One quote I found in there was: “Avoid the opening line: ‘My name is … .’ ” —Michelle Andelman, Andrea Brown Literary Agency 'The Alchemist', an international bestseller, probably one of the most well-known books in the world which has sold more than 56 million copies and translated into 59 languages starts with the line: "The boy's name was Santiago."
I think if the book is well written, the story's interesting and the characters are well drawn, any of the above turnoffs will be considered "adjustable" in the editing phase. No writer is perfect after all...
Lack of understanding of basic grammar and spelling. Following junior high school, unless one has some sort of learning disability, there is absolutely no reason to not understand the basics. I'm saddened by how many writers online, even self-proclaimed published ones, don't understand them. Ditto with the basic no-no's of writing--somebody mentioned infodumps, and crazy POV switches are another big turnoff for me; and inconsistent verb tense; things such as that. Aside from that, I'm kind of lenient with the first paragraphs of a story--I believe in not judging an entire work based on that. But I have my biases. The narrative voice is one. If it irks me then I won't want to read. Unfortunately, this is a matter of preference and not skill in writing, so I can't give examples that would be useful. It was one of the main reasons I put "Twilight" back on the shelf after reading a few paragraphs. (That, and the fact that it was about vampires. There's another thing likely to make me shelve a book. Ugh.) I don't mind cliche as long as the writer puts some sort of original spin on it, or at the very least, is so passionate about their cliched work that that shines through the cliches. Again, since this is a matter of preference, I can't give examples. I did watch the movie "The Forbidden Kingdom" with Jackie Chan the other day, however, and it was an example of how NOT to do cliches. The whole thing was cliched, but the fact that there was some modern-day kid who got sucked into the past and had to fulfill his destiny and yadda yadda and whatnot didn't really bother me. (I write similar things sometimes.) It was the fact that the whole thing was so tired and trite and there was just no passion or originality in it, aside from the interactions of Jackie Chan with the other characters. The rest of it was cardboard. None of the characters really seemed to care about the situation, despite their acting--the writers' enthusiasm didn't shine through. I think that's what I'm saying. If a story is cardboard, then it doesn't matter how good the plot is, I'll hate it. Whereas if it's cliched up the wazoo, but is three dimensional, with interesting characters, I'm more likely to give it a shot. It's mostly a matter of I'll know what I like when I see it. *shrug*
When I read that story I remember wondering if it had originally been serialized, since Lovecraft redescribed the main character in every chapter. Good to know that was in fact the case.
too many things to list... here's just a few: unnecessary or too-long prologue first sentence beginning with 'as' any infodump purple prose first person, present tense narrator introducing him/herself explanation of why the story is being told
Let's see: 1. First Person - If you do it the narrator better not be the MC. Because if he is, then there is no way, no matter what he faces, I'm ever going to worry he won't come out all right. He's the narrator, he's obviously not dead and obviously still lucid; what's going to happen to him? Maybe his girlfriend will die and that'll be wangsty but she probably had all the characterization of a barstool and will be replaced a few chapters from now. It's really hard to care. 2. Starting off with action - So Matilda has to sneak past the guards and John is busy fighting a menacing dragon? Well, unless you have some way of making that interesting (such as John's only weapon is a roll of toilet paper and the best way for Matilda to sneak is to stand up, wave her arms, and yell at the guards as she walks past) I'm not going to care. Why? I don't know who Matilda and John are, send an arrow throuh her skull and make John lizard lunch and I'll just shrug ... I never had a reason to care and all that action just takes to long to read through. 3. Ridiculous sexism - Regular sexism where Bob tells Alice to stay in the kitchen is mostly dead. Except the stories Alice is out to prove the kitchen is no place for her so she travels the country beating the **** out of anything with balls for as small an offense as disagreeing with her zomg-glorious-godess-knowledge and is never defeated (or is always defeated (and rescued!) and you begin to think maybe the kitchen was a better place for her. Of course she'll probably do all of this in a leather corset 'cause hey, maybe girls kicks ass now but you're still just a sex object and don't you forget it, bitch. That's about the gist of it. Avoid this stuff and I'll probably give the book a chance (unless it's a romance or slice-of-life or other such plot I don't really care for but don't actively hate).
