What details of an author's style annoy you?

[pink_silk_glove]

It really annoyed me in "Night Watch" by Sergei Lukyanenko, until I realised it must an idiosyncrasy of Russian, that you show respect by addressing people by their full name.

Not according to my Ukrainian friend. It is considered very good manners to greet someone that you've just met with a pet name as if they are your family and poor manners to greet someone with cold formality. And if I compare that with the dialogue in War and Peace where characters get all warm and fuzzy when an important person that they have just met calls them a pet name, it's probably true.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Two things. The first person introduction. "I'm James Smith, twenty years old, six feet tall and women have told me I have a large penis." Ugh. Save it for your Tinder profile.
And then there's the "things you need to know about the protagonists" 3000 word backstory, that occurs before the first line of dialog.
Either of those will usually net you an alt-back arrow from me.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

It really annoyed me in "Night Watch" by Sergei Lukyanenko, until I realised it must an idiosyncrasy of Russian, that you show respect by addressing people by their full name.

Name and patronymic, rather. Roughly similar to Mr Surname in English - eg Ivan Denisovich. Using all three names (forename, patronymic, surname) is incredibly formal, and title plus surname is reserved for bureaucrats, mostly writing letters. (in the novel, Ivan Denisovich is referred to as Shukhov, his surname, by the prison guards, which is much more dehumanising than it would be in English).

I recommend the musical Natasha, Pierre and the Comet of 1812, mostly for the opening number which explains 'this is Moscow, and every character has at least five names' - Natasha gets called Natalya (her formal first name) and Nadya by those close to her, Natalya Ilyinichna by those being polite and chatting, Countess Rostova when introduced, Natasha Ilyinichna Rostova when told off by her aunt...

When an author refers to a woman's top with buttons down the middle as a "shirt." It's a blouse. For those writers attempting to write in a woman's voice, this is a dead giveaway that you're not.

Or they're just British, or know the difference between a blouse (loose and curved, usually a soft fabric) and a shirt (usually stiffer cotton, pointed collar or no collar).

My pet peeve is people writing the UK and getting it wrong. People don't wear 'button-downs', they're shirts. Or 'a tee' - that's a T-shirt, which is not a shirt. Both are types of 'top'. You don't get a bill (much less 'the check') after drinking in a pub, because you go up to the bar and pay for drinks as you go along. No-one sees 'her obgyn' even in pregnancy - if you have a pregnancy too complex for standard midwife-led care, you'll see 'a consultant' who will be an obstetrician. And no-one voluntarily drives into Soho or assumes that's a good way to get across central London!

We/us is first person plural or Royal. You/ye would be second person polite or plural, thou/thee the singular familiar version, so it's not beyond imagination that a character would say our and thy, especially in a fantasy context. I don't mind that in moderation.

But getting titles wrong is jarring. Sir Bernard Wossface will be addressed as Sir Bernard, never Sir Wossface. Aristos sign their name merely as their location, not with the word Earl or Duke. The eldest daughter of a family in Regency times will be known as Miss Bennett, the rest are Miss Firstname. Debrett's is online - there's no excuse for not checking, and if you're writing fanfic, then just be consistent with the source material!

 

[lovecraft68]

When an author refers to a woman's top with buttons down the middle as a "shirt." It's a blouse. For those writers attempting to write in a woman's voice, this is a dead giveaway that you're not.

When an author refers to "yoga pants." That makes you sound old and outdated. They're called leggings.

As @Erozetta pointed out, your first point isn't completely accurate

I don't see 'yoga pants' as being outdated, I heard two women in the gym a couple of weeks ago talking and they used that term.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

It really annoyed me in "Night Watch" by Sergei Lukyanenko, until I realised it must an idiosyncrasy of Russian, that you show respect by addressing people by their full name.

I have the impression that in (formal) Russian conversation, it's common to refer to people by personal name + patronym, like "Sergei Ivanovich", (where Sergei's father is Ivan). The person's family name might be Popov.

-Annie

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Long, detailed descriptions of people and places that aren't relevant for the story. Also filler dialogue.
As far as I have seen, some authors really want to write that way, but I believe some do it to inflate the number of words and make their stories/novels larger.

