What bothers you the most...

[maestrowork]

There was a thread earlier this year about what you think is the most important aspect of a good novel.

This question is sort of the reverse. All things considered (good grammar, no typos, good writing styles, etc.), what makes you mad the most when you read a "throw-it-against-the-wall" book?

[Nateskate]

Poor, unrealistic, stilted, dull, fake... dialogue 3 / 100.0%

Cardboard characters 0 / 0.0%

Cliches, predictable or unrealistic/outrageous plots 0 / 0.0%

Preachiness -- being hit on the head with morals, judgment, etc. 0 / 0.0%

Other (please specify)

When I look at many older star trek episodes, they were poorly veiled attempts at social commentary. Gene Roddenberry was a very preachy guy. Yet, he was tolerable because he was entertaining.

Some fantasies have cardboard characters, and some have predictable plots. Shrek 1 and 2 were as predictable as they come, and yet I found them rather entertaining. I'm convinced that we are so hardwired to want to see the prince save the princess, even in the form of an Ogre, we watch the same movies and read the same books over and over again.

[Crusader]

i hate all four equally. It more depends on which particular sin the author has committed on the given book in question.

My main issue is that i'm better at catching glitches on the second time around. Let me grab a movie as an example: Mortal Kombat. That movie entertained on the first viewing, i was 'caught up in it'. But on the second viewing... it fell apart. The plot struck me as a total mess. i went from enjoying it as a whole, to only enjoying individual scenes. Whenever i contemplate how a martial arts movie should or shouldn't be done, i think of that one.

So i dunno, maestro. If a creative work works on the first go, even if it makes me want to throw it against the wall on the second... then are the sins really sins? Are the mistakes only mistakes if they make the book "throwable" on the first reading?

(A related question: Is an author supposed to write something seamless and enduring, or is a one-time shot of entertainment all that the reader should hope for?)

[sc211]

For me it's the stilted dialogue, and any obvious dull or cliche writing. If I find that, I don't even get to the point where there's a plot or preaching - it goes against the wall. (Or, more precisely, back on the bookstore shelf.)

It's the subject matter and characters that are the most decisive for what I decide to read, but if I get a book that has the right combination, like Buddhist addicts fishing for sharks off Alaska, and it doesn't deliver, in that the author has them acting like pot-smoking hare krishnas on The Love Boat...

Yeah, authenticity. That's what I'm after. If a book doesn't have that - whether about slavery or space raiders - then I stop reading.

[maestrowork]

Crusader:

A related question: Is an author supposed to write something seamless and enduring, or is a one-time shot of entertainment all that the reader should hope for?

I think there are many different types of stories. Many are for entertainment. Some are supposed to be profound -- and if they're also entertaining, so much for the better.

IMHO, commercial novels are kind of like action movies: they're meant to be enjoyed maybe once or twice, but not for repeat viewing. Once in a while you get something phenomenal like Star Wars or Jaws that are both entertaining and profound. Some literary/mainstream (some people call them true literature, but some may object to that) novels are like a good classic like Casablanca or LA Confidential -- they're meant to be enjoyed over and over and over again and they help define a generation.

[detante]

What annoys me the most are stupid author tricks. Things like witholding information the POV character knows in a lame attempt at suspense. Or ending every single chapter on a cliffhanger for one storyline then going to another storyline in the next chapter. This is especially annoying when there are several storylines going.

[HConn]

Or ending every single chapter on a cliffhanger for one storyline then going to another storyline in the next chapter.

Me, I love this.

[detante]

Ending a chapter with some suspense is a good thing. You want to be sure the reader keeps turning pages. But there are those that push the idea to the absurd.

[Crusader]

IMHO, commercial novels are kind of like action movies: they're meant to be enjoyed maybe once or twice, but not for repeat viewing.

Unfortunately, i could be persuaded to agree, based on some of the commercial schlock i've seen in both print and film.

