I agree. Cinder is fiction. The author may take whatever liberties she desires if she's creating a future world. Heck, I've even invented streets, parks, etc. in my brick and mortar, real-life town when writing stories. They're fiction. They don't have to be real.
What truly ANNOYS you in books? And not in a good way.
- Thread starter Calliea
- Start date
- Status
I agree. Cinder is fiction. The author may take whatever liberties she desires if she's creating a future world. Heck, I've even invented streets, parks, etc. in my brick and mortar, real-life town when writing stories. They're fiction. They don't have to be real.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 460
So no one should ever write a book set in a future where the Axis powers won WWII? No one should write a book set in a future America where slavery was never abolished? Or where 9/11 was just the first attack of an immense terror campaign that destroyed the US entirely?
The point of putting stories in such worlds is to examine what those historical events mean. How did they really change us, as people and societies? And how are we still the same?
Yes, the ideas might be hurtful to some people because of what they or their family has suffered, and sensitive topics should be treated with respect, but that's no reason not to write it.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,076
- Reaction score
- 557
Generally "be respectful of culture" means don't fetishisize or distort a culture that you are not a part of. IE, a white American teenager obsessed with manga probably shouldn't attempt to write a book set in Japan. They would do a very poor job.
It doesn't have anything to do with the scenarios you mentioned.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 460
Disclaimer: I've never read the book (Cinder), so I have no opinion of how well or poorly the author executed the book's world.
I thought the original objection was to the idea of setting a book in a world where a place called New Bejing was ruled by a Japanese royal family and was part of a very British-empire sounding grouping of nations. The impression I came away from the original post with was that the poster felt this scenario should not be written because it was offensive, period.
If the original objection was simply that the author mixed those elements in a ham-handed way or without understanding the long and difficult history between those nations, no problem.
Same here. It was a tough one. I really only kept going because of how much I love the characters and story. But there aren't many (or any others, really) books I would put up with that many characters for.
Is fantasy the only genre in which we WOULD put up with a smorgasbord of characters? I did the same thing with Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time...at least until I caught up to him and then gave up when I had to wait too long for the next book and forgot everything from the previous x number of 1K page books.
That is not a legal concept, as far as I'm aware, so it carries no weight, except perhaps in the minds of those who invented it. No culture is off limits, or for that matter, protected from criticism. However...
Yes, respect is good, but it only gets you so far in writing accurately. Better is understanding the cultures you write about. Which is where good research comes into play. And I'd point out that you don't have to respect a culture to understand it or write accurately about it.
Only insofar as this: If you're going to write about a particular culture, take the time to really learn about it.
Last edited:
When the cover blurb promises chills and thrills and the story gives you...nothing. Just got done reading In the Woods - Tana French and I'm still mad about it. If you say the book is terrifying, then it really should be terrifying. Please and thank you.
I couldn't agree more with your take on this novel. It fell flat with a non-thrilling splat!
My biggest problem with books (or stories in general) is if women are portrayed poorly, meaning that their existence is defined through their relationship with a man or that they are made to act like men so they'll be interesting/strong etc. I do love good romance, though, and that's not what I mean by "defined by a relationships with a man". Just that I like women characters that are deeply driven and true to themselves and whole on their own.
I also have a problem with 1st person point of view, but that's just a personal preference and I can get past that if the character is soulful and the plot interesting.
And I really like the idea of "Know what you write" instead of "write what you know".
I also have a problem with 1st person point of view, but that's just a personal preference and I can get past that if the character is soulful and the plot interesting.
And I really like the idea of "Know what you write" instead of "write what you know".
I recently burned a book containing a major character who was nothing more than a bit of flesh for the two male leads. She went bed hopping as often as convenient with no real reason (not even sexual attraction) to do so. Oh, and she just happened to be beautiful, and incredibly vacuous and stupid. No this wasn't in erotica either.
Turns out she's going to be Queen of the country....really? Who the hell wants a bed hopping stripper for a ruler? It made me feel that the author had never met a real woman and this one was probably just his hand in disguise. I don't believe she did anything more remarkable the entire story than giggle stupidly.
Another story I read was engaging enough and built up over three books with some dire situation to be solved. Only for the ending to be best just let things be. This is fate. So I read nearly half a million words to discover that none of this means anything at all and your three main characters can just drink an ale on the hilltop and watch it all turn to dust? Well that was worth it...
Last edited:
This comment should be highlighted. There is no such thing as a "cultural copyright" it is ridiculous.
