Your writing peeves

What are your pet peeves when it comes to writing, or other peoples' writing? What things bother you when reading someone's story, that you try to avoid in your own writings?

1. Un-necessary eye and hair colour description: "Maria-Tasha-Louisa-Olivia had sea-blue, huge eyes, with the longest lashes anyone ever saw. Her hair was the colour of ravens, flowing silkily down her back, like a river with black water."

Just "Maria had large blue eyes and black hair" will be enough for the reader (or at least me) to understand that her eyes are blue and her hair is black.

2. Moments when it is obvious that the author Did Not Do The Research (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch).
Honestly, when I know that something is definitely incorrect, it throws me off, especially if it affects the rest of the story. For example, to be a nurse (or even Voluntary Aide Detachment nurse) in WW1 you had to have a) at least SIX months of experience and b) be at least 23 years old. I'm sorry but little things like that nag at me if I know that the author hadn't quite thoroughly done the research. I'm sorry, Theresa Breslin, even if Char-"Mary Sue"-lotte did pretend she was 20, she still would not have been allowed overseas to nurse in France. Still three years too young!

3. Obvious moments where the author can't bear to kill off children in the story.
Sure, perhaps in fiction grenades might be 'kind and considerate' and spare the child, but I wouldn't want to try this in real life. If it's too obvious that you don't want to kill the child, you might run the risk of losing crediblity in the reader's eyes. Even Jurassic Park does it: Tim can survive 10,000 volts shooting through him and is still okay! :whistle:

I like personality in characters a lot. If I come across characters that the author wants me to like but all I hear about is their looks ie. perfect, hot, amazing, gorgeous etc, it's frustrating because I want to know what they're like as a person, heart and mind. This is just my personal opinion, what I'm drawn to in a character. :)



1. Un-necessary eye and hair colour description: "Maria-Tasha-Louisa-Olivia had sea-blue, huge eyes, with the longest lashes anyone ever saw. Her hair was the colour of ravens, flowing silkily down her back, like a river with black water."

Yes, I do agree about liking concise descriptions.

One type I like is:

"So-and-so stood by a window, random sunbeams that had evaded the clouds danced on her plum-coloured dress."

Quickly it describes the type of clothes she likes and what the weather is doing has been slipped in; so they don't have to directly spend time mentioning it later.

Sometimes I don't mind in-depth descriptions if they have a point. For instance, say a personification of Winter, and his/her hair, eye-colour, clothes and presence enforces what and who he/she is. :)



3. Obvious moments where the author can't bear to kill off children in the story.
Sure, perhaps in fiction grenades might be 'kind and considerate' and spare the child, but I wouldn't want to try this in real life. If it's too obvious that you don't want to kill the child, you might run the risk of losing crediblity in the reader's eyes. Even Jurassic Park does it: Tim can survive 10,000 volts shooting through him and is still okay! :whistle:

Yes, if it becomes obvious the author is squirming out of a situation like that, and a very obvious Deus ex machina (I think they're called?) comes in to play to get them out of trouble, it can be a bit much to believe.

The research point, is a big one. :agree:

Sometimes historical situations can be changed slightly to allow for the fictional character to take part. Then the author does a historical reference in the back of the book to acknowledge the changes. Bernard Cornwell who wrote the Sharpe series does this very well. But, he has done a great deal of research in order to make the shifts believable.

Overuse of the word "orbs" instead of "eyes". I don't use this description in real life and I don't know anyone who does so why is it okay when we write?

I agree with all above, but also grammar and spelling mistakes really bother me. I know I do a lot of them (at least when I write in English, but you have to excuse me there; I'm not a native speaker and I haven't had the best teachers), but if you work as a writer (journalist, author, etc.), can't you please at least read quickly through your book/article/whatever to check that you haven't done obvious mistakes such as "she are reading"?

And I absolutely hate word division mistakes. The local newspaper is very good at dividing words at the wrong place. They obviously haven't got someone who reads through the paper to correct any mistakes at all before printing it. I seriously consider volunteering for such a job, they wouldn't even have to pay me. If I see a mistake when I read anything, I get this strong urge to correct it (more accurately: the mistake screams at me and wants me to help it so it's not a mistake anymore, and how can I resist that?), so I would be very good at my job. :lol: Only, as I have experienced, fifteen-year-olds are seldom taken seriously about this kind of things. :grumble:

Oh, and if a word/expression/etc. is repeated too many times, I have to stop reading and just go for a walk or drink a cup of tea or something before I continue. Norwegian book translators are usually very good at that, that's one of the reasons why I mostly read in the original language, if possible. :D

I am a perfectionist, especially when it comes to grammar. ;)

I rather hate typos in published writing, as it just seems like the author/editor didn't really care that much. Personally (and I bet a lot of people would disagree), I think it's annoying when people just declare things "well-written" and then when asked to explain what that means, say something vague. IMHO, "well-written" is something extremely subjective that changes depending on the reader. I also am disgusted with pretentious writing.

I agree, especially with the typos. How many people does it take to catch one?

Noticable typos and grammatical errors irritate me. When a timeline is off, like a matter of age that doesn't make sense in comparison to an event. It bugs me. I feel an orderly timeline is necessary. :)

Typos don't bother me very much as long as it isn't obvious. I can understand how hard it is to find every mistake and it's probably been edited a number of times.

Personally, I hate it when authors write the words "I mean," too much. (In first person)

Ex. I mean, why does she think she can act like that?

I'm currently reading Blue Moon, (sequal to Evermore) and though it's on the bestseller list and a really good book, I find it REALLY annoying how many times the author put writes I mean.

Like what was said above, too much detail is pointless and a waste of my time.

I was reading a book called Winter Solistice. The first 5 pages or so are discribing a ladys dog and her walk to town. Once she gets to town a guy randomly asks her to come to dinner with him and his wife.

Why does the author need to put all this detail in if it's meaningless? Unless it means something important then the author needs to learn to take it out. (maybe they should try reading 'The Elements of Style', and foucus on rule 17: Omit Needless Words)

Now I make many errors myself, so I'm not trying to be a hypocrite; those are just my pet peeves.

I hate things like

'The Elves were a dying race in their twilight' *Reaches for Chain-Ax*

Or 'The misty morning light shone down on their ageless faces filled with the wisdom of millenia'

AAAARRRGGGHHHH! AAAARRRGGGHHHH! AAAARRRGGGHHHH!

This was cool when Tolkien did because it was his creation and he wasn't ripping off someone else.

*Grabs Chain-Ax and goes off to hunt down the generic fantasy writers*

Or

'The Dark One (lord, king, whatever, there are so many of them it likes Attack of the Clones) brooded on his dark throne (They were on sale a American Furniture Warehouse) from his dark tower (Is there perhaps a suburb of Dark Towers?)
In the dark land (Perhaps thats the name of neighborhood?)'

