by Anne R. Allen
As a reader, I’ve recently developed some pet peeves that never used to bother me. Maybe it’s age. These days I find it almost impossible to follow a novel with wild head-hopping, where every spear-carrier is a POV character. I’m also bored by stories where everybody is horrible and there’s nobody to root for.
I want a story to have a hero — an actual protagonist that I can care about.
But not everybody feels that way. Especially the critics.
Right now, I’m reading an early novel by a much-beloved mystery author that head-hops so often I get whiplash. I have no idea what’s going on a good deal of the time. But, hey, I’d kill to have her readership, so I know the problem is mine, not hers.
Critics Sometimes Love Readers’ Pet Peeves.
American media has been obsessed with the HBO drama Succession for months. Major Succession analysis has appeared everywhere this week from People to the New Yorker.
I watched the first episode and a half of Succession and turned it off in the middle to read a book. I couldn’t find a plot because no character seemed to have a goal except to sit around and be nasty. And they were all terrible people, so I lost interest.
But I’m obviously not everybody. Critics adore the show. I don’t think there was one publication this week that didn’t have an article about Succession. It was trending on Twitter for days.
So one reader’s pet peeves are another reader’s blockbuster hit. Still, I think it’s helpful to know what a lot of readers have had enough of these days.
Last February, the Washington Post did a survey of their book club members to find out their readers’ pet peeves. Some were pretty obvious, but others were surprising. So I thought I’d share them here. Do with them what you will.
WaPo’s Readers’ Pet Peeves.
1. Dreams
Ruth and I have warned novelists about dreams for a long time. Readers hate it when they think something is a “real” part of the story, but it turns out to be “only a dream.”
And they simply don’t care about your characters’ nighttime visions. You know how you feel when that one friend needs to tell you all about the wacky dream they had last night? And as your eyes glaze over, you try to remember a prior engagement?
Yeah. That’s how your reader feels about your character’s reveries.
2. Unreadable Formatting
Apparently the average reader doesn’t like it when we get cute and start putting whole chapters in italics, and they really hate it when authors leave out the quotation marks. Which seems to be trendy in some literary circles.
I think it’s probably wise to stay old-school with formatting if you actually want people to read your work.
3. Lazy Copyediting
“Lay and Lie” and “flout and flaunt” mix-ups are among the WaPo readers’ pet peeves. They also dislike basic grammatical errors like misplaced apostrophes. Those things take readers out of the story and make them distrust the author.
Yeah, they really do notice. Make sure you have a proofreader or editor who knows how to correct this stuff.
4. Lack of Research. Especially for Historical Novels
I totally relate to the pet peeve people on this. Some TV shows embrace anachronisms on purpose, like playing a hip hop soundtrack for a story set in Tudor England. It drives me crazy, but I know this is how it’s done these days.
But I start to squirm watching otherwise authentic shows where women wear garden party hats in the evening, or a man keeps his hat on in church.
And when 18th century aristocrats get naked for steamy sex, I know it brings in viewers, but an old theater costumer like me is saying “they can’t get those clothes off without a servant! The clothes lace up the back.” All they could do for a daytime quickie was take off their drawers. Sigh.
This stuff happens in very popular shows, so I know there aren’t many picky people like me out there.
As I wrote several months ago, realism is overrated. Most viewers/readers don’t care.
But they do care about denial of obvious facts.
Like when a table described as a pentagon has six sides. Or somebody drives from LA to San Francisco in 2 hours. Or a medieval priest starts talking like Dr. Phil.
Do the basic research. Don’t get obsessed with it, but you don’t want to be added to the list of readers’ pet peeves.
5. Excessive Length
Readers don’t like big books and they cannot lie. Well, unless the books are written by fantasy authors with two “R’s” in their names, like George R. R. Martin and J. R. R. Tolkien.
But the WaPo readers who responded to this survey find big books daunting. In fact, they don’t like big anything — big words (especially if we use them wrong) — long paragraphs — endless description — even prolonged sex scenes. They want us to cut to the chase and get on with the story.
6. Confusing Timelines
If we’re writing stories in two or more different timelines, readers want very clear markers that we’ve traveled in time.
