The Next Best Book Club discussion

Hey all!
We all have them, the peeves of reading! For me, instant love! I look forward to the character building before their madly in love with each other.
Likes is a book, I love when the book has strong kicks bum lead!

What's your dislikes/peeves in a book? And likes?

I'd have to say that I don't like a sad ending. Life is hard enough and I like to read to escape from it for a short while. I want a happy ending. Death and destruction might be a part of real life but I want to be happy while I read. I hate enjoying a book to the end of the road and then see the car run over a cliff and explode.

Me too Debbie.

I absolutely will not read any book no matter how well reviewed that has an animal die at the end. I even check the last chapter of books about animals to be sure.

I just can't deal with it.

I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate happily ever after books. Well......sort of.

I'm not talking about happy endings in general, a lot of books pull them off quite well. I'm talking about authors who have a sort of gritty book but pull back at the last minute. Like they don't have the balls to actually deliver the final punch. I gave the Harry Potter ending a pass because I just assumed all the characters were all in therapy regardless. But that's where my tolerance of the "happily ever after without consequences" kind of ends.


I also hate a lot of the simplified translations of various Fairy Tales. Like the sanitized versions of Hans Christian Andersen stories, for example. Just takes away all the poignancy and bite for me.

I've read spoilers in some books that have main characters die off, I don't read them!

I also love books with sad endings. I don't know why, and I don't think I will ever find out, but my favorite types of books are the ones that end with the main character dying or something of that nature. I also agree that an exception of this was Harry Potter, as J.K. Rowling pulled off the "Happy-Ending" quite well. Percy Jackson and the Olympians, however, was terrible. (The ending.) Pretty much no one major died, and everyone lived happily-ever-after. Riordan then in The Blood of Olympus steps up big time by actually putting drama into the storyline of the last book. Some people died and I actually felt sad, which is a change from some of his other books. Where the Red Fern Grows was an exceptional book, and a lot of that has to do with the ending. So, all in all, if you hand me two books one has a sad ending and one has a happy ending, I would choose the book with the sad ending.

My pet peeve regarding books is one that I've only noticed the past few years or so, but I tend to get annoyed with the excessive use of thesaurus-looked up adjectives, especially when used in first-person narratives in which the dialogue doesn't match the age or personality of the character. It feels like the author gets in the way of the story....if that makes sense.

I also don't like typical happy endings, especially if they end in weddings.

Somerandom wrote: "I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate happily ever after books. Well......sort of.

I'm not talking about happy endings in general, a lot of books pull them off quite well. I'm talking about authors who have a sort of gritty book but pull back at the last minute. Like they don't have the balls to actually deliver the final punch. I gave the Harry Potter ending a pass because I just assumed all the characters were all in therapy regardless. But that's where my tolerance of the "happily ever after without consequences" kind of ends.

I also hate a lot of the simplified translations of various Fairy Tales. Like the sanitized versions of Hans Christian Andersen stories, for example. Just takes away all the poignancy and bite for me."

And thanks to Disney, the two full-length H.C.A. fairy tale adaptations we have are castrated ones. (The Little Mermaid & The Ice Queen)

David wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate happily ever after books. Well......sort of.

I'm not talking about happy endings in general, a lot of books pull them off quite well...."

Well actually The Ice Queen/Snow Queen and the Little Mermaid have at least several different full length adaptations. As do many HCA, Grimm and even Perrault Fairy Tales.

And if you'll indulge me, I might speak as the "devils advocate" in defense of Disney for a minute or two. Over the years Disney has done more HCA then just TLM and TIQ. For example, The Emperor's New Groove, which I happen to like, is a very loose adaptation of HCA's Emperor's New Clothes.
Another one is the Disney/Pixar animated short, The Little Match Girl (2006.) A very accurate and beautiful adaptation, entirely without dialogue. If you like HCA or animation, I actually highly recommend watching it. It's on YouTube somewhere.