When Tolkien did it it was okay because it was his creation and since it was his creation it was original. But these people aren't Tolkien they never will be Tolkien. Why then can they not grasp that? Instead of ripping off the founder of the Fantasy genre? Was the entire genre dropped on its head as a baby?

i hate it when people use IM language in it, such as,LOL, IKR,IDK, or useless abreviations for words that aren't even that long, like w/ for with, and stufff like that. in the final copy i know that no one does that, but even in rough drafts, i really can't stand it

Let's see, I have quite a few so stick with me for a moment...

1. I work in a bank and I see a LOT of e-mails coming through my inbox every day, including e-mails I was CC'd on that are going out to bank customers. One person I work with, who happens to be very bright, has a bad habit of sending out e-mails to customers without a second read-through. Often, I'll read one of the e-mails and see numerous grammatical errors, unprofessional formatting, uncontrolled punctuation (e.g. "???????") and undeniable proof that they didn't even bother to press the SpellCheck button once before pressing Send.

This is a huge pet peeve for me because I tend to read through anything I send or post at least 2-3 times (yes, even posts on CoS or other forums). I don't just view it as a reflection on myself, I view it as a measure of respect for the people I am attempting to communicate with. Honestly, if you can't take an extra 30 seconds to reread what you expect someone else to follow, how can you say that you respect them?

2. I agree with the original poster regarding the comments on purple prose. Nothing annoys me more than excessive description when it comes to a character's physical appearance. Sentences that use "ruby red lips" or "crystal blue eyes" always get an extra eye-roll from me. What some writers don't realize is that too much description will do the exact opposite of what they intended. Most users of purple prose only want to bring the readers further into the story by providing greater detail, but instead they push the reader away by removing the much needed chance to fill in the blanks.

3. To and too; it's and its; their, there, and they're; sense and since; you're and your; etc.

4. "Common speak" outside of dialog. I've been finding this to be an increasingly larger problem over the years. Some new authors try to "write like they speak." If I find a good example, I'll add it here.

- Inigo

EDIT: I went back up and read another post (I believe it was 2 posts above mine) that mentioned Evermore, a book I recently finished reading. This reminded me of another pet peeve. It is incredibly annoying when an author becomes attached to a particular phrase or word and they can't seem to help but stick it into the book at least once per chapter. Just like the "I mean..." mentioned above, I noticed that a lot of characters in Evermore "pressed his/her lips together" in an exaggerated act of irritation. This also reminded me of how many Twilight characters were "chagrined" by something. A thesaurus is a great tool, I wish some authors would give it more of a chance.

I have a few.

1. Grammatical errors/ sentence fragments.
These can easily be corrected. I don't mind if there is a few in a good book. I find it acceptable for errors to be missed.

2. Poetry issues.
This could go with anything written and not just poems. On another forum I am a part of I've noticed a lot of people like to write poems that all revolve around love and wanting to die. I mean, there isn't anything wrong with that idea but they are all typically written the same way. There isn't beauty or sadness in it. I don't feel anything but cheesiness (not a word)

3. When people try too hard.
When it's obvious the person tries too hard. Like with gore, they go crazy and just kill tons of people. For instance, I might get haters but, I think J.K. Rowling went overboard with the deaths at the end. It felt rushed too me.

It depends. Some authors use a little too much description and not just once, but over and over. Like with the Twilight series. The author has Bella relating what Edward and his siblings look like to her. In the begining that's alright, but throughout the book she keeps doing the same thing. It's like ok, so he's a god I got it.

And doing transitions is difficult. Some of them I've read make me wonder what is going on. The transition from memory back to reality isn't clear.

Another pet peeve of mine is when authors keep repeating the colour of his/her eyes or hair very frequently, as though they fear we'd forget within two pages.

e.g. His dark brown eyes locked with my own light green. "You think you can manage Potter?" he quipped.
"Yeah, he's a good boy." I answered.
He rolled his brown eyes. "You're a hardcase, you are."
"Heh."
Those brown eyes narrowed at me.

Okay, okay, we get it! He got brown eyes! ;)

Speaking of eye colours, another cliche that sometimes annoys me just a tiny little bit is 'chocolate brown eyes': we've heard that way too many times. Okay, let's say the person's got dark brown eyes. Here's some more fresh ways to describe them:

1. His irises blended in so well with his pupils, his eyes appeared almost completely black at a distance.

2. His eyes were the colour of dark chocolate, with about 75% cocoa.

3. His big eyes were the colour of darkened oak wood.

4. Two brown-black eyes stared back at me.

5. A pair of dark brown eyes sat close on either side of his nose.

Please excuse all these references to brown eyes; I have a thing for them today for some reason. :p

What things bother you when reading someone's story, that you try to avoid in your own writings?


Uncreative plots.

I only write stories for one franchise, and even that series uses a pretty recycled plot. One can only go adventuring, or have someone attack their home so many times.

My biggest writing pet peeve of the moment is the excessive use of ellipses. I'm getting sick of people replacing periods with this punctuation intended for unfinished thoughts or pauses. Ellipses do not belong in professional writing unless there is an actual purpose to having them. In fiction writing, these are good if a character is speaking and trails off without finishing a sentence or if a character is cut off by an interruption (though I would prefer "--" in those cases).

For those of you just starting out in an office job where you will be expected to send numerous e-mails a day: using ellipses (more than once a month) is akin to telling your boss that you are incapable of making a decision on where to end the sentence.

*cough*

It becomes very difficult... you know... to read sentences that just continue to be separated by so many dots.... It is especially frustrating to find these in professional writing... such as e-mails... or office memos... because it seems like the author is never able to complete a thought...

You know what I mean...

For those of you just starting out in an office job where you will be expected to send numerous e-mails a day: using ellipses (more than once a month) is akin to telling your boss that you are incapable of making a decision on where to end the sentence.

I'm not sure I would classify e-mail correspondence in an office as "professional writing." :)

Very random, rushed endings that laugh in your face for having wasted time reading a long winded tomb of a novel that comes to no real, thought out conclusion!

Yes, I'm talking to YOU Stephen King :/ *Throws copy of The Cell at the wall*

When Tolkien did it it was okay because it was his creation and since it was his creation it was original. But these people aren't Tolkien they never will be Tolkien. Why then can they not grasp that? Instead of ripping off the founder of the Fantasy genre? Was the entire genre dropped on its head as a baby?

Tolkein wasn't particularly original as he was cribbing from northern European mythology.

Another pet peeve of mine is when authors keep repeating the colour of his/her eyes or hair very frequently, as though they fear we'd forget within two pages.

Unless it has some bearing on the story why mention it at all?

I hate it when authors feel it's necessary to insert fragments on at least every page. Fragments can be very effective if they're used very infrequently. But when you use them constantly, all they do is annoy the reader.

For example:
I could have run. Forever. Without ever stopping.
I wanted to be free.
I felt human again. Alive.
(I just made that up.)

And actually, not only are all those sentences broken, the word choice is poor, which often happens in this situation.

I can actually forgive a lot when I'm reading, but if I'm beta-reading I get a little harder to please. I especially dislike these, when used by an author to defend their work:

"But it's just fiction! It doesn't have to be realistic!"
Well no, but a certain amount of realism is required to suspend disbelief. If I'm commenting on it, clearly your story is too silly or contrived to feel like it could actually happen. Fix it.

