What are some things you wish authors would stop doing? Maybe something about their style, or the words they use, or something about the story overall? For me, I wish authors would stop villainizing logical people. Let me explain... Imagine a story where everyone on earth was going to die unless one single innocent child was sacrificed. The hero would be the one who saved the child's life by finding another way to save the world without killing him or her. Undoubtedly, there would be at least one other character who would want to kill the child, not out of malice but because that's the only surefire way of saving the world. We, the readers, would be against him. By trying to kill an innocent child, he would be an antagonist. This is fine to me, as it's a type of conflict that would most likely arise in this kind of scenario. Keyword, though, being antagonist. Antagonist doesn't necessarily mean evil. Now imagine that same situation in real life. You would totally side with the guy who wants to kill the child. You might not be proud of it, but when the only other option is to let the entire world be destroyed, it's obviously the logical choice. The hero, the one who saves the kid, would be seen as an absolute madman selfishly threatening billions of lives in pursuit of some harebrained quest with only a microscopic (if that) chance of succeeding. In a book, we're okay with that because we know the hero is a hero, and everything the hero does is working towards an eventual happy ending. In real life we'd never accept that kind of behavior. The problem to me is that authors never give any credit to the logical character's point of view. They're always just another villain, completely unsympathetic simply because they're working against the hero. I think if writers would be more willing to explore a character like that, they'd be capable of becoming some of the most interesting characters in the story. The guy who's good at heart and only wants what's best for people, and sees doing something bad as the only way to do that. Maybe he's conflicted. Maybe he lies awake all night hating himself for what he things he has to do. Maybe he secretly wants the hero to beat him so that he doesn't have to do the horrible thing he's planning without sacrificing his own morals or sense of honor. But no, he's always written as just another villain.
The OP just now described a pet peeve of mine. I am done with this type of characters or storylines. In a typical story, everything is boiled down to a clear moral positive, in opposition to a moral negative choice. But real life is nothing like that, and people are conflicted, have emotions that are not logical and sometimes cannot even be justified by the ones experiencing them. I am tired of reading stories about people that are morally certain. So that's why I am writing a story that is not.
Those authors that don't know how to write a competent story, with consistent and plausible characters, and without relying on plot holes/demands so the MC(s) can come out for the better in the end.
Admittedly, I do think there's a balance. Not every story needs to be Game of Thrones, where there are no good or bad guys, just varying shades of gray. Personally, I like a mixture of the two. A clearly defined good guy and bad guy that the reader can instantly choose sides for and against, but the hero has flaws and the villain has a good side. For instance, in my current WIP, the main character Henry has a bit of a victim complex. Not entirely unwarranted, but as the series progresses you'll see how it taints her view of certain people, making them look worse in her eyes than they actually are. On the other hand, the villain, her grandpa, is torturing and murdering innocent humans, but he's doing it because the end result being more of his and Henry's kind living that are currently dying. He says, "Is a farmer evil for killing a cow or a chicken to feed his family? Then why am I evil for killing humans when you and I aren't human?"
Honestly, I wish authors would stop ignoring the simple solutions in favor of their much more complicated solutions. I see it a lot. They'll have their characters go through a dozen steps to fix a problem when it's obvious that they could have done three things and been done.
I don't wish "authors" would stop doing anything. If I don't like it, I won't read it and I will try to avoid doing it myself. If it's done well, it can be a good read regardless.
What you described above, the situation where it's "sacrifice one child to save the world," is the exact predicament Captain Jack Harkness finds himself in for the limited series, Children of Earth, using the Torchwood crew. What's left of them anyway. In it, you have a lot of perspectives of what to do at the end of the world, and who does what, and so on. Not really sure if that's relevant, but it's what your scenario reminded me of, and it's an incredibly well done series. As for the things I hate what authors do, modernized language in a clearly not modern setting. Example: Fate of the Fallen by Kel Kade. Fantastic book, once you get used to the characters being very hip millennials in the time of horses for transportation. The dialogue mellows out about halfway through and the whole book becomes more realistic for the time the author's going for, but to get there it feels like slogging through mud puddles that are deceptively deep. Another thing is the typical YA wasteland type story, where the hero has to gather a motley crew and go gallivanting about in the wilderness to stop the evil government. crap... I just described my three books. I gotta.... I gotta go.
