Seanan McGuire (seanan_mcguire) wrote,
Seanan McGuire
seanan_mcguire

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Do not want...but why not?

Recently, I picked up a book that looked interesting. It hit many of my "sweet spots" for plot, description, and cover blurbs from people I trust. The cover didn't do it any favors, featuring, as it did, a generic Urban Fantasy Hot Girl standing in a Playboy circa-1984 pose, but I've enjoyed books with way worse covers. I entered the text in good faith.

By page two, I was ready to fling the book across the room. Why? Because the author had chosen to scramble the spelling of a common-to-the-genre word in a way that made it look not only pretentious, but difficult to read. This is a personal bug-a-boo of mine, since I really do feel that spelling was standardized for a reason, and while I managed to soldier through, it colored my ability to sink into the text for several chapters.

(As an aside, seriously: not all words become more interesting and mysterious when spelled with a vestigial "y." The worst example I've ever seen was in a YA series full of "mermyds," and the fact that I made it through all three volumes is a testament to the power of raw stubborn.)

One reader of Rosemary and Rue posted a lengthy, positive review, more than half of which was taken up by complaints about the pronunciation guide. Specifically, I didn't write down the correct pronunciation of "Kitsune." It's a fair cop—if you pronounce the word as written in the pronunciation guide, you'll be saying it wrong—and it's been corrected for A Local Habitation, but it was, for this person, as bad as if I'd spelled Toby's name "Aughtcober" and then claimed it was pronounced just like the month. Bug-a-boos for all!

Kate recently delivered a long and eloquent diatribe on "back cover buzz-word bingo," which I really wish I'd had a video camera running for, because it was awesome. The summation is that she watches the back covers of books for certain "buzz-words," and, if the book works up to a magical bingo score, she doesn't read it. I do something similar with bad horror movies, since there are specific buzz-words that mean "soft core porn" and "gratuitous torture," and those really aren't what I'm watching the movie to see.

So what are your bug-a-boos? Terribly twisted spelling? Pronunciations that you don't agree with? Buzz-words oozing off the back cover and getting all over your shoes? How about heroines with ruby hair and emerald eyes who aren't appearing in an Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld fanfic epic? Inquiring blondes want to know!
Tags: contemplation, cranky blonde is cranky, don't be dumb, kate, oh the humanity, reading things
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 181 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
Unnecessary messing with spelling (other than the acceptable UK versus US variants) tends to bother me, yes. And yes, sometimes to the point of not being able to pay attention to the story, and therefore giving up. Probably more than most because I'm dyslexic, I think (yes, a dyslexic editor... yes, I'm weird). If I don't agree with a pronunciation guide in a book, I can ignore that. It's in the back or the front, but not in there throughout. Using buzzwords to clue you in to whether it's actually what you're looking for is a good tip. I can deal with some gratuitous descriptors, as long as the story doesn't get lost, in part because I read fast. But they will often make me snicker.
I don't even mind much if it's, like, one or two things—the pretentious teenager who calls herself "Ravyn," or the centuries-old wizard whose name has what used to be a standard spelling, and is now riding the crazytrain. But when you have buckets and buckets, I become twitchy.

jacylrin

7 years ago

Trying to do something technical (usually with aviation or computers, but it can be spaceships or submarines or anything that requires a BS degree or equivalent schooling to operate) and showing that one has absolutely no idea what one is writing about... any basic violation of the laws of physics or chemistry without suitable explanation. F'rinstance, if losing power from the engine(s) leads to an immediate, catastrophic fall from the sky. (It doesn't, as Cap'n Sulley taught us; it just becomes a big damn glider in need of a good runway. Hudson River: Long? check. Flat? check. Dry? oh, well.. :)
Speaking of big damn gliders, have you ever read Freefall? (Freefall: From 41,000 feet to zero - a true story, William and Marilyn Hoffer, Simon & Schuster, 1989 ISBN 978-0671696894)
Names I don't like are mine, although this is quite arbitrary on my part; characters that are either too-well described or not described at all---or worse, when they're not described at all until halfway through the book when suddenly the author drops a reference to her appearance and I'm thrown thoroughly off by a character I'd been thinking of as ancient Egyptian in hairstyle and coloring suddenly having blonde ringlets.

