SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
What does your inner book critic focus on?
Great idea for a thread!I pounce on inconsistent or bad characterization, unconvincing/illogical world-building, icky and gratuitous sex scenes, MCs who commit casual mass-murder that never gets called out or questioned, plot and POV problems. MCs who are neither likable/kind nor proactively try to achieve things. Misogyny that seems to come from the author is also a major turn-off for me.
What I don't mind very much: minor stylistic issues (apart from using a different descriptor for the same characters in every sentence), lucky coincidences that might stretch disbelief a bit, intricate plans going off exactly as anticipated, characters being sexualized when viewed through the eyes of other characters.
Things I love even though others hate it or find it boring: formal, "stuffy" Victorian-esque style, omniscient narrator telling me things about the characters which do not become apparent in their actions, altruism and kindness, genuine love, fidelity, intricate complexity, labyrinthine plots, huge cast of characters, characters having long philosophical or ethical discussions, intricate in-depth battle strategy being explained, invisible prose style that doesn't constantly distract me from the content with its flowery similes.
redundant descriptions bother me a lot. I started one book once that had the heroine tossing her hair multiple times within the first few chapter (way more often than the braid twiddling in Wheel of Time) and couldn't finish it
Phillip wrote: "For me, story issues annoy more than style issues."I feel the same way! I'll overlook style issues if they're not overwhelming, but if the story or characters or their actions annoy me then I'm much more likely to put the book down.
As for descriptions: For me, it's the excessively detailed descriptions of a character's appearance or clothing. It always leaves me thinking "just get on with the story, please!"
Eva, I agree with a lot of your likes and dislikes! Especially about characters and their actions. I like it when a character is either likeable/good or when they're actively trying to achieve a goal and one thing that really bugs me is when the character does something terrible and is never called out at all or when the book seems to be trying to lead me to sympathize with that character somehow. (And I really wish we had more altruism, kindness, and love that's not romantic - just family members or friends or whatever who genuinely care about each other.)
Things I like:
- Good, continuous character development. MCs must be well fleshed-out and also consistent (I hate Jekyl & Hyde style characters).
- Good, well-thought of and consistent world building. The background environment's should be realistic and consistent (especially in SF novels where the action happens on some other planet or solar system).
- Thoughtful, moral MCs who act according to a given set of values and morals. If a MC happens to be a coward, then make him/her act like a coward but try to show a redeeming quality to that MC. We can't all be fearless heroes or paragons of virtue (be realistic!).
- Realistic/correct description of things/places featured in the story. If you describe a weapon and its actual effects, for example, then do it right and don't serve us B.S. (like one meter-thick steel armor on a tank).
- Realistic villains who may have redeeming qualities (the so-called 'likeable bastards').
Things I don't like:
- Inaccurate description of a thing/place that actually exists. Do your research!
- Misogyny, racism, sexism, bigotry or cruelty displayed by a MC who is supposed to be part of the good guys/girls, especially if it reflects the author's own biases. Then, I will put that author on my black list.
- Gratuitous violence, cruelty or abuse of a person not justified by the type of story being read (don't expect pink-colored scenes in spy novels or historical fiction novels happening in the Middle Ages or Antiquity. Ancient Romans and Assyrians, among many others, were not exactly politically-correct people). I gave up on David Weber's Harrington Series after reading too many mass massacres, genocides and mass destruction meant only to add some cheap thrills to the story.
- If you describe a scene of abuse, cruelty or violence, do it because the context of the story (historical period, place) made such scenes common occurences then and there. Depicting slavery in Roman times or tortures done by the Spanish Inquisition is okay with me, but don't overdo it. Especially, don't appear to encourage such behavior, especially in your MCs. I will intensely dislike a 'hero' who treats women like simple sexual objects, abuse children or display open racism.
- Good, continuous character development. MCs must be well fleshed-out and also consistent (I hate Jekyl & Hyde style characters).
- Good, well-thought of and consistent world building. The background environment's should be realistic and consistent (especially in SF novels where the action happens on some other planet or solar system).
- Thoughtful, moral MCs who act according to a given set of values and morals. If a MC happens to be a coward, then make him/her act like a coward but try to show a redeeming quality to that MC. We can't all be fearless heroes or paragons of virtue (be realistic!).