They also adapted The Steadfast Tin Soldier, in a Fantasia 2000 short, a segment I have mixed feelings about. Mostly because I am torn between admiring how they used the visual medium to their advantage, the animation and my loyalty to the very first bittersweet ending I ever read/watched.

All that being said, I am actually rather forgiving of Disney adaptations. I mean, Disney has a very strong identity and with that comes certain expectations. You don't watch Disney's take on Hunchback of Notre Dame and expect a full scale attack on Church corruption or to watch the two main leads die. You watch it for good songs, good animation and how Disney can adopt it into it's identity. In other words, you can't expect accuracy to the source material when watching a Disney movie. It's almost always it's own little thing, which is actually what an adaptation should do. Stand on it's own two feet. That's what most of the Disney Canon does, quite well, in fact.

Personally, as an absolutely huge HCA fan, I actually quite enjoyed Frozen as it's own Disney movie. I don't think it's the best animated Disney movie since the Lion King, nor do I get the overwhelming popularity it's gotten. However, I thought it was a rather cute story, with some great animation segments and I quite liked how the sibling/family love was one of the main focus points. Something found in the original story. Would I have liked a more accurate and thought provoking adaptation? Of course. There's one made by BBC in the mid to late 2000's, I think. Which was somewhat closer to the original story (minus the climax) and was rather haunting and ethereal. Which, imo, fit the story rather well.
But I also understand that that won't match my expectations of a Disney film. And so I always view Disney films as not only an adaptation, but as it's own separate little medium.

My thoughts on Disney's Little Mermaid are again, rather mixed. Mostly because I have never seen the full movie all the way through. The animation is rather nice, the songs are catchy and the characters are fun (from what I saw.) I just was never interested in the actual movie, even as a kid. Though I did strangely like the midquel TV series, go figure.

Disney has always been good at making a story their own. Sure they will never win over purists or those intensely loyal to the stories they've adapted over the years. But they have made a significant impact on how these stories are told, for better or worse. Plus, they have pretty much been a staple of childhood for at least 7 generations. I mean, that alone is rather impressive.

Maybe it's the nostalgia, like several generations before me, I grew up on most of the Disney overall canon (as well as early Dreamworks, Pixar and of course a healthy dose of Looney Tunes/Warner Bros.)
But I often find myself liking Disney movies, in spite of my loyalty to the original stories.

I know that somewhat contradicts my earlier statement towards sanitized Fairy Tales. But like I said, Disney is basically it's own little world. You have to take into account it's identity and expectations one has of a Disney film before you rail against it's inaccuracies. It's like watching a Tim Burton movie and complaining about it's darkness. You kind of knew what you were stepping into to begin with. Reputation and whatnot.
When directly translating a Fairy Tale in text (which is actually what I meant, sorry for my inarticulate-ness) you're not necessarily making it your own. You're translating another author's work, including their style and techniques, directly for an English speaking audience. I can understand the simplified translations from a marketing perspective.
But sometimes the translations contradict themselves. For example, in many of the more "preachy" HCA tales, there's great pains to remove the Christian subtext. Which would be one thing, inclusiveness of a broader market and so forth. But in tales like TLM it actually ends with her in heaven. So it's like hey translators! Make up your mind! Do you want to suck out all the religious symbolism, imagery and subtext? Or do you want a religious theme?
-_-

Anyway, say what you like about Disney, but they are quite memorable when they want to be. I mean, I can barely remember my 12 times tables, but I'll be damned if I can't recite verbatim at least several Disney songs from my childhood. (Like Be Prepared, Tale as old as Time, One Jump Ahead of the Line, Hellfire, Poor Unfortunate Souls, Why Should I Worry? I'll Make a Man Out Of You and Son of Man to name but a few. Lol can you tell I grew up in the "Renaissance" Disney Era?)

Sorry for the essay. =)

MissJessie wrote: "Me too Debbie.

