25 Reasons Why I Stopped Reading Your Book

[Brian G Turner]

The inimitable Chuck Wendig shares his impatience with novels - something I can easily relate to:

25 Reasons Why I Stopped Reading Your Book

 

[Overread]

You know I think some Hollywood directors would do well to read that list as I find many of those same elements as big problems in films as well as in books.

 

[Droflet]

Number 13 for me. I hate slow novels. I don't write slow novels and I don't want to read reams and reams of nothing happening. For goodness sake get on with the story. You know, story, story, story.

 

[Overread]

I don't mind slow so long as its doing something and isn't acting as a time delay. Indeed a slow part can be an ideal way to follow a block of intense action and change to give the reader almost a breathing space and the characters as well. Some time to process all the changes that just happened.

However I agree it should go somewhere; its got to have some context and purpose and some motivation. The other thing I think is important is that it shouldn't sit after a huge slew of questions are presented to the reader. Questions make a reader eager to find the answers which, in me at least, makes me more eager to read faster to get to those answers - especially if they start building up. So if you raise a huge number of questions and then throw a long drawn out slow bit at the reader its a huge frustration. That can work as a trick for a short while (esp if they just got a load of answers as well) but if its purely a delay it becomes boring to the reader.

 

[Droflet]

Thanks, Overread. That sums it up. Slow, or slower can be fine, if something's actually happening. But when it feels unrelated, like making type to for the purpose of making a novella into a novel, that's when I ditch it. Know what I mean?

 

[Overread]

Yep! Essentialy boring is rambling on the part of the writer to fill space that isn't needed story nor plot nor character development wise. Although I can appreciate how setting a scene or establishing characters can end up with it going on for too long and getting long winded.



I have to say once or twice I've read a book (title I can't recall now) where the opening was a full action sequence which set me up with a couple of characters who were then totally removed from the story thereafter until the very end. It was a flashback and is something I'd add to the 25 - that of making the first characters in the book disposable/flashback/historical or otherwise characters that then don't appear for the majority of the book or ever again. I feel that the first people in the book are who sets a standard for the story and whilst they don't have to be the lead character they should be present through the story or if not then it should be made VERY clear that they won't appear again. Calling it a prologue isn't enough it should be clear from the onset that these are essentially info-dump characters not ones to invest emotion and great interest to because they won't be related to in the story again.
I think its one of those things that done well works without the reader realising; but done badly it stands out like a sore thumb.

 

[The Big Peat]

Number 8.

I'll read books by authors who clearly read fantasy and came up with more fantasy based on that.

But I don't think there ever has been, or ever will be, a great of the genre who wasn't clearly more than that. Or any genre, in any creative field.

Also, thank you. There was a Wendig article I was looking for for ages, but I got confused into thinking it was Palahniuk, and now you've reminded me it was Wendig.

 

[Overread]

Oh another thing - Spongers and speefs.

I hate when writers put spongers and spleefs into stories willy nilly without any context nor description or with limited description so that you only get a very rough idea of what they are or do. Or where the only context is their role as a function and not their form nor any other properties to denote how they might perform their function.

It can be a real nightmare to think a sponger is a horse only to find its an ox or a dragon with no wings more than halfway through a book.


For me it breaks immersion because it leaves the reader unknowing to a fact that all the characters are aware of. Which is an extension of that viewpoint. When the world and characters know things that the reader doesn't and when that is used as a linchpin to aspects of the story. Because at that point all the mystery and build up hinges on "oh wait its common knowledge that you didn't know but the characters all should have known".


It's something a simple glossery can cure and often I feel such are a necessary element in stories. We can tell its something even big names like Terry Pratchett dislike as well as he oft made use (in fact is still about the only author i know to have used) footnotes to bring readers up to date on little tid-bits of fact about his world (both new and often those from previous books)

 

[Phyrebrat]

Some great points. Shame the message is given in such an obnoxious manner. I hope he doesn't speak to new writers like this.

You can't mentor or teach with a peevish or snide pedagogy.

pH

 

[ratsy]

I'm with Phyre here. I am not a Wendig fan based on the way he talks about things. Talking about peeing on a book isn't for me.

Also I had a very hard time finishing the one Wendig book I read, Aftermath, so there's that.

But he does have some good points for sure, and we all probably recognize feeling the same thing often with books we read.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It may be worth noting that it's easy to be critical of other writers, while being blind to your own flaws.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't mind slow sometimes. Books with non-stop pace sometimes don't give enough room for the character growth i love. A Nice slow deep scène i can get my teeth into hits many buttons.

