What's the Name of That Book??? discussion
Just to chat
>
Love Triangles: Things I hate that are in books.
date
newest »
newest »
Michele wrote: "Also that thing where one person has something important or intriguing to tell the other person, but the author keeps making them get interrupted by things that in real life you would NEVER allow to interrupt."Yes! I hate that, every time I just want to say, "just bloody tell them already"
Jenna wrote: "Lobstergirl wrote: Mystery or police procedural series where the male detective (unmarried) falls into bed with a different skank each book...So agree. The romance/mystery genre can get on my ner..."
If you want a story with a heroine that's a cop that doesn't have any of the cliches you mentioned and with the heroine happily married (by the third book in the series. But it is an amazing series so worth every book) then the Eve Dallas series is one to read. The love interest is definitely not a cop *wink* *wink*. Okay, the reason I'm winking is that he's actually done some stuff considered on the other side of the law, so the pairing can be comedic at times and he is certainly not a character pushed off to the side. Also, this particular love interest is my favourite ever, so read it. Definitely.
Oh, and another thing: when the main character jumps wildly to conclusions, and acts completely on their wrong assumption, when it's obvious to the reader that they are barking up the wrong tree.This really bothered me recently in Dark Rooms. There are so many times when the main character goes "Oh! This must mean X did Y" and it's so obvious she is wrong about everything. Another big offender with this is The Little Friend
One of those things I really hate that are in books are the picture perfect heroines who are oh so beautiful and everyone knows they are beautiful but the heroine doesn't and oh its so sad and all eyes are always on them and they get all this attention and instalove with the hottest guy in the entire book and justbleh.
Save instalove for roleplays please, not for novels. If I want romance in a book, I want a build up, I want courting and dates and giving little gifts and stuff, make it believable ya know?
And then I'm not a fan of love triangles either. You can almost always tell who is going to be picked in the book, and 99% of the time the other love interest either drops off the face of the earth in the book or someone else random suddenly becomes interesting enough to get their attention and BAM suddenly the world is a happy place. Like seriously? If I ask for a love triangle I want secret pining and no one actually knows how the others feel. At least that would make it more interesting and make you wonder how everything will turn out -.-
Aha I had some fun reading this thread.I think I can cope (but still avoid mostly) YA love triangles cause I don't really believe a lot of teenagers understand the concept of love so I don't really see it as serious as an adult love triangle which is just a major turn in books for me.
My pet hate is too many rhetorical questions and infidelity.
I didn't even realise the questions done my head in until recently when I started getting really really annoyed when each chapter ended with a mini-cliffhanger question. SERIOUSLY.
I have also been known to stop reading books abruptly even when I have been enjoying them if a character cheats of their significant other - I'm not willing to forgive and let them get back together happily. Nope.
(on a less rant note i know that first person narrative for the most part does my head in and i will NEVER read a book that hasn't got a linear timeline ever again after A Visit from the Goon Squad)
Kikki. One of those things I really hate that are in books are the picture perfect heroines who are oh so beautiful and everyone knows they are beautiful but the heroine doesn't and oh its so sad and all eyes are always on them and they get all this attention and instalove with the hottest guy in the entire book and just bleh.... "YES. And how in practically every book there is an obnoxious waitress flirting (because he's so hot everyone flirts) with the guy (who doesn't notice because he's so down to earth). How every girl in every room he enters notices him because we're all.... what? Shallow? I see hot guys all the time but I don't want them! And generally people don't hit on someone when they're obviously WITH someone at the time i.e a restaurant. Sssheeesh!
And I hate how the Heroines always get to eat whatever the hell they want without exercising a day in their lives. And the guys are always "oh that's so awesome, I hate when chicks only eat Salad, I like a girl not afraid of food."
Well guess what dufus!! She's not afraid of food because she's one of those few that are genetically able to eat whatever the hell they want without any immediate consequences until they're older and suddenly die of a heart attack or something.
I'd rather a health wise character. And someone you could bounce a quarter off their ass when they don't exercise is too unrealistic.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Kikki. One of those things I really hate that are in books are the picture perfect heroines who are oh so beautiful and everyone knows they are beautiful but the heroine doesn't and oh its so sad a..."I wholeheartedly agree with allof what you just said!