I absolutely will not read any book no matter how well reviewed that has an animal die at the end. I even check the last chapter of books about animals to be sure.

I just can't dea..."
Great minds think alike Miss Jessie..lol I have to admit that I've enjoyed a few books with sad endings though, of course I didn't know they had sad endings when I started reading them. If I'm hooked on the story I'll deal but I always feel a little disappointed when a beloved character dies. Correction, I feel a lot disappointed. I don't like being sad and those endings leave me that way for quite a while because I get so invested in the lives of the characters. I don't want to grieve for them.:)

I thought of one more thing that kind of gets to me in books. I don't like it when a writer puts and said just before dialogue. (He handed the book to me and said.) It's not something that I can't abide by but it is definitely a distraction to me. There's no real reason for the and said part. He handed the book to me. "Is this the one?" Is less distracting.

Somerandom wrote: Sorry for the essay. =)

I like your essay : ) I love Disney and the stories they adapted. I've only read a few fairytales. I wasn't a big fan. If I was, maybe I'd be intolerant of Disney. I think you're right though. When you go into watching a Disney film, you have to know what to expect.

As for my pet peeves: Too much character description. I don't need to know everybody's eye color. Dialogue without the use of quotation marks. It gets too confusing for me; though I've read a few books like this that I did enjoy.

I also don't like books with long chapters, or not enough breaks in long chapters. I think this is because I once read writing advice that says don't give the readers breaks. You don't want to give them the opportunity to put your book down. So when I see writers doing that, I feel they're being manipulative...even if that wasn't their intention.

As for happy endings...I guess I prefer books that are like real life. Some good happens and some bad. Nothing ever ends up being perfect. But at the same time, I don't want to read a book with a completely depressing and hopeless ending.

My pet peeves are:
Incorrect grammar/spelling (e.g. "could of" vs "could've")

Female characters that are too stupid to live. PLEASE give me a character who actually uses her brain!

Book Concierge wrote: "My pet peeves are:
Incorrect grammar/spelling (e.g. "could of" vs "could've")

Female characters that are too stupid to live. PLEASE give me a character who actually uses her brain!"

Agree..

I don't have an aversion to happy or sad endings, I just hate when the author doesn't write the ending the book deserves. Don't give me fake "Happily ever after..." and I sure don't want the death of a major character 5 pages from the end in a last ditch effort to wring a few tears from my eyes.

Karen wrote: "My pet peeve regarding books is one that I've only noticed the past few years or so, but I tend to get annoyed with the excessive use of thesaurus-looked up adjectives, especially when used in firs..."

I have read in another reviews readers don't like the billion adjectives lol not alone on that one!

Debbie wrote: "MissJessie wrote: "Me too Debbie.

I absolutely will not read any book no matter how well reviewed that has an animal die at the end. I even check the last chapter of books about animals to be sure..."

That's exactly how I feel with the happy endings! As a reader, I invest into the characters, a lot when their my favorites. Just as Kandice posted, for them to die at the end is a mix of emotions, angry with the author on top o_o

Dina wrote: "Somerandom wrote: Sorry for the essay. =)

I like your essay : ) I love Disney and the stories they adapted. I've only read a few fairytales. I wasn't a big fan. If I was, maybe I'd be intolerant ..."

That's different! With the character description, but I think I know what you mean. Some authors can go overboard or repeatedly mention, the prettiest eyes ever!

Another pet peeve of mine is...warning for adult readers...when engaging and the female lead has multiple satisfaction. I think that was good on rewriting without being blunt haa! But yes, that just like WT...and from there it can turn disappointing for the remainder of the book,

What I do like in a book is when authors give pronunciation for a 'one of kind' name. I know some authors like to go outside the box and use a scramble of a name. Sometimes I sit there for a good portion of time trying to figure out how it's said! Throws the book off.

Dina wrote: "Somerandom wrote: Sorry for the essay. =)

I like your essay : ) I love Disney and the stories they adapted. I've only read a few fairytales. I wasn't a big fan. If I was, maybe I'd be intolerant ..."

