What turns You off??

"He said, She said" is good to use because it is silent and does not draw the reader's attention away from the more important dialogue. It is an beginning writer's mistake to want to use other dialogue tags often, although if used "in good context and very necessary" they can certainly be beneficial. The idea is to keep the dialogue flowing, and not simply to draw attention to your "style" of writing.
 
Most of my list has been covered, but I'll reiterate a few:

Flat characters that don't develop

An author getting 'preachy' about a persoanl belief

Stupid, poorly written, unimaginative villians with no real motive.

Authors that write on a 6 year-old level (Kevin J Anderson and David Eddings come to mind).
 
My most hated thing is when an author just makes the character give up and they go into a state of depression. It gets sooo boring. Also when authors use the most unoriginal tactic in the book; attack from behind and at night. I also dont like it when the magic isnt explained properly and i LOATHE unfinished endings, or soppy ones eg. and they rode into the distance to live happily ever after.
 
Well as for attacking from behind under cover of darkness, I'd say it's done a lot because it makes sense. It's easier to get the jump on your enemy under those conditions. That does bring to mind another thing I dislike, though: a battle on every page. Don't get me wrong, battles are one of my favorite things about fantasy, but if overused even battles can get boring to me.

I agree Loki, who wants to read about a depressed, unmotivated character. If the character's given up and doesn't care, it's hard for me to care either.

On using "he said, she said," you're absolutely right, Pluvious, there's no harn in using it, as long as it isn't a whole line of "saids". With long dialogues it sometimes becomes possible to just put said, put it with action, or use no tag and the reader will still know who talked. I think good authors mix it all up.

[This message has been edited by wynnyelle (edited February 09, 2001).]
 
One thing I hate is when an author realizes the commercial value of a charachter or series and goes overboard. I loved the first 2 to 3 books of Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, but I got the distinct feeling about book 4 that the commercial success of the series meant that the series would continue ad nausseum instead of wrapping up in 5 or 6 books. I feel like I've been kidnapped. I wait 2 or 3 years for the next book only to discover that major plot cliffhangers won't be resolved until the next book (or later). In the words of the immortal George Jetson,...Jane, how do I get of this crazy thing?!!...

Also, the pre-adolescent simpering between Richard and the High-Pristess/fawning nympho in the "Wizards First Rule" series forced me to abandon it half way through book 4. If either character started crying one more time I was gonna have to enter counselling for rage. I want the leader of the world to be a little tougher than my 2 year old.
 
Haha, nice one caperjoe.

I agree mostly with what's already been written. However, getting "preachy" is a sore topic. Defining preachy is hard to do, but I will agree whenever an author stops the flow of the book to make some grandoise statement, yes that stinks.

Also, Anne Rice's Witching Hour endings. I loathe those. 800 pages of good reading and expecting conclusion ended with "please buy the sequel".

Superman Syndrome : I have the power, only when it satisfies the plot.

Left Hand of Darkness Syndrome : I have an idea, what if everyone was of the same sex. Let's write a book on it and give the world 28 different words for the weather and only use them half the time.

Squaresoft Syndrome : Headaches, lots and lots of headaches. Headaches at just the right time for the plot, Headaches to flashback, headaches to draw attention away from inconsistencies, headaches to suddenly realize that you and all of your party and who you are fighting to save the world from were all part of the same orphanage while growing up.

Terry Goodkind Syndrome : "Maggie just shot Mr. Burns... AGAIN!"

Mary Shelley Syndrome : Gratuitous use of the words "magnificent" and "sublime". For example, "Wow, I just went to the bathroom and had a magnificent and sublime experience"
... well ok, that's actually a good use

I also don't like any sudden changes in the plot, like character A is the chosen one, we spend 1000 pages discussing how he is chosen, then on page 1001 he's suddenly no longer chosen and character B is really the one that's chosen, so we spend pages 1001-2000 describing how character B is chosen and developed, then on page 2001...etc

[This message has been edited by bing (edited May 23, 2001).]
 
LOL!
smile.gif


And what do you like? Personaly, I find no prob in changing characters --in fact I love it! That's why I love Feist, anyway, and Dragonlance. Gine me characters to love!!!

And each book of a series reaching a conclusion like the 38th episode of Xena? Nay, not for me. I prefer the plot to go on and on and on, untill it really ends! Have you seen how Jordan messes up the plot to end a book? The characters are suddenly teleported to the other end of the world, and in each book a major villain must bee slain! It seems russed, and not logical.
Feist thought ends each book, but does it well; he doesn't russ the plot.
Martin, who cannot reach an end in each book, simple leaves many loose ends. So what? You just want to read more...
 