I get tired of authors who try to use technology terms and end up failing. Every time I hear the word "mainframe" in a movie, my back teeth hurt. It's almost never used correctly, and ends up sounding stupid to people who know about such things. Similarly other technologies, like firearms. It's one thing to conflate "clip" with "magazine" (an oft-made and excusable mistake), but quite another to mix up revolvers and semi-autos (Foley artists take note!). I will stop reading angst-ridden works half a page in. This appears to be typical in YA novels, but either I missed those sort of things when I was that age (a long time ago) or they hadn't hit the mass market yet. Make something happen right out of the gate, don't wring your hands about it! This is a story, not a therapy session. I can see that I could spend all night writing a list of things I dislike about the way some authors write. Things I do will show up in other people's list. Hell, there are things I do that I don't like about the way people write. When I find them, I rip them out. The thing is, we're never (rarely, anyway) forced to keep reading something. So long as you're willing to stop, or overlook something in the face of getting the larger story, it's all your choice. So we should all quit bitching, probably. Not that I'll stop, mind you. Now get off my lawn!
I'm old fashioned, but I find myself unable to enjoy stories that don't take enough time to let me get settled in. There is so much pressure now to start the story in some exciting place, as if 'action' is the only thing on earth that is actually worth reading about. It's as if some authors are worried that their story's foundation is boring, so they must grab you with both fists to get your attention. But then what? If you (the writer) start in a high-action place, you either have to ramp the action up even more to maintain that level of engagement (exhausting to even think about) or the action will plummet while you play catch-up with the 'boring bits.' I prefer 'intriguing situation' to exciting action at the start of a story. I also like to start reading by immersing myself in the setting, and getting to know the characters I'll be spending time with. The story action rises from there. A tsunami of dialogue between characters I haven't met? ...well ...that's very off-putting for me. I really dislike written stories that start off with more than a line or two of dialogue. (If it's a film, the viewers can see the background setting, see what the characters look like and what they're doing. But in a written story, if that information is not provided, it's just pages of talking heads. I cannot get engaged with talking heads.) Once I get settled in, when I know where I am and who I'm with, I'm ready for adventures to begin.
Plot holes and never ending subplots that either lead to nowhere or give back too little useful information. I also hate it when there are characters that play a side role that are much more interesting than the MC. I understand that this is not the writer's fault per se, but it bothers me. I also hate perfect, boring characters. Who doesn't? I hate it when the writer falls in love with their character and he/she describes him/her every now and then as the prettiest thing in the world. Things like, "Her mysterious, emerald eyes, his perfectly sculpted abs, etc". You get the picture. Cringe worthy. I hate stories with chosen ones that end up winning over super badass villains, all because of love and friendship and shit. Harry Potter is one of them. The ending just didn't make sense to me. It ruined all the previous books dammit! If you're about to make it dark, then commit to making it dark! Don't make it semi dark. That's anticlimactic. I hate it when authors use the full stop irrationally. I don't care about the commas and the semicolons (I'm still getting a hang of them myself), but full stops should be placed where they are needed to be placed. There's no excuse for using them incorrectly. End of a sentence? Full stop! Hasn't ended yet? Why the full stop? It gets confusing without a good reason. Cliche girl and women characters that are so pure and holly. Booooriiiiing! + unrealistic. Good job, yeah... If only you knew dear author... There's the other extreme end of making them completely pretentious and bitchy. I don't enjoy this as well (if it's completely irrational, used only as a cog) but I prefer it in comparison to holiness. Overall, I don't like "cog" characters. Never did, never will. I only might enjoy them in satire and comedy, but not just as a comic relief for a serious