- Realistic/correct description of things/places featured in the story. If you describe a weapon and its actual effects, for example, then do it right and don't serve us B.S. (like one meter-thick steel armor on a tank).
- Realistic villains who may have redeeming qualities (the so-called 'likeable bastards').
Things I don't like:
- Inaccurate description of a thing/place that actually exists. Do your research!
- Misogyny, racism, sexism, bigotry or cruelty displayed by a MC who is supposed to be part of the good guys/girls, especially if it reflects the author's own biases. Then, I will put that author on my black list.
- Gratuitous violence, cruelty or abuse of a person not justified by the type of story being read (don't expect pink-colored scenes in spy novels or historical fiction novels happening in the Middle Ages or Antiquity. Ancient Romans and Assyrians, among many others, were not exactly politically-correct people). I gave up on David Weber's Harrington Series after reading too many mass massacres, genocides and mass destruction meant only to add some cheap thrills to the story.
- If you describe a scene of abuse, cruelty or violence, do it because the context of the story (historical period, place) made such scenes common occurences then and there. Depicting slavery in Roman times or tortures done by the Spanish Inquisition is okay with me, but don't overdo it. Especially, don't appear to encourage such behavior, especially in your MCs. I will intensely dislike a 'hero' who treats women like simple sexual objects, abuse children or display open racism.
CBRetriever wrote: "redundant descriptions bother me a lot. I started one book once that had the heroine tossing her hair multiple times within the first few chapter (way more often than the braid twiddling in Wheel o..."There is a book with more hair tossing than braid twiddling in WOT???? 😱
Beyond that, I like a story that moves along, and characters I can become invested in. That doesn't mean I don't like long books - as long as the plot moves, I'm happy.
Description that provides context and story points doesn't bother me at all, but description for no other reason than wordiness does. That's usually pretty apparent in the first few paragraphs.
I'm also not fond of mysogny for no reason except that's the way the author's mind apparently works. As a plot point for a characterisation, I can deal with it, as long as there's a story reason.
1st chapterpushed her sweaty mane of curly brown hair back from her brow
tugged her wild hair behind her ear
annoyed at her unmanageable locks
in a mere 13 paragraphs and the next chapter mentions her hat 4 times ....
Oh dear. Hair, hat... it's the letter H, with H nouns in alphabetical order. Am thinking the following chapter might be about 'head.'
I didn't make it any further than that
As others have mentioned, getting practical details wrong really bugs me. It's especially bad when the author uses movies as their 'research' for things like guns & horses. The dubbed in sounds & ridiculous situations might get by in a movie, but not in text where my knowledge & imagination is supplying so much information.
I stop reading for (and highlight in my review):Unoriginality... which may not be fair of me as I've read several thousands of books and so there's a lot "I've seen done before and better" (as I say in many of my reviews).
Misogyny, misanthropy, child abuse, any of the 'isms" and most violence.
In my reviews of books that I finish, I tend to focus on the positive things. Well, yes, because I dnf readily and so a book I finish is probably pretty good.
So, yeah, authentic characters, interesting ideas, originality. Esp. in SF it's about the ideas: the Sense of Wonder and the What If. Story aka plot, eh, whatever, it's just the vehicle that carries the characters and the ideas, so I don't pay much attention to it actually.
A character that acts true to his past. People don't change massively from the past to the present unless a major event pushes them so inconsistencies of that nature really bother me in characters. It is important to see some change/growth in characters but things like the character was a former nun and now swears like a trooper just don't work for me. ...and don't get me started on typos and bad wording in sentences.
I like a good vs evil story - so not sure originality is high on my list and I want things tied up neatly at the end ( I like good to come out on top). An ending is fine with something in the future (an unasnwered question - a further battle) but really dislike cliff hangers where you don't know who lived or died so you are required to read the next book. Since I like things tied up in the end, that also means abrupt endings are bothersome. The author took the time to write the whole book and then it seems like he didn't know how to finish it.
I especially like books where separate but connected groups of characters have their own story going on and yet they are all working toward some common goal and the significance of that part is clear at least by the end of the story.