Thanks. =D

I can certainly agree that too much character description is very annoying.

I am planning a Disney Marathon, well, it'll happen sooner or later anyway. ;)

I'm enjoying reading everyone's peeves!

For me personally, I really can't stand when an author writes a dog or animal into the storyline only to kill them off. Dog's in general have the worst deaths in books! And the saddest part is that these dogs usually have such small bit parts....

Two examples I can think of right off the bat: The dog crawling through the snow in CITY OF THIEVES and the pet dog in SUFFER THE CHILDREN.

redundancy in writing - maybe I notice it more because I do a lot of audiobooks - using the same word in the same sentence - like a location, or body part in the same description

and I said he/she said dialogue tags when there are only 2 ppl in the convo

Great thread idea Pandora. I also can't stand insta-love. I am a big fan of insta-lust because that can and does actually happen.

I hate it when an author introduces a character by telling you "John is charming/intelligent/neurotic/obnoxious." Shut up and let John show me who he is. Also purple prose.

Somerandom wrote: "David wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate happily ever after books. Well......sort of.

I'm not talking about happy endings in general, a lot of books pull them o..."

@Somerandom

I've actually saw all the films you mentioned sans The Match Girl, I guess my fanrage towards the prominent two Andersen adaptations had clouded my mind a little. Then again, I'm heartbroken by those two precisely because I loved most of the others so much. One of my most favorite Golden Age (pre-1967, that is) Disney films is Pinocchio, which deviated a lot from the original Italian book (not that I'd read it in Italian, just that the author was Italian) but still kept the heart of the story, which TLM and Frozen did not, in my view. Sure, Pinocchio dodn't smash the cricket with a mallet, nor did he turn completely into a donkey and ended up being tossed into the ocean, but the theme of a boy being led astray by temptations (first a glamorous, showy life and later material pleasures) but later trying to mend his wrongs remained and arguably played out even stronger in the film, where Pinocchio literally died trying to save Gipetto, and after that was he rewarded with Real Boy status. I loved how his actions had consequences on himself, while Ariel in Disney's TLM didn't seem to. Her dad took the bullet for her with the whole "you fail and I have your soul" thing of Ursula's (PLOT HOLE: You can't destroy the contract, but have you tried zapping Ursula herself?!) and later on it was Eric who saved the day, she didn't contribute anything and as far as i remember didn't even say she was sorry for being so brainless. I'm not usually very vocal about supporting feminism but seriously this makes her a very weak female character. Which takes us back to Andersen's original fairy tale and how I find Disney comes up short: book!Ariel (I don't think she was named, come to think of it, she was simply "the daughter of the sea") went to the Sea Witch and said that she wished to walk on the land with the other humans, and the Witch didn't deal any false cards, flat out telling that she'd lose her tongue as part of the Dark Magicks' requirement and there'll be the whole Walking on Knives thing. And she accepted that, even though the Witch also warned that if the prince should fall for some other hussy maiden she'll die a death of sea foam. The latter part of the tale was about her perseverance in the face of multiple pains — I recall the prince also dismissing that she could be the once who saved him because she was mute, but regardless he still has deep feelings for her...until he met that other princess whom he determined to be his rescuer. Now frankly that was a very Bitch move of hers to not clarify that she never saved him, but the crux of the story now came down to: would she let her love be happy, even to her supreme detriment? I almost forgot about the whole Soul issue. Andersen stated that the difference between merfolk and humans is that the latter has a soul (parallels with Pinocchio, come to think of it: humans always are Real boys and girls yet a lot of them squander it, while Pinocchio had to earn it until he becomes Real Boy), and if the Prince would fall in love and marry her, she'd also get a soul. She made the final sacrifice and burst into foam when she dived into the ocean one last time, but then was elevated to another plane of existence and earned the right to a soul after three hundred years — you've talked about difference edition of a same fairy tale, would it surprise you that Andersen's early version had Ariel burst into foam, and...The End (?!) That's so bleak, but so very powerful: Do the right thing even if Heaven won't reward you for it and you face total annihilation instead. That's why I can't get over the fact that Disney's TLM seems to lack a soul. They have the teenage rebellion and hormones, but lack the consequences.