[sigh] And i could also agree with just about everything else you said. Thing is, it doesn't help at all to frame the question in those terms, because i'm so driven for perfection that i can't bring myself to accept the truth of "designed obsolesence in literature" willingly. It's like swallowing a burr. That was dipped in salt. And lemon juice. And i have a sore throat. In the rain.

errr, ok, i need sleep... but my point is that i personally cringe from writing anything that would implode. i don't even write forum posts that way. So, it's hard for me to know when to turn on my critical thinking to recognize "appropriate" booboos, versus spotting gaffes that nobody in a genre would care about because the book is supposed to blow up after a viewing (like the recorded briefings in the old Mission: Impossible series).

[Crusader]

@detante:
Or ending every single chapter on a cliffhanger for one storyline then going to another storyline in the next chapter.

Isn't this a staple tactic of just about every multi-threaded television show (and therefore, just about every TV screenplay) ever filmed? Or am i loopy from fatigue...

[maestrowork]

It depends on the genre, but I do kind of like cliffhanger chapters. I guess I see too many movies, so I'm well trained to hold on to the edge of my seat when the movie cuts to another scene, leaving me hanging on the previous one...

[Writing Again]

I often have debates with a friend of mine on literature. In many ways we are opposite. If he finds one defect with a novel then he discards it as trash: If I find one really good aspect of a novel then I consider it a good novel. No one thing destroys a novel or movie for me.

I voted for preachiness because that is the one I find hardest to over come. It is partly because those who wax preachy always repeat the same boring angles we all know by heart. However when a new angle or idea comes up I find myself interested.

Jack London was my first introduction to social organization. He was a preachy socialist. I knew I was born into a capitalist society but I did not understand the difference or why people thought one should work and others thought another should work. So I studied to try to understand. My conclusion was that any form of social organization would work if everyone in it agreed with it, but that there are always people who do disagree with it and furthermore there are always a group of people who are justified in disagreeing with it.

So my sentiment is, "Don't preach at me unless you got something to say I haven't heard before."

[Greenwolf103]

Definitely the plots one but also cardboard characters.

[Writing Again]

A related question: Is an author supposed to write something seamless and enduring, or is a one-time shot of entertainment all that the reader should hope for?

Nothing is truly entertaining unless it taps into the visceral, instinctual part of the audience on some level. Harry Potter has been dismissed as "passing entertainment" and perhaps someday it will pass, but people today read and watch over and over and over again. Why?

Two of the worst and potentially least enduring movies I have ever seen are Election, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Both have the same level of vulgar humor; both do things that are stupid and gross; both go against social convention.

Yet Jay and Silent Bob wins hands down: Why? Because Jay and Silent Bob had scenes some people wanted to riff back through and watch again. Because somewhere down deep people feel sorry for two stupid smucks abandoned outside a supermarket for twenty years by uncaring mothers. Because behind Jay's vulgarity lies an honesty most of us could not achieve if we wanted to. (He actually asks the girl he loves if she is going to do him). Because they are the most likable people in the movie.

In Election the only potentially likable person is lesbian sister of one of the candidates and she succeeds in deliberately destroying herself leaving the viewer to wonder why they should care about her.

You cannot separate seamless and enduring from good entertainment.

[Writing Again]

Or ending every single chapter on a cliffhanger for one storyline then going to another storyline in the next chapter.

Except for those rare stories I write where there is only one protagonist don't bother to read anything I writer -- You will be disappointed, disgusted, and irritated.

[detante]

I'm referring to one note pacing that treats every storyline in the same fashion.

Chapter one -- Bob's storyline, rising action ending with cliffhanger. Will Bob travel north or south?

Chapter two -- Carol's storyline, rising action ending with cliffhanger. Will Carol accept the package or return it unopend?

Chapter three -- Jack's storyline, rising action ending with cliffhanger. Will Jack survive the horrible car wrecK?

Chapter four -- Alice's storyline, rising action ending with cliffhanger. Will Alice make it to the photolab in time to pick up her prints?

Chapter five -- Bob chooses south! Rising action ending with cliffhanger. Will Bob make it to gas station before the engine overheats?

