Literary Pet Peeves

[TraderJimmy]

The OP and others who enjoy dissecting bad prose in books might be interested in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction contest (just type in Google "It was a dark and stormy night contest")

It's part picking at things in books (under sticks and stones), purposefully written bad lines and a link to possibly the worst Sci-Fi story ever written. Ever.

For my own literary gripes, I dislike it when the author goes on and on to paint a picture of a certain attribute (cleverness, stupidity, quickness) by constantly using that word. I actually stopped reading an author that I really liked before because of this.

What I really can't stand is a book that presents an interesting situation that might put the main character into a less than favorable light. However, in the context of the story it would be a realistic choice. Then the situation is quickly resolved because oh no, we can't have the main character do that. FFFFT.

The Bulwer-Lytton contest is a pet peeve for me. I like Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He has a style no-one else has, which is interesting and joyful to bloody read. Seeing as he was writing for entertainment, it is disingenuous to claim purple prose, the MOST simply enjoyable form of writing (sigh, fine, "imo"), detracts from his work. There's also a reason Victorian readers loved him. He spins a rollicking yarn, which the great huge lengthy sentences really draw you into, they suck you along. It's almost post-modern/modern stream-of-consciousness stuff, except even more revolutionary, it was applied to genre fiction! Fantastic.

Also, the author of one of the very first SF novels, and one which influenced a HELL of a lot of the 1880s-20s, the Coming Race. Know where Bovril comes from? That's right.

Hate Bulwer-Lytton at your peril, for I adore him.

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

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

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

BLOODY ORBS! ARGH!!! *ehem* yes, I feel rather strongly about that too. I also hate the word perfect. I once read a book where someone kissed someone 'perfectly' and thought to myself what a waste it was. Perfectly doesn't describe a goddamned thing.

Is it even POSSIBLE for a kiss to be perfect? Two slabs of muscle flailing awkwardly at each other?

Unless you're talking about a fairly chaste kiss. I can understand those being perfect. But they're not very romantic, so I sort of sense you're not talking about that.

 

[Krantos]

Poor Dramatic dialogue. Goodkind was bad about this. Anytime a character speaks, or people interact and it feels off because you know that no one would actually talk like that. It's like the author said "well, this dialogue is less important, so I'm just going to use my first draft on it."

Or plot/character inconsistencies. Also something Goodkind is bad with. These are when a plot point is introduced or a character is described in a certain way, and then later (usually happens in a series) it is inconvenient for the story so, rather than move things around or something, the author simply ignores it and pretends it never happened.

Moralizing. Damn, it seems I just keep picking things that Goodkind sucks at. This is when the author decides they can't get their point across through plot, settings, etc. and bold facedly tell you what it is. Often this can be found as long winded monologues by the author insertion character. Or if you're Goodkind, you fill your story with so much over the top characterization, plot etc, that only a moron wouldn't realize that your message is "Religion is Bad," and then fill the books with excessive moralizing anyway. "And so he did. And then he ate his own shoe."

Now, I liked Wizard's First Rule and Faith of the Fallen. They're really, really good. And the character of Nicci is one of my favorites. But aside from that Goodkind is just a bad novelist. His plots are full of holes. His characters are one-dimensional cut-outs that he randomly changes whenever he wants. And he can't go a single book without a multi-page monologue on moralizing. And he got increasingly obsessed with sex in books 2-5.

 

[Krantos]

I've never read a good book in first-person narrative.

What all have you been reading? There are a ton of excellent novels in first-person:

*snip8
That's fifteen (EDIT: wait, sixteen) off the top of my head. I can understand if not everything there is on your list of faves, but you're seriously saying that you could not or have not read and enjoyed any of those books at all? Your objection sounds to me like saying "I don't read books with red covers."

Also Dean Koontz's Odd Thomas Books. And Janet Evonavich's Plum Novels (Not really quality books the but they're funny as hell).

 

[Koroviev]

Really long sentences, pages-long paragraphs, and excessively long chapters all get under my skin. I mean, I can tolerate them depending on the work (I'm looking at you, Kafka), but I prefer when I don't have to deal with them at all. My ideal book is actually exemplified by the one I'm reading now, 2001: a Space Odyssey.

 

[Koroviev]

-A huge buildup to a climax only to resulting in a disappointing slap-fight. Screw up a climax and the reader will feel like they read the book for nothing.
-Poorly designed characters that you can't actually feel sympathy for whenever they get hurt or something, i.e. the characters in Twilight.
-Characters talking in a way that is completely out of their personality.
-Simulated dialects in speech. It just makes it harder for me to read the book.
-L. Ron Hubbard.

I love Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but I nevertheless think that it is guilty of fumbling on the climax. I mean, it is functional, but it's over way too fast and the supposedly menacing opponent turns out to be no more challenging than swatting a lousy fly.

 

[Koroviev]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Koroviev]

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

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

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

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

 

['Aredor]

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

snip

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

 

[TraderJimmy]

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

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

Is it even POSSIBLE for a kiss to be perfect?

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

I do envy you.

 

[Kuroneko97]

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

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Any sort of character that exists purely for exposition.

 

[AlexMitu]

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

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

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

I hope you can tell the difference.

 

[AvsJoe]

It was a dark and stormy night.

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