Mod
My inner book critic examines what it deems to be greatness from many angles and does a poor job in articulating its findings. Which is why its my inner book critic. It doesn't like sharing what it loves.
I'm so gratified to see others here listing moral issues, because those are important to me as well, and I get frustrated when grimdark fans sweep them aside or belittle them. Also, distinguishing the author bias - thank you! The Handmaid's Tale, for example, has rape and violence in it, but it isn't glorified for titillation.Certain such deal-breakers will make me put a book down, but usually I can scan reviews and avoid picking it up in the first place:
- Casual, uncritiqued misogyny and sexist tropes
- Uninformed, inaccurate cultural depictions, especially of Asian cultures - a "coy pond"!?
- Gratuitous torture-violence
Other annoyances:
- Inconsistent character descriptions or motivations - supposedly tough, cynical characters acting naïve and clueless.
- Stupid characters/writing in general (unless it's a purposeful character trait) - acting surprised by something the reader figured out 300 pages ago.
- Spatial inaccuracies - full moons don't rise at midnight
- Incorrect grammar/word usage, when it's not a stylistic dialogue choice
Eva, I think you said much of what I would as well. I don't mind flowery purple prose when done well. Long philosophical conversations? I'm all for it. I find I have a different definition for what constitutes a "slow-pace."
Phillip wrote: "I read dozens of books each year. I feel compelled to leave (sometimes long) reviews on Amazon and Goodreads for all of them. I've noticed I always focus on character actions or dialogue for my cri..."The most important factor in how I evaluate a reading experience is whether the book held my attention.
I find it difficult to identify the reason why some well-written books grab me, while other equally well-written books don't. I could talk all day about engaging characters and theme and plot, but in my case there's a highly subjective element that affects my response.
It's a bit like the friends and relationships you have; you gravitate toward some people, and less so to others. However, your decision does not mean one person or book is "better" than another. It just means you had a deeper connection with some.
Upon re-reading the above, I think I'm trying to justify not having a clue why I enjoy a book. So be it.
Hmm - I think the most important things fir me are mood/atmosphere (which of course requires good world-building and internal consistency) and interesting or news ideas. I’ll forgive a lot if I find the concepts intriguing. What I am finding I dislike a lot are books that seems to be written fir a movie, or ones that are not really SF/Fantasy at heart and are just using some SF idea as a costume (looking at you Dark Matter)
First and foremost, I focus on the characters and if I can somehow connect to them and their actions. It doesn't exactly matter whether it's a bad/evil character, a good character or something in between. But the author has to make me care about them, their actions and about what happens to them in some way. Because if I don't care about the characters I don't care about reading their story, no matter if the book is technically well written.Language is another important factor. It has to fit the setting. If we're in a high fantasy scenario with a medieval setting and all the characters talk like modern day highschool kids, that doesn't work for me.
Pacing is also quite important to me. That being said, I'm ok with slow burn as well as with fast paced action, but there has to be a certain flow. A book that slowly builds up tension or is all about exposition and then hastily concludes within a couple of pages will most certainly leave me disappointed. Same goes for a book that is only action and barely any plot or a book where the slow burn doesn't pay off in the end.
I think I focus on both. And I appreciate what Tony said - sometimes it's hard to figure out why you loved one book, as opposed to another. Sometimes I don't really want to dig down and parse it all out - I just want to enjoy having enjoyed it. But there are definite tastes that I have, like others have shared. There are lots of those for me, and the kind of review I might give is influenced by these. So a lot of my like or dislike is due to whether it fits my tastes. I think we can agree on a lot of the things people have shared here about what they criticise in a book, as far as style or characterisation goes. One thing I dislike, and which I'm finding more and more common, is authors who push a particular political or social view through their characters/story. Making it into a moral issue, rather than a view. Which is what's happening at large, so I see why it's in books. And movies, and TV series. I want to make my own value choices, not have an author of a fictional story tell me what I should be thinking or what is and isn't right - beyond the obvious basics of good versus evil.
Mod
-Repetitive use of phrases or words in close proximity to each other
-Dialogue that doesn't ring true (you have to say it out loud! If it doesn't sound like a conversation you would have in this situation, authors, tweak it!)