Names that are too complex, unfamiliar, or otherwise difficult for me to remember and differentiate and keep track of, especially when there are a lot of characters or complex relationships/genealogies---I can't enjoy a book if I'm constantly forgetting whether Liriliessyn is Ilirnisswyn's sister or mother or former nursemaid or best friend or second-cousin-once-removed.

Yet-to-exist technology, slang, or renamed common items mentioned without sufficient context to let one figure out what they are. Tamora Pierce's Terrier series just barely avoided my wrath on this one, and was not completely without frustrated exclamations of "Peaches? Peaches!? Call them breasts and have done with it, honestly!"
Yeah, I can totally roll with all of these. In the case of, say, Sprawling Welsh Fantasy Epics (tm), I can get past the second point if there's a dramatis personae at the front of the book. If not? Something's on fire.
If there is a grammatical error on the back cover, it goes back on the shelf. It honestly doesn't matter what the story is about: for me, it would take an awful lot to get me to overcome that prejudice. (There's an edition of Jane Eyre that I would never buy because, beyond there being better editions out there, it has a gratuitous grammatical error in its description of the novel.)

I honestly can't get past cover art that is, in my opinion, ridiculously awful. I still haven't finished the Ghatti's Tale books by Gayle Greeno because I simply can't bring myself to purchase Exile's Return (the expression on the woman's face is appallingly off-putting on that cover). (To be fair, though, I bought many Wheel of Time books in spite of Darryl K. Sweet's awful covers because I was heavily invested in the story. I wasn't that invested in the Greeno books.)

Beyond that, I am wary of exclamation points (though this mostly applies to movie back-covers). If there are at least five exclamation points, you better put that down and edge away as if it were toxic waste. Unless you enjoy stupidity and hope that it falls into the so-bad-it's-awesome category.
The back cover issues make me sort of sad, even though I share them, because I know from experience that the author has little to no input. (Doubly so in the case of Jane Eyre, what with the author being dead and everything.) Covers are a little more forgivable, since they're just designed to catch my eye, not to tell me what the story is about.

I try to use as few exclamation points as possible, unless I'm taking dictation for the mice.

fireriven

7 years ago

As odd as it may sound, too much capitalization makes my eyes glaze over. I've encountered books that start by introducing four or five people, each with multi-word titles or honours, along with an assortment of items that are referenced by trademark or other form of proper name. Sometimes I've dropped those during page one.
Yeah, I can see that. It's a fine line I have to walk in InCryptid, since the Aeslin mice are very fond of Dire Proclamations, and those usually involve lots and lots of capital letters.

dulcinbradbury

7 years ago

lovefromgirl

7 years ago

Was that me? I remember ranting about that. I did edit when stormdotter mentioned you pronounced it write in readings/filks, so it was probably not an author inclusion. (Which lets you know one of my pet peeves.)

Also. Moon phases. I usually spend a week teaching college students the basics of celestial coordinates and the phase of the moon. This means I tend to notice when you have your new moon rise at midnight, or a crescent and full moon near one another in the sky. (Yes, for some reason, I can suspend disbelief long enough to read most SF with far worse science, but I'll bitch about moon phases.)

The fact that hero and heroine cannot be in a room together without getting distracted by sexy times. Or, really, the hero and heroine being attracted by one another and the narration* asserting this is True Love when all I see is 'They think the other one is sex on legs and fun in bed'.

I also hate the trend of showing the female protagonist from the chin down on covers. Mostly because all of them start to look alike, AND that I dislike what it says about the main character to not have her face visible, even in the sort of skulking in the shadows way.

I'm beginning to hate the trend of giving series books very similar names. I don't mind Jim Butcher's Dresden Files (all the books until the upcoming one have two word titles, often with a bit of a play on words), but I nearly missed the most recent book of Michelle Sagara because I confused Cast in Silence with Cast in Shadow, and I once had to run back to a bookstore to exchange Green Mars for Blue Mars. (Or maybe the other way around.)