That said, there is good appropriation and bad appropriation. Bad appropriation: isolated Polynesians went nuts and built stupid heads while denuding Easter Island of trees. Yes they did that. Unless you are an expert in that particular culture, a story set in that environment will ring false.
Good appropriation (feel free to disagree with me): You notice ancient Chinese cultures foot-bind their women. Horrible practice. But maybe you take that idea and apply it to your aliens. Your aliens are not boring Star Trek clowns wearing prosthetics. They are genuinely unique. So you put in a cultural note like the Mi-Go of Yuggoth surround their female bee Queens with giant cameras so everyone can see what they are doing. Or whatever. The point is, taken an idea but always twist it and make it unique and make it your own.
I read a couple of historical/women's fiction series where there was eventually a large cast of characters. But in such cases, I want the author to make it as easy as possible for me to tell the characters apart.
So even if it's a family tradition to give firstborn daughters the same name, I'll be confused if the heroine is Elizabeth, her mother is Eliza and her daughter is Ellie and her granddaughter is Elisette. And if the youngest generation is the spitting image of their great-grandparents, I'm going to wonder about the lack of diversity in this particular gene pool.
Of course, YMMV with this, but something I can't stand is too much 'witty banter', particularly between love interests.
I'm sure you know the scenario: the two are attracted to each other, but they also can't stand each other (because... reasons? That adults ought to be able to work out like mature human beings?), and so, the snark begins. And it's all supposed to be very clever and sarcastic and cutting, but all I really get out of it is that they are being childish jerks to each other and I would prefer that the story got back to the plot, thank you very much.
This was a big thing in a novel I haven't been able to bring myself to finish yet. The other Big Annoyance for me was that it also suffered from Everyone Is Beautiful syndrome. It's not as though everyone was reasonably attractive in their own way, as humans usually are. No, these characters - all four of the protagonists, and, I think, any of the side characters who merited description - were gorgeous, alluring, sexy, and so on. Startlingly lovely eye colours and all.
Granted, the story was about two couples, so of course they are rhapsodizing about each other's appearances (even while, as I pointed out, they attacked each other over every perceived flaw). Regardless, it got to the point where I simply couldn't stand it anymore, even though the rest of the writing, including the world-building, was quite well done.
Maybe I just don't have enough of an appreciation for hot snarky people, but the combination just reminded me of, I dunno, particularly self-indulgent fan fiction or something.
I'm sure you know the scenario: the two are attracted to each other, but they also can't stand each other (because... reasons? That adults ought to be able to work out like mature human beings?), and so, the snark begins. And it's all supposed to be very clever and sarcastic and cutting, but all I really get out of it is that they are being childish jerks to each other and I would prefer that the story got back to the plot, thank you very much.
This was a big thing in a novel I haven't been able to bring myself to finish yet. The other Big Annoyance for me was that it also suffered from Everyone Is Beautiful syndrome. It's not as though everyone was reasonably attractive in their own way, as humans usually are. No, these characters - all four of the protagonists, and, I think, any of the side characters who merited description - were gorgeous, alluring, sexy, and so on. Startlingly lovely eye colours and all.
Granted, the story was about two couples, so of course they are rhapsodizing about each other's appearances (even while, as I pointed out, they attacked each other over every perceived flaw). Regardless, it got to the point where I simply couldn't stand it anymore, even though the rest of the writing, including the world-building, was quite well done.
Maybe I just don't have enough of an appreciation for hot snarky people, but the combination just reminded me of, I dunno, particularly self-indulgent fan fiction or something.
Oh yes. This is highly annoying. I stop reading books that use this device.
xenophile
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 4
Yeah, I'd heard so many good things about In the Woods and though it was far from awful (I think the pretty writing style carried some of the weight) it wasn't all that I'd hoped it would be.
I guessed the killer almost right away, and I'm not even usually great at doing that in books/movies. And it certainly wasn't very thrilling or chilling. I think I gave it 3 stars on goodreads, fwiw. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm headed back to my Murakami...
To add in some things that truly annoy in me in books I've read lately:
1.) Too much dialogue. I just read a YA book that I swear was 70 to 80% dialogue. I know there's more of it in that genre, but the particular book I read didn't have enough else going on to make up for that.
2.) This one I don't see so often, but am beginning to get annoyed with it. In some books (and not ones where "Everyone in is Beautiful") the male MC has a choice between two women. Woman "A" is what he actually desires in a woman, but he can't be with her because something about the choosing her is immoral. (Too young, best friend's little sister etc)
Woman "B" is a more moral choice, but typically less attractive and less feminine, and has a more developed personality and gets more word count. Woman "A" is actively interested in him, and Woman "B" is not, or is interested in the hero, but too shy to say so or something.
