# Writing pet peeves?!



## Serenade (Nov 2, 2012)

Hmmm...truthfully, I don't know if this should be here (or if this has been posted before), but if it isn't, the topic will probably be moved to the appropriate section...and I'll never be heard from again. The moderators will assure you I'm just on a 'fishing trip' and 'not to worry'. And you should believe them! Anyway, this is my attempt to ingratiate (strong-arm?) my way into the WF community more, since I've only been in darkest section of the fiction corner for a while.

I know everyone has their 'pet peeves' as they say, when it comes to someone's writing. Now before you all jump up like 'hell yeah!', I'm not talking about grammatical errors or twitter posts by Lindsay Lohan. I'm talking things that irk you, even by established and celebrated writers. Things that make your countenance darken as you throw the book you began to read aside, muttering about 'the good old days when writing _meant_ something'. Here's one of mine, and hopefully you guys have some as well. Mine is:

CHARACTER DESCRIPTION BLOCK! 

You've seen it:

Lee Cryhorse was a sixteen-year old teen. He had black hair that was curly and short. His eyes were blue and icy, like a glacier, or that delicous tropical Kool-aid they sell. He was six feet tall, and weighed about two-hundred pounds. His skin was dark. Real dark. He wore a white silk shirt, that _flowed. _It complimented his crimson hot pants, which clung to his not-so-muscular legs. He also had a silver watch on his left wrist. It was set to atomic time. He was an angry man sometimes...but not all the time. When he was with his sister, he was different. He loved his sister because they were orphans from the war. He was also a soldier, and he had to join because he was starving. For revenge. He had a sword on his waist that had a crimson pommel, with a white blade...etc, etc.

You get the point, hopefully. I know there's nothing _wrong_ with this really, seeing as I've read it in a few books that have been published by authors of some repute, but every time I read it...I feel like the text is leaping off the page and giving me the middle finger...in the throat.

Either way, that's mine. I look forward to seeing the rest! And, my suggestion is to keep it to one pet peeve per post, then wait for others to post theirs, then post yours again. I have a few more, but I wouldn't want to over-saturate the topic before it even takes flight. If it does.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 2, 2012)

> but if it isn't, the topic will probably be moved to the appropriate section...and I'll never be heard from again



Too bad. I was just getting to know you.

Yes, this belongs in writing discussion. And yes, this has been done before... I think.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 2, 2012)

Eh, someone can move it if they like.  For now, I'll answer here.

I have two pet peeves.  First, blatant disregard for grammar ticks me off like crazy.  You know what I mean: "Night.  Darkness creeping over the branches of the trees.  The moon glowing brightly.  A breeze whistling through the air.  I'd been out this late before, but something about tonight seemed mystical."

That's something I came up with off the top of my head, and those first four "sentences" would nearly make me throw the book.

The other annoyance I have is when I've been told a book is good and amazing and wonderful and "the characters come alive!", and I've made it to about page 250 without connecting to a single character or feeling any enthusiasm for the story.  My standards for good writing can't be THAT high, can they?


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 2, 2012)

Getting basic facts wrong. There's poetic license and there's "Research? I don't need no stinkin' research!".


----------



## patskywriter (Nov 2, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Getting basic facts wrong. There's poetic license and there's "Research? I don't need no stinkin' research!".



I'm called on to edit a book every now and then. I hate it when I point out a basic fact that the author has butchered only to have him (or her) try to explain it away. I once corrected an author who had listed the population of our fair city at 500,000. Our population hasn't even reached *half* that number! The author spent so much time hemming and hawing about her mistake that I wanted to second-guess every sentence in her book.


----------



## dolphinlee (Nov 2, 2012)

My personal pet peeve is when 'famous' people write "best sellers." I don't mean famous authors I mean 'famous' people.

For example the autobiography of a 24 year old woman famous for getting drunk on an american TV show. 

The quality of the writing is often poor and the information is often more suited to a celebrity magazine. 

Whilst I realise that the income from these books keeps publishing houses going I just wish the content and quality of the writing was higher.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 2, 2012)

Tom Swifties.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 2, 2012)

Jon M said:


> Tom Swifties.



"Tom Swifties," Jon M replied quickly.


----------



## Elowan (Nov 2, 2012)

My pet peeve is a book supposedly written by a well-known author but has another author listed as 'with help by ...' in ultra fine print on the spine or lower cover


----------



## Nickleby (Nov 2, 2012)

A writer who injects his personal politics into a story. I'm not talking about a well-thought-out simile, where an entire story is built around a theory that may or may not be workable. In the story, of course, the theory pays off, but the message doesn't overwhelm the story. An example of that is _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_, in which Heinlein stages a revolution to illustrate his theory of economics. You can enjoy his book even if you don't agree with the moral.

No, I'm talking about an incident that will spill me right out of the narrative. The plot and the characters all grind to a halt so that someone can explain the flaws or merits in a policy. I won't cite an example because I don't want to derail the thread, but you can surely supply your own example from a TV drama such as _Law & Order_.