* Assuming it is not the hero or heroine narrating, in which case, I can just add 'confuses infatuation with love' to character traits.
I don't think it was, but it may have been. I don't know. It really is a fair cop; I just cringe to think that people may have judged the whole book based on a single typographical error.

I get it about the moon phase—I have the exact same reaction to bad virology or bad animal physiology. I can suspend my disbelief as long as you're not messing with things your universe doesn't actually need to mess with. In Toby's world, the Summerlands have weird astrological behaviors, and Earth doesn't.

Apparently the whole "no face on the cover" thing is meant to allow you to further project yourself onto the heroine. Since I have a head, I find this difficult.

On the titles thing, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I stopped reading Sookie Stackhouse because I honestly couldn't tell you where I left off.
First is when the author clearly wants to write a long social diatribe and has consigned themselves to writing a novel instead. Yes, I'm sure veganism/buddhism/cosmic bran muffinism is the THING for you, but if it gets in the way of an actual story or is so clearly tacked on and pointless, the book gets the opposite wall treatment.

Second is when the story is not self-consistent or doesn't operate under knowable rules. This one really gets me on stories which involve "magic realism", like Cien An~os de Solidad. Kicks my suspension of disbelief right out, and I can't enjoy a story that way.

Third is when the author loves Words and isn't so keen on having a Plot. Sure, there are good stories which take a while to get going, but if I'm a couple hundred pages in and it's all been "character development" and exposition, hell with it. I've seen books where it's 200+ pages before any of the main characters actually interact with each other.
I am with you on all these things.

hasufin

7 years ago

dulcinbradbury

7 years ago

hasufin

7 years ago

dulcinbradbury

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

dulcinbradbury

7 years ago

Ah, there are so many. On the micro level, misuse of apostrophes is a big one. So are run-on sentences.

Humans speaking stilted dialog that no one would ever say out loud.

Books where every character is a selfish, unlikeable clod. Conversely, heroes who are too perfect, always doing exactly the right thing for exactly the right reason.

Multiple points of view switching without warning within a single scene.

Stupidly bad science in what's supposed to be hard SF.

Endless (well, they feel that way) paragraphs of excruciatingly detailed description that do nothing to advance or enhance the story.

For everyone's amusement and horror:

The Thag-o-Matic.

The Eye of Argon.
I don't mind run-on sentences in dialog—some people really just talk that way—but they're like the bacon of narration: great when used sparingly, bad for your cholesterol when heaped on too heavily.

Also, overly-perfect people make me want to punch them in the face.

shiyiya

7 years ago

My personal one is unintentional ambiguity.

There's a line in War For the Oaks about the Queen of Fairie having lips the color of cyclamen petals. Cyclamen comes in a dozen colors, so either the queen of Fairie has mood ring lips, or Emma Bull was unaware that cyclamen came in different colors. I had just been raising cyclamen (the red ones and some violet ones) either of which would have made a lovely lip color, but my involvement in the story was completely thrown by this detail, as I pondered which meaning was meant.
I *totally* want mood ring lipstick now.

ladymondegreen

7 years ago

tibicina

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

ladymondegreen

7 years ago

dormouse_in_tea

7 years ago

I like proper spelling too. :-)

As for pronunciation guides, as a non-native English speaker with an approximate UK accent and with some training in phonetics, pronunciation guides like yours generally make me twitch, (more specifically when they occur in books like The Speech Chain, which is actually a Phonetics textbook that I quite liked in other respects). I suspect it's actually an American thing that I just have issues with, because it's so obviously geared towards everyday US speakers and those who aren't just have to... well, they're out of luck, really. But of course it occurs elsewhere too, I know. I guess I just love phonetic alphabets. ;-)
See, sadly, I can't write phonetics. If you ever want to help me generate a phonetic pronunciation guide for the website, I shall worship you with cheers and with cookies, but on my own, it's always going to be tedious sounding-things-out.

meko00

7 years ago

shiyiya

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

Mostly I dislike books that go, this happened, then this happened, then this happened, without an ounce of visible feeling from the writer. I like to have a sense that I am being TOLD a story by a human being and to have some idea what that human being's interests and prejudices are. I also like to play in fantasy worlds.