"But it happened in real-life!"
Yes, but either it's lost its context and doesn't read well, or it's something that you, at the time, thought was something that couldn't possibly have happened. You do not want to suspend your readers' disbelief by including moments like that. It doesn't make you look clever, it makes it look like you can't come up with something reasonable.

Calling eyes orbs. If you don't use it yourself, like if you don't use the term when you think or speak don't use it in your fiction writing. If you don't think someone has beautiful orbs then don't write it. Describing clothes to the minute detail. It's just not important. If it's not important to the story then don't write. If you need to emphasize that a girl is wearing a prom dress to a pool party that's one thing, but when she's wearing shorts and a t-shirt to play outside in the middle of the summer? Not quite as necessary, unless the clothes have an impact on what happens in the story. Clothing can date the story faster than anything else. Sometimes stories are good for being in a certain time period, like Jane Austen's work, but other stories work better not being placed in a specific time period, so the clothing is less important.
Writers do things like this to pad word count. Ellipses. They are good...in moderation. :p Stories that seem to just end. It feels like the writer doesn't know how to write an ending. House of Sand and Fog is a great example. I love this story. The more I read it the more I feel the ending, but it still doesn't feel like a true ending. It just feels like the last page the author wrote.

Calling eyes orbs. If you don't use it yourself, like if you don't use the term when you think or speak don't use it in your fiction writing. If you don't think someone has beautiful orbs then don't write it.
Describing clothes to the minute detail. It's just not important. If it's not important to the story then don't write. If you need to emphasize that a girl is wearing a prom dress to a pool party that's one thing, but when she's wearing shorts and a t-shirt to play outside in the middle of the summer? Not quite as necessary, unless the clothes have an impact on what happens in the story. Clothing can date the story faster than anything else. Sometimes stories are good for being in a certain time period, like Jane Austen's work, but other stories work better not being placed in a specific time period, so the clothing is less important.
Writers do things like this to pad word count.
Ellipses. They are good...in moderation. :p
Stories that seem to just end. It feels like the writer doesn't know how to write an ending. House of Sand and Fog is a great example. I love this story. The more I read it the more I feel the ending, but it still doesn't feel like a true ending. It just feels like the last page the author wrote.



Well said, Leah49 :) I hate the eyes=orbs thing myself and gets enough on my nerves that I stop reading (if it's a fanfic that is).

What about anthropomorphism (whew, what a long word! :whistle: )? I guess it's okay to some extent--I can handle books (or even movies) from animals' points of view that has some talking. I don't really mind if they weep (if at all) either, even if the animal cannot in real life. Silverwing for example has a few instances of that, but so does, say, the Disney movie Lion King (I mean, who doesn't feel bad for Simba when he starts to cry, realizing Mufasa is dead? :upset::huggles:) Narnia has talking animals, but I can't remember any tears or other anthropomorphising anywhere--haven't read or seen the movies in a heck of a long while. :shrug:

However, if it extends to them having houses like we do, or wearing their favourite Sunday dresses to church, and using a knife and fork to eat, even if it should be logically impossible (e.g. elephants, cows) to do so, then I'm pulled so abruptly out of the story that I just stop reading right there and then. I'm not talking really young kids' books or nursery tales (e.g. the three pigs)--I'm more thinking books aimed at older readers (e.g. around 11 and up), young adults, and adults themselves.

I hate:

1. Chatspeak in any story unless it's used as a text message, e-mail, or chat conversation within the story. To me, that shows the poor quality of writing and shouldn't be used.

2. Improper grammar and punctuation. I've seen it a lot, and I hate it. I can understand if someone doesn't know English well and simply states that in their notes. However, people who come from the U.S. who write like that are just plain lazy. Seriously, I feel that the rules of English don't apply to anyone anymore, and that's sad.

I don't know why I can't stand this, but I don't like it when the author has a character who is also an author. The book I'm specifically talking about, it felt that the author was belittling their character and the obstacles they were going through.

I'm not sure I would classify e-mail correspondence in an office as "professional writing." :)
I guess, in my mind, "professional writing" isn't limited to published works or formal documentation. I look at work-related e-mails as similar to a memo placed in a public file. I guess it would have been better to simply refer to it as "professionalism in writing" instead.

While I understand the inherent informality of an e-mail, and can certainly see the value of the occasional "OMG," I find it shocking how many e-mails go out to customers/clients/superiors/vendors/etc. without the necessary level of professionalism. If you're sending an e-mail to a family member or friend, does formality really matter? Of course not, it would just end up sounding detached and impersonal.

Mary Sues, overdescription, and padding.

I also find it very annoying when writers try to tie too many things from a fictional universe together.

Star Wars and Star Trek expanded universes for example, do this.

I never realized the eyes=orbs thing before but now that I think about it it is really annoying.

In general, pet peeves in writing for me include completely useless information such as every single item the character buys from the grocery store or puts on their sandwiches. I don't need to know whether it's a cheese sandwich with tukery and gherkins and pickles and mayonaise and horseradish and every other random item in that character's refrigerator, it's enough simply to say "Joe emerged from the shop with two heaping bags of groceries" or "he munched his sandwich thoughtfully." This is a recent pet peeve born of the Millenium triology - it's painfully obvious that author was a journalist and needed 1) a better editor and 2) more lessons in what actually needs to make it into his books. Unless the character is allergic to an ingredient in that sandwich or the sandwich contains poison, leave it out.

Rambling extra information that is pointless and irrelevant to the story (that's above and beyond the contents of a sandwich). Again, a Millenium triology pet peeve. That guy really needed a better editor.

Repetitive phrasing i.e. things different charactes say that are too similar to each other; an HP pet peeve only noticed after extensive rereading. For instance, when Professor Sprout says something like, "A very valuable substance, bubotuber pus" and Ron says "It'll change the world, caludron bottoms." (not exact quotes) Two characters using the exact same phrasing just irritates me. =^/ And it happens mutliple times in all seven books, these two aren't the only examples.

In HP fanfiction my single biggest one is the lack of creativity in nicknames for Lily. Every other J/L fanfic author succombs to using "Lily Flower" as a nickname for Lily. First off, it's a painfully obvious variant of her name and not all that creative in the first place, secondly, it's way overused in the fandom and third, no one seems to have a desire to stop using it. If I start reading a fanfic and come across "Lily Flower" as a nickname for Lily I immediately stop reading the fanfiction; if the author isn't creative enough to come up with a unique nickname, what other fandom sterotypes are they not creative enough overcome?

Another one is the lack of interesting plots in J/L fanfiction. Yes, I enjoy a fluffy romantic one-shot or a couple-chapter-long fic of how they fell in love, but romance fics with 37 chapters? Where's the drama? you already know how the story is going to end so unless there's an actual developed non-J/L plot I won't read anything longer than about 5-7 chapters long.