Chapter six -- Carol returns the package unopened. Wait, what package? Who's Carol again? (flip back to chapter two) Oh, her. Boring. What happened to the guy in the car wreck? (flip forward to Chapter Seven)

Chapter seven -- Jack crawls from the burning wreckage. He smells the leaking gasoline. Can he rescue the cooler with the donor heart before the car explodes?

Chapter eight -- Alice makes it the PhotoHut just in time! Oh, thank goodness. I was so worried. (flip forward to chapter nine)

Chapter nine -- Bob pulls into the gas station and coasts to the nearest pump. But does this station take credit cards?

Chapter ten -- Carol . . . not her again (flip, flip, flip)

[Writing Again]

Not interested in trivial cliff hangers. Mine go more along these lines:

Chapter one -- Bob's storyline: The killer is out there somewhere, no idea where and Bob is running out of gas. Will Bob travel north or south?

Chapter two -- Carol receives two packages, one she thinks contains a bomb the other the antidote. What will Carol do now?

Chapter three -- While running from the police Jack sails over a cliff. Will Jack survive the horrible car wreck?

Chapter four -- Is Jack the killer the police think he is or what he says he is? Will Alice make it to the photo lab in time to pick up her prints and will they show the proof she thinks is on them?

Chapter five -- Bob chooses south! By now the engine is overheating and waiting him inside the station is the killer.

Chapter six -- Carol both packages in a bathtub and runs water on them thinking this will disarm the bomb and not hurt the antidote. She leaves the bathroom. The house blows up.

Chapter seven -- Jack crawls from the burning wreckage. The police are lowering people and equipment down the cliff. Can he rescue the cooler and get away? And if he does can he make it in the four hours he has left?

Chapter eight -- Alice fails to make it in time. But she has to know the truth, the lives of three men hang in the balance, so she looks for a way to break in and steal the prints.

Chapter nine -- Bob presses his foot on the gas and speeds up to get away from the killer leering at him from inside the gas station only to discover the killer pulled an eighteen wheeler across the road. Bob tries to put the car in a ditch before impact.

Chapter ten -- When Carol wakes up she discovers that the ingredients that blew up her house, and the antidote that is desperately needed were those used to make methamphetamines and instead of helping her to get more antidote the police are charging her with manufacturing drugs.

[detante]

Let me try rewording it to say:

Formulaic pacing that results in artificial cliffhangers at the end of every chapter.

I can't be the only one that has seen this done badly. Not every story deserves a cliffhanger. I'm not talking about ending with suspense. I'm talking about elevating the mundane task of making it to the PhotoHut to the same level as crawling away from a firey car crash.

[stormie267]

If I read one more book where the little girl (or in some cases, woman) has huge blue eyes, my family will hear a loud thump as I toss the book. It's usually when the author is lamely trying for a tear-jerker.

[Crusader]

Nothing is truly entertaining unless it taps into the visceral, instinctual part of the audience on some level.

That's word for word what i would have said. And the analysis of Jay and Silent Bob... works for me as well.

i'm still short-circuited on how to define a 'real' mistake from one that can be overlooked, though. When Mr. Macdonald critiqued The Street Lawyer, he showed what he felt worked, insofar as 'tapping into something meaningful' goes. And i have little disagreement with what worked... it's just that i saw 'flaws' that looked repairable without the sacrifice of what worked. And i feel that way about many books.

It resembles "form vs. function", all over again. If the author nails the function, nails the meaning, keeps me turning pages, am i supposed to ignore 'glitches' that pop out of the form later?

My instinct is to critique both, and if one has rough edges, it makes the other seem less airtight. i tear apart all my own writing on that score; i want substance/meaning and technical accuracy and aesthetic appeal... the whole enchilada, a side of fries and the super-size soda.

[Writing Again]

My instinct is to critique both, and if one has rough edges, it makes the other seem less airtight. i tear apart all my own writing on that score; i want substance/meaning and technical accuracy and aesthetic appeal... the whole enchilada, a side of fries and the super-size soda.

I think your instinct is good.

