Call out something you wish more writers ...

[Rob_Royale]

knew or did.
This isn't too say that our opinions of what good writing is, is necessary definitive. Just give us your opinions.

For me, and this irks me with regularity, is the backstory. I wish more writers started the story "in the now" and then weave the backstory into that narrative instead of giving us 1200 words of "here's how I got here" and then start the actual story. Back stories are necessary yes, but the dullest part of a story, IMO. By working it into the meat of the story, we get the info and don't feel like we're being force fed.

Please add your thoughts on this or other things that irk you in a story.

 

[Djmac1031]

I wish more writers in all fields, books, stories, TV, film, would write characters that actually acted like human beings instead of cardboard cutouts that only behave a specific way because the plot says they need to.

The first Iron Man film is a shining example of how you can break every law known to physics and audiences won't care if they're invested in your character.

 

[ronde]

I've written both ways, and for me it depends upon what you call "the story". I don't spend a lot of words describing the appearance of any character at the start, but if the readers are going to relate to the characters, they have to know why they react as they do to that first situation in what I assume you're naming as "the story". They need to know why he or she is there "in the now" and doing what they're doing and why they are doing it. It doesn't work for me to put a character in a situation that requires some reaction and then start explaining to the reader why he or she is going to react that way. That just leads the reader away from the action or emotion I'm trying to portray. The initial backstory provides that insight to the reader and is indeed an integral part of "the story".

As an example, in one of my stories, the main characters are a fur trapper and a Native American woman. The actual "plot" starts when he finds her trying to avoid being killed by a grizzly bear, but I couldn't just have him find her and then spend another bunch of words telling the reader why he's a trapper, why he's where he is, and what motivates him to do what he does. That "backstory" is just as much a part of the story as anything that follows because it lets the reader understand the man. Her backstory comes out as she relates it to the trapper, but that also works because she doesn't enter into the story until he finds her. It would have been a mistake to relate her backstory prior to her entrance.

 

[ronde]

I didn't answer your question with my first reply, but I have three issues with some writers. Yes, I know I'm showing my age. You don't need to remind me.

I wish writers would dispense with current chat-speak, one and two letter abbreviations like "R", "UR", and "U",and the goddamed three and four letter acronyms for everything under the sun. The use of the one and two letter abbreviations is just lazy writing. All the others can change in a matter of days it seems, and when I'm reading, I don't want to have to go to some urban dictionary to figure out what the writer is saying. People do not speak like that in normal conversation, and it's normal conversation that should be written.

Another pet peeve is writers who want to invent some new writing convention for dialogue. During monitoring another site, I've seen the normal quotation marks replaced by --(dialogue)--, /-(dialogue)-/, and a few others that made no sense at all. Stick with what every English speaker learned by the 7th grade.

The last is the seemingly ever-present drive to impress me by the main character's instantaneous knowledge about another character's physical attributes. How in the world would he know she has 38DD breasts just from seeing her walking by? Did she whip out a tape measure once he had an erection and determine he had a 12 inch cock that was 6 inches around? Stick with adjective like "well-endowed", "bigger than I imagined", and the like. I'll make my own picture, thank you, and it will at least be something I can believe to be possible.

 

[mildlyaroused]

On the topic of dialogue, the flaw I see most is overuse of exotic tags and alternatives for "said." They can work wonders in small amounts, but if every single line seems to be a substitute for "said" (cry, shriek, argue, confess, joke, urge, bluster, accuse) they all swamp one another out and lose their effect.

Most of the time ones like "accuse" are redundant, since we should realise by narrative context that an accusation is occurring. Less is more: "said" or no tag at all are often best!!

 

[HordHolm]

On the topic of dialogue, the flaw I see imo is overuse of exotic tags and alternatives for "said." They can work wonders in small amounts, but if every single line seems to be a substitute for "said" (cry, shriek, argue, confess, joke, urge, bluster, accuse) they all swamp one another out and lose their effect.

Most of the time ones like "accuse" are redundant, since we should realise by narrative context that an accusation is occurring. Less is more: "said" or no tag at all are often best!!

Agree with you to an extent. I do think, however, that sometimes it can be necessary to convey how something is said - this isn't often, but an occasional whisper or sneer (or, of course, gasp or moan in our case) can be needed.

 

[StillStunned]

Agree with you to an extent. I do think, however, that sometimes it can be necessary to convey how something is said - this isn't often, but an occasional whisper or sneer (or, of course, gasp or moan in our case) can be needed.

Hissed, spat, growled. Those are all acceptable uses. Except, as with everything, when overused.

 

[Bamagan]

I wish people would stop calling people out.
Ignore the summons! Stay inside, or if you must go outside, use the other door and avoid the callers.

 

[Yesok1]

knew or did.
This isn't too say that our opinions of what good writing is, is necessary definitive. Just give us your opinions.

For me, and this irks me with regularity, is the backstory. I wish more writers started the story "in the now" and then weave the backstory into that narrative instead of giving us 1200 words of "here's how I got here" and then start the actual story. Back stories are necessary yes, but the dullest part of a story, IMO. By working it into the meat of the story, we get the info and don't feel like we're being force fed.

Please add your thoughts on this or other things that irk you in a story.

I try both. I don't like focusing on the past at the beginning ofva story and try to weave it through. I'm still learning and haven't yet found my style though.

Comments on my stories lead me to believe that a lot of readers prefer a build up/back story.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I wish fewer writers cared about the current political dogma and just wrote what they wanted to write. The fear of being called out or canceled affects the quality of writing. At the same time, many writers hide behind that same dogma to cover up for their crappy writing. The result is of course the noticeably degraded quality of writing in movies, TV shows, books...

 

[AlinaX]

The problem is backstory without story. Set the scene, do something, just start the story, and limit the backstory to what is necessary. Readers will often want to keep reading later to discover the backstory.

I'm currently re-reading Donaldson's Gap series. The narrative is tense and demanding, the physics irritatingly wrong (but that's a me thing), and the backstory gets weaved in through 'Ancillary Documentation' chapters that act as intermissions. These cool the pace, arguably aren't absolutely necessary, and are oddly unconvincing.

A lot of SFF has a world building issue, in that it's important for the author to have a reasonably clear understanding of the geography, history, politics and rules of magic/technology, but it's not necessarily a good idea to try to explain all of this to the readers.

 

[StillStunned]

A lot of SFF has a world building issue, in that it's important for the author to have a reasonably clear understanding of the geography, history, politics and rules of magic/technology, but it's not necessarily a good idea to try to explain all of this to the readers.

I actually think that you don't need that much background information when you're writing. Just write what immediately affects the characters, and drop hints to give the readers a sense that there's a larger world out there.

REH's Conan stories are excellent at this. Yes, I know he wrote a whole backstory to his setting, but I suspect much of that was added later. Read The Tower of the Elephant: you get a description of the city to set the scene, but otherwise every word is focused on what's important to Conan in the moment.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The narrative is tense and demanding, the physics irritatingly wrong (but that's a me thing),

it's not just a "you" thing

I flip out when an author wants to make their science look legit and leans on physics but uses it in a completely wrong way that shows zero understanding. I read a SciFi book a couple of years back, and for the life of me I can't remember the title, but I remember the author trying to lean on general relativity but showing zero understanding in its usage. I mean, if you suck at physics, just introduce some new chemical element, or ship drive, or whatever that makes something possible without explaining how it works. It will make some of us nerds a bit unsatisfied but at least it won't make us throw the book away

 

[BobbyBrandt]

knew or did.
This isn't too say that our opinions of what good writing is, is necessary definitive. Just give us your opinions.

For me, and this irks me with regularity, is the backstory. I wish more writers started the story "in the now" and then weave the backstory into that narrative instead of giving us 1200 words of "here's how I got here" and then start the actual story. Back stories are necessary yes, but the dullest part of a story, IMO. By working it into the meat of the story, we get the info and don't feel like we're being force fed.

Please add your thoughts on this or other things that irk you in a story.

I recently provided feedback to another writer on their work in progress and one of my issues was the lack of back story. At the end of two long chapters, there was still no explanation on the setting, or how the characters got to where they were. There were several opportunities in the narrative and dialogue for the back story to have been woven in, but they were all missed.

The use of exposition can greatly enhance the readers' enjoyment of a tale by providing them with relevant background details, but to the OP's point, how the exposition is employed makes a huge difference. The "flashback" technique can work well for weaving the exposition into the present day events, but it requires clarity and distinctive past/present tense to minimize confusion. If there are challenges with weaving the exposition into the story, perhaps a frame story (prologue) would be more appropriate.

People who are familiar with my contributions in the AH would recognize that what irks me most about other writers here is their lack of patience. Anxious submissions of incomplete, poorly edited, and inconsistent stories detract from some of thee best and brightest potential, and is too generously accepted as "good enough".

 

[Bazzle]

Often for me, the backstory...is the story. How they got to today. How today evolves around what happened before.

So I totally understand what you mean. But sometimes the backstory is more important than the actual story?

 

[AlinaX]

Indeed, but how you gift that to the reader is the art of storytelling...

 

[Bamagan]

Indeed, but how you gift that to the reader is the art of storytelling...

Snarkiness:

 

[orangecurious]

i'm all for the backstory. Two of my last three published ones were pretty much backstory with a smidge of now.

 

[CalebZhass]

knew or did.
This isn't too say that our opinions of what good writing is, is necessary definitive. Just give us your opinions.

For me, and this irks me with regularity, is the backstory. I wish more writers started the story "in the now" and then weave the backstory into that narrative instead of giving us 1200 words of "here's how I got here" and then start the actual story. Back stories are necessary yes, but the dullest part of a story, IMO. By working it into the meat of the story, we get the info and don't feel like we're being force fed.

Please add your thoughts on this or other things that irk you in a story.

I believe it also depends on the style/type of work, but I agree with you in general that the exposition is best served sewn into the fabric of the narrative.

It's probably one of the hardest things for someone new to get right... Hard to find the right balance and the right vehicle through which exposition can be delivered in a natural way. In the story I'm (still) working on, I have about five pages worth of exposition at the beginning and given this is the third rewrite of the story, with all of the prior ones ending up like this, I'm reasonably certain I at least find this part important.

Whether it really is, that's a bigger question and I'm already dreading the moment when a finally get some outside feedback. When a beta reader or an editor would tell me, "I love the story, but the five pages at the start of it, could we do with a lot less of that please?"

To add to my plight, I write the story in first person, present tense. The reader is basically taking a backseat ride in the head of the main character. In a sense, experiencing the story in chronological order makes sense, as that allows for the most immersion, BUT: experiencing too much of a potentially boring (at least when compared to steamy sex scenes) backstory can also feel like a chore. I could just cut the backstory up into bits and pieces and expose the reader to them through flashbacks or other narrative thoughts of the MC, but then I run the risk of sacrificing the flow and potential for immersion.

I think many stories out there might suffer from this. Either because the authors are new or just "true amateurs" who write for fun and don't much care about getting all that better in it. I for one consider myself an enthusiastic amateur, and damn... writing was so much easier before I started to care about how I write

On the topic of dialogue, the flaw I see most is overuse of exotic tags and alternatives for "said." They can work wonders in small amounts, but if every single line seems to be a substitute for "said" (cry, shriek, argue, confess, joke, urge, bluster, accuse) they all swamp one another out and lose their effect.

Most of the time ones like "accuse" are redundant, since we should realise by narrative context that an accusation is occurring. Less is more: "said" or no tag at all are often best!!

After the editing of my first story, this was actually one of the biggest takeaways for me. My writing was (is - habits die hard) full of fillers. Words describing what should already be obvious for the reader from the context.
"Hi" he said. Duh.. We all saw the quotation marks, we know he said that..
It seems to be one of those newbie things that's easy to overlook unless you get a good enough editor who mercilessly strikes through all of them, making your story look like a failed literature assignment of a fourth grader

I wish fewer writers cared about the current political dogma and just wrote what they wanted to write. The fear of being called out or canceled affects the quality of writing. At the same time, many writers hide behind that same dogma to cover up for their crappy writing. The result is of course the noticeably degraded quality of writing in movies, TV shows, books...

I hear you, but that's a tricky one I think. I sure don't want to compromise my writing just to appease people's sensibilities, BUT: at the same time, I'm here to make people happy, not to make them upset. If I can make certain changes that allow more people to be happy without upsetting anyone else in the process, then am I not obligated to at least try? At least that's how I feel and I realize it's potentially totally specific to me.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm here to make people happy,

 

[CalebZhass]

Maybe I should look into finally changing my avatar.. Marge sounds about right just now

 

[AwkwardlySet]

A lot of SFF has a world building issue, in that it's important for the author to have a reasonably clear understanding of the geography, history, politics and rules of magic/technology, but it's not necessarily a good idea to try to explain all of this to the readers.

I think it depends a lot on the scope and size of the books. The longer your book series is, the more it asks for worldbuilding, but at the same time, it provides more space for you to integrate it into the story. The trick, of course, is not to overwhelm the reader with information he doesn't care about (yet)

 

[lovecraft68]

Here, or in general?

In general, I'll echo Awkwardlyset with kowtowing to political correctness or woke or whatever you call it. I don't feel I write anything offensive to the average person for the most part, but the inclusivity feature on word's editing is highlighting words like coed, housewife, blonde(with the e as in feminine) like the grow the hell up. Sensitivity readers? Piss off with that. If you're writing human characters some of them are going to be offensive assholes, just like in real life. Bringing lit into that...This is a site that features stories about gang rapes, torture for titillation, and all manner of violence, but people here worry about "is my black character, acting properly black?"

For here? Nothing really for the most part, I'm not going to tell people how to write other than if you're writing a violent story with little to no sex, put it in N/N and not try to eroticize it to get more views.

After that? Try doing more writing and less worrying about scores, H's votes, etc.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Maybe I should look into finally changing my avatar.. Marge sounds about right just now

Maybe put "Magical Man" below your name

 

[AlinaX]

Meh. Woke is normal. Whining about woke is reactionary.