What details of an author's style annoy you?

[StillStunned]

So you agree that most of the stories are absolute bullshit with no redeeming value whatsoever? As long as they are not hurting anyone, fine.

Now you're just being a troll, and not even a very good one.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Say what, I'll try to be constructive and take this into some potentially fertile ground. Why don't you give us an example of what you consider a good Lit story, but also an example of a bad yet popular one. Show us your reasoning, hopefully without all the anger and we can maybe take this somewhere.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

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 have Russian characters in my series, and they are always doing this, among other Russian idiosyncrasies and I went into great detail about what was good form when drinking vodka, lol.

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.

Thank God, because otherwise I’d be fucked, lol.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

However there are writers here who admit they have zero and I mean zero experience with the subject matter of the category in which they post their stories. So they make up the most ignorant and stupid bullshit which their audience then takes seriously. That is what pisses me off.

I would love an example of this, lol.

 

[Erozetta]

OK, it may be a little more nuanced than I stated in my post, but for all practical purposes it's correct, and Lit authors would write more realistically if they conformed their word choice.

In the erotic(a) context, a woman is almost always going to be wearing a blouse, and not an otherwise buttoned shirt.

Yoga pants today are a niche product for the purpose of doing yoga. They are somewhat looser fitting and less overtly sexy. If you did a survey, in the US at least, you'll find that the vast majority of women, from high school girls to grandmothers, will call their activewear leggings. And for sure, if a woman is intending to showcase every crease and contour of her ass (and, increasingly, her mound), she's wearing leggings, not yoga pants.

I do have a question: what is the word to designated the zero inseam version of leggings? With an inseam of three to eight inches, I believe they are called in the trade "biker shorts." But with no (or just a minimal) inseam, I don't think that would apply. By logic and extension, they might be called "assings," but I'm not aware that term is used. And I believe "booty shorts" applies more broadly to fabrics and cuts that don't count as activewear. Any thoughts?

Dolphin shorts, runner's shorts, and booty shorts could all apply.

And I don't own a single shirt that would be considered a blouse, but have many button-up shirts and T-shirts. Very few of my characters have ever been described as wearing a blouse because that's not the type of clothing I usually want them in. My characters tend to be very casual and blouses don't suit their style much like they don't suit mine. Still a woman, still writing women, just with a different fashion sense and using the correct terms for the actual clothing they would be wearing. (Pretty much everywhere I could have a character wearing a blouse, I have them in a dress instead, because I personally tend to dislike blouses.)

My yoga pants are extremely form fitting, just thicker than my leggings. Leggings are a thin stretchy material worn beneath long shirts, skirts, sweaters or tunics and the like, things that typically cover the ass and protect from the dreaded see-through effect when you have to bend over. Yoga pants can be worn with shorter tops and sports bras without risk of the material stretching so thin as to be see-through when you bend over. That's the difference to me and I describe them in stories accordingly.

 

[Britva415]

Annoy, annoy, annoy.

The following can hardly be called a “detail of an author’s style” because it’s so amateurish that the author can hardly be said to have a personal style at all, but what annoys me like crazy is when the narrator’s or protagonist’s gender isn’t clear and can’t be discerned until some completely unplanned and accidental moment when the author finally reveals it in a manner which can’t even be described as an afterthought. They didn’t think about it at all. They just assumed from the beginning that you’d know what was in their head.

I’m not talking about stories where there’s a good reason to make it unclear or misdirect the reader’s perception of the MC’s gender. That is deliberate and (hopefully) themely and a completely different phenomenon than what I’m talking about.

I’m also not complaining about something like “I wouldn’t have read that story if I had known the gender.” This isn’t about preferring a particularly gendered POV or particularly gendered couples. It’s about the failure to tell the story, to set the expectations. It’s about expecting the reader to be psychic. Well, “expecting” is a too-strong way to say it, because that implies they thought about it at all. Either way, it’s asinine.

It’s annoying as a reader to be conscious for the first many paragraphs of not knowing, and it’s probably even more annoying to get many paragraphs into it before getting whiplashed into realizing the author had a differently-gendered person in mind than what you (baselessly) imagined it was.

This isn’t “style,” it’s just unforgivably clumsy.

 

[CyranoJ]

Writing stories as a straight white man of privilege about marginalized and hated people in our society who are not straight, are not men, are not white and expecting that you are going to get a free pass because you are a fucking straight white man.

Of course people are entitled to use their imaginations and create characters who are not like them. Fine but you should not be doing it in a way that invites more hatred and is completely disrespectful to the people about whom you are writing.

Okay, so as comical as turning up and yammering about 90% of the site was (and it was), this actually sounds like a beef with someone specific. Or at least with a really specific type of story that you could probably provide examples of, further to @AwkwardlySet 's point. (Like, is there a big trend of straight white men on Lit writing lesbian romances about Somali women, or something?)

