I disagree about flashbacks. I use lots of flashbacks. I don't want to write out my characters entire life, but there are plenty of funny stories from his past that help flesh him out and demonstrate who he is. But I think it also depends on the type of story. My book is about a character trying to find himself and reflecting a lot on who he is and what not, so I think it's important in my story. Also I just enjoy it. I do agree on the tragic events on page one part!
It's not going to completely put me off, but I tend to avoid anything with the words "A Novel" on the front cover. Hmm...what on earth is a novel doing in the fiction section of my library? I wonder if there's some way to prove that "A Novel" is the mark of the beast from Revelation.
When I've seen that, it's generally been to distinguish the work from something else. For example, there's a book about Thomas Jefferson called "Jefferson, A Novel" which distinguishes it from a biography. Charlie
In that sort of case it's perfectly fine with me, but the vast majority of the times I've seen it is on books that could never be mistaken for a non-fiction.
I agree with you in disagreeing about flashbacks. I feel the same way about prologues as well. Prologues even made that "Writer's Digest" list of things agents hate -- but what if a prologue (or a flashback) is exciting, fun, interesting? What if the prologue is a "hook" that pulls the reader headlong into a fun and thrilling story, what if a flashback grabs the reader by the throat and says, "Look, see what happened, and gasp in utter shock!" What would "Sybil" have been without the flashbacks? The whole point of Sybil was this: Here's this girl, who has these blackouts, and during these blackouts, she has another personality. She is suffering from multiple personality disorder. How did she get this way? Then we see the scene when she was a child and her mother tied her to the piano, and the scene of her boyfriend falling on a rake and dying, as two examples. Do you really just want to see Sybil as she is now, and not want to know how she got that way, or just see her in the present, talking to the psychiatrist and saying, "I was tied to the piano..." Isn't it much more exciting for the story to have the flashback and see her as a little child, tied to the piano, enduring hours of her mother playing until she couldn't keep from wetting the floor? Sometimes the prologue, in a murder mystery for example, is the murder that happened five years ago. Isn't that a good place to start a story like that? The television show "Cold Case" was formatted to always begin with a prologue, and frankly, I thought it was a pretty good show. Sometimes, novels with prologues can be very good too... I used both prologue and flashback in my book, and I think my prologue and my flashback are pure dynamite, and I hope my readers will too... Charlie
I hate anything that is like the Newbury Gold Medal books they made me read in elementary and middle school. As I told my teacher once, these kind of books are way too predictable. The plot basically is like this: 1. There is a kid who supposedly is like me. 2. The kid is confronted with either a social issue like racism or domestic trouble, or tries to win some contest. 3. Someone/something that the kid really loves dies, just because. Usually this someone/something is a mentor, a close friend/family member, or a dog. 4. The kid "grows up" and is more mature. In all seriousness, the Newbury books probably are the reason why I had really been uneasy about reading all this time. Anyhow, nowadays, I don't really like reading anything from the 1800s, due to the fact that I just don't really like that style - the seeming wordiness, mostly. Not that I don't think stuff from the 1800s is bad - I love Twain - but I'm a bit anxious when I have to read it.
In published fiction, the only thing that'll put me off is writing flaws, imprecise (or worse, incorrect) word usage, and transparently artificial manipulation (the obvious "hook" I find really annoying). In short, anything that makes me suspect I'm reading a self-published author mascarading as an experienced pro without having been told that up-front. I like to get past the opening paragraph(s) without even remembering the first line. I like the writing to flow and to say something that compels me to read on and each thought to flow into the next one in an irresistable way. I'm also not fond of creatively spelled or accented language that reflects dialect and that kind of thing in the fiction I read, though I'm perfectly fine with foreign words used in context (where I can easily understand or learn what they mean). And (a minor pet peeve) I also don't like character or town names I can't figure out how to pronounce, nor the prologue that provides me with maps and definitions I'm expected to refer to in order to understand the story (which I see bothers others, as well). In unpublished manuscripts, it depends on the time that I have. I try to turn down my critical ear till after I've listened for the music. Sometimes that's not easy to do. But I try, because I'm usually reading such things for the purpose of providing some feedback, and I don't feel I can't provide useful feedback without getting a sense of the direction and theme.