I love the way Tad William's ends each of the books in his MS&T Trilogy. He just stops the story at one end of a book. so you can jump right into another.
The kind of thing that turns me off in books is when they describe animals childishly like they did in the Belgariad with the birds flying around Polgara saying "Look at me! Look at me! I can fly!"
Geez, that really bugged the snot out of me!! That kind of junk is better fitted to a nerdy Bambi movie, of a child's faerie tale, or something like that, not a fantasy book!!
 
Let me see, alot of you already brought up some good ones. Just based on this post I think I will stay away from the "Recluse" series, although I was considering it. The example that was sited would annoy me to. Heres one that comes up once in a while for me, When the author has created a specific language or vernacular to represent the fantastic, and it would take a specialist in linguistics to pronounce the names, You know, you just keep fighting it on your tongue. I invariably invent a nickname, or shorten it for myself...Hate that. It may even be a book I enjoy.
 
Hmm, I'd like to clarify. Changes in character are a good thing, but the changes (like all things in fantasy) must be consistent and believable. Sudden changes most often are not consistent or believable. It's especially frustrating when an author's main character, suddenly no longer is the main character and a new main character suddenly spawns with all of the traits the old main character had, but about 3 books back in the storyline.

Ending each book is not a requirement by any means, however Anne Rice does it a particularly annoying way. She built the entire plot up to one climatic moment, but when the moment came it was merely the first few chapters of an entirely different book. In other words, she did resolve the tension she built up for, but did it with a really lame 3 sentence segue to her next book, which was completely different.
 
Also, Anne Rice's Witching Hour endings. I loathe those. 800 pages of good reading and expecting conclusion ended with "please buy the sequel".
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head bing, I was REALLY digging the book, as much as the 1st couple Vampire books, but that ending suuu-huuucked! It totally ruined the book for me, it was a complete about face/change of character for the heroine that spit in the face of almost every action and thought she had prior to that.(can't remember her name now, I think I got rid of the book)

Bardos I like changing characters as well, but what Feist and Weis/Hickman did to change their characters was BELIEVABLE AND LOGICAL GROWTH.

the pre-adolescent simpering between Richard and the High-Pristess/fawning nympho in the "Wizards First Rule"
Click to expand...

Throughout the first three books of SoT, much like the quote above from caperjoe, all Richard and Kahlan kept doing was saying "oh no, he/she will hate me and not love me anymore" when the had previously dedicated their true love to each other. The characterizations were not consistent at all. I keep teetering about continuing the series, I suppose because I enjoy torturing myself.
 
I couldn't make it past Queen of the Damned(lost interest and put it down)...liked the first two books though.
 
FitzFlagg, be warned, book 4 of the sword of truth is just full of exactly that, and it even adds some more unbelievale stuff like some weird scenario about Zed and that bone witch with some Mud People like tribes, that was the book that broke me.
 
I think Blood of the Fold with Rand..er..Richard wiped out so many people by himself, with NO sword training and the warring Aes Sedai..um excuse me..Sisters of Light broke me. WFR wasn't too too bad, though.
 
I am reading through the Sword of Truth series and am up to book 5 now. I really enjoyed WFR but am finding them less and less addictive as the series progresses. Though I think it a good idea that certain concepts mentioned within the books are explained to readers, I am finding that these are being repeated a bit too often, for example, it almost seems as if we are explained about the confessors power on every other page! I also think that the books are becomming too much of a love saga between Richard and Kahlan. What does everyone else think?
 
I think Terry Goodkind is way too liberal with explicit sex in his books from what I hear. He's not like G.R.R. Martin, who puts sex in his books because it has a natural place in them. I have heard that a lot of fantasy readers hate him and think his books are too sleazy because of all the sex.
 
Just read Faith of the fallen.
Its very irritating.
They dont apologize and sob as much as they do in the previous books, but theres to much stupid explaining why the ways of the Order is evil, and the ending just made me want to vomit.
 
I have stopped reading both the Wheel of Time and the Sword of Truth series. This is weird because they used to be two of my favorite series. Why did I walk away from Jordan and Goodkind? Once I read Martin's A Game of Thrones I realized that most authors in the fantasy genre were sorely lacking compelling characters. The characters of Robert Jordan suddenly seemed insufferable. The juvenille antics of supposedly mature Aes Sedai drove me crazy. Goodkind's Richard Rahl amazed me with his lack of common sense. The relationship between Richard and Kahlan.... gag me.

GRRM showed me how characters can be written. Tyrion the Imp. Nothing Goodkind or Jordan have in terms of characters can even come close to the complexity of Tyrion. But the list goes on. Jon Snow. Eddard Stark. Daenerys Targaryen. Even minor characters such as Sandor Clegane and Loras Tyrell have incredible depth and scope. GRRM simply has a gift for characterization. I found Jordan and Goodkind painfully lacking in this area.

I stopped reading the Sword of Truth series after Blood of the Fold. Yikes, that was a bad read... I actually bought A Winter's Heart, but haven't read it. I read the first few pages of the prologue... and that's it. It still sits on my shelf collecting dust...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top