# Biggest pet peeve in writing?



## bookmasta (Jul 26, 2013)

For me it has to be clichés in writing. I cant stand them whether I find that I have accidently written one or if someone else has written it.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 26, 2013)

Pretty much the whole process.


----------



## Sparktheunknown (Jul 26, 2013)

I can't stand diehard old school english readers who nit pick over every last subjective application of grammar and punctuation. Granted I like things that adhere to reasonable rules, but for Gods sake- if someone wants to make a 30 word sentence lets not have a conniption. Especially considering some of the greatest works we're made to endure through college show examples of the same things.


----------



## squidtender (Jul 26, 2013)

Other writers who can't write because:

A. No time
B. No inspiration
C. Halfway through a piece, they "run out of steam"
D. They don't want to force the creativity

Writers write . . . always


----------



## OurJud (Jul 26, 2013)

squidtender said:


> Other writers who can't write because:
> 
> A. No time
> B. No inspiration
> ...



That'll be me, then. With the exception of A


----------



## InkwellMachine (Jul 26, 2013)

Successful writers.

How dare they do something that I don't have the gumption for. How dare they.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 26, 2013)

I am going in a different direction for my answer. 

I hate battle scenes that tell a sword fight. 
I hate feast that describe the food. 
I hate a detailed listing of clothes.
I hate when people think they are Tolkien and describe forever.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 26, 2013)

Syntax-wise, endless strings of _he verbed / she verbed_.  Other structures exist.

Content-wise, painting the entire character from head to toe, every item of clothing, skin tone, hair texture...  Unless someone is giving a missing persons description to a cop in the story, that kind of banal detail will make me stop reading.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 26, 2013)

I forgot to mention the endless use of dialogue tags. While you hardly ever see them from professional writers, I tend to see it in indy stories most of the time. It drives me nuts, especially if the person has as in every other sentence.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 26, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> I forgot to mention the endless use of dialogue tags. While you hardly ever see them from professional writers, I tend to see it in indy stories most of the time. It drives me nuts, especially if the person has as in every other sentence.




Yup. :?  Made worse when the endless tags have the dialogue giggled, chortled, harrumphed, contested, retorted, queried, declared, barked, sighed, etc.


----------



## Myers (Jul 26, 2013)

Regarding the writing process; people who haven’t yet written a single novel but feel like they can tell everyone else how to do it.


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Jul 26, 2013)

When child characters sound too sophisticated for their ages.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Jul 26, 2013)

Characters that inexplicably disappear and are never spoken of again, even when they are heavily involved in a plot point. (I forget which books, but I've read several in which this occurs.) Another pet peeve I have is more to do with the process/other people reading my work; I have a friend who complains about every bit of my book and says I shouldn't write anymore. Or (as Myers mentioned above) tells me how and what I should write.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 26, 2013)

Skodt said:


> I am going in a different direction for my answer.
> 
> I hate battle scenes that tell a sword fight.
> I hate feast that describe the food.
> ...



Been reading The Wheel of Time, skodt?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jul 27, 2013)

Grape Juice Vampire said:


> Characters that inexplicably disappear and are never spoken of again, even when they are heavily involved in a plot point.



I had literally finished and fully edited a book before I realized I'd done this.

So I added in a little part about the narrator being so disgusted with this character that she _literally yanked him out of her memory and refused to speak or make mention of him again._ I went full-out and removed every single trace of the character's name in the last 50% of the book, ctrl+f'ing my way through on a bloodlust killing-spree. Because it was easier than just, you know, having the stupid guy show up at least one more time.

I was lucky the framework of the narrative actually allowed me to get away with that. I'll have to be more careful next time.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 27, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> I had literally finished and fully edited a book before I realized I'd done this.
> 
> So I added in a little part about the narrator being so disgusted with this character that she _literally yanked him out of her memory and refused to speak or make mention of him again._ I went full-out and removed every single trace of the character's name in the last 50% of the book, ctrl+f'ing my way through on a bloodlust killing-spree. Because it was easier than just, you know, having the stupid guy show up at least one more time.
> 
> I was lucky the framework of the narrative actually allowed me to get away with that. I'll have to be more careful next time.



Murderer!


----------



## Sam (Jul 27, 2013)

Writers who think grammar (it is *never *'grammer', by the way) and spelling are not important.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 27, 2013)

> When child characters sound too sophisticated for their ages.



I actually like this. It can create some very interesting characters, like Artemis Fowl. Of course, there should always be some explanation.

My pet peeve: writers who start writing their novel and immediately want critique. Slow... down...


----------



## rockoo315 (Jul 27, 2013)

The biggest pet peeve for me is run on sentences.  I feel like I have to take a deep breath.  Even with the pause and catching my breath, sometimes I can't recall all the info that was just written.  However, that only really happens when the run on sentence is the entire paragraph.


----------



## Charlaux (Jul 27, 2013)

Overly-attractive narrators, and biased/stereotyped casting.

I don't like it when an author makes heroes lean, muscled, gem-stone eyes, under 45 just because they're good guys. 

Sometimes I think it seems like an author has made them attractive when they don't necessarily need to be, because a reader might not support a physically unattractive narrator in the same way. (Btw. I'm not innocent of this, but I have started to try and avoid it if I realise I'm doing it.)


----------



## OurJud (Jul 27, 2013)

Charlaux said:


> I don't like it when an author makes heroes lean, muscled, gem-stone eyes, under 45 just because they're good guys.



Yes. Hollywood do this all the time when adapting PKD stories. My hereos (not that they're heroes anyway) _never_ look like Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/etc


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 27, 2013)

Authors trying to make all of their characters super witty, purple prose, and generally unrealistic dialogue (in that order).


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 27, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Yes. Hollywood do this all the time when adapting PKD stories. My hereos (not that they're heroes anyway) _never_ look like Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/etc


And yet making a character NOT lean, muscled, etc. because you think people will label you as a Hollywood conformist or a sheep to societal norms or whatever is equally as bad. Obviously there are reasons for characters to fall into that description. People under 45 are more than likely to be fitter than those above 45, so if the character does any sort of overly strenuous physical activities that casting makes sense. The same goes for being lean and muscled. If you don't want your character to trod along and constantly need to stop to take a breather through an action-based story, a younger, muscled protagonist and/or hero is the logical choice.


----------



## Sintalion (Jul 27, 2013)

One of my biggest pet peeves regarding the writing process: hearing excuses for why a piece could be unfavorable (I wrote it half-asleep, it wasn't serious, it was only for school, etc). Nothing annoys me more than when I take time out of my day to help you (I get a lot of requests for beta reads on other sites), and you tell me nah, it was bad because I let it be bad. Do not have me critique it if you plum don't care! ):< Many of these people are also guilty of wanting to hear how they're the next JK Rowling and ignoring the stuff they need to work on to actually be the next JK Rowling. This site is pretty decent about owning up to your work, which is why I've taken a shine to its members. 

I don't care if a character is handsome or ugly, but I only like to hear those words used once. Describe toned arms or a white smile if you must- but please don't keep telling me he's gorgeous, handsome, or sexy. Use the generic hottie adjectives on more than one character and I start to go: okay, _seriously_? 

I have absolutely no problem with characters that are in shape and under 45. I prefer my characters to realistically be able to accomplish the takes beforehand; I ignore all stereotypes and do what I need to. If they can't, I move on to someone that can. Sure it might be "interesting" or "different" to have a 200 pound 46 year old woman survive in Spitsbergen without knowledge about the landscape, but I can make a foreign exchange student who just recovered from an ACL tear just as interesting and unique. As a reader I never judge a character by their appearance; I judge them on the personality and traits the writer gives us. Ask me about any of my favorite novels and I won't be able to tell you their weights or attractiveness, but I can damn well tell you what they did and what they're like!