story. Adventure and fantasy stories without near death experiences. The hero MUST suffer at some point, not just internally. This is an adventure. Shit happen. External, that is. I hate Batman. What a miserable, pretentious schmuck. I hate being able to guess everything that's going to happen in a story. At least try to make an unforeseen plot twist. You can do it! I hate having many characters to follow. It gets so tiring and most probably I'm only rooting for one. Yes, the one that's not even a MC. When it's a political suspense/ intrigue/ spy themed story it can work. When it's not, it can't. I'm talking about more than 5 characters to follow. You'll tell me, "But yeah. Epic fantasy." I'm not into it for that specific reason. If only I could just follow an interesting protagonist, I'd be content. Never ending, nit picking descriptions with unbeknownst terminology upon specific things that play no role whatsoever, at all in the story. Some authors tend to do this upon describing the clothing of characters up to detail. Some others upon guns and bullets or wines or fans or whatever. Let me tell you: A fetish shows and so does a person that wishes to be perceived as a knowledgeable person. A connoisseur. Quit dragging! No one cares. When an author produces book 3 100 years after book 2 and there are plot points that are connected to information that was provided to you in book 1. In the meantime I don't remember shit. By the way, the author decided finally to end the story in book 4, or so the prophecy foretells...
Oh yes. The laundry list description. And green eyes (and red hair)? On all the main characters—? Yorgh....
Oh no, I think you pretty much covered the book I need to finish reading. Also the other book that I had to quit reading 1/2 way through.
Wish granted. Hey how'd you get ahold of my WIP! To the rest of you: Sorry! Oops! Ouch! Eew! Wow! Ehhw! In no particular order. *sigh*
Indeed! I don't know if these books are self published or not, but if I were an editor, most probably I'd kindly reject them, because this is a red flag for me, signaling that other extremities are about to follow suit. Apart from breaking the 4rth wall between narrator and reader, how on earth does the author know what I perceive as beautiful at the time? That's my situation as well. Rejected books just keep piling up. That's why I felt like ranting actually. I also have to finish a half read book, which I'm close to completely deleting from my memory. It feels like a chore. I could go on with the rant. That's not even half of it.
Aww, I like redheads with green eyeballs. What about how my MC feels about particular strawberry blonds with sky blue eyeballs and less than perfect extremities - and freckles? Can't forget about the freckles! Please do rant on! I'm bored.
Tomorrow, because I need to get some sleep. Or is it later today? I've lost track again. Anyhow, later today or tomorrow I'll get to your thread as well and no, in no means was I disappointed. Goodnight!
Bad guys with useless equipment and tactics, trained worse than third-world military. Meanwhile, the protagonists are special forces oper8or for no given reason except plot armor.
I don't think a story needs to start with "action" per se. Perhaps "activity" is the better word. I can take a sentence or two of introspection, maybe even a paragraph. But if I get half a page and there's been no activity? I probably won't read any more.
Technically the Clone Troopers were far better than the conscripted/new Troopers. Also I would hardly say that a Trooper rifle is useless bit of kit, considering it has a range of 10 kilometers, and if portrayed properly would have a kinetic plasma bolt that could explode a living target and punch several meters into the SW equivalent of super tough concrete. Though in Star Wars, everything weapon wise is under powered to reality. Other than that I can agree with you on what you said.
Oh, one more thing I hate: when they kill the dog. It doesn't even have to be an actual dog, but in almost every story, there's a character that plays the role of the dog. The team mascot, if you will. When that guy gets killed, usually for no reason other than the writer grew tired of him? I lose interest.
I had this discussion elsewhere about my competition entry. I wanted to kill a character off in order to reinforce the message about how dangerous war was, and how precarious the soldiers' lives were. Who did I pick? The kid, of course. Why? Because he was the most sympathetic character and the one who the readers were most likely to have an emotional attachment to.