Mrsbooks wrote: "And I hate how the Heroines always get to eat whatever the hell they want without exercising a day in their lives. And the guys are always "oh that's so awesome, I hate when chicks only eat Salad, I like a girl not afraid of food.""Most of the women I know are like that... Though I'm not sure how many of them exercises and how much but they don't worry about their eating, either.
Tytti wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "And I hate how the Heroines always get to eat whatever the hell they want without exercising a day in their lives. And the guys are always "oh that's so awesome, I hate when chicks..."Most I know are like that as well. But.... well, they look it.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Most I know are like that as well. But.... well, they look it. "Well, mine don't.
Tytti wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Most I know are like that as well. But.... well, they look it. "Well, mine don't."
That's really interesting actually.
While there are obviously some people (women) who can eat anything they want (I know and have known a few myself and I once was one), I find them usually to be in their teens or early twenties although not exclusively. And I find it often changes as they get older (often at some point in their twenties).
I find it so over done, reading these characters who have gotten the luck of the draw. I'd prefer reading about a character who works at life, to be healthy and in shape. Especially when it comes to that rock hard body. You can't get that without the proper health plan. Living off of pizza and doughnuts and never exercising is unrealistic.
If you have proper eating habits, you can generally eat what you want, because most people know how to control their eating and don't even want to eat too much or unhealthy foods every day. It doesn't mean eating just a salad. Then again, I don't remember this coming up in any of the books I have read...
Tytti wrote: "If you have proper eating habits, you can generally eat what you want That's the opposite of what I'm talking about. I eat what I want as well but I want to eat healthy.
I find usually the women in novels don't have proper eating habits and they can eat whatever they want with out health problems or weight gain. They aren't eating healthy at any given time. They're usually grabbing a doughnut because they're always on the run, skipping breakfast altogether, eating a pizza for supper, etc. All the while being praised for having a rock hard body and not having any sort of exercise program. = It just doesn't make any sense.
I'm guessing we don't usually read the same novels if you don't come across this lol. I'm so tired of reading it.
No, rock hard bodies are not really common in my books, at least I don't remember them being mentioned. And if they are eating there's probably something else happening, too. If there is much talk about the food, it usually means that there's not enough of it and the people are hungry (a book about a war or forced labour camp or something).And what comes to the people I know, I think most eat good, basic food, and it's enough that they don't eat treats or fast food that often.
I read a lot of historical fiction and this is a subject that is hard to deal with for authors of the above. Times, and ideals, have changed a lot since the middle ages. Back then a 'Rubenesque' type figure was the cultural ideal - Large breasts, large bums, thick thighs, soft pudge on the tummies. If you were thin it usually meant you were poor. One of the other things not usually mentioned- or at least not mentioned as part of the main heroine's looks- are the bathroom habits of those at court (Versailles in particular❩, the unshaved legs and underarms of all the females and the atrociously bad, blackened teeth of everyone. Courtiers usually had worse teeth than the poor as they were not often exposed to greens (meat, meat, meat at every meal❩ and were the only ones that could afford refined sugar. Historical fiction authors still have to make their heroines and heroes attractive to readers of todays age and times. So they don't mention their bathroom habits, their lack of hygiene, the odours of humanity so bad that people carried around pomades, or scented sacs of dried flowers and herbs, to shove in their faces while walking through masses of people. In the end it just doesn't matter to the narrative. When I see a perfectly turned out heroine in a modern novel I do have a moment of 'whatever....' but if their shape or figure doesn't matter much to the story in general I don't really worry about it. Do you really want to read about the hero you're lusting after smelling like a gym shoe, drinking some coffee in the morning and then taking his morning shi*&? We read fiction to escape from reality so we have to take the good parts of that along with the bad. :D
Mod
When these things do appear in novels I often appreciate it, because I'm learning something. E.g. a novel from the 90s, set in the 30s, where a large extended family (maybe 12-15 people) is gathered in a big house, which only has two bathrooms. So all the children, who are staying in the upstairs rooms, are given chamber pots. I wouldn't have guessed that chamber pots were still in use in the 30s, but it does make sense - small kids, maybe they can't make it downstairs to the bathroom in time, maybe both bathrooms are occupied.
Well, I have spent time in houses/cottages where there have been no running water or bathrooms, so there is nothing new to me about that. But then again I guess I could feel a bit proud to know that most of my ancestors have bathed at least once a week (Saturdays), and probably more often during the summer if they had been working hard...But it's funny, or annoying, to read about things that you know better than the author. Like winter, and how it actually changes things. Like there are no fresh vegetables during the winter.
