Too much lame description, particularly in fantasy. By the way, I'm loving this thread. I've used it as a checklist of sorts for my own writing.
Lol. Combine them for the worst ever novel. Eralight (Or possibly Twigon?). To make it even worse, have Dan Brown write it... There's what puts me off a story, actually. If it's written by Dan Brown. Or does his trademark "make up some bull**** controversy" stunt.
Yeah Eragon is the only book that I can remember ever putting down on the first page. I just knew it wasn't going to be my thing at all. That was when I was like 14 too. And Angels and Demons was fun for what it was, but I see now how contrived some of it was.
I like Dan Brown's books, I'm not sure what the complaint is, he's one of my favorite authors. My favorite of his, by the way, is one you never hear about: Deception Point. If you're talking about the Da Vinci Code (because I can't even think of anything particularly controversial in Angels & Demons) I'd hardly call, questioning the true nature of the historical Jesus "making up some bull**** controversy." Much of the ideas about Mary Magdalene have been explored both in popular culture and in theological circles long before Dan Brown came along, and the Gnostic texts he referred to did indeed exist and were accurately quoted (although his character, Leigh Teabanks, did misrepresent them to a degree, but remember, Teabanks was the villain of the story. Having read the Nag Hammadi library, I know that most of the Coptic texts, excepting the sayings Gospel of Thomas, generally depicted a more-miraculous Jesus, rather than a more-human Jesus as Teabanks suggested. ) The only problem I had with Angels & Demons was that the end of the book (modified, thankfully, in the movie) was far-fetched. The only problem I had with Da Vinci Code was... well... the movie. Deception Point was his best though. May people have never heard of it because it has no religious themes whatsoever. People seem drawn to religious themes -- some think they're controversial, but, being a reader of many nonfiction books exploring various religious theory and not myself holding to the orthodox, I don't find them controversial at all. Frankly, I think the Left Behind series is more offensive from a religious standpoint than the Da Vinci Code.
I'd have to say that there is very little that will immediately turn me off of reading a book and I always give a book at least a chapter's chance. Basing a book on the first paragraph is a bit too much, in my personal opinion. Things I dislike though include incredibly bad grammar. The Sookie Stackhouse books (I don't remember the name of the author) are great examples of that. It was turned into a tv show which I found first (then learned it was based on books so I decided to check them out). Reading the first couple of chapters of the first book completely turned me off the show because of how awful the writing was. Present tense isn't something I normally enjoy although there are a few authors who employ the technique well. As long as the writing is done well, then I have no problem with the tense or the pov being used. I noticed earlier on in this thread someone mentioned that first person tends to turn them off a book and I'd have to agree (despite being a primary 1st person writer) because it does seem like a lot of amateur writers think that 1st person is easier...so reading books written in first person by those who haven't mastered the intricacies of the pov can be very off-putting. I'd say my favorite author to read who writes in first person would have to be Chuck Palanhuik. Other things I dislike include over-detailed settings and tired plot-lines. Also, bad dialogue. For a reason beyond my comprehension, some authors just don't seem to understand how people interact with one another and that comes out in the dialogue. Which irritates me, because as writers, aren't we supposed to understand the intricacies of human nature better than most? I mean, what's the point of having characters if people don't make sense to you? >< ~Lynn
Obviously when a story starts out really slow and just doesn't grab me. I'll often give it a bit of a chance, but I much prefer to immediately want to know what is going to happen to the characters. I think two exceptions for me would be the Grapes of Wrath and Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry. Grapes I had to ready in school and after I finished that 1st page I thought I was in for a whole lot of torture, but I ended up really wanting to know how it ended and Lonesome Dove I'm not sure why I kept reading, but it is one of my favorite books now. I think I got hooked once I got to the part about renting pigs. The other thing that will put me off reading a book is overly long sentences and big words. I get the impression that the author is either really smart and can't help it, or wants people to think he/she is really smart. I don't want books written like every day speech, but I want them written with the words we would use in everyday speech. Otherwise it just takes me out of the story and I start paying more attention to sentence structure and what smartypants word they managed to fit in the each sentence. It keeps me from relating to the characters which means I quickly get bored.
My biggest problem with books is the ones that come with a Map at the front of it. I've read LOTR etc. but I just wasn't that interested in it, it just so happened it was the only book I packed when I went on holiday and I had my boyfriend of the time take ill and end up in hospital, leaving me with the poolside and LOTR. I don't know what it is about Maps putting me off the book. There was one book, that I now for the life of me can't remember the title of, which was about a Taxi Driver called Dave(?), and how he spawned an entirely new civilisation from his rantings and day to day life. It was reviewed on BBC Breakfast, and I got all excited, ran out and bought it, and then tried to read it. I gave up after the second page and handed it over to my friend who likes that sort of book. He was happy, he'd just saved £16.99. Reading what turns people off though, I feel rather happy about the fact that my first pages seem to avoid almost all the pitfalls.
What's wrong with maps? Virginia Woolf uses one in Mrs Dalloway, and its fine. I mean, even if you don't like them, its just one page and then you never have to look at it again if you don't want to...
I know. It's the stupidest thing in the entire universe. It's more that I disliked a few books, then noticed they all had maps at the start, and then realised that it was books with maps at the start that really bugged me. A good writer surely does not require a map, but merely the tools of his/her writing ability to convey a sense of geography within the text? I can't remember- do the discworld books come with maps? I did like most of them.