However a person is best positioned who looks at themselves and what they wish to achieve as honestly as possible. To use myself as an example: I have a modest intelligence and have never displayed any signs of brilliance in any endeavor; I am as uneducated as you can get without being functionally illiterate; It usually takes me a little longer, and sometimes a lot longer to learn things than it does most people; I have never displayed a talent for anything -- Yet I have always risen to above average skill in any endeavor I have set out to do.

Nor can I afford to run off taking courses, going to seminars, or even buying all of the books I would like to. It has always been the case that I learn what I know from the library and second hand books.

What can a person such as myself do to lever past those who seem to be at an obvious advantage?

I have to spend my time wisely. I have to spend my mind wisely. I have to do the most important things as perfectly as possible in the order of their importance and hope that the mistakes I do make will be in areas so minor that the average reader will over look them.

One of the problems is that publishing houses no longer give the editorial support they once did. If I earned enough money I would certainly hire a competent editor to help me find these glitches and holes that I am certain are in my own stories and that I'm certain I am missing. In the mean time I have to slog through.

What gives me the bright idea I have a chance?

The fact that others will rest on their talents and their intelligence while I am mastering the craft; The fact that they will spend time, effort, and intelligence concentrating on petty things that do not work in order that they can feel superior to published authors while I set about learning from those who are smarter and more successful than I what it is that does work.

I find it hilarious that people with twice my intelligence and three times my education find it so hard to grasp such simple things.

[Oklahoma Wolf]

I voted for cliches, but for me it usually has to go beyond that to get me to abuse the poor walls with it. I can forgive a lot of things about a badly written novel, but if the plot explodes into a multitude of holes I can drive a truck through I will put the thing down rather forcefully.

I also keenly dislike it when an author feels the need to make each sentence a poetic work of art to impress critics. Came close recently to giving the wall treatment to a popular suspense author for drawing things out with so much flowery description it drove me nuts and thoroughly distracted me. I finished reading it anyway so I'd know how not to write a good book ;)

[Crusader]

@Writing Again:

A very reasonable argument. The angle you're describing sounds to me like "well, there are only so many hours in a day and cents in a buck; sometimes we can't cover every single base, so focus on the bases that matter."

If so, then i agree in general. Probably the devil is in the details; i.e. haggling over which individual books suffered more than others as far as constraints of time and energy.

[lost in thought] It's daunting, to think that a good vision could be warped by logistics. Especially knowing that i'm certainly not the only critical reader out there.

* * *

When a book "works" for me, it paints a portrait of something i want to look at. The more it "works", is the more i want to look at it. The more i look, is the more detail i'm going to notice in it. Say the portrait is all about a lovely lady; if it's "working", i'm going to want to get to know her.

Well, in the process of being all zoomed-in, i'll inevitably notice something like, oh, she's wearing a hairstyle that subtly doesn't fit the period of the scene. My reaction depends a bit on how critical her head is to the portrait: if it's a huge panorama and she's only half of it, i'm not as troubled as if it's a closeup.

Either way, though, my argument is that the author should be able to paint the picture, realize his vision, but still be held accountable for something like an inappropriate hairstyle.

My argument is also that the author should be aware of the difference between an anachronism versus, say, the choice of eye colour. The former is arguably a flaw, the latter is just a matter of opinion. Sure, wave aside quibbles about "well, her dress needs another rose on it", but listen to complaints like "nice picture, but one part is unlikely for that era".

Now, the casual reader will just be happy that they're seeing such a lovely lady in their head. They'll thank the author/painter, and close the book in contentment.

Wheras the reader who knows better will be irritated, maybe even disappointed that such a lovely lady wasn't fleshed out correctly. It's not a lethal blow, it's an itch... like the car seat that just doesn't feel right no matter how you adjust it. Or the jeans that pinch on one spot and gap in another.

Some say, it doesn't matter: as long as the author is happy, as long as the editor approves, as long as people buy the book, as long as the lady is lovely, it doesn't matter if she has a subtle bug/feature/flaw/itch that makes readers go "heh, now i wanna fact-check this bozo."

Well, if i subscribed to that, i'd be annoyed with myself. Is it unreasonable for the author to round off all the corners and cover all the bases, so that he reaches both the casual and critical readers?