----------



## Govinda (Jul 27, 2013)

The words _seem/seemingly_ used more than once in the narrative of a story. They are the wishy-washiest words.  Commit to what you say.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 27, 2013)

I guess it's a two part question.  Pet peeve about your own writing process, then what you see in others.  For my own, just about everything.  One of my main ones is getting hung up on the second chapter.  For others, invincible antagonists, boring descriptions, trying to be funny but failing miserably, repeating the same plot over and over, (for police procedurals) car chases, things blowing up, foot chases where the perp trys to climb a chain link fence....( I could be here all night).

midnightpoet


----------



## Sparktheunknown (Jul 27, 2013)

Query letters are the worst part of the writing process.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 27, 2013)

One other pet peeve - writers who try to be "literary" and fail badly, only to look pretentious and self-conscious.


----------



## Charlaux (Jul 27, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> And yet making a character NOT lean, muscled, etc. because you think people will label you as a Hollywood conformist or a sheep to societal norms or whatever is equally as bad. Obviously there are reasons for characters to fall into that description. People under 45 are more than likely to be fitter than those above 45, so if the character does any sort of overly strenuous physical activities that casting makes sense. The same goes for being lean and muscled. If you don't want your character to trod along and constantly need to stop to take a breather through an action-based story, a younger, muscled protagonist and/or hero is the logical choice.



A healthy narrator yes, but too often the problem falls into the lap of a sculpted, ex-army badass. This is a genre-dependent thing, like I said, and my pet peeve applies when a character doesn't 'necessarily need to be' attractive/fit/healthy. If your character is going to be running from avalanches, okay make him healthy because it would be a short story otherwise, but balance it out with a big flaw to his character/ability.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 27, 2013)

One more, with feeling!  Downer endings where the point is that life is pointless so why bother.  Endings like this make me wonder if the writer is suicidal.  If i want to be depressed i'll watch the six o'clock news.  The end of a story does not need to be happy, but at least satisfying.


----------



## Sam (Jul 27, 2013)

midnightpoet said:


> One more, with feeling!  Downer endings where the point is that life is pointless so why bother.  Endings like this make me wonder if the writer is suicidal.  If i want to be depressed i'll watch the six o'clock news.  The end of a story does not need to be happy, but at least satisfying.



Life rarely does 'happily ever after'. Why should fiction be any different? 

Stories don't exist to cheer us up, even though they often do. They exist for posterity, so that people a hundred years from now will be able to read our work and realise: "Oh, that's how things were in 2013." Happily ever after is what you say to children to save them from the reality that life isn't all roses and fairies. It's hard and it's difficult and we don't always get what we want; we don't always catch the bad guy; the good guy doesn't always survive. 

That's realism. That's life.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 27, 2013)

> _The end of a story does not need to be happy, but at least satisfying._



Satisfaction often depends on what you were reading the book for, and no writer can claim the gift of combined telepathy and foresight. 

I'm often dissatisfied by books - it's what makes reading such a deep and diverse practice. I never know how I'm going feel when I get to 'The End'.


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Jul 27, 2013)

> I actually like this. It can create some very interesting characters, like Artemis Fowl. Of course, there should always be some explanation.



Well, a lot of people want natural sounding dialogue. When I struggled to make my child character's dialogue sound natural, like kids their ages, people have told me not to watch movies, but to _listen_ to children speak.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 27, 2013)

Maybe i was misunderstood - i don't like "happy" endings necessarily.  I just believe stories should at least have some point to them.  A lot of classical novels have had downer endings, but all had at least some point to them.  A moral, something.  I'm talking about stories that have no point to them whatsoever.  Okay, everybody dies.  The protagonist exists only to be miserable.  Sorry, so what.  Just my opinion, i realize sometimes it's a matter of taste.


----------



## Sparktheunknown (Jul 27, 2013)

midnightpoet said:


> Maybe i was misunderstood - i don't like "happy" endings necessarily.  I just believe stories should at least have some point to them.  A lot of classical novels have had downer endings, but all had at least some point to them.  A moral, something.  I'm talking about stories that have no point to them whatsoever.  Okay, everybody dies.  The protagonist exists only to be miserable.  Sorry, so what.  Just my opinion, i realize sometimes it's a matter of taste.



I agree when its stories such as the movie 'seeking a friend for the end of the world'. that was the worst end of a story of all time ever and into infinity. I wanted to curl into a ball and die. so depressing.

But I to enjoy it when everyone dies in the end from time to time. Or the hero/heroine. But only if the story comes full circle. I wrote a book about a regular woman/mom/housewife turned suicide bomber. The story wouldn't have been the same without her death at the end. But it all came full circle and left you with that warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction and completion.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 27, 2013)

> Well, a lot of people want natural sounding dialogue. When I struggled to make my child character's dialogue sound natural, like kids their ages, people have told me not to watch movies, but to _listen to children speak._



'Natural' is defined by the character, not the audience. I find Artemis' dialogue natural because Colfer describes how he has grown up and the people he has been exposed to. Hence, he speaks naturally for someone in his position.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 27, 2013)

Skodt said:


> I am going in a different direction for my answer.
> 
> I hate battle scenes that tell a sword fight.
> I hate feast that describe the food.
> ...



I chuckled for a bit about this.  _The Song of Ice and Fire_ series is great, and I love the books, but I get annoyed sometimes by the great amount of detail Martin puts into the clothes that people wear.  I try and find significance, but I can't.  The only thing I can come up with is affluence, but if that's what Martin intended, I feel he could have done it with fewer words - the books are long enough.



Myers said:


> Regarding the writing process; people who haven’t yet written a single novel but feel like they can tell everyone else how to do it.



Sadly, this is what I do at times.  Then I have to remind myself that I'm not a published writer and really don't know anything.

Although I am guilty of one, these are my pet peeves as well. Also, when people who try to sound smart by using "big" words.  Often times, they use words incorrectly, and it just doesn't sound natural.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 27, 2013)

I was under the impression that a pet peeve or a bête noir is something that doesn't necessarily answer to logic or the general views of the greater _They_.  Funny that I see people having to defend their pet peeves....


----------



## Sparktheunknown (Jul 27, 2013)

I thought pet peeves were the things that drove us to drink?


----------



## escorial (Jul 27, 2013)

when the covers better then the book


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 27, 2013)

When a character is just too good to be true.


----------



## SarahStrange (Jul 27, 2013)

Commas. When authors use a _gazilion _commas to make ridiculously long sentences that could be cut up, it really grinds my gears. Short, sweet, and to the point, please.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 27, 2013)

SarahStrange said:


> Commas. When authors use a _gazilion _commas to make ridiculously long sentences that could be cut up, it really grinds my gears. Short, sweet, and to the point, please.


I read an article on this a while ago. Its recommended to keep sentences short because they are quicker to read and easier to retain information from.


----------



## Sam (Jul 27, 2013)

You use long sentences to built suspense and tension; you use short sentences to convey immediacy and make a reader read faster. They're both valid techniques. Keeping sentences short at all times is not a good idea, as is doing anything repeatedly in writing. You have to break it up or it becomes monotonous.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 27, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> And yet making a character NOT lean, muscled, etc. because you think people will label you as a Hollywood conformist or a sheep to societal norms or whatever is equally as bad. Obviously there are reasons for characters to fall into that description. People under 45 are more than likely to be fitter than those above 45, so if the character does any sort of overly strenuous physical activities that casting makes sense.



Yes, but you could also make your character overweight and 45+ and _still_ give them the odd chase scene. The fact that they're not fit enough for chasing baddies through the street could be something the author plays on.

As it happens, the MC in my story is neither of these. He's no Adonis, that's for sure, but nor is he an 18 stone slob.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 28, 2013)

sunaynaprasad said:


> Well, a lot of people want natural sounding dialogue. When I struggled to make my child character's dialogue sound natural, like kids their ages, people have told me not to watch movies, but to _listen_ to children speak.



