Things you wish authors would stop doing?

Why must one of the main characters in a horror story, after they've become aware of an at large killer/monster who's murdered several people in their small town, take an incomprehensibly stupid/dangerous course of action?

 

So the story can happen.

 

Helpful as always, Cephus.

 

Yeah, I place commas (or omit them) wherever I want to get the sentence flow I'm striving for.

 

There are a lot of commatose writers in the world today.

 

Some of them just lack comma sense.

 

Seriously, that's why most things are written the way they are. It's so the story the author has in their head can happen the way they want it to happen. Whether it makes any sense to the reader doesn't matter. It's why television is the way it is, where every action is absurdly convenient. It's so the story can happen.

 

The fun challenge for the aware writer is to put in something so the character has to take the dangerous course of action, so it's no longer incomprehensible, just tragic.

Though I suspect some horror story creators just enjoy making monster fodder out of random characters, to heighten the . . . I forget what it's called, some term out of Greek tragedy. I could look it up tomorrow.

 

I saw a episode of Criminal Minds one time where they googled the baddy's name and found his home address. But he'd set up an alert that told him that someone, somewhere, had used the world's largest and most popular search engine to find information about him and was able to flee before the cops got there.

Srsly?

 

I'm embarrassed I couldn't come up with such an obvious explanation. Thanks for teasing that out.

 

Repeating the same ideas with different words instead of introducing new ideas.

 

Every piece of fiction under the sun pretty much does this.

 

I don’t do that in my writing.

 

All of your ideas are wholly original?

 

can you clarify what you mean by this? because i'm reading this statement in a way i'm certain you don't actually mean.

 

Yes, you do. You just don't realise it. It would be incredibly arrogant of any us to assume that anything we write has not already been done in some form or another, and we are all influenced by what we read,watch or play.

 

I'm fed up of the cliche reactions when a hero does something a bad guy would normally do, ie, they kill someone then throw up. Give over. Or they are constantly boo hooing over decisions they've made. Grow a pair.

 

I couldn't agree more. It's like reading the same scene on repeat.

 

I absolutely despise the whole "we're two sides of the same coin!" thing where the villain tries to trick the good guy into thinking he's similar to the bad buy. That's stupid.

 

"You made me."

It's the enemy version of "You complete me!" Sort of turns it into a romance?

Then we see them running along the beach in a slow-motion montage at sunset and sharing a drink with arms looped through each other...

 

I've often despised the Kantian ethics replete within the superhero genre. Just plain lazy writing.

 

Apologies if I quoted this recently:

 

I looked up "Kantian ethics" and could not plow through more than a few sentences. Philosophical dissertation makes me want to throw things, which is why I took Collegium Musicum and Afro-American Folksong to fill the humanities requirement when I was in college. Please, while standing on one leg, explain what you mean by "Kantian ethics replete within the superhero genre." Thank you most sincerely in advance.

 

*puts head in hands*

Ok look I did this quite some time ago and this is an internet forum, so you're going to have to bear with some simplification here. My essay was based on the difference between Kantian ethics and Utilitarian ethics. Long story short, Kantian ethics base their ethical calculus on the act itself, irrespective of circumstances and costs. Kant viewed ethics and morality to have a principle, based upon reason. Ethics isn't 'get the best outcome', it's that there are certain things, 'Categorical imperatives' that can be determined by reason, that must be followed. That must be done. No exceptions. Ethical behaviour can only be defined with an eye to universality and duty. For instance, doing good because of money is not ethical, as it is not done with duty. Stealing for an orphanage or hungry children from a supply depot is not ethical, because stealing is wrong and you would not want stealing to become universal. There's also the thing about considering humans to be the end in and of itself, not a means to an end. But I digress.

The quintessential thing is about when someone came up to you and asks for the jewish refugees in your basement. You can lie and turn him away, but according to Kant's own principles, lying is wrong, irrespective of exceptions. You can turn him away, refuse to answer, or try to change his mind, but not lie.

And thus the same thing for Superhero genres. There are certain categorical imperatives (yes yes yes I know this isn't exactly going to fit in perfectly) that all superheroes must obey, or they would be evil. Superheroes must obey the law (though some daring people have avoided this). Superheroes must avoid killing or executing their villains no matter how dangerous or no matter how much better it would be, because killing is wrong irrespective of circumstances. Superheroes must not take over countries or fight against the system, despite all the various injustices that are apparent like mutant oppression or insane government black ops. In other words, there are certain rules in the entire superhero genre that have been followed, Must be followed, and any attempt to deviate from them is seen as a breach of ethic irrelevant of circumstances.

 

Isn't that part of why we like them? The refusal to compromise their principles is what makes them worthy of their powers and why we, mere mortals practiced in compromise, would make a hash of it.