What details of an author's style annoy you?

[CyranoJ]

Calling fuckups like this “details of the author’s style” is extremely over-generous. I’ll allow that someone this amateurish did in fact author something, but I won’t give them credit for having an author style.

Tough but fair.

 

[TheRedChamber]

A very specific peeve of mine: when somebody's writing a Sexy Nerd Game Story and they write something that doesn't work in the game. Excuse me sir, the sequence of moves you describe would not be possible in a Scrabble game!

View attachment 2520045

Wait? Do people not write their erotic Scrabble smut with a copy of the official dictionary and a real life board next to them to confirm that you can in fact lay 'Vagina', 'Vulva' and 'Virgin' but you can't get both V's on a double letter score?

 

[TiberiusPrime]

I post my stories under a different name. People will shred an authors stories to get back at them for some comment they have made here on the forums. So no, I am never disclosing the name under which I post my stories.

I have no issues with using my name here and the name under which I post my stories. One should never be afraid of criticism.

 

[Britva415]

People can write good work that contains pretty major fuckups. Lee Child's first Reacher novel, Killing Floor, is built around a scheme where [...]

Would you call the fuckup a detail of the author's style, though?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

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?

Oh there are a few of those around here. I could name names ...

 

[pink_silk_glove]

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

I agree. The first person narration has to make it clear that it is an assumption, not a fact. Don't break PoV.

 

[summer_reine]

I'm over here hiding in the corner hoping my stories aren't filled with peeves. Knowing my writing style is definitely not for everyone.. I'm going to go edit the next chapter again

 

[Erozetta]

I'm over here hiding in the corner hoping my stories aren't filled with peeves. Knowing my writing style is definitely not for everyone.. I'm going to go edit the next chapter again

Mine are full of peeves, but they're my stories and people who don't like aspects of them don't have to read them. Write your story how you feel it needs to be written, don't lose your voice over personal tastes. If your writing were technically perfect, it would be boring as fuck and devoid of *you*. I guarantee that the readers who read and like your work are doing so because of the *you* that goes into the prose.

Yes, edit for mistakes, but don't remove your voice and style in favor of grammatical perfection. That has no place in creative writing and should remain in the stiff academic and technical work.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Would you call the fuckup a detail of the author's style, though?

No. That's my point -- I think a lot of what's come up in the thread hasn't been about style at all.

 

[lovecraft68]

Mine are full of peeves, but they're my stories and people who don't like aspects of them don't have to read them. Write your story how you feel it needs to be written, don't lose your voice over personal tastes. If your writing were technically perfect, it would be boring as fuck and devoid of *you*. I guarantee that the readers who read and like your work are doing so because of the *you* that goes into the prose.

Yes, edit for mistakes, but don't remove your voice and style in favor of grammatical perfection. That has no place in creative writing and should remain in the stiff academic and technical work.

I'm shoddy with grammar and also wordy and self-indulgent.

Those are two major peeves to many here and a lot of readers.

But I give zero fucks because I enjoy telling a story, and its my story my way.

FWIW my success here tells me that in the end, maybe people don't care as much about those things. People come here to be entertained, and if anything, I'm entertaining...sort of.

 

[Erozetta]

I'm shoddy with grammar and also wordy and self-indulgent.

Those are two major peeves to many here and a lot of readers.

But I give zero fucks because I enjoy telling a story, and its my story my way.

FWIW my success here tells me that in the end, maybe people don't care as much about those things. People come here to be entertained, and if anything, I'm entertaining...sort of.

Storytelling is my goal. I've told the guys that edit for me that I know I mess some stuff up grammar wise. Generally, if it's in dialogue, it's probably intentional. Same if it's in first person. I even use wrong words at times because people mess up their words when speaking from time to time. (Particularly in job related activities where seeming smart is more important than being competent.)

Hell, I've got a story up now where I *know* I left glaring mistakes in the narrative, but didn't edit it because it was a "Get it out of my head and be done with it" story.

It is not a good story. It's not well written, it's convoluted. It's still been received much better than I thought it would be, and I have no fucking idea why other than people liked the story even if not the delivery.

It was basically an experiment to see if I could write multiple time frames within a single story without breaking flow or immersion. It's a phone conversation about a dream where the dream happens out of order. I wanted to see if I could keep it straight without obvious transitions between times. I'm still not sure if I did, lol. But it was a fun attempt.

 

[AG31]

When an author throws in big words for seemingly no reason other than to showcase their vocabulary

I wonder if there are two kinds of large-word-using authors, those that do it clumsily and those that do it well. Or if there are just two kinds of readers, those who like large/unusual words and those that don't?

I'm in the second category of reader. I like authors who take a delight in words and can't think of any authors who have put me off by their use of large/unusual words. Can you give me a couple of examples?

P. D. James has an aging author as a character in one of her books, and two or three times he mourns his increasing decrepitude by moaning "my words... my words."

I suspect that British authors, at least of detective stories, are more likely to fall into the delight-in-large-unusual-words category than other English speaking countries.

Today I encountered "cavil" (I don't think I've ever used it myself) and "indetereminate color." Definitely haven't used that.

