I also have a pet peave about witholding information.
It is quite frustrating for me when I spend a great deal of time and effort pointing out how a story does not work for me when I get, in return, something that harps on a pet peave and offers no other useful advice. I've had it happen many times now. I remember about a year or so ago getting a short story back in which EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of the verb "to be" was highlighted and rephrasing suggested. This included, by the way, instances that occured in dialogue. Yesterday I was equally frustrated when the sole comment on the first two chapters of my novel-in-progress was, "Start in the middle of the action." It's not even that I thought this advice was bad in my case (which I did) it was that this was the only thing they could think to say about something I had worked so hard on, especially when I worked so hard on their critique.
Pet peaves ruin reading and they ruin critiquing. I have them, too, I admit, but I've seen incredibly single-minded adherence to pet peaves here and on other sites.
I've also come to understand that editors and agents also have pet peaves that color the reading of our stories and novels. Since I've started to receive commentary on some of my short stories, I've now seen a few examples. One is that a proper story should have a protagonist who meets challenges and overcomes them on the way accomplishing a goal -- and that no other story structure is valid.
So....I've got two questions to throw out there for you guys to mull over.
1. There is obviously a fine line between a pet peave and a legitimate concern that will be shared by many. How do we know the difference and to what extent to we tailor our own writing to take these into account?
2. What are some of your pet peaves? (I figure identifying them may help us to get past them.)
I can start on number two: My biggest pet peave is first person present tense. I get around that one by not reading stories written that way. I also have a pet peave about witholding information.
Useing acronmys instead of words. I can't keep up with them, and so many could have a hundred different meanings. Even the word "vet" has four very common, completely unrelated, everyday meanings.
Telling me I didn't do something the way it should be done without giving me examples of how to do it correctly.
I can answer the second question.
My pet peave is redundancy.
Repeating the prophecy or riddle 3 times in 2 or 3 pages is overkill and makes it seem like the writer is treating the reader as an oblivious idiot. I have seen this done and it drives me crazy. It's on my list of things I won't ever do.
As always, I don't have the answers so I'll defer them to people who know better.
I think that idea "start in the middle of the action" is not good advice. That's what Star Wars Episode III did and I thought it bad form. To me, action is something to build toward.
I think OSC's idea of good writing sounds like real speech is what it's all about. It's all about narritive voice. Good narritive voice trumps pet peaves, great narritive voice even trumps plot holes. The trick is to get into character when writing and capture the emotions, and that's downright hard sometimes. I find I might have it for a few pages, then I go away, come back, I've lost it.
I agree about the starting in the middle of the action thing almost always being bad advice, though. It was in this case, too. Even if I do say so myself, my novel started in the *perfect* spot. And that's not just because I spent a month thinking about it in my spare time. It completely sets up the climax scene and actually, the "action" starts in paragraph 5 so I'm thinking she was nuts.
Better luck next time. Its good to now some others feel similiar.
The verb "to be." Eliminating any form of the verb "to be" is called writing in e-prime. It's an anally-retentive method of eliminating passive voice. That said, it has its places. It makes a great tool when a sentence or paragraph is flat or just never seems to have the right wording. Secondly, it is a fantastic exercise in creativity. I know of one author who wrote two complete novels in e-prime for the exercise and challenge. For his effort, he claims a great increase in the use ofhis thesaurus and in his writing vocabulary. The readers, however, didn't notice, and when it was pointed out to them, they didn't really care. E-prime is a great tool, but keep it in perspective.
Pet peeves: I did learn that I have a severe allergy to high english. I don't like it and I think it sounds artificial and trite. In the same way you avoid first person stories (where you miss out on some very good stories, I think) I just don't review high fantasy anymore. I think I do more harm than good.
Thanks.
1. Laura was sitting in her favorite chair, reading a book.
1a. Laura sat in her favorite chair, reading a book.
2. Laura was fifty-two years old.
2a. Laura had lived for fifty-two years.
In the first example, I don't think the "to be" was entirely necessary. Some may disagree, but saying she sat instead of was sitting gives me more of a sense of immediacy and makes the sentence more active. As to the second example, both are fine and I don't agree that either one is better than the other for having or not having a being verb in there. It really depends upon your style and preicsely what you want to say with that information.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited July 14, 2005).]