----------



## dolphinlee (Nov 2, 2012)

Another pet peeve is having many characters with similar names Sandy, Candy and Mandy, or several with last names starting with the same letters such as Carlson and Carlton.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Nov 3, 2012)

These seem more like reading pet peeves, but okay.

- Cutesy made-up swear words.
- Characters who are stupid, evil, or insane, so the author doesn't feel the need to give them, you know, reasonable motivations for anything they do
- The flipside of that: Characters whose actions are 100% motivated by some terrible childhood trauma


----------



## egpenny (Nov 3, 2012)

Reading Peeve:  Too much description, mainly used to bolster word and page count...that's time to skim for me.  Another is weak characters, and in the same vein weak  plots.  And all of the above that have been mentioned.
Writing Peeves (my own):  When I can't find just the right research I need and have to adjust the story.  Another is when the characters go off on some other storyline I hadn't planned for, I wish they'd stay on track, but I guess that's what makes writing enjoyable, well, most of the time.


----------



## cazann34 (Nov 3, 2012)

Sentences beginning in But or Because. I'm an old  fashioned gal and believe conjunctions should join sentences together rather than begin them.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 3, 2012)

Not writing so much, more reading. When characters pad along a hallway or across a room. People don't pad, they walk, they shuffle, they tiptoe, they run, they jog, they sprint, they glide (just about acceptable), they creep, they stalk....

Dear God! Anything but pad, please.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 3, 2012)

Character's that aren't sensible or don't do logical things. I don't mean character's in a horror story that go down to "see what's in the basement." That's expected. I mean characters that do illogical things, especially if they're completely "out of character" for that character.

I recently partially read a terrible fantasy book that, somehow, made it on the shelf. (I couldn't finish it, I ran out of Pepto.) In it, a young Captain of the King's _Bodyguard_ was completely indifferent to recent assassination of his King. "Recent" as it had just happened within the hour. Instead of taking a good opportunity for some character development, the author continued painting their crappy "happy go lucky" image all over the darn page, letting this "Captain of the King's Personal Fracking Bodyguard" defer, with extreme prejudice, to the main character. (Who was equally stooopid.) The entire book was a piece of junk, riddled with ridiculous tropes and irrational behavior. After spending a hundred pages wandering around, looking for some "hidden monestary" or something, with presumably no clue where they're going, the main character "suddenly remembers it's supposed to be off a road to the East." A hundred pages and.. he knew! They've been tramping around, getting waylaid by rogues, avoiding various nasties, escaping assassins and trying to find some retired warrior or someone who is supposed to know the way, who doesn't, and this guy suddenly remembers it's "supposed to be off a road to the East?" WTF? The book did get pretty good air-time on the way to the pile of "Those Books That Should Never Be Read" pile in the corner of my study.

Anyway, sorry.. It was a traumatic experience. But, yes, characters acting illogically or out-of-character are one of my "pet peeves."


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Nov 3, 2012)

I had a lot of pet peeves when reading Harry Potter. One of my biggest ones was when J.K Rowling suspended disbelief. Yes, she did that a few times. I remember in the 5th book, when Sirius Black died, Harry just yelled and rebelled with anger, which is not only unbelievable, but also inhuman. Rowling had lost her mother in her teen years, so she knew how people reacted when they've lost loved ones. It seemed strange that she didn't make Harry react the same way, even if he didn't know Sirius as well as Rowling knew her mother.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 3, 2012)

dolphinlee said:


> Whilst



My pet peeve: The word _whilst_.

I mean it's like you're the British Sir Whilston W. Whilstalot, respectable retired officer for Britain's Royal Navy. Okay it's not like that. It's just one of those words I can't stand.

Similar to how I instinctively despise any idiom involving cats. "You look like the cat that ate the canary" yeah why don't YOU eat a CEREAL BOWL FULL OF ACID. "You're the cat's pajamas!" Your MOTHER wears pajamas MADE OUT OF CATS.

EDIT: A more reasonable pet peeve: I was critiquing an unpublished fantasy novel and I found myself able to forgive the times when the author forgot she wasn't writing about herself and referred to the third-person main character as "I". I forgave the fact that all of the "dragon riders" had specific colours of dragon based on their personality except for the main character, whose dragon was gold because she was special. I forgave the fact that the main love interest started out as a pirate and got steadily wimpier as the book progressed. But what I could not forgive was the fact that an _entire made-up culture of human beings were characterized as inherently evil and cruel._ That is called _racism._

It got especially poignant when a "prophecy" said that an evil fallen dragon rider would kill hundreds and burn the land to the ground... Then the main character _actually does this to that specific race of people. From her dragon._

The author was not aware of the irony because the evil fallen rider eventually appeared independently and fought the main character. I was rooting for the bad guy. Seriously, the main character had just literally and by all functional definitions committed genocide.