-Continuity errors. For example in Aeronaut's Windlass there's a part where a character pushes open a door while having a conversation and at the close of the conversation opens the door.
-Reliance on writing tricks over substance. (Cutting a scene short with a cliffhanger because the author has backed themself into a corner, inserting a sex scene when action starts to flag etc.)
-Characters acting contrary to their best interest/logical progression. If I see "I don't know what made me look, but..." more than once or twice in a book I get cranky.
-Unearned rewards. You gotta bang up the characters a little so that we feel their joy when they get the thing they wanted.
-Infodumps. Sigh.
-Retcons. "Twists" that require the character to have done something off camera that we as reader weren't aware of are lame. Quantum Magician did a really good job with this. Ready Player One did not.
Things that shift my mindset from neutral to unhappy:
-Beating a point in. I don't mind having something stated, but I also don't need someone to jump up and down on the message.
-Casual bigotry. Writing a bigoted character intentionally is one thing. Writing a character who isn't meant to be a bigot but who IS a bigot says a lot about the author IMO and that shatters my suspension of disbelief as well as my desire to support the author.
-Trauma for tension. Doing bad things to people just to show us how bad someone else is or because it's known that this thing will almost guarantee an emotional response from the reader is exploitation and I hate it.
Things I will see and applaud:
-Two people who are not straight white men having a conversation together that moves the plot on and is not about romance.
-Two women in a book who aren't catty to each other.
-Giving me enough context to figure out a twist or appreciate the cleverness of a character's solution.
-Ruthless editing to remove bloat, including at sentence level.
Mod
Mod
...and now the guessing begins.I generally don't (usually) openly criticize what I think is bad writing, i.e. bad grammar, simplistic words, repetitive sentences because I am a terrible writer. I condemn all of that in my head but don't let that particular demon out much.
It's interesting to read what people focus on... I think I'm still evolving towards my final reader form, so this hasn't solidified yet - but the more I enjoy a book, the less I notice the smaller flaws.
Here is a question to all you anglophone readers: are you ready to show some leniency about grammar, syntax or spelling in books written by non-anglophones? This question has been dodging me for years now.
Michel wrote: "Here is a question to all you anglophone readers: are you ready to show some leniency about grammar, syntax or spelling in books written by non-anglophones? This question has been dodging me for years now."It may not be always possible to know whether an author is a native English speaker. Sure, some names (especially from Slavic countries) may be quite obvious, but then... authors can take on pen names just so people don't spend minutes wondering how to read that name. I've taken up a pen name and this was one of the two main reasons. And there are people with names that don't sound English but they're native speakers because they're X-th generation living in English-speaking country. (Note: I thought Paolini was Italian, just by how the name sounds)
But, this issue aside, I'd also be curious about it. I know I am more tolerant in this regard (though this may be in general and not just to non-native English-speakers) but English is my second language as well so I'm not the right person to answer your question.
Mod
My base position on language is that it's intended to help people communicate. If I know what you mean, small flubs don't really faze me. But that said, the book needs to be easy to communicate with. I'd rather someone use more simplistic sentences and work with that then try to be very artistic and mess up. If an author is going to do work in a language that isn't their native language, they should get a lot of editing help, or make the language mirror what they know--for example I'm reading Spirits Abroad right now and it's written a lot in Malay-English, which has its own rules and syntax, so I couldn't judge it by American English standards. But, if the author was using Malay English phrases and trying to write a book that wasn't using characters from that part of the world, it would be a lot harder to read.
yes and no. They should be able to find an editor/friend/translator who's fluent in English to check grammar, syntax and spelling (spell check should get this one). If I can't figure out what they're saying, I'm not going to like the book because it interrupts my readingI worked in a multilingual office and we'd help each other with emails written in other languages. I've helped a friend's daughter with her application letter to a university (she is French and the university was in Canada) and other co-workers with articles they'd written for publication in scientific journals and in turn they helped me compose letters/emails to my company's house maintenance department (I had no idea how to tell them the sliding glass doors wouldn't close/lock and that there was a leak in the basement) and other official documents.