As for The Snow Queen, unless my memory failed me, the Snow Queen was supposed to be evil and the children barely escaping her clutches. Turn it into a tale of siblings and I knew that the original message is doomed. And the one with ice powers never did try to kill her sibling, like Scar with Mufasa.

Did you know that there's a Disney short of The Ugly Duckling? The ending was totally different from the source material yet the story stands on it's own, and I liked it very much.

re: The Emperor's New Groove
I saw that one, it was one of the first new Disney films I'd seen after moving from Canada back to China. And boy did my brother and I laugh our heads off. :) I was wondering if the title was an Andersen reference, but now I understand: by being transformed into a llama, Emperor Cuzco really was naked for the majority of the film!

And...The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Boy, what a trip. I still maintain that this is the best Disney film since the Renaissance. I spit the films into three eras: pre-1967, while Walt was still alive; 1967-1989, the "dark age" where the studio struggled; and post-1989. I have favorites from each era, though it's hard to choose the very favorite one: Pinnochio (1940), The Great Mouse Detective (1986) and HoND (1996). I know Hugo's original tale is 10,000% more serious and darker than that, but Disney's treatment was great enough for me, even with the silly gargoyles. They toned things down, and mostly the ones maimed and/or died were the bad guys, but they showed us CONSEQUENCES. Frollo kicked Quasi's mom dead, and was forced to raise him to an adult (if only because he believes that God disapproves of his callousness). Esmerelda openly defied Frollo, and had to figure out how to escape Church-sanctuary without being seen, and the Gypsy Roma Underground might not have been wholly captured by Frollo if they hadn't wasted all that time trying to execute Quasimodo and Phoebus while singing that smug, stupid song, instead of letting them speak. With all this I can then relax and bathe in the awesome stuff like the music and songs — my God is "Hellfire" a memorable one. Disney really didn't top that one in its creepy epicness until they had Ultron sing "I've Got No Strings".

So these are my thoughts so far. I hope you'll forgive my essay as well. ;-)

Lori wrote: "I'm enjoying reading everyone's peeves!

For me personally, I really can't stand when an author writes a dog or animal into the storyline only to kill them off. Dog's in general have the worst deat..."

Hence the Trope being christened "Shaggy Dog Story" instead of "Fuzzy Cat". :P

Debbie wrote: "I'd have to say that I don't like a sad ending. Life is hard enough and I like to read to escape from it for a short while. I want a happy ending. Death and destruction might be a part of real l..."

I agree. I think reading is for entertainment. We want to feel good. I don't remember crying and saying that was the best time I've ever had. I think that's why I enjoy Janet Evanovich's books so much. Her characters are funny, and Stephanie gets herself in so much trouble. I also like mystery and suspense books. They are like page turners, what's going to happen next? Where is this story going?

Melissa wrote: "Debbie wrote: "I'd have to say that I don't like a sad ending. Life is hard enough and I like to read to escape from it for a short while. I want a happy ending. Death and destruction might be a..."

I'm not saying that the entire book has to be filled with happiness and joy. That would be silly and probably a little boring but at the end of the story, I want to feel upbeat and satisfied that everything has worked out for the good.

Janet Evanovich sounds like my kind of author Melissa. I'm going to check her out. Funny and quirky are for me. Happy Happy!!

David wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "David wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "I'm kind of the opposite. I absolutely hate happily ever after books. Well......sort of.

I'm not talking about happy endings in general, a lot o..."

I also love Pinocchio (dat donkey scene tho!) Pinocchio benefited from being made during the Golden Classics era imo. And I agree with your assessment.

