I am simultaneously a very picky and a very laid-back reader. I will read almost any genre - romance, sure; western, sure; sci-fi, depends on if I can survive the first ten pages; Tom Clancy (he's a genre, right?), ditto. I don't think of myself as a reading snob, and I can't imagine anyone who scanned the books I've read this year would think that either. But I am extremely picky about the writing. When I put something down, give up, it's invariably because of the writing. There is no plot too cliche-ridden, no character too flat, no premise too ridiculous to make me stop reading. But God, the writing. So I've decided to collect my pet peeves here, mostly so I can rant about them (again).
#1 - Unnecessary descriptors: For example, "Jill and Kate went out for lunch. The brunette lawyer ordered a salad, and the fiery redhead ordered scallops." You often find this in genre writing, but I have seen it in a few literary fiction titles, and cried every time. Ooh, I also see this sometimes: "Jake reached for the salt, but the older man got it first." I think it's obvious why I hate this, but let's go through my reasons anyway:
- It assumes I can't remember a character's name.
- Or the writer was too lazy to go back and introduce the character's name before sending the character into action.
- It's awkward.
- It's distracting because I am waiting for it to matter - I give any writer the benefit of the doubt, but the second time I find the hair color of the person was not relevant to the situation, I give up.
- I think it indicates shallow character development on the author's part - if she is talking about her character as a function of his profession, why should I think the character is compelling?
- I despair at the number of people who saw it and thought it was fine.
- I worry that someone read it and thought "Ah, a helpful reminder of a few of this character's salient characteristics! Great!"
- I am not an idiot.
#2 - Provide me with their deep insights before they've earned it (approx. page 250). Here's an example, from page 12 of the book I am currently reading. Watch as our protagonist prepares for bed:
Innocent and ignorant, she thought sadly, turning to lie on her back, there's no real difference, actually we are both. Finally our ignorance consumes us, licking our backs with tongues of fire. And behind us the earth is left black.
There is a lot there that drives me right up a wall. Primarily, it's that on page 12 she's given me this insight about the relative dangers of innocence and ignorance, which could alone be the theme of an epic novel. (I'm pretty sure Shakespeare did some work on the whole innocence/ignorance thing himself.) But all that has happened in her book so far is that the protagonist had a dream, woke up, brushed her teeth, and went back to bed. I'm all for abstract thoughts, but the author just hasn't earned this one. I don't buy it. What authority does she have to speak to me about innocence and ignorance? So far she hasn't shown me she can write more than one character, or that her characters can be awake, or talk to one another, or floss.
To me, it's like meeting someone and then ten minutes later they say, "So, daddy issues, huh?"
Another example:
You can't treat an idea like a fact, she decided. You have to treat it like music.
Put another way, I think one of the great things about novels is how a great writer can tell me something about life or the human condition by coaxing me along - introducing me to some new people, showing me what happens to them, how they relate to each other, where their lives go and how they end up. Then I realize what's it's been about all along, and I know something that I didn't know before. That's the point, that's why the good authors write.
In contrast, an insight too soon will just slide off my back. I'm not ready - the author doesn't have my trust, and nothing has happened to demonstrate the truth of the insight.
#3 - Obscurity, aka What the fuck is she talking about? See "treat ideas like music" and "behind us the earth left black." I can't decide if that's bad writing or if I'm just not willing to do the work to understand. I just have no idea what she is saying. I don't know what it would mean to treat an idea like music, or exactly how it would be different than treating it like fact, or even how we treat music itself. Furthermore, and more important, she hasn't made those things clear to me. I suspect there is a thought there, but that it's not coming across. It's obscured by semi-poetic dreaminess, and it's really annoying.
I just don't understand why writers so often feel the need to put something in between what they mean and what they say. Okay, fine, maybe some of them are really trying to be clear, and not getting there. But not all of them. Maybe they are trying to write like a writer? To be writerly? In our example, why didn't the thought end with not treating ideas like fact? That was clear, that was something we could all get behind. (Sure, it still had no relation to what was happening, and was an annoying metaphysical thought dropped into some teeth brushing, but ignoring that for the moment.) I get the sense the writer just couldn't resist the prettiness of "like music." And that tells me she isn't writing for the reader, but herself.
