Things in books that annoy you

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Well, no, that's not what the statistics indicate.

Most people don't read at ALL once they leave school. Of the people that read, the most read genre is romance. The widest read genre is mystery.

https://www.bookstr.com/book-genres-...the-most-money

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...n-adults-read/

Greg

I do not disagree with your first statement. Unfortunately, too many people younger than me never read novels at all. However, your statistics link (what I can see of it - I'm not registered) doesn't include general fiction. So, it's kindof apples and oranges.

This one shows over time what has sold. Most are general fiction, with a handful of fantasies thrown in (i.e. Harry Potter and LOTR).
https://www.statisticbrain.com/ficti...es-statistics/

[Rumpelteazer]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I used to belong to an author's Yahoo Group and she mentioned once that she'd been taught never to end a chapter on the end of a scene. The idea was that anytime a reader might close your book - and not be at the end - you risk losing them. I find this rather silly. Like I can't close a book at a scene end, just because it's not a chapter end? I'm not that anal retentive.

One of the authors I read must have been trained by the same person (or read their book/blog/whatever). She ends chapters in places it makes no sense. The middle of a conversation, the middle of an action, it doesn't matter.

Those are also annoying. I've tried to read James Patterson's King Tut and he (or whoever actually wrote the story) indeed treated chapter breaks as scene breaks. I stopped reading the book quite quickly because those inappropriate chapter breaks kept throwing my out of the story.

I mean books that actually have a cliffhanger, often life-or-death at the end of almost every chapter. It's exhausting when every chapter quickly builds up to an action scene. I also find that these type of books lack character development, the characters are often charicatures (the action hero, the beautiful AND smart woman or the beautiful AND dangerous woman, the nerd, the evil genius, etc) and there is no real story, just a bunch of action scenes driving the story.

[hildea]

The thread about sex reminded me of another one: It bothers me when a couple have sex which could lead to pregnancy in a situation where a pregnancy would be a disaster. I'm not saying it's not realistic -- people have been doing dangerous, short-sighted things because it seemed a good idea in the moment since the dawn of time. But when it happens in books, it tends to make me wince and get pulled out of the story. And if it happens in a romance, and all the risk is on her side (which it usually is in historical settings) it makes it harder for me to believe he actually cares about her, when he's willing to gamble with her future.

[drjd]

Originally Posted by lotuzzdiabetes

Is there anything that irritates you when you come across it in books?

Small fonts, probably?

[orlok]

Originally Posted by drjd

Small fonts, probably?

There's an app for that

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by orlok

There's an app for that

So how does a pBook run this app?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So how does a pBook run this app?

One applies Reading glasses to one's face!

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by hildea

The thread about sex reminded me of another one: It bothers me when a couple have sex which could lead to pregnancy in a situation where a pregnancy would be a disaster. I'm not saying it's not realistic -- people have been doing dangerous, short-sighted things because it seemed a good idea in the moment since the dawn of time. But when it happens in books, it tends to make me wince and get pulled out of the story. And if it happens in a romance, and all the risk is on her side (which it usually is in historical settings) it makes it harder for me to believe he actually cares about her, when he's willing to gamble with her future.

I agree. While browsing library listings I've seen descriptions of Regency romances with plots like "Lady Mary is bored with her life and has decided she wants one night of passion, and she knows just the man for it". This just doesn't make sense in a time where premarital sex and unwed pregnancy were (as you said) a disaster for the woman. Sure, people are human and undoubtedly some of them got carried away and things went farther than they intended, but for a woman to intentionally set out to have premarital sex with no expectation of marriage just isn't realistic for the time period.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

One applies Reading glasses to one's face!

That's not an app.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That's not an app.

I really give up...

[shalym]

Originally Posted by orlok

I really give up...

Don't give up, just embrace the wonderfulness! I think of it as chair cardio...it gets my blood pressure up for a few minutes every day!

