What do readers mean when they want a book to 'get to the point'?

[Psychomacologist]

I'm one of those readers who will skip to the point if I'm getting bored (I used to be all "I must read ALL THE WORDS! That is THE LAW!" but now I'm like "Meh. You're boring me. Skip to the end...")

The times when I feel that "Get to the point" feeling are often times when:

1. The scene has no conflict. Your description of the glacier is lovely, but why do I care about the fucking glacier? WHY AM I AT THIS GLACIER? I need to know the meaning and significance of this scene for it to be interesting to me. Otherwise, it's just pretty pictures that I don't care about.

2. I have already guessed where this is going, and you are taking too long to get there. This is a big one for me. If I can see the direction the scene is going but we're not there yet, I will skip to the point where we ARE there. Likewise with plots. If we are obviously heading towards an epic battle (which our heroes will no doubt win) but you are spending time with characters having petty arguments about internal politics of the Wizarding Guild, then I'll get bored and put the book down.

3. Characters are unable to draw conclusions about the bleeding obvious. He's obviously a vampire. I don't need to spend ten pages in the woods with your inner thoughts whilst you figure that out, Bella. This is sort of similar to the above, but it tends to happen when authors try to streeeeeeeetch the conflict by having characters still wondering about something that is so blatantly obvious I'm yelling at the page about it.

4. The book is getting repetitive. This is sort of like when video games throw the same enemies at you to fight over and over again. If the characters are basically dealing with the same problem repeatedly, then I feel like we've already done this. Like movies with too many car chases. I can only watch so many crashes and stunts before I get bored. Likewise if your characters have essentially the same angsty conversation over and over again, or repeatedly fight orcs in a very similar fashion, it starts to get repetitive. And I'm left with the feeling that these scenes are just padding to cover the fact that NOTHING IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and the main conflict/showdown/point of the plot is just being artificially delayed so you can pad out the word count.

There's a reason why, in video games, enemies get harder to fight the higher up the levels you go. There has to be a rise in stakes, a rise in difficulty, a rise in risk, a rise in the TENSION I feel as the characters go into the scene. Fighting the same battles all over again quickly becomes dull.

5. The book is focusing on things that aren't important. If I'm twenty pages in and can't see any signs of plot anywhere, I start to get antsy. Even if no serious conflict has kicked off, there still needs to be some sense of it. Some sense of a serious or interesting or difficult problem the MC is facing. I don't care about the interesting market. I don't care about the random pregnant woman. I don't care about people and places and things that have zero importance to the ongoing plot. Like Goldberry. You're lovely, but there's fucking Ringwraiths wandering around, WHY AM I WITH YOU? Wandering off-map to spend quality time with totally irrelevant people and things quickly gets boring if they don't serve a purpose. Or if the purpose they serve could be replaced with two sentences and a scene transition. Do I really need to spend an extended scene with Argamoth the Magical Crow as he flies over the battle, describing the grisly aftermath in vivid and disgusting detail? Could you replace that with a short paragraph of description and then MOVE ON? Why yes, I believe you could. Please do so.

I'm sure there's other things that I've forgotten, but these are the ones that come to mind. Most of these are actual examples from real published books. Some of them by very famous authors. So, you know, it's not just a rooky problem.

[Bufty]

You said you would comment on my book privately. You lied.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Psychomacologist

1. The scene has no conflict. Your description of the glacier is lovely, but why do I care about the fucking glacier? WHY AM I AT THIS GLACIER? I need to know the meaning and significance of this scene for it to be interesting to me. Otherwise, it's just pretty pictures that I don't care about.

This is where I think tastes differ. For me, half of the trip is getting there and back. I savor those moments. If an author is using beautiful prose to describe a glacier, I'll enjoy it as long as it ads to the character or the story. This of course, is more along the lines of literary fiction, which is what I prefer to read.

[Psychomacologist]

Originally Posted by Bufty

You said you would comment on my book privately. You lied.

I... is this... what? *super confused face*

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

This is where I think tastes differ. For me, half of the trip is getting there and back. I savor those moments. If an author is using beautiful prose to describe a glacier, I'll enjoy it as long as it ads to the character or the story. This of course, is more along the lines of literary fiction, which is what I prefer to read.

Yeah, personal taste comes into it a lot. I have a very short attention span in general and tend to like things to be happening, so I'm probably The Reader Most Likely to skip passages in frustration or put down a book altogether. That said, I loved The Handmaid's Tale, and that's extremely slow in terms of pace. But it's also beautifully told, and it also puts the protagonist in a very interesting and impossible position from the very start, so the central conflict of her rights being taken away and being turned into a Handmaid is right front and centre.