So if you get lazy with the timey-wimey stuff, readers will be confused. And confused readers usually don’t finish your book, or buy another.
7. Intrusive Sexuality
Most readers don’t want to hear about the lab tech’s bra size when she’s testing to see what kind of poison killed the senator. Or what the coroner’s derriere looks like in those tight pants.
And we need to be careful with explicit sex scenes. Unless you’re specifically writing steamy romance, make sure the scene is really necessary. The days when people read something like Lady Chatterley’s Lover to get turned on are pretty much over. Now people have all the porn they want on the Internet.
Make sure that scene moves the story forward and doesn’t go on too long.
8. Too Much Bodily Effluent
Readers are also over the trend of having characters vomit to show extreme emotion. It’s happening much too often, according to the readers’ pet peeves survey.
Readers want a stop to all this gratuitous regurgitation.
They’ve also had it with donkey poo.
Apparently readers don’t want to read any more descriptions of donkey poo, especially when it’s described like people poo, which it isn’t. Okay? This seems to be a common problem. Who knew?
The Readers Pet Peeves survey didn’t mention a peripatetic POV or lack of redeemable characters, so I don’t know if any readers are as annoyed by those as I am. But the survey gives us a good overview of what contemporary readers are looking for. And not looking for.
I think some of what makes readers peevish is when these things are done in a clunky way. A beautifully written book can get away with a lot of no-nos.
Ubiquity is another trigger. If the last three books you read started with a dream and ended with donkey poo, those things are probably going on your pet peeve list.
If you’re a new writer, knowing this stuff can be helpful. You up your chances of finding a readership if you learn what your potential readers’ pet peeves are.
Once you’re established, and you know your audience well, you can ignore these peeves with wild abandon. Maybe you’ll write the next Succession.
by Anne R. Allen (@annerallen) June 4, 2023
What about you, scriveners? Do you share any of these readers’ pet peeves? What are your pet peeves as a reader? Do you love anachronisms in historical stories and head-hopping storytelling?
BOOK OF THE WEEK
Retired theatrical director Paul Godwin longs for the quiet life of a college professor, but can he woo his famous wife away from the New York stage to become part of his academic life in small-town Maine? Not easily, especially after the dean accuses him of having a fling with a student and then is found dead in circumstances that make Paul a prime suspect in the investigation.
Great post. And funny, too!
Ditto on the head-hopping thing. I read a lot of older books (1970s and earlier) for my basic comparables research, and it drives me nuts. And if you read Cormac McCarthy, as I’m doing, you get a two-fer: head-hopping and no punctuation!
Harald–I’m glad I made you laugh. Head-hopping can be so annoying, can’t it? You have to flip back to find out who’s thinking on this page and if it’s the same person who was thinking on the page before. Such a waste of a reader’s time. I haven’t read Cormac McCarthy. Now I think I’ve been spared some grief.
This post is from Ruth Harris. The WordPress elves have decided to block her from commenting. Who knows why. Tech is always coming up with new ways to be annoying.
Anne—I LOVE this post. Just great! And…speaking of Bodily Effluent reminds me of a long-ago editorial meeting. Under discussion was a ms with an orgy scene which concluded with characters sautéing said BE and consuming it (yes, you read that correctly). Eds unanimously voted to reject. BUT our boss, the dreaded Mustache Stroker, was entranced. He went on and on and on about it, wanted us to reconsider. But we wouldn’t and didn’t. The ms was quietly and summarily rejected. (Eds have their ways.)
What? You thought editorial meetings were all about Literature?
Ruth–OMG that’s hilarious. Thank goodness the editors were able to override the kinky boss!
Good thing I’ve never put donkey poo in one of my stories.
Excessive length and description I can certainly relate to. I like get-to-the-point stories.
Although hateful characters is also a big distraction for me. And that does seem to be the trend in television shows. Everyone is horrible and treats everyone else like crap, back-stabbing and the like. Most of those are crap shows. (Although I admit, Game of Thrones and House of Dragons are both like watching a train wreck – I just can’t turn away despite the fact almost every character is deplorable.)
Alex–I guess it is a trend. But I avoid that kind of show so I didn’t realize the hateful people are everywhere. I simply can’t care enough about them to want to know their stories. Maybe that’s me being an old fogey.