Dialogue is not natural, in natural speech people take clues from the other person they are talking to. This means they do things like stop without finishing when they see the other has the meaning, or interrupt mid sentence when they think the meaning has been missed. It is also improvised on the spot, so it is full of digressions, grammatical mistakes and all the other stuff that is edited out of writing. It should _sound_ like the person your character is, true, but you won't necessarily get that by listening and imitating because 'sounding like' and 'being like' can be very different things.

Someone else mentioned people who write about writing but have never been published. I often find the ones who have been published more annoying because they seem to think theirs is the only valid way of doing things. There is a difference between teaching and performing and a person good at one may not be great at the other. I used to teach water skiing in my youth, I would sit and watch people performing, then tell them where they went wrong and what caused them to fall, I taught a number of people tricks and stunts that I could not perform myself, sometimes the outside observer is at an advantage.

I find peeves make lousy pets, they are cute and appealing, but have ratty tempers and often bite.


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 28, 2013)

Myers said:


> Regarding the writing process; people who haven’t yet written a single novel but feel like they can tell everyone else how to do it.


The implication being that one must have finished a novel in order to offer advice on writing a novel? If so, nonsense for obvious reasons.

If your point is, rather, that people shouldn't be overly confident, pushy, or arrogant about the certainty and validity of their advice when they've not even gotten to the point that the advice-querier hopes to achieve then I'm right there with you (to an extent). 

The way I see it, judging someone based on whether or not they've written a novel is a bit like judging an athlete based on whether or not they've completed a decathlon. Said athlete could be exceptional at Swimming or Biking and so is perfectly within their bounds of expertise when they give a prospective decathlete advice on it. The same goes for a novel. Someone may write primarily thriller/mystery short stories and is especially adept at building suspense in such a way that it isn't a bore to read. Their advice is not now invalidated or even lessened in quality simply because they've never applied said ability to a 40,000-word piece of work.


----------



## Sam (Jul 28, 2013)

It makes perfect sense. If you've never reached the end of writing a novel, how can you tell someone else what it takes to reach the end of writing a novel? It's all experience. You can't tell someone running a marathon what the last five miles are like if you haven't ran a marathon to experience them. Logic 101.


----------



## Myers (Jul 28, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> The implication being that one must have finished a novel in order to offer advice on writing a novel? If so, nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> If your point is, rather, that people shouldn't be overly confident, pushy, or arrogant about the certainty and validity of their advice when they've not even gotten to the point that the advice-querier hopes to achieve then I'm right there with you (to an extent).
> 
> The way I see it, judging someone based on whether or not they've written a novel is a bit like judging an athlete based on whether or not they've completed a decathlon. Said athlete could be exceptional at Swimming or Biking and so is perfectly within their bounds of expertise when they give a prospective decathlete advice on it. The same goes for a novel. Someone may write primarily thriller/mystery short stories and is especially adept at building suspense in such a way that it isn't a bore to read. Their advice is not now invalidated or even lessened in quality simply because they've never applied said ability to a 40,000-word piece of work.



It’s a matter of credibility and speaking from a position of experience. Of course, to a degree it depends on your tone and how you qualify things.

Keep in mind too that I’m talking about process; outlining vs. writing more extemporaneously, for example. Or setting daily word count quotas etc. If you’re pontificating about that kind of thing with any degree of certainty, and haven’t yet finished a novel, I think you’re on pretty shaky ground.

And unlike Olly, I’ve found that the people who have completed novels are the least likely to tell people how it should be done, especially writers who have had any kind of success. They tend to have a better understanding that most people first get there by trial and error and that is no one way of doing things.

Of course that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t discuss process or other aspects of storytelling as they apply to novels based on where you are or your level of experience.  If that was the case, you might have to shut this thing down.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 28, 2013)

So is getting to the end of the novel any different from the middle or the start (assuming you can write at all)? I ask because I've never finished a novel, but I have completed a chapter. Seems like the end of a novel would coincide with the end of a chapter. I guess I just never thought about it.


----------



## Sam (Jul 28, 2013)

Kevin said:


> So is getting to the end of the novel any different from the middle or the start (assuming you can write at all)? I ask because I've never finished a novel, but I have completed a chapter. Seems like the end of a novel would coincide with the end of a chapter. I guess I just never thought about it.



To finish a novel you have to do a number of things, including but not limited to: tying up all points of view and storylines; coming to a logical conclusion of the tale; building suspense towards that conclusion; having an adequate ending that satisfies a reader insofar as it isn't too soon or too late, too little or too much; making sure your characters achieve what you desired them to achieve; if a sequel is forthcoming, establishing the baseline for it; if not, inserting an epilogue or postlude to show the aftermath of the final battle/scene (optional); and making sure that the ending complies with everything that has preceded it. 

Finishing a chapter requires a page break and a new chapter heading. You don't need resolution in chapter ten. You do for chapter ninety.


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 28, 2013)

Sam said:


> It makes perfect sense. If you've never reached the end of writing a novel, how can you tell someone else what it takes to reach the end of writing a novel? It's all experience. You can't tell someone running a marathon what the last five miles are like if you haven't ran a marathon to experience them. Logic 101.


Obviously experiences and situations specific to novel-writing are areas of little-to-no expertise for someone who hasn't written one. This is why I used an example that was not about the finishing of a novel but rather a portion thereof.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 28, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> Been reading The Wheel of Time, skodt?



No but funnily enough; it is a Brandon Sanderson book. He would be such a good writer if he would not describe such mundane things. I mean he is still a good writer, but I skip over those parts very quickly.


----------



## Tera's Party (Jul 28, 2013)

My biggest pet peeve is authors who can't really write about the opposite sex. Often written characters of the opposite gender just seem flat and unbelievable.  Even many well known authors seem to lack this ability. Male's can't seem to write their female main characters with the depth and vulnerabilities that make them uniquely feminine. Often the women will seem like television stereotypes of femininity or their females will tend to come across more masculine and tomboyish. Many female writers make men seem like stereotypes of excessive brutishness or appear soft and feminine like with Twilight. In both cases it's seems like the authors just can't or won't cross their own gender boundaries to make their characters seem real.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jul 28, 2013)

Hmm... well, I'm not sure about the rest of it, but I don't really condecension in the narrative. I also put down books that are preachy, or overbearing with morals. If an author is going to use his tail to expound upon his own personal moral/ethical/political philosophies, then he'd better be able to convince me.

Other than that, I prefer books with gritty, masculine main characters. I'm actually quite a fan of Clive Cussler's Numa Series.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 28, 2013)

midnightpoet said:


> One other pet peeve - writers who try to be "literary" and fail badly, only to look pretentious and self-conscious.



I'm not even sure I know what you mean by 'try to be literary'. Give me an example.


----------



## Sam (Jul 28, 2013)

S/he means writers who are 'skilled' in the art of euphuism. 

(See what I did there?)


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 28, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I'm not even sure I know what you mean by 'try to be literary'. Give me an example.


I think what midnight is trying to say is that they try to write a book in such a way that it can be studied in AP English classes twenty years from now. Symbol-, metaphor-, theme-, and motif-heavy, these works also usually feature things like overly-witty dialogue (too witty; like everyone has a team of comedy writers dictating everything every character should say into an earpiece... all the time) and unique (yet poorly executed) writing techniques that they hope will make them the next Fitzgerald or Salinger: renowned for their use of x, y, and z and considered among the best writers of their time.

It's basically, from what I gather, written by people who want very badly to be famous writers. This incessant, obsessive want to achieve a almost-unachievable goal is what causes people to become "pretentious" and "self-conscious". Pretentious because they think they're good enough that they can just up-and write the "next great American novel" or something to that effect and the masses will just eat it up; Self-Conscious because of the feverish packing-in of symbols and metaphors to the point where you'd think it was a basketball video game where you've got 40,000 words to make as many Three-Point Literary Devices as possible.