I think this is a very valuable way to do things, because the reader may not (in fact, probably does not) know exactly what the writer's intention is -- especially if they had problems understanding the story.
As a case in point, I once wrote a mainstream fiction story with a very gentle yet emotion-laden plot designed to have a very specific emotional impact on the reader. I got back a "prescription" crit that basically said "put more action in". In order to be able to use such a crit, I have to backtrack and figure out that the impression that person must've had was "Where are you going with all this? The story seems to go nowhere." I decided that the plot was too subtley drawn, and did a rewrite that, I hope, more clearly reflected my intention for the story. Just acting on the prescription "put more action in" might have made the story something that the reader would've liked more -- but only by changing the story from an emotion-driven one to an action-driven one -- modifying the story to be more in line with the intention the reader would have had if they had been the author.
Having said that, I have to say that I don't think all prescribing is wrong or bad. What I like is a describe-analyze-prescribe trio, where each step of the procedure can only be implemented if all the previous ones have been implemented too (no prescribing unless you've described your impressions, and tried to analyze what might've been their source). For example, I think it is very valuable if a person says not only "I thought this part was boring," but also "I don't really care exactly how a canape is made, so I was bored reading 4 pages about it." It can also be useful if the reader adds something like, "I think you are over-showing -- just tell us that she was really anxious about her son's wedding, or find some other way of showing that it more interesting," but I don't think it is AS useful as the other two things, and is probably going to be actually useful to the author only some of the time.
At least, that is my impression!!
I probably have a million pet peeves, but the only one of which I am consciously aware is poor technical execution. If I'm going to crit something, I want to be able to sink my mind into it, and not have misspellings, poor punctuation, or grammatical errors jar me into an awareness that I am reading words on a page. I think that a writer should take the time to polish their piece to a high shine before they ask someone else to devote their time to it. (Of coures, this doesn't apply to flash fiction!!)
And, having written that, I'm sure I'll be laughed off the board by having made a zillion typos and grammar errors in there somewhere!! :-)
Best,
K.
To a certain extent, prescription is what I am talking about, but only a small part. When someone has a pet peave they are more likely to prescribe than to diagnose, but it is because they think they know what is wrong and how to fix it. After all, this is their pet peave. They know all about it.
In a story I sent him I used the word 'alright.' He wrote back a long email about how 'alright' was incorrect and not the same as 'already.' Two weeks later he has a long diatribe about it in his weekly column. Talk about humiliating.
The thing is, Word did not flag it as misspelled. I even looked through my personal dictionary entries to make sure I hadn't accidentally added it as a word; I had not. I am sure I would have corrected the usage on my own if I had even realized I had used it. Sigh.
Oh, and Christine, one of my pet peeves is spelling pet peeves incorrectly 
.
The upshot is:
1. Don't use passives.
2. Don't use continuous tenses.
What both have in common is that they use some form of "to be" as a helping verb. For passives, a "to be" helping verb is followed by a perfect participle. Perfect participles often look like regular past-tense verbs, but frequently end in -en or are irregular. Examples of passives would be: is angered, are governed, was bitten, were shot. In a continuous tense, a "to be" helping verb is followed by an -ing participle: is reading, are talking, was dancing, were laughing.
Use of a "to be" helping verb can usually be avoided, and doing so usually makes the passage clearer. There are exceptions. Using a passive can foreground the object of a sentence -- if that's precisely what you need to do, feel free to use a passive. For example, it might be better to go ahead and use the passive version below:
passive: The perpetrators were never captured.
active: Noone ever captured the perpetrators.
You could probably come up with a better active version -- this is where the thesaurus can come in handy -- such as "The perpetrators eluded all attempts at capture." But the point of avoiding passives is to make the sentences less clumsy -- it is up to you to decide whether a given circumlocution is more or less clumsy than just using the passive.
There are also cases where a continuous tense is called for, such as where one activity crucially interrupts another. Here are some examples:
John was mowing the lawn when his aneurysm ruptured.
The guards will be eating lunch when the tear gas goes off.
Finally, "to be" can also be used as a main verb, in which case it is also referred to as a copula. Typically, a copula will be followed by a noun or adjective (but not a verb): John is a firefighter; The shoes are dirty; The stars were beacons, The coffee was cold.
