Chaos Reading discussion

I've come across a few of my pet hates to do with reading in the last few days, and I thought it might be interesting to find out what other peoples' book-connected pet hates are. Mine were:

1. "The book of the movie", when the movie in question was already the adaptation of a book in the first place.

2. Useless neologisms; the ones where there is a perfectly good word already (in this case using "embiggen" when "increase" or "enlarge" would have been so much more sensible! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!)
(Question: Is neologism a neologism?)

3. Readers of audiobooks who are a different nationality from the author (or from the place where the book is set, of course) and who really really can't do the accents for the dialogue - this is especially bad when there are any strong dialects.

Ron wrote: "Fiction dialogue containing semicolons.

A reader is left to wonder what gesture or expression might serve as bodily-action equivalent of the mark. Nobody speaks in semicolons. You could say people..."

I never thought of that before. That's going to bug me now....

I just bought an ebook, and updated it to "unread-but-acquired" on GoodReads. Within minutes, the author had commented on my update to say he looks forward to my review.
Pet hate: Knowing an author is watching over your virtual shoulder as you read their book.

Oh dear. So many peeves; so little time (semicolon absolutely intended).

So, I'll start with the semicolons. People absolutely do speak in semicolons. It's really simple; it's a short period. I do wonder, now, how you would write somebody speaking with air quotes!

Yes, neologism is a neologism :-) I like neologisms. Neologisms are appropriate in a novel to exactly the extent that semicolons are: some people use them, so they may appear in dialogue, but it's unlikely to be right in narrative.

Audiobook narrators: Sean Connery can narrate anything he wants!

Book stickers: Man, I fu hate that. (Yes, and the gratuitous profanity, too) I even hate it when I can't see the whole cover because the library has stuck a barcode on it.

Poor editing: Copy editing - bad spelling, typos, and grammar - will turn me off in about a paragraph. Structural editing might take longer.

I'm sure the author waiting for your review would be annoying. I do occasionally talk to writers _after_ I've reviewed a story, but I really don't want to know you're waiting for it (except, perhaps, in the case of a book I've received from the FirstReads giveaways).

Now, my own pet hate, as just mentioned in another topic. Stories that have characters crossing an entire world (even if it's our world - with which I'm quite familiar) should have maps.

No, it's apparent purely by the length of the pause. If you see dialogue written with semicolons, it should give the impression of being rushed in comparison to the same paragraph with periods.

I know people whose dialogue should probably be written purely with semicolons!

Ron wrote: "Derek wrote: "People absolutely do speak in semicolons. It's really simple; it's a short period."

But how is it apparent? When a speaker turns the head sideways and winks? If that's the case then ..."

I'm not sure I understand the point about semi-colons; if you can write using semi-colons, surely that means you can speak using them (as long as you are speaking reasonably "good" gramatical language.

If I write down that a friend said:

"Speech is silver; silence is golden." Then I don't get why I shouldn't write it down with the correct punctuation. There are other ways I could write it, but why shouldn't I write it in the best (and most elegant) way?


Err... Did I mention that poor grammar and punctuation is another of my most petty of pet hates?

Ron wrote: "Fiction dialogue containing semicolons..."

Group read tie-in! Kurt Vonnegut on semi-colons: “Do not use semicolons, they are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.” Followed by an article from a writer who decided he took that message too much to heart. Semicolons: A Love Story. I would agree who those who say they are purely syntactical. Writing exactly like people talk results in a nearly unreadable mess most of the time. (Although check out JR for an example of this done right.)

While I'm here, I'll weigh in on the other matters:

No problem with neologisms if they convey things better than an existing word. I would add that "embiggen" is not a neologism, but a completely ridiculous made-up word courtesy of the Simpson's. That it appeared in an Economist article is kinda awesome.

Stickers - yaarggh, yes! Especially the non-removable kind stuck haphazardly on the front of a book.

Bad grammar and spelling are inexcusable. Can usually tell by the first paragraph.

Audiobook narrators: some of my additional pet peeves is men doing women's voices by doing the low, breathless, phone porn thing, and women doing men's voices with the low back-of-the-throat thing. I do find British readers are better in general.

I've never had a writer let me know they were looking over my shoulder, I would truly hate that. It seems a bit clumsy-manipulative.