[maestrowork]

What works for me about a book is: 1) it draws me into that world, creating a dream state for me; 2) it makes me care about the characters; 3) it touches me at a deep level -- makes me laugh, cry, feel something profound or intellectual.

I think many of these things such as "bad dialogue" or "cardboard characters" or "info dump" prevent me from doing the above. They either yank me right out of the dream state, or create unrealistic situations or characters that I don't care about, or insult my intellect and emotions.

[reph]

I voted for (against?) cardboard characters for the reason Maestro gives. A story won't hold my interest if I don't care about its people or they don't seem real to me.

[Writing Again]

@Writing Again:

A very reasonable argument. The angle you're describing sounds to me like "well, there are only so many hours in a day and cents in a buck; sometimes we can't cover every single base, so focus on the bases that matter."

If so, then i agree in general.

That sums it up, yes.

Probably the devil is in the details;

Either way, though, my argument is that the author should be able to paint the picture, realize his vision, but still be held accountable for something like an inappropriate hairstyle.

That is not the devil, my friend, something like a hairstyle is more akin to Hell on the half shell.

The Paige Boy Bob is sometimes called the Paige, Paige boy, or Bob. Wait a minute isn't it also called the Dutch boy? or is there a subtle difference not so obvious to us males?

It was popular among rebellious young women for a while, future suffragettes, but not among the "nice" women of the era. Sort of like tattoos and belly button rings a few years ago. Now I see a doctor's wife flashing her tummy to a friend in the waiting room.

So if it did exist then was it popular? What kind of person wore it? What was it called? Was it slightly different in some way a man would not see by looking at a period picture?

Remember that a German cockroach is called a French cockroach in Germany and no telling what French fries are called in France but they are called fried potatoes in Mexico.

Would somebody toss me a straw hat to cover my bad hair day, I think I'm drowning out here.

[Crusader]

@Writing Again:

LOL... well said.

i guess i'm too exacting of a critic, in the end. Though, maybe that suggests i should be an editor, so i can catch such things before they get out in the world to annoy the hell out of me and anyone like me. Wonder what author would be crazy enough to work with me, though...

Nevertheless, this has been very constructive as far as leavening my viewpoint, so i thank you.

[reph]

The Paige Boy Bob is sometimes called the Paige, Paige boy, or Bob.

It's spelled "pageboy." (Remember those illustrations of boys working as court pages in children's books?) I haven't seen the hairstyle called simply a page. A bob–lower-case b–is any short haircut, as a bobbed tail on a horse or dog is one cut short. With that information, you can go to Google and find out whatever you need to know about pageboy hairdos for your next novel.

[AncientEagle]

For me, even a very good book can be spoiled by basic inaccuracies. I will probably continue reading it, but not with the same pleasure as before. As an example, I was enjoying the story once when, along about page 20, the author referred to a dairy farm, with its herd of Herefords. People don't generally milk Herefords, as they are beef cattle. (Yes, I have heard that there are such things as 'milking Herefords' but I have never seen any in real life.)

I have a long military background, so I find myself often thrown off by writers who just can't quite get it right. Even some of the best military-based novels I have read sometimes get it wrong. (No, it isn't an Army base, it's an Army post. No, that firearm the soldier is carrying on his shoulder is not a gun, it's a rifle. To the Army, guns are cannons.) All of which has made me more keenly aware that I can't be too careful in my own writing.

[DarkHaven80]

You know, I've never read a novel I considered 'preachy'. I have seen this warned against in writing how-to novels and other pet peeve lists, but never saw it as a common phenomenon.

I dont care for cardboard characters per se - but one dimensional ones are the worst. There is a difference. If the character is poorly developed, fake, stuffy, etc, I cant get into them. However, Laurell K Hamiltons vampire series has many cardboardish vampire characters and she's popular as heck. Many mainstream fiction novels boast the detectives that are stereotypical, or the forensic scientist woman, or the psychologists, etc. They still work, and people still love them.