It may be possible to get rid of a lot of copular "to be" verbs as well. This isn't supposed to make things clearer, but more vivid. For example, instead of saying "His shoes were dirty" you could say "Flecks of mud fell from his shoes." Doing that highlights the detail you're describing, so you probably only want to do it with things that are important to the story. If you have a little detail that the reader needs to know, but that you want to slip in without really drawing attention to it (like Christine's example of giving someone's age), a copula is probably fine.
At least, that's my perspective on things.
Best,
K.
quote:
After all, this is their pet peave. They know all about it.
I think in that case there is a good chance that the author discovered that error in their own writing at some point, were amazed at the power identifying and correcting it in themselves, and are now out to spread the good news.
-K.
That said, I don't let any of the peeves listed thus far blind me to a really good story. Some of them may obscure the goodness a bit, I might like the story only half as much as I otherwise would have, but the truth is that I've read many stories where the careful use of various departures from the "rules" of writing a story have been used to good effect and actually enhanced the story.
That said, there is something that I'll consider a pet peeve for me. I don't like careless writing. It bugs me when any element, even something that I usually like, seems to be the result of carelessness or lack of thought on the part of the author. I don't care how hard you say you tried, if I feel like you didn't, I'll have a hard time finding any virtue in your text.
Funny, huh? I'm such a textualist, but I say something like that. Still, I'm making that judgement from the text, not from any independent knowledge of whether an author really did just hack something out. It's a textual judgment, even though I can only phrase it as though it weren't. And it's probably a pet peeve all the same. I don't know that most readers would ever notice that quality. And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't correspond to whether a writer really did make an effort or not.
My pet peeves:
-Poor execution (grammar, punctuation), especially if the person obviously sent out an early draft without bothering to revisit it. I don't like spending more time on people's work than they do.
-Doing literary gymnastics to replace "said" with words that mean "said" (i.e. retorted, ejaculated, interrupted, opined, replied, etc.). If you mean "said", SAY "SAID"!!
-Bragging. (i.e. My strength is X. I'm really good at Y.) Self-assessment is a fool's game.
Looking at things I've read, I have to say that technical issues don't really bother me that much. I have to say the biggest problems I have with books are content-driven, and fall into these categories:
Depressing for the Hell of It: William Faulkner falls into this category, and I hate him forever because of it. I am a fan of tragedies. I am one to be deeply moved when a character dies nobly, or tragically, because death is probably the single greatest driving force of life, and I feel it too. One of the most memorable experiences I have in reading is the scene in Ender's Shadow where the starships are going for the "enemy gate"; i.e. the planet. Bean comes on the speaker and cries, "Absalom, Absalom, would God I could die for you! My son, my sons!" I don't really know why, but I got this image in my mind of a frying starship with sparks and smoke everywhere, and this little child's voice saying this, and I read it a number of times before continuing with the novel. This is the perfect use of death to add meaning to your writing. Another good example of depressing scenes was Frankenstein. I spent the entire novel telling Victor in my mind, "This is going to happen, this is going to happen, ARE YOU BLIND?! THE MONSTER'S RIGHT THERE! RIGHT OVER THERE! MOVE!" But the countless deaths proved a point, and while I was depressed for days after reading this, I was also somewhat fulfilled.
But As I Lay Dying, by He That Was Mentioned Above, drove me -insane-. The beginning is depressing, the end is depressing, and lots of people went crazy and broke bones and set fires in between, and I put the book down saying, "What in the world was the point?" I am sorry I read it. Give me Ernest Hemingway, where characters go down in blazing glory, and I'll take it gladly, but do not try to disgust me for the sake of disgusting me! Make it mean something.
Deus Ex Machina: The instant solution to a problem is one of the most glaring displays of fallen humanity that exists in literature, and we are all, at some point, guilty of it. Even OSC, in Pastwatch - I was rather disappointed when, in solution to the ethical dilemma of time travel, Card had the scientists come along and say, "Well, nobody in the world knows this, but you really don't have a choice." The ending was still quite fine, but not as sweet as it could have been if they had made the choice to really better humanity, and not just salvage it. But the pet peeve listed above, about characters overcoming problems, is a direct result of Deus Ex Machina. Characters should overcome problems, because they are people, and people overcome problems on a daily basis. Don't solve things for them.
