Pet peeves, things to work on as authors

It's quite common that there are threads dedicated to pet peeves, things people hate about various things including in stories.
I have quite a few things that annoy me as a reader, and I try to avoid them when I write, but I'm sure there are plenty of other things that annoy people, some of which I'm sure I'm guilty of.

With that in mind I'd like to encourage people to discuss their pet peeves in stories with a view to helping me, and others, stop making these faux pas'.

For me, other than bad grammar (like your/you're) and spelling errors (both of which appear to be extremely common) there are a few things that bug me.

In no particular order:
1) Using geographically limited vocabulary or phrases.
Obviously these are somewhat hard to avoid as for each author they're used to them and may not even realise that they're geographically limited terms. I have caught myself a few times when I was about to use a particular phrase and then realised it was a Kiwi thing, and most readers wouldn't understand. It just takes a little thought as you're writing to avoid them though.

• E.g. some authors use 'drug' as the past tense of drag. It's my understanding this usage is limited to some of the southern US states. Everywhere else a 'drug' is medicine, either legal or illegal.
• The phrase "feeling no pain" as a description of being drunk. Again I've never heard this in conversation here so assume it's an American thing.
• "Lucked out" might mean you're got lucky, but to some ears, like mine, it means the exact opposite, e.g. out of luck.

2) Downright messing up a phrase
This bugs me, a lot.

• For example "I could care less". I read this far too often. A simple logical examination of the sentence will indicate it should be "I COULDN'T care less." I could care less means you do care at least somewhat, whereas I couldn't care less means you don't care at all as it's not possible to care any less.

3) Messing up your own characters names or genders
How do people do this? Sure with multiple authors things may get confused occasionally, but quite often I've seen one author manage to change the name of a character mid sentence or refer to them as the wrong gender.

There are plenty of others, though they escape me at the moment. I think I've had too much coffee and not enough sex sleep.

 

Probably a problem, that especially occurs with the widespread english language.

In general I think, it should be avoided, except in direct speech.


As reader I really dislike "Quantity over quality".
So I always try to make it as good as I want it (and with all informations I want to use). The downside is, that I sometimes need hours to write only a few lines.

 

I frequently use the wrong word (while (see I did it just then!!!) fools the spellchecker) and with names, particularly if I am using one outside my own ethnicity which recently is most of the time, I might use the wrong vowel. Of course, I do not intend to do it but proof reading one's work, like testing one's own code, is doomed to failure because certain things you do not see, and then you do not see them again. I frequently edit my own threads, but that is not because I have not checked them ... sir, you are employing a double negative!

"I could care less" is frequently used in every day speech. Yes, it is logically incorrect but in the real world it happens. Quite a few novels are either written in dialect or have characters who use dialect, so if there is good reason there is nothing wrong with using local phrases, provided there is some chance. from the context, that people will be able to figure it out.

 

I cringe a little whenever I see the words "cervix" or "womb" during a sex scene. I understand that in some contexts they nod towards a domination or impregnation fetish, or that sometimes you don't want to overrely on "vagina," "pussy," etc. That said, every so often those words are used to emphasize the size of a man's penis in a way that seems anatomically possible. As in, the whole point of a woman's cervix is that you cannot penetrate it to fuck her womb directly.

 

I kind of think that the author should put a little time into helping ensure the reader doesn't have to figure out the meaning of the text. Their role is to enjoy the story.

I totally agree. It's kind of like the main character having a 12" penis. While the story is fictional, 12" is still a little ridiculous, and personally I don't see the point.

Must be a foreign thing again. People here don't get it wrong. ;-)

 

Anatomical exaggerations also annoy me. Patzo's example is one of mine too, which hearkens back to a really outdated idea about how the penis is supposed to lodge itself in the cervix for a woman to become pregnant (even Leonardo da Vinci got that wrong, despite getting the uterus more or less correct). Hymens are my main pet peeve. Many women, as they develop, don't have much of one by the time they're 13 or 14, because physical activity as simple as walking has eroded it, let alone athletics or even gynecological exams. Painful sex the first time is more because of stretching unused muscles surrounding the vagina than the tearing of the hymen, and blood that comes out has multiple sources -- tears in the vaginal wall because of bad lubrication is very common. Some hymens don't even tear, many are elastic. Some women are born without them. And some women never have painful sex, and for others it's like their first time, every time. All of this is why so-called "virginity tests" are worthless.

 

This is a great, informative summary, and I'll cop to having used a hymen-related "virginity test" recently in one of my threads for At The Cabin. I was losing steam on the scene in question and wanted to bring it to a quick end; what better way than having one character realize their partner, a "virgin," had already gotten her cherry popped in secret? It's a plot twist born of convenience for the author more than anything else, and in the future I'd do a better job of justifying it.

Oh, I also want to put one under the Messing Up A Phrase category. I'm always surprised when someone hears, and then writes, "could of" rather than "could've." What other verb is being described by "could" in that phrase?

 

A writer should always describe anatomical possible and should be almost "perfect" and all knowing due to his almighty position.

But that doesn't apply for characters. They are more or less inteligent and not all knowing.
A character can think, his partner isn't a virgin anymore and feel betrayed, while the partner actually is a virgin.
This could result in nice conflicts.
The girl can argue, that she never had sex, while the man can argue, that the signs are clear. In fact the man is wrong, but he just don't know it.