Ron wrote: "Would have to disagree. You seem to suggest the semicolon in print has the effect of speeding up the reading eye, and so the mark has a corresponding acoustic effect that can be discerned by a list..."

Not at all. I'm saying that that is the specific _meaning_ of a semicolon. Unfortunately, so few people use semicolons in their writing these days that it probably has the opposite effect in their reading. I still don't think it's wrong to use it that way.

It's not a fancy comma, it's a fancy period (that is, it acts as a conjunction in a place where a period is actually appropriate).

Ron wrote: "Would have to disagree. You seem to suggest the semicolon in print has the effect of speeding up the reading eye, and so the mark has a corresponding acoustic effect that can be discerned by a list..."

If it bugs you, it bugs you - nothing anyone can say is going to make a difference! That was kind of the point when I started this thread.

(For instance, no-one is going to convince me that my recording of 1984 (read by an American who was almost bearable with "standard" accents of Winston Smith and the other middle to upper-middle class characters, but totally hopeless when he tried to do the proles in what, I guess, might have been meant to be cockney) wasn't just WRONG. (They are all in LONDON, wouldn't it be so much easier with a Londoner reading it anyway???) Deep breaths, count to 10).

So this honestly isn't me trying to change anyone's mind, but I was just wondering if perhaps we all see/hear dialogue in a novel differently. I'm now really curious to find out how others “read” dialogue.

I'd guess that anyone who wants to clearly “hear” every word of dialogue is going to have a very different take on this to me who wants the “cleanest feel” to my reading experience. Now I'm wondering if it has to do with being a visual/auditory/kinaesthetic learner – I certainly test as having a predominantly visual learning style.

To me, unless dialogue is trying to convey something particular (accent/dialect, speech impediment, some sort of odd and affected way of speaking etc.) I want it written as clearly as possible, exactly as it would be in reported speech. Anything "extra" to the actual words spoken, (acoustical effect, actions which affect how the speech should be read) I like to have pointed out to me, not implied; that way, I can't misunderstand the writer's intention. (I also imagine certain ideas that the writer wants to convey can be easily “lost in translation” when read by someone from another culture, even if they do speak the same language). So for me reading:

He winked and told her slyly that he never put the light out; he was afraid of the dark.

in a way, seems no different to:

"I never put the light out; I'm afraid of the dark" he said slyly with a wink.

So the punctuation for me should, essentially, be the same.

(I came back at the end of typing this and added the sly wink stuff, to try to convey what I meant about acoustical effect and actions that have an effect on how the text should be read and now what was a perfectly innocuous example is full of double entendre - oh well, I suppose it just shows where my mind defaults to - the gutter!)

For me, written speech should have exactly the same syntactical rules as anything else.

This may, of course, be a childhood thing for me - if we were writing a "story" for our English teacher, she corrected any errors of grammar, punctuation, syntax (or just anything she felt "spoiled the way it reads") with copious amounts of red pen. She did that just as assiduously in dialogue as she did in the rest of it. Hence, I think I assume that punctuation is the same across the board. (As childhood traumas go, that isn't really up there with the death of your guinea-pig or finding out that there's no Santa Claus, is it?).

PS I hate to see semi-colons misused, dialogue or otherwise, so this is in NO WAY a justification of the use of semi-colons as a sort of "super comma". Authors who aren't 100% certain of the correct grammatical rules - please please don't use them, ever, if you don't know the correct way to do it!

PPS – Here endeth the sermon!! So sorry about the length of this witter-fest, I can touch-type at quite a fast speed. Sometimes my fingers run away with me entirely!

Elise wrote: " that isn't really up there with the death of your guinea-pig or finding out that there's no Sxxxx Cxxxx, is it?"

There's no what???? Use the (view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)] tag! Now I'm scarred for life.

Seriously, no, it's not "up there" - but then I never found grammatical correction traumatizing in school. I always enjoyed grammar.

Elise wrote: "but totally hopeless when he tried to do the proles in what, I guess, might have been meant to be cockney) wasn't just WRONG...."

Nothing like a bad cockney accent to set your teeth on edge (see "Mary Poppins" for heinous example). One more extraneous post that has only a tangential relation to the discussion at hand, British vs American Accents (with bad language warning): The Oatmeal. Happy 4th, y'all!