Hi Anne,
Great post. Somehow I missed this article in the Washington Post, so I’m pleased you reported on it here.
Because I write teen/middle grade fiction, that’s what I tend to read & of late two peeves have surfaced. The first is related to your peeve #4 — when the plucky young heroine in historical fiction has a 100% modern viewpoint. I can buy that a young woman cleaning monks’ rooms in the 1300s might feel like she got the short end of the stick, but I just can’t buy that she would gather all the downtrodden females serving the monastery, make protest signs, & call for restitution.
My second peeve comes from authors earnestly trying to help their readers be better people by having characters model appropriate behavior around thorny issues. Kids DO need models for being better humans, but when the bad boy who’s been beating people & throwing homophobic slurs around for 200 pages suddenly says, “I am so sorry I wasn’t respecting your gender identity. Will you ever forgive me?” I have a tough time believing it.
Keep up the good work.
CS–I think those “messagey” characters come from the publishing industry being too influenced by Twitter and other social media sites where young readers complain about things they know nothing about. They want everything to reflect a politically correct sensibility, even when it’s anachronistic and/or unrealistic.
I’m wondering if donkey poo is the cause of gratuitous regurgitation, or am I missing something? Maybe I gotta get out more often. The coroner’s derriere made me chuckle, Anne. In all my years as a coroner, I never suspected someone was checking me out. Maybe it’s because I never wore tight pants. BTW, my pet peeve is when I repeatedly have to go to a dictionary. I like a writer who just clearly tells the story at about a grade 8 or 9 level. May you and Ruth enjoy your day!
Garry–I didn’t know you’d been a coroner! I knew you’d been in law enforcement, and what a lot of knowledge you must have!
Yeah. I like a writer to tell a story clearly. It’s okay to play with words, but if they all require a trip to the dictionary, readers are being pushed out of the story.
Hey Garry… I personally shoot for Grade 6. Kinda like Hemingway.
I totally agree with all these points. I hate chapters in Italics. Older readers’ vision is not so great these days. Also maybe two other points that bother are, small print, unreadable font choice and plot lines geared toward grade 5 readers, especially in mystery novels. I don’t know how many “well known writers” that I have recently read have gone Hollywood. (same as donkey poo) Their newer books I have gone past the first 20 pages.
Jeanne–I thought it was just me, so it was refreshing to hear that even younger people have trouble with italics. They also can get totally garbled in some digital programs.
I read a lot of mysteries and I agree that a lot of well known mystery authors seem to be phoning in their stories in later books. When you can figure out the mystery by chapter 3, you kind of lose interest.
Oh, this is a great post! Thank you for writing it. There is one VERY famous author who I love her books however the beginning chapters of all of them introduce so many characters that I have no idea what’s going on or who is someone’s brother or uncle or friend or dentist or what all. That is my personal pet peeve. And I agree with the comment about using “big words” gratuitously. I don’t want to go to the dictionary to figure out what a word means. Some authors use words no regular everyday person would ever use.
Patricia– I agree! I’ve always had trouble with bringing in too many characters, but the book I’m reading now has twice as many characters as I consider “too many.” I keep having to flip back to earlier chapters to see who the heck is talking now. If they’re all introduced in chapter one, there’s no way a reader can remember them all.
Anne,
I couldn’t agree more about unlikeable, irredeemable characters treating each other horribly. I want someone to root for.
I haven’t watched TV in quite a while. Doesn’t sound as if I’m missing much.
Thanks for your humor–sorely needed these days!
Debbie–You’re probably wise to skip the TV watching. There are hardly any dramas left and the popular ones are full of awful people. Sadistic game shows and amateur singing contests don’t do much for me either.
Regarding formatting: the first time I read Frank McCourt’s ANGELA’S ASHES, I was turned off by his lack of quotation marks. I couldn’t think of a single reason why he chose not to use them and it bugged me. After awhile, though, I fell deep in love with his storytelling style and the lack of quotation marks no longer mattered.
Rich–Frank McCourt could get away with anything. As I said, if you write beautifully, the rules don’t seem to apply.
Good stuff, Anne. Thanks for the giggles!
