Things in books that annoy you

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by barryem

Actually I think there's something to be said for both sides of this discussion. "Brave New World" and "1984" both contain some elements of science fiction. But most people don't think of them as science fiction and I think that's what wins the argument.

Does a book cease to be considered science fiction once all those impossible (at the time of writing) technologies come to reality?

[kokiangel]

I hate the style of writing in first person and even worse, writing in first person while trying to be both main characters. First the author writes as the female character telling the story in present tense. The next chapter the author flips to telling the story from the male's point of view in first person, present tense. This makes the book very awkward to read and from the many mistakes found within the book also difficult to write. This is usually found in cheap romance novels and is a definite skip and ban of the author from my future reading list.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Does a book cease to be considered science fiction once all those impossible (at the time of writing) technologies come to reality?

In many ways, how people react to 'impossible situations' is what Science Fiction and Fantasy is all about. At least it is for me. It is the unsupported 'wild card' impossible situation that I find objectionable. The impossible situation that is one of and unexplained as a way to merely get out of a situation.

The film "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", is a perfect example. The end is a flying saucer unexplained and un hinted at in the movie. I felt cheated by the ending. Previous I.J. movies had dealt with human spirituality and the quest to find our place in the universe through our spiritual identities. This film's ending, tosses all that away with a cheesy flying saucer.

It was an unsatisfactory resolution in my eyes.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

In many ways, how people react to 'impossible situations' is what Science Fiction and Fantasy is all about. At least it is for me.

I think you misunderstand what I was asking. Specifically the SF element in Brave New World of genetic engineering which the whole world is based on. Today it is no longer science fiction, but possible and not just in theory. Granted, there hasn't been human clones so far as I know. That is not a technological barrier though, but a moral one.

Does that now mean that Brave New World is no longer classifiable as Science Fiction if it was published today? (Or for the snobbery kind, doesn't have any more SF elements in it?)

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by kokiangel

I hate the style of writing in first person and even worse, writing in first person while trying to be both main characters. First the author writes as the female character telling the story in present tense. The next chapter the author flips to telling the story from the male's point of view in first person, present tense. This makes the book very awkward to read and from the many mistakes found within the book also difficult to write. This is usually found in cheap romance novels and is a definite skip and ban of the author from my future reading list.

I'm OK with one first-person narrator, but I would not like the kind of two-party narration you are talking about. If the story is going to show the viewpoints of more than one character, I prefer it to be told in third person.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I'm OK with one first-person narrator, but I would not like the kind of two-party narration you are talking about. If the story is going to show the viewpoints of more than one character, I prefer it to be told in third person.

I've read quite a few books where the chapters/sections alternate between two POVs--one in first person, the other in third person. Sometimes there's a switch from present tense to past tense as well. Usually I'm okay with it.

Paula Hawkins had multiple POV characters and used first-, second-, and third-person narration in Into the Water. It was a confusing and convoluted mess.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I'm OK with one first-person narrator, but I would not like the kind of two-party narration you are talking about.

It's hard to pull off. I'm currently reading the books of Glen Cook's "The Black Company" series (in book #6 of 11). The first four books have the same character as the narrator, with some chapters written in third person, the fifth and sixth book have narrators that were previously support characters. The first switch seemed a little unconvincing to me, but the second one to the next narrator worked out pretty well as the voice was more distinct.

The first person and third person chapter alterations stood out as more unusual to me, but it surprisingly didn't spoil the reading experience or the story for me. I'd even say it added freshness and dynamic to the storytelling. Perhaps it works so well in this case because the first person chapters are written in form of journals, and the third person chapters cover events that the writer of the company's annals wasn't observing.

In general, I quite like first person narration if it's done well. It's a more direct and intimate style where the reader can identify even more closely with the character. I think it's more difficult to write well in first person, though.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by kokiangel

I hate the style of writing in first person and even worse, writing in first person while trying to be both main characters. First the author writes as the female character telling the story in present tense. The next chapter the author flips to telling the story from the male's point of view in first person, present tense.