Like: 1. I like it when a story starts in the action. Something is going on. 2. I like first person because I feel like I'm going to get to know an interesting person. Hate: 1. I am bored by openings in many fantasy novels. They will go on and on describing the features of some "realm" or a castle, etc. I don't care because I want the characters. I become frightened that the story won't be about them. 2. If I can't figure out what you're talking about. The "New Weird" authors and many old Cyberpunk people can be accused of this. It's like this quasi-poetry beatnik read which verges on a foreign language. Note: If the plot sounds good, but I hate the front page, I'll open a random page deep in the book and read that. If it seems different and flowing, I'll give it a chance.
What puts me off reading on? A story that never begins. When the opening just keeps going on and on about the scenary or the weather and never gets to anything interesting I quickly lose patience. I know the writers are trying to set up the scene, trying to give a little background before launching into the story, but I very much prefer just being tossed straight into the action. I love for a story to open with dialogue or action of some sort and then fill me in with the less interesting (but still necessary) details further along. By that point, I'm more likely to be well and truly hooked. I've had time to decide I like the characters and am intrigued by their situations, so now I'm prepared to learn more about their pasts and their motivations.
*Ehem* (Being fond of this POV may accuse me of being biased but...) Most amateur writers find this approach effective because they are able to internalize their character and become them throughout the story. It's not really a problem if you're worried the character's not dead. Most SF/F stories approach "Mortal Death" as the least of one's problems. Sometimes it's even the goal. (The MC might be an undead, a ghost, or a vampire, wood fairy, a doorstopper...etc.) Divulging on the last point, how do you know the narrator is not the main character? Because he doesn't do the dragon-slaying? You're looking into the eyes of another character, how he feels, what he thinks. Therefore he's the whole point of the story. Whether he's a stable boy or the king, he's automatically the MC. If the character is good enough for POV, then I'd like to know the journey he/she will endure. How will this character change? What things are he gonna lose/gain? Maybe I'll even take comfort in the fact that he/she will not die (esp. if I really like the character). But then again, far worse things can happen...
One of the worst things for making me give up on a book is when the author talks to you and says such classics as "I'm going to tell you a story that changed my life, I don't want to tell you but I will or I feel compelled or what ever... and it's horrible" Eyes of the King being the very best example of how truly awful that can be. Other then that, I cannot stand whingy, whiny, spineless characters and a story whose MC is like that will send me running a mile i.e. 'So and so hated this house, hated the lawn and stupid little foot path. The weather was bad and they hated that too.' Really, why would you want to read on? Fantasy intros that insist on introducing their whole made up world plus new names and religions I usually plow through, it's just coz the author's really desperate to get that out of their head and onto the page. With any luck, it'll get better
Maybe it is that tendency of amateur writers to use First Person that puts me off; I haven't read many that were actually good (I can think of two off-hand). And I've never read an author who could really sell the whole "Fate Worse Than Death" thing. Most of the time it's just plain ol' death disguised under a fancier name or it's being Cursed With Awesome (like becoming a vampire, "oh no! I'm sexy and immortal!"). I suppose there are things to capture your concern aside from the death or loss of sanity of the MC. Like the death of kickass secondary characters but those tend to be rare in First Person narratives (everybody's the hero of their own story after all). So what's left? His dog dies? His house burns down? Probably personal opinion but that's just not epic enough to make it worth reading an entire book about. I plain can't bring myself to read First Person 99.9% of the time.
Second Person. No, seriously, I've seen it done. And not just those cheesy Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books; I have a book on my shelf that's written in second person... and flits around to about four different characters. So apparently I'm playing as four people at once? And it's extremely hard to figure out who it's talking about. That brings up the other point: Pointless POV shifts. If somewhere in the middle of the first chapter, the POV changes and I'm not instantly aware of it or don't understand why, then I'm done. Won't read it.