 

[Overread]

It may be worth noting that it's easy to be critical of other writers, while being blind to your own flaws.

are you saying you don't know what a speef is?

 

[Montero]

Well, to me he came over more as exasperated and being loud about it with a vein of humour. That said, I tried one of his books and couldn't get into it Plain and simple, not to my taste.
In terms of mentoring, at school some of my favourite teachers were the sarcastic ones - because they were funny, and because they got to the point quickly. I always took it with a pinch of salt, rather than to heart, and learnt a lot.

 

[The Big Peat]

There are comments where the tone is easily understood when you can see their face and hear their face but which become ambiguous when written only.

I like Wendig's writing style in these posts. I think he's more tongue in cheek than snide. But I can see why others find it otherwise and it clearly does limit the impact he can have. Still, whatever makes him happy.

More to the point, what are Spongers and Speefs?

Also, I think that there's a lot of room for exploring the difference between Slow and Slooooow. Tinker Tailor Sailor Spy is slow and incredible for it. If we were to lose books like that in our attempts to eradicate Slooooow - things like Robert Jordan's worst excesses in the middle of The Wheel of Time - the world would be poorer for that. If someone can explain how to do Slow good, then that would be a very cool thing.

 

[zmunkz]

Sounds like I have a little more patience for slow-starting stories than Chuck. I don't mind not knowing what is going on right away, as long as the style of writing is engaging. Good list. Several are definitely just his personal taste, but some of the later points about plot are probably pretty general.

I like Wendig's writing style in these posts. I think he's more tongue in cheek than snide.

I agree, I find it amusing. Although based on his own list, it seems to contradict his complaint #10 lol:
"10. Too much voice will kill my interest, too. Comes a point where you gotta get out of the way of your own [[blog]]."

 

[Ronald T.]

Nice thread, Brian, and an interesting link. I found Wendig's list very interesting, as well as the various posts offered by the forum members. It helps to look at things from a different perspective. It's another good way to help improve our writing. And as you pointed out, it's much easier to see the problems in someone else's writing, than to do so in our own.

When we can be as efficient at editing our own writerly efforts as we are in spotting mistakes in another writer's work, it's likely we can reduce the time beta readers spend on critiquing our stories. At least, that's the goal.

 

[Paul_C]

I've given up on a few books over the years and most fit into one or more of his points (I assume, I got bored with the ranting quite quickly )

They include:

Almost everything Neal Stephenson has written apart from Snow Crash, Diamond Age and Anathem, all of which I enjoyed.
I battled to the end of Cryptonomicon despite its long-windedness, barely started The Baroque Cycle before giving up out of boredom and gave up on Reamde after yet another side plot was added to an already ridiculously cluttered story.

More than one Iain Banks story where pages and pages of words failed to materialise into a coherent story. I needed three goes to read Whit and enjoyed it once a plot appeared.

More than one David Mitchell when the beautifully constructed framework appeared on close inspection to be virtually empty.

There have also been a number where the fault was mine for just not being in the mood for a particular story, which I have returned to and enjoyed later.

 

[Dan Jones]

You can't mentor or teach with a peevish or snide pedagogy.

What have his feet got to do with anything?

 

[RX-79G]

I don't know if what has gotten me to stop reading several novels fits exactly into any of these categories.

Charles Stross' Neptune's Brood read for the first fifty pages like a the first person diary of someone who isn't very interesting. It was like reading a sequential list of events and choices the character made that, even in a fairly unusual situation, seemed utterly unmotivated. I don't know if it was an agency problem, a voice problem or if the seemingly fantastic situations actually just weren't. It felt like the boring parts of Connie Willis books where the heroine is spazing out, but it didn't feel like that was going to change.

20+ years ago someone said to me, "If you liked Banks' Use of Weapons, you'll love Brin's Startide Rising." So I bought the book, and wasted $7 and a week reading it. Again, I don't know if it is a failure of a combination of factors from the article or not, but the book just seemed trite. The characters talked like middle school kids, the "uplifting" thing seemed utterly unmotivated and juvenile - fantastic for fantastic's sake. It seemed like fiction for young readers, but it wasn't.

Both of these guys sell a lot of books, and I can't tell if I am unable to relate to their styles, or if this just is one of those things like the popularity of Jersey Shore and McDonalds.


These experiences, along with one too many Anne McCaffery novels in my youth, has made me really picky about who I will even attempt to read - especially if they have a ton of popular books - especially series. I don't think David Weber has much of a chance with me.