 

That gives me an idea. See, in my thread, the "virgin" has in fact been sleeping with someone else. But she might not be aware hymens are a fallible sign of virginity, so when accused she confesses. In this context, it's less about the "evidence" her partner finds, and more about her partner's existing suspicions and goading her into revealing herself.

 

And that's what makes that scene different. It advances the characters and the plot, as opposed to falling into the "virgins-be-a-poppin' " trope where tearing the hymen is some kind of conquest. I also like in johnhoftb's threads in At the Cabin, Chloe's hymen is explained away because she's on the soccer team.

 

Yeah, there's not a big focus on cherry popping in At The Cabin. It helps that, considering how many characters are involved, most of them are already sexually active when the story starts, but johnoftb's approach to Chloe is a nice touch. I'm gonna borrow that in the future.

 

Mixing tenses is one for me - stories shifting from "You are.." to "You were..." and all.

I don't mind regional phrases so long as they are understandable, given context, and make sense given the story setting. I think they add a lot of local flavour to stories, give a nice sense of time and place.

 

The virginity question is so common in porn that I often use it, even though I know the anatomical truth.

My personal pet peeve is bra sizes. Many many authors totally get them wrong. Too many times I've seen a woman who has been described as slim but big-breasted as being a 40-DD or something like that. That is not a slim person.

The number of the bra size is the measurement of the ribcage just below the breasts. So a slim person is going to have a slim measurement, 32-35 inches. The letter then tells how many more inches is the measurement across the nipples (or the largest part of the breasts) -- A = 1 inch, B = 2 inches, C = 3 inches, etc.

For a 36 inch chest with a 40-inch across-the-breast measurement, their bra size is 36D.

 

Interesting you bring that up Torg.
Personally I dislike being informed of a characters breast size in that much detail at all. It just seems weird to me to be that specific. Why not say what their blood type and tax numbers are while you're at it?

I tend to avoid physical descriptions of the characters in my stories altogether, preferring to leave it up to the reader to imagine them as they see fit.
Perhaps I am going too far the other way though?

 

I like a little bit of description, so I have a general idea of who I'm envisioning when I write a scene. Character descriptions at the beginning of a story help, because it can be clunky in the story itself. It seems to be an endemic issue in literature though, even the famous authors are bad at that -- unless you're like Salman Rushdie.

 

I agree with Yarkoz on description. I want the characters to be real people that have physical features, clothes (for awhile), and personalities. This is, after all, fiction, and we're telling a story, even if it is immersive. And one of the foundations of fiction is characters you can sink your teeth into.

As far as breast size, people actually make these comparisons, and estimate breast size. For a period of my writing, I used fruit as a comparison, which I often go back to. Grapefruit, apples, cantaloupe, apricots...

 

I don't know that you have to give a complete rundown of the character's physical appearance, but I'm also in with Yarkoz. I feel like the first time the reader encounters these characters, you should point out at least one or two striking features. What would jump out if you met them in person? Are you making eye contact with them, or are they taller or shorter than you? Do their eyes have a dazzling color? Or are you distracted by the big boobs jostling under their t-shirt? Or does the t-shirt have an interesting design on the front? You don't need all of them, but even one or two gives the reader a framework so they can fill in the rest.

And I really like Torg's fruit analogies. I know mathematically what bra measurements mean, but I have troubled visualizing them beyond what's large and what's small. This is more helpful as a descriptor, to me at least, and you can run with that comparison beyond just their size: firmness/softness, downiness, taste, etc.

 

Brasize should be at least guessing, except there is a reason, that the size is known.
E.g. this could be done by snooping in the bra drawer or by listening a talk of the wearer.

 

Some description such as striking features are probably a good idea. I know I do find it hard to follow stories that introduce more than four or so characters all at once without some way of distinguishing between them. As you say Patzo, a description the first time the reader encounters these characters is good, not way before though!

A perfect example of what I really hate is the start of "At the Cabin". It might be a great story, and it's rating does imply it is, but I've not more than glanced at the first page because it starts with an in depth description of EIGHT characters! Its also about 18ish year olds, but that's just me wanting older characters. Given the positive comments on the first page though I'm inclined to give this one another go...

 

Yeah, I've had trouble with describing characters in the past, so this is the compromise I came up with. You want to find a more natural way of communicating appearances than, "This character has A, B, C, D, and E features," and sometimes that means limiting yourself. Even with a painstaking description, down to the location of every freckle, every reader will have a different picture of the character, so let them meet you halfway.

And that's fair, I'd forgotten about the big infodump on At The Cabin's first page. It's pretty much a red light on the plot right as things get started. That said, I think duskford intended to share At The Cabin's direction with the community from day one, and it certainly has an active circle of contributors now (myself included). The infodump makes more sense as an out-of-universe guide to help new authors get started. (If you do try again, I'd recommend starting from the third or fourth tier of threads, once everyone is unpacking and getting to know each other.) For that reason it doesn't bother me there, but in stories that don't give contributors as much wiggle room, you're right. I don't need a playbill telling me who the characters are. I need the author to introduce me to them and make me care about them.