Mod
I'll admit to hating the word 'niggly' even more than the slur it shares four letters with precisely because of that similarity. Hearing it or having to say it in my head whilst reading is always somewhat jarring. There are other words that I dislike reading (I recently bemoaned the use of rascally), but my justifications are less understandable.
As for poor grammar, spelling, syntax, etc: two of my close friends are dyslexic and dyspraxic. If getting hung up on such unimportant things was an issue for us when communicating we'd never get around to doing more than greeting each other. All that matters is that I understand what an author is trying to get across. If you can correct someone else's spelling mistakes then you've understood it well enough to just move on.
Yep, fair points and why I typically don't voice those criticisms :)The problem is, if I notice them, grammar/miss-spellings/etc, then they are egregious.
I guess I'm pedestrian; Is it well enough written to keep me reading? Yes - keep reading. No - stop reading.
Mod
Mod
First of all you are being rascally.
;-D
Second of all, I just had someone pitch me a book whose title they'd misspelled in their bio. Maybe it's an amazing book, but I don't think I'll be reading the Lightening Breaker, especially now that I'm sure midwifery doesn't feature in it.
Melissa wrote: "I'm so gratified to see others here listing moral issues, because those are important to me as well, and I get frustrated when grimdark fans sweep them aside or belittle them. Also, distinguishing ..."Melissa, I love your whole post and am going to start following you.
Allison wrote: "Things my eye will always notice:-Trauma for tension. Doing bad things to people just to show us how bad someone else is or because it's known that this thing will almost guarantee an emotional response from the reader is exploitation and I hate it..."
Trauma for tension should be a catchphrase motto.
Yes, that is indeed exploitive and I agree it's awful.
Thanks, all of you, for answering my question about non-English native writers. As you may judge from my posts, my written English is now quite decent (I think), after years of practice and learning from my mistakes. I had received some pretty harsh criticism from some readers about my written English in the past and I have been anxious to correct and improve it to (hopefully) the point where I could pass on as a native English writer (name aside).
from your post, I wouldn't be able to tell that you are not a native speaker.Even amongst those who speak English from birth, I still see people from the US complaining about UK or Canadian spelling and grammar (and the reverse as well). I've seen posts in the UK help forums from people who want to know how to avoid US published books with their incorrect spelling and grammar. And reviews from US people complaining about all the misspellings in UK published books.
And reviews from US people complaining about all the misspellings in UK published books. I'm an Australian writer, and I once had a message from a US reader, who said that there were multiple spelling mistakes in my work. I had to explain about the extra 'u's, lack of 'z's etc. Sigh...
I figure I can survive US spelling, and even recognise it (note s, rather than z just then), and just get on with the reading.
As far as translation goes, I recently tried to read The Three-Body Problem but found it really flat, and I was wondering if the translation from one language to another was the issue for me. I could appreciate the concepts, but I didn't care about the characters or the story at all.
Mod
Ryan wrote: "I'm curious about the use of 'inner book critic' here and whether anyone has things that they don't openly critique for some reason."Yup, definitely. ^^'
Ryan wrote: "I'm curious about the use of 'inner book critic' here and whether anyone has things that they don't openly critique for some reason."Often. For various reasons. Sometimes you wish to, but it doesn't seem worth a hassle, for what ever reason.
Gabi wrote: "Ryan wrote: "I'm curious about the use of 'inner book critic' here and whether anyone has things that they don't openly critique for some reason."Yup, definitely. ^^'"
Lol, and I'm always so filter-less and critique whatever bothers me. That said, I often check samples and read the first page or so and discard lots of books without comment or review, just because I can already tell from the first page that it'll be a huge NO from me.
Typical page 1 DNFs for me stem from
a) terribly clunky prose (if the author can't even avoid high school writing mistakes in the first paragraph, the rest of the book cannot be good)
b) obvious science or world-building mistakes that convince me that zero research was done, or that the author never thought about what kinds of societal implications and consequences the introduction of a certain SFF element would have had on their world
c) characterization that immediately makes me roll my eyes (e.g. "breasted boobily down the stairs" or rippling six-pack abs stuff often happens on page 1 when a character is introduced).
Do you guys have things that will make you close a book again right away without needing to read more than a page or so?