----------



## alanmt (Nov 3, 2012)

But my eyes are icy and blue like glaciers!

Hmmmmmmm.  

In fantasy:  Generic villains with thin or no motivation. Bad or unrealistic fight scenes. Deified elves. Poorly realized worlds that make no economic or ecological sense.

In General:  People who say things to each other that are unrealistic and clearly intended to provide background info to the reader, rather than accurately reflecting how the characters would really talk to each other.



> Sister: "What's wrong, brother? I have always known since our childhood together as orphans growing up on Lord Cranston's country estate five miles outside the city when you are upset. Tell me."
> 
> Brother:  "I miss Mom and Dad, and was brooding about how they were crushed under that statue of Minister Smooley that coincidently fell off that wagon on them as they were on their way to the Queen's council to expose some unnamed treacherous minister and how we only survived because you ran off to pick up a daisy from the field and I chased you and everyone thought we were crushed to so I ran away with you to protect you and Minister Smooley took all of our family possessions."


----------



## squidtender (Nov 3, 2012)

Characters with impossible to pronounce names. Usually this happens in fantasy, but sometimes it spreads (like a cancer) to other genres. I'm not asking for "Tom" and "Joe" in every story, but if your character's name has five _Q'_s in it, and I have to form a linguistics panel to decipher it, it might be time to pull it back a tad. . .


----------



## shedpog329 (Nov 3, 2012)

when I have to look up every word in a paragraph than read it again 7 more times to get the picture


"That utilitarian, no-friller, filched, NO, denominated, every sack of shambles my daydreaming palms could drum in the dray. It was naught thense or hitherto more an inaudible era that the precursors trickled our vital vivacity due time to such as my hinting soul, when requiting befitted thy Scottish stuffs.  Hitherto that the copious thou and thy, there was such an auxillary of profusion, framing the outlines who bore the cants and tongues of our windbaged foes and their naying lorries.  Aye! Do thy remember thy lorries like the donkey's years that propelled such an adversity and blowing period. Don't thou remember such as the moroses and how they were read with such lacking charm.  Or does thou recall the violence that had pitched, blew across these plains. Thou must have the rime that shook the mountain tops eschew! Ah, as thy do!"


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 3, 2012)

shedpog329 said:


> Aye! ...
> Ah, as thy do!"



These are also pet peeves. When the author pretends they're reminiscing in that one infuriating way. "Oh lilacs - how dost thy yellow shine rival the sun's brilliant glare!" NO. SHUT UP.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 3, 2012)

cazann34 said:


> Sentences beginning in But or Because. I'm an old  fashioned gal and believe conjunctions should join sentences together rather than begin them.



Hi, my name is Morkonan and I write far too frequently using argumentative sentences. But, that's okay, right?


----------



## JosephB (Nov 3, 2012)

cazann34 said:


> Sentences beginning in But or Because. I'm an old  fashioned gal and believe conjunctions should join sentences together rather than begin them.



Old fashioned indeed, since authors have been doing it to good effect for centuries. And usage guides like_ Fowler's,_ _Garner’s_ and _The Chicago Manual of Style _all say it’s a perfectly fine thing to do. This is a myth perpetuated by English teachers who apparently don't do a lot of reading.


----------



## shedpog329 (Nov 3, 2012)

Aye,! thou's lovley speech, as melodic as Taunto whilst galloping these stark turfs. Aye, Aye! as thy brave captain should stand addressed when thou's ice burgs straight ahead.  Aye, Aye, Aye!, As gracefull as the Mexican maiden whilst gathering thou's re-fried mazes as she curses the young, or thou's young Ricky Ricardo when hitherto home to gander thou's Lucy.  Aye, thou are thy apple of thy eye!


----------



## ppsage (Nov 3, 2012)

Saying 'begs the question' when 'raises the question' is meant.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 3, 2012)

Totally agree with that, but I'm afraid it's a lost cause.


----------



## Cran (Nov 3, 2012)

cazann34 said:


> Sentences beginning in But or Because. I'm an old  fashioned gal and believe conjunctions should join sentences together rather than begin them.


But sentence fragments and incorrect prepositions don't bother you?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Nov 4, 2012)

Cran said:


> But sentence fragments and incorrect prepositions don't bother you?



I'm not cazann but will respond regardless. I love me some sentence fragments. 

Prepositions, however - you better get 'em right and you better not put them at the end of a sentence, or I will - I'll - I'll put down your academic paper, is what I'll do.

Oh wait, you're writing fiction. Okay then.


----------



## Mutimir (Nov 4, 2012)

Endings that are unsatisfying or those that go on forever.


----------



## Fin (Nov 4, 2012)

It's mostly female authors that do this - at least, I've never seen a male one do it - but I can't stand reading four straight pages of what a dress looks like. Especially since my knowledge of dresses ends at the color and whether or not it's strapless. The majority of the time that it's done, the dress is never even mentioned again. It's even worse when the character has a selection of dresses and the author decides to explain every single one of them, or explaining everyone's dress in the room. I couldn't care less about the different stones/jewels/designs twirling around the thing, especially when it doesn't have a single thing to do with the story besides making the character feel 'pretty'.