Donkey poop is a thing? Huh.
Head-hopping is my biggest pet peeve. Calling it omniscient doesn’t make it any easier to follow. I read to escape, to be swept into fictionland, and nothing pulls me out faster than having to backtrack to figure out whose head I’m in.
Sue–True omniscient storytelling can be followed more easily because you’re not really in anybody’s head. The omniscient voice is like a historian’s voice. “Alcibiades thought the Spartans had no more food, so he expected them to retreat…” We aren’t really in Alcibiades’ head–we’re being told what was in his head. High fantasy authors can use this POV very well, but it doesn’t work with contemporary stories, IMO.
In the historical novel I’m working on now, I cut the historically-accurate number of chararacters in half, so I could characterize each one as a living, breathing person without the book being 2,000 pages long.
Liz–Wise move. You want accuracy, but you also want readers. Too many characters makes a story unreadable. And, as you say, you don’t have time to make any of them act like real people.
I seem to have missed the donkey poop “thing,” too.
Liz–It was new to me, but apparently there’s enough of it to get a mention.
I loathe head hopping. It is one of my biggest pet peeves as a reader. I suspect that there are many younger authors who do not know the difference between head hopping and omniscient. They are not at all the same.
Donkey poop? Uh. No comment. 🤣
Bad formatting? Not bothering with basic punctuation? Yep a deal killer here too.
I am not quite with you on research, as I suspect you are aware. An author does not need to put everything they learn in research on the page. In fact, they shouldn’t. But putting *incorrect* “facts” on the page is a deal killer for many HF fans who often do their own research to check. You only know what is correct (how many were in that army? What did their banners look like? When did people in England start using spinning wheels? Etc.) if you do some in-depth research. Put a castle in the wrong place and some reader will post a bad review letting people know what an idiot you are. You cannot assume. If you do not know and don’t want to do the research, do not bring it up.
One of the biggest names in medieval HF lost me as a reader when he put a whole string of nonsense in one of his more recent novels. I used to be a fan who bought everything he wrote. I assume it was because he did not bother with research. He could have skipped the totally incorrect information without harming the novel at all. So that is my lecture on it. 🤷♀️
Thought provoking article. Thanks for posting it.
JR–I have never advocated misinformation. I suspect you skim my posts too quickly. Research is very important, especially for historical fiction. As I said in this post, not everybody is an expert in costume like me, but don’t put a zipper on a Tudor doublet or you’re lose your readers’ trust. Historical fiction readers want some real history involved. As I said in this post, even in contemporary fiction, don’t negate obvious facts like putting 6 sides on a pentagonal table or drive from LA to SF in two hours.
Avoiding all these pitfalls is why it’s taking me so darn long to revise my second novel, to the point of looking up current common words and expressions to see if they were in everyday use during the time period in question. But I wouldn’t have it any other way!
Liz–I find reading a book written during the period is a great way to “tune in” to the language of the time. Not easy if it’s in a language you don’t speak, of course.
Only have a few pet peeves, one being when writers choose to use a single quote, as opposed to the normal quotations marks, for normal conversations. Read a western by a UK writer (writes good fiction and non-fiction) and he used the single quotes for all of the dialogue. Drove me absolutely mad.
My other pet peeve is really a two-fer: when the narrative gives off the impression that the author is smarter than the reader, and when a book’s subject veers sideways from the original premise without letting the reader know beforehand (e.g. topic is following two different music acts for a summer, but suddenly it swerves into a story about finding a solution to one’s mental health struggles while using the original topic as a backdrop). If I knew beforehand that a topic was being used as a backdrop for something else that I might not be interested in, then it would save me a world of aggravation.
GB–The correct way to punctuate dialog in the UK (and most Commonwealth countries) is the single quotation mark. They also put “u’s” in funny places. But that’s not incorrect. They think we’re incorrect. When I was published by a UK publisher, I drove the proofreaders crazy with my Yank punctuation. It sounds like you should stick with books published in the US.
I don’t think I’ve run into books with a bait-and-switch premise, but I don’t think I’d enjoy it either.
