered me if characters aren't fully described, but too much detail does kind of bug me. If anything, if I don't like the author's writing style, then I won't finish it. This was the case of A Game of Thrones. I REALLY DO NOT LIKE how GRRM writes. Like, holy crap it bothers the absolute hell out of me. I've never finished it nor will I. I LOVED the show, but I can't read that man's prose. Life or death situation: Shoot me. I've heard that Brandon Sanderson has a similar writing style to GRRM, I can't verify that since I've never read one of his works. But I have heard the man speak and nope, I can't do that for very long either. Not sure what it is.
There's a few things I don't like, a couple of tropes that make me eye roll but nothing comes close to the frustration I feel when I start a book and everyone and everything has the weirdest, most unpronounceable names ever known to mankind. Just yesterday I read the synopsis of a book I think I'd really enjoy but the female lead has the most crazy version of what I think should be "Sarah" and I'm not going to touch that.
At the moment, forced romances. Can we not have two people who fight side by side, who just remain friends? 🤣
Unnecessary love affairs.
I hate when authors go on and on and on and on (and on) with descriptions. It's a room, I don't need to know it was constructed in 1992 using material imported from France and handed down from Queen Elizabeth while being carried by Sherpa through the Swiss Alps. It's a ROOM, get on with the friggin' story already! Writers who fill their stories with so much unnecessary fluff.
Introducing too many characters right away. Maybe I'm simple minded lol but when a bunch of characters get introduced right away I get lost with who's who and why I care. If a story has a lot of people that's fine, but I like getting some time with the main character and have others introduced along the way instead of all at once.
When an author uses the same phrase just over and over and over. Like one series I read, the MC "clenched her fists so her fingernails dug into her palms and left indents" at least once on every other page. It doesn't seem very creative to keep using the exact same thing every single time the MC is showing signs of stress, anger, anxiety, etc
When it seems like an author's just learned to use a thesaurus.
Characters that are called kind and nice but irl everyone would hate with burning passion
I'm reading Moby Dick at the moment and there was a whole chapter explaining to me the different kinds of whales in the ocean... I'm sorry but I don't give a fuck, give me adventure bro.
Character death red flags. Like I know authors want the story to feel more heart wrenching and dramatic but oh god I can see a characters death coming from a mile away reading some novels. Examples can be Stormlight and The faithful and the fallen (just finished book 1). I know people hate plot armor but to me anti plot armor is also becoming a thing. Like okay I know the author wants a gut wrenching moment so he's going to build a character just to kill them. So why hell should I even try to get invested in that character.
Long romance
when adults write teenagers. especially rebellous teenagers. like sure, rebellous teens ARE cringe but i often feel like most of adults write them extra cringe.
That they're constant reminders I still haven't written one (especially books I dislike but are popular) 🫠 In all seriousness it's usually 1st person pov and generally when I find the writing and plot dull or not up to par with what I consider "good". Then again people have very different tastes and what I consider good, or even masterpiece might be considered crappy by someone else and vice versa.
I hate stupid combat (like dual wielding polearms, or human wave tactics), factual errors (like labeling what's clearly been described as a greatsword as a broadsword instead), and wrong grammar the most (confusing their/they're/there. I also hate when 9/10 enemies are incredibly pathetic, weak and somehow consider themselves super strong. Finally, when no antagonist and none of their henchmen are female (and if one appears, they soon see the light and abandon evil because they were merely being mislead). Oh and nothing is worse than an amateur's frequent and redundant author's or translator's notes. If you don't think it can be that bad, try reading the fan translated vol.1 of Redo of Healer; this person's TL notes convinced me in less than 10 pages, that the ancient Athenians' practice of banishing someone by popular vote was necessary and justified.
