Stupidities and irritations in novels

[UnquietDad]

What are the things which annoy you most in fiction? Things characters do, assumptions authors make, etc?

I think my number one has to be the "affluence assumption", where people who are supposedly worrying about money still "have" to send Jonty and Jocasta to the lovely little prep school and violin lessons. (Mind you, there's enough of that on here.)

DW has just finished reading these, which feature such laughable idiocies as a state primary school where people talk about "first years" and "second years" and which has its own dedicated science block and music block.

There are an awful lot of thirty- and forty-something women writing novels these days who are out of touch with any reality beyond their cosy little London mums-and-coffees-and-gym circle. And - surprise, surprise - they are books about cosy little London mums-and-coffees-and-gym circles.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!]

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

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.

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 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!'"

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 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.

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 agree with you there - sooo frustrating

LOL at "who have a name"...

I do wonder why people read so much chick-lit though. It's like the Grauniad Weekend letters page, the only page in it I usually agreed with, which said basically everything I'd say about the annoying content, and which made me wonder why more people (me included) didn't just ditch the damn thing.

I think "you know what you're getting with X" is a bit disingenuous and encourages laziness. I don't think the comparison with the detective formula holds up - there needs to be a solution to the crime for narrative purposes (you'd have to be very clever or daring to leave it unsolved). But there are so many more ways of writing women's fiction, I'd have thought, than the usual "Jocasta lives in Kensington, works in publishing and is looking for the perfect man in between glugging wine with Katie and Fiona" type gubbins.

UQD, there are lots of vacuous and formulaic novels. From Mills&Boon through chicklit through boylit through detective stories through porn ... the list goes on

You are a decidedly more sniffy about Trinny and Cordelia novels than any other formula though - bit chippy?

'Women's fiction' - hmmm. Well depends what you consider women's fiction doesn't it?

Yes, there's Chick Lit, which is a genre in which I imagine certain things are supposed to happen - as in a crime genre? Don't know though, have never read it, just imagine this is the case with Jocasta and her shoes and her handbags and her dreamy husband? That is my impression of the genre but might be wrong.

Women's fiction though? What is that do you think? It could be Kate Atkinson and Rose Tremain and Anne Tyler. Though presumably they'd all frown and be cross at being called 'women's fiction' - with good reason actually.

I actually think it would be a bit more interesting if there was less adultery in soap operas. Do other things instead. 60-odd % of marriages are successful, so let's see that in soap-land. It encourages laziness otherwise - "oh, look, Ryan and Shawnee haven't shagged yet, let's throw them together."

The "ditzy woman" thing is so annoying too - Cameron Diaz types. We just don't go for them in real life. "Starter for 10" got it right by having the hero end up with the equally attractive but more intelligent and interesting woman.

Well perhaps what you consider lazy others consider dramatic?!

God knows. I imagine all genre publishing has a degree of formula about it because that's the point of it.

It's not something I could get cross about tbh. There's lots of non-genre books published too. If that's a term, non-genre.

I think that is another problem, and here I agree with 100x. There shouldn't be "women's fiction" any more than there should be "men's fiction" or "fiction for people with blue eyes". Those writers you cite above are taken seriously across the board without having to resort to lazy cliches.

I suppose it comes down to what people are commissioning, and where writers can get work - I know how hard this can be so I shouldn't be too harsh.

I bet a lot of these chick-lit writers don't really believe in what they are writing. (And it shows, frankly.) But I expect they can't get ideas for Big Difficult Novels taken seriously, because publishing is becoming ever more fluffy and cappuccino and airheady.

ooh, i went through a phase of finding books where basically there was a family setting, something happened(like moving house, new job)to make one or both parents reacha mid life crisis. one or both of them would have an affair, then it would be made alright after the inevitable showdown. joanna trollope was one of these, can't remeber the others. thing is, none of them seemed to head that way when reading the blurb!!

really annoyed me - an affair is not the only thing that middle aged couples get up to, or am i too trusting of dh?

I think they probably don't have the talent or the desire to write the Big Difficult Book, because otherwise they would have.

I don't think publishing is airheady or frothy either tbh. Lots of good and interesting and complex books are bought and published. But it's not a charity, and they are right to also publish books which are commercial and popular and which people might enjoy reading.

A lot of good stuff is being published. But so is a lot of froth, which wouldn't have been ten years ago. The culture has changed. It's not just my opinion that it's going this way - it's one shared by agents and publishers.

Let's see how it all does in the recession...

I think one of the reasons 'chicklit' can be so farking annoying is that it was originally supposed to be more 'realistic' than Mills&Boon yet still fulfill the (intended) readers' wishes for lurrve overcoming hassles and a happy ending. SO most chicklit is basically M&B with a few drug references, a death or two and maybe a date rape.
Having said that, the good stuff (which IMO is the stuff that the authors have had some fun writing, rather than churned out to a deadline) is just as enjoyable as a big box of chocolate when you're in the mood for it.
I also love fantasy/sword and sorcery and hate it in equal measures: I can disappear happily into the tales of some or other magic-wielder battling the forces of evil yet about half the books in this genre I pick up, read the back blurb, heave and put them back down again.

Oh and BTW UQD: no, never actually written for Black Lace - I did have a novel published by Chimera about 10 years ago and earned oooh, about £2000 off it.
I am now going to CAT you as not only do I want to know who you are but I want to gossip about Black Lace editors as well .