Buying books: words or phrases that can turn a 'yes' into a 'no'?

[shalym]

Vampire, "shifter", paranormal, supernatural. It's sad, too, because I used to *love* books about those things, but so much actual drek has been written about them, I just automatically say "no" now, and move on. Especially in the "cozy mystery" genre.

Oh yeah...I've also recently decided that any that include recipes or "knitting tips" are a hard no, as well.

Shari

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by shalym

Vampire, "shifter", paranormal, supernatural. It's sad, too, because I used to *love* books about those things, but so much actual drek has been written about them, I just automatically say "no" now, and move on.

Shari

Generally same here, though there have been exceptions. And ditto for soulmate. Or fated mate, or mate at all. They have managed to make an abomination of the word.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by issybird

“Sweeping” and “saga.”

Originally Posted by SeaBookGuy

Multi-generational (spanning generations) doesn't work for me.

How about a sweeping, multigenerational saga Whatever you call it, I usually avoid these.

Originally Posted by shalym

Vampire, "shifter", paranormal, supernatural. It's sad, too, because I used to *love* books about those things, but so much actual drek has been written about them, I just automatically say "no" now, and move on. Especially in the "cozy mystery" genre.

Oh yeah...I've also recently decided that any that include recipes or "knitting tips" are a hard no, as well.

Shari

I prefer books set in the real world so any of those supernatural things are an automatic "no" for me.

Unfortunately book descriptions often don't indicate "includes recipes" or "includes craft tips" so you don't find out until you download and start reading.

[Apache]

Historical fiction that isn't will make me drop a book. I like historical fiction to be mostly accurate, especially concerning major historical facts. I don't mind minor changes that help the story especially when the author adds an afterword explaining their reasoning.
Apache

[Sirtel]

Just came upon a science fiction novel the synopsis of which seemed interesting... until the words "the gutsy heroine". Ouch. I couldn't close the tab fast enough.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

Historical fiction that isn't will make me drop a book. I like historical fiction to be mostly accurate, especially concerning major historical facts. I don't mind minor changes that help the story especially when the author adds an afterword explaining their reasoning.
Apache

Yes, obvious historical gaffes can bother me quite a bit, though I'll admit that I'm a lot more forgiving of movies in that regard than books. The mention of Stirrups from a time period before stirrups were in common use is a pet peeve. Stirrups were not common in the West until much later than a lot of people think.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, obvious historical gaffes can bother me quite a bit, though I'll admit that I'm a lot more forgiving of movies in that regard than books. The mention of Stirrups from a time period before stirrups were in common use is a pet peeve. Stirrups were not common in the West until much later than a lot of people think.

Even more than physical anachronisms I'm bothered by 21st century mindset in a book or a movie taking place in the past. And that happens in the majority of them. Recently I watched a couple of episodes of Knightfall in Netflix. Ouch. Not the whole grail stuff, but the values and attitudes of the characters. Pure modern stuff. Needless to say, I won't be watching any more episodes, unless I'm very bored.

But we have drifted off topic again.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, obvious historical gaffes can bother me quite a bit, though I'll admit that I'm a lot more forgiving of movies in that regard than books. The mention of Stirrups from a time period before stirrups were in common use is a pet peeve. Stirrups were not common in the West until much later than a lot of people think.

I vaguely seem to remember stirrups were in common use in the West (by which I take it, you mean Europe) by the 8th century. Or are you referring to elsewhere/elsewhen?

I do remember laughing in one movie set in Rome where they were using stirrups. The ignominy of dismounting to fight on foot was not for them.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Even more than physical anachronisms I'm bothered by 21st century mindset in a book or a movie taking place in the past...

But we have drifted off topic again.

I agree. And it can easily be brought back on topic. It is often obvious even in the book description.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I do remember laughing in one movie set in Rome where they were using stirrups.

Supposedly several extras in Spartacus appear wearing wrist watches. I haven't sought out the truth of it because once I see it I can't unsee it and I don't want to ruin a great movie for myself.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Supposedly several extras in Spartacus appear wearing wrist watches. I haven't sought out the truth of it because once I see it I can't unsee it and I don't want to ruin a great movie for myself.

I've heard it was the sunglasses in Braveheart (which is a heap of anachronisms anyway, so I guess little harm was done).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I've heard it was the sunglasses in Braveheart (which is a heap of anachronisms anyway, so I guess little harm was done).

I only saw Braveheart once and didn't care for it. The Passion and Apocalypto showed that Mel Gibson is a talented director. Maybe I should try again. But I likely won't.

[DNSB]

For quite a few books from Amazon or Kobo, if I have found the description interesting enough, I will download the sample. If the first chapter or so in the sample isn't enough to hook me, very time has been wasted. Of course, this assumes the sample has enough of the book to be worthwhile. I still have a nasty taste left from one sample that by the time I skipped over the multiple cover images, the titlepage, the copyright pages, the other books by author pages, the author's social media links, a short table of contents, a full table of contents, a 2 page dedication, 3 pages of acknowledgements and the epigraph, there were a whole 3 pages of the prologue to be read. BTW, I didn't buy the book partly based on the lack of a useful sample and partly on the double-spaced prologue with a 1.5 line height space between the indented paragraphs.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

I pulled up a review of a highly rated Goodreads book that sounded positively dire to me, and here are some of the trigger words and phrases in the blurb:

• Soul
• Noble student
• Profound spiritual insight
• Finding beauty in a cruel and arbitrary world
• Somber backdrop
• Unusual story
• Soulmate

There are more, but you catch the drift. Some of these would make the all-time list, notably “soulmate” and “spiritual insight,” but others, less specific, still add up to not being able to hit the back button fast enough. And mostly because the author or whoever was responsible for this drivel tips her hand. I don’t mind a soulmate or spiritual insight in theory, but if you’ve got to label it, you’ve got serious problems. You clearly don’t trust your narrative to do the job.

Those are good words/phrases to ignore.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I vaguely seem to remember stirrups were in common use in the West (by which I take it, you mean Europe) by the 8th century. Or are you referring to elsewhere/elsewhen?

I do remember laughing in one movie set in Rome where they were using stirrups. The ignominy of dismounting to fight on foot was not for them.

There's some evidence that the Sarmatians used stirrups, and there was a Sarmatian auxiliary cavalry unit stationed at Hadrian's Wall. However, most Roman cavalry did not use stirrups, and the stirrup did not become widely used until the early Medieval period.

Re the movies, unfortunately, modern insurance requirements mean riders must use stirrups even in (supposedly) historical films set in a period where stirrups were unknown...