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

[twowheels]

Most modern mutli-part books that should have been one book, so basically "series" is the turn-off word for me.

(I say that as I'm actively reading the Pine Cove series by Michael Moore, but that's an _older_ series, before they got really bad)

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Sounds like one book my daughter was reading when she was in high school. Basically, if the characters were in a horror movie, they'd be taking turns to head into the basement while the main character spends her time dithering about whether to tell her friends/parents/stray people she meets on the street what she knows about the killer for fear of becoming unpopular like any fink.

My daughter took her advice from Sid Ziff: “It is not a book to be lightly thrown aside. It should be thrown with great force.”

:r ofl: AMEN, and thanks for the laugh!!!! This is otherwise known as Too Stupid To Live!

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by haertig

If I see the word "serial" I will run away as fast as I can. Similar reaction if it says "part 1" or anything to that effect. I don't buy books that the author can't bother to finish. There are too many good books out there to bother with detritus like that.

1000% agree!

Having read lots of fanfiction before ereaders came out, I got burned too many times by unfinshed stories. Either post the whole thing or it gets skipped over by me. To have this happen as a book I pay for?? HELL NO!

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

1000% agree!

Having read lots of fanfiction before ereaders came out, I got burned too many times by unfinshed stories. Either post the whole thing or it gets skipped over by me. To have this happen as a book I pay for?? HELL NO!

If I do give in and read a serial, it'll always be after the last book has been published, so that I know that I won't be burned. Then I read them all together, as if they were one book.

[MarjaE]

Off the top of my head, the first Roman literary reference to stirrups is in the Strategikon, from the late 6th century. And the first archaeological evidence is of Avar Stirrups in the early 6th century. Some authors have argued that leather stirrups may have predated metal ones, and wouldn't be preserved.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

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.

IMHO Braveheart is not a good movie, but of course many people think otherwise (it won the Oscar for Best Picture, after all). There's no denying it's pretty wildly historically inaccurate, though.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by haertig

If I see the word "serial" I will run away as fast as I can. Similar reaction if it says "part 1" or anything to that effect. I don't buy books that the author can't bother to finish. There are too many good books out there to bother with detritus like that.

Me too! I want each book to be it's own full experience.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Reviews are nice, but then I also often suspect they are friends of the author or people with low standards. Books that look like absolute garbage to me get rave reviews.

I don't look to reviews to tell me if a book is good or bad. It's just another source of information about the book; about what it's about. If it's something that might interest me I'll read a page or two online or download a sample to decide if the author can write. Unless, of course, it's an author whose writing I'm familiar with.

Barry

[haertig]

Having converted to mostly reading eBooks these days, I learned about these "serials". You don't see that in the printed book world - at least I never ran into it. So up until a few years ago when I went digital, I never knew these half-finished books existed.

I did read one serial that I enjoyed. Wool. But I didn't realize that it had started out as a serial until after I had read it. I bought the eBook that contained all of the previous parts, not realizing that that was what I was doing. So I lucked out there. And it was a good book. But I would never have even started it had I known what it was initially. The author would not have gotten one penny of my money. Authors should take note of that (not that they care what I, a single individual, feels). Wasn't Wool one of the first serials that made it big? I seem to remember reading that somewhere (after I had already read it).

[leebase]

People I don't know writing endorsements

Any politically correct terminology

Bad cover art

Anything with Zombies or Vampires

Romance

Religious themes as part of the marketing. I'm not opposed to religious characters or themes, I'm just not particularly fond of explicitly religious fiction. It's generally poor quality (with notable exceptions).

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I often read stories that are under 200 pages. Some authors produced their best work in the short story/novella/novelette format. .

I agree. And as a kids, I really liked short stories. But no longer. Not only do I want a nice thick book, but a nice thick book that's part of a series. A long series.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by hildea

I once got two crime novels as a gift where I could see from the cover text that the first murder victim was probably a child

I agree. Along with rape. I do not want to read detailed rape scenes. I like serial killer books...but not with those two themes.

I've read and liked dystopias[/QUOTE]

Dystopia is not my kind of book. Books where the characters are miserable all the time, make me miserable.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

Off the top of my head, the first Roman literary reference to stirrups is in the Strategikon, from the late 6th century. And the first archaeological evidence is of Avar Stirrups in the early 6th century. Some authors have argued that leather stirrups may have predated metal ones, and wouldn't be preserved.

There is a fair amount of controversy about when stirrups where first used and a lot depends on your definition of stirrup. For example, at some point some used a loop of rope that they put their toe through. Is that a stirrup?

Mostly, when someone misuses stirrup in a historical book, they are pretty obvious about it and it's rarely the only mistake they make. There are certain mistakes that show that the author doesn't know the time period and didn't bother to research it much. Classic example is some using a repeating rifle in a western that was set prior to the Civil War.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is a fair amount of controversy about when stirrups where first used and a lot depends on your definition of stirrup. For example, at some point some used a loop of rope that they put their toe through. Is that a stirrup?

Mostly, when someone misuses stirrup in a historical book, they are pretty obvious about it and it's rarely the only mistake they make. There are certain mistakes that show that the author doesn't know the time period and didn't bother to research it much. Classic example is some using a repeating rifle in a western that was set prior to the Civil War.

Don't get me started on authors not bothering with geographical research. The's one author I won't read because she apparently confuses Essex with Cornwall and believes there are towering cliffs with caves in the former. Umm, no, Essex is known for coastal marshland and mudflats. Smugglers abounded in both, but the terrain is completely different.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by maddz

Don't get me started on authors not bothering with geographical research.

And then there are authors who don't bother with any research at all and still have a horde of fans... (Dan Brown, I'm looking at you).