Something I'd like to add to my "turn offs" on reading: Anything that encourages ignorance or denies science. Conversely, anything that defies ignorance, I like. Example 1: Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," his pseudo-science denial of the reality of global warming. I'll never read any of his books, because this one. The reality of global warming is confirmed in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies published in reputable journals. The reality of global warming is denied by right-wing pundits, a few whack-job pseudo-scientists, and Michael Crichton, suspense author, not to mention exactly zero peer-reviewed scientific studies. Example 2: The "Left Behind" series, that, in its fundamentalist right-wing religious bend, simultaneously misinterprets the book of Revelation and insults atheists, homosexuals, and everyone but fundamentalist Christians, falsely stereotyping them while making them the villains of the story. Example 3: Anything written by Ann Coulter. There are, of course, some who will disagree with my views on these matters. Those are likely the people who eat up these books, and would probably say the same things about Al Gore, Dan Brown and Al Franken. In the case of Al Gore, I counter that peer-reviewed science is on his side. In the case of Dan Brown, I counter that he's a fiction author and everyone knows it, unlike the Left Behind authors. In the case of Al Franken... I counter that he's really funny, and not nearly as caustic as Coulter. Oh, one more: Example 4: Outlander. It was a fine book, until the "hero" and romantic interest of the story decided to beat the woman "heroine" of the story, and the author seemed to think it was okay. I'm not into heroes who beat women. I found it offensive.
When the author uses the book as a thinly disguised cover for ranting his political and social views instead of telling a story. (Edit: But I don't mind so much if there's a good story packaged in with it too. Man, Starship Troopers was a good book.)
I disagree. Though some of the things mentioned in the series are not exactly on the same page as Revelation, it does stay true to many of the things which happen. If you think it insults atheists, then you should read the bible. The Left Behind series says nothing compared to what the bible says about them. Since you seem to hate the series so much (oh, there are about 12-14 books in the series, did you even read all of them?) then why don't you ridicule the bible why you are at it? Left Behind is only trying to send the message that the bible is talking about in the first place. The bible is completely honest. No bunny rabbits and butterflies covering reality in this book. Many people hate the bible because of some things that happen in it. This is because none of the things that happened to the Israelites were covered up. While most ancient civilizations tell stories of victories and pride, you can't help but hate the Israelites for the stupid things they did. Yet, they were God's chosen people, even though they didn't act like it. So does everything in the bible fit with what Christians believe? Of course not, since much of it is history, it tells what happened, not what Christians stand for. There are parts where God is harsh about what is right and what is wrong, but that is because he isn't there to sell something. One more note about Left Behind; the characters do their best to show others the truth. They do it with the intend to help that person. At some points they show hate to the people who are really evil, but that ends up causing more harm than good, which really shows what it is all about. I got so caught up with supporting the bible, that I forgot about critizing the Left Behind books. Yes, I enjoyed the story, but thought the the way it was written dragged on for a bit. I spend hours just waiting for the story to move over to the next part. It might have helped if it was a bit shorter, and if some parts where left out. It takes a lot of will power to make it through the more boring parts, but as soon as I reached the exciting bits, I couldn`t put it down. Perhaps that is what I hate most about books. When I start a book I always finish it, but if I don`t like it, I don`t worry about the rest of the series (if there is a series)
The last book I set down I did so because it was too child-like in its focus on action. All of the characters felt flat. No development. The one before that I set down because of a dirty writing style/incomplete sentences. Also there was no focus in that story, nor was there "up and down" - it was just constant go-go-go with no time for character development. It started to at the beginning but then gave up on that idea and took off like a bottle rocket. I set down 1984 for the same reason in the first few pages. I just felt overwhelmed by immediately diving into this world without preamble. I could probably read it now, but at the time I couldn't.
I have read the Bible, many times. Even studied portions in Greek and Hebrew. The writings written by ancient, primitive men do not change my view of Left Behind. The author stereotyped atheists and made them appear quite different than they really are. You suggest that I ridicule the Bible? The Bible is a collection of works by various authors. Some of those writings are certainly worthy of ridicule, especially when taken literally which is how many people take them. If you really want, I'll point out some of those passages. Much of it is internally contradictory. If you want, I'll point out those passages too. Others are some of the most beautiful and poetic things ever written. I'm sure you already know those passages. Revelation, when taken literally, is one of the most outlandish books in the Bible, but careful study suggests its symbolic metaphors were in reference to Nero and the fall of the temple in 70 AD. I admit, I only read one of the Left Behind series, the one where the "beast" appears. I didn't actually know what I was picking up -- I grabbed the audio book in the library thinking I was picking up some mystery novel. There's nothing in Revelation suggesting that some homosexual atheists are going to put their sperm together to create the beast. To suggest that is really quite absurd -- and if you accept Revelation literally (which I don't, but if you do) they've really condemned themselves because Revelation says not to add to or take away from this book (Revelation) because to do so would lead to condemnation. They've added to it quite, if you'll pardon the expression, liberally. So the Left Behind series, you claim, tells the story in Revelation as presented in the Bible? Please tell me the verse that says that the Beast will be created by two homosexuals putting their sperm together.
Guys, please don't turn this thread into a debate about the truth of the Bible. I'd really rather not have it closed.
You're right. I'm sorry. I suppose it was foolish of me to start something which I knew wasn't likely to get going anywhere. Reminds me of books which stay on the same subject forever, and don't lead on to the rest of the story. That is so irritating. Ha, what I hypocrite I can be :redface:.