Lobstergirl wrote: "Not everyone necessarily reads fiction to escape from reality. (Or, one reader may read different novels for very different reasons.) I actually really like it when a historical novel portrays the ..."I totally agree with this. I love learning how things really were when reading historical fiction.
However to a degree I also agree with what Kimber said. I think there just needs to be a balance of both. But to find newly written historically accurate fiction is a bit difficult to find. Especially when you throw in a romantic storyline which is a must for me :)
Right now, I want everything I read to be accurate. But if everything I read was always accurate, I'd be wanting a break from the sweaty smelly gasy people and want something a little less real lol.
When someone is writing about their own time it's difficult to get quite all the details because they won't mention what is taken for granted. If in a modern novel a character takes a bus to somewhere, we won't get told that she bought a ticket, that's obvious to us and to the author. These details come in only if some special situation develops, e.g. she lost her purse on the way to the station and had nothing to buy a ticket with, etc.While I agree that there's no way Jane Austen would ever say a word about Elizabeth's menstruation, she does mention her dirty petticoat when it actually got dirty.
And just for something on-topic:I hate it when, as the only way to establish that the protagonist is clever, the author makes everyone else around so bloody dumb that they cannot see what's before their eyes.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I love learning how things really were when reading historical fiction."But how can you be sure it's accurate? One of the ways I amuse myself is that I find errors in historical fiction and there have been some big ones. So big that the facts would make the story impossible and unbelievable. But the readers don't seem to notice those things and they won't get mentioned in reviews. Often there is even a mention of a well done research, which of course makes me roll my eyes because googling would have been enough.
I've an academic background in History so I tend to avoid any fiction that people say 'helped them' learn that history period...
Carissa wrote: "should say "No. I've got better things to do than eat dinner with a guy and his ego. I'd feel like a third wheel" then storm out. Okay, it doesn't have to be that dramatic, but along the lines of "no"."Hahaha no they should always be that dramatic when they have a line as good as that one!
Tytti wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "I love learning how things really were when reading historical fiction."But how can you be sure it's accurate? One of the ways I amuse myself is that I find errors in historical ..."
Well if the historical fiction was written in it's own time Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, etc then the everyday life depicted is generally accurate.
Modern historically accurate novels as I already mentioned are really hard to come by. Some authors are known for trying to be historically accurate as possible. I've even come by letters in the backs of some books written by the author explaining what wasn't accurate because they had to tweak something to fit their plot.
Of course this still doesn't mean every single thing written was accurate. Those with the goal of making this happen can still make mistakes.
Elise wrote: "Carissa wrote: "should say "No. I've got better things to do than eat dinner with a guy and his ego. I'd feel like a third wheel" then storm out. Okay, it doesn't have to be that dramatic, but alon..."well shucks ;)
Mrsbooks wrote: "Well if the historical fiction was written in it's own time Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, etc then the everyday life depicted is generally accurate."I've understood that it's not usually considered historical fiction if the author was writing about their own time, no matter how old it is.
But personally I have also noticed that some books might have those letters but they still fail to address the errors. And I think not knowing where a border is or forgetting a war are pretty big "mistakes". If one had done any research, they probaby would have noticed them.
Tytti wrote:I've understood that it's not usually considered historical fiction if the author was writing about their own time, no matter how old it is. "If it's historical and it's fiction, then by my definition it would be considered historical fiction, add accurate in there if it's also accurate. But I think it's not usually considered "historical fiction" because it's a give in. Too obvious to even mention.
If those letters fail to address the errors than they're not the letters I was speaking about. "I've even come by letters in the backs of some books written by the author explaining what wasn't accurate because they had to tweak something to fit their plot."
I would as well, feel forgetting a war or where a border was located was not accurate either.
Well, most of the definitions mention that it should be set 25 or 50 years before the time it was written. I don't really care but that is usually what most people mean by it.Yes, but I mean that there seem to be books that do tell what they have tweaked but still don't mention all the errors. And if the reader doesn't know the history, they will continue to think that that part of the book "information" is correct. So no, it isn't accurate but the reader wouldn't know it. Is it ignorance or just indifference, I don't know.