That brings up another thing. Though, this isn't exclusive to writing/reading, rather it's a general pet peeve. When someone says 'I could care less' when they mean they don't care at all. I don't care if it's sarcasm, which in most cases I've seen the person doesn't even realize that it's supposed to be. It just makes me want to stop reading right then and there.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 4, 2012)

dolphinlee said:


> My personal pet peeve is when 'famous' people write "best sellers." I don't mean famous authors I mean 'famous' people.
> 
> For example the autobiography of a 24 year old woman famous for getting drunk on an american TV show.
> 
> ...



You read these things?


----------



## Jagunco (Nov 4, 2012)

I never been a proper soldier but always a bit of a wanna by soldier so it irks me when Soldiers in books do things even I know you should never do. Also blind panic from the likes of a Navy SEAL or something. It was a bit like a certain book I read concerning the SAS that was suppose to actually have happened but was ful of daft mistakes an ordinary squaddy would have been frowned down on nevermind a member of the speical forces.

Also books that contain no reserach pertaining to military stuff if they're writing about the military... well to any subject matter really but I notice more in military books.

and Finally blatantly lucky people. Books are filled with people that are only 'alive' because of not one but several near mirculous events.... makes me feel like we won the Napolionic wars by no one but several dozen blatant acts of god...


----------



## GonneLights (Nov 4, 2012)

Literature in general, is what we're all getting at.


----------



## Tiamat (Nov 4, 2012)

Open endings.  (There's a fragment for those of you that hate those.  Now I've gotta work to start a sentence with a conjunction and end one with a preposition!)

I _hate_ open endings.  The Giver and The Handmaid's Tale, for example.  I've read each book once and will never read either again.  What's the point, after all?  It's not even a case of "Well I know how it's going to end so why read it again?" but rather "I know how it's NOT going to end so why should I subject myself to that kind of frustration again?"  I get it.  The author wants to make us think, use our own imaginations, draw our own conclusions.  It's cool.  But wait, why the hell should I do the author's job for them?  I wrote a story with an open ending once, just to see how it feels, and I've found that even my own open ending annoyed me.

I also hate characters that are good through and through.  I see it a lot in fantasy.  They never do anything wrong, they're inherently just and honorable, and they never make mistakes.  Even if the hero accidentally burns down a house and kills a newborn baby, you'll find out 500 pages (or sixteen books) later that the newborn _would_ have grown up to be a vicious tyrant that tortures and enslaves thousands and adorns the walls of his castle with the skins of every cat and dog in the entire kingdom.  I'm sorry, but in _good_books, actions have consequences and mistakes build depth.

Lastly, I hate when authors can't kill their darlings.  It bugged me deeply when Ned Stark died in Game of Thrones, but it was still beautiful.  The honorable Eddard Stark forsaking his honor in order to save his family, only to meet the ax anyways.  It was beautiful and terrible and heart-wrenching.  I wish more authors would have the guts to do things like that.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 4, 2012)

shedpog329 said:


> when I have to look up every word in a paragraph than read it again 7 more times to get the picture
> 
> 
> "That utilitarian, no-friller, feltched, NO, denominated, every sack o shambles my daydreaming palms could drum in the dray. It was naught thense or hitherto more an inaudible era that the precursors trickled our vital vivacity due time to such as my hinting soul, when requiting befitted  Scottish stuffs.  Hitherto that the copious  such an auxillary profusion, framing  outlines who bore the cants  of our windbaged foes their naying lorries.  Aye! mountain tops eschew! Ah, as thy do!"


 Joyce?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 4, 2012)

I don't often read books I dislike, what is the point? There are thousands of books out there, many more than I can read in a lifetime, so if I am not enjoying it very soon I simply put most books down and forget them. Exceptions, a couple of times I have found myself alone with little to do and a book someone left behind, there was 'Wheels of terror' about a nazi tank brigade in Russia, and 'Edge' a gruesome Western where everybody but the hero died, I think I can say I really don't like extreme, pointless violence.
The other one that got to me was one of Sir Walter Scott's later books, I learned later that by that stage he was famous and his publisher paid by the word, a perfect way of getting long winded and obscure text from someone.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 4, 2012)

It may seem obvious and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet, but straight up _typos_ are a huge pet peeve.

I mean, come on.
It's something you want people to read, and there's no time limit. Typos should never be an issue.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 4, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> ..I also hate characters that are good through and through.  I see it a lot in fantasy. ..



I agree with you on all your points except this one, which only deserves a qualification - You see it a lot in _bad_ fantasy. In what could be called a "good" story, such a character would be held in ironic contrast or put forth as a sort of comedic fool. It is worth noting, however, those innocent sorts of characters, especially in _coming-of-age-secret-power-chosen-one_ stories, can also be used as a parable for supposedly older and wiser people in a good story. ("Look what innocence and goodness has taught ye, oh high and mighty!") But, thankfully, in the end, they are usually called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, so all we have to deal with is their legacy and a few leftover body parts..



