Your writing peeves

[BubblyShell22]

Originally Posted by leah49

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.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

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?

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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.

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. 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

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.

[asdfasdf17]

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!

[Lillielle]

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.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

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.

[WelkinCooper]

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.

[Wab]

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.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Wab

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.

Originally Posted by Wab

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.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Wab

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

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.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Actually I don't quite agree.

Spoiler: show

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

Spoiler: show

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...

[SeverusSnapeHBP]

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.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

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.

[Desraelda]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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.

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

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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

:rotfL:

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

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.

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.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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.