Pet peeves in books

This one isn't that bad. It's not what it's about, but how it's about it. If you portray your bitchy teenager as insufferable and eventually they learn their lesson, bam. Engaging character arc. See Spirited Away, except replace "bitchy teenager" with "whiny little girl." She experiences some crazy stuff and comes away better for it.

 

"Hi my name is Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way and I have long ebony black hair (that's how I got my name) with purple streaks and red tips that reaches my mid-back and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Amy Lee (AN: if u don't know who she is get da hell out of here!). I'm not related to Gerard Way but I wish I was because he's a major fucking hottie."
-My Immortal

Doesn't this say it all? *sigh*

 

Everyone, but #1 worst in the Dwarven Politics Department was Christopher Paolini

 

It hate it when authors decide to make their own rules when it comes to grammar and instead of putting dialogue in quotation marks, do something else totally weird with it, like write it in italics or with no spaces instead.

 

I remember that travesty. Me and my sisters once read through part of that while watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I; it was funny as hell because it was so terrible. So much wrong with it...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing bad writers; we were all terrible at one point (I know I sure as hell was). But I'm not entirely convinced that "My Immortal" wasn't a troll fic, either, because dammit, nobody can be that bad.

--

As to pet peeves in writing, I'd have to say when someone takes way too much describing one thing or one person, or is way too flowery in their prose. Sometimes less really is more.

 

Too many italics puts me off.
And I hate it when the writer of a thriller makes it too obvious, too early who is the traitor or the culprit!!!!!!

 

These, especially when said preaching consists of a thinly veiled religious analogy.
Also, when authors have a change of heart (read plot) and therefore have to fundamentally change established characters.
It's bad enough that they're changing the plot, don't ruin the characters while you're at it.

Finally, killing of characters just to create drama/tension. I mean this specifically in situations where said death can be avoided, for example: unnecessary heroic sacrifices or stupid actions by one of the MCs.

---------- Post added 12th Oct 2015 at 10:55 PM ----------

Tolkien didn't actually write much Dwarven politics in his main works.
But this reminds me: unrealistic (fictional) racism or other divise conflict.
Where two races, factions, groups etc, hate each other, just because plot.
For example Dwarves and Elves hate each other because they're different races with different mindsets and/or because of earth vs trees.
Rather than a more intricate reason like betrayal of one group by the other for example.

One thing that's hard to get right by the way, is using existing, popular ficional races. Authors quickly stray into to different or copy-paste territory.

 

Again, these mystical race conflicts are often religious in some way, though that's not always a bad thing.

Another annoying thing: predictable plot, paper-thin intelligence that drifts over a character momentarily and overused clichés. That is, teen romance novels.

 

Seconded. Tropes/cliches/pet peeves are basically synonyms in any entertainment industry, not just books. A little note: making a character "relatable" by throwing in characteristics/actions that don't fit into their super-smart personalities is called the "Logan's Run Rule". Also, I'm not sure what you meant by the "Brown"/"Black" descriptors. Don't authors have the tendency to describe anything and everything in flowery language?

I love your list, Gen (meaning that I hate all the concepts on it)!

I have a couple of extra pet peeves that irritate me:

-The protagonist's parent(s)/family was murdered, or mysteriously died when the protagonist was young. Too many orphans.

-A mysterious transfer student appears in the protagonist's class. More often than not, the mysterious transfer ends up as the protagonist's love interest.

-A character that becomes out of character--character development doesn't equate to a complete 180 personality flip.

I have many more, but those are the ones off the top of my head

---------- Post added 12th Oct 2015 at 05:50 PM ----------

Yes, it does. Thankfully, this is officially unpublished...I hope.

 

The only person I've seen who has done this is Stephen King; but there can't possibly be anything worse than introducing oneself as a character in the series!
Ego trip!

 

He's not the only one. Have you ever read anything by Michael Morpurgo? He tends to do this a lot in his books. Or at least the ones I've read anyway.

 

Not per se, but more often than that it's just a thin veil to hide that the author wanted to have conflict between these two races just 'cause, replacing just 'cause with just religion.

 

I had such a problem with that when I first started writing. One day I went over all my characters and realized that, somehow, every one of my characters except one had at least one dead parent. (Needless to say I have since reworked every damn one of them.)

I don't know what the hell was wrong with me. :bang: Of course, I was an angsty teenager at the time. Now I steer clear of that cliche like the plague. It's become one of my pet peeves, as well. I didn't even think of that until you said it.

 

General question for everyone here.

Do you like it when the bad guys win?

 

Depends. In Game of Thrones, nobody's a complete good guy (unless they're dead or soon to be dead). But, yes, overall I prefer the bad guys to lose - because they're usually awful individuals - though that doesn't mean the good guys have to win in that situation.

---------- Post added 13th Oct 2015 at 11:26 PM ----------

Another pet peeve: when a character goes from being totally unappreciated for their talents and unrecognised for their achievements to being seen as a God amongst mere mortals.

This is worst when a book where the protagonist is humble and modest is adapted for TV or film and becomes a vain human sponge for praise and recognition for the slightest thing.

 

Metaphors and references to mocha, coffee, cocoa chocolate, caramel, etc. References to anything edible, flavorful, or pleasurable. References the colors of the fall season. References to night and actual darkness. The list goes on. Additionally, you know which of the brown characters in the story are meant to be seen as overtly attractive or appealing because they are the warm browns, warm mochas, warm mahogany, etc. It is nauseating.

Put down the spices and cookbooks. Put down the thesaurus. Stop trying to be poetic. There are tasteful, non-objectifying ways to describe non-white skin other than the obvious; however, ninety-nine percent of those who attempt to will resort to what is listed above and fail. Why bother?

I can't with this post.

Especially with how it ties to my post because if because of racial differences aren't highlighted through gross references to comfort food and autumn, then it will be like: The moonlight reflected on her beautiful ebony skin. She had a dark complexion with raven black hair. Nathaniel had never laid eyes on a brown so rich.

Oh nevermind the princess was Asian. Such pale skin.... Such almond eyes...

 

Finally. Someoen else who read Eragon.

I think my biggest pet peeve would be when everything is too obvious. When I KNOW that character is going to die, or when I KNOW that character is the real bad guy. I want to be surprised when I read a book, not bored after I've already figured out what happens next.

 

Just quoting this for the lols because "like the plague" is generally seen as a worn-out comparison.

I've read Eragon! I liked it alright mostly for being accessible high fantasy. All throughout I got the idea it was written by a young author, or by somebody trying to make it an easy read. It turned out later that Paolini started it at 16. Huh.

It wasn't a really bad book, but his inexperience showed under a little scrutiny. Paolini's language waxed deep purple at times, Eragon is totally a Gary Stu, whom at one point in the book wielded a sword with a five foot blade as an average young teenager (redonkulous and retconned into 3'6" in later editions) and the author's worldbuilding is clearly an attempt at Middle Earth, but has several holes and inconsistencies. It's basically a guilty pleasure. I've read some suggestions by critics for tiny changes that make the book soooo much better, and in hindsight I was shocked that he would have missed the ideas they presented the first time around.

 

O.K, how's this: "I avoid that cliche like Kim Davis avoids the subject of her four divorces."

Shit, that sucks, too. Let's try this: "I avoid that subject like Mike Huckabee avoids Rainbow Doritos."

Eh, that one sucks even worse... I'm sure I'll think of something.