Sterotyped characters in fanfiction. This ties back to the "Lily Flower" peeve. James as the bad boy who suddenly realizes that unless he fundamentally changes who he is he'll never win over the girl of his dreams. Lily as the beautiful but studious girl who does nothing but rag on James simply because she can. Or Lily being apart of a girl-marauder group who also goes out and breaks rules too but is so hypocritical that she still rails on James for doing exactly what she's doing. Or Lily as the secret Siren who enjoys toying with James's feelings for her making her appear as either a heartless b***h or a heartless s**t. C'mon, fandom! Dig a little deeper into these characters and pull out something unique!

Overly unique minor character names. "Lily, James, Elphaba and Xander snuck down the corridor silently..." Hmm. I wonder which ones are the new characters? This extends to names that are experiencing a recent vogue such as Rosalie (which is a shame because I used this name is a fic way before I ever knew about twilight because I thought it was sweet and fit the character I was writing and now I won't use it out of pure in-vogue-overuse spite) =^( Also, odd or unusual names simply for the sake of using an odd or unusual name drives me crazy. C'mon, how many Elphabas are there in the world really? I would rather use a more unique 'muggle' name than name a character with some off-the-wall astronomical word just because it sounds cool unless this character is, say, a long dead wizard in the Black family who have a precedent for unusual celestial names.

Ah... it's nice to get this stuff off my chest... =^D

Very random, rushed endings that laugh in your face for having wasted time reading a long winded tomb of a novel that comes to no real, thought out conclusion!

Yes, I'm talking to YOU Stephen King :/ *Throws copy of The Cell at the wall*

If you think The Cell is bad, try reading the Millenium Triology :eyebrows: The end of Tattoo is a serious WTH moment, the end of Fire may as well contained the words "to be continued" because it has no ending, and the end of Hornet's Nest is just okay - at least is has a kind of ending which is more than either of the two previous books gives you.

I will go with Goddess_Clio here.
I read a lot of HP fanfiction, but I am not a fan of few things:
1. Time travel fanfiction. Because the plot is always based on Hermione falling in love with Snape, Sirius or Lupin. Boring. The only one I found to be interesting is one that Hermione goes to a paralel universe where everything is upside down... In the Riddle Era, not in the Marauders Era.
2.I do read James/Lily fanfiction, but again, they are always the same... :relax:
3.And, of course, Snape/OC fanfictions. I'd love to see Snape finally happy and everything, but often the plot is boring, the OC is boring... Well, everything is boring. And Snape is suddenly hot. Uh... He is many things, but I doubt he is as hot as these fanfics describe him.
In novels in general, my peeves are the same. I want action, I want to be surprised. How many novels I've read that the two main characters hate each other and end up in love...? So sometimes the authors aren't much creative and are completely predictable.I don't like that very much...
And last, but not least, the over description of a character.
"She had lips that looked like moist strawberries." bores me. And since when lips look like strawberries? :scared:

In HP fanfiction my single biggest one is the lack of creativity in nicknames for Lily. Every other J/L fanfic author succombs to using "Lily Flower" as a nickname for Lily. First off, it's a painfully obvious variant of her name and not all that creative in the first place, secondly, it's way overused in the fandom and third, no one seems to have a desire to stop using it. If I start reading a fanfic and come across "Lily Flower" as a nickname for Lily I immediately stop reading the fanfiction; if the author isn't creative enough to come up with a unique nickname, what other fandom sterotypes are they not creative enough overcome?

.
On a note, my niece's name is Lillie (spelled differently, but the same) and no one has thought to call her Lillie Flower. Well, maybe someone has, but no one actually calls her that. She's got a ton of nicknames--Lillie Bean, Lillie Billie, Lillie Rabbit to name a few. Fanfic writers should be able to come up with more creative nicknames for Lily Potter than Lily Flower.


"She had lips that looked like moist strawberries." bores me. And since when lips look like strawberries? :scared:

Because having moist strawberry lips is attractive. :yuhup:

I never realized the eyes=orbs thing before but now that I think about it it is really annoying.

In general, pet peeves in writing for me include completely useless information such as every single item the character buys from the grocery store or puts on their sandwiches. I don't need to know whether it's a cheese sandwich with tukery and gherkins and pickles and mayonaise and horseradish and every other random item in that character's refrigerator, it's enough simply to say "Joe emerged from the shop with two heaping bags of groceries" or "he munched his sandwich thoughtfully." This is a recent pet peeve born of the Millenium triology - it's painfully obvious that author was a journalist and needed 1) a better editor and 2) more lessons in what actually needs to make it into his books. Unless the character is allergic to an ingredient in that sandwich or the sandwich contains poison, leave it out.

Rambling extra information that is pointless and irrelevant to the story (that's above and beyond the contents of a sandwich). Again, a Millenium triology pet peeve. That guy really needed a better editor.



I completely get what you're saying. I've only read the first one, but it took me awhile to get through it because some of the writing seemed mundane and tedious and unneeded. However, I do think some part of it had to do with the fact that it's a translation (originally written in Swedish, I think?). And some of the stuff might not have translated very well over. That said, I agree that the book could be better edited.

"She had lips that looked like moist strawberries." bores me. And since when lips look like strawberries? :scared:

Because having moist strawberry lips is attractive. :yuhup:

I'm imagining an attractive girl with strawberry lips... with gross whitish seeds peppering those lips like tiny cancerous growths. Yuck.

"Red lips" does the trick for me. They don't need to be strawberry, raspberry, huckleberry, or any other type of berry for me to understand their color.

Spending too much time describing a character removes the ability for the reader to fill in the blanks and often the descriptors aren't relevant anyway. Is it important to the story that the character's lips are like moist strawberries? No? Than leave it out. Identifying the color of Lily's and Harry's eyes turned out to have significance in the story but at the same time JKR played off the reader's frustration in continuing to harp on that fact by having Harry himself become tired of having his eye color commented on. I thought that was a good way to reinforce the eye color situation while recognizing that it's been talked about a lot. I thought that was handled ver'//////////////////// (my kitty saying hello!) *very well :D

(my kitty wants to be a writer too! I think he needs some typing lessons, personally) :D

Novel inflation.

Your novel does not need to be 800 pages long. If you only have enough story for a 400 page novel for example, write a 400 page novel. Padding to inflate the size of the novel is incredibly annoying to me.

That sadly is becoming more common. In part it has to do with cutbacks to editorial staff at publishers. More disturbing it has a lot to do with readers today equating the size of a book with "value". The bigger the book, the better the value for money.

Novel inflation.

Your novel does not need to be 800 pages long. If you only have enough story for a 400 page novel for example, write a 400 page novel. Padding to inflate the size of the novel is incredibly annoying to me.
Maybe I don't read the right (or wrong?) books, but I'm not entirely sure what this phenomenon is, or how to detect it.

On the orbs as opposed to eyes thing: While it may get annoying if it's overused, I don't mind writers using it to convey eyes since one of the definitions of orbs is an eyeball. Yeah, we don't say it in real life, but in writing it actually conveys something different than just saying eyes all the time. So, I don't mind it that much.

I agree about the research thing though. I read a Ninja Turtles fan fic where Mikey become blind, and Donatello is sitting there like an idiot and speculates, "Maybe it'll go away." Yeah, right. When the retina detaches, there's no saving the sight. The exception is if it's a retinal tear and is caught early enough to have surgery. That's what happened to me. It just ticked me off, and I pointed this out to the author. I might read more of the story just to see if there's more inconsistencies with the writing.