Hans wrote: "Language is another important factor. It has to fit the setting. If we're in a high fantasy scenario with a medieval setting and all the characters talk like modern day highschool kids, that doesn't work for me."I'm the opposite on this point. I HATE that if a sword or dragon is involved, we MUST have European accents from the Middle Ages. You know, "Because that's how people talked back then." Back when? Back when half-elves and surly dwarves hunted undead ice dragons?
I would love to have a fantasy series played straight with modern accents, or even something from the 19th century. In fact, if anyone knows about a story with gold ol' boys hunting dragons for jerky, please let me know. I did a search for Cooter Hunts a Dragon, but nothing came back. Although, I did find this Voodoo Children - A Bubba the Monster Hunter Short Story
That's an interesting subject and, as much as there are some issues that are common for many people, it's also fascinating to see how different readers value completely different (sometimes opposite) things in books.Leonie, I had the same issue with The Three Body Problem. The ideas were so interesting and original, but I didn't care about any of the characters, and as a result, I wasn't so interested in the book itself and was reading it really slowly.
As for the things that annoy my inner critic:
1) When characters are all really one person with different names who think and behave in the same ways. I think I had this issue with Alastair Reynolds's books. I couldn't figure out why despite being interested in the plot, I still felt some unease about the books. When I started looking into other readers' opinions, I saw them repeat "psychopathic characters" a lot, and it clicked for me. I don't mind a psychopathic character, but when all of them are like that for no reason, that's too much.
2) When characters don't feel anything, for instance, when they are in a dangerous situation or have to deal with something they've never dealt with before, and they just act heroically and bravely like in a Hollywood movie. I like when characters act bravely, but I want to know that they are, in fact, scared and do something despite their fear or unease or uncertainty or whatever they are feeling.
3) Hammering the point in, which Allison has already mentioned. When I was reading Flashback, first a truck driver mentioned that the US economy collapsed because free healthcare was introduced. I thought, fine, that's what that character thinks. Then the author repeated it as a fact, and I realized that was actually the author's idea. I thought, fine, a bit too simplistic for me (I can accept it being one of the reasons, but the only reason?), but whatever. But then it was repeated again, probably several times, by various characters in various contexts and conversations, and no other reason was ever offered. It became really tiring, okay, you are against free healthcare, I don't need to read about it 100 times.
4) Sexism, racism, discrimination, misogyny etc. - all of that was well described by others before me. Just like some of you said, if that's part of the story or some character's views and maybe a way to address those issues, it's fine, but when those are the author's views, it's not.
Re: language appropriate to the Middle Ages: back in the real Middle Ages, people didn't speak in traditional fantasy-speak, they talked like this:Ær þæm þe Romeburg getimbred wære iiii hunde wintrum 7 hundeahtatigum, Uesoges, Egypta cyning, wæs winnende of suðdæle Asiam, oð him se mæsta dæl wearð underþieded. 7 he Uesoges, Egypta cyning, wæs siþþan mid firde farende on Sciþþie on ða norðdælas, 7 his ærendracan beforan asende to þære ðeode, 7 him untweogendlice secgan het þæt hie [oðer] sceolden, oþþe ðæt lond æt him alesan, oþþe he hie wolde mid gefeohte fordon 7 forherigan. Hie him þa gesceadwislice ondwyrdon, 7 cwædon þæt hit gemalic wære 7 unryhtlic þæt swa oferwlenced cyning sceolde winnan on swa earm folc swa hie wæron. Heton him þeh þæt ondwyrde secgan, þæt him leofre wære wið hiene to feohtanne þonne gafol to gieldanne. Hie þæt gelæstan swa, 7 sona þone cyning gefliemdon mid his folce, 7 him æfterfolgiende wæron, 7 ealle ægypte awestan buton þæm fenlondum anum. 7 þa hie hamweard wendon be westan þære ie Eufrate, ealle Asiam hie genieddon þæt hie him gafol guldon, 7 þær wæron fiftene gear þæt lond herigende 7 westende, oð heora wif him sendon ærendracan æfter, 7 him sædon þæt hie oðer dyden, oðþe ham comen oððe hie him woldon oðerra wera ceosan. Hi þa þæt lond forleton, 7 him hamweard ferdon.
