Things in books that annoy you

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jj2me

If the covers don't reveal romances (and that includes having vines and flowers sprouting from the cover's bottom), there are plenty of keywords found in titles that generally indicate a romance, like what's below in the spoiler (because so many just flowed out of my head and I don't want to clutter the thread with a long list):

Spoiler:

Magnolia
Mistress
Sister
Temptress
Precious
Friend/Friendship
Mysterious
Affair
Bride
Fire
Summer
Heart
Love
Kiss
Surrender
Wicked
Desire
Devil
Pride
Bride
Christmas
Ball
Mountain
Lighthouse
Island
Sea/Seaside
Point
Ridge
Lake
Cottage
River
Brook
Stream
Sunrise/Sunset
Heiress/Countess/Duchess/Princess/[any-upper-status-"ess" (but usually not waitress]
Cowboy
Duke

Many of the words in your list occur in the titles of mysteries/suspense/thrillers--I can think of a lot of them off the top of my head.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by sjfan

Even in the 1990s our high school English teachers would bend themselves into knots attempting to make up reasons why 1984 and A Brave New World aren't science fiction and The Picture of Dorian Gray and 100 Years of Solitude (which features an actual flying carpet) aren't fantasy.

Because those are good books, and thus clearly couldn't be in those genres.

When "1984" and "Brave New World" were written there was only one genre and that was science fiction and neither of these books were put into science fiction in book stores. Well, I wasn't actually around when "Brave New World was written and I was 8 when "1984" was written so I don't actually know that. But by 1951 or 52 when i started going into book stores they were in the fiction section.

Reviews of those books in those days sometimes referred to them as science fiction but most often that wasn't mentioned. They were considered general fiction. I haven't read the other two so I won't comment on those.

I can see why today they might be thought of as science fiction since it's no longer the same sort of genre it used to be. For the most part science fiction was written to appeal to people with an interest in science. Today it's written to appeal to people with interest in fantasy, sociology, politics and horror and sometimes science. Both books fit into today's ideas of what science fiction is, although not the ideas of the past.

Actually, the term "science fiction" didn't come into general use until the early 1950s and then it referred to pulp fiction until late in that decade and both of these books were written before then.

I think I have to agree with your teacher.

Barry

[barryem]

I read a few romance novels about 15 or so years ago since I like to try different things in books. I have no objection to love stories and even sappy love stories but I was bothered by the gimmicky and dishonest writing. I read a couple at the urging of some people on the forums I was in then since I was always making fun of romance readers, and I complained about the gimmicks. So a number of people whose opinions I respect in other types of books suggested particular books and authors, which I read and found to be as gimmicky.

An example of what I'm talking about is a scene where the leading character says something that would completely destroy her and the story as well, and then the author explains that she didn't really say it but she would have liked to say it. Anything to get a rise out of the reader.

While I'm against the death penalty in general I might vote for an exception for romance writers.

And readers.

Barry

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by barryem

Actually, the term "science fiction" didn't come into general use until the early 1950s and then it referred to pulp fiction until late in that decade and both of these books were written before then.

I think I have to agree with your teacher.

Barry

I would have to disagree. Science fiction was used back in the 1930s to separate it from the other pulp fiction genres. AFAIR, Hugo Gernsback popularized the term though his personal preference was scientifiction. I did like his preference for a story being "75% literature and 25% science". He also founded the Science Fiction League (likely the first fannish group) in 1934. The Philadelphia Science Fiction Society was founded in 1935 as a chapter of the SFL and continues to this day.

I even dug out my copy of The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom by Sam Moskowitz when thinking about your post. Hmmm... can I put a book up for sale with condition: "very poor, disintegrating"? Though that does fit with the overall quality of the book. I still can't find my copy of The Futurians.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by barryem

While I'm against the death penalty in general I might vote for an exception for romance writers.

Can we add authors who depend on deus ex machina to the "they'll never be missed" list?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I was just about to read The Mysterious Affair of the Wicked Cowboy-Duke of Sunset Point, but your list just warned me off.

Recently the home page of my library was offering a list of cowboy romances - I don't remember seeing the Cowboy Duke though .
Hmm.... Cowboy Duke ... Is that a John Wayne western?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by sjfan

Even in the 1990s our high school English teachers would bend themselves into knots attempting to make up reasons why 1984 and A Brave New World aren't science fiction and The Picture of Dorian Gray and 100 Years of Solitude (which features an actual flying carpet) aren't fantasy.

Because those are good books, and thus clearly couldn't be in those genres.

I've read 1984, Brave New World, and Dorian Gray, and I'd never consider any of them science fiction. They're general fiction.