My mother feels exactly the opposite and thinks that the feelings of the author slow down and get in the way of the story, she especially hates stories told in first person, and any story that couldn't "really" happen.

Our libraries have very little overlap
I can so see that.

Deleted comment

Wow. You've given this some serious thought! I just want to chime in to agree with point #4. This one especially gets me when you're, say, dealing with all these historicals/modern books with immortal characters who became immortal in the Middle Ages. I'm sorry, but a size four girl isn't going to say "sex" to them. She's going to say "about to drop dead from malnourishment."

If there were real vampires, they'd probably think anyone under a size ten looked too close to dead to be worth risking.

silvertwi

7 years ago

silvertwi

7 years ago

phillip2637

7 years ago

The thing with similar titles in a series gets me now and then because I lose track of which ones I've read and which I haven't and if it's not a series I adore I'll just stop buying them to avoid picking up another copy of the same book.

I'm getting very tired of books where the main characters go all boinky after having just met. It didn't used to bother me but now that paranormal romance has become such a wide market it's way over used. Being a little floored or attracted to someone is one thing, but instant attract leading to naked fun in a character that's not presented as being rather slutty? Not too believable. I haven't thrown a book across the room for it yet but I've been come close a time or two.

A main character that's irresistible to anyone of the opposite (or sometimes the same) sex. Dude, people have types and your buxom redhead with tits out to here and lavender eyes or your mouthy, actively unpleasant at times petite brunette with the ultimate cosmic boinky undead powers isn't going to do it for everyone!

Lots more, probably, these are just the ones irritating me this morning ;-)
On the first, I'll add "series with very clear gimmicks that make no sense, hence allowing the titles to all blend together." I'm still not sure where I am in the Kim Harrison books, because I don't watch Westerns (and didn't realize that was the gimmick for ages.)

Also, yes! Yes, yes, yes. I hate it when every single man/woman in the book is helplessly in love with the MC. Dude, what? Half the population just doesn't want to do the other half. Sex doesn't work that way.
How about heroines with ruby hair and emerald eyes who aren't appearing in an Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld fanfic epic?

On the nose. I was reading Thendara House the other day and I noticed how many of the characters were redheads! Was the population on Darkover that inbred?

I also come down hard on languages that don't make sense, particularly when the people speaking them have Earth in their history. You don't come up with new languages out of the blue once you leave the planet. You work with what you've got. It adapts over time. Simple linguistic research!

And on that note, if a name does not make sense in a linguistic context, I will be tempted to throw the book against the wall. Toby's name is logical. The presence of very modern names in sword-and-sorcery makes me wince; if you're setting your fantasy in a medieval context, please have some justification for the presence of names that came from our literature, or worse, our pop stars.

-- Named Her Starship Captain "Vera"

Deleted comment

Deleted comment

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

djonn

7 years ago

Deleted comment

They really don't, it's true. The letters combine in alien ways. Bitey alien ways that want to hurt you.

rysmiel

7 years ago

dormouse_in_tea

7 years ago

silvertwi

7 years ago

timba

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

Gratuitous deliberate spelling errors like you describe make me roll my eyes.

Really grievous unintentional spelling/grammar errors. I don't give up on an author for a typo now and then, but when the book is just FULL of errors, it takes me right out of the story. (More so since I joined the proofing pool, because now it's *habit* for me to look for those.) "How the hell did this get published without any editing?"

Making otherwise intelligent characters do something completely stupid solely for plot purposes. I suppose it's realistic enough (we *all* do stupid things now and then) but y'know, fiction has to make more sense than truth, I feel. Have a reason-- she was distracted by her brother's recent death, he was exhausted from not sleeping for two days, something. When there's no reason other than "so that we could have this other thing happen in the plot," then it just seems like cheating.