[This message has been edited by Ransom (edited July 14, 2005).]
My pet peeves: stories that keep me mystified about what's happening until the last paragraph; even worse, stories that NEVER tell me what's happening, so I can be stuck with a question that I can never answer; both these things make me want to throw the book across the room. Thing is, these are legitimate reader peeves, not pedantry.
Comma splices make it hard for me to keep my attention on the story. If there's enough, I want the writer to fix them and show me the story afterwards.
Stories that discard plausibility for humor. I like plausibility AND humor.
quote:
As a case in point, I once wrote a mainstream fiction story with a very gentle yet emotion-laden plot designed to have a very specific emotional impact on the reader. I got back a "prescription" crit that basically said "put more action in". In order to be able to use such a crit, I have to backtrack and figure out that the impression that person must've had was "Where are you going with all this? The story seems to go nowhere." I decided that the plot was too subtley drawn, and did a rewrite that, I hope, more clearly reflected my intention for the story. Just acting on the prescription "put more action in" might have made the story something that the reader would've liked more -- but only by changing the story from an emotion-driven one to an action-driven one -- modifying the story to be more in line with the intention the reader would have had if they had been the author.
The first time I can remember meeting OSC or hearing him speak was when he was interviewed by a local writer. The thing I remember best about what he said was that even an editor may not give you the best advice about how to fix a problem in a story, and therefore, you don't have to do what the editor asks you to do when the story comes back with rewrite requests from an editor.
What he recommended doing is exactly what kkmmaacc described above.
1--figure out why the editor (or critiquer) had that particular problem or recommended that particular change
2--figure out what in the story really needs to be changed to fix that particular problem and make those changes
3--if you succeeded, the editor will be satisfied, even if you didn't do anything anywhere near what the editor asked you do to
Another pet peeve is when I put a lot of work into giving feedback on a manuscript and the writer sends something else to be critiqued that makes it clear nothing I said was applied to this new manuscript.
quote:
It seems to me that there are a number of perfectly good stories that are spoiled by not starting in the middle of things.
Which is a point that OSC brings up in his book Characters & Viewpoint. Essentially, you have to start the story where you feel it's best to start the story--no two people will ever start the same story at the same place (I've noticed this with stories ranging from anecdotes to book summaries to jokes). People will always tell the same story two different ways because no two people will place the same amount of importance in any part of a story. For example, as readers, people will be more entertained by certain parts of the story versus others. Frankly, I was more entertained by Bean's childhood in Ender's Shadow than by the battle school parts for more than one reason: first, it resonated with me on a deeply personal level, but also because it was fresh--I had already heard the Battle school story in Ender's Game.
This actually has quite a bit to do with pet peeves, because one of my peeves is when authors (especially new writers) force us to face a character's raw emotion without us getting to know the character. Which is, frankly, why I prefer the awful Fantasy/Sci-Fi books that start way back in a character's past and then build forward--at least I get to know the character before the bad stuff starts to go down.
----------
Wellington
Edited: Because it wasn't clear what I was talking about.
[This message has been edited by 'Graff (edited July 14, 2005).]
To borrow a thought from my childhood friend Samuel Clemens, I prefer lightning words to lightning-bug words.
Settling in to read a novel is like sitting down on the verandah to watch a storm come in off the sea. I am excited when the thunderheads mount-up and the sky darkens. I'm thrilled by the cool change in the winds with the smell of rain in it. I am saddened however, when the storm arrives at last but it does nothing more than dump water.
No flash, no crack, just a steady grumbling on the tin.
At least it fills the tanks, I guess.
I also hate analogies. 
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited July 14, 2005).]
quote:
2. Laura was fifty-two years old.
After fifty-two years, Laura....new phrase
I'll come back to this thread when I'm more awake and we'll see if I can think of any.
Oh, wait, I just thought of one. I hate it when people compliment me excessively. If something isn't right, tell me, and I'll try to figure it out, but if something IS right, I don't really want to hear a whole lot about it being so.