For me, books can be slow and beautiful and indulgent as long as I know there is conflict going on. If you haven't got to the plot yet because we're still describing every leaf in the forest, then I personally get bored and skip skip skip.

[Kriven]

Sorry, I was humored >.>;

[Psychomacologist]

Originally Posted by Kriven

Sorry, I was humored >.>;

Why yes, there is a reason Pinkie Pie is my avatar

[Shika Senbei]

Originally Posted by Kindness

I've heard 'normal' readers say that before but they've never put it into words what it is that is bugging them about a book.

It could mean that the book is moving too slowly, or that the readers suffer from ADD. It could also be a mismatch between intended audience and style. Presenting a thoughtfully laid-out plot to a young audience used to flashy storytelling is generally a bad idea.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Shika Senbei

It could mean that the book is moving too slowly, or that the readers suffer from ADD. It could also be a mismatch between intended audience and style. Presenting a thoughtfully laid-out plot to a young audience used to flashy storytelling is generally a bad idea.

There's a difference between "slow and thoughtful" and "meanders without getting anywhere." Someone who likes fast-paced stories may or may not be able to tell the difference, since both are likely to bore him, but if lots of people say the same thing, or can articulate where the story drags for them, then it's probably not just reader ADD.

[triceretops]

Heh, heh--writing like Stephen King. No, seriously, you're not advancing the plot. You're stuck in the details, scenery, topography, history, back-story, whatever. Shorten your sentences, get some crisp dialogue in there, create some physical character movement and introduce some kind of a problem, but hint strongly at it instead of proclaiming exactly what it is.

I do this a lot, writing stuffy, clogged prose that is meaningless or incidental. BORING.

tri

[Shika Senbei]

Originally Posted by triceretops

Heh, heh--writing like Stephen King. No, seriously, you're not advancing the plot. You're stuck in the details, scenery, topography, history, back-story, whatever.

It's funny how Stephen King still manages to sell a lot of books written this way.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Shika Senbei

It's funny how Stephen King still manages to sell a lot of books written this way.

It's funny how some readers feel like no matter how much Stephen King sells, they think he writes like he is in love with the sound of his own prose.

[lolchemist]

Originally Posted by Psychomacologist

2. I have already guessed where this is going, and you are taking too long to get there.

YES YES YES! It's like you're playing charades with someone and they're just crawling around on the floor going "Meow! Meow!" and you have to sit there for two hours watching them do that before you're allowed to yell out "A CAT!"

Originally Posted by Psychomacologist

3. Characters are unable to draw conclusions about the bleeding obvious.

You have no idea how much I hate it when the author slaps us in the face with like 15 examples of how the hot unattainable bad boy likes the MC and the MC sits there going "OMG he brought me flowers/saved my life/kissed my boo-boo WHAT COULD THIS POSSIBLY MEAN???"

[randi.lee]

For me it means the plot/action isn't moving forward. I recently read something where eight chapters in the author was still setting up the action. I gave up then.

[Shika Senbei]

Originally Posted by bearilou

It's funny how some readers feel like no matter how much Stephen King sells, they think he writes like he is in love with the sound of his own prose.

True. I am not the fan of his work in any case; King's endless descriptions and inclination to pile on the background information of characters tend to give me a headache.

Still, lots of people enjoy his work despite these flaws, which tends to make me think about what makes a work enjoyable.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Shika Senbei

True. I am not the fan of his work in any case; King's endless descriptions and inclination to pile on the background information of characters tend to give me a headache.

Still, lots of people enjoy his work despite these flaws, which tends to make me think about what makes a work enjoyable.

I am a big Stephen King fan. His books range from borderline crappy to brilliant, but yes, they're almost always bloated with unnecessary prose. He does meander and go off on huge, irrelevant tangents.

Why do I like his books anyway? Two reasons: (1) when he is getting to the point, it's epic; (2) even the irrelevant tangents are usually interesting. I do get annoyed sometimes at the fifty page tangents about some secondary character's fucked up childhood, but I read on because it's usually compelling reading despite the fact that you could chop whole chapters out of the book without losing anything from the plot.