I’m basing the book on such an obscure bit of local 20th-century history, I think anyone who would call me on the inacurracy is dead. 😉
Liz–Sounds safe, unless their ghosts are still hanging around. You don’t want to offend the ghosts. 🙂
My pet peeve is historical inaccuracy defo. When someone addresses a king as ‘your highness’ or has someone in 19th century England referring to ‘pinkies’. The turn of language matters as much as the historical facts.
Another pet peeve which Ruth didn’t mention was too many place names. I’m reading a book by Peter James at the moment and he has mentioned the name of almost every village in West Sussex (in southern england) and I’m only on page 100. (For me, this is ok because my daughter lives in West Sussex and I know the villages there, but not everyone does.). Other writers frequently drop in street names and districts of towns and cities which I have never visited and never will.
Rosemary–This post was written by me, Anne R. Allen. 🙂 Ruth Harris posts on the last Sunday of each month. I know people are sometimes confused by too many place names. My editor, an Englishman, was confused by all the place names on the Central Coast of California, where my books are set. He also said they were too confusing, because they were all “San this” and “Santa that.” (California was settled by Spanish Catholics) So I dropped some of them, but anybody who has actually been here would be even more confused if I renamed Santa Barbara and San Francisco and didn’t rename New York or Boston. So we have to balance reality with what readers need.
I agree that when historical characters use too much contemporary language, it takes you out of the story. You don’t want Anne Boleyn saying “Okay, whatever, dude” to Henry VIII. But we also need to use enough contemporary language that readers can understand. If we actually wrote in Tudor English, not only would it be difficult to write, but the readers would get stopped by too many “doths” and “methinks.”
Single quotes is the norm in most UK, Australian and NZ books. Sorry. Double quotes went out with us some time ago.
Mike–Yes. As I replied to GB, in the UK and Commonwealth countries, single quotes are the norm. My first UK editor was furious with me for doing them “wrong.” He explained that sometime in the early 20th century, British English dropped a number of unnecessary punctuation marks to save ink.
A couple of things here that concern me. First, using different/interesting/less common language. There’s a kind of dumbing down going on in the book world, especially in kids’ books (which I write). I tend to include words that would be regarded as not necessarily everyday, but still common enough for plenty of people to know them, and I do this because they’re the right word for the moment, not just to show off. When I was young I’d just skip through words that I didn’t know, and figure them out if they were necessary. I didn’t spend time going to the dictionary (although I must say having a dictionary on Kindle is a plus). And I think a lot of young readers do this. They want to get on with the story, and unless the meaning of the word is so essential to understanding, then they keep moving forward.
The other ‘concern’ is that several people reject the idea of long books. It depends on what is long. Certainly a book that seems to be padded out for the sake of making it fatter on the shop bookshelves, is a no-no for me, and I’m likely to do an awful lot of skimming in such a case if the story is actually worth reading. But I’ve always read long books (including those from the late 19th century) and so the size of the book doesn’t bother me if the story keeps moving forward. I re-read A Suitable Boy in the last year, which has some 1500 pages in the paperback as I recall, and loved almost every page again all over again. Not only does the writer juggle several interconnected stories he gives us considerable insight into a historic period I know little about and a country I don’t know much about – without making it seem like he’s ‘teaching’ us.
Mike–Certainly if you’re going to read the classics, you need to learn to read long books with big words. Like you, I loved the big words when I was growing up. I loved to drop them in conversation to bamboozle my friends. I remember reading Quo Vadis when I was about 12, with a dictionary by my side. I learned a lot. But I think this survey was more about new books and what readers like and don’t like about contemporary fiction.
Great post, Anne, and very entertaining.
I’m a pretty good audience and I don’t have many pet peeves. I don’t mind head-hopping if the author has made the story clear, but if it’s just an excuse for sloppy writing, I don’t like it.
You bring up a few other things that bug me. Books that don’t have quotation marks around dialogue feel like an obstacle course. Not much fun to read.
I’m heading upstairs to the treadmill now to get some exercise and watch a movie. It won’t be Succession. 😊
Kay–It’s all about clarity, isn’t it? If the author is dropping quotation marks just to be trendy, and they don’t care if the reader knows what’s going on, we’re going to be annoyed. It’s the same with the head hopping. If the reader doesn’t have a clue which character’s POV they’re reading, they are likely to give up on the book and read something that’s more reader-friendly.