Derek wrote: "Elise wrote: " that isn't really up there with the death of your guinea-pig or finding out that there's no Sxxxx Cxxxx, is it?"

There's no what???? Use the tag! Now I'm scarred for life.

Serio..."

That comment was far from serious, but I wasn't much traumatised either. I think I always found language in general fascinating. Oh, but she did LURVE that red pen, even on essays with a good grade!

You didn't think I was being serious about Santa, either, did you?!?

Whitney wrote: "Elise wrote: "but totally hopeless when he tried to do the proles in what, I guess, might have been meant to be cockney) wasn't just WRONG...."

Nothing like a bad cockney accent to set your teeth ..."

When I saw Mary Poppins the first time, I was a cockney. It didn't bother me. I've certainly heard worse.

Derek wrote: "When I saw Mary Poppins the first time, I was a cockney. It didn't bother me. I've certainly heard worse. ..."

You should write Dick Van Dyke and let him know that you were okay with it, I think he was traumatized by the ridicule at the time (and this with a guy named Dick Van Dyke).

Whitney wrote: "Elise wrote: "but totally hopeless when he tried to do the proles in what, I guess, might have been meant to be cockney) wasn't just WRONG...."

Nothing like a bad cockney accent to set your teeth ..."

Ooh, I SOOO want those posters!

I'm a Geordie, no-one, including Brits from elsewhere in the country can "dee wor accents reet"! They do think it's funny to try, though, I should be inured, really!

ugly or plain covers

LOL. My folks are from Hartlepool. eeee.

Whitney wrote: "Nothing like a bad cockney accent to set your teeth on edge (see "Mary Poppins" for heinous example). ..."

I once had a writer ask me this in all seriousness:
"When is it proper in English slang to use "me" instead of "my."
Ex. "get out me face" instead of "get out of my face."

Derek wrote: "LOL. My folks are from Hartlepool. eeee."

Eeee, small world! I live fairly close to there, these days (Northallerton), and my folks are even closer in Sedgefield.

Canny folk in Hartlepool, but then they did hang a monkey - well so it's claimed.

Elise wrote: "Canny folk in Hartlepool, but then they did hang a monkey - well so it's claimed. "

They must have - I have a tie with hanged monkeys all over it. He got what he deserved, anyway - spying for Napoleon.

I have two more GR specific gripes:

- Authors rating their own books five stars and writing the most marvellous reviews. (Have a little dignity!).

- People rating books before they are even published.

Elise wrote: "I have two more GR specific gripes:

- Authors rating their own books five stars and writing the most marvellous reviews. (Have a little dignity!).

- People rating books before they are even publ..."

The first has an even worse cousin: authors rating their own books 5 stars and not even deigning to write a review.

The second is not necessarily wrong. Many (perhaps most, but it's certainly not something I care to study) reviews before publication are legitimate. Publishers send out anything from dozens to probably thousands of ARC (Advance Reader Copies) before the official publication date - and some of those are even available to us via the GoodReads Giveaways. I know at least one I entered in the last week would be available to the winner before publication, though some of the ARC giveaways are actually just unloading copies after the final version has been released.

Derek wrote: "Elise wrote: "I have two more GR specific gripes:

- Authors rating their own books five stars and writing the most marvellous reviews. (Have a little dignity!).

- People rating books before they..."

Oh, I acknowledge the bit about ARC, but I've seen books from popular series with over a hundred ratings, and many reviews, all of the type that say either "OOH, I just can't wait!" or "these are my predictions about the rest of the series" - in a couple of cases, before the release date is even announced!

Elise wrote: "- People rating books before they are even published..."

Why is that a problem? I review ARC copies sometimes.

Updated - Just saw the rest of that, sorry. I haven't seen many people actually rate the book beforehand. People write "reviews" but that's just how the GR system functions when you mark a book on your TBR.

Speaking of annoying GR behavior, I was just looking at posts on another group where a book by a GR author won the group read poll after 37 'users' with brand spanking new accounts suddenly joined the group and voted for her book. Even more annoying was all the people griping to the moderators that it was unfair they disallowed the vote, since they hadn't said before that it was against the rules for people to do that.

