Tolkien edited The Hobbit after LOTR came out, supposedly because he hadn’t imagined the Ring as such a powerful and important object in the Hobbit, but more as just an ordinary magic ring. He explained the edits in terms of the Middle Earth universe by pointing out that the Hobbit is supposed to have actually been written by Bilbo, and, in the first edition, Bilbo lied about what happened due to the mental influence of the Ring. Then, a revised edition came out which told the ‘true’ story that had been what really happened all along.
Stephen King dos this far too often, and it drives me crazy; “Jerry was worried about what was going to happen next week, but he was going to be dead by the end of it, so it didn’t matter.” Holy spoiler alert, dude! Don’t tell me what’s going to happen - let me read it when it does happen!
I also hate it when authors don’t explain enough for me to figure out what the hell is going on. I mean, don’t spoon-feed the audience, but give us enough so we can make small leaps.
IMO, present tense narration is all right when used by a talented writer. Margaret Atwood has a few books written in present tense, but she uses it very well and for a specific effect.
I can’t stand it when a character does something and then the narration says, “And from that point on, he would rue the day he ever made that mistake.” I hate that I have now been told to feel frustrated for the rest of the novel, instead of being able to see the fallout from that action unfold organically. Paul Auster did this in Oracle Night (which I’ll put in spoiler bars in case any of you are planning to read it, but let me just say, don’t bother): [spoiler]
[/spoiler]
Which is even worse, because now I get to be pissed off at the character while he continues plodding his way through the plot in blithe ignorance of his stupid mistake.
Oh, and hey, present tense.
I only started to read Agatha Christie late in life, and I really do enjoy her mysteries. However, I do not enjoy trying to memorize the 15 or so characters who are introduced in the first couple of chapters. Although the author tries to give them different personalities, histories, and ranks, they still all fall into about four character types: high ranking old cuss lord type, his wife, all their “mad youth” dependent relatives, and the servant type. It usually takes me until the last couple of chapters before I can keep them all straight in my mind. I don’t know how Poirot does it.
The Hunger Games (a series I found rather underwhelming as a whole) pissed me off several times when large chunks of important events happened while the main character wasn’t present, and then other characters would say, “Oh hai. While you were asleep we totally [REDACTED FOR SPOILERS I GUESS].”
Your spoiler confuses me.
It’s been a while since I read the book so I don’t remember the context (I saved the quote because it pissed me off so much), but it’s just an example of that kind of narrative mechanism.
Basically, authors, don’t tell me that an action is going to have dire consequences. Let me see the consequences play out for themselves, so that I can look back at the end of the book and think, “Man, all those troubles began when the guy did [this innocuous thing].”
Oh, yes, all those writers who tell and not show drive me nuts. I don’t want to hear, “Bob was a wicked man.” If you successfully depict Bob as evil then it’s redundant, and if your reader needs your description to know Bob is evil, you fail at writing.
Also, when the narration has exclamation marks. I cannot think of a single instance where “He was in so much trouble if Bob saw him!” would be better than “He was in so much trouble if Bob saw him.”
Ooh, this. Romance novelists do this, too, especially in the historical genre. I wouldn’t mind so much if they would just include a pronunciation guide at the start, but I hate trying to figure out how in the world a character’s name is supposed to be said.
Here’s something I hate, though it’s not the book’s fault: lengthy prefaces or introductions. Just let me get to the book. I don’t care what someone else says about it until I finish it. Put it at the end of the book if you must.
Worst is when there are SPOILERS in the preface. :mad:
How about spoilers in the TITLE?
“The Rise AND FALL of the Roman Empire” - well, there goes MY enjoyment! 