I introduce myself as the guy no one wanted an appointment with – Doctor Death – the first career as a homicide detective who got sick of the injustice system and went on to a second career with the coroner service. Then when I tired of body snatching I reinvented myself as a writer. Not sure what I’m going to do next. Maybe wizardry. Or yoga. Or sell happy pills in my seniors home.
Garry–I think you should go for wizardry. And you could use your magic wand to send happy pills to the seniors when necessary. 🙂
Harald – I never want to shoot like Hemmingway 😉
I’m with you on all eight Anne. I don’t like big books either, mostly because I like variety and don’t like to be stuck in one book for ages – not good for my Goodreads reading challenge. Lol. I also find bigger books often have too much description, which I end up skimming over. And as one who grueled through Succession, I agree, there were zero likeable characters in that show, and even missed a season because I found it intolerable. This final season left it like it was – they’re all rotten and deserve each other. Lol. 🙂
DG–I used to love big books, but I have less patience than I used to. And I used to be much better at skimming over those descriptions that went on forever. (I’m looking at you, Henry James.) Now, as a writer, I want to read every word, but then I’m annoyed.
Congrats on getting through Succession. (I love the word “grueled”.) You’ve got more patience than I do these days.
My pet peeve as a reader has always been excessive description. Literary fiction gets a little more leeway than genre fiction, but even with that, there is a limit. I once gave an author a mediocre review for starting a serial with a woman getting out of her car and looking around, taking everything in for seven pages. Set the scene and get on with the story.
It was the last mediocre or bad review I ever left publicly because the author took the criticism badly and lashed out. Now I stop reading when I run into that. Life is too short.
Anne–I don’t leave negative reviews anymore either. I think as authors we need to treat other authors as playing for the same team. If you don’t love a book, you can not finish and then steer away from them in joint promos or whatever. But as you say, life’s too short for that kind of conflict. But yeah, it sounds like that author needed a stern editor.
I was not saying that you advocate misinformation, Anne. Sorry if I implied that. But there are a lot of authors who think they can wing it. And then they get it wrong.
JR–Oh, good. I think people got the wrong idea from the earlier post I wrote about realism. Realistic detail is always good, but it’s a lot more necessary in some genres than others. I don’t like historical romance because it tends to be less accurate than a history-oriented historical novel. Breezy romances and rom-coms can get away with a lot more “winging it” than other genres.
Internet Archive is a great source for those books. For this particular book, I’m also using the Library of Congress’s oral histories done in the WPA era.
Liz–It sounds like you’re doing some serious research. That should make some intriguing reading.
You’re right about that!
I don’t have much patience for Henry James. I’ll never forget being assigned The Ambassadors in grad school. It was so long-winded and boring, I would fall asleep after 15 pages. I read the entire book in 15-page increments.
Liz–I was stuck on a Greek island for two weeks with nothing to read in English but The Golden Bowl. I got a nice tan, but I never could face Henry James after that. 🙂
I read Wolf Hall recently and the fact that the author never indicated when the main character, Thomas Cromwell, was speaking or doing something, was exceptionally odd and often irritating, requiring going back over a page or more to figure out if you’d been aligning the dialogue with the right character. Mantel only ever referred to him as ‘he’ which was confusing when there were several men in the scene.
Mike–So I’m not the only one! I know Mantel was supposed to be a genius, but I much preferred the BBC 2 production of Wolf Hall to the book. Mark Rylance made Cromwell finally make sense to me.
Or in a time period before writing was invented 😉
Harald. Yes! I do apologize for the WordPress elves who refuse to put replies after the appropriate comments. Grrrr.
I’ve never read The Ambassadors, but have read both Portrait of a Lady and The Bostonians twice, and never felt bored. The thing with James is the subtlety of what he’s saying, and you find you can miss something easily if you skim. On the other hand I recently read Trollope’s Doctor Thorne, after giving up on the awful TV version, and while his storyline was enticing, and I had a pretty good idea how it would end, I still found he could get waylaid often. Even for a whole chapter. Probably the result of the typical 19th century serialization of books.