Ruby wrote: "Elise wrote: "- People rating books before they are even published..."

Why is that a problem? I review ARC copies sometimes.

Updated - Just saw the rest of that, sorry. I haven't seen many people..."

This is the one that set me off on the train of thought about pre-reviewing books - The Doors of Stone - it's still almost a year away from expected publication date, so I doubt any of the reviews are from ARCs. I added it to my tbr list since I read the first two in the trilogy and quite liked them, then realised it had a ton of reviews. OK some haven't rated, just written long speculative essays on how it will all get tied up, but others have and then written stuff about what a brilliant book it will be. It's not the first one I've seen like this, just the one that has the most people who have done it.

Another example is the 7th Book of the Song of Ice and Fire - forty-odd ratings and plenty of reviews way before the 6th book book even comes out - why? Perhaps it's a fantasy-genre-only thing - I suppose that is where you find the never-ending series with fans who JUST CAN'T WAIT for the next!

(Hmm, got to be really lucrative if you can get the hype behind you. Remind me to try writing an enormous fantasy series if I ever want to get published!)

Whitney wrote: "Speaking of annoying GR behavior, I was just looking at posts on another group where a book by a GR author won the group read poll after 37 'users' with brand spanking new accounts suddenly joined ..."

I was a member of that group - not any more, I was sick of endless authors pimping books that no-one but their best mates have read (and didn't sound like anyone else would want to once you got past the hyperbole), and that just finished me!

Whitney wrote: "Speaking of annoying GR behavior, I was just looking at posts on another group where a book by a GR author won the group read poll after 37 'users' with brand spanking new accounts suddenly joined ..."

LOL. I hope the creator of those 37 sock puppets was up to the task of keeping the discussion going!

It's really mind-boggling sometimes how stupid some authors can be about promoting their books...

...Why did I read this thread? Now I've adopted pet hates I was blissfully ignorant of, being a recent GR user :D

For example: honestly, writers RATE their own books? Is that even alowed? :S And 37 accounts, damn, that is as creepy as it is desperate. Tell me what book it is so I can make a point never to read it :P

Regarding reading in general:

Elise wrote: " "The book of the movie", when the movie in question was already the adaptation of a book in the first place."

I hate that too! And worst, when the book had a perfectly lovely cover, and they go and trade it for a "image of the movie" one. Most of the times it's not even the removable kind. =/

I also hate the back cover text. I stopped reading it entirely, as some of them really ruined the book for me.

Frozenwaffle wrote: "worst, when the book had a perfectly lovely cover, and they go and trade it for a "image of the movie" one. "

The ones in that vein that most annoyed me were The Lord of the Rings. The original illustrations were by Tolkien himself. In the 75 years since he first published The Hobbit dozens of great artists around the world have illustrated his work (and some not so great!), but they have to release them with F$%^&*!!! scenes from the movies. Next year we'll get a movie cover for The Hobbit...

I had a look at The Doors of Stone and there weren't too many people that actually rated it. Even still, the author did jump in and say this on the matter: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

As for the sock puppet accounts, I've started adding those to my "Don't Feed The Sock Puppet" shelf, and adding a visual warning. Sometimes the author/socks don't like it though. Then I have to add it to my "Beware of author" shelf:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
[lots of the sock puppet accounts were closed down, so their abusive comments have been deleted. It's a shame - they were kinda funny.]

Hehe. Have a look at the comments under those rated reviews. I don't think any of them got away without someone calling them out on it. I love the way GR members self-regulate. So much better than Amazon reviews. :)

Patrick Rothfuss one: Thats hilarious!

I feel kinda bad for the other author though, as I didn't read the whole thing I don't really have the "bigger picture" but... are you absolutely sure it was her fault?

Looks like I had my first peek into the twisted, crazy world of self reviewing and self advertising - maybe those authors think that any publicity is good publicity, even if it is...errmm... bad.

I dont want to have anything to do with these GR backstreets, I'll just keep humbly reading my books in my simple way xD

Frozenwaffle wrote: "Patrick Rothfuss one: Thats hilarious!

I feel kinda bad for the other author though, as I didn't read the whole thing I don't really have the "bigger picture" but... are you absolutely sure it was..."