[courtneyv]

Originally Posted by brianjanuary

They mean there's no story. The author doesn't have a good understanding of story structure/story architecture, or starts off with pages and pages of description or backstory, and doesn't get the reader immediately involved with what's going to happen in the story. This is why agents and publishers emphasize the importance of a good hook--hopefully on page one--to draw the reader in and keep him/her wanting to read more.

Exactly this!

This is what I mean when I say a writer took forever to get to the point or never got there. It's usually a lack of arc and structure, there's no inciting incident, no story question presented, no hook. And without some kind of story path, a writer just meanders around aimlessly, filling the book with events because they think this is plot, because, well, that's what the story's about. Um, no.

If a book is going to be random and unconventional with structure and style, I need to know upfront because I'm always expecting plot density, and if it's not there, and my expectations are obliterated, it ruins the read for me.

When I'm reading a book and have no clue where it's supposed to be going or what the main focus is, I have a hard time hanging on and it makes me think an author has no clue what they're doing.

[anguswalker]

It's worth pointing out of course that if a reader says they wish a novel would get to the point then that implies, almost by definition, that they have already read enough to care about it getting to the point. The real duds are the ones where you don't actually care if it gets to the point or not because you have absolutely no intention of reading beyond the first page...

[GiantRampagingPencil]

Originally Posted by BethS

It could be low tension or low conflict. Lack of forward momentum. The feeling that the plot is meandering with no particular goal.

Mostly, though, it sound like impatience for the characters to be grappling with the main conflict, instead of getting stuck in thickets of sub-plots, or following wandering rabbit trails.

I think this (Insert metaphor less tired than one involving nails and heads here). Plus, a general sense that the sub-plots or main plot isn't progressing towards a resolution any time in the foreseeable future. A real danger for door-stoppers, I've noticed.

Plus, IMHO every scene should have a function. Revealing character, advancing the plot, or establishing setting and atmosphere. If it doesn't follow this rule, you aren't getting to the point.

[Susan Littlefield]

It's too wordy, which usually involves a lot of purple prose. I just finished a book that was like this.

[cmi0616]

Originally Posted by Little Ming

In my experience, it means they are bored. Which in terms of constructive criticism, unfortunately, could mean anything. Not enough tension, no conflict, slow pacing, confusing plot, MC is bland/boring, your writing style is boring, too much info dumping, purple prose, brown prose, etc.

This exactly. A lot of the times I think it has to do with over-writing a part of the book, which many authors have a habit of doing.

[frimble3]

And, some of 'get to the point' is 'getting to point that the reader signed up for'. If you sold us a mystery, we don't want to read the romance that you decided to switch over to. If you've started out as a big, bloated wander through the woods, don't suddenly make it a stripped-down thriller.
'Drive' is one style of movie, 'Die Hard' is another. You cannot just split them in half and swap ends.
'Get to the point' can mean, "What happened to that story that I started this book with?"

[fireluxlou]

Usually for me it's too much space between the beginning and the main plot. I get bored if theres like 10 or more chapters inbetween that focus on quite trivial things.

[Hilldawg]

When I use the phrase "get to the point," I'm usually referring to interfering background that could be woven into the story in a better, less obtrusive way. I also think tangets and irrelevant narrator comments make the novel stray from the core of the story.

Hillary

[GiantRampagingPencil]

I joke about my WIP that if someone isn't fighting or f*cking, they better be busy cracking a joke, or they'll soon be busy being killed.

[GiantRampagingPencil]

Originally Posted by Bufty

Ever met this person?

"Listen, a fantastic thing happened to me on Tuesday at the supermarket.

I don't usually go to market on Tuesdays, but Peter, that's my friend I usually go with, wasn't feeling well on the Monday. I'm not sure exactly what was wrong with him. He seemed okay the previous Saturday when I saw him last, so it must have been something he'd caught on the Sunday. Mabel said she would keep an eye on him because he was living by himself. He was married once but I can't remember her name because I didn't really see her that often.

Anyways, back to the Tuesday. I knew it was Tuesday because that's when the fishman usually calls with his van. I told my neighbour what I wanted so she could order it for me when he called and found I wasn't there. I normally would have been and he would have waited for a few minutes because I used to tell Findlay that if I am at the back of the house when he rings the bell it will take a while for me to get there.

But it was raining on Monday so I couldn't do the washing which meant I wouldn't be at the back of the house because that's where I usually do the ironing. Findlay catches his own fish and has had his business for..."

GET TO THE ~####~~~~ POINT!!

Have you been talking to my mom on the phone again?

Anyways, as I was saying, I was wearing an onion on my belt, because that was the fashion at the time . . .