Mike–Portrait of a Lady and The Bostonians have a lot more story going on than The Ambassadors or The Golden Bowl. TGB never got around to having a story at all.
What a great post, and such lively and thought-provoking dialog in the comments. I recently dipped into a book – what would now be called YA – that I had loved as a teen, inherited it from my Mum who loved it as a teen. I could not believe how slow-moving it was, and how much more patience I must have had when I was fourteen. When it took three pages for the protagonist to walk up the driveway of his little sister’s boarding school to pick her up for the summer vacation, I gave up.
But most of the other pet peeves, yep, I share them too. Except maybe, as lover of beautiful words, if I come across a new one I will happily dive for my dictionary.
Julia–I’m amazed at the books I slogged through as a pre-teen and teen. My parents had all the classics, so I read Scottish Chiefs, Ivanhoe, Lorna Doone and Treasure Island. There were endless descriptions, because of course there was no TV to show people what the Scottish Highlands or a pirate ship looked like. But now I’m so spoiled, I’m not sure I could wade through them anymore either. They sure did expand my vocabulary, though.
I sometimes wish I’d not started writing novels, myself. It does tend to take away a little pleasure when reading. I now notice all the things we’re told not to do. Head hopping, passive voice, use of ‘began to’ and lay/lie to name but four.
I’ve just read a book with a fantastic plot, good world-building, interesting, well-drawn characters, but the author does EVERYTHING we are told not to.
Yet she has excellent reviews. (I looked her up, and she says in her bio that she tried to get a traditional contract, but got so many rejections she self-published.)
I suppose that many readers are not aware of the mistakes, but to another writer they stand out.
This is the problem with self-publishing. You can publish a book with no editing. This gives self-publishing a bad name, and makes people reluctant to buy self-published books.
VM–Even traditionally published books do this. I remember getting a call from a well-known, very successful writer after she finished Where the Crawdads Sing. She said “How could this be published? Where was her editor? The book breaks every writing rule there is.” And yet it was on the top of the bestseller lists for 2 years. Only other writers were bothered by this stuff, I guess.
I sure hope so!
Great post, Anne, very enjoyable to read as always, and I totally agree with the WashPost findings – makes sense (I think!). Just bought your Mom’s book and looking forward to it! No donkey poo, no vomit, just the sort of read I love, haha!
Claude–Lovely to see you! I’m so glad you bought my mom’s book. It has a great puzzle. Classic mystery. I think you’ll enjoy it.
I could see that scenario as the basis for an updated version of Sartre’s “No Exit.”
Liz–Haha!
If an author can’t be bothered to develop a cohesive story line or a character I can’t relate to; obsesses self-indulgently and gratuitously over bodily functions; chooses to proudly display their ignorance of basic history, science, politics, and whatever else by refusing to do research into the basics (Google is just a keyboard click away); thinks they’re clever to fool me by installing a ‘deus ex machina’ out of the blue to conclude their story; refuses to apply standard English usage or recognize that EVERY written work needs editing, including theirs; and anything else that is deliberately designed to keep me from engaging with the story …
… then I can’t be bothered to support the author by buying the book. To do so makes me an enabler, encouraging the perpetration of bad-writing behavior. Thus, shame on me.
Sally–I agree. A couple of years ago I wrote a post about what makes an amateur book show its amateur status and why people don’t want to read them. You would not believe the angry entitled brats who wrote to me in fury. One asked how I could consider myself an expert when I only had 1400 followers on my Facebook “friend” page (!) and saying they have the right to publish whatever crap they want. They do indeed. And we have the right to never give them a penny of our money. 🙂
Ha! I get it Anne. We do want to read every word, but like you said, patience is at a premium with overly long descriptions. As for Succession, I’m the girl who keeps reading or watching to see where the point of it all takes me. I had invested watching a few seasons, so was curious to see how they’d wrap up the final season. Nothing changed, nobody learned anything. Lol. 🙂
Debby–Sometimes a show like that redeems itself in the end. But from what you and others say, that one didn’t.
Apologies for getting the author wrong!
Yes, it must be difficult with all the sans and santas in California, but most english speaking readers could surely identify with Barbara and Monica, and Los Angeles and San Fransisco are familiar to all of us. Readers expect it all on a plate sometimes!