SOME MILD SPOILERSLet me fist say this: I also hate love triangles. But, I have one exception: The School for Good and Evil series, by Soman Chainani. The heroines Sophie and Agatha are strong, yes, heroine*s*, which means it's one guy, Tedros, they each like, and he likes both of them. He's just not sure how he feels. I don't want to spoil anything too much, but in the end, two end up together (is it Sophie and Agatha, best friends? Or Agatha and Tedros, true loves? Or Sophie and Tedros, who just may be the perfect and powerful pairing?) and the other, believe it or not, is happy on his/her own.
BUT OH MY GOSH I ALSO HATE LOVE TRIANGLES
Tytti wrote: "Well, most of the definitions mention that it should be set 25 or 50 years before the time it was written. I don't really care but that is usually what most people mean by it.Yes, but I mean that..."
Eventually you may find an accurate one across your reading travels.
I just recently read a novel that had some history trivia in the back from the author about some of the things they wrote about in more detail. The novel wasn't historically accurate though, so I know what you're talking about. The author never said that it wasn't or that it was. I thought it was so obvious it wasn't, that it didn't need stating. But there are probably people out there who might assume everything was accurate.
Lobstergirl wrote: "Mystery or police procedural series where the male detective (unmarried) falls into bed with a different skank each book. Or if it's not a skank, it's his emasculating female supervisor, or the pri..."I'd really recommend The Big Over Easy and the rest of this series. Jasper Fforde pokes fun at all those detective tropes with a protagonist who is happily married with 5 kids.
Also my big historical fiction pet peeve (mostly in YA) is the oh so modern lady who wants to learn science or whatever and actually ends up succeeding and gaining her family's approval. I mean, I get the desire to appeal to modern populations, but it's ridiculous especially when most of these characters would have little formal education, at least in a contemporary sense.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Eventually you may find an accurate one across your reading travels."I may but if I hadn't studied the era beforehand, I wouldn't know it. And if I can tell it's accurate, then I couldn't have learned it from the book. (Though I guess it's possible to read a review by a historian stating it's accurate.)
Because I usually already know the basic history of the time the novel depicts, I care more about whether it feels correct or not, and are the dialogue and the actions of the characters believable. Sometimes some real names get mentioned and I may try to find out more about them but that's about it. But when I read about churches being lit-up during a war or Germans bombing the Baltic Sea in 1942 (why would they do that?), I just can't help but wonder what the author was thinking.
Oh a different note my newest pet peeve is I've read about three books in a row where Heroine is in love with Hero who is deemed ineligible for whatever reason; in two of them she is also pregnant--in one I think maybe family just wanted to get Heroine away from the guy ASAP--and the guy the Heroine's family finds to marry Heroine have all turned out to be abusive, nasty jerks. So then Heroine pines for hero. Personally, I think it would be more of an interesting conflict if the guy the family finds for her turns out to be nice (just not the love of her life)--that would add more real conflict...with abusive guy, all you do is root for Hero to come back and rescue her....
The HERO TYPE: Will rescue everyone, especially the girl, probably the villain as well--can't help it. Will let the villain live because can't kill. Chooses to save a single person rather than stop the villain for good. Angst. Angst. No parents. Can dish it, but can't take it (did you ever notice that?).
The innocent girl in school or some other place and mysterious- usually supernatural- dude shows up. he's mean and ignores her, but she anyways falls in love with him for unknown reasons and acts like an idiot in front of him. she knows should stay away, but doesn't. something huge happens. she discovers the truth- maybe she's centuries old or something- and then the book ends. HATE THIS!!!
1) I'm with everyone else on the love triangles. I could probably read just books without any form of romance and be just fine. it's gotten to the point where if I'm looking at a book and it mentions something like "The mysterious stranger Gaberiel. He infuriates samantha, but there's just something about him... The thing is can she trust him?" I put it down. Nope. What's even more annoying is when there are actually good books with minimal romance and the author makes it sound like it's a romance. 2) I strongly dislike it when personality traits are overemphasized. To the point where it's everyone other page or two the personality trait is brought up. I get it. Dean likes shit to be clean and in order. It isn't a necessary to mention how anal he is about marks on the floor.
3) When the protagonist is the special person who was destined to fix the world. If executed right its not too bad, but I feel like 90% of books these days are the viewpoints from one super special person that doesn't know they are super special.
