...Hmm... I come from redneck county, North Carolina, but I can't remember ever having used "Y'all" in reference to a single person. I am guilty of using "y'uns", a contraction of "you ones"... which isn't correct either way.
You have "y'uns" all the way in N. Carolina? I thought it was a Pittsburgh thing. Here they say it as 'Yoonz' or worse yet 'Yinz' (ugh). Yinzers.
Too much detail, not enough character. What I mean by this is that someone is more focused on the world, not what the characters are doing. For me, there is a fine line between building a world, and writing a psuedo history. If you want to write psuedo history, please, don't pass it off as a fantasy or whatever it is. Other things don't tend to bother me that much, normally, if I can read three pages, I can read it, but I've not done much reading on the fiction side for a while. Well, one book over the weekend, and I'm yet to start on a HP Lovecraft book which looks interesting. Oh, and if you're wondering, blame the Cthulthu RPG game I played a while back, that's got me really interested.
First-person writing when a novel or story should definitely be written in third. By this I am referring to authors who write first-person as a set of stage directions as opposed to a more personal, introspective narration. i.e., "I walked to the door. I looked out the peephole. I opened the door. I saw the mailman. I said, 'Hey, Mr. Mailman.'" If you're going to be that vague in your prose, why not just change "I" to "He?" This irks me. I think new authors are under the impression that first-person is somehow easier. Where they concoct these ideas escapes me.
Ah, but milieu is a focus for some authors. Take Gulliver's Travels. Gulliver is a boring, paper thin character. But he wasn't the focus of the story. It was the world.
Agreed. While some of the best writers work with that subgenre, I am getting so sick of opening the cover of my fantasy book and finding a map of Europe. Then I can never be sure if the writer is honestly a good worldbuilder or just very good at historical research.
This thread grew three pages I've got some catching up to do. First, as for focus on the world as opposed to characters I think that's preference more than a mark of professionalism vs. amateur...ism? Second, I suppose if a hook is nothing more than something that interests you about a story then I like a hook. I just like my hooks subtle. Like an opening description of a man who plays a game of Parcheesi every Saturday with his pet Bermudan anole. It's weird, it's quirky, it'd get my attention...the action can come later when the anole hears from a chameleon about a rising iguana army that the man must defeat in an EPIC battle and after the battle everything will go back to normal and it would end on a Saturday, "So Parcheesi again?" "Nah, make it Scrabble this time." Er, for a more serious example with fewer reptiles... 'The man stood on the street corner outside a small cafe, he was waiting on someone though he wasn't quite sure who, it always worked that way.' <---No one is in any peril but I'd be interested in who this guy is and why he spends so much time waiting for people he doesn't know. I just don't like being thrown into action or into the middle of story. It's usually enough to make me put a book down, especially that "middle of a story" one 'cause they usually lead to "and my life was normal 3 wks ago" flashbacks. But maybe I'm crazy (actually the lizard example probably proves it).
For me it's a little bit of everything. That's why when I'm finished with my novel, it's only like 5 chapters away, I want to review all prose, so I'm making a hard copy to red through and edit on. However with that said, if you see me describe something more then once, it's often times done intentionally to key the reader in to an important part. I mean I have so many subplots going on in this novel a friend of mine said I need to write cliff-notes on the subplots..
I tend to write a lot of description but only to paint the portrait, not to show how One hair swayed slightly to the left, the other million, stayed. you know? lulz i make myself laugh sometimes
Dredging up old threads . WOW yes I read every post of all 9 pages, my mind is churning thanks... hrm now i'm scared to write. Just kidding Seriously nobody mentioned this and this is a huge pet peeve, mashing your theory into my head over and over by abusing your characters. What I mean is you have these characters that are the most blessed creatures on the planet they think on their feet and survive insurmountable issues with the power of their mind. And then you spend 10 pages beating into my head some theory, by treating one of your characters as if he is a two year old of which your trying to teach him the word no. (think Terry Goodkind) To dissent from the masses I love description, I hear a lot in here of the "her blue dress was blue, to match her blue eyes, and the blue tea she sipped that smelled blue" I see this akin to much of Jordan's later books, I loved it. I will say spelling and misused words can catch me tripping over myself while reading. Hooks are good, I found myself struggling through Kushiel's Dart until at last half way through it gets good. I believe Carrey emerged from her "amateur" phase after that, as I never once felt like I was struggling to keep going.
Taughtologies.... That's probably not how it's spelt, but it's damn annoying. Also trying to say too much in one sentence, if no one has said this already; 'He ran down the stairs and out through the open door into the road which was really busy as it was saturday morning and he tripped over because the pavement was really uneven and then he saw her.' Or something like that, but I cant really think of a good example, and I'm not harsh enough to quote someones work.