[FizzyWater]

I have a huge problem reading books written in first person, present tense. It just sounds too much like a couple of kids talking at the mall.

"So, I go into the lunchroom and you know what happens next? She tells me..." blah blah blah. I got through The Time-Traveler's Wife, but nowadays, if I pick up a book and it's first person, present tense, I just put it back. Usually, that means returning it on Overdrive.

Originally Posted by icallaci

I know, and I have no problem with anyone else enjoying them. It's just that I had to look at some horrifying photos and listen to some heart-rending testimony, and it affects how I look at "fun" murder mysteries now. They just don't work for me anymore.

At one point I read a lot of True Crime, but had to stop for years after 9/11. Same idea, I think - I just couldn't use tragedy as entertainment until I could get some emotional distance. Then (and sadly, this is true), one of my dearest friend's daughter was murdered by her boyfriend...I do not *ever* want to see her story on a true crime show. I think I would literally throw up.

Originally Posted by theducks

Personally, using ANY product model or brand, quickly 'dates' a (non-period) story.

Stories that drop too many names (celebrities, products, movies, etc.) annoy me. And if they happen to drop a lot of cultural references that I don't know (didn't read the book, watch the TV series, whatever), then I lose the context. It's a lazy choice.

In romance novels, I've seen authors describe the "hero" as looking like some celebrity or sports guy. Well, if that guy gives me the creeps or reminds of my little brother - ick!

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Speaking of technology, authors don't seem to know about the change in over-the-air TV from analog to digital that happened in 2009 (I know because I had to get a converter box for my old TV). But authors wanting to make a point about how poor a character is or what a dump they are living in will say the character has an ancient TV with rabbit ears with no mention of it having a converter box, which is the only way such a TV could be used now.

This kind of thing always makes me doublecheck the copyright date. Too many 30-year-old reissues that don't tell you their not actually new releases.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by sjfan

Even in the 1990s our high school English teachers would bend themselves into knots attempting to make up reasons why 1984 and A Brave New World aren't science fiction and The Picture of Dorian Gray and 100 Years of Solitude (which features an actual flying carpet) aren't fantasy.

Because those are good books, and thus clearly couldn't be in those genres.

I agree with you on 1984, Brave New World and Dorian Gray.

I haven't read 100 Years of Solitude, but assuming it's like the Gabriel García Márquez I have read (No One Writes To The Colonel, Leaf Storm and Chronicle Of A Death Foretold), I wouldn't consider that fantasy. It's magical realism and it's a different thing. The supernatural events are incidental to the story and are usually a sort of metaphor.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I've read 1984, Brave New World, and Dorian Gray, and I'd never consider any of them science fiction. They're general fiction.

A Brave New World is about a dystopian future in which genetic engineering, artificial wombs, and designer drugs are used to control the population. Huxley himself said it was an extension of and reaction to an earlier work by H. G. Wells (one of the godfathers of science fiction). The only reason that it’s not considered such is because of the historical bias that science fiction is lightweight or unworthy, and therefore anything good must not be science fiction. 1984 is similar.

They are both also philosophical books, political commentary, and dystopian visions—like many books, they fall into multiple genres.

Dorian Gray isn’t science fiction, it’s fantasy. The central conceit is of a character who’s granted a wish for a magical painting. The fact that the conceit is used to examine Dorian’s personality and other broader themes doesn’t make it not fantasy, it just makes it good.

I'm not sure I know what “general fiction” connotes as opposed to simply “fiction”.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I agree with you on 1984, Brave New World and Dorian Gray.

I haven't read 100 Years of Solitude, but assuming it's like the Gabriel García Márquez I have read (No One Writes To The Colonel, Leaf Storm and Chronicle Of A Death Foretold), I wouldn't consider that fantasy. It's magical realism and it's a different thing. The supernatural events are incidental to the story and are usually a sort of metaphor.

Magical realism often overlaps with fantasy. 100 Years of Solitude features an actual flying carpet.

[ekbell]

Now I'm left wondering if Penny Dreadfuls would would have counted as genre books (if that term had been used back then).

I like reading falling-in-love stories. I know that good romances exist. Why is it that I can't find them (outside of older books, some fanfic and Bujold)?

[doubleshuffle]

[John F]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Alas, I'm reading kePub and as we discussed, they don't have standard page numbers the way ePub does.

Touche.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Alas, I'm reading kePub and as we discussed, they don't have standard page numbers the way ePub does.

The first paragraph of chapter 5 is the same regardless of what type of page numbering you are using. You should know this. If you didn't, you do now.