The hero ALWAYS chooses woman "B". I've begun to feel like I've read this trope for years and it, to me, has become a cliche. Am I the only one?
1.) Too much dialogue. I just read a YA book that I swear was 70 to 80% dialogue. I know there's more of it in that genre, but the particular book I read didn't have enough else going on to make up for that.
2.) This one I don't see so often, but am beginning to get annoyed with it. In some books (and not ones where "Everyone in is Beautiful") the male MC has a choice between two women. Woman "A" is what he actually desires in a woman, but he can't be with her because something about the choosing her is immoral. (Too young, best friend's little sister etc)
Woman "B" is a more moral choice, but typically less attractive and less feminine, and has a more developed personality and gets more word count. Woman "A" is actively interested in him, and Woman "B" is not, or is interested in the hero, but too shy to say so or something.
The hero ALWAYS chooses woman "B". I've begun to feel like I've read this trope for years and it, to me, has become a cliche. Am I the only one?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,076
- Reaction score
- 557
Hahaha! YMMV indeed. Witty banter is my absolute favorite, especially when it's a bit mean. I have a weakness for handsome jerks.
Jarlaxle and Artemis Entreri (from R. A. Salvatore's series) absolutely kill me. Not that their banter is romantic, but they're both handsome jerks.
Just try and read I, Claudius - knowing how confusing the Julio-Claudian names can get, I read it armed with a copy of Tacitus that had the imperial family trees at the back. Drusus had a nephew called Drusus, who was married to Livia Julia and had a daughter called Julia Livilla. Their son Germanicus was married to Agrippina and had a son called Drusus, and daughters called Drusilla and Julia Livilla, and another daughter called Agrippina...
I don't know whether I was relieved or slightly miffed when the BBC changed the younger Agrippina's name to Agrippinilla to distinguish her from her mother. It just seemed to be cheating somehow
Oh, I guess that brings me onto something that annoys me in books: when you need to keep consulting the reference information at the front, i.e. maps or glossaries or family trees, in order to make sense of the narrative. IMO these additional pages should be there to supplement the narrative for people inclined to read further, not be intrinsic to understanding the novel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm. It's not something I noticed before, but if you mean what I think you do, you might be right about its being a cliche. Now that I'm thinking about it, I've seen it pretty often. Where the hero's choice seems like 'settling', because even though the plot worked hard to prove that this woman has worth, we still know that she's not the one he really wants.
I can see not choosing Woman "A" for moral reasons. But choosing Woman "B" in lieu of her, as a sort of consolation prize, seems a bit gross to me.
I admit that a truly charming, clever bastard can intrigue me. And I have read banter that interested me. But usually, it served a purpose - it was really entertaining, or progressed the plot somehow, or revealed character/character development.
Unfortunately, I think that a lot of banter is put in with the intention of making the author look smart, or to show off their darlings, and it feels too ridiculous, too indulgent. I get that your characters are very witty and that they also hate each other, and combined with those uncomfortable, traitorous feelings in their trousers, it makes them antsy and childish. But for goodness sake, you're supposed to be saving the world, and you're wasting time bickering like twits for pages on end. Have some priorities! Think of the children!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,116
- Reaction score
- 10,870
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I find that the omniscient pov is a tough sell for me in a modern novel. This is not because it's bad or wrong to use it, or that it can't be done well, just that I find my mind wandering more when I read it. I started to read a novel a while back, one that's gotten some good reviews, but it started out in that "once upon a timey" kind of mode, where an all-knowing voice telling me about the background for the story and characters.
Drop me into the actual story, baby, and let me figure out who these people are based on what they do, and on what the main character thinks and feels as things are unfolding.
Unless that omni narrator is really interesting in of themselves. But I find that I'm increasingly unable to tell the difference between well-done omni and bad, which makes me terrible at critting it
Drop me into the actual story, baby, and let me figure out who these people are based on what they do, and on what the main character thinks and feels as things are unfolding.
Unless that omni narrator is really interesting in of themselves. But I find that I'm increasingly unable to tell the difference between well-done omni and bad, which makes me terrible at critting it
When you put it that way, this reminds me of Daniel Deronda. Granted, I only watched the film, didn't read it, but when he had spent the whole film mooning over the selfish beauty, then suddenly turns round and decides he's in love with the meek little mouse of a woman he's hardly spent 2 minutes with... I call shenanigans. Well, mainly I call Author Imposing Moral Message at the expense of characterisation and story logic.
Maybe the book is different, but that was a real let down ending for me.
- Status