I agree about getting the balance between contemporary language and modern language right. Same problem when the writer is translating speech which would have taken place in another language. I believe that a few occasional old english words or foreign words remind the reader when and where we are.
Rosemary–I did stick to my guns with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
I agree that just a smattering of foreign words does a good job of representing another language. Like Poirot’s “mon ami”. Just enough to remind us he’s a French speaker.
I’m trying to be very careful about the distinction between contemporary and modern language in my current WIP, a historical novel that takes place in Jerusalem during the last days of Jesus. Some things I need to use for the readers’ sake, like times of day (“o’clock”) and distances (“miles”), but some words must not be used, like “rocket” or “spotlight.” It’s fun, though, meeting that challenge.
Sally–I’ve never written historicals, so I hadn’t thought about that. Ancient Romans would not have been talking in terms of miles or minutes. But it’s not as if you want to write your book in Latin or expect your readers to know what a “cubit” is. So you need to walk a line. You’re right that “spotlight” “rocket” or “light bulb” would take people out of the story.
I know I’m not well-read in currently popular titles, so evidently I’ve missed something: What’s up with the “donkey poo?”
Sally–I don’t have a clue. It was just a “pet peeve” in the Washington Post article.
I find the comments on this encouraging. Fantasy novels tend to be very long–90,000-word minimum long. I have one that is going to be republished in December that is only 57,000 words. It’s going to be promoted partly as sort of intro to fantasy–for readers that might want to try fantasy but don’t want to invest that much time in a longer work they may not like. That it is absent magical creatures, potions or spells, knights in armor, or ghosts also makes it a safer read for those that find those things repugnant. It’s nice to see a large number of readers prefer shorter works.
Fred–Shorter fantasy novels sound like a good idea to me. Not everybody wants to dive into something the size of The Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire. In other genres, books have been getting steadily shorter. And novellas are selling well.
In my opinion, you are correct. 🙂
Before I began formatting books for my writing group, I probably would have been turned off by amateurish formatting (because the whole point of formatting is not to confuse or interrupt) but I may well have scanned past misused words and the odd spelling, in the way we’re supposed to be able to read stuff with letters missing because our brains know what to expect.
I’m confident though that I never noticed head-hopping before I started writing myself (and reading about how to write). And now, of course, I do… and tut abaout it.
Unless it’s done REALLY well. (I’m working on that… Emma Darwin has a post about it.)
There I was about to say you can’t please all the people all the time, but those are all legitimate peeves! Any one of them could make me abandon a book.
Never knew why the Brits use single quotation marks, and saving ink makes sense. Also, it would save so much bother of having to hit shift each time. Especially back in the day of the manual typewriter. We’re not doing it “wrong,” but maybe they’re wiser than us.
Steve–As I said to VM, I think the ink saving (and finger-strength saving) probably came from rationing after WW2 in the UK. But that was a time for super prosperity for us Yanks. I’m sure we were swimming in typewriter ribbons, so it wasn’t an issue. (And it was only women who were getting arthritis in our fingers from manual typewriters, so it didn’t matter much to the people in power.)
I am from the UK. The idea of using single quotes seems to be a recent thing. I’m old, and when I was at school, we learned to use double quotes.
I have no idea when single quotes came about. I suspect it might have been when computers became the thing to use. Or perhaps when most people had a typewriter. For double quotes you have to press the shift key, but not for single quotes. I sometimes, in draft mode, use the single quotes for speed, but it’s not what I learned at school!
VM–My father, who was stationed in London during WW2 said he had to use single quotes when typing official military documents. So maybe it started with the military in WW2 and then spread to journalism and finally to the schools. It makes sense with the rationing right after the war. Typewriter ribbons may have been rationed too.
Henry VIII was the first English king to be called Your Majesty. Before he decided this, monarchs were called Your Grace, or Your Highness.
In 1519, Charles V, who became the Holy Roman Emperor, was the first monarch to use Your Majesty.
So, any novels set before this date are correct to use Your Highness.
VM–Many thanks for the history lesson! I knew that about Henry VIII (what a poster child for narcissistic personality disorder!) But I didn’t know it was the Holy Roman Emperor who first needed to be called “majesty.”