But I totally agree with those who dislike unnatural words in dialogue. An ear for ordinary speech is critical for my enjoyment of a book.

 

[Erozetta]

I wonder if there are two kinds of large-word-using authors, those that do it clumsily and those that do it well. Or if there are just two kinds of readers, those who like large/unusual words and those that don't?

I'm in the second category of reader. I like authors who take a delight in words and can't think of any authors who have put me off by their use of large/unusual words. Can you give me a couple of examples?

P. D. James has an aging author as a character in one of her books, and two or three times he mourns his increasing decrepitude by moaning "my words... my words."

I suspect that British authors, at least of detective stories, are more likely to fall into the delight-in-large-unusual-words category than other English speaking countries.

Today I encountered "cavil" (I don't think I've ever used it myself) and "indeterminate color." Definitely haven't used that.

But I totally agree with those who dislike unnatural words in dialogue. An ear for ordinary speech is critical for my enjoyment of a book.

I like big words when they make sense and fit the scene, situation, and characters. Some of my favorite stories had words I needed to look up, and it doesn't bother me to stop reading and go look up words I don't know.

Words with Friends with Benefits by Ironiclaconic is an example of this done right.

Altissimus and WhiteTailDarkTip both do big/unusual words well. They fit.

I won't give examples of it done poorly, but they aren't hard to come by on here.

 

[yowser]

The hymen is a membrane around/partially covering the external opening of the vagina. I've run across the odd author who seems to think it's some ways into the vagina and is like... well, it's often unclear what exactly they're imagining it is.

There's the old story about a WASP guy dating a Jewish woman for the first time. It's their second date, a fancy restaurant he's picked out, and he's been obsessively reading up on Jewish customs, trying to learn as much as he can about this exotic religion and person so he won't seem a dolt. He finds the Jewish expression used that seems analogous to "cheers" with the first drink together, "L'chaim!" meaning "to life!"

They settle into their table, he's awkward initially but determined to make a good impression. Waiter brings out the expensive wine he's carefully chosen, pours them each a glass and he clinks glasses with her and says "L'hymen!"

She nearly chokes, gives him the look he deserves, and mutters "maybe later."

 

[yowser]

The other day I was in a meeting and I used the verb "opine" to try to be funny.

My colleagues looked at me as if I just done a cheese fart.

Fair.

From my latest story:

"Mona's Law? You'll have to remind me."

"An Armisted Maupin character, from 'Tales of the City.' Mona opined that indeed it was possible in life to have a good job, a good place to live, and a good lover. Just never all at the same time."

 

[Djmac1031]

Exposition and / or back story in the wrong place in the story.

There's a time and place for both, obviously. But they need to fit in the story naturally. Not just shoe horn it in.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Is that authorial style, or is it it just bad writing?

 

[StillStunned]

Is that authorial style, or is it it just bad writing?

Once is bad writing. If the author does it more than once, it's style.

 

[AG31]

The hymen is a membrane around/partially covering the external opening of the vagina..

As a person who used to have one, and didn't know where it was, that doesn't seem right. Anyone else care to jump in?

 

[CyranoJ]

As a person who used to have one, and didn't know where it was, that doesn't seem right. Anyone else care to jump in?

Uh, that is literally just the medical definition. I didn't pull it out of thin air.

(As a corollary, it seems to me to be perfectly normal not to really know much about the hymen even if you've had and/or lost one. It's much less of a big deal in real life for most people than it is in fiction that's fetishizing it &or the loss of it.)

 

[YmaOHyd]

Once is bad writing. If the author does it more than once, it's style.

Or it's just bad writing that they don't know to avoid, or don't know how. Style is deliberate.

 

[AG31]

The hymen is a membrane around/partially covering the external opening of the vagina.

Uh, that is literally just the medical definition. I didn't pull it out of thin air.

It's the "covering the external opening" idea that I get stuck on. This is also from your link

“The hymen is a small, thin piece of tissue located at the opening of the vagina with no known biological function,”
And this is from another post in this thread.

It is like 1-3 centimeters inside the vaginal opening.

It it were partially covering the opening, you'd think there would be little mystery about it. I'll interpret "at the opening" as 1-3 centimeters inside.

 

[CyranoJ]

I don't feel like the fact of where the hymen occurs is all that open to interpretation, really. The link goes into more detail, but basically what it says is the long version of what I originally said. What the link is useful for is going into detail about the variety of forms it can take. I would conjecture that said variety is part of why there's so much confusion about it.

 

[alohadave]

Or it's just bad writing that they don't know to avoid, or don't know how. Style is deliberate.

Not necessarily deliberate. You do a lot of things that you don't think about that serves your style. You can certainly direct it, but it doesn't need to be.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Not necessarily deliberate. You do a lot of things that you don't think about that serves your style. You can certainly direct it, but it doesn't need to be.

That's fair, I'll concede that. But the question I was responding to, really, was whether fuck-ups are style. I don't think they are, at least not unconsciously. If something's in the wrong place, I'd need to believe it was done deliberately to attribute it to style rather than inexperience or lack of knowledge, especially if we're talking about amateurs on the internet rather than professionals in dead-tree form.