I may take a stab at Black House (sequel to the Talisman by King/Straub), but this book apparently does this. I read the first page of it, and it's intriguing enough.
I hate extremely lengthy exposition that starts on the first page and usually continues throughout the rest of the book. No info dumps please!
I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the overuse of epiphany. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is worse than an "OH I GET IT!" and everything works out epiphany every time the character experiences an ounce of strife.
I read Sunshine by Robin McKinley this summer. The worst part was that nothing happened. Something happened in between pages 50-100 and then nothing happened until 50 pages later. Every 50 pages something semi-interesting happened. The second worst part was that there were zero chapters. Only four parts, one every 100 or so pages. And it felt like it took a half hour just to be able to flip the page again. Ugh. Not a great book.
I recently read a book with a classic action and mystery character as the main and the author spent all his time talking about the daily doings of side characters. I've only read a couple, but Steven King does this as well. Instead of exploring the psychology of the character some authors will delve into minutia regarding behavior. Such as, "Tracy walked through the crowd and bought a fish then bumped into a guy and he said hi. Later she returned home put the fish on the counter, turned a kettle, then she went up stairs to fold clothes. Opps, the kettle was screeching down there and she went down to get it. This goes on for twenty pages, then Tracy gets "tubeneck disease" and dies. Boooooring! That's mundane filler which doubles for character development.
-Cliches. Words cannot describe how much I hate cliches (and a lot of things count as cliches to me). If I read the back of a book and see any cliche at all, I will put it down immediately. Cliches to me include dragons, vampires, chosen ones/phophecies, etc. -Fantasy book that take themselves way too seriously. That's all I can think of at the moment.
A cliche is a word, phrase, or metaphor that is overused to the point that its impact has all but disappeared. Ideas are not cliche! Common themes and plot elements recur throughout writing, both good writing and bad. You would be very hard pressed to find any such story elements that have NOT been seen before in some form or other. As for the ones that recur the most, it is because writers who came before wrote stories that appealed to many readers. You have heard the adage about judging a book by its cover, and yet you are literally doing so! What matters is not the plot elements that comprise a book. It is the quality of the writing.
I'm not a Black Panther or militant or anything, but lack of diversity in characters, especially from American authors. I mean really, people. Just look around you. Ok?
4 dictionary results for: cliche 2. (in art, literature, drama, etc.) a trite or hackneyed plot, character development, use of color, musical expression, etc. 3. anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse. ---- Anyway, i cant say that i can think of anything that "completely" puts me off reading on. I am always shocked when i see throughout the internet, on reviews and sites related to reading "I saw a stupid looking name on the first page and stopped reading" or "One sentence was so ridiculously convoluted that i was forced to reread it once to understand its meaning, so i threw the book across the room." It seems extremely closed minded to me to completely abandon reading a book based on something so small. I understand people not reading something if they cant get into it though, but it rarely seems to happen to me - the only time i will not read something is if i start reading a book i dont know the author of or something at a time when im not really reading a lot, and then before i can get into it i get a new book that is a sequel to one I've read or something, and i start on it and leave the other one behind. I cant remember ever purposefully abandoning a book. But then again, I've never tried to read a pure romance or anything, so who knows how i'd react
Although I really, really see what you mean, I don't think diversity is always realistic. I work with black families in Philly, and I'm part Native American, so that's a lot going on there. However, if aliens invaded I doubt I'd end up in group with one black, one Asian, one girl, and I doubt think my stealthy Indian genes would suddenly kick in. Chances are I'd end up with the white people in my building.
I don't think racial diversity is quite what Wrey meant. I think he means personality wise being diverse. Ex. All of your MC's being preppy cheerleaders, then all of your MC's enemies being the same way. That's a poor example, but my brain's fried and I can't think of a better one.
