Originally Posted by pdurrant
I hate fiction that is internally inconsistent.
It doesn't really matter what the subject matter is. E.g., historical novels shouldn't have glaring anachronisms.
I think that's the key: internal consistency.
There's nothing wrong with implausible stuff, so long as the writer has explained why it is so despite the apparent implausibility.
But I hate feeling smarter than the writer.
If I figured it out, he/she should also have. It seems pointless to read something written by somebody who is clearly intellectually duller than I... hell, what if I catch what they have?