"You've talked about difference edition of a same fairy tale, would it surprise you that Andersen's early version had Ariel burst into foam, and...The End (?!) That's so bleak, but so very powerful: Do the right thing even if Heaven won't reward you for it and you face total annihilation instead. That's why I can't get over the fact that Disney's TLM seems to lack a soul. They have the teenage rebellion and hormones, but lack the consequences."

Oh my yes I did know that. I was talking about my frustration with the other translation is all.
I think, because of Hans' own rather Dickensian (love) life, he clung to that old "suffer as Jesus did and you will be greatly rewarded" thing that permeated a lot of Christian beliefs back then. I mean it's kind of a common theme in his stories. Little Match Girl, The Red Shoes, Steadfast Tin Soldier.

I won't act like Disney's version of TLM isn't shallow as all hell. But it's actually kind of likable. King Trident isn't some stereotypical overbearing father, he starts out all arrogant and kind of dickish, but he ultimately loves his daughters (at least from what I've seen.) And seems to grow the most as a character, if the Nostalgia Chick is correct at least.
The most accurate and fair analysis of Disney's TLM vs the original I think comes from a YouTuber named "Bandgeek8408" with his video series "Books Vs Movie." Check him out if you're interested in analysis of story telling and comparisons of the two mediums. He's one of my all time favorite Booktubers.

"As for The Snow Queen, unless my memory failed me, the Snow Queen was supposed to be evil and the children barely escaping her clutches. Turn it into a tale of siblings and I knew that the original message is doomed. And the one with ice powers never did try to kill her sibling, like Scar with Mufasa. "

Well actually, that is highly debatable. The Snow Queen in the original tale seems menacing, sure. But she's also somewhat ambiguous. Filling the role of necessary coldness, rather than outright malice. Everyone is afraid of her, but that's because she's the embodiment of winter. She makes things cold so people fear her. But no one seems to actually know her, leading to speculation that it's just a bit of prejudice and fear of the unknown.

I mean in the original story she doesn't do anything that's.....well evil. She didn't freeze Kai's heart, that comes by way of random happenstance. The Snow Queen comes along and decides to "kidnap"him. But why? She could very easily kill Kai with the third kiss, she spares him. She sets him a task, which seems to keep him occupied, but little else (meaning Kai's not even a henchman or lacky.) So it all seems rather pointless......Or is it? Instead of some great climatic battle between good and evil, between Gerda and the Snow Queen. The SQ just ups and leaves, very conveniently leaving the way clear for Gerda to free her friend/brother. One could make the argument that the Snow Queen wanted Gerda to succeed and merely gave Kai the tools by which this could be accomplished.

It's only in the movie adaptations (where this would translate as rather boring) that the Snow Queen goes from somewhat scary catalyst, to outright villain.

Re Disney adaption of SQ. Why would Elsa try to kill her sister? It's the Snow Queen a tale about the strength of friendship and familial bonds, not freaking Hamlet lol.
Elsa is very clearly Kai in the story. Her fear and coldness (if you'll forgive the pun)causes her to need saving from Ana (clearly the Gerda of the story.) Elsa represents fear, regret and pessimism. The same way Kai does. Ana, like Gerda represents optimism and childlike wonderment. But it does leave her rather open to naivety (which I think is a valid interpretation for Gerda. Sure she comes out relatively unscathed, but she is really fucking trusting, to the point where you question whether or not the girl has some guile about her.) The ice piercing the heart turning one cold is there, the sibling bond is there, saving someone from coldness is there. I think thematically Frozen incorporated a lot of the Snow Queen. (Not everything mind you. But some.) And I like that the one with the Freezing Powers is more a misunderstand protagonist than outright villain. In a way it's like the Snow Queen told by the Snow Queen herself. Granted, like I said, the movie is rather flawed. But I think it's rather cute.