Olly Buckle said:


> ...so if I am not enjoying it very soon I simply put  most books down and forget them...



I throw those books. I have a little pile of "Books not worth reading" in the corner of my home office. It's across from where I usually read and there is plenty of air-clearance between me and the target location, should I find myself forced to read something that really stinks. I should probably get a wicker basket and put it in the corner where these books usually come to rest. Anyway.. The act of throwing such books usually helps me work off the insult of having read parts of them.


----------



## Tiamat (Nov 4, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> I agree with you on all your points except this one, which only deserves a qualification - You see it a lot in _bad_ fantasy.


"Bad" is a rather redundant word when discussing literature.  Such a qualifier serves no purpose except with regards to the individual.  For example, I happen to think that "Wheel of Time" is _bad_ fantasy.  However, the millions of fans out there would disagree with me.

That said, I'll stick with my original post: I see it a lot in fantasy.


----------



## shedpog329 (Nov 5, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Joyce?



How many of you looked up every word and than didn't care?


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 5, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> ...  For example, I happen to think that "Wheel of Time" is _bad_ fantasy.  However, the millions of fans out there would disagree with me.



I also don't like the "Wheel of Time." But, that millions may disagree doesn't make it "good." It might be "appealing", but that doesn't mean it's good. "The Toxic Avenger" is a terrible movie, but it has a cult following that really enjoys it. Michael Bay is still in demand as a director and there are plenty of books on the shelf that aren't much more than pap. But, pap can be appealing...



> That said, I'll stick with my original post: I see it a lot in fantasy.



Of course! I wasn't trying to get you to change your opinion, just agreeing with you with certain reservations.


----------



## GonneLights (Nov 5, 2012)

squidtender said:


> Characters with impossible to pronounce names.



All my polish characters are out, then.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 5, 2012)

shedpog329 said:


> How many of you looked up every word and than didn't care?


 I traded five used paperbacks in for $2.50. I grabbed _Finnegan's Wake_  for a dollar. Expecting dolphines or some other naughtical tale (_fin_ and _wake, _right?) instead it was gibberish. I once saw C. Manson channeling such lunar swahili.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 5, 2012)

Unchallenging vocabulary. Simple words equal simple ideas, or at least ones expressed without defining nuance.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 5, 2012)

ppsage said:


> Unchallenging vocabulary. Simple words equal simple ideas, or at least ones expressed without defining nuance.



Never use a longer word when a shorter one will do.  This cuts both ways, of course; just like you shouldn't use "magnificent" when you really mean "nice," you also shouldn't use "bad" when "deceptive" is more accurate.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 5, 2012)

ppsage said:


> Unchallenging vocabulary. Simple words equal simple ideas, or at least ones expressed without defining nuance.


"Hmm. This may irritate me more than the Tom Swifties mentioned earlier," Jon said simmeringly.

Usually people say the opposite, that there is elegance in a complex idea distilled into language regular folks can understand. Some even call this ability 'genius'. Curious: How are we defining a 'simple word'? What is the (totally arbitrary) criteria -- anything below three syllables gets RSVPed for literary neanderthals?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Nov 5, 2012)

Re simple versus complex vocabulary - this seems largely a question of style and narrative voice, maybe audience. I'm more interested in finding the right word than in whether it's long or short, obscure or routine. And sometimes putting a complex idea simply can have a very strong effect - if you think about the sublime in rhetoric, the examples given are always very simple, short phrases ("Fiat lux" being the classic). But that (often) works by contrast with longer, more interesting phrasing in the preceding passages.

That said, I like interesting vocabulary and don't mind resorting to the dictionary when necessary.


----------



## dolphinlee (Nov 5, 2012)

"It was made using using Bremsstrahlung*," he said.

Perfectly accurate and totally non-understandable to the majority of the population. 



*  X-rays.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 5, 2012)

In other words: Flatulence is fine in regards to turgidity, but unless your Aunt is present, just say the word, don't tell me it's _the_ _vapors. _


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Nov 5, 2012)

Kevin said:


> In other words: Flatulence is fine in regards to turgidity, but unless your Aunt is present, just say the word, don't tell me it's _the_ _vapors. _


No, because neither _turgidity_ nor _having the vapors _have much to do with flatulence at all. [/smartypants mode]

However, it's a good example. "Farting" is the shortest, simplest word, but in some contexts "flatulence" or "passing wind" might be better. In others, you might reference the presence of a "barking spider". All a matter of style.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 5, 2012)

It's the 'simple words = simple ideas' comment that nags. Just ... ridiculously untrue.


----------



## GonneLights (Nov 5, 2012)

_Other writers pet peeves_ seems to be a popular writing pet peeve.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 5, 2012)

KarKingJack said:


> _Other writers pet peeves_ seems to be a popular writing pet peeve.