I also hate stories that have the same overall theme. Again, I point to the author I mentioned above who also makes Mikey seem like an emo crybaby. She has him in situations where he's either gay and the family doesn't accept him, depressed and he's going to kill himself, or anorexic. She makes all of the Turtles seem OOC, which really makes me upset and want to smack her.

So, yeah, I have issues with this author. Big time.

Maybe I don't read the right (or wrong?) books, but I'm not entirely sure what this phenomenon is, or how to detect it.

The Millenium Series suffers from this phenomenon a little bit, especially in the second book (Girl who Played with Fire). The first 200 or so pages could have been summarized in, perhaps, a ten page chapter and the rest of the story gotten on with much sooner and you wouldn't have missed anything. There was no point to the activities in those 200 pages and they had no bearing on the rest of the book, or the story being told in the overall, three-book world Steig Larsson created.

The rest of the triology, especially book 3 (Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest) suffers from padding to a lesser extent in that several page chunks here and there could have been removed or summarized in a paragraph and the reader wouldn't miss anything other than pages of boring, superfluous information we didn't need anyway.

To me, "padding" is anything in a book that could be removed without causing major problems to the story or causing anything more than minor rewrites. The first 200 pages of Girl who Played with Fire are padding. The first 200 pages of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were not padding, they just moved at a snail's pace.

(Sorry for continuing to harp on about the Millenium Triology, it just happens to be the last fiction book(s) I've read)

So, yeah, I have issues with this author. Big time.

So don't read her.

On the orbs as opposed to eyes thing: While it may get annoying if it's overused, I don't mind writers using it to convey eyes since one of the definitions of orbs is an eyeball. Yeah, we don't say it in real life, but in writing it actually conveys something different than just saying eyes all the time. So, I don't mind it that much.

I agree about the research thing though. I read a Ninja Turtles fan fic where Mikey become blind, and Donatello is sitting there like an idiot and speculates, "Maybe it'll go away." Yeah, right. When the retina detaches, there's no saving the sight. The exception is if it's a retinal tear and is caught early enough to have surgery. That's what happened to me. It just ticked me off, and I pointed this out to the author. I might read more of the story just to see if there's more inconsistencies with the writing.

I also hate stories that have the same overall theme. Again, I point to the author I mentioned above who also makes Mikey seem like an emo crybaby. She has him in situations where he's either gay and the family doesn't accept him, depressed and he's going to kill himself, or anorexic. She makes all of the Turtles seem OOC, which really makes me upset and want to smack her.

So, yeah, I have issues with this author. Big time.
That's not Mikey! Do not ruin Michaelangelo!

Novel inflation.

Your novel does not need to be 800 pages long. If you only have enough story for a 400 page novel for example, write a 400 page novel. Padding to inflate the size of the novel is incredibly annoying to me.

Yes, yes, and yes! Completely agree with this. Many books, especially in the teen section at the moment, are made as trilogies (or more) but they're so bloated with unnecessary scenes, flowery yet empty words, and they take ages to get to the point. I don't mind more than one book in a series at all but when the whole story could have been told in one or two books, this gets pretty annoying. The Hollow by Jessica Verday and it's two sequels come to mind.

That's not Mikey! Do not ruin Michaelangelo!

No, it isn't. Mikey is a fine warrior and can handle anything that's thrown at him. Any of the Turtles can. Just watch the 2003 series, and you'll see it.

And as for not reading her, I agree the solution would be to stop, but sometimes, it's like a train wreck. You just can't tear yourself away.

Of course, it's no big secret that I gave her an honest review to one of her stories and she threw me under the bus in her next chapter's author notes. She pretty much said she didn't respect me and was just horrible. I told her to grow up and that if she can't handle my criticism, she'll never be able to survive in the real world as people can be way harsher than me. I gave her a challenge to write a happier fic, so we'll see if she does it. If not, then I guess I'm just going to give up on her. She's a lost cause because she doesn't want to improve her writing, which is sad.

The Millenium Series suffers from this phenomenon a little bit, especially in the second book (Girl who Played with Fire). The first 200 or so pages could have been summarized in, perhaps, a ten page chapter and the rest of the story gotten on with much sooner and you wouldn't have missed anything. There was no point to the activities in those 200 pages and they had no bearing on the rest of the book, or the story being told in the overall, three-book world Steig Larsson created.

The rest of the triology, especially book 3 (Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest) suffers from padding to a lesser extent in that several page chunks here and there could have been removed or summarized in a paragraph and the reader wouldn't miss anything other than pages of boring, superfluous information we didn't need anyway.

To me, "padding" is anything in a book that could be removed without causing major problems to the story or causing anything more than minor rewrites. The first 200 pages of Girl who Played with Fire are padding. The first 200 pages of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were not padding, they just moved at a snail's pace.

(Sorry for continuing to harp on about the Millenium Triology, it just happens to be the last fiction book(s) I've read)
Huh... I guess I see what you mean. But on the other hand, my original question remains: how is one supposed to draw a line between what is necessary and what isn't? I can summarize The Lord of the Rings in a few sentences, does that mean the book need not exist?

Or for a less sarcastic example, people often find the LOTR chapter "The Council of Elrond" dull, but it's critical in several ways: Obviously it establishes some important history and represents a turning point in the story, but it's also a masterpiece of language. By playing with register, form, and pragmatics, Tolkien illustrates the ethos of all of the races in Middle Earth and also the personalities of the principle characters. I can't think of a better example of applied philology, and yet it's a subtle thing, and it won't either occur or appeal to everyone. Is that enough to say it's unnecessary, when simple narration could have accomplished the same thing in a single page?

Huh... I guess I see what you mean. But on the other hand, my original question remains: how is one supposed to draw a line between what is necessary and what isn't? I can summarize The Lord of the Rings in a few sentences, does that mean the book need not exist?

Or for a less sarcastic example, people often find the LOTR chapter "The Council of Elrond" dull, but it's critical in several ways: Obviously it establishes some important history and represents a turning point in the story, but it's also a masterpiece of language. By playing with register, form, and pragmatics, Tolkien illustrates the ethos of all of the races in Middle Earth and also the personalities of the principle characters. I can't think of a better example of applied philology, and yet it's a subtle thing, and it won't either occur or appeal to everyone. Is that enough to say it's unnecessary, when simple narration could have accomplished the same thing in a single page?

You could summarize any book, movie or TV show in a couple sentences. Fiction is the telling of a story through scenes, expostion, plotting, characters, etc., not its summarization.

Fiction is, basically, the story of the main character striving to acheive their story goal, causing the reader to form a story question that should be answered at the end of the book. If the scene or expostion doesn't relate to or help the character achieve their story goal or answer the reader's story question it should be cut, IMO. This is, for the most part, how modern fiction works.