The Rothfuss comments were great! I wasn't intending to read his books, but now they're back under considerations.

Ruby, you're willingness to brave the mire of GR trolls and call BS on, well, BS, is admirable. And hilarious. I loved the monkey picture, really made their point well, didn't it?

As for the other author I originally mentioned, she freely admitted to encouraging her friends and readers at a local event to create GR accounts and go vote for her book. She said she was new to GR and didn't see anything wrong with this. From her comments, she still doesn't see anything wrong with this, but to her credit is not denying what happened. Here's the discussion in full for interested parties: Sock Puppets on Parade.

Ruby wrote: "I had a look at The Doors of Stone and there weren't too many people that actually rated it. Even still, the author did jump in and say this on the matter: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/......"

Ah, Rothfuss. I loved The Name of the Wind. Then he wrote that other book. The one that was pretty much a retelling of The Name of the Wind (which I still actually quite enjoyed, but...) and then started getting shirty with readers who complained that it was pretty much the same story. That dropped him right off my radar...

Derek wrote: "Ruby wrote: "I had a look at The Doors of Stone and there weren't too many people that actually rated it. Even still, the author did jump in and say this on the matter: http://www.goodreads.com/rev..."

I'll read the third one because having read two of them and enjoyed them (though unlike when I was in my teens I tend to do the liking, not the loving, of fantasy these days - I haven't grown out of them exactly, I've just got cynical) I want to read the conclusion. I agree though that his attitude ain't the best and I won't be the first in the shops to buy any new series he does after this one.

I actually thought that a hundred and twenty-odd was quite a lot of ratings for a book that has an unconfirmed release date of nearly a year away, hence no-one has seen yet. Still confounded by the sort of human behaviour this exemplifies (possibly my cynicism again). My author right or wrong?!? It's just like brand loyalty, I suppose. Maybe it's just because a lot of the authors I read are dead (no, honest, I didn't kill them) - no need to show "author patriotism" in the same way.

Fairly minor irritation - people saying "this book was so good it should be a movie!!!" as if they think the only way a book can be validated is to be filmed.

Frozenwaffle wrote: "I feel kinda bad for the other author though, as I didn't read the whole thing I don't really have the "bigger picture" but... are you absolutely sure it was her fault? "

YES. I am VERY sure. There is absolutely no need to feel sorry for that individual! If you'd seen those deleted comments, you'd see why. It started on GR where she had set up at least a dozen fake accounts (in one she was posing as a 10 year old girl) and was sending out "recommendations" to strangers, as well as writing all those fake reviews and conversations between the fake accounts. When I posted that review to warn others, she went nuts. Pretty foul language from a "10 year old"!

I could forward you the abusive and threatening messages I received from her if you really want too! At one point, she pretended to be a lawyer and threatened to ruin me, at another she pretended to be some superblogger/journalist who was "releasing the story of this disgusting little person" (me, I take it) to "all the four news outlets" as this was such a big public interest story! This wasn't just on GR - she trolled my FB page too. (See the screenshots of the monkey)

Ruby wrote: "YES. I am VERY sure. There is absolutely no need to feel sorry for that individual! If you'd seen those deleted comments, you'd see why. It started on GR where she had set up at least a dozen fake accounts (in one she was posing as a 10 year old girl) and was sending out "recommendations" to strangers, as well as writing all those fake reviews and conversations between the fake accounts. When I posted that review to warn others, she went nuts. Pretty foul language from a "10 year old"!"

That's scary. As I said, I didn't have the chance to read the deleted comments so I had to ask. This lady is in need of serious professional help then. O.o

Ruby wrote: "I could forward you the abusive and threatening messages I received from her if you really want too!

No, no, its ok: I prefer to keep only a superficial understanding of the psychotic mind xD

Hello all, may I vent about the state of our book stores. I mean....I don't know about where you live but I have 2 options we have a mass conglomerate store, and the small independant store. And for the life of me I cannot figure out how they figure out what author/book gets classified into say science fiction or literature. And by the way, shouldn't it all be literature? Regardless,lets choose an author, say David Wellington (who has one of the better zombie stories out there, for those who might be interested)and put his zombie novels in the science fiction section, BUT then they shelve his vampire novels (I know...I know) in the LITERATURE section??

Definitely annoying, but on the up side, lucky you, to have even one independent book store! Both of ours shut down in more than 3 years ago and we simply have the single corporate giant store in my local town.

Frozenwaffle wrote: "Ruby wrote: "YES. I am VERY sure. There is absolutely no need to feel sorry for that individual! If you'd seen those deleted comments, you'd see why. It started on GR where she had set up at least ..."

You sure? They were pretty damn funny! :P

Jennifer wrote: "And for the life of me I cannot figure out how they figure out what author/book gets classified into say science fiction or literature. And by the way, shouldn't it all be literature?..."

That bugs me too. WTF is "literature"?

I think that most UK bookshops actually do OK on splitting up books by genre/department. I can't think we usually have a "literature" section:

"Literature - written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit" (from Oxford Dictionaries Online) - not the most helpful label, is it? Written works, wow, really... in a bookshop???

We do get a "fiction" section as a catch all for the books that aren't easy to categorise - is that the same thing? Vampires wouldn't be in it, though, they'd be (shockingly) in horror (unless, of course, they were sparkly stalkers, then YA).

What really bugs me is what I mentioned above, indie bookshops are all but dead outside of big cities. Plus, we only really have 1 major chain bookshop left in business, so every bookshop you walk into is identical :(

Ruby wrote: "You sure? They were pretty damn funny! :P "

Begone, temptress! ...Ok, maybe share one or two for laughs. :P

Elisewrote: "Written works, wow, really... in a bookshop???

LOL! Shocking.

One very specific gripe - I'm re-reading The Fellowship of the Ring - but will have to stop and find something else short/quick to take my mind off it for a couple of days as I have just read the whole Tom Bombadil section and I had forgotten how much I really hate that bit and want to slap him! I can't go on with it yet.

"Fol-dol-down-merry-tiddle-de-rol"-SMACK! Feeling slightly better! That has REALLY bugged me today!

OK, to make that more general - I don't like characters that serve no purpose and sit there making pointless gnomic utterances (especially in verse, as well as going "twiddle-de-fol-de-rol", or whatever, in this case).

Elise wrote: "I don't like characters that serve no purpose and sit there making pointless gnomic utterances (especially in verse, as well as going "twiddle-de-fol-de-rol", or whatever, in this case)."

You MAY be in the wrong book :-) . Admittedly, I'm not a fan of the LotR books in general, but Tom Bombadil was particularly annoying. I'm sure your Tolkien aficionados could tell you all about why he serves an important purpose - representative of nature personifications of Old Earth, or something like that. In my opinion, though, you were right to slap him.

Frozenwaffle wrote: "Ruby wrote: "You sure? They were pretty damn funny! :P "

Begone, temptress! ...Ok, maybe share one or two for laughs. :P"

I second one or two for laughs...

Whitney wrote: "Elise wrote: "I don't like characters that serve no purpose and sit there making pointless gnomic utterances (especially in verse, as well as going "twiddle-de-fol-de-rol", or whatever, in this cas..."

I'm definitely in the wrong book! I read it last twenty years ago and thought I might see more in it now that I'm a helluvalot older. Instead, (apart from loathing Tom Bombadil) I don't like the lack of women (and the fact that the odd one that pops up is a cardboard cut out), I don't like that Middle Earth is SO much more important than the people or the plot or ANYTHING, I don't like the way the hobbits, who I actually like (wow), are treated like children by the humans and elves. Oh and how come there is only one volcano on an entire continent and that is right under "THE DARK LORD's" nose - HUGE coincidence! Also, how come everyone can just wander along and compose both tunes and lyrics at the same time in their heads as they are also running for their lives - hell, they ARE running for their lives, why would they want to?

But I'm a third of the way through and reading it for a group read, so I will persevere. (Besides, I get to be snarky about it and REALLY piss off the LotR obsessives on the group read discussion board - always fun). I may even read the rest of LotR since I remember it getting better in book 2 and 3.

I do really like the films - so maybe I'll just give this up and rent them!

Oh and even the Tolkein aficionados can't say that he has a purpose, apparently, so I'll just mentally smack him a couple more times!