There was a series of cold war spy novels by Adam Hall featuring “Quiller”, a British agent. It had a really annoying and endlessly repeated plot mechanism…
Quiller would suddenly be confronted with an incredibly dire situation, often teams of killers surrounding or closing in on an unarmed Quiller, and the chapter would end. The next chapter would begin with the conflict already resolved. Some time in the next chapter or two there would be an explanation of how Quiller escaped, often dribbled out in sentences scattered among other descriptions or conversations. The result was as if Quiller had blacked out the conflict and was recalling it in brief flashbacks, but I don’t think that was the author’s intent. I think it was just an unusual means of resolving cliffhangers.
I do have to say that I enjoyed the series a lot and read most of them. Several of the books were also turned into movies, but like the Bond books, the movies were nothing at all like the books.
It isn’t the book’s fault, it’s mine - similar to the OP, but a bit different, I can’t deal with getting invested in a character for a whole book and then having book 2 of a trilogy or even of a much longer series or a sequel written 20 years later DOESN’T MATTER I can’t deal with that having a different protagonist. I want to know about the people I got to love the first go 'round! (Especially you, Tamora Pierce, although it’s not your fault because I fell in love with Alanna when I was an impressionable youth and you just can’t shake that.)
There’s a not-very-good YA fantasy novel called A School for Sorcery that does this, only worse. The first chapter sets up a Harry Potter-esque situation where the young heroine has been unexpectedly accepted to a school for magic users but fears she won’t be allowed to attend since her father is opposed to magic. Then at the beginning of the second chapter she’s arriving at the school, with no explanation other than something like “Somehow her mother had convinced her father to let her go.” IIRC the father isn’t even mentioned again in the book, so really the first chapter could have been about how the heroine was excited to go to magic school and her loving father hoped she’d learn a lot and have fun, and it wouldn’t have made any difference to the story at all.
This book also has a lot of cheesy “fantasy” names that were either mundane English names with a few letters changed or non-English versions of common English names without this having any apparent relationship to the characters’ nationality or ethnicity. So instead of Katherine/Catherine, Elizabeth, and Tony, there are characters named Kathyn, Elspeth, and Tonyo.
Thank you. Very much.
Oh, like Elspeth Huxley?
Is that some sort of extension to Gibbon’s ***Decline *and Fall of the Roman Empire?
Often confused with Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for whatever reason.
Or in a blurb. There was a good fantasy book that had a great title…and the major plot point was spoiled by a blurb right under the title.
“John Dies At the End”
Granted, (ending spoilers, duh)
He doesn’t. In fact, he’s the only character who probably doesn’t either die or have a clone of him die.
I dislike it when you read a book and can tell that the author was once praised for the use of a certain word and now cannot stop using it. For example, I just finished a book where the word ‘icy’ was used far, far too many times, in many different contexts, and sometimes in the same type of context. It was as if the author weren’t sure if you’d gotten that fear could feel icy.
I don’t get this either, and I’m an avid 15-year-old reader, the exact sort of person they expect to read these books. I gotta say, the Hunger Games is the only book written in the present tense that I remember reading and actually enjoying, although maybe I enjoyed it despite the present tense writing. Somehow Suzanne Collins managed to make the fact that it was written in present tense unnoticeable and secondary to the story, unlike how the present tense writing in many stories sticks out, pulling you from the story.
I also don’t like when an author expects you to stereotype about a character or tries to fit a character into a certain archetype at random to avoid having to work on characterization. For example, characters ‘turning’ gay. I’m fine with gay characters or characters who come out of the closet, but I’ve noticed lots of authors seem to be having a character randomly ‘come out’ at an inopportune time, with no previously established plot surrounding it whatsoever, so that you can tell the author only did it to add diversity or spice up their cast of characters. It’s the same as when a character says “I’m [insert religion here] and have a deep hatred of/love of/obligation to protect [part of the plot that may or may not be key to the rest of the book] due to my religion.” Or, in Twilight, which I read in order to feel justified in making fun of it, when the author writes, “he flipped to the next page of the comic book, his glasses crooked on his nose.” I may not be quoting her exactly, but this was the gist of it; he is wearing glasses and has a comic book, and is therefor a geek, and so his characterization is finished. Wasn’t that easy?
You too?