There are also general rules to follow based on what type of story you're writing. I have a book at home that goes through the four most basic 'types' of stories and outlines pretty much what you can get away with in each story. The only two I can sort of kind of remember is the ideological story which usually comes out in the form of a detective novel or crime novel, and the world-creating novel which usually comes out as a fantasy story set in a distance or alternate-universe type land. (I'll try to remember to get you the actual descriptions of all four story types and the name of the book)

Lord of the Rings, in certain respects, can be said to defy the "story goal" rule a little bit but that is because Tolkein wasn't writing straight up character- or plot-driven fiction, he was creating a world just as much as he was telling a story within that world. Because of this he can get away with going off on tangents about the history of the Shire or the race of men or whatnot. In your example of the Council of Elrond, it is deadly dull but provides information on the world Tolkein is creating as much as, possibly even more than, it's furthering the story goal of destroying the ring.

I don't know if you've read the Millenium Triology or not but they are basically detective stories and that implies certain things: that a mystery will be presented at the beginning of the story and that by the end of the story the mystery will be solved. That's how its sold, anyway. To be honest, the detective story in the first book is set within the framework of the overall story goal of the main character, Mikael Blomkvist, with is, at its core, a revenge story. Without giving away the whole kit and kaboodle, the next two books are fundamentally set up as detective stories as well. In terms of these books, anything that didn't have to do directly with the mystery or pertinent character developments should have been cut completely or cut down to a minimum number of pages, which in book two would mean the first 200-ish pages would be drastically edited and in book three would mean the tightening up of pertinent background information which would have been helpful in that book anyway because it's kind of confusion. :rolleyes:

Fiction isn't black and white and there are no clear cut lines to be drawn saying what should or shouldn't be cut from a book. It has to do with the type of story you're writing and understanding your audience and what they're willing to put up with. Personally, I am your typical modern fiction reader. If the story isn't fully underway with a good hook in the first... 1-20 pages (and you're lucky if I give you 20 pages to get the ball rolling, I'm amazed I was able to stick with the Millenium Triology) I'm putting the book down. If the story doesn't stick to achieving the character's story goal or answer my, the reader's, story question, I'm going to either be very frustrated with the book and put it down or be very angry with the author when I get to the end and i'm still left with questions. It's for this reason that I struggle greatly with reading Lord of the Rings and am (sorry to say) a bigger fan of the films. The books are torturous for me to read because they're so slow. I struggle with them in audiobook form, too. :shrug: I prefer the sense of urgency and (slightly?) faster pace the films gave the story. To be fair, though, I am going to reread them, here, after I reread the Hobbit in anticipation of the movie :D

I should temper this post by saying I'm not now nor ever am I likely to be a professional writer. Wiriting fiction has just always interested me. I am not professing myself to be an expert and anyone who is a professional writer can absolutely correct anything I'm saying.

My pet peeves:
Purple prose- I don't see this too much in contemporary literature but when it does pop up its kind of annoying to read
Lengthy description- especially when an author is trying to describe a new setting that the character comes across, sometimes the description is too long and I find myself skimming over it
Underdeveloped characters- Its a bit of a let down when main characters who seem they could be really interesting don't get really developed and they feel flat.
Confusing plot- Sometimes there is so much happening in a story plot-line that I begin to get confused as to what is going on. This seems to happen a lot in lengthy series; sometimes it feels as if the author dropped a concept they had in the earlier book and created a new concept in the next book. One example would be the Maximum Ride series; the books are really great but after the third book there was new villains and stuff and I started to get lost.
Much too lengthy series- sometimes I feel that a series is just dragging on and it could have ended a long time ago (the same could be said for t.v show series sometimes).
That was a long list!

What I really hate, and it seems to happen a lot in fan fiction, is when they go off describing everything the characters are wearing. I don't care. I don't care that she's wearing a long, silky, purple tank top over a thin white shirt matched with dark blue skinny jeans and black Converses. What does that have to do with the story? And when they do that for every. single. character., it makes me want to rage.

Also, when people don't use the appropriate language for the character. Like, a 40-year-old school teacher is not going to be going "Um" and "I dunno" like a teenager. It's completely jarring, even if the rest of the story is good.

The Millenium Series suffers from this phenomenon a little bit, especially in the second book (Girl who Played with Fire). The first 200 or so pages could have been summarized in, perhaps, a ten page chapter and the rest of the story gotten on with much sooner and you wouldn't have missed anything. There was no point to the activities in those 200 pages and they had no bearing on the rest of the book, or the story being told in the overall, three-book world Steig Larsson created.

The rest of the triology, especially book 3 (Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest) suffers from padding to a lesser extent in that several page chunks here and there could have been removed or summarized in a paragraph and the reader wouldn't miss anything other than pages of boring, superfluous information we didn't need anyway.

To me, "padding" is anything in a book that could be removed without causing major problems to the story or causing anything more than minor rewrites. The first 200 pages of Girl who Played with Fire are padding. The first 200 pages of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were not padding, they just moved at a snail's pace.

(Sorry for continuing to harp on about the Millenium Triology, it just happens to be the last fiction book(s) I've read)

TGWTDT was not a great book in a number of aspects. Some of the technical flaws may be due to translation, but there were some howlers in any language including over-writing, heavy didactic passages and a tendency to show, not tell.

To cap it off the book ended with the villain getting his comeuppance because he took time out to explain his nefarious plan to the hero.

And don't get me started on the the eponymous character.

My writing peeve is when people confuse good writing technique with good story-telling. Technique is like makeup to me. If you do it well, it enhances but doesn't distract from the story. When you finish a story you should say... that was a great story! Not... that writer really has good technique.

I don't deny that TGWTDT is a rollicking page-turner. But the technical flaws detract from the story-telling as they jolt you out of the world of the novel.

I don't deny that TGWTDT is a rollicking page-turner. But the technical flaws detract from the story-telling as they jolt you out of the world of the novel.

It's only a rollicking page-turner for the middle 200 pages, though. The first 150-200 are deadly dull (though, I suppose, are narratively necessary) and the last 50-75 pages are deadly dull.

TGWTDT was not a great book in a number of aspects. Some of the technical flaws may be due to translation, but there were some howlers in any language including over-writing, heavy didactic passages and a tendency to show, not tell.

I happen to think that the book sufferes from a lot of these problems in the original Swedish but I don't speak or read swedish so this is just a theory.

To cap it off the book ended with the villain getting his comeuppance because he took time out to explain his nefarious plan to the hero.

You mean like at the end of every single HP book where Harry has to sit down and have Dumbledore explain everything that happened to him so he understands it? Or how in virtually every HP book, when Harry contronts the villain there's a whole scene shared between them where the villain (or supposed villian) explains exactly why he's doing what he's doing and how he came to be standing there with Harry at that moment? (Harry and Quirrell, Harry and Riddlemort, Harry and Sirius/Remus, Harry and Voldemort in the graveyard, Dumbledore and Barty Jr - which Harry is a witness to - to some extent Harry and friends and Lucius and the Death Eaters... The only book that really doesn't do this to some extent is HBP, but the whole Dumbledore's lessons plot serves the same purpose, it's just dragged out for the length of the book.)

And don't get me started on the the eponymous character.