Especially when they're dumb pet peeves. Or shall I say misinformed pet peeves.

... or perhaps vapid ... or _platitudinous_ ...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 5, 2012)

lasm said:


> Re simple versus complex vocabulary - this seems largely a question of style and narrative voice, maybe audience.



For me, it's mostly about narrative voice, I think. One of my MC's is a poor, young pregnant girl in rural small-town Georgia. It's a tight 3rd person POV and the vocabulary is appropriate for that. The story I'm working on now, the MC is the CEO of large company -- the vocabulary reflects his education and background. It's not even something I think too hard about -- it's just comes naturally.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 5, 2012)

Jon M said:


> It's the 'simple words = simple ideas' comment that nags. Just ... ridiculously untrue.



That bald proposition in simple language was introduced there as a rhetorical device to facilitate an easy transition to the more nuanced redefinition which immediately follows--as more complete quotation would demonstrate. Sorry to be overly obtruse.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 5, 2012)

lasm said:


> You might reference the presence of a "barking spider".



_What._

[SPOILER2=I... alright then]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/SPOILER2]


----------



## Cirse (Nov 8, 2012)

Reading pet peeve... poorly written dialects. Jars me right out of the story.

Personal writing pet peeve... sentences that seem too choppy.


----------



## Towerguy (Nov 8, 2012)

An education system that can't make it's mind up.

One year my English teacher (She) is drumming it into us that starting a sentence, paragraph, whatever, with the word 'And' is the work of the devil himself.
Next Year, same school, my new English teacher (He) says it's fine.

_And another one bites the dust._ 

According to him the sentence supplies one action and also _implies_ the previous action therefore providing the two actions to be joined.

I really didn't like him on a personal level but he really knew his brown stuff and made writing more interesting.


----------



## Foxee (Nov 8, 2012)

Mutimir said:


> Endings that are unsatisfying or those that go on forever.


I'll add to that, endings that seem like the author had no idea what else to do so he or she just seemed to stick an ending on it. You can almost hear their sigh of relief as you're sitting there feeling shortchanged.



Fin said:


> It's mostly female authors that do this - at least, I've never seen a male one do it - but I can't stand reading four straight pages of what a dress looks like. Especially since my knowledge of dresses ends at the color and whether or not it's strapless. The majority of the time that it's done, the dress is never even mentioned again. It's even worse when the character has a selection of dresses and the author decides to explain every single one of them, or explaining everyone's dress in the room. I couldn't care less about the different stones/jewels/designs twirling around the thing, especially when it doesn't have a single thing to do with the story besides making the character feel 'pretty'.


Thing is, a certain type of reader really loves that. There was a time when I read such descriptions avidly, now I require that there be a reason for showing that  much detail. 

This is a scary thread, I didn't read all the responses because I'm sure I must be doing what peeves someone or several someones.

Things that peeve me when reading other people's writing...hmmm...oh, there's one.

1. Misuse of ellipses. 

1. Long drawn out words to try to indicate a scream or cry. ("Noooooo!") I just saw this in a published book and kinda sighed.

1. Lack of research. Hey, if I don't know anything about what you didn't research and you can sell it well enough, it seems to hold together as logical, I can buy it. It's bad, though, if you don't do your research and I notice the BS.

1. Writing the character's POV badly. One instance of this sticks with me from a Sydney Sheldon book that my mother-in-law gave me to read. A female character is waiting for her husband to join her in the hallway. The POV already seemed strained, as though the author just wasn't totally comfortable, then he wrote that as she was primping in the mirror she, "Messed with her hair." Okay, guys? Unless a woman is frustrated with their hair they don't think of it this way. A woman dressed to the nines and going out with her man might be brushing a stray lock of hair into place or fluffing it for a lift or whatever but she doesn't think of it as 'messing' with it. That's what a guy thinks she does! Stay in the POV of your character.

1. The phrase "walked up to". There is nothing wrong with this, it is a perfectly good phrase. I've just seen it so many times (especially in RPG's) as though there is no other possible way for one person to approach another person or an object that I won't use it anymore. And when I see it I have the unreasoning urge to scream a little.

1. Description that is both endless and pointless.

1. Characters doing things that they're obviously only doing because the author had a plot hole or other problem and had to have them do something to cover it up.

That's it off the top of my head. Every one of them is my #1 pet peeve when it gets in the way of the story.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 8, 2012)

When people use words like 'ignorant' in such a way as to mean its original meaning of without learning, or whether they are using it in a sense that means something like unsophisticated lower class. Combining it can add to the uncertainty, They are the sort who are ignorant and abusive'. Do they mean ignorant of good conduct and abusive, or do they mean covering their lack of knowledge with a smokescreen of abuse.