Oh yeah the Silly Symphonies Ugly Duckling. I don't know if they changed the ending. That one actually was a happy tale. Surprisingly.

"re: The Emperor's New Groove
I saw that one, it was one of the first new Disney films I'd seen after moving from Canada back to China. And boy did my brother and I laugh our heads off. :) I was wondering if the title was an Andersen reference, but now I understand: by being transformed into a llama, Emperor Cuzco really was naked for the majority of the film!"

Ha IKR? That film still cracks me up.

Hunchback of Notre Dame was the second ever Disney Renaissance movie I saw. It's still one of my all time favorites. Lol I go by the "official" eras, myself. But I too have at least one or more favorites from all the Disney Eras.

Essay Forgiven. =D

Dawn wrote: "Great thread idea Pandora. I also can't stand insta-love. I am a big fan of insta-lust because that can and does actually happen.

I hate it when an author introduces a character by telling you "Jo..."

Thanks for the link to "purple prose." That is exactly what I was trying to convey in my earlier post.....I didn't know it had an actual name.

You're welcome Karen. I learned the term in high school, thanks to my first creative writing teacher telling me that I had a serious purple prose problem haha. She softened the blow by assuring me that too much is better than too little--easier to revise.

Pet peeves are one of my favorite topics (which is bound to be someone else's pet peeve!~).

Incorrect word usage. My number one pet peeve is the incorrect use of "lay" vs. "lie," especially in the past tense. "He lay on the bed" is correct; "He laid on the bed" is not.

Bad grammar. My number two pet peeve is the incorrect use of "Tom and I" for "Tom and me," which has become apallingly common in our culture. Another is the use of the wrong homophone, such as "your" for "you're," as in "Your going to the store."

I am struck by Dee's and Debbie's peeves on dialog. In my youth, I hated "he said" so much, I avoided narrative in dialog altogether. I kept the quotations and narrative in separate sentences. I've gotten over that(!~), but I still prefer reading dialog with lean narrative.

I used to detest the historical present. There was some book I picked up in grammar school, back in the 60s, that was written in historical present and I couldn't get past page 2. It made no sense to me. But I recently read I Spy Dead People, and I didn't mind the historical present so much. I could even see how it simplified some of the tense constructions in the story, and I really enjoyed the book.

As for content, the only pet peeve I can think of would be mixing sci fi with fantasy. I'm not into fantasy worlds that turn out to have evolved regressively from technological societies, even though I did read at least seven of the Pern series by Ann McCaffrey. By contrast, The Ship Who Sang is one of my all-time favorite books. I guess I'm just a purist about the sci fi and fantasy I read. :-)

Hannah wrote: "Pet peeves are one of my favorite topics (which is bound to be someone else's pet peeve!~).

Incorrect word usage. My number one pet peeve is the incorrect use of "lay" vs. "lie," especially in th..."

That was in the Grammar Girl email today! :D

Perfect, Kandice! :-)

For fucks sake, do a proper map that's easy to read and navigate!

Maria wrote: "For fucks sake, do a proper map that's easy to read and navigate!"

Do you mean the characters you read about in the stories keep getting $&@tty maps, or that the author makes his/her imaginary world hard to navigate and envision by readers?

yeah, i'm confused by Maria's post...

Dee wrote: "yeah, i'm confused by Maria's post..."

Come to think of it, I'm now hazarding a guess that @Maria meant books that didn't do what Professor Tolkien did for his Middle-earth in his various books: hand-drawn yet perfectly readable maps where we might have a clue about what the heroes in the stories are doing.

I love maps. In middle school, I started drawing maps and making expansive family trees before I ever wrote any stories!~ (That's also because I love names.) When reading a book that involves unfamiliar geography, I feel deprived if there isn't a map. Legibility is also a plus!~ :-)

David wrote: "Dee wrote: "yeah, i'm confused by Maria's post..."

Come to think of it, I'm now hazarding a guess that @Maria meant books that didn't do what Professor Tolkien did for his Middle-earth in his vari..."