Yep. Also, with books like Mrs Dalloway that come with a map, the only reason its done is because Woolf, in the novel, assumes that the reader has a knowledge (an intimate knokwledge) of 1920's Londond and refers to specific streets and stuff without any geographical relation to each other....so yeah, its not necessarily that the writer can't convey the geography, maybe just that they don't want to/don't feel the need to,
This. I can appreciate the effort a fantasy writer puts into creating their setting, but I honestly don't care for a detailed history of the main character's home country unless that information is important to the plot. If you can't work the background information into the story without stepping outside the narrative, is it really all that important?
I usually continue reading no matter how bad the book may be. I like to think of it as a learning experience.
That's a good point. You'd think writing dialogue would be the easiest thing for a writer to do, but it seems like a lot of them don't.
I think a lot of it comes down to the pressure to write (forgive this word) literarily, as in stylised, insightful, poetic, meaningful dialogue, as opposed to purely realistic dialogue (which, lets face it, in most cases, isn't book-worthy). But yeah, the balance is hard to find. And its especially bad in fantasy/scifi, where they try to create an even more particular style and end up making stilted, awkward dialogue.
Very true. That was where I fell short when I first started trying to write these things - worried my dialogue would sound childish and unrealistic. But in reality, it only did when I tried too hard to think about it. I just let it flow naturally these days, just like regular conversation does. We don't think about what we say in the heat of conversation to such a staggering level, it just comes out in the blink of an eye. We don't have time to meticulously go over our words and make sure they're fine tuned, not in real time. I think there's a lot of art in capturing a realistic conversation between two make-believe characters; or at least a lot of fun.
1. Using many words that I don't understand. I label that as unreadable. Now some will say "HEY! That's your own damn fault." And perhaps they are right but seriously if John Irving and Mark Twain is "dumbed down" then I don't mind being dumb. 2. Massive amounts of pages used only for description of settings, clothes, etc. Get to the characters and dialogue already. I find it pretty offensive all the people complaining about cliche. 90% of the people on here are fantasy junkies and that's as cliche as it gets. I get it. You don't want to sound like a sell out and that's fine. But don't think your fooling anyone.
I like words I don't understand, as long as there aren't too many of them. When I learn a new word, it's a happy day.
One thing guaranteed to put me off is misuse of words. I can't easily come up with examples right now, but I encounter them all the time. Often it's a word whose most superficial definition kind of fits, but that has completely wrong connotations for the context.
I agree with you. I often find words in best-selling authors writings I don't understand. I look them up, and then, I've learned something. I also subscribe to a daily "word of the day" e-mail from dictionary.com, just to improve my vocabulary and make those "words I don't know" a little rarer. My sister read a sample of my book and didn't like it because it contained the word "sardonic" which she didn't know. I actually thought that was an easy one, a word that most people (most reading adults, at least) know. Funny, but after she said that, I started seeing that word all over the place. I saw it in many, many of the books I've read. I decided I'm going to ignore her advice on that one.
I'm currently reading a book called "Night Fall." There's a sex scene in the first chapter. The book is excellent. The sex scene isn't very sexy, by the way, and I don't think the opening scene is an attempt to use sex to sell the book. It's simply the most logical beginning for the story. The sex involves a couple having an affair. They're video-taping their "activities" on the beach and accidentally video tape a plane falling from the sky and crashing. That video tape becomes central in the story, as the detectives are trying to find this video tape because it contains evidence as to whether the plane was truly an accident and mechanical failure -- the official story -- or whether a missile blew the airplane out of the sky. It's really a very good book. I wouldn't make the sweeping argument that all books that open with a sex scene are badly written.
This often puts me off, and one example that is actually controversial (as some argue that the misuse has become so common that the misuse is now accepted as a correct usage) is the use of the phrase "begging the question." I see it all the time, and it bothers me, because I know "begs the question" does not mean "raises the question" as everyone who uses it seems to use it. "Begging the question" is actually using the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. I almost never see it used correctly. If I see the phrase, it's almost certain to be the incorrect usage. Another one I see often that I don't like is "I could care less," which is correctly, "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, than that means that you do care, but the meaning of the phrase is supposed to be that you don't care.
Two major things put me off in the opening sentences- When we don't know who anyone involved is, and we aren't told names or faces, for fear of "ruining surprises" down the line. The only time this has worked was in "The Gunslinger" by Stephen King, and that worked because for the most part he didn't use names in that book. When we start out with an Eeevil villain in his Eeevil lair and we are told just how dark and gothic and spiky and Eeevil he is. Without any idea of what world he lives in, what time he lives in and why the hell we should care about his Eeevilness. And he doesn't do anything. Ninja Edit- And Cog's point about words. Especially when they're big long ones that sound similar to what the author meant.
Novels that start off with back-story. If you need to go back in time to explain what's happening in your opening chapter then you've started writing at the wrong place. Flashbacks also irritate me. I want to know what's currently happening to the characters, not what has already transpired unless it is actually important to the plot. In that case it's something that can be revealed through conversation, not just placed at random in the text. If it's placed too early, I don't care enough about the characters to know what has already happened to them. If it happen's too late, then I wonder why the hell the author didn't mention it any earlier if it's so vital to the story. Tragic events on page one are complete turn off. I don't mind action straight from Go!, but if it involves a character's friend/pet/relative dying or something else that will turn them into a blubbering wreck then I'll just roll my eyes and slam down the cover. If I haven't had a chance to become attached to the characters yet I simply won't care. I need to be able to empathise with a character before I'm expected to sympathise with them.