Plots, or major sections of plots, based SOLELY on misunderstanding. This is probably my biggest bug-a-boo; this is the one that will make me scream at the book or television, and raises my pulse just thinking about it. Entire lengthy strings of action leading to disastrous consequences that would all have been avoided if person A had imparted A SINGLE FACT to person B. Particularly when, in character, there's really no reason why person A *wouldn't* do so-- other than to have the Plot Points happen.

It's bad enough in romantic plots-- either the comical Three's Company "we thought they were having sex when really they were feeding the puppy!" type of plot, or the more tragic Jean M. Auel "he thought she was mad at him and she thought he didn't want her anymore when actually they both loved each other desperately but they went on to be miserably apart for forty-nine chapters because nobody would actually TALK TO EACH OTHER" type of plot. It's even worse in non-romantic plots; I can't think of a specific example, but the TV show Lost, though I love it dearly, is guilty of it a LOT. (I have found myself yelling "JUST TELL HIM ALREADY" at the TV screen more than once.)
I've got nothing substantive to add to the conversation that hasn't been brought up already ... but I'm so with you on Lost. It was particularly grating in the second season in which it seemed like everyone was experiencing odd (in some cases, potentially dangerous) hallucinations/manifestations (Kate's horse, Hurley's imaginary friend, Charlie's complex religious vision that led him to try to baptize a baby, etc.) ... but no one compared notes. Or even *thought* to compare notes, even though they're all on Cthulhu's Island or some such.

Heh. I *do* have a character named "Maelqir" in an unfinished novel, in which the name is a derivation of Melchoir, one of the traditional Magi of the Christian Nativity. However, 1. the character's bastardization of a quasi-religious figure is deliberate on his part; and 2. he's perhaps the most pretentious of my characters, fond of considering himself a god when he's just a telekinetic. In middle management, yet.

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

Ill-chosen character names are a bear for me, though this can take several forms. I've seen books in which characters have been named via spelling significant words backwards ("Nilrem" for a magician, "Krej" for a villain -- for a wonder, not in the same book). There was a book I had to check out of the library when I saw the review, just to confirm that the author really had stacked the Kryptonian Science Council with badly Tuckerized friends-and-editors. [I have no innate objection to Tuckerizations, not at all. Well done: David Weber's insertion of "Dr. Jordin Kare" into the Honorverse as a high-powered physicist. Badly done: see above.]

Inconsistent use of real-world settings: if you put the legendary Powell's Books into a novel set in Portland, and call it Powell's, excellent. If you put a bookstore that is clearly Powell's into a novel set in Portland, and call it something else, I will be tempted to throw things. (I have no problem whatsoever with inserting imaginary businesses and locations into real-world settings; that's often necessary for plot purposes. But using a real-world setting and then renaming key landmarks? Defeats the purpose and undercuts the suspension of disbelief. This is one thing that Rosemary and Rue did exceptionally well, at least for me.)

Willfully stupid characters: given a first-person narrative in which the reader can figure out what's going on by chapter five, the fact that the first-person narrator doesn't figure it out until chapter thirteen is likely to be a capital-P Problem. I am thinking of one new/current urban-fantasy series in particular, in which the author tries to deal with this by introducing a really clever twist to the way magic works...except that the twist is never applied sufficiently or thoughtfully enough to actually make the conceit work.
Dude, John Steakley's Vampire$ is a pure Tuckerization of the author and all his friends, and it is BEYOND AWESOME. Good Tuckerizing is a thing of beauty. The bad stuff gives it all a bad name.

I will make one note on the inconsistent use of real-world settings: sometimes you can't get permission/really need something that readers can visualize quickly, but don't actually want to blow up your favorite cafe. Big chunks of the seventh Toby book will be taking place in Borderlands Books, but if I hadn't been able to get Alan to okay using his bookstore, it would have been a totally made-up store that served essentially the same function.

djonn

7 years ago

alethea_eastrid

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

- Lots of made-up words for things that already have perfectly reasonable clear names. It creates a lot more work for the reader to keep straight what's what and it's annoying.
- Long-winded made-up names and fancy titles bore me to the point of dropping the book.
- Flat characters that have no real personality. I need to really care about my characters. This is one reason I have never liked Larry Niven's books. Not only is he sexist but it's impossible for me to care about his characters. Heresy! There, I've said it!
- Well crafted plot is totally necessary. Meandering tales of many characters in an elaborate world just for the atmosphere just don't keep my attention. Yawn.