4) They try to make leaps of logic that make no sense or blatantly stretch and distort the facts. The best example I can think of is The Babylon Rite by Tom Knox. He made a huge scence about these fish that swim up a person's penis in the water and will eat the person. Then there is no way to get it out except for amputation. No. I looked it up and there wasn't even confirmed cases that it happened and the few instances where fish got in the urethra it was easy to remove, no amputation requried.
I hate it that "EVERY" book with a friendship between a boy and a girl end with them in love. They never stay friends all through the book.
It sends a stupid message that boy and girls cant be friends which is so stupid.
Another thing hate it when the line..I never found out what he\she was going to say.. and then a few chapters later\in the next book\late in the book it is reavealed what the person wanted to say.
also ditto on insta love and love triangles,love triangles CAN be done great but its rare.
It sends a stupid message that boy and girls cant be friends which is so stupid.
Another thing hate it when the line..I never found out what he\she was going to say.. and then a few chapters later\in the next book\late in the book it is reavealed what the person wanted to say.
also ditto on insta love and love triangles,love triangles CAN be done great but its rare.
I find numerous times in novels and also in movies we get let down when the books plot comes to a head. I'm trying to explain this right.... When the pivotal scene explodes and all is finally revealed to the main characters, I often find that we don't get to experience that. Rather we get a run down of what happened afterwards. As an example: The main character finally tells parents he/she had been sexually abused as a child. We aren't there to witness the conversation, we only get told tidbits later. We're told mom cried, dad cursed, someone vomited, some snippets here or there of remembered conversation.
I find this annoying. When there is a huge build up, like in that example, the whole plot could be revolving around the main character coming to terms with having been abused and their fear of letting their family know. And then we miss the shit hitting the fan, so to speak.
Long political or philosophical screeds. Anything by Tom Robbins, for example. Funny thing is, I love his stories, his characters, and most of all, his wordsmithing. But when he gets to the pseudo philosophy, I skip over it. And since that's usually about 1/4 of the book, I can't truly say I've read any of his books! And then there's 1984 (assigned in school) and Native Son (also assigned, but I might have read it on my own). Compelling stories, but in 1984, suddenly Winston's reading this manifesto, which goes on for pages and pages, and I gave up. Native Son was breaking my heart, and then Bigger is on trial, and we have to get his attorney's defense of him, word for word, also for pages and pages. And I gave up on that and just skipped to the end to see what the verdict was. Swear, if I taught English, I would tell the students not to bother with those sections. At least that blather wasn't on the tests. :)
When the main couple don't feel sex is sex if It doesn't include a penis penetrating a vagina. Oral sex, hand sex, etc, it's all sex! You're having a sexual relationship with someone if you're doing these things. I get irritated when a character will talk about how they don't want to have sex because they want to take things slow but yet will have other forms of sex. That's not taking things slow.
I don't mind love triangles, but I don't think they're done right. I think a person can in fact feel unsure about who they like the most if there are two people who have completely different qualities to offer. However a "good" love triangle should be written so that you actually have no clue who the main character will end up with. Maybe they'll end up choosing none of them!Or totally surprise the reader with a third option who was there all along but wasn't considered an option until it all makes sense in the end (because the writer dropped a few disguised hints here and there).
I don't know. Maybe this has all already been done.
I don't read enough stories with love triangles to be an expert on the subject.
What's the Name of That Book???
Books mentioned in this topic
The Big Over Easy (other topics)A Visit from the Goon Squad (other topics)
Dark Rooms (other topics)
The Little Friend (other topics)
Naked in Death (other topics)
More...
So agree. The romance/mystery genre can get on my nervers sometimes. Or even if it's not a romance, a more of a "pure" mystery, it seems like if its'a female detective, she's a) just getting off another bad relationship, b) has an on again/off again relationship with another detective, and somehow their job continues to come between them, c) continuously falls for suspect or the person who winds up being the secret sadistic serial killer. And if it's a male detective, he either a) has many different love interests, b) falls in love with the primarily suspect or main victim, c) is recently divorced/wife left him for another man and is now bitter and cynical...
Out of curiosity, I am about ready to start request for "happily committed/married" detectives/police officers whose significant other is NOT also a detective/lawyer/forensic scientist, etc. (But also not non-existent, just exsiting to "come home to at night.") Rina Lazarus/Peter Decker *might* fit the bill...(although yes, he did meet her on a case...)