Maybe I am overly pedantic, but I stop to consider the differences, it breaks the spell, I am no longer enthralled, I am starting to look for the next piece of poor phrasing.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 9, 2012)

Towerguy said:


> Next Year, same school, my new English teacher (He) says it's fine.
> 
> _And another one bites the dust._
> 
> According to him the sentence supplies one action and also _implies_ the previous action therefore providing the two actions to be joined.



I would argue that the use of the word, "another" is sufficient.  How could _another_ one bite the dust if a first one didn't already?

If, instead, you were saying that the use of "and" is justified because of that fact, I'd ask why include it? Any time you can reduce your word count without affecting your meaning, you're strengthening your writing.



Foxee said:


> 1. The phrase "walked up to". There is nothing wrong with this, it is a perfectly good phrase. I've just seen it so many times (especially in RPG's) as though there is no other possible way for one person to approach another person or an object that I won't use it anymore. And when I see it I have the unreasoning urge to scream a little.



I'm finding that quite a bit while I'm editing my WIP.  It's so nice to be able to swap it for "approached."  That's two words saved, with no meaning lost!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 9, 2012)

Ah but 'approached' is ten letters, whilst 'walked up to' is er ...


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 9, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> If, instead, you were saying that the use of "and" is justified because of that fact, I'd ask why include it?



Signifies an afterthought or a sudden continuation. Works well for a fevered monologue. I use it sometimes for that. And for other reasons. And because I'm a jerk.


----------



## Gallowglass (Nov 10, 2012)

Not so much a writing peeve, more a peeve with narrow-minded people who trash any writing that doesn't suit their worldview.

I once showed a sample of a book I'm writing to a writing club at my old school. The _first _thing anyone said in response was 'you can't have this character, he's racist.' I tried to explain that that was part of the point - he is a member of a British insurgent faction fighting the technocracy and the EU armies which defend it, so it's hardly inappropriate if he uses racial slurs now and again (that's literally all they were complaining about: he's not an Apartheid supporter or neo-Nazi). But still a few of them insisted that he be removed from the story (even though he's kind of, y'know, essential) or at least changed completely 'so people wouldn't be offended.'

Never mind the fact that he's a psychotic, paranoid manipulator whose orders terrorist attacks and summary executions - the use of the phrase 'cocky kermit' is apparently far, far worse.


----------



## Serenade (Nov 13, 2012)

First, that picture of the "barking spider" by Staff Deployment made me spit a little Cactus Cooler on my keyboard. Thanks a lot.



> Never use a longer word when a shorter one will do. This cuts both ways, of course; just like you shouldn't use "magnificent" when you really mean "nice," you also shouldn't use "bad" when "deceptive" is more accurate.



I think it's really a matter of dialogue versus narrative. A friend that you know, but don't introduce to other friends anymore, might use words like "villify" or "vainglorious" in everyday conversation in order to let you know he's been skimming the "V" section of the dictionary that week. So when characters use words that they really don't have to, its more characterization than anything. In regards to narrative, I mostly agree with the above statement. 

Pet peeves:

1. Fast pacing. When I buy a book, I expect to sit down in my chair and kick my feet up, ready to have a good read that'll take me on a journey (don't know if it'll be good or bad, but hey). What I don't expect, is to feel as if the author's pushing me in the back throughout that journey. It feels like they're constantly there, whispering, "Hurry up, you're walking to slow. oh that? don't worry about it, not important. Her? She probably has an important backstory but we have no time. We're on the clock. Don't stop to use the bathroom! Jack Bauer doesn't!" etc. Whenever I read something that feels like it has so much promise yet isn't fully explored due to fast pacing, minimal descriptions, and little character development, I have this horrible wish that the author _wanted _to write a rich, deeply involved narratative. It was his dream dammit! It's just his editor and publisher threatened to shoot his family in the face if he didn't finish it before their deadline because, you know, time is money. It wasn't his fault.

2. Throwaway characters. I did this once in 8th grade when I first started innocently posting my writing online, eyes wide with hope. I had a completely flat character, who happened to be the main character for the first part before I killed him off. When a reviewer pointed it out, I defended my work by saying he was merely a throwaway character and the best was yet to come. Then I get throat punched through the internet by said reviewer as he angrily posted that there should be 'NO THROWAWAY CHARACTERS" (all caps too, not kidding), and I realized he was right. While characters may die and some may only wave for one paragraph, they should at least have a little personality and description to enrich the story and its background. 

3. Sex scenes. First off, I'm all for them. Just wanted to throw that out there. Sometimes a sex scene in a story can enhance and further the story, bring characters together or tear them apart, and create conflict or resolution. It's when I'm still reading it five pages later that I'm scratching my head, because I'm pretty sure I didn't get the book in the adult section.

4. Finally, something that's extremely stupid to me. I know sounds can enhance the mood of a certain scene. But this? "CRASH!" The window shattered. "What was that?!" Johnny cried. 

The window shattered you idiot. Didn't you hear it scream, 'CRASH!'?