I like Lisbeth a lot. I think there are problems with her character but seeing as she's just about the only intresting thing in the three books I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt.

To cap it off the book ended with the villain getting his comeuppance because he took time out to explain his nefarious plan to the hero.
Actually I don't quite agree.

Martin Vanger was not really the villain at all. Remember, the whole point of the book was that Blomkvist was searching for Harriet Vanger. He doesn't find her killer because she isn't dead, and Martin Vanger just happens to be a murderer that the investigation uncovered. And I think the length of time he waits and his explanations to Mikael make perfect sense considering both his sadism and his supreme confidence that he would never be caught (he hadn't been yet, after decades of killing.) But my point is I'm not sure Martin's actions with kidnapping Mikael and committing suicide form the intended climax of the book. He is precisely the sort of person the author and Blomkvist would love to destroy in the press, or even physically confront, so his character is villainous, but in this story I think Martin is little more than a red herring along the way to the real solution of the mystery.

I like Lisbeth a lot. I think there are problems with her character but seeing as she's just about the only intresting thing in the three books I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I must be a strange person, because I really enjoyed all of the content related to investigative reporting and publishing. I felt like it was a mystery story in which I wasn't being patronized with unrealistic pacing and action. In real life it's often a slow and deliberate grind to discover the truth in a complex situation, and I enjoy that aspect of the books.

And I think those investigations are what the books are more properly about, as opposed to Lisbeth. I mean, for example, I think the translated titles of the books in English and the related marking efforts are more than a little misleading. The original titles are: Män som hatar kvinnor, Flickan som lekte med elden, and Luftslottet som sprängdes. Or Men Who Hate Women, The Girl Who Played With Fire, and, I'm told by a Swede, The Castle of Air that Exploded. Maybe they're just poor titles if Lisbeth is really meant to be the central figure, but I think the translated titles are really more of an attempt to decentralize Mikael a bit. The original titles refer to things that Lisbeth is involved in, but only in many cases because of Mikael's actions, and very often these fall within the context of Millennium trying to publish a story.

Yes, Lisbeth is critically important in a number of ways, but I think it's easy to imagine that the author, himself an investigative reporter, was focused much more on depicting his work and life through Blomkvist and Millennium. I'm not at all suggesting Lisbeth can't constitute a protagonist and a heroine, but I would propose that overall she is meant (just consider her personality to see what I mean by this) to assume a secondary position beneath Blomkvist's grand exploits. If nothing else, I think it's safe to say she is not an especially great role model, because everything she does and everything that happens to her seem to be both extreme and extraordinary.

Actually I don't quite agree.

Martin Vanger was not really the villain at all. Remember, the whole point of the book was that Blomkvist was searching for Harriet Vanger. He doesn't find her killer because she isn't dead, and Martin Vanger just happens to be a murderer that the investigation uncovered. And I think the length of time he waits and his explanations to Mikael make perfect sense considering both his sadism and his supreme confidence that he would never be caught (he hadn't been yet, after decades of killing.) But my point is I'm not sure Martin's actions with kidnapping Mikael and committing suicide form the intended climax of the book. He is precisely the sort of person the author and Blomkvist would love to destroy in the press, or even physically confront, so his character is villainous, but in this story I think Martin is little more than a red herring along the way to the real solution of the mystery.

I somewhat agree with the point made here.

Martin Vanger is a terrible person, certainly, but if you look at the protagonist in the story it's Blomkvist, not Harriet or Lisbeth or anyone else. Blomkvist is clearly the protagonist as the story cannot begin until he is given the task of finding out who killed Harriet and what happened to her. The antagonist in the book is the person who is working against the protagonist, who is attempting to thwart their desire to achieve their goal. To me there is a stronger case in saying that Wennerstrom is the antagonist as it's still questionable whether he planted the guy that gave Blomkvist the bad info that he went to press with and he has the most to lose if Blomkvist solves Harriet's murder and gets the dirt on him. He is a decidedly off-camera antagonist if this is the case.

I would even say that there is a case for saying Old Man Vanger, whose first name escapes me at the moment, is the antagonist as he knows that what he is offering Blomkvist is worthless to him and is only using that bait to hook Blomkvist into taking the job of working on Harriet's murder. But then they become allies for the middle three acts of the book so that kind of throws that out the window.

Martin Vanger isn't really the antagonist since he, like his uncle, wants to know what happened to Harriet and it's pure coincidence that his own murderous exploits are found out in the course of Blomkvist's investigation.

I must be a strange person, because I really enjoyed all of the content related to investigative reporting and publishing. I felt like it was a mystery story in which I wasn't being patronized with unrealistic pacing and action. In real life it's often a slow and deliberate grind to discover the truth in a complex situation, and I enjoy that aspect of the books.

It is for these reasons that I accept the slow pace of the first part of this book; it paints a more realistic picture and, after all, does perform some necessary functions like build the back story for the Harriet case and introduces us to some important characters. For as much as it drives me crazy I do admit that it shouldn't be cut.

The first part of book two, tho, could have been tossed. Even the movie (the swedish version) skipped over the first 150 pages of book two because they were worthless to the plot of that book.

And I think those investigations are what the books are more properly about, as opposed to Lisbeth.

The first book is about the investigation of Harriet's murder, yes.

The second and third book are still investigative stories but they are all about Lisbeth.

In that respect, the first American title makes no sense; the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? I was so angry at the end of that book that we never find out what her tattoo meant. I read the book thinking that her tattoo was really important to the plot since it's, you know, mentioned in the title of the book... but it's not. It's not even her most important tattoo in the series.

Maybe this book needs it own thread, this is going off topic...

I usually only try to intimately describe distinguishing features in the character's introduction. For example, one of the main characters in my story has sapphire blue eyes and a crooked scowl that pulls up to the left.

Any additional features such as accessories to clothing or details of features are mentioned in context later on. For example, you can say that your character wears a black robe, than later on when the character is talking or interacting with someone else, you can say something along the lines of:
"(insert name here) re-adjusted his belt before replying..."
And then even later you can say. "She traced the design on his belt with her finger. The brass buckle was... (so forth and so on)"

It introduces details about the character's appearance or clothes without overwhelming the reader with trivial details during the character's introduction.

In that respect, the first American title makes no sense; the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? I was so angry at the end of that book that we never find out what her tattoo meant. I read the book thinking that her tattoo was really important to the plot since it's, you know, mentioned in the title of the book... but it's not. It's not even her most important tattoo in the series.

Maybe this book needs it own thread, this is going off topic...
I just rediscovered this topic, and I definitely think bad or misleading titles are on topic, as they are some of my writing peeves. As you correctly point out, I reluctantly admit, the second and third books of Millennium are Lisbeth-centric, and their English titles reflect that accurately. But the first book really doesn't fit the same model. The original title, Män Som Hatar Kvinnor, (Men Who Hate Women) better indicates what the book is about and where it's going.

Along the same line, I find the titles of the separate volumes of The Lord of the Rings just dreadful. Tolkien will tell you himself (er, he would have when he was alive--I'll try to find the published letter that addresses this later) that he wasn't fond of the titles and conceived of the book as a single work. He particularly hated "The Return of the King" as a title because, well, it spoils the ending!