As for outrageous plots...well, never had something slap me in the face in regards to this. As long as the unrealistic is realistic in the world they're painting, it's fine by me.

Probably the thing that gets me the most is awkward writing that goes on and on and bores me to tears. Yech. I'm not reading a homework assignment here, I'm reading to be entertained! :\

[Writing Again]

It's spelled "pageboy."

Ouch I should have looked it up. Seemed to me I saw it spelled Paige. Problems of being male I suppose, I really find it hard to be sensitive to issues of hair -- Unless of course it is on her face.

(Remember those illustrations of boys working as court pages in children's books?)

Never spent much time reading children's books; I kept getting in trouble for reading adult books.

I haven't seen the hairstyle called simply a page.

I actually haven't seen it either, I got that from listening to the women in my family talk. They referred to it as a Page at times as in, "I wore my hair in a page for two years."

With that information, you can go to Google and find out whatever you need to know about pageboy hairdos for your next novel.

I googled. I find nothing there to indicate that the pageboy was ever considered a sign of youthful rebellion let alone the exact time period it was considered so although I think it was pre flapper it may have been during or even post flapper. My grandmother liked to tell how she was one of the first in her town to get one when the style first started and how horrified the towns people were.

I also googled in an attempt to find out another piece of hair information I know to be a fact; prior to the ad campaign "Only her hairdresser knows for sure" dying one's hair was considered a sure sign of promiscuity; it was believed only "loose women" did it.

The thing I was trying to point out though is the complexity of apparently simple things in writing. I chose the pageboy because that is one hairstyle I know something about as the women in my family discussed it more than most. If you are unaware of them you can easily be blown to bits without even knowing you are walking in a mine field.

Bras were first worn by loose women to enhance their figures and were scorned by women of high moral standards. Then "loose women" began discarding them much to the horror of moral women who now felt breasts needed extra covering.

Not sure about painting finger nails, but I would be sure of myself before mentioning them.

Men are no better off. What men wore ruffles and when? At one point they powdered their wigs and hair. Long haired music is not hippy music -- Why is that?

Wigs and high collars became the norm because syphilis was so widespread.

I don't know how you find these things unless you know what you are looking for, but first you must realize the need to look for them. I think a lot of writers do massive research and then stick something in that seems harmless and looks obvious but is neither.

[Writing Again]

You know, I've never read a novel I considered 'preachy'. I have seen this warned against in writing how-to novels and other pet peeve lists, but never saw it as a common phenomenon.

Read one of Jack London's novels espousing his socialist theories.

Heinlein got very preachy about lots of things including his belief that language should be totally logical -- Until I wanted to grab him by the lapels and scream at him, "You flaking idiot we have such a language: It is called mathematics. Now leave English alone."

[Velleity]

I voted for preachiness because, though any of the above can make a novel unreadable, it's only when the soapbox comes out that I start nursing a personal grudge against the author.

Why yes, Mr. Heinlein and Mr. Anthony, I am looking at you.

[maestrowork]

However a person is best positioned who looks at themselves and what they wish to achieve as honestly as possible.

Exactly. There are many kinds of stories out there. You have to ask yourself, seriously, what kind of stories you want to write. There's nothing wrong with writing highly entertaining commercial novels that people will read on the beaches and toss away after they're done. There's nothing wrong with writing highly artistic novels that may one day win the Nobel Prize. But you have to decide for yourself.

Entertainment is great. I wouldn't mind writing something purely for entertainment value. But sooner or later, I'd ask myself: is there anything else? I can entertain people in many different ways (songs, film, plays, etc.) but books can reach so much deeper, and last so much longer, and I don't want to taste that chance.


Personally, I'd like to write something that is BOTH entertaining and enlightening. I want something that has a longer life than three hours. I want to write something that a father (or mother) can hand down to his son (or daughter) and say, "Here, a book you will appreciate and maybe even love." It's not necessarily high-brow, but it has to be more meaningful than simply "are A and B going to end up together" or "is the world going to be decimated?" What good is "good triumphs evil" if you can't feel that incredible awe in your soul?