They go for the money shot every time.


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 28, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> I think what midnight is trying to say is ...
> They go for the money shot every time.


Well said.

I couldn't stand reading it in AP English, why would I want to write it?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 29, 2013)

> They go for the money shot every time.


There are variations, Kipling is one of my favourite writers, but in later life he became quite embittered. He had received a Nobel prize for literature but no recognition from the British literary establishment who tended to regard him as a 'popular' writer. Some of his later stories show strong signs of having been written to please them, they are not awful, but they are a bit cringe-worthy. I am not saying a writer should ignore his audience, but he should be writing to say what he thinks needs saying first, not what he thinks someone else wants to hear.

Kipling was aiming for recognition rather than cash (He had done quite well by then), but he was trying to supply what he thought might be wanted.


----------



## Tiberius (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> Writers who think grammar (it is *never *'grammer', by the way) and spelling are not important.



Ahem.









rockoo315 said:


> The biggest pet peeve for me is run on  sentences.  I feel like I have to take a deep breath.  Even with the  pause and catching my breath, sometimes I can't recall all the info that  was just written.  However, that only really happens when the run on  sentence is the entire paragraph.




I do that sometimes, but only rarely and always intentionally.  I use it for times when a lot of things happen all at once, because it gives the impression of many things happening in a very short space of times.  But when done unintentionally, it never works.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 29, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> I think what midnight is trying to say is that they try to write a book in such a way that it can be studied in AP English classes twenty years from now. Symbol-, metaphor-, theme-, and motif-heavy, these works also usually feature things like overly-witty dialogue (too witty; like everyone has a team of comedy writers dictating everything every character should say into an earpiece... all the time) and unique (yet poorly executed) writing techniques that they hope will make them the next Fitzgerald or Salinger: renowned for their use of x, y, and z and considered among the best writers of their time.
> 
> It's basically, from what I gather, written by people who want very badly to be famous writers. This incessant, obsessive want to achieve a almost-unachievable goal is what causes people to become "pretentious" and "self-conscious". Pretentious because they think they're good enough that they can just up-and write the "next great American novel" or something to that effect and the masses will just eat it up; Self-Conscious because of the feverish packing-in of symbols and metaphors to the point where you'd think it was a basketball video game where you've got 40,000 words to make as many Three-Point Literary Devices as possible.
> 
> They go for the money shot every time.



I couldn't have said it better myself.  

midnightpoet


----------



## Jon M (Jul 29, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> I think what midnight is trying to say is that they try to write a book in such a way that it can be studied in AP English classes twenty years from now. Symbol-, metaphor-, theme-, and motif-heavy, these works also usually feature things like overly-witty dialogue (too witty; like everyone has a team of comedy writers dictating everything every character should say into an earpiece... all the time) and unique (yet poorly executed) writing techniques that they hope will make them the next Fitzgerald or Salinger: renowned for their use of x, y, and z and considered among the best writers of their time.
> 
> It's basically, from what I gather, written by people who want very badly to be famous writers. This incessant, obsessive want to achieve a almost-unachievable goal is what causes people to become "pretentious" and "self-conscious". Pretentious because they think they're good enough that they can just up-and write the "next great American novel" or something to that effect and the masses will just eat it up; Self-Conscious because of the feverish packing-in of symbols and metaphors to the point where you'd think it was a basketball video game where you've got 40,000 words to make as many Three-Point Literary Devices as possible.
> 
> They go for the money shot every time.


Hey that's not totally biased at all.


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 29, 2013)

Jon M said:


> Hey that's not totally biased at all.


While I recognize that many people who're perceived to be overly literary don't at all intend to do this, it is certainly how (I think) it looks. Biased? Indeed. Intention without explanation of the intender is pretty subjective.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 29, 2013)

Dictarium, it's one thing to say you don't like "literary" writing (whatever that means). It's another to say that people who write in this style are pretentious and self-conscious, that they are motivated by a desire for fame, that they "go for the money shot", all of which is a) making assumptions about people you don't know, b) insulting them personally based on your unfounded assumptions, and c) patently ridiculous when you consider that the most famous writers working today are not "literary" writers at all, but people like George R. R. Martin, J. K. Rowling, Suzanne Collins, Tom Clancy, etc.-- "genre" writers.

Further, what precisely is wrong with wanting to write something good? You write as if there is something inherently pretentious about having these aspirations.


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 29, 2013)

@Lasm

a) Non-pretentious and non-self-conscious people can write pretentious and self-conscious literature. The adjectives were in reference to the work, not the writer. Also, I feel as if my "money shot" comment has been misinterpreted slightly. In a three-point competition in basketball, there is a money ball which gets you more points than the other balls you shoot (in case anybody doesn't know). I wasn't saying that these writers always try to do well (the way I think my comment is being interpreted), but rather that when they are in the "use lots of literary devices" competition, they always try to use a bunch at once (I.E. more points at one shot; the money shot).

b) Again, in reference to their work and not their selves. I've had plenty of my work called pretentious and not been offended by it. Obviously that's anecdotal evidence and not wholly relevant, but it's how I'm approaching the situation. Just a bit of perspective.

c) I don't see why this would stop people from still trying to invoke the success of the great American novelists. While I've seen classes analyzing Harry Potter, I've not seen the same about Tom Clancy novels, the Hunger Games, or SoFaI


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 30, 2013)

All right. So my confusion, then, arose thusly (see bolded text):


			
				Dictarium said:
			
		

> *people who want very badly *to be famous writers. This *incessant,  obsessive want *to achieve a almost-unachievable goal is what causes*  people* to *become* "pretentious" and "self-conscious".


Some care might be taken in wording.

Similarly, you might look up the term "money shot" for its actual origin in film and more frequent usage in relation to pornography, since most of the time, it has little to do with basketball. Could be quite an embarrassing mix-up in the wrong company.


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 30, 2013)

Again, it appears, in my opinion, that that is one's intention when writing an overly "literary" piece. I'd not go so far as to definitely assert that that is what a person is doing when they write something of that nature. As you say, I don't know them.

In reference to money shot, I assumed that my basketball analogy was enough of a connection as far as meaning goes. I do, however, know what money shot means in film (and, as you say, more recently in pornography), and can understand the confusion. This is why I clarified. I s'pose "go for the money ball" would've been a better choice of words but, alas, hindsight doesn't do much for what's already done.

e: In reference to the "people" being "pretentious", etc.: I'm genuinely sorry for having written that and don't know why I did. I really did mean that their work was (and not them). I've really no idea why I wrote the opposite.


----------



## Myers (Jul 30, 2013)

lasm said:


> Further, what precisely is wrong with wanting to  write something good? You write as if there is something inherently  pretentious about having these aspirations.



There's  nothing wrong with trying to move people with poetry or beautiful  language or symbols or with meanings that are below the surface. I think  if it doesn't work, most often, it's about taking a chance and perhaps  coming up short. There's no shame in that. It's the kind of thing a lot  of writers couldn't pull off it they wanted to, or it's a chance that  many aren't willing to take. I'm certainly not going to negatively label  or find fault with writers who are willing to push or cross those boundaries.  Maybe because I sometimes hold back or pull up short because I'm afraid  to fail. But as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. And when it does work, it can be a truly wonderful thing.