Also I'm convinced the book Eragon started out as a mediocre dragon story with a typo.

Also I'm convinced the book Eragon started out as a mediocre dragon story with a typo.

I always figured Paolini dreamt up that title after watching an LOTR marathon on TNT. :)

Titles are something I struggle with. I had to come up with twelve titles for my new series and I can't tell you how many times I changed them while I wrote the books. One of them I changed when I was designing the cover and it wouldn't fit. The new title is much better.

Titles are definitely important.

I just rediscovered this topic, and I definitely think bad or misleading titles are on topic, as they are some of my writing peeves. As you correctly point out, I reluctantly admit, the second and third books of Millennium are Lisbeth-centric, and their English titles reflect that accurately. But the first book really doesn't fit the same model. The original title, Män Som Hatar Kvinnor, (Men Who Hate Women) better indicates what the book is about and where it's going.

I feel almost like the Millenium Trilogy could have fallen under the first book's title, but with a subtitle of the English translation titles, like LOTR: Fellowship it would have been Men Who Hate Women: The Girl Who Played with Fire, or something. (That is obviously not a catchy title) All of the published Millenium books fall under a theme of "men who hate women" IMO.

Perhaps they could have been titled something like:
Men Who Hate Women With Dragon Tattoos
Men Who Hate Women Who Play with Fire
Men Who Hate Women Who Kick Hornets' Nests

The only caveat to these titles, aside from the fact that they are pretty silly, is that they make the book out to be about the men, not the woman who the men hate.

I think that Millenium's English-translated titles are very evocative, though, and do tie in to their books - with the exception of Dragon Tattoo. That book would have been better served with a title like The Girl with Mad Skillz. :lol:

I agree in general, though: A book's title can make or break it.

Also I'm convinced the book Eragon started out as a mediocre dragon story with a typo.

:rotfL:

I feel almost like the Millenium Trilogy could have fallen under the first book's title, but with a subtitle of the English translation titles, like LOTR: Fellowship it would have been Men Who Hate Women: The Girl Who Played with Fire, or something. (That is obviously not a catchy title) All of the published Millenium books fall under a theme of "men who hate women" IMO.

Perhaps they could have been titled something like:
Men Who Hate Women With Dragon Tattoos
Men Who Hate Women Who Play with Fire
Men Who Hate Women Who Kick Hornets' Nests

The only caveat to these titles, aside from the fact that they are pretty silly, is that they make the book out to be about the men, not the woman who the men hate.

I think that Millenium's English-translated titles are very evocative, though, and do tie in to their books - with the exception of Dragon Tattoo. That book would have been better served with a title like The Girl with Mad Skillz. :lol:

I agree in general, though: A book's title can make or break it.
I guess what we need to bear in mind is that the Millennium author didn't apparently conceive of his books as a trilogy in any Greek or modern sense. The conventional story of his death holds that he had two or more additional manuscripts in progress at the time. I take from that information that the character development is unfinished, which I think explains a number of things about the books. In terms of titles though, I really think the translators and publishers did the books a disservice.

I take as my exemplar of a successful book series the Aubrey/Maturin series of historical novels by Patrick O'Brien. They have excellent prose, exacting (and really, very taxing naval) historical detail, and compelling characters who evolve throughout the series. Given his original titles, I think Stieg Larsson employed the titling paradigm that O'Brien accepted: First establish the concepts and characters, and then focus on specific obstacles and situations. For example, O'Brien's first three novels are:

Master and Commander (1970)
Post Captain (1972)
HMS Surprise (1973)

These titles, take my word, succinctly describe the main character and his first ship. The first title introduces him and his qualities, and justifies his series partner. The second discusses these two's capabilities and their rise to prominence, and the third establishes the defining roles and significance of the two protagonists. Although secondary and ancillary characters, and ships, appear frequently throughout the series, the foundation for the series can be gleaned from these three titles alone. In the same way I think Larsson was trying to establish a foundation. His original titles were:

Män som hatar kvinnor (Men who hate women)
Flickan som lekte med elden (The girl who played with fire)
Luftslottet som sprängdes (The air castle that blew up)

I don't propose any direct parallels between O'Brien's and Larsson's works, but I see a similar strategy there. First we learn about the purpose of the series (to deal properly with men who hate women), then we get to know a major character (Lisbeth) much more intimately, and third we find out what the first has to do with the second, or the significance of it all (to bring evil nonsense back down to earth [or hell]).

So agree or disagree with my analysis, but I think the diversity and strategy of the original titles was utterly destroyed by the mistaken assumption that three books must adhere to a trilogic format.

I guess what we need to bear in mind is that the Millennium author didn't apparently conceive of his books as a trilogy in any Greek or modern sense. The conventional story of his death holds that he had two or more additional manuscripts in progress at the time.

My understanding is that he died with two manuscripts in progress but with plans of making something like a 10-book series. If that was the case, we really only got the tip of the Lisbeth/Blomkvist iceberg.

I just came across another writing pet peeve of mine, and that's the difference between writing II and 11 when it comes to writing the number beside the name of a royal person (e.g. Elizabeth II). Elizabeth II, as an example, is indeed saying "The second queen Elizabeth on the English throne", but it's not the same as Elizabeth 11, which would imply Her Majesty is the eleventh Elizabeth on the English throne. There were a lot of pharaohs named Rameses (only Rameses III managed to get anywhere near Rameses II's sheer badassery), but there certainly wasn't 111 (lop off one, erm, one and you have the right number).

Correct: Rameses II
Incorrect: Rameses 11 (is this referring to Rameses II or Rameses XI?)
Correct: Elizabeth II
Incorrect: Elizabeth 11 (there has only been two Elizabeths on the English throne)

Unless, of course, there's an st/nd/th on the end, in which case it could be correct:

Correct: Rameses 11th, Elizabeth 2nd

Any thoughts on this?

I just came across another writing pet peeve of mine, and that's the difference between writing II and 11 when it comes to writing the number beside the name of a royal person (e.g. Elizabeth II). Elizabeth II, as an example, is indeed saying "The second queen Elizabeth on the English throne", but it's not the same as Elizabeth 11, which would imply Her Majesty is the eleventh Elizabeth on the English throne. There were a lot of pharaohs named Rameses (only Rameses III managed to get anywhere near Rameses II's sheer badassery), but there certainly wasn't 111 (lop off one, erm, one and you have the right number).

Correct: Rameses II
Incorrect: Rameses 11 (is this referring to Rameses II or Rameses XI?)
Correct: Elizabeth II
Incorrect: Elizabeth 11 (there has only been two Elizabeths on the English throne)

Unless, of course, there's an st/nd/th on the end, in which case it could be correct:

Correct: Rameses 11th, Elizabeth 2nd

Any thoughts on this?

I haven't really noticed that kind of difference before. I guess I read over it too fast. But I'll admit that roman numerals of any kind tend to annoy me because I'm not used to reading them. I always have to take a moment to 'add up' the numbers. It's a little annoying, I guess.