[Thekherham]

Too bad I couldn't vote for all four.

[Zane Curtis]

I voted for "Cliches, predictable or unrealistic/outrageous plots". Sometimes you pick up a book and see from page one that it's setting up the same tired old thing I've read a hundred times before. At that point, whether I continue to read depends more on whether I actually paid money for this turkey. "Poor, unrealistic, stilted, dull, fake... dialogue" would come a pretty close second.

I don't mind preachiness much, unless I find the sermon objectionable in its own right (a couple of John Grisham novels come to mind here, and I bet people wouldn't normally consider John Grisham preachy). On the whole, it's good to have an author who's passionate about what s/he's writing, because at least that way, you're assured of something lively and engaging.

[XThe NavigatorX]

I can't stand preachiness, so I voted for it.

I'm not a big fan of cliches either, but I don't mind too much about "outrageous" plots. It doesn't take much to get me to suspend my belief. I guess that comes from reading too many comics as a kid. Either that or listening to power metal.

[Jules Hall]

The only thing that has ever caused me to give up reading a book is if I get more than about 50-60 pages in and still don't care about the characters. At that point, I'll probably put it down.

Books where the characters are OK but they don't do anything interesting annoy me too, but I tend to finish them before I realise what kind of book they are.

[ChunkyC]

The last book I "Uncle Jim'd" received that honour because, after one hundred pages, nothing had happened of any perceivable consequence. It was all people walking around and internally remarking on how so-and-so's hair was shorter the last time they saw them and other such stunning revelations. Bleah.

[mr mistook]

...it was all people walking around and internally remarking on how so-and-so's hair was shorter the last time they saw them and other such stunning revelations...

That's the first novel every 18-year-old writes. It's got nothing to do with anything, it's just an excercise in the vacuous observations of a person who as yet knows nothing.

The fact that such novels get published on a regular basis says something about the preoccupations of the much vaunted "slushkillers" and their superiors.

If you want to make a bazillion dollars as a novelist, write a book about living in Manhattan as a hip young publishing intern, killing slush, and going out on the weekends to judge hair styles and footwear. Throw in a few martini's and a cheating boyfriend who falls into the Hudson and Presto! You're the superstar!

:)

[pdr]

Sorry about the nit picking, Writing Again, but that page boy hair style was shocking because women were supposed to have long hair and spend hours keeping it tidy! Men had short hair not women. From the turn of the 20th century but particularly after the 1st World War women were employed in a greater range of jobs than domestic service. Short hair became a greater advantage to many working women than long hair and the page boy caught on.

The first bra was a French garment of - I think - 1908. Part of the women's clothing reform movement I believe (Apologies but my reference books are at home and I'm the other side of the world.) Women used to wear corsets or stays (They also had other names through the centuries.) These were body encasing from bust to bottom and were thought to support the spine and generally help women's health. (By men of course as only women knew how restrictive and uncomfortable they really were.) Brassieres were shocking because they were so light and did not cover the body like a corset. However they caught on as fast as panty hose did in the 1960s. They - like panty hose - were so much more comfortable to wear.

[drgnlvrljh]

If you want to make a bazillion dollars as a novelist, write a book about living in Manhattan as a hip young publishing intern, killing slush, and going out on the weekends to judge hair styles and footwear. Throw in a few martini's and a cheating boyfriend who falls into the Hudson and Presto! You're the superstar!

*takes notes*



Joking! :lol

[MissKathyClarke]

I hate it when a book is too predictable or too non-predictable and long. It's really annoying when the plot keeps taking twists and the end just won't seem to come and then I usually just give up reading it when i'm in the middle and look in the back meh :P

[StephanieCordray]

all of those options will have me throwing a book in the trash.

[mr mistook]

Riffing on my last post, I think one of the things that bothers me most is stories about writers. Same goes for rock songs praising rock, or that old cliche where a road-weary musician sings about life on tour.

If the protagonist of the story is a struggling novelist, and the story is about his quest to get published - AUGH!

[Kallahan]

I chose other, because all of those will end up as projectiles as far as I'm concerned.