----------



## spartan928 (Jul 30, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> I think what midnight is trying to say is that they try to write a book in such a way that it can be studied in AP English classes twenty years from now. Symbol-, metaphor-, theme-, and motif-heavy, these works also usually feature things like overly-witty dialogue (too witty; like everyone has a team of comedy writers dictating everything every character should say into an earpiece... all the time) and unique (yet poorly executed) writing techniques that they hope will make them the next Fitzgerald or Salinger: renowned for their use of x, y, and z and considered among the best writers of their time.
> 
> It's basically, from what I gather, written by people who want very badly to be famous writers. This incessant, obsessive want to achieve a almost-unachievable goal is what causes people to become "pretentious" and "self-conscious". Pretentious because they think they're good enough that they can just up-and write the "next great American novel" or something to that effect and the masses will just eat it up; Self-Conscious because of the feverish packing-in of symbols and metaphors to the point where you'd think it was a basketball video game where you've got 40,000 words to make as many Three-Point Literary Devices as possible.
> 
> They go for the money shot every time.



In other words, not good writing. I don't have any specific pet peeves. I put books down for all kinds of reasons but I don't analyze it too much. In fact, I've really enjoyed what I felt was crappy writing only because the story was cool. Conversely, I've enjoyed stuff that is way over my head and I don't really comprehend it. But typically it's my mood or the vibe from the book that drives it. I don't concern myself with authors motives because I know absolutely nothing about why they wrote what they did. I figure any writer is simply writing the best work they can the moment they write it.  If it doesn't work for me I put it down and move on. There's more good stuff to read out there than I possibly have years left to consume.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 30, 2013)

I hate lazy writers and lazy writing. People simply don't have the time to deal with pretentious writers who think their half-hearted work should take up any reader's time (time being the scarcest resource available to most people).  If you haven't mastered proper grammar, literary argument coached in symbolism, a great intro, a great four-way conflict (MC, IC, Protagonist, Antagonist), then welcome to the club.  For God's sake, don't take the attitude that improving your craft further is pretentious.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 30, 2013)

> I hate lazy writers and lazy writing. People simply don't have the time to deal with pretentious writers who think their half-hearted work should take up any reader's time



A lot of people read Derek Landy's work, and Rick Riordan, Eoin Colfer and Darren Shan's more recent work. I find all that very lazy. Derek Landy says he rarely has time off, but then he writes in his blog about playing video games and oh yes _he writes a blog. 
_
I think a lot of YA authors are lazy and pretentious, from what I've read of them (both their work, their words, and other stuff). Their ability to capture readers' attention spans and hold them is what stops most readers from realizing that they could be doing something _much _more useful than reading their work.

But I shouldn't be so judgmental. I just wish that they, having forded the rivers I am being tossed around by, would try a little harder to get _better and _what they do, now that they have the opportunity to do so. But alas.

I share your 'peeve', though for me it is aimed, I think, at a different group of people.


----------



## Bad Craziness (Jul 30, 2013)

Writing without purpose.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 30, 2013)

Bad Craziness said:


> Writing without purpose.


Surely it all has some purpose? Do you mean for a purpose you don't understand, or which you disapprove the purpose of in some way?


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 30, 2013)

When I'm commanded to like a particular person and loathe another. One clearly bad, one clearly good. I find Game of Thrones a bit like this, the author gives you no choice whatsoever which side to like. I always want the evil to win. Do they? Neveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr. That would be too interesting and real.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 30, 2013)

I think everyone writes with purpose, but some people can write with pretty shallow and/or poor purposes.

Again, they're the successful ones. *shakes fist at sky*


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 30, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I think everyone writes with purpose, but some people can write with pretty shallow and/or poor purposes.
> 
> Again, they're the successful ones. *shakes fist at sky*



I've noticed most people think writing for money is a bad thing. I don't see how it's any worse than writing to enlighten or whatever else. If you're a hard worker and good then regardless of your motives you will succeed.
 I wasn't attacking you by the way. You may have not even meant that. Just my thought on that matter


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 30, 2013)

My motive is simple. To write a dang good and entertaining story. No more. No less.


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 30, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> My motive is simple. To write a dang good and entertaining story. No more. No less.



*And make money doing it


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 30, 2013)

Apple Ice said:


> When I'm commanded to like a particular person and loathe another. One clearly bad, one clearly good. I find Game of Thrones a bit like this, the author gives you no choice whatsoever which side to like. I always want the evil to win. Do they? Neveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr. That would be too interesting and real.


Reminds me of an evening class in English lit about 50 years ago, the bouncy, jolly, enthusiastic young teacher asked which character in Othello we most identified with? "Iago" said my mate.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 30, 2013)

> I've noticed most people think writing for money is a bad thing.



Yeah, I ultimately write for money. My more immediate goal is to entertain a readership of some kind, but it's mainly so I can eventually earn a living from this.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 30, 2013)

I've never understood the issue with writing for money.  An artist should want to get their message out to as many people as they can. So, they should be able to dress their message in whatever sells.  If I have something to say, then I should be able to dress that message in Victorian romance, steam punk, ice age, teens with horses, whatever.  Those are just symbols. The message is what's important.  Being able to put whatever symbolic space you're forced to work in in a meaningful and attractive organization is what it means to be an artist.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 30, 2013)

Apple Ice said:


> *And make money doing it



I actually offer my work for free. Unless someone wants to buy it on paperback or hardcover, the download is free.


----------



## Bad Craziness (Jul 30, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Surely it all has some purpose? Do you mean for a purpose you don't understand, or which you disapprove the purpose of in some way?



The latter of the latter.


----------



## gmehl (Jul 30, 2013)

I have never regretted writing for money.  If you enjoy writing - even on bad days, when you have a cold, when inspiration and motivation are in short supply, when the pressure to produce is high, when cleaning a refrigerator would be more fun - it's a very pleasant way to make a living. It's even more pleasant when you can sell some of it at a steep discount or even give it away because some cause or casual goal is important.   Not everything is memorable, not everything is perfect, not everything has artistic integrity.  That's okay.  Because at the end of the day, you get paid for it.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 30, 2013)

Biggest pet peeve in writing? None. I think as long as you know the rules, the cliches, the norms and the "what not to do"s, you can do whatever you want - break all the rules, write cliches, ignore the norms and do what you shouldn't do... So I guess my biggest pet peeve would be writers who follow those guidelines like they're laws. Someone on this board once said, in the context of "forbidden words" or something like that, "imagine if someone told a painter that a certain color was off limits - he'd laugh in your face".


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 30, 2013)

> "imagine if someone told a painter that a certain color was off limits - he'd laugh in your face".


I am told Montassori s teaching doesn't allow kids to use black; I once had a little boy in care painted a sheet from the top corner one side to the bottom corner the other solid black, he got considerable satisfaction, and I think a lot of 'release', from it. Rule  number one; no rules!


----------



## gmehl (Jul 30, 2013)

I sure agree with Olly and YellowMustang about rigid "rules."  I prefer to think about such stuff as "techniques to consider" and recognize that in artistic expression, the one common thread is exploring new concepts.  I was recently admonished by a fairly reputable editor for two lapses in character reference that had the effect of "distancing my main character a bit from the reader." Technically, she was right. Two screw-ups in 113,000 words... I was utterly despondent and ashamed.  For about five seconds.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jul 30, 2013)

Gmehl, I like the way you think on this. Artistic expression does well when nothing is off limits. Indeed, the only thing I can think of to limit this may be that, within a particular artistic work, there might be a need for a framing structure upon which to hang the painting.

This might be why novels are still overhwelming organized in paragraphs and elements of story structure. There's nothing wrong with breaking the rules, so long as it is done skillfully, I think.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 30, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> I am told Montassori s teaching doesn't allow kids to use black; I once had a little boy in care painted a sheet from the top corner one side to the bottom corner the other solid black, he got considerable satisfaction, and I think a lot of 'release', from it. Rule  number one; no rules!



But, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much satisfaction (nor would we have in hearing about it) if the rule didn't exist for him to break.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 30, 2013)

Here's an example of a novel without rules

asdfasvzocvupadfnasa-=sauvai;;jv alx;vkauw9uf39fid;olvm.knv a;isuvgi[9regkj

what makes art good is what a person can do within the constraints of the rules or their ability to break the rules in innovative and meaningful ways.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 30, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> Here's an example of a novel without rules
> 
> asdfasvzocvupadfnasa-=sauvai;;jv alx;vkauw9uf39fid;olvm.knv a;isuvgi[9regkj
> 
> what makes art good is what a person can do within the constraints of the rules or their ability to break the rules in innovative and meaningful ways.



Ummm? I don't know what to say.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 30, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> Ummm? I don't know what to say.



I was trying to find a clever way of illustrating that the old canard  that there are no rules is wrong.  

I guess I failed, but that was what I was trying to illustrate.


----------



## Dictarium (Jul 31, 2013)

I mean, it's not meant to be taken literally. That's like trying to disprove someone who says "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse!"

Idiomatic expressions are, by definition, not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 31, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> I mean, it's not meant to be taken literally. That's like trying to disprove someone who says "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse!"
> 
> Idiomatic expressions are, by definition, not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.



My previous example was not intended to illustrate only the fallacy of taking "there are no rules" literally.  It was meant to illustrate the fallacy of not mastering (or even knowing) the fundamentals.  All art works within constraints (that's what creativity is, ignoring constraints is solipsism).  We've all trudged through stories written by people who expect us to trudge through their indecipherable mess ('indecipherable' because of the random use of commas, periods, etc.).  (Not to say anyone is perfect, but some people don't seen to try.)  We've all read through the first two pages of text asking ourselves, 'why should I care about this character?'  We've all fallen asleep half-way through a wall of adjectives.  There's a BIG difference between 'formless' (transcending form) and 'no form' (not mastering the fundamentals).


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 31, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I was trying to find a clever way of illustrating that the old canard  that there are no rules is wrong.
> 
> I guess I failed, but that was what I was trying to illustrate.


Oh ok then. Yeah I  would agree with that. Writing is writing. Besides grammar, you can do whatever you want.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 31, 2013)

.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 31, 2013)

When I say grammar I mean the correct use of punctuation, periods, and so forth. Besides that, I would say you can do whatever you want, all though this thread has gone of it's original path intended.


----------



## Trilby (Jul 31, 2013)

Grape Juice Vampire said:


> Another pet peeve I have is more to do with the process/other people reading my work; I have a friend who complains about every bit of my book and says I shouldn't write anymore. Or (as Myers mentioned above) tells me how and what I should write.



And you call him/her a friend - think again!


----------



## Sam (Jul 31, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> Here's an example of a novel without rules
> 
> asdfasvzocvupadfnasa-=sauvai;;jv alx;vkauw9uf39fid;olvm.knv a;isuvgi[9regkj
> 
> what makes art good is what a person can do within the constraints of the rules or their ability to break the rules in innovative and meaningful ways.



No, that's an example of you running your hand along your keyboard and depressing arbitrary keys.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jul 31, 2013)

I'd be depressed if someone called me arbitrary, too.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 31, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> When I say grammar I mean the correct use of punctuation, periods, and so forth. Besides that, I would say you can do whatever you want, all though this thread has gone of it's original path intended.


I have just started 'The True History of the Kelly Gang', it won prizes and is the sort of book I find myself thinking about during the day. The punctuation is terrible, I am told there is not a single comma in the whole thing. Seems you can do whatever you want. Period, (or not a period as you wish provided it is for a reason) .


----------



## OurJud (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm not sure how the title of this thread is supposed to be interpreted, but one of the pet peeves in my own writing is not being able to write by the seat of my pants. I hate planning/preparation in any respect. I'm the type of person who instead of sanding down a door frame so that the next coat of paint will have a nice smooth finish, I'll just slap it right on top of the cracked and flaking stuff.

I need to find a way of making the planning process enjoyable.


----------



## Pishwi (Aug 2, 2013)

Can I just ask you a question about Wheel of Time? Is the ending to the third one the same as the ending to the first and second ones? Because I really enjoyed the books, until the endings, which I thought were awful. I just need to know whether to keep reading.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 2, 2013)

Not noticing some of my own grammatical errors when I'm editing.


----------



## Accentuated atmosphere (Aug 2, 2013)

My pet peeve is writing dialogue. I''m no stranger to talking psychotically to only myself in different accents and tones and as different characters but my number one foible here is the grammar of writing dialogue. I use word, so you know what I mean when you get that irritating little green mistake line under something you have just written. But sometimes, people don't speak in absolute, honest to goodness, queen's English. Sometimes they mix up the order of things and speak repetitively and incoherently. So that is my pet peeve; having to employ faultless grammar when writing dialogue.

I don't do short posts.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 2, 2013)

So that is my pet peeve; having to employ faultless grammar when writing dialogue.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Then don't use faultless grammar.  Write the way the character would speak -- not the phoney phonetic accent stuff, but with the style and inflection the character would use if talking aloud to us.  Turn off the stupid grammar checker and write real people.  Let us _hear _their natural voices.  It's something you find in almost all decent fiction.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 2, 2013)

gmehl said:


> Then don't use faultless grammar.  Write the way the character would speak -- not the phoney phonetic accent stuff, but with the style and inflection the character would use if talking aloud to us.  Turn off the stupid grammar checker and write real people.  Let us _hear _their natural voices.  It's something you find in almost all decent fiction.



Real sounding dialogue can be tricky. If we wrote dialogue how the average person _really_ speaks, it would be practically unreadable.

A line of dialogue spoken how your average English person would _really_ speak



> _"You know that lad we used to go to school with? Umm, what'shisname? The tall one with the stupid haircut.... Oh, god, what was he called? Used to get into a fight ever other day? I went out with his sister once... Oh, god, now I can't think of her name. Lucy, was it? No, it was you who went out with Lucy, wasn't it? Anyway, what was I saying?... Oh yeah, this lad we used to go to school with, whatever his name was, anyway I bumped into him today...."_



ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZ

Get the idea? Truly authentic, ultra natural dialogue doesn't work in literature.


----------



## Accentuated atmosphere (Aug 2, 2013)

Duly noted, good sir. In some ways this revelation is a good thing,  I won't have to edit hundreds of thousands of lines of dialogue for one.

"This worked out nicely", Andrew gleamed.


----------



## philistine (Aug 2, 2013)

A few that immediately come to mind:

- Writers who harp on about their muse, as if they were a real person or being who _actually_ comes to visit them at off-the-wall times.
- Those who don't read, yet expect to write great books. Not going to happen.
- Repeated formatting specifications for different publishers.
- The concept of 'writer's block'. 
- Those who cannot take criticism, yet have no trouble dispensing with it.
- Copycat writers, both burgeoning and already published. There's enough garbage out there; please don't add to it.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 2, 2013)

- Agents who make specific suggestions and invite a resubmit; upon the resubmit, they reply with a form letter: "Sorry, not right for us."

- Agents who push their own book on "how to write" and then reject you anyway.

- "Free" book marketing sites that pressure you to buy premium services, especially those that charge a fee to let you give your book away.

And much more than a pet peeve: agents and small press publishers who charge an upfront fee for considering your work.  Never, ever, let it happen to you.


----------



## Dictarium (Aug 2, 2013)

While we are (or were) on the topic of dialogue, I'd like to get something off my chest:

I detest reading a southern -- deep southern -- accent written phonetically. Or a cockney one, for that matter. It's just so annoying to clumsily stumble through what I think sounds like an incredibly unsophisticated dialect when I'm trying to read a piece of literature. Consistently unpleasant throughout.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 2, 2013)

Y'all shore are makin' a fo-sho good point there!


----------



## Tiamat (Aug 2, 2013)

Info dumps.

I've been considering this question for days and finally arrived on an answer.  Pages upon pages of exposition where the writer is telling me all about how Jack over there grew up in a single-parent home, got addicted to meth in his late teens, served some time in prison, found God but lost Him again when he got out, yadda yadda yadda.  It's like the story-within-the-story that doesn't need to be in the story.