Well. I am looking forward to seeing what happens to Toby next. Now if I just had more time for reading...
I get oddly more annoyed when it's just one or two made-up words, and I wind up going "what the hell...?" If you refer to everything in your world by common Earth names, and then name "chocolate" something silly, I'm going to be a lot more shaken than I would have been if you'd renamed all the spices.

Time is the enemy of us all.

shiyiya

7 years ago

paradisacorbasi

November 3 2009, 17:21:06 UTC 7 years ago Edited:  November 3 2009, 17:24:07 UTC

My bugaboos?

Spelling errors. I mean come on -- the book got published but not edited?

Needlessly convoluted language. I mean, I understand "show not tell", and that an author wants to paint a vivid image in a reader's mind, but sometimes economy of words less klunky. "She gathered her skirts in one hand, looked imperiously about, inspected the cushion for tacks, dust mites, imperfections of upholstery, and then, satisfied, she settled regally into the chair" could just as easily be "She inspected the chair; it met with her approval and she sat."

And the *Fever books right now are getting on my nerves. The heroine is a cutesy blonde forced to dye her hair black, and wear black when she'd prefer pastels. There's this whole sub-sub-sub plot about how she and her sister used made-up words in place of curse words, and she reiterates it at least a couple times a book. It was cute in the first book. I don't need that much recappage in the second book, so don't tell me how you're struggling to get past "Shut the frog up or I'll kick your petunia" so the big bad people you meet in Ireland will take you seriously.

That thing about exclamation points in another comment though -- I will remember that. I have tells in movie trailers that let me know whether to go see it or wait for it to hit cable. Quarantine showed (Dexter's sister) getting dragged into the dark in the trailer. I declared that the final shot of the movie at that point and it turned out to be right. If I can call it that accurately, they didn't put enough effort into the storytelling, IMO.

I'll allow for a certain number of spelling errors, just because there are so many points at which they can be introduced. (At least two errors in R&R were introduced between the page proofs and the printing.)

What the hell are these *Fever books of which you speak?

dormouse_in_tea

7 years ago

paradisacorbasi

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

The use of spell check instead of a dictionary or a thesaurus. Also Glaring errors in History, like the "Other Boleyn Girl".
Also Glaring errors in History, like the "Other Boleyn Girl".

Ah, but that is historical fiction, which may or may not have any basis in fact. If you didn't like Other Boleyn girl, do not read her "Constant Princess". She so totally changed the character of Katherine of Aragon as to be unrecognizable as such and even I had a hard time finishing it.

I say this having read every biography and much of the historical fiction of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Mary, any of Henry's wives and Mary Queen of Scots that has come out in the past 40 years. I can read historical novels by separating them from biographies and not really twitching too much about the inaccuracies/changes.

cleothyla

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

djonn

7 years ago

shiyiya

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

cleothyla

7 years ago

druidspell

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

It drives me nuts when the author makes up words for already-named things. I call this the klah syndrome.

I also find anacronisms seriously jarring - unless they are there because we've got an alternate universe (i.e., steampunk a la The Difference Engine) or something of that ilk. I mean, I read a historical novel (18th c., I think) where the hero kept calling the heroine "lollipop." The ick factor was bad enough, but the term hadn't been invented yet.
*sniggers* The klah syndrome - so very apt.

I remember my first con, and sat in on the Darkover meeting? (Dude, I shouldn't have packed that lunch - room FULL of food, and people who loved to cook).

Guess you know where this is going? Yup. Someone had a recipe for klah - it included tea...and orange Tang. Among other things.