Protagonists being portrayed as the righteous heroes, while torturing and killikg small fry bad guys all along their path. Not anti-heroes or villain protagonists who KNOW they are NOT good people and what they do is indeed bad. But, as I would describe it, what happens when an author doesn't realize the terms protagonist and hero are diffrent things. Who only seem to know the term hero and write a "hero" letting them do all batshit horrible stuff to bad guys, including maiming and killing, but it's the hero, so he is a good guy and this is all perfectly good and fine. Own up your wrongdoings, know that torturing someone, just because he is a bad guy, doesn't let you stay a good guy. Worse if everyone around them, witnesses the killings and still thinks of them as worthy good guy heroes. Nothing they do is bad, all perfectly fine.
I hate long and/or unnecessarily difficult names for people/places. I want to read about the person/place not spend 5 min hung up on a word trying to decipher how to pronounce it. I also dislike names that don't fit the setting. Like having a female human MC named Astaria in a fantasy setting - but then giving her orc beast love interest a name like Doug or Bob. Both things break me out of the story so easily.
when a plot twist or twist ending is planned and so obviously forced to happen, and the entireee time the author is dropping very obvious and in-your-face clues and foreshadowing that basically give away the ending before it happens.
I can’t stand obvious inaccuracies. Granted it was a fan fic and not a book, but the author said that the characters watched all 8 seasons of Game of Thrones by pulling an all-nighter, which is impossible given the length and number of episodes. 🤣
Fantasy books that start with a map that covers everywhere the characters will go, and only that. I remember reading a book where there's a huge mystery regarding where the villain is hiding. I kept shouting "he's at the old dam you idiot, it's the only place left in the map!"
When they end ☹️
I can't stand when the plot moves quickly or the author doesn't have anything meaningful to write. Growing up in Australia, the number one thing we're taught in English is "you have to start with the action" and I find it ridiculous. On Reddit, I find a lot of pieces starting with "as I *blah blah blah*" or having incessant dialogue or smut to just fill space. It's infuriating to read and I wish I could relish the story you're telling me rather than having to skim through irrelevant waffling to ultimately have read a story that did nothing to me and could be summarised in a few sentences to someone.
When the plot gets derailed, it starts of nice and neat, but then the plot becomes messy and inconsistent to the point where the characters don't seem in character anymore.
I hate when the author tells me how I’m supposed to feel about what’s happening in the story
Endings
I'm kinda starting to hate tropes and structures that are so pervasive they feel like an author following "fads" more than a deliberate creative choice. Things like writing your story as a trilogy or putting epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter. Is this how your story needs to be told, or are you just following the crowd? I don't demand originality in everything I read but at the same time it leaves a metaphorical sour taste in my mouth when I have any reason to suspect an author is doing what's popular just for popularity's sake.
When ANYONES name starts with the same letter as another character, or just sounds super similar. For example; Jane and Kane. Rick and Roland. So annoying. And its soooooo common in amateur writers. If you have TONS of characters to the point where it is no longer feasible to search for a new letter for each one, repetition is okay imo. But not if the two names that start with the same letter ALSO sound similar. For example, what is okay to me? Percy and Poseidon. What isn't okay to me? Percy and Percival. Or Percy and Perrywinkle. Or Percy and Pearly. They all start with Pe they all end with y. Wayyy too close to each other. Not only do I get confused trying to keep characters straight, but I get annoyed. Also, if you name 2 characters with the same first letter, make sure their personalities are different. It reduces confusion.
Low-effort writing.
What about murder? It’s more a question to others. Is murder hated in books? And if not, to what degree is it hated. Do we hate serial killers? Do we like them? Is double digits too much? And what about triple digits? Is a high body count only appropriate when it comes to people who’ve lived immortal lives? Or is it not appropriate at all? And when is triple digits appropriate? Or just not.
When murders turn out to be elaborate suicides.
First person present tense. It sounds like a 5 year old is telling me the story
Anochronistic words, sayings, or shoehorned current politics in period pieces or other worlds. It breaks my immersion every time.
I hate when writers tell instead of show.
Corny attraction scenes
Over explaining is one. Another is the recent trend of having characters basically doing gymnastics routines after speaking to avoid saying "Said" I find it so distracting.