What irks you in a story? - a list for writers on Lit.

[PennLady]

Speaking of sexy vampires I clicked on your facebook link and saw a pic of Jaz Cullen. She could persuade me to read just about anything. Jeez.

This is why on my FB page I have a pic of a tiger. Not sure my face would draw in the readers. I haven't seen Jaz's, really. I 'll have to look.

 

[punkreader]

Oh, vampires. I don't like them if they're not Stoker-esque-disturbing or don't have a damn good mythology to back them up - like in Sherrilyn Kenyon's vampiric characters (who also happen to be gods by the name of Artemis and Acheron. Yep. That Artemis.) Parts of the really long story are set in NO, but most of it are set in different cities, and even different planes of existence - Mount Olympus, and various Grecian islands. The author did her research, though, and vampiric bonding is a very serious, and generally not fun, thing - her mythology, by the way, for those real pantheons, is spot-on. Couldn't poke any holes in it.

And honestly, my favorite character isn't Acheron, who is the series bearer-of-all-pain and utter stoic (with a horrific backstory - cursed to be lusted after by everyone who sees his face, family included, and worked as a prostitute. For years. Let's just say that touch is a big issue for the guy...), but his mother, the goddess of death, plague, and the Underworld in the Atlantean pantheon. She's locked up in a prison dimension with servants - only if her son dies is she freed, or if he goes there. And if she's freed, everyone will die - partly to pay for what the Atlantean humans did to her son with their abuse, and partly because she's just plain crazy. She's got bloodlust I can't match even in fantasy... Although the idea of an apocolypse that's raining blood with a chorus of screams and cries for salvation and general carnage is right up there - she revels in death. Which is a bit creepy, when taken to that extent.

And I stay away from werewolves. I find the dynamics interesting, but too many stories overdo the Alpha pack thing, or are simply variations on the Lupe Garou tale in a modern setting.

I'm writing wolf-demons, who are humanoid, but vicious, wild and have a rigidly defined pack structure. They have a young Alpha who secretly doubts himself, is in possession of some unique, but conditional, power, and refuses to accept that he married someone other than the girl he fell in love with. His wife hates him about as much as he hates her, and her acting like they're in a stable relationship is crucial to his maintaining his status. Basically, like in a real pack, if the Alpha is somehow seen as unsuitable, or weakening, then another will challenge him. So appereances matter, big time. I actually have laws that I wrote out for the Wolves I'm doing, for comparison.

 

[loumey1]

Good thread - I'm picking up a few things to think about - mostly in regards to the adverbs.

Interesting comment on the names thing. I thought long and hard about the names for my characters as well, and that was something that occurred to me. Something else I considered, though, was picking names that would match my characters, and that wouldn't evoke the incorrect reaction from my readers. I ended up settling on Max Tau, Lisa Read, Keisha Bowen, and Christian Smythson for the people that actually got last names. Part of my choice has to do with character origins since we're mostly talking nonhumans here. For someone that's been around awhile, if the person kept the original last name, that name would be more likely to have regional associations.


Anyway, onto my pet peeves.

I really hate it when the writer doesn't understand their, there, they're or your vs. you're. Not to mention past/present/future tense, and perspective errors. I'm fine with shifting perspective between characters, but you have to make certain the shift is clear. Moving from one to the other regularly with no delineation is confusing and gets to be obnoxious.

Also, I'm willing to forgive the occasional typo, but I too agree that errors in format, grammar and spelling are a problem. About the only place I forgive that is when it's part of the character's speech pattern.

I'm with everyone on the inconsistencies too. I do notice them and it irritates me. The occasional one isn't bad, after all, we can all make mistakes, but when there's a lot, or it's a glaring one, that's a problem.

Finally, I think that glaring holes in the character's reaction to events is a major problem. One that particularly irks me is trauma. Trauma is traumatic, hence the name. People are not going to be completely fine after a traumatic event.

I think those are the big ones for me. I'll add if I come up with more.

 

[Guest]

deleted

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh, vampires. I don't like them if they're not Stoker-esque-disturbing or don't have a damn good mythology to back them up - like in Sherrilyn Kenyon's vampiric characters (who also happen to be gods by the name of Artemis and Acheron. Yep. That Artemis.) Parts of the really long story are set in NO, but most of it are set in different cities, and even different planes of existence - Mount Olympus, and various Grecian islands. The author did her research, though, and vampiric bonding is a very serious, and generally not fun, thing - her mythology, by the way, for those real pantheons, is spot-on. Couldn't poke any holes in it.

And honestly, my favorite character isn't Acheron, who is the series bearer-of-all-pain and utter stoic (with a horrific backstory - cursed to be lusted after by everyone who sees his face, family included, and worked as a prostitute. For years. Let's just say that touch is a big issue for the guy...), but his mother, the goddess of death, plague, and the Underworld in the Atlantean pantheon. She's locked up in a prison dimension with servants - only if her son dies is she freed, or if he goes there. And if she's freed, everyone will die - partly to pay for what the Atlantean humans did to her son with their abuse, and partly because she's just plain crazy. She's got bloodlust I can't match even in fantasy... Although the idea of an apocolypse that's raining blood with a chorus of screams and cries for salvation and general carnage is right up there - she revels in death. Which is a bit creepy, when taken to that extent.

And I stay away from werewolves. I find the dynamics interesting, but too many stories overdo the Alpha pack thing, or are simply variations on the Lupe Garou tale in a modern setting.

I'm writing wolf-demons, who are humanoid, but vicious, wild and have a rigidly defined pack structure. They have a young Alpha who secretly doubts himself, is in possession of some unique, but conditional, power, and refuses to accept that he married someone other than the girl he fell in love with. His wife hates him about as much as he hates her, and her acting like they're in a stable relationship is crucial to his maintaining his status. Basically, like in a real pack, if the Alpha is somehow seen as unsuitable, or weakening, then another will challenge him. So appereances matter, big time. I actually have laws that I wrote out for the Wolves I'm doing, for comparison.

Read Brian Lumley's Necroscope. Baddest Vampires to ever walk the earth and in book five you learn the history and mythology of them is the best I have ever read. Far better4 than Rice's mythology because these guys don't whine, they kill.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is why on my FB page I have a pic of a tiger. Not sure my face would draw in the readers. I haven't seen Jaz's, really. I 'll have to look.

Tell me about it. There is a reason it is only my back in my profile pic!

For Jaz well....raven black hair, blue eyes, ghostly complextion. Perfect little dark flower. The type that got me into a lot of trouble after my divorce and I went into an early mid life and I was stalking the goth clubs.

 

[Firebrain]

Ah, got you. I don't read romance, so I haven't really come across it often enough to hit blood-boiling saturation point.

However, vampire stories set in New Orleans, werewolf stories obsessed with alpha pack dynamics, super-smart serial killers, horror short stories with complete non-endings so the author can pretend to be mysterious and clever . . . *cringe*

I spend most of my time, as teh lowly intern, reading romance, lol. Some of it is good. Some of it makes me laugh for all the wrong reasons.

 

[PennLady]

Tell me about it. There is a reason it is only my back in my profile pic!

For Jaz well....raven black hair, blue eyes, ghostly complextion. Perfect little dark flower. The type that got me into a lot of trouble after my divorce and I went into an early mid life and I was stalking the goth clubs.

You realize it may not actually be a pic of Jaz, right? Might be something she found that resembles one of her characters. I mean, I really don't know. Just saying.

 

[PennLady]

Giggle
To laugh with repeated short, spasmodic sounds.
v.tr.
To utter while giggling.
n.
A short, spasmodic laugh.

As the second definition illustrates, the word is a descriptive form of speech. I do agree, that the actions should be separated by a period, but it is perfectly appropriate to state, "I didn't know that." She giggled.

I accept that but still don't like the way "I don't know," she giggled, looks. I worked for a publishing company doing layout, so I often notice the way something looks, and that can affect whether I like a story or not. Dumb, I guess, but there it is. So I'll go with the period and capital She.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

I was going to try to do a multi part quote, but can't seem to figure that one out yet.

Click the button to the right of the quote button in all of the messages you want to quote. Then click the post reply button. Voila! It took me a long time to figure out, too.


As for your fictitious character example . . . maybe. I've met plenty of Latinos who have names like Carter and Brooke who are pretty damn clueless about the things you mention, but your point it taken. If we want to get technical about immigration, though (and who doesn't? ), many scholars hold Latinos up as the exception that proves the integration/assimilation rule.

As for what both you and sr71plt said, I understand what you're saying and will keep your points in mind. However, this is one area where I struggle with positive vs. normative approaches; while I agree that non-Anglo-Saxon-type names might need explanations so as to not be distracting stumbling blocks in stories, I don't think that's the way it "should" be. I'm sure names like Gallagher or Lynch were once categorized as the "other," but no one would stumble over the last name Lynch and think, "ooh, an Irish name; there must be something going on here, I'll have to file that away." Perhaps this is one area where I'll just make my readers deal.

 

[PennLady]

Click the button to the right of the quote button in all of the messages you want to quote. Then click the post reply button. Voila! It took me a long time to figure out, too.

Well, that's handy to know. Thanks.

As for your fictitious character example . . . maybe. I've met plenty of Latinos who have names like Carter and Brooke who are pretty damn clueless about the things you mention, but your point it taken. If we want to get technical about immigration, though (and who doesn't? ), many scholars hold Latinos up as the exception that proves the integration/assimilation rule.

As for what both you and sr71plt said, I understand what you're saying and will keep your points in mind. However, this is one area where I struggle with positive vs. normative approaches; while I agree that non-Anglo-Saxon-type names might need explanations so as to not be distracting stumbling blocks in stories, I don't think that's the way it "should" be. I'm sure names like Gallagher or Lynch were once categorized as the "other," but no one would stumble over the last name Lynch and think, "ooh, an Irish name; there must be something going on here, I'll have to file that away." Perhaps this is one area where I'll just make my readers deal.

You're right that many names have become mainstreamed, and it's usually names like that. Probably no one would think much of Garcia or Suarez or something like that. I mean, Rich Garcia the QB is one of the least Latino-looking people I've ever seen. I think you should do what fits your characters, and provide explanations as you deem necessary.

Plus, probably as time goes on you're going to see where it doesn't matter at all. Like I have two Korean cousins (adopted) with completely Anglo-type names (my grandmother's from England). Any details can be added in -- I mean, we need to describe our characters anyway, right?

 

[atlanticgirl12]

Well, that's handy to know. Thanks.



You're right that many names have become mainstreamed, and it's usually names like that. Probably no one would think much of Garcia or Suarez or something like that. I mean, Rich Garcia the QB is one of the least Latino-looking people I've ever seen. I think you should do what fits your characters, and provide explanations as you deem necessary.

Plus, probably as time goes on you're going to see where it doesn't matter at all. Like I have two Korean cousins (adopted) with completely Anglo-type names (my grandmother's from England). Any details can be added in -- I mean, we need to describe our characters anyway, right?

Thanks for letting me know the QUOTE thing.

I didn't know that.

Sandra

 

[Guest]

deleted

 

[lovecraft68]

You realize it may not actually be a pic of Jaz, right? Might be something she found that resembles one of her characters. I mean, I really don't know. Just saying.

Well gee thanks ruin my fun. next thing your going to tell me is there's no Santa. Or even worse that "Jaz Cullen" is reall a three hundred pound ex biker with a big beer gut! Let a guy dream will ya!

 

[sr71plt]

As for what both you and sr71plt said, I understand what you're saying and will keep your points in mind. However, this is one area where I struggle with positive vs. normative approaches; while I agree that non-Anglo-Saxon-type names might need explanations so as to not be distracting stumbling blocks in stories, I don't think that's the way it "should" be.

Some brave souls work away on what "should be" in publishing. But those wanting commercial--or, here, vote/comment--success don't stray much beyond what works with the reader. And most readers pretty much reflect what "is" rather than what "should be."

 

[Verdad]

Agreed. It looks so much better that way. The issue for me though is that sometimes the way something is said is often more important than the content of the message. People do interrupt, counter, sigh, condemn, tease, joke, lie, and confess. By limiting myself only to he said/she said, I lose the rich tapestry of description I'm able to use. The point is best illustrated by using the line. There are huge differences between. "I didn't know that," she said. And, "I didn't know that." She teased. Or, "I didnt' know that." She sighed. Or, "I didn't know that." She whispered. Or, (and to use the dreaded adverb) "I didn't know that." She chided sarcastically. I like reporting verbs.

Something to keep in mind, though: Ideally, the dialogue line itself would convey the tone (teasing, sarcastic, regretful, etc.).

The reason “she said sarcastically” flags a potential lazy and uninspired bit of writing is that it says loud and clear that the writer failed to actually make the line sarcastic.

If the line itself can’t do it, perhaps a bit of description could, a non-verbal clue juxtaposed to the verbal expression. “Her face darkened. ‘I didn’t know,’” is usually better than “she said worriedly.”

There are times when a writer will go for the shortcut; some things are better told than shown, and insisting on ‘freshness’ in every single line is usually a great way to belabored prose. It wouldn’t be a creative decision when to do what if it could be done by following an algorithm. Generally speaking, though, an elaborate dialogue tag is tell-y, inelegant, and bespeaks a weakness in the dialogue.

 

[Fyrewing]

As the second definition illustrates, the word is a descriptive form of speech. I do agree, that the actions should be separated by a period, but it is perfectly appropriate to state, "I didn't know that." She giggled.

That works if she did two things in order: She spoke without giggling. Then she giggled. If she giggled as she spoke, then this should be more appropriate: "I didn't know that," she giggled.

 

[sr71plt]

Dictionary definition aside, I don't think you can get out a line like "I didn't know that" while giggling. (Try it.) Maybe "I . . . didn't . . . know . . . you that," she giggled.

So I wouldn't use it as a dialogue slug either.

 

[Fyrewing]

Based on direct personal observation, I disagree - I have heard people talk and giggle at the same time, regularly.

I think it comes down to a matter of personal style and what the writer is trying to convey.

 

[punkreader]

Read Brian Lumley's Necroscope. Baddest Vampires to ever walk the earth and in book five you learn the history and mythology of them is the best I have ever read. Far better4 than Rice's mythology because these guys don't whine, they kill.

Good recommendation - I have it, actually, and I love it. Rice's mythology is schlock. I'm sorry, Rice fans, but it is. I love the whole tie-in with history and mythology Lumley writes - very involved, and very believable.

 

[sr71plt]

Based on direct personal observation, I disagree - I have heard people talk and giggle at the same time, regularly.

I think it comes down to a matter of personal style and what the writer is trying to convey.

Well, you do have the dictionary on your side. It would make me stop and think about it as a reader. I avoid doing a lot of things like that, even though they might be technically correct, because I don't want readers to stop the flow of the read in unintentional places.

 

[PennLady]

Agreed. It looks so much better that way. The issue for me though is that sometimes the way something is said is often more important than the content of the message. People do interrupt, counter, sigh, condemn, tease, joke, lie, and confess. By limiting myself only to he said/she said, I lose the rich tapestry of description I'm able to use. The point is best illustrated by using the line. There are huge differences between. "I didn't know that," she said. And, "I didn't know that." She teased. Or, "I didnt' know that." She sighed. Or, "I didn't know that." She whispered. Or, (and to use the dreaded adverb) "I didn't know that." She chided sarcastically. I like reporting verbs.

Surely -- no one is saying to never use tags, or only to use "said." However, many times you won't need them. You can convey an interruption by cutting of a line with an em-dash. You can convey a tease or joke with a smile or a wink or some other body language. And sometimes you can use the very words you suggest, and I do.

However, even if you vary your tags, it gets annoying in a two-person conversation. After a while, I think, "I know who's talking and what their attitude is, I don't need the author to tell me." So it's more of a "use in moderation" thing.

Something to keep in mind, though: Ideally, the dialogue line itself would convey the tone (teasing, sarcastic, regretful, etc.).

The reason “she said sarcastically” flags a potential lazy and uninspired bit of writing is that it says loud and clear that the writer failed to actually make the line sarcastic.

If the line itself can’t do it, perhaps a bit of description could, a non-verbal clue juxtaposed to the verbal expression. “Her face darkened. ‘I didn’t know,’” is usually better than “she said worriedly.”

There are times when a writer will go for the shortcut; some things are better told than shown, and insisting on ‘freshness’ in every single line is usually a great way to belabored prose. It wouldn’t be a creative decision when to do what if it could be done by following an algorithm. Generally speaking, though, an elaborate dialogue tag is tell-y, inelegant, and bespeaks a weakness in the dialogue.

I agree with Verdad on pretty much all points, and add that not just the line, but the whole scene and how the characters were developed should reveal to the reader how a line is delivered. Now, some readers will put their own spin, even an opposite spin, but you can't control all of that. But if you set up a sassy woman, it'll be obvious when she's being sarcastic. If you set up a mean person, then it will be easy to see when they're angry, or being deceitful, or whatever.

Based on direct personal observation, I disagree - I have heard people talk and giggle at the same time, regularly.

I think it comes down to a matter of personal style and what the writer is trying to convey.

People can talk and giggle, but I'd still write "she said with a laugh," or "she said over a giggle," as opposed to "blah blah blah," she giggled.

 

[oggbashan]

The one thing that I find most offputting is second person viewpoint.

If I find a story starting "You did this; You did that..." I am almost certain to backclick and go to another story.

I appreciate that there are some people who can write well in second person, but most of us can't and it shows.

Apart from my aversion to second person viewpoint, I can overlook poor grammar, spelling mistakes, errors etc. as long as the story is interesting or the characters are believable. I can even ignore 12" pricks and 44DDs IF the story works.

If I find myself noticing poor spelling and grammar then the story has failed for me.

Arthur Upfield, creator of the half-caste Australian detective Napoleon Bonaparte (Bony or Boney depending on the market for the book) is an example of a writer whose technique was poor but wrote interesting and readable stories.

 

[lovecraft68]

The one thing that I find most offputting is second person viewpoint.

If I find a story starting "You did this; You did that..." I am almost certain to backclick and go to another story.

I appreciate that there are some people who can write well in second person, but most of us can't and it shows.

Apart from my aversion to second person viewpoint, I can overlook poor grammar, spelling mistakes, errors etc. as long as the story is interesting or the characters are believable. I can even ignore 12" pricks and 44DDs IF the story works.

If I find myself noticing poor spelling and grammar then the story has failed for me.

Arthur Upfield, creator of the half-caste Australian detective Napoleon Bonaparte (Bony or Boney depending on the market for the book) is an example of a writer whose technique was poor but wrote interesting and readable stories.

I agree second person always gives me the feeling that the writer is trying to hypnotize me.

You knock on my door and I answer it surprised to see you.

You ask to come in and I step aside.

I offer you a seat and you accept it sitting down across from me.

You are getting sleepy, very, very sleepy.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree second person always gives me the feeling that the writer is trying to hypnotize me.

You knock on my door and I answer it surprised to see you.

You ask to come in and I step aside.

I offer you a seat and you accept it sitting down across from me.

You are getting sleepy, very, very sleepy.

However, this isn't second person. It's still from the "I" perspective, so it's just very boring first person perspective.