Never forgot. 1976 or so.

janetmiles

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

Names that have a standard spelling, but the author is just too cool for that. In a fantasy novel set in a non-Earth world, I'm willing to let a lot side; what is standard to the setting is really up to the author. However, if your novel is set in Tuscon, and your characters are named Alis, Felex, Bruice, Fraynk, and Joolie, and your characters' parents have no reason to have named them something weird (my name is a common one spelled strangely, it happens), it annoys me. One or two characters with parents who just had to be different, fine, but when everyone in the whole damn town is a Jawn or a Tyrie, you've lost me.
Exactly! One is fine, two is excusable, sounding like the character roster for a World of Darkness game gets you fired.

dormouse_in_tea

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

tibicina

7 years ago

shiyiya

7 years ago

karjack

7 years ago

I hate, with a passion, when what is supposed to be a tight third-person or first-person viewpoints distorts specifically to get the character's name within a paragraph or two, in every time we're in that POV, or distorts to get a detailed physical description in when it's not a point where the character would think that. If you can't make the voices distinct enough so we know whose head we're in without doing something that clunky, you need to try harder.

I hate pretty much all variations on "one of my great-grandparents was Irish so I am going to write a cutesy romanticised version of the Old Country which my fellow USAns will not have any way of telling from realism", because that makes this born-in-Ireland-and-lived-there-twenty-years Irish person want to strangle you. (And if anyone wants an Irish fantasy novel that actually feels like the reality of Ireland, look up Ian McDonald's King of Morning Queen of Day. I lived yards down the road from some of the scenes in that book. He got them right.)

I hate Twue Wuv conquering all in ways that mean nobody has to put any effort into it, because, as commodorified I think once put it, using love to conquer all is like using chocolate cake to get bloodstains out of a white silk short; that's not what it's for, and trying anyway just makes a terrible mess.

I also, having been stalked, hate stalking-positive takes on romance with an irrational fury.

I strongly dislike first-person narratives that have no frame or reason for existence, and doubly so when the narrator is admitting to things where anyone in-universe reading their story might well lead to them getting arrested.

(So what horror-movie buzzwords mean "softcore porn", then ? My fifteen-year-old self would have made unwise deals with creepy supernatural figures for a reliable way of making that distinction.)
All of your hatreds are reasonable, and pleasing unto me.

Buzzwords meaning "soft-core porn" often include "rustic escape," "teenage campers," "class reunion," "graduation party," and "breeding stock."

Deleted comment

Obvious pronunciation varies widely between readers, though. (What do you mean, not everybody reads Latin and speaks French ?)

One thing that will break my suspension of disbelief entirely is if you have a castle-full of people and all of them have utterly unique and distinct birth names; any culture will have some names more popular than others, and having a Big Tom and a Skinny Tom is every bit as distinct as having a Tom and a Jack.

Deleted comment

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

djonn

7 years ago

Besides the usual spelling problems, I tend to get irked when I see misused commas. Fanfic (especially at Fanfiction.Net) tends to be riddled with it, but I've learned that if there are grammatical/spelling problems in the summary, there are bound to be more in the fic. It takes a really good plot and/or characters to make me overlook the technical problems.

I also have a thing for names. I won't read the Sookie vampire books simply because that name sounds all sorts of wrong to me. I love October's name because it's so her, though I'm still getting used to reading about a girl called Toby. I had to stop reading one romance novel that had a heroine named Douglass. I couldn't relate that name to a girl. One epic-length fanfic I'm currently reading has a heroine named Harley Quinn (no relation to the Joker's girlfriend). It's a little too ... cutesy, but the rest of the fic is good, so I keep reading. I tend to get irked over "special" spellings of common names. Krisstofur? Jenafor? Cortnie? Candies ("Candice")? Cristel? Angelic ("Angelique")? Ugh...
Names are important. I think people lose track of that way too often.

I'm a little more forgiving of "special" spellings in fanfic, because when I was a teenager, I genuinely thought that one author using a name used it up forever in some magical ledger somewhere. So they're just trying to play nice with the other children.

ravenclawed

7 years ago

herefox

7 years ago

seanan_mcguire

7 years ago

ravenclawed

7 years ago

shiyiya

7 years ago

alicetheowl

7 years ago

Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →