All About Animals discussion

What do you feel is your "pet" peeve when reading animal books? Likes/dislikes?

Anything that gets a bit syrupy, which can be a problem particular to animal stories. Or any of the faults that diminish the quality of all books, such as info-dumping, poor editing, flat characters, or weak plot.

I just don't like it when there are wrong animal facts in the book such as in many books, even though we now know otherwise, many current books about dogs still say that they can only see in black and white when they can see blue and some other colors as well. It just seems to me that these authors don't bother to check their facts to see if the facts they are using are outdated and may no longer be true. Even though many of the books are fiction when the animals are supposed to be based off natural ones and reality, the facts should all be correct, especially in children's books. I'm okay with the facts being different if they explain that what they are saying is true for their character and not true for regular animals or the animals that the reader would know about living in their own world.

I agree with Jennifer there. Any author writing about animals, especially from the animal's point of view, should spend as much time researching facts as they do writing.

Tui wrote: "I agree with Jennifer there. Any author writing about animals, especially from the animal's point of view, should spend as much time researching facts as they do writing."

I agree with that. Even if it's a fiction book, I want it to seem real.

I wanted to set my story in NZ 20 million years ago. I started writing with the action taking place on the long ancient uninhabited coastline of NZ. It took just a little research to discover there was no such coastline then. NZ was nothing more than few islands at that time. No long coastline in existence. What a fool I would have looked to any geologist who read my book, if I had not done that research.

Tui wrote: "I wanted to set my story in NZ 20 million years ago. I started writing with the action taking place on the long ancient uninhabited coastline of NZ. It took just a little research to discover there..."

Interesting. I like it when authors do the research and it helps everyone else learn important things.

I read a series called "The Fairlawn Series" by Angela Hunt. She's one of my favorite authors. Anyway, this is not a animal story but just about research as an example.

I read the series and knew nothing about funerals and how they prepare the body, etc. It's sounds morbid but it's not. I have a friend who also read it, and her husband is a funeral director and does the prep, etc. She asked him, is this true? Is that true? And, Angela Hunt was right on about what she wrote.

It's actually a really good series and funny. But, a very good example of authors doing the research.

When the author doesn't give more information or the information is a little bit too boring.

When the book makes me cry at the end. Too many animal books make me cry.

Alice, following up that you'd like to read Pasha, I promise, it will make you smile...mainly because I come off as a real fool for that darn cat.

Inge wrote: "Alice, following up that you'd like to read Pasha, I promise, it will make you smile...mainly because I come off as a real fool for that darn cat."

I tried to get a copy of it and something must have gone wrong as I ended up with Bob the Street Cat and its hard to believe that Bob is as smart as he is claimed to be. he does have his own You Tubes now. I will keep trying to get Pasha. thanks!

http://youtu.be/UlytJkufQDw (take a look at gorgeous Bob)

It really irks me when an author writes knowledgeably about the central character in a wildlife story but knows diddly-squat about the environment it inhabits and the other creatures that share it.

I also rant about poor proof reading.