I haven't read Tolkiens work yet, but yes - that was what I meant.

I hate when there's no map for a fictional world, but I hate it even more when it's too hard too read, ie. badly drawn, tiny/messy writing, not enough details etc.

Whether to add a map or not is an interesting (and vexing) issue. My book ("A Red Woman Was Crying," which will be the next book discussed here) is set on a real island in the South Pacific, but although it's an island that I knew would be unfamiliar to almost all my readers, I didn't include a map. In the Preface, I say where the island is, and I thought that would be enough.

I also didn't include a map of the villages and other locations (rivers, mountains) where the characters lived. It seemed to me that the narrators (there are multiple narrators) themselves gave enough description of the place so that I didn't need to.

But in the last stages of writing the book, mindful of how modern GIS systems are everywhere, I did add latitude/longitude pairs for the important locations and suggested to readers that they fire up Google Earth (or equivalent) and actually have a look at the places I was writing about. (The book is fiction, but I did live for a long time in the place where it's set.)

So if, for example, a reader wants to see satellite imagery of the place where Lunta tells Elliot about the bush demon, she can have a look at 6 degrees 28.86' S, 155 degrees 23.25' E; the village where much of the action takes place is at 6 degrees 29.030' S, 155 degrees 23.454' E (although it was much smaller during the time of the stories), and so on. Where did Siuwako extract Elliot's terrible secret? That would be at 6 degrees 29.108S, 155 degrees 22.060E.

As an ex-academic, I had a hard time restraining myself from adding more and more material about place and people. I kept it down because the book isn't an ethnography or anthropological study of the people (I had already written one of those) -- it's fiction. Too much "real" material would have been confusing. At http://www.don-mitchell.com/?p=110 I talk about what's real and what's not.

Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series included a map of the way the world was divided and named at the time the novels take place. It was incredibly helpful because even though all the locations were real, they no longer have the same names so looking them up is really hard. I for one really appreciated that.

Karen wrote: "My pet peeve regarding books is one that I've only noticed the past few years or so, but I tend to get annoyed with the excessive use of thesaurus-looked up adjectives, especially when used in firs..."

I also hate it when the dialogue is filled with language an ordinary person wouldn't use. A college professor who doesn't explain in language his listeners can understand has done a disservice and an author that has his characters speaking in language that doesn't match with the character is the same way.

Book Concierge wrote: "My pet peeves are:
Incorrect grammar/spelling (e.g. "could of" vs "could've")

Female characters that are too stupid to live. PLEASE give me a character who actually uses her brain!"

Characters that are just too stupid are a pet peeve of mine as well.

Hannah wrote: " ... Incorrect word usage ... incorrect use of "Tom and I" for "Tom and me,"

Hannah, I'm sure you cringe even more when you hear "myself and Tom" - even a TV newsreader said that!

Annalie, you are right!~ :-)

Don, I include maps in my books, too, although in my latest, I don't, because the geography is less complex. So I agree that a map isn't always necessary, but sometimes it really makes a difference. :-) Since you're using a real Earth setting, I think your idea of providing latitude and longitude is pretty creative!

I don't like romantic themes. The women are always beautiful and the men are ruggedly handsome. And there is always that happily ever after ending. Life just doesn't work that way for most of us.

what about those words you may not know what they might mean, so you look it up in websters...no such word!

Billiejo wrote: "what about those words you may not know what they might mean, so you look it up in websters...no such word!"

You mean like made up slang an author uses as part of world building technique?

Billiejo wrote: "what about those words you may not know what they might mean, so you look it up in websters...no such word!"

Or maybe the words that are so obscure you need an unabridged dictionary to find them?? I used to write them in a notebook and take it to the library to look them up, but that was when I was 21, fresh out of college, and practically unemployed, so had the time and energy for that sort of thing. Now I have an unabridged dictionary in my dining room but don't have the energy to go downstairs to look up the words!~