I'm inclined to say that you see it more often in newer writers who aren't yet confident in their ability to bring their characters to life without unnecessary backstory, but I've seen it in published authors as well.  It usually makes me put the book down.


----------



## Dictarium (Aug 2, 2013)

The amount of Pennsylvania going on right now is staggering. Hang on while I go eat some Hershey's-covered Utz in my horse and buggy while we're "living here in Allentown".


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 2, 2013)

Tiamat said:


> Info dumps.
> 
> I've been considering this question for days and finally arrived on an answer.  Pages upon pages of exposition where the writer is telling me all about how Jack over there grew up in a single-parent home, got addicted to meth in his late teens, served some time in prison, found God but lost Him again when he got out, yadda yadda yadda.  It's like the story-within-the-story that doesn't need to be in the story.
> 
> I'm inclined to say that you see it more often in newer writers who aren't yet confident in their ability to bring their characters to life without unnecessary backstory, but I've seen it in published authors as well.  It usually makes me put the book down.



This reminds me of Lost. Most of the beginning episodes are backstory or have a lot of for every single character. Its very annoying hence why I skipped watch a good majority of them.


----------



## Tiamat (Aug 3, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> The amount of Pennsylvania going on right now is staggering. Hang on while I go eat some Hershey's-covered Utz in my horse and buggy while we're "living here in Allentown".


Pennsylvania, sir?  I don't think so.  It's pee-ay, thank you very much!


----------



## Kehawin (Aug 3, 2013)

Wanna know what my current pet peeve is?  People who speak - or or write, or even think - in absolutes.  Number one peeve, writing or just life in general.  "Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## Jeko (Aug 3, 2013)

> I need to find a way of making the planning process enjoyable.



Maybe just avoid it. I don't plan at all before I write the first draft.

Peeve: Published Authors who say that they never dreamed of becoming this famous. Yeah right.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 3, 2013)

Tiamat said:


> Info dumps.



Definitely agree there.  I about gag when I see it on television programs where three or four characters are standing around, all knowing the answer, but have to share it with us:  "Well, Jerry, as you know, the gahizzamafritz that's attached to the whatizzit usually implies that the thingamabob is probably a result of compressed turnpike time travel."  "Absolutely, Ann, and if your gahizzamafritz is deflected by solar radiation, then it's nearly time for five minutes of boring commercials."


----------



## Dictarium (Aug 3, 2013)

The only info-dumps I find work well are in fish-out-of-water scenarios. The end of Brave New World -- now that I've finished it as part of my required reading for AP English and am an expert on it -- with Mustapha Mond and John. It's a philosophical discussion in which Mond uses situations, scenarios, and events from the past to better explain his point. It makes sense that he should be saying what he's saying. But when it's three characters who all know of the situation and one goes: 

"Now as we all know, the Rebels have been fighting this war against the Regime for eight years now ever since John Smith assassinated Admiral Imabadguy. Because of this the fighting we do on the home planet of the Kashimi people who, as I've said before in the past before just now, are not very tolerant of humans, will be tough. Now, we're going to be on an alien planet; Rogers, do you have enough Tsu, the currency of Thal, the planet of the people who we call Kashimi?" ...that's just silly.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 3, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Maybe just avoid it. I don't plan at all before I write the first draft.



But that's just the problem, Cadence. I've _tried_ writing without planning for years, and as daft as it sounds I'm only just admitting to myself that I'm simply not a seat-of-your-pants writer. The 'not planning' approach is probably responsible for the vast majority of my unfinished work.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 3, 2013)

> I've _tried writing without planning for years, and as daft as it sounds I'm only just admitting to myself that I'm simply not a seat-of-your-pants writer._



Neither am I - I write _incredibly _slowly. I'm constantly thinking about my work and working it out in my head, but I don't write any of it down. I don't think you have to.

But yes, experiment to find what works for you.


----------



## Sintalion (Aug 4, 2013)

Me: Alright, I'm sending you the chapter A to review. 
Them: Great! I'll have it back to you in about a week.
Me: *skims chapter A while editing the next chapters* OMG! How did I miss that mistake? And that one! Oh shoot, there are like ten different ways to say that and I picked the worst. 

Then I make a note, wait for the reviewer to it point out, and feel bad I didn't catch it earlier.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 4, 2013)

Novels with very long chapters, or even worse, none at all... _cough*Fahrenheit 451*cough_


----------



## Jeko (Aug 4, 2013)

What's wrong with a long chapter?


----------



## Sam (Aug 4, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Novels with very long chapters, or even worse, none at all... _cough*Fahrenheit 451*cough_



You seem to dislike anything that goes against normal conventions, but the reality is that you deprive yourself of good reading when you overlook work because it has long chapters or none at all. 

There's a wonderful invention called a 'book-marker' for that problem, by the way.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 4, 2013)

Novels that switch pov every chapter or have one that is very dull.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 4, 2013)

Sam said:


> You seem to dislike anything that goes against normal conventions [...]



On the contrary. I'd say I was far more open and experimental in my reading than most of the people here. In fact, I actively steer clear of literature that conforms to 'normal conventions'.

And yes, I know what bookmarks are for, but I simply prefer to finish a reading session at the end of a chapter rather than half way through a scene. Is that a crime? You can bookmark a page, you can't bookmark a _line_ in a page.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 4, 2013)

> Novels that switch pov every chapter



Don't know what's bad about this either. If the plot demands it, it's got to be done, and it creates a nice, balanced effect, like you expect where you're going.


----------



## philistine (Aug 4, 2013)

Works which, although can be appreciated on an intellectual and conceptual plain, are simply not entertaining reads. I can only think of a few examples (one being very well known), though I simply can't get through them. It goes without saying that an author can write about whatever subject he likes, and in a style he chooses- though when he or she strays from the fundamental rule that a story should be entertaining, I find myself unable to enjoy it.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 4, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Don't know what's bad about this either. If the plot demands it, it's got to be done, and it creates a nice, balanced effect, like you expect where you're going.



True I was reading a book with 4 different pov. Two of them were great, other two were dull and or dislikable personalities. Made the book hard to read but yes normally its fine if handled correctly.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 4, 2013)

> Made the book hard to read but yes normally its fine if handled correctly.



As is everything. 

What was the book, by the way?


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 4, 2013)

Cadence said:


> As is everything.
> 
> What was the book, by the way?



The name escapes me at the moment. I read it a few years ago. I'll dig around my study and find it.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 4, 2013)

> You can bookmark a page, you can't bookmark a _line in a page._



I can. I use post-it notes, scribbled on with bands/artists that I need to check out but will probably forget if I'm not reminded regularly that I need to check them.


----------



## bookmasta (Aug 4, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I can. I use post-it notes, scribbled on with bands/artists that I need to check out but will probably forget if I'm not reminded regularly that I need to check them.



Grrrr. I cant find it on my bookshelves. I must of packed it up with the other books when I rearranged my study, it is in the attic. Ill dig around for it in a bit when I get off work.


----------



## philistine (Aug 4, 2013)

OurJud said:


> On the contrary. I'd say I was far more open and experimental in my reading than most of the people here. *In fact, I actively steer clear of literature that conforms to 'normal conventions'*.



There exists a humorous quotation which says something to the effect of 'a man of taste is not someone who recognises what to read, but one who instinctively knows what to avoid'. However, I can't understand your reasoning there, as literature which conforms to 'normal conventions'- whatever that means- may still turn out to be a very enjoyable read, whether you expected it to be or not. I know I've finally taken a punt on books I had previously avoided for a long time, only to discover that I ended up loving them. Of course, many have also lived up to their expectations entirely.



OurJud said:


> ...you can't bookmark a _line_ in a page.