 

[SouthByWest]

Dolphin shorts, runner's shorts, and booty shorts could all apply.

I'm talking specifically about the kind that are leggings without legs. Dolphin shorts and runner's shorts are quite different. Again, booty shorts seem like a more broad category. I'll ask around and see what the girls here say.

Leggings are a thin stretchy material worn beneath long shirts, skirts, sweaters or tunics and the like, things that typically cover the ass and protect from the dreaded see-through effect when you have to bend over. Yoga pants can be worn with shorter tops and sports bras without risk of the material stretching so thin as to be see-through when you bend over.

Not where I live. For younger women in particular, wearing leggings and not showing at least some ab is ... just not done. Thong straps in back are often visible even when the wearer is not bent over, particular when wearing the shorts version, and many girls take pride in wearing their shorts and leggings so tight over their crotch that the outline of their (usually minimalist) underwear in front is quite prominent.

I respect your choice of tops. But I believe that for most Lit writers, blouse would be the more appropriate word.

 

[lovecraft68]

Writing stories as a straight white man of privilege about marginalized and hated people in our society who are not straight, are not men, are not white and expecting that you are going to get a free pass because you are a fucking straight white man.

Of course people are entitled to use their imaginations and create characters who are not like them. Fine but you should not be doing it in a way that invites more hatred and is completely disrespectful to the people about whom you are writing.

Ah, one of those.

The type to call people racist and sexist while being racist and sexist.

People can write whatever they want in any POV they want and that's all there is to it. Just because you may see a portrayal as wrong, doesn't mean it is.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm talking specifically about the kind that are leggings without legs. Dolphin shorts and runner's shorts are quite different. Again, booty shorts seem like a more broad category. I'll ask around and see what the girls here say.


Not where I live. For younger women in particular, wearing leggings and not showing at least some ab is ... just not done. Thong straps in back are often visible even when the wearer is not bent over, particular when wearing the shorts version, and many girls take pride in wearing their shorts and leggings so tight over their crotch that the outline of their (usually minimalist) underwear in front is quite prominent.

I respect your choice of tops. But I believe that for most Lit writers, blouse would be the more appropriate word.

Bun huggers?

I think booty shorts is a common term.

Boy shorts, maybe. Although that usually means underwear.

Sport brief, perhaps.

Compression brief shorts.

 

[lovecraft68]

I think the only thing I can come up with is dialogue that is unrealistic and by that I mean formal. Listen to real people have casual conversations, we butcher the language to no end, but it's how we speak. I read stories where 18 year old characters speak like English professors and use words not in a young person's vocabulary or context/style of speech. Its a major issue for me if I stop at some point and say, "No one sounds like this."

 

[CyranoJ]

So the words-for-attire conversation is interesting.

To Blouse or not to Blouse? It's time, generation and class-specific, I think? If you're writing a story about punk rock girls set anywhere between the mid-eighties and the late Oughts, blouses will be few and far between. Likewise, in contemporary fashion, blouses aren't an automatic style choice for women, depending on the generation they're from. Younger women in most decades of this century tend to prefer jumpers, tees, or other styles of tops as casual fashion (and this has been true for a while); wearing a blouse is notably more formal, something you do for an office job.

Yoga pants vs. leggings? It's true that the pornoverse idea of what "yoga pants" are is kind of frozen in the early Oughties heyday when they really were all about leaving nothing to the imagination. Styles today are more diverse, but honestly, if one is writing toward pornoverse purposes they're still understandably useful as a shorthand. If there is a place where "leggings" now have this connotation and "yoga pants" do not, that has to be really regionally-specific. (Given the way they're marketed, at any rate, I see no sign that either category is in "realistic" terms particularly identifiable with extreme sheerness/exposure -- neither are at the bleeding edge of fashion these days anyway -- but the flipside of that is that for erotic story purpose, there are still versions of both on the market that fit just fine with the "yoga pants + sexy" conceit.)

Dolphin shorts vs. running shorts vs. booty shorts? As far as I know, dolphin shorts at a sufficient level of brevity basically are booty shorts, and both are subsets of running shorts. Running shorts come in a much wider variety of styles but are often identified in the public imagination with dolphin shorts, in part because that particular style was part of Richard Simmons' brand.

 

[TheLobster]

Ah, one of those.

On one hand, yes, probably.

But on the other hand it just looks an elaborate troll, because who on Earth still thinks that he can just utter the magic spell of "But You're a Straight White Man!" and expect it to win any arguments?

 

[StillStunned]

To drag this thread away from author bashing and ladies' wear, and back on topic: head-hopping annoys me.

Not shifting between POVs from one scene to the next. But real head-hopping. Most blatantly when the narrator shifts to a different POV in an attempt to "show" the original POV character's outward expression of emotion. But also in more subtle instances, where the narrator knows what's causing another character's actions or reactions. "I watched as she burst into tears as emotions flooded through her." Or "He watched me closely, searching my face for a hint of what I was thinking."