 

[Actingup]

I'm probably guilty of most of these at some point. But I do think there's a slight get out of gaol/jail when you're writing in a first person narrative, because you're trying to say something about your narrator's character. They could be a really irritating person that doesn't know the difference between a blouse and a shirt but obsesses about cup sizes, and that you as the author wouldn't give the time of day if you met them at Sir Richard's garden party. Unlikely though it is, you might choose that kind of boor as your main character because that's the kind of reader you want to attract, or because you're setting them up for a fall.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Long, detailed descriptions of people and places that aren't relevant for the story. Also filler dialogue.
As far as I have seen, some authors really want to write that way, but I believe some do it to inflate the number of words and make their stories/novels larger.

You might be right, I'm sure some do, but I think that more often they do it because they think that every idea they get is great and they keep everything and have no idea how to edit.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

When an author refers to a woman's top with buttons down the middle as a "shirt." It's a blouse. For those writers attempting to write in a woman's voice, this is a dead giveaway that you're not.

When an author refers to "yoga pants." That makes you sound old and outdated. They're called leggings.

Yoga pants is dated? Leggings have been around forever and yoga pants only for 30 years. Before yoga pants, they were just called tights, but then some asshole in Vancouver decided that he could make millions by putting a logo just above the asses of 13 year old girls and 'yoga pants' were born.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

but I think that more often they do it because they think that every idea they get is great and they keep everything and have no idea how to edit.

But is that a pantser thing then? I can't fathom why any author would even delve into such long-winded descriptions of places and people they don't intend to use in the story. I am more of a plotter myself, but if that's the way true pantsers work, then yeah, harsh editing is a must.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

But is that a pantser thing then? I can't fathom why any author would even delve into such long-winded descriptions of places and people they don't intend to use in the story. I am more of a plotter myself, but if that's the way true pantsers work, then yeah, harsh editing is a must.

I'm getting the impression you're very focused on plot. Some people just like long description and enjoy reading and writing them.

Not me, by the way, but unfortunately there's no rule that everyone has to be like me.

-Annie

 

[pink_silk_glove]

But is that a pantser thing then? I can't fathom why any author would even delve into such long-winded descriptions of places and people they don't intend to use in the story. I am more of a plotter myself, but if that's the way true pantsers work, then yeah, harsh editing is a must.

I read a romance story once where the writer waxed on about the main character's sailboat for a whole paragraph. It would have been important because he was taking his date on a sailboat ride. Then he glossed over the date in one sentence and returned to the harbor, so the sailboat was really just part of the writer's fantasy and he had no real ideas to include it in the scene. But it's not coming out because the writer just loves that boat.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I read a romance story once where the writer waxed on about the main character's sailboat for a whole paragraph. It would have been important because he was taking his date on a sailboat ride. Then he glossed over the date in one sentence and returned to the harbor, so the sailboat was really just part of the writer's fantasy and he had no real ideas to include it in the scene. But it's not coming out because the writer just loves that boat.

That's a good example of bad writing. I've got nothing against detailed descriptions of important characters or scene settings per se.
But as you say, the description of the sailboat would have been absolutely justified if it was used as a setting for a romantic date. The description helps the immersion into the scene, although even in this case, the author could have opted for a more "distributed" approach. They could have added the bits of description gradually and not overwhelm the reader right away before the reader even knows that the sailboat is relevant. Knowing a place, setting, or a person is somehow relevant "motivates" the reader to really read a description and not just skim through it.
Yet in this case I don't see the justification if the author rushed through the sailboat date.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm getting the impression you're very focused on plot. Some people just like long description and enjoy reading and writing them.

Not me, by the way, but unfortunately there's no rule that everyone has to be like me.

-Annie

It's not about plot only. I appreciate worldbuilding and character development just as much. See my reply to PSG.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

But is that a pantser thing then? I can't fathom why any author would even delve into such long-winded descriptions of places and people they don't intend to use in the story. I am more of a plotter myself, but if that's the way true pantsers work, then yeah, harsh editing is a must.

To some readers, the charm of a story is in the details. Some writers say they only care about plot, but if that's taken to the extreme, what you'd have is a story that says "Alice met Bob. They fell in love. The End." Or, given this is Lit, "They fucked. The End."

Some details are necessary. But people will never agree on which ones. Looking at PSG's example upthread, I have no problem with the detail level, but the text is rather woolly and could do either an edit to make it tighter. Phrases like 'old boy' and 'lass' sound perfectly normal to me, and that's not down to me being English - for example, Don MacLean famously sang about old boys drinking their whiskey and rye.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I don't know the story, obviously, but description can tell you as much about the individual doing the describing as it does about the thing being described.