I naturally assumed most people would stop at the closest end of paragraph. That's what I do.

With what is germane to the conversation: do you know what really grinds my gears? Aspiring writers who go through those 'how to write (insert adjective, genre, or whatever else)' books as if they were toilet paper, all the while not putting a single word down onto paper. You realise every Tom, Dick and Harry of the writing community has one such book, and- this is the important one- _no one style is correct_. I'm not saying such books are useless, though I've found them, from viewing the musings of other posters on both this website and others, to be positively detrimental to one's ability to just _write_.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 4, 2013)

philistine said:


> I naturally assumed most people would stop at the closest end of paragraph. That's what I do.



Well yes. I wasn't suggesting chapterless novels force me to stop my reading session mid sentence, but the end of a paragraph can still be mid scene. If a book has chapters, I can say, "I'll just finish this chapter and get my head down." It gives me something to aim for, and that isn't something I get in chapterless books. hence it being one of my pet-peeves.


----------



## WriteAboutCreativeWriting (Aug 4, 2013)

My biggest pet peeve is incorrect grammar. If I come across a story that has incorrect grammar or spelling mistakes, I absolutely cannot read more. It aggravates me to no end.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 5, 2013)

> Well yes. I wasn't suggesting chapterless novels force me to stop my reading session mid sentence, but the end of a paragraph can still be mid scene. If a book has chapters, I can say, "I'll just finish this chapter and get my head down." It gives me something to aim for, and that isn't something I get in chapterless books. hence it being one of my pet-peeves.



I always end my reading mid-scene, as I do with my writing. I've always found it to be a worthwhile practice for both.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 5, 2013)

My biggest pet peeve is the need to pander to an audience in order to feel good about what I have written, even if I'm not really proud about what I've written.  I guess it could be worse, I could have people reading and liking my stuff because they are the fake "I like what is not mainstream" people giving me compliments.  Is there any right way to make people happy?  If you can answer that, send it to me private message and we'll both be rich soon.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 5, 2013)

Current peeve: authors who have families but don't thank them in their acknowledgements.


----------



## philistine (Aug 5, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Current peeve: authors who have families but don't thank them in their acknowledgements.



Really? I can't say I read much contemporary fiction, though it seems to be the decided minority of authors who actually do that. I think if I were thank my family upon the publication of my novel, I'd be falsely attributing praise. For many, writing is a deeply solitary thing to do.

Unless of course this post was tongue-in-cheek, in which case you can ignore everything I just said.


----------



## Myers (Aug 5, 2013)

My family just gets in the way; with all their whining about "food" and "shelter" etc. Why should they get any credit?


----------



## OurJud (Aug 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> My biggest pet peeve is the need to pander to an audience in order to feel good about what I have written, even if I'm not really proud about what I've written.
> 
> Is there any right way to make people happy?



I think you're heading for a miserable time if you only try and write for other people. Just write what makes you happy and sod the rest.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 5, 2013)

philistine said:


> Really? I can't say I read much contemporary fiction, though it seems to be the decided minority of authors who actually do that. I think if I were thank my family upon the publication of my novel, I'd be falsely attributing praise. For many, writing is a deeply solitary thing to do.
> 
> Unless of course this post was tongue-in-cheek, in which case you can ignore everything I just said.



Cadence's post puzzled me too. If I were ever to get published, I'm not sure why I'd feel the need to thank my family. All the hard work would have been mine.


----------



## philistine (Aug 5, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> There are variations, Kipling is one of my favourite writers, but in later life he became quite embittered. He had received a Nobel prize for literature but no recognition from the British literary establishment who tended to regard him as a 'popular' writer. Some of his later stories show strong signs of having been written to please them, they are not awful, but they are a bit cringe-worthy. I am not saying a writer should ignore his audience, but he should be writing to say what he thinks needs saying first, not what he thinks someone else wants to hear.
> 
> Kipling was aiming for recognition rather than cash (He had done quite well by then), but he was trying to supply what he thought might be wanted.



There are a handful of French writers from the nineteenth century who are guilty of the very same thing. Their work is difficult to read, in short, and ultimately not enjoyable.


----------



## MaeyMaeyCute (Aug 12, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Dialogue is not natural, in natural speech people take clues from the other person they are talking to. This means they do things like stop without finishing when they see the other has the meaning, or interrupt mid sentence when they think the meaning has been missed. It is also improvised on the spot, so it is full of digressions, grammatical mistakes and all the other stuff that is edited out of writing. It should _sound_ like the person your character is, true, but you won't necessarily get that by listening and imitating because 'sounding like' and 'being like' can be very different things.
> 
> Someone else mentioned people who write about writing but have never been published. I often find the ones who have been published more annoying because they seem to think theirs is the only valid way of doing things. There is a difference between teaching and performing and a person good at one may not be great at the other. I used to teach water skiing in my youth, I would sit and watch people performing, then tell them where they went wrong and what caused them to fall, I taught a number of people tricks and stunts that I could not perform myself, sometimes the outside observer is at an advantage.
> 
> I find peeves make lousy pets, they are cute and appealing, but have ratty tempers and often bite.



Wow.  Dude, you know your stuff.  You just taught me something very important.  Thank you.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 12, 2013)

Skodt said:


> I am going in a different direction for my answer.
> 
> I hate battle scenes that tell a sword fight.
> I hate feast that describe the food.
> ...



That's almost everything I hate to do and catch a lot... With the added hate of: he said, she said, he said, she said.




bookmasta said:


> Novels that switch pov every chapter or have one that is very dull.



I like when the Point of View changes, every alternate chapter is a good way to go about it. The only time it ever annoyed me was in Game of Thrones... when I felt cheated at the sudden change. I wanted to know what happened next so skipped forward to when their point of view returned, then went back to where I had skipped at the end of the chapter and continued as normal.

I think I may have done the same with Joe Abercrombies First Law Trilogy. Book 2, Before they were Hanged. I skipped ahead to stay in the same Point of View and then went back after the next chapter to read normally again from then onward.


----------



## Dictarium (Aug 12, 2013)

OurJud said:


> you can't bookmark a _line_ in a page.


Yes you can.

In response to Philistine: is the book Catcher in the Rye?

In response to bookmasta: is the book Amulet of Samarkand?


----------



## Dictarium (Aug 12, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Well yes. I wasn't suggesting chapterless novels force me to stop my reading session mid sentence, but the end of a paragraph can still be mid scene. If a book has chapters, I can say, "I'll just finish this chapter and get my head down." It gives me something to aim for, and that isn't something I get in chapterless books. hence it being one of my pet-peeves.


It's pretty easy to tell when a specific scene ends. All you have to do is read, wait until you get to a point where the scene changes (probably causing you to read a sentence or two of the next scene) and bookmarking on the page where the next scene begins. It's not all that difficult.


----------



## philistine (Aug 12, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> In response to Philistine: is the book Catcher in the Rye?



Are you referring to this post?



philistine said:


> Works which, although can be appreciated on an intellectual and conceptual plain, are simply not entertaining reads. I can only think of a few examples (one being very well known), though I simply can't get through them. It goes without saying that an author can write about whatever subject he likes, and in a style he chooses- though when he or she strays from the fundamental rule that a story should be entertaining, I find myself unable to enjoy it.



If so, I was thinking more of Borge's _Ficciones_. It's commonly known as an exercise in intellectual masturbation.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 12, 2013)

> If I were ever to get published, I'm not sure why I'd feel the need to thank my family. All the hard work would have been mine.



I think everyone's family, whether good or bad, shapes them, and are hence heavily responsible for who the person is. No matter what my family do, I'll always thank them, not only for the things I can understand, but all the things I can't.

Writing is indeed a solitary craft. But, ironically, I wouldn't be able to write alone without thousands of people around me and many that are a lot closer than others.


----------