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 13, 2012)

Serenade said:


> 4. Finally, something that's extremely stupid to me. I know sounds can enhance the mood of a certain scene. But this? "CRASH!" The window shattered. "What was that?!" Johnny cried.
> 
> The window shattered you idiot. Didn't you hear it scream, 'CRASH!'?



LOL

I can't get this silly image out of my head now, that of a window with a cartoon mouth, yelling, "Lookout! Crash!" and then breaking.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 13, 2012)

Serenade said:


> 1. Fast pacing. When I buy a book, I expect to sit down in my chair and kick my feet up, ready to have a good read that'll take me on a journey (don't know if it'll be good or bad, but hey). What I don't expect, is to feel as if the author's pushing me in the back throughout that journey. It feels like they're constantly there, whispering, "Hurry up, you're walking to slow. oh that? don't worry about it, not important. Her? She probably has an important backstory but we have no time. We're on the clock. Don't stop to use the bathroom! Jack Bauer doesn't!" etc. Whenever I read something that feels like it has so much promise yet isn't fully explored due to fast pacing, minimal descriptions, and little character development, I have this horrible wish that the author _wanted _to write a rich, deeply involved narratative. It was his dream dammit! It's just his editor and publisher threatened to shoot his family in the face if he didn't finish it before their deadline because, you know, time is money. It wasn't his fault.



I like to think that a well-crafted book can have a blistering pace and still be immersive.  That's the sort of book that should make you stop after a few hours and realize, "Wow, I can't believe it's already come so far! I can't wait to see where this goes next."

I like to think those things because if it's not possible, my book is clearly a lot worse than I thought. =P


----------



## Serenade (Nov 13, 2012)

Maybe fast paced was the wrong term. Rushed may be more apt.


----------



## Bdor (Nov 23, 2012)

Those times where you need a good descriptor, but just can't think of one. Those are truly terrible.


----------



## dolphinlee (Dec 30, 2012)

1) I have just watched a film called Mirrors starring Keifer Sutherland. 

He has to find a person called Esseker. So he calls a policeman friend who cannot find the name in any database. 

Keifer then discovers that, 50 years before, this person was an inmate in a mental hospital. The policeman looks for the hospital records but 'suddenly' discovers that the records for this person are in the police station cold case area because they (Esseker) were involved in a crime 50 years ago. 

Why did he not find the person's name in the first place? Why did the writer believe that anyone would accept the miraculous finding of the records in the basement?

2) The same night I watched Battleship. 

The hero is a 25 year old loser who breaks into a shop to steal a chicken burrito and is caught by the police. In the next scene he is a Lt Commander who is number 3 on a ship. (I cannot believe that the US navy is so desperate that they would accept someone like him)

Later in the film he 'comes good.' He is able to make all sorts of decisions and inspire his crew so that they beat the aliens. 

Is it me or is logic one thing that is no longer necessary in stories?

Oh, and yes I am not allowing my husband to pick DVDs for at least a month.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 30, 2012)

dolphinlee said:


> Is it me or is logic one thing that is no longer necessary in stories?
> 
> Oh, and yes I am not allowing my husband to pick DVDs for at least a month.





I think logic takes a backseat to emotional payoff. The average reader/viewer is willing to suspend disbelief and accept things as long as there is an emotional reward to justify it.

But us writers tend to be a bit more analytical than the average viewer. Where most simply see a puppet-show, we also see the strings. :encouragement:


----------



## dolphinlee (Dec 30, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I think logic takes a backseat to emotional payoff. The average reader/viewer is willing to suspend disbelief and accept things as long as there is an emotional reward to justify it.
> 
> But us writers tend to be a bit more analytical than the average viewer. Where most simply see a puppet-show, we also see the strings. :encouragement:



Thank you.. I begin to feel that I am getting old or am too picky. Your words made me feel much better.


----------



## Pluralized (Dec 30, 2012)

My biggest pet peeve in writing is long-winded description. Feels like filler, and causes me to scan. I hate to scan, it feels like cheating!


----------



## Charlie (Dec 30, 2012)

> CHARACTER DESCRIPTION BLOCK!


Yes! That's just got amateur written all over it. Or for that matter ANY descriptions that aren't necessary to the story. I dislike it when writers beat around the bush for pages and pages without really saying anything, and I'm not talking about well placed metaphors or intriguing mysteries. I mean just writing words that go nowhere and don't add to the story. Just get to it for Pete's sake!


----------



## Circadian (Dec 30, 2012)

My pet peeve is...

_Invasion of the Mary Sues!_

Nothing bothers me more than when I'm reading a book and the character is described as "having sensuous curves and full, lustrous lips, eyes like sapphire stars, with dark, curly hair bouncing over her shoulders and..." yuck!  Also, what about the hot-looking guy with dark hair, oily skin, and tons of muscle.  He's an athlete.  So he's super strong and handsome.  And get this.  He's also a world-renowned brain surgeon!  Really, I'm not going to mention the title of the book that springs to mind.


----------