To throw in my hatred for the Newbury Medal again, I must admit there was only one book I liked in Middle School. Why? Because nobody important to the main character died. Period.
LMAO! And they wonder why kids hate reading. Did you ever read "The Pushcart War?" I still think that's one of the best books ever written.
I totally agree, although The Graveyard Book by Gaiman won the Newbery Medal this year, so maybe that's progress.
Actually now, come to think of it, I'll also give more reasons why that book in particular was more interesting to me than all the other books combined, besides the fact that no dogs/emotionally-important-personages died: - It took place in Ancient Egypt. Yeah, yes, the important exotic value, but I mean that's definitely more interesting than some 12 year old kid from some Averageville, America having pseudo-philosophical thoughts on "tough social issues" and angsting about his dead dog, right? - The "social issue" of the book (trying to raise oneself in social status) did not dominate the book. It was important, yes, but it wasn't like every moment the story mentions, "Oh, and the kid thought about whether rascism was good or not", or "Oh, and then Bob-the-Martyr-Who-Has-To-Die-Just-Because says on his deathbed that 'You should not discriminate against others!'" - To extend on that, there was actually some action as a result of the social issue, instead of the kid just thinking about whether rascism is bad or not or whether peasants really do have feelings or whatever or the mentor/dog/best-beddy teaching him about the fact that he's special or whatever. In the Egypt book, unlike all the other ones I read in Middle School, the main character could have gotten killed as the result of his desire to fix things. In other words, there was danger and suspense as a result of his own actions, instead of just some random mobsters coming to his house to kill him just because. - If I remember, the book wasn't in first person. Normally this doesn't matter in my opinion, but when it comes to writing books that are supposed to show how a 12 year old kid feels, it may make a difference, because if you write in first person, you have to make sure you the narrating character comes off as authentic. Sadly to say, a kid who moans about his dog and does nothing but react to useless preachy talk isn't that authentic at all. So, I guess, to make my point, I just re-learned a lesson or two on good and bad writing just now. Basically, if you want to make your story better, you have to keep the themes and moral messages at a healthy distance, you have to put the main character in real danger, and you have to make sure your main character is authentic and isn't boring. And also make sure no one dies just because. I guess now I really do have to thank the Newbury Gold Medal. You've taught me how to write better, and I never knew it until now.
Sometimes, it's jut a feeling, something in my mind going ,"Nope, it ain't gonna be worth it," and then I close the book. This is why the public library is a good friend
1) The book begins with a highly detailed description of a fantasy political system or war. My reaction? - Grit teeth, jump ahead to check if it continues this way, confirm that it always does, set book back. 2) No paragraphs. One of the quickest factors to make my eyes glaze over. Especially true of some science fiction books. A few of these don't even bother to indent/separate dialogue, and the resultant experience is like reading an accounting text book. 3) The book begins with some guy (or woman) creating his or her own personal dystopia, complaining about his/her job, looks, parents, siblings, you name it. A lot of authors try to capture a sort of cool Humphrey Bogart atmosphere by doing this, but most fall flat right on their faces. I don't find over-the-top angst cool; more like depressing and pathetic. Books beginning with the heroine going on and on about how ugly or not-good-enough for her crush she is particularly revolt me (well, tbh, I sometimes read on so that I can enjoy hating the heroine). Scarlett O'Hara, where art thou? Characters who are full of themselves are great! Han Solo and Yoda are two other examples. 4) No descriptions whatsoever of the main characters' appearances or of the settings, etc. For me, a succinct, colorful description is very entertaining - for example, being told that the main character looks like a scarecrow-come-to-life is so much better than just being told name, gender, and age, like some thrillers do. I would compare a good, original description to chocolate chips in a cookie - you don't want too many of them, but a few good ones really spice things up and give a better feel for the characters and locations. 5) Most of the text is dialogue. I've read (okay, began) a few thrillers like that, and all anybody seemed to do was participate in pointless, often shallow conversations. Very dry, indeed. I'd be better off watching a soap opera or one of those indistinguishable modern British crime series: at least for these, all I'd have to do is just sit in front of the TV with my eyes open, no brain activity required. 6) The text reads like a technical report - no humor, no atmosphere, no humanity, no. . . anything. 7) All or most of the characters are described in highly sexualized ways. Books written like that are almost always cheesy and sleazy. 8) Lengthy, bombastic prologues. But I usually skip these anyway, so they don't always make me return the book to its shelf. 9) Too many subplots and information irrelevant to the main story. This is what made me eventually return "Interview with the Vampire." I watched the movie instead, and even though there were some unnecessary changes, I found it more entertaining than the book. 10) The book is political propaganda in a story format. Particularly annoying if I don't agree with the propaganda being upheld.
Characters that are too dumb to live. I'm re-thinking my position on some authors that I've previously admired because of this.