I love alternate point of views, both in first person and in tight third person. I really like seeing someone both from the inside and outside, seeing the contrast between how they see themselves and how others see them. In Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan series, we follow Miles (in tight third person) through a bunch of books, and when we got to see other people's view of Miles, it was a delight -- especially in Mirror Dance, which does this really, really well.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I think you misunderstand what I was asking. Specifically the SF element in Brave New World of genetic engineering which the whole world is based on. Today it is no longer science fiction, but possible and not just in theory. Granted, there hasn't been human clones so far as I know. That is not a technological barrier though, but a moral one.

Does that now mean that Brave New World is no longer classifiable as Science Fiction if it was published today? (Or for the snobbery kind, doesn't have any more SF elements in it?)

In my opinion, something can be science fiction even if all the technology in the book is available when the book is written. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale is a good example -- there's no technology there which wasn't available when the book was written, but it's definitively speculation/fable about a potential future.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

...
Does that now mean that Brave New World is no longer classifiable as Science Fiction ...

While some may no longer consider it "Science Fiction" it is still clearly "Speculative Fiction".

What it is now means less to me than what it was when written.

[Pulpmeister]

There's one definite piece of technology in 1984 which is still SF: the television set which can't be turned off, never fails, and monitors everything you do...

...or is it?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I think you misunderstand what I was asking. Specifically the SF element in Brave New World of genetic engineering which the whole world is based on. Today it is no longer science fiction, but possible and not just in theory. Granted, there hasn't been human clones so far as I know. That is not a technological barrier though, but a moral one.

Does that now mean that Brave New World is no longer classifiable as Science Fiction if it was published today? (Or for the snobbery kind, doesn't have any more SF elements in it?)

Hmmm.... if Brave New World was being published today, it would very likely not be considered science fiction. In 1931 when it was written, it was definitely in the science fiction mold and should remain there. In much the same sense as I still consider Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon as being science fiction despite the manned moon landings 50 years ago. Sheesh... I would never have guessed in Dec., 1972 that the last manned moon landing for getting on close to 50 years had just happened.

Where were you on 1969-July-20?

[GrannyGrump]

A peeve for me--- mostly in much older books --- The UNTRANSLATED foreign language epigraph, or line of verse, or supposedly-familiar-to-everyone ancient Greek or Latin motto. Etc.

This was a widespread practice for many authors up until the 20th century. (It probably still occurs in hoity-toity lit-fic.)

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

A peeve for me--- mostly in much older books --- The UNTRANSLATED foreign language epigraph, or line of verse, or supposedly-familiar-to-everyone ancient Greek or Latin motto. Etc.

This was a widespread practice for many authors up until the 20th century. (It probably still occurs in hoity-toity lit-fic.)

How do you feel about people who prepare ebooks of these older books for modern readers and do their best to provide translations as endnotes? Would you prefer that the translations be provided? Or be left out?

Also, to take this a bit further/go off topic, how do you feel about people preparing ebooks of old classic books who use modern hyphenation rather than stay with to-day, to-night, and to-morrow?

[GrannyGrump]

I totally approve of book-creators providing translations. [I have done that myself on a few rare occasions, if that could be done within the scope of Google Translate or BabelFish ]

Modern hyphenation -- aha! You caught me, I use it all the time. “To-day” always takes me out of the story; it feels like an uncorrected OCR error. And I have found enough later editions of afflicted books which have dropped the hyphens, that I feel absolutely no guilt for removing them.

But for some strange reason, I don't mind shew for show, or clew for clue, etc, etc.

Which does remind me of a peeve in modern speculative/fantasy books -- the unpronounceable “alien” name or phrase. Having to stop to puzzle out a word like “Bxzphorrhgrw” is likely to put the author on my better-never-read list.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

Which does remind me of a peeve in modern speculative/fantasy books -- the unpronounceable “alien” name or phrase. Having to stop to puzzle out a word like “Bxzphorrhgrw” is likely to put the author on my better-never-read list.

There are those authors who supply a pronunciation guide for those unpronounceable names or words that you rapidly realize does not cover half the words/names used.

Then there were authors like Lovecraft who didn't bother about pronunciation. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn, for instance.