 

[SimonDoom]

Long, detailed descriptions of people and places that aren't relevant for the story. Also filler dialogue.
As far as I have seen, some authors really want to write that way, but I believe some do it to inflate the number of words and make their stories/novels larger.

I agree. I like some detail when it serves a purpose in the story. It doesn't HAVE to be plot-oriented to be worthwhile, but it has to serve SOME purpose.

I like a certain economy in writing. I know there are plenty of authors and readers here who do not agree with me, but I think Literotica stories are often too long. Too much buildup, too much unnecessary dialogue. If you read books by very good published authors, you'll almost always find that all of the dialogue serves a purpose. Everything extraneous has been cut. There's rarely more dialogue than is needed. This is even more true of good movie screenplays. But if it's done artfully it can give the appearance of natural dialogue, even though it lacks the filler and wandering that real dialogue tends to have.

To me, it all ties back to the principle of mindfulness. I'm less concerned about the specifics of what the author does than I am with evidence of whether or not it's done with a sense of mindfulness and purpose or not.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Run-on sentences. We hates them, don't we, precious?

I wouldn't judge their one long sentence as being a "run-on."

 

[alohadave]

My pet peeve is when writers feel the need to list the height, weight, cup size, eye colour etc of every character practically the first time they introduce them.

1. It's a shallow assumption that a character's physique is going to be the most attractive thing about them.
2.It makes the story read like a witness statement. Maybe that's somebody's kink, but to me it usually takes me out of the story. When I meet somebody I'm not immediately assessing their vital statistics. Hell, my wife and I have bern married for over a decade and I've no idea how much she weighs and if you asked me her height I'd say "up to my chin".

You'd hate LitRPG.

 

[StillStunned]

I like a certain economy in writing. I know there are plenty of authors and readers here who do not agree with me, but I think Literotica stories are often too long. Too much buildup, too much unnecessary dialogue. If you read books by very good published authors, you'll almost always find that all of the dialogue serves a purpose. Everything extraneous has been cut. There's rarely more dialogue than is needed. This is even more true of good movie screenplays. But if it's done artfully it can give the appearance of natural dialogue, even though it lacks the filler and wandering that real dialogue tends to have.

Here on Lit, we're spoiled. We don't have publishers telling us we need to cut our 125k-word novel down to 80k words before they'll even consider it.

ETA: And once the authors start making their publishers money, they sometimes become just self-indulgent as writers here on Lit. Robert Jordan and JK Rowling being the usual examples.

 

[THBGato]

Probably.

But even when I've played D&D, I've never really paid much attention to those things.

Me: "I slap him in the face for his impertinence!"
DM: "He's 6ft 4 and you're a halfling."
Me: "Er... is there a chair nearby? A table? Stepladder?"

 

[TheLobster]

Probably.

But even when I've played D&D, I've never really paid much attention to those things.

Me: "I slap him in the face for his impertinence!"
DM: "He's 6ft 4 and you're a halfling."
Me: "Er... is there a chair nearby? A table? Stepladder?"

Roll D20 for jump height.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here on Lit, we're spoiled. We don't have publishers telling us we need to cut our 125k-word novel down to 80k words before they'll even consider it.

ETA: And once the authors start making their publishers money, they sometimes become just self-indulgent as writers here on Lit. Robert Jordan and JK Rowling being the usual examples.

Right. Or Stephen King. He's a terrible self-editor.

 

[alohadave]

Phrases like 'old boy' and 'lass' sound perfectly normal to me, and that's not down to me being English - for example, Don MacLean famously sang about old boys drinking their whiskey and rye.

'Old boy' and 'good ol' boys' have quite different meanings.

Lads is probably the closest UK equivalent to good ol' boys, though gob is pretty specific to the US South.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I agree. I like some detail when it serves a purpose in the story. It doesn't HAVE to be plot-oriented to be worthwhile, but it has to serve SOME purpose.

That's exactly what I meant in my post. A couple of posters interpreted my words as if I only valued plot, which is far from the truth. In general there should be some purpose to a description in my opinion, whether that's plot, worldbuilding, or developing the characters.

But even if the description doesn't serve any of those, it's still fine if it's done in sensible amounts. It can even help immersion into the scene. Say, a description of a bush or a tree the main character is passing. Describing it in a sentence or two might contribute in giving a hint of the character's mood or something similar. But what's the purpose of dedicating a whole paragraph to such a description - a simple bush by the side of the road?
Flexing the literary muscles or something else?

I am of course talking about prose, about stories and novels, not about poetry. The laws of poetry are quite different.