Some simple sample phrases pronounced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eroN3...
(I studied English at uni, and in Germany, this also involves learning to speak Old and Middle English, so whenever I hear someone complain about some word that seemed "too modern" to them for the Medieval context of a story, I'm so amused. I keep wanting to say "99.9% of the words in this novel are too modern for the Middle Ages, but you randomly complain about this one?"
But of course, language can create a certain mood, and if you don't know much about older forms of English than even slightly old-fashioned (1940s/50s) English can create a certain "this is in the past" atmosphere that helps with immersion. I myself don't have a particular preference.
Eva wrote: "Do you guys have things that will make you close a book again right away without needing to read more than a page or so?.."
Yes! If the male MC obviously treats women solely as sexual objects, or starts preaching rigid religious views or proves to be a racist, all things that probably would be reflections of the author's mindset. That will result in me blacklisting that author right away.
Yes! If the male MC obviously treats women solely as sexual objects, or starts preaching rigid religious views or proves to be a racist, all things that probably would be reflections of the author's mindset. That will result in me blacklisting that author right away.
One of my big ones is language misuse, or when an author uses a word that doesn't mean what they think it means. It stops me in my tracks because the sentence doesn't make sense, and it breaks the flow of reading. I can see what they WANT the word to mean, because I am adept at figuring out word definitions from context, but I also know what the word actually means and the two aren't matching up. The annoying thing, most of the time I notice this, it is from native English speakers and the words aren't super complicated, big vocab words. It's not an automatic deal breaker-I stop reading RIGHT THERE-for me, but it can be.
Melani wrote: "One of my big ones is language misuse, or when an author uses a word that doesn't mean what they think it means. It stops me in my tracks because the sentence doesn't make sense, and it breaks the ..."
That you see it mostly from native English speakers surprises me, Melani. I would have thought that non-English speakers would be more at fault in this. How common or frequent is that?
That you see it mostly from native English speakers surprises me, Melani. I would have thought that non-English speakers would be more at fault in this. How common or frequent is that?
Michel wrote: "That you see it mostly from native English speakers surprises me, Melani. I would have thought that non-English speakers would be more at fault in this. How common or frequent is that? ..."I can't speak for Melani, but I have the impression that it is most often those who acquired English in childhood who are at fault: apparently they don't bother to check the meaning of a word, perhaps because they are sure they already know it. Some people definitely don't know how to use a spell-checker, and either ignore it, or substitute anything it suggests, which very well may be wrong.
Those who learned English in school, or in any formal setting, may be more cautious. What I do find from them time to time are unusually formal, and sometimes convoluted, ways of expressing something for which there is an established idiom. Sometimes I suspect that the problem is overly literal translation from another language, but in many cases the problem more likely may be that the English idiom sounded too informal. But I see British writers avoiding (real or supposed) "Americanisms" for the same reason.
There are also occasions when terms I think of as unnecessary jargon are carried over from English-language writings on the subject, but I can't call that a mistake.
Eva wrote: "Do you guys have things that will make you close a book again right away without needing to read more than a page or so?"High school style mistakes did it for me once. It was Metro 2033, such a popular book, and I was excited to read it. I was reading it in Russian (the language it was written in), and I couldn't get past the first few pages because of how the sentences were built. Children learn those things at school, basic grammar and sentence building. And it wasn't just one mistake, which can happen to anyone. No, this was the author's style, and I couldn't understand how it wasn't corrected. But I've only encountered something like that once.
it's very common amongst Americans to confuse the use of the followingthey're and their
your and you're
its and it's
I read an entire book where spellcheck had replaced either they're with their or the reverse. And this was from a major publisher. Took me out of the story every time I hit it
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Metro 2033 (other topics)Flashback (other topics)
Voodoo Children (other topics)
The Three-Body Problem (other topics)
Spirits Abroad (other topics)
For me, story issues annoy more than style issues. I will always groan more from someone going from zero to hero over a two-week montage than because characters constantly sigh every time they speak.
Where do you sit on this? Do you focus more on story issues, style, or are you good at a healthy mix of the two in your reviews. Even if you don't actually write a review, do you find yourself thinking about one area more than the other?