Another would be when you tell me I should use a certain device more often. I put that single Japanese word in there for a reason. I chose not to use any others for another reason. Don't tell me to start writing ALL my poems with Japanese words, and don't tell me to expand upon my usage within an existing poem. Too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing.
Now, for any others you'll have to wait until I am awake again.
Note that the MC is recalling this and letting us know why she doesn't like somebody who is on the phone to her right now.
If I replace 'He had taken her bowling' with 'He took her bowling' I dont think it sits quite right. But maybe I have a bad 'to be' habit to sort out.
If so, how to I get rid of it?
He had taken her bowling on Wednesday night. Bowling! What kind of a date was that? She was made to wear ugly shoes that had been used by dozens of other people before her.
I'm running the English UK dictionary.
Meanwhile, let's move this discussion back to the topic of pet peaves.
I'm heading there right now.
For a while it was sentence length and structure, then it was static verbs, then it was adverbs, then it was... Since Boot Camp it's been characterization.
However, the more 'pet peeves' I get under my belt, the deeper and more effective (I think) my critiques become.
So forgive me the ocassional (occasional? I HATE that word) pet peeve. It means I'm learning. Hopefully they'll all mix together to make me a better writer and give you a better critique.
I am guilty of several other people's pet peeves, though. I've only just learned that "Alright" is not actually all right. And, no matter how often I research it, I can never seem to grasp the appropriate usages of "effect" and "affect".
quote:
And, no matter how often I research it, I can never seem to grasp the appropriate usages of "effect" and "affect".
Oooh! I have a good way to remember that.
When I was living in L.A., I rode the bus back and forth to school. There was a company who had a billboard right on that bus route. The name of the company was "Sound FX". It was, not surprisingly, a company that does sound effects. So, just remember that billboard and you'll always be able to figure out that "effects" is a noun.
-K.
Shows me how much people pay attention to me .Kathleen, recently my father asked me to critique a short story he wrote (spurred to competition with his daughter by my recent pro sale, sigh) and I spent about half an hour writing some suggestions and writing tips back to him.
He sent it back to me to critique again, and as far as I could tell changed only one word in the whole story. He wanted to know what I thought about it now. What do you say to that? I didn't reply. When I saw him in person I mentioned that I wasn't sure he'd even read my suggestions, and he smiled smugly at me and said he did all those things on purpose, in a way that implied his infinite knowledge on the subject. AAAAAAEEERRRRRGGGGHHHH.
So, I'm with you on that pet peeve.
:-)
Sorry for going off topic...I didn't realize the effect I would have. 
[This message has been edited by Spaceman (edited July 15, 2005).]
I'm just saying
Avoidance! I like it!
When an author could have said something in a simpler way, and instead chooses a more complicated way just to "avoid" something they don't feel comfortable with, it drives me nuts.
The point in stories, for me, and especially in speculative fiction, is to study the human condition, confront it, and offer solutions. If you are not even willing to confront your own issues, how are you supposed to confront someone elses?
On the flipside is when people avoid telling me everything just to avoid lengthy prose in preference for an erroneous attempt at keeping it simple. That buggers me to all get-out too.
Have a great day.
I did learn that inexperienced writing bothers the crap out of me, but I balance that with the fact that I used to write that way, and those writers deserve fair and balanced reviews, as well as pointers. the more experienced writers are the ones I have trouble reviewing because I tend to be much harsher in my mind, trying to mold them into my own style. I have to constantly remind myself that it is somebody else's writing.
That being said, I'm not going to change how I critique a manuscript unless somebody specifically asks me for something different. For each change you make in the way you critique, somebody else likes it the old way. I can't help being me.
I am peeved by all the new writers who fall, like lemmings, into the chasm of the same old tired opening phrases and scenes, like waking up after a dream or with no memory. They have no idea it's been done to death a zillion times. I am peeved because my current novel originally started out that way. Fortunately I've figured a much more interesting approach
I am peeved by writers who are sloppy and don't care about grammar, punctuation and spelling.
I am peeved when I read a published book and there are gross spelling errors in it or discombubulated action and dialogue that indicate to me the editor was either on vacation or asleep.
I am peeved at myself when I get so engrossed in spotting errors as I critique that I forget to tell the author 'good job' for all the places that work. There's always something to commend in every work.