 

[AG31]

I think the only thing I can come up with is dialogue that is unrealistic and by that I mean formal. Listen to real people have casual conversations, we butcher the language to no end, but it's how we speak. I read stories where 18 year old characters speak like English professors and use words not in a young person's vocabulary or context/style of speech. Its a major issue for me if I stop at some point and say, "No one sounds like this."

Yes, I'll put a book down within 2 pages if I detect that the author seriously lacks an ear for common speech.

 

[CyranoJ]

"I watched as she burst into tears as emotions flooded through her." Or "He watched me closely, searching my face for a hint of what I was thinking."

Sorry, what's wrong with the second one? I'd certainly allow it as something people actually do and/or could plausibly be inferred to be doing.

 

[StillStunned]

Sorry, what's wrong with the second one? I'd certainly allow it as something people actually do and/or could plausibly be inferred to be doing.

Sure you can infer it. But the narrator doesn't *know*, and therefore shouldn't state it as fact. Like I said, it's subtle, but it's still head-hopping. It would be fine if it was just "He watched me closely, searching my face," or "He watched me closely, as if searching my face for a hint of what I was thinking."

 

[lovecraft68]

because who on Earth still thinks that he can just utter the magic spell of "But You're a Straight White Man!" and expect it to win any arguments?

Half of the Politics board....who are almost all straight white men.

 

[CyranoJ]

Okay. That's... kind of splitting hairs at that point for my money, but I see where you're getting it. To each their own.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Sorry, what's wrong with the second one? I'd certainly allow it as something people actually do and/or could plausibly be inferred to be doing.

I'd say 'watched closely' is fine, 'watched closely, searching my face' is also fine, 'watched closely, searching my face' plus a specific attributed motive is borderline, especially since it's "searching my face for a hint of what I was thinking." To be honest it annoys me more as redundant writing than anything else: you could just say "watched me closely, wondering what I was thinking" or "searched my face for a hint of what I was thinking" to get the same point across.

 

[StillStunned]

To be honest it annoys me more as redundant writing than anything else: you could just say "watched me closely, wondering what I was thinking" or "searched my face for a hint of what I was thinking" to get the same point across.

And those two set my teeth on edge again. How does the narrator know what the other person is wondering?

 

[lovecraft68]

And those two set my teeth on edge again. How does the narrator know what the other person is wondering?

Because they're omniscient

 

[CyranoJ]

I've been trying to think of what's a "detail of an author's style" thing that bothers me. I think bad anatomy is still what gets me the most often in the erotic writing context: it's really jarring when it becomes obvious that the writer doesn't really grasp where certain body parts are or how they work. I'm not talking about porno-style Great Big Penises and whether those are "realistic," because a certain amount of exaggeration or stylization in some registers of erotic writing doesn't bother me. I'm talking about the anatomy being just flat-out wrong (the placement of hymens is a very common offender).

 

[YmaOHyd]

And those two set my teeth on edge again. How does the narrator know what the other person is wondering?

I'd imagine context plays a part here, and speculation. How often does someone watch you closely? How often do they search your face, and what are they looking for when they do it? If I-the-narrator am pondering something important, and someone close to me is staring at me, not taking their eyes away, watching all the parts of my face for clues, why would they be doing that if not to understand or anticipate my thought process in that moment?

 

[Erozetta]

I'm talking specifically about the kind that are leggings without legs. Dolphin shorts and runner's shorts are quite different. Again, booty shorts seem like a more broad category. I'll ask around and see what the girls here say.


Not where I live. For younger women in particular, wearing leggings and not showing at least some ab is ... just not done. Thong straps in back are often visible even when the wearer is not bent over, particular when wearing the shorts version, and many girls take pride in wearing their shorts and leggings so tight over their crotch that the outline of their (usually minimalist) underwear in front is quite prominent.

I respect your choice of tops. But I believe that for most Lit writers, blouse would be the more appropriate word.

So the kind that looks like boy shorts underwear? I'd call them hotpants, personally.

And where I am, leggings are only rarely worn without a longer covering on top, typically anyone wearing a shorter top with tight fitting athletic pants are actually wearing yoga pants, which are much thicker than leggings, which are more like footless tights than pants. It sounds like we might be disagreeing over semantics based on casual references to clothing styles.

Yoga pants are a type of legging, but not all leggings are yoga pants type of thing. I'd call any tight fitting spandex-like (mine are a cotton/spandex blend) leg coverings I can bend and move freely in without them stretching to the point of being see through across my ass, yoga pants. If I can't bend over without showing my ass through the transparency of the fabric, then I'd call them the more generic leggings and I wouldn't wear them alone 'cause it's just not my style. With a tank top and long flannel shirt, definitely, but not with a crop top or such. But that's all just personal style/preference, not "You're clearly not a woman if you use this term and not that one." 'cause that could be as simple as a regional dialect difference rather than a gendered one.