Shari

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I agree. While browsing library listings I've seen descriptions of Regency romances with plots like "Lady Mary is bored with her life and has decided she wants one night of passion, and she knows just the man for it". This just doesn't make sense in a time where premarital sex and unwed pregnancy were (as you said) a disaster for the woman. Sure, people are human and undoubtedly some of them got carried away and things went farther than they intended, but for a woman to intentionally set out to have premarital sex with no expectation of marriage just isn't realistic for the time period.

And if the author has set up a science fiction society based on people having vastly extended lives and competely reliable birth control then unplanned pregnancies with no prior indication that the characters were being careless shouldn't be part of the plot IMO.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I agree. While browsing library listings I've seen descriptions of Regency romances with plots like "Lady Mary is bored with her life and has decided she wants one night of passion, and she knows just the man for it". This just doesn't make sense in a time where premarital sex and unwed pregnancy were (as you said) a disaster for the woman. Sure, people are human and undoubtedly some of them got carried away and things went farther than they intended, but for a woman to intentionally set out to have premarital sex with no expectation of marriage just isn't realistic for the time period.

It did happen however, though rarely.

Pride and Prejudice qualifies as a contemporary fictional representation depending what you take "no expectation of marriage" to mean.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I agree. While browsing library listings I've seen descriptions of Regency romances with plots like "Lady Mary is bored with her life and has decided she wants one night of passion, and she knows just the man for it". This just doesn't make sense in a time where premarital sex and unwed pregnancy were (as you said) a disaster for the woman. Sure, people are human and undoubtedly some of them got carried away and things went farther than they intended, but for a woman to intentionally set out to have premarital sex with no expectation of marriage just isn't realistic for the time period.

There has never been a time in human history when sex outside of wedlock wasn't common. Prior to the Victorian era, 40% of first pregnancies were outside of marriage; even at the height of Victorian prudery, that number was still over 20%.

By the Regency era there were many options for attempting to avoid pregnancy, from contraceptive sponges and condoms to zinc and alum syringe baths (douches) to help avoid pregnancy. They weren't all effective by modern standards, but the plethora of attempts certainly indicates that the demand was there. Moral Physiology was published in 1831 and Fruits of Philosophy was in 1832, and they were hardly the first manuals of birth control around.

And there were doctors like Madame Restell all over the civilized world; there's a reason that the Malicious Shooting and Stabbing Act of 1803 had to deal explicitly with abortion as a topic.

The Mosher study conducted during the American Civil War era is illustrative; it indicated that about 2/3 of women surveyed during the Victorian era had used some sort of birth control, effective or not.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by sjfan

There has never been a time in human history when sex outside of wedlock wasn't common. Prior to the Victorian era, 40% of first pregnancies were outside of marriage; even at the height of Victorian prudery, that number was still over 20%.

By the Regency era there were many options for attempting to avoid pregnancy, from contraceptive sponges and condoms to zinc and alum syringe baths (douches) to help avoid pregnancy. They weren't all effective by modern standards, but the plethora of attempts certainly indicates that the demand was there. Moral Physiology was published in 1831 and Fruits of Philosophy was in 1832, and they were hardly the first manuals of birth control around.

And there were doctors like Madame Restell all over the civilized world; there's a reason that the Malicious Shooting and Stabbing Act of 1803 had to deal explicitly with abortion as a topic.

The Mosher study conducted during the American Civil War era is illustrative; it indicated that about 2/3 of women surveyed during the Victorian era had used some sort of birth control, effective or not.

I'm sure there have always been people in every time period who had premarital or extramarital sex. However, it still doesn't seem to me to be a realistic book plot for an upper-class woman in the Regency era to intentionally set out to find a man solely for the purpose of premarital sex. Of course, since such books are written as romances, undoubtedly the character has a happy ending, though admittedly I did not read whatever book it was so I can't be sure!

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

It did happen however, though rarely.

Pride and Prejudice qualifies as a contemporary fictional representation depending what you take "no expectation of marriage" to mean.

If you are referring to Lydia running off with Wickham, Lydia was portrayed throughout the book as foolish. When she ran off, it was scandalous and her family considered her ruined. Darcy basically paid Wickham to marry her for the sake of her sisters. It doesn't seem like a recommendation for such behavior in that era.