Stupidities and irritations in novels

I agree with you there - sooo frustrating

I don't watch soap operas either! I used to, and then I realized the story was NEVER GOING TO FINISH and it sort of drove me mad. I stopped following football for the same reason.

I finish them too. I can't help it, but I don't tend to start ones which I think are going to be badly or lazily written. Also am v. nice and tend to end up wondering what the author tried to do, and why it had failed. Am empathetic you see.

You're not Quattro. I hear you. It's almost impossible for me NOT to finish a book. Even when it's impossibly turgid. I'm better now - at least half the time, if it's really really bad I skip to the last page!

I thought the definition of soap opera was "unbelievably slow moving and totally unbelievable characters that you found yourself watching anyway, even though, somewhere deep in your psyche, you are banging your head against a brick wall and screaming, 'let me out of here!'"

100x See I read a lot of stuff I don't like. This is because I read compulsively - I just can't help myself when it comes to reading. I can stop myself reading bad newspapers but I can't stop myself reading bad novels. It's illogical of course, but I can't believe I'm on my own here.

I'm not sure an author has to make their characters likeable - but this is a general point, not a chick lit point, suspect they might have to be likeable in chick lit?

I have a soft spot of Kathy Reichs. I once read four novels in a weekend. Now I can't see the point of saying 'Huh, why does she have a drink problem? Why does she end up in peril? Why is she oddly attracted to the mood policeman' - because that is the point of the genre, it fulfills my expectations.

It'd be lame to then moan about it. Like starting a thread saying 'Soap Operas. AIBU to think there should be less adultery? It's totally unbelievable.'

That's the point of a soap opera.

I think we both understand each other actually, am re-treading same ground - and am being specific and you are being more general. As you were.

Oh hang on, no, I don't agree. I agree with ohbling (some 'chicklit' is great, some is awful - that crusie woman yuk)...

Thanks! .

Although I think the thread was talking about more than just chicklit - we got sidetracked for a while. There was the point made about supposedly literary novels where research is crap or descriptions are lazy. And it's the same point though that you can enjoy a genre of novels, but find some bad for silly reasons.

Kind of like I love italian food, but not all italian restaurants! [yes, I'm hungry. It's that time of day!]

One thing I love in novels is when characters have properly different voices and linguistic registers. Where characters speak differently because they are different. Will Self gets this right even if he is a bit lugubrious. So does Ian Mckewan. So does Iain Banks.

Whereas the ubiquitous Joanna Trollope, you could carefully cut the pieces of dialogue out and rearrange them to any character. It's a good exercise. Take a pair of scissors to any of her books. Snip out the dialogue. Rearrange at will. It will make no difference at all.

Also - attempting to talk technology when really you don't know what you're talking about. I read one recently where a character "sent a message on the LAN" - not strictly inaccurate but WTF, I think they meant an instant message.

I don't think I meant that Bling. I don't think I did, not sure though. You are saying what things you like in Chick lit and what you don't - but I suppose as I've never read any, I sort of perhaps don't think it a genre worthy of criticism? That's quite bad isn't it, and snobby. I probably just lump it all in one genre box, which is wrong. So yes, you should be able to distinguish between good chick lit and bad, yes, see your point.

Lack of research, especially geographical.

I read a lamentable book by an American author where the central character drove from Paris to Scotland via Shrewsbury, a town which apparently has an eclectic mix of sushi bars and bistros, underground parking and waitresses that can identify Azzedine Alaia couture.

Hundred - I find that suggestion from you quite frustrating. So, because I like chicklit, that means my ability to assess or judge evaporates and I should like all chicklit equally? We're not talking about the fact that in chicklit of course the heroine finally ends up with her perfect man or that the detective solves the crime. Those are basics of a genre and yes, I would expect them and not see that as predictable.

But just because the basic premise is the same, I think the author still has an obligation to at least try to make his/her characters likeable/believable. And if he/she doesn't do that, then I have the write to say, "that was crap and I won't read your books anymore".

Yes, true Springy. And actually I've never really read Chick lit, so I shouldn't comment because I don't know what the annoyances therein!

That's not how I'd viewed this thread at all. Obviously we're looking at it in different ways. I thought that it was a discussion of bad / lazy writing that can ruin an otherwise good book.

Even if it's not a genre that you enjoy, you can appreciate its worth. & equally you can enjoy a genre that has little other worth than that enjoyment.

ok, so you should accept a character for how they are in the world created, not real life (otherwise how would science fiction work), but i still do find incredibly 'ditzy' characters just bloody annoying. i mean, they get written as if they're terribly amusing & endearing, but in real life, most of us would find them tiresome & actually try not to be their friend/partner. who wants a friend who phones you at 3 in the morning cos they're locked out/burst a pipe ... again. most people just turn grumpy & say 'no', in chic lit (and on tv) men fall over themselves for such quirky characters.

grr..

(can you tell i try to be organised, and would like THAT to be a sexy characteristic, just for once)

You see it seems to be that if you read a chick lit book or a crime book - then you know what you are getting so why then pretend it's criticism.

So I don't understand how or why you'd then sit around afterwards and say

'Oh my god, that was so predictable, because like the detective tried to SOLVE THE CRIME. Oh my god, I just knew he'd do that - didn't you. So typical, so predictable.'

I read a book every other day for pleasure. Most of them are entirely unmemorable, but I don't necessarily see this as a problem.

ahundredtimes, I agree.

And you can so tell what kind of book it's gonna be from the blurb. That's the point of it, isn't it?

Oh sorry, didn't realize it was literary criticism. Okay.

flossie t - emporer's children.

dh tried so hard to ge tme a good book, and from the cover i was encouraged, but about 100 pages in i'm losing interest.

this is meant to be about 3 friends - not one scene with all of them in it yet!
how come she has 'lifestyle' funding to sit at home & write such tosh?

i also hate too much description once the 'real action' gets going, e.g. the nightingale floor.

Yes, I suppose so. But UQD is always gnawing away at women who write about the playground, or are posh, or who have a name or just simply have had the temerity to write a successful book.

Mind you, I've never been to a book group so I don't know! Do people never talk about why they liked something?
Actually I've never been to a book group because I worry that someone will say something like 'Well yes, I did read War and Peace, but I've been to Russia and it was nothing like that, so I don't think it was believable.' There's nothing you can say to that. Bridget Jones was no good and not believable because she'd have been sacked. This strikes me as a very odd way to read a work of fiction. . . .

but that might just be me.

Boffin, that's fab I particularly like 'a foretaste of extra curricular interests to come'

& ahundredtimes, it's not a 'dissing' thread. It's a general thread of literary criticism. Just because it's negative criticism doesn't make it any less valid or worthwhile than positive.

Well, normally, the blurb on the back doesn't say, "Mary, size 14 but hating it and desperately wanting to be size 10, dreamt of meeting a 6 foot, rugby playing hunk with dark hair and green eyes who had an excellent sense of humour and loved small children so much he would swoop them into his arms and tickle them whenever he saw them...."

So nine times out of ten you're half way through the bloody thing before you realise how diabolically tortuous it is!

Or even worse, you're enjoying it and then the author cops out and ends it soo appallingly badly you're left